People took off for the suburbs when the cities were still good places to live. Why? There's still a difference between the suburbs built 100 years ago (generally walkable towns on train or trolley lines), 50 years ago (more dependent on the car but still walkable) and the last 20 years (no commercial center, no real walking, big stores on highways.)
The lure of your own piece of green land is strong. But I think I would be willing to trade the acre I have now for the 1/3 acre I grew up on for a more cohesive community.
My dream city: Portland, OR as Beverly Cleary described it in her Beezus and Ramona books. Children everywhere, with enough green to play on, houses close enough so you knew your neighbors, paper routes for the children, school, store, library, playground, barbershop, all in a short walk. Moms watch out for each other's children. Dads work not too far away. A nine-year old going to a program at the library and leaving her four-year old sister outside to play in the playground, and it's safe! Responsible adults approve. Some one who was there told me, yes the fifties really were like that, and not just in Portland.
And then one day, they decide to drive to the big new supermarket, instead of the local grocery...
The English section of Montreal was like that in physical set-up in the early 70s, but there were hints of danger creeping in, some along racial lines, unfortunately.
Not much of a choice.
I moved from the suburban cesspool over 27 years ago to 25 blissful acres in the mountains, no regrets.
But it's not for everybody.
BUMP