
How and where you live has a great impact on how sustainable you are. Starting with the building and even more by the surroundings.
It is the old fight, city vs country. And the discussion is very biased based on where someone lives.
City vs Country: Where is it more sustainable to live?
First we need to define what a city and what countryside is and if there is anything in between.
A city or town for me is, when you have everything you need for your daily life plus culture, science, etc. And a good city would be, if all of this is in reach per foot or public transit.
Country is where you have few to no neighbors. Where everything you need is far away, and you need a car to get everywhere.
In between are suburbs, which combine the worst of both worlds. They nearly have any infrastructure and too many neighbors.
By the way, I never said, I wasn’t biased.
Of course, there are more differences. Living in the countryside, you may have a bigger house and your own garden. It is quieter and calmer.
In the city, you may live in a small Apartment and you don’t have a garden, only a park nearby. There’s always a rush and now downtime.
That’s all generalization, of course. Cities are different and so is the countryside. Which may not be calm at all when at 4:00 in the morning the farmer next door starts his tractor to spread manure on the field. And you may live in the city and have a garden and nothing happens there past 7:00 pm.
Have this in mind, when reading this article. I describe a general situation. Your living situation will certainly differ from it. And it is about, what is better for a good system, for sustainability and society. And how can we make the situation better.
Because the topic is so big and conglomerates many more posts, this will only be an overlook and a sneak preview to future articles.
Infrastructure
The infrastructure is better in the city. This has one simple reason. Because there are more people on less space. You need less resources per capita. Which makes it cheaper and easier to build.
It starts with the plumbing, streets, energy, transportation, education, shopping. Simply everything.
In the countryside, you may have to build infrastructure for many kilometers only to reach a few people. That is expensive and not sustainable.
Transportation
In a city, everything you need is nearby. You can get there in a short time and may not even need a car. Except, of course, you live in the asphalt desert, which call themselves cities in North America.
In the countryside, you may have some kind of store nearby if you live in a village. But most likely you must drive everywhere to get what you need. Since Western countries are dominated by cars, it may be too dangerous to go by bike, and public transportation may not be reliable, if there is any. So you take the car.
Space
In the countryside, you have more space. More space to live and more space around you. You do not need to drive anywhere to be in “nature”. You have your own garden and can run around naked, if you want. But you have to take care of your property. If this is your hobby, it is a plus too.
In the city, you may have less space. But you also don’t need to take care of a garden. But if your city sucks, you have a long way to go to be in a park or something comparable. There you will not be alone, and you can’t run around naked if you want. Well, you can, but you will get problems. Also, it is maybe dirty. Just take a look at my Instagram, where I document the trash in the city.
But the land usage in the country is much worse than in the city. Many more people live on the same area of sealed soil in the city than in the country. The land use and the energy efficacy of single family homes are just terrible in comparison to an apartment building.
Money
At first, it seems to be more expensive to live in the city. An apartment is more expensive per square meter than a house in the country.
But daily life is cheaper. Specially if you don’t need a car. But also else wise. Food is cheaper. Even if you might think that in the country, you live directly at the spring of the food industry. Because of the greater mass you can sell in cities, you have less transportation cost per kilogram. And you have more competition that ideally lowers the price.
Energy is a little bit different. You have lower energy costs in an apartment. For once because it is generally smaller than a house and because you have less exterior walls, where most of the heat and the energy gets lost. Also, the cost of building energy infrastructure is divided up onto more people.
But on your own house you can install solar panels, which are an investment at first, but will start to save you money very soon. Also, you can properly insulate your house so you don’t have much energy loss.
All together, living in the country is more expensive, or it should be more expensive. But in many countries, politics were enforced which financially support the countryside. Which may come historically, because farming was so important. Right now, in western countries it isn’t anymore, but the urbanites taxes still pay for the mansions in the countryside.
Social
In the city, you have several doctors you can choose from. There are different social facilities who care about the different peer groups. In the countryside, you most likely have one doctor, if any. The social facility is the local bar, if there is one. If you are not capable of driving, you most likely don’t have any social life.
Also, people in the city are more likely to be progressive and open-minded. Because in their daily life they have to deal with several different people from different communities. In the country, the society is more homogenous. Living there, you may not even know anyone from a different race, nation or religion even. And what we don’t know, afraid us. That’s why populists are generally spoken more successful in the countryside, because they deliver the fear.
On the other side, because of the many different peer groups in the city, it’s more likely for clashes to happen. Not everyone in the city is open-minded, and many have prejudices.
Suburbs are the worst
As I already mentioned. The suburbs are the worst. They are the synergy of the worst features of cities and the countryside.
You have no infrastructure apart from expensively built streets, roads, canalization, electricity and so on. But often no school, no kindergarten, no grocery, no public transportation, no medical facilities, no social meeting points like playgrounds, parks, pubs or church.
On the other side, there live relatively many people. Spread on a wide area. That’s why there may not be any forest or other place for recreation nearby. As for anything else, you have to drive there and waste time in the car.
Suburbanites also make living in the city worse, because they have to drive with their mostly oversized car to work, school or literally anything else in the city.
You may feel very lonely amongst many people, and the castle you build may transform into a prison. Once you can’t drive a car, you are alone. Everyone is anywhere else, because in your suburb is nothing. And yes, this can also easily happen in the city. Sadly, there are many lonely people, but at least you have the chance to see someone or to get help.
Make it Better
City vs country. What is now the better or more sustainable way to live. From my perspective there is a clear answer, the city.
But I totally get it, that not everyone wants to live in a city. And therefore, there will always be the need for smaller units of settlements (farms etc.) Because it is a few people in comparison, it doesn’t matter that much. Even if there is a bigger per capita emission.
To reduce the emissions in the countryside, every house should have solar panels or another renewable energy source. If this isn’t enough, small power plants, of course renewable, should help. Energy-intensive industry will always need extra power plants, but they should nearby. And transportation should be by train to reduce emissions even more.
To reduce emissions in the city, there should also be solar panels on every house. And every possible energy source should be used. The buildings need to be as energy-efficient as possible, same for the countryside.
Cars must be limited to the absolute minimum. While it is easy in the city to switch to public transport, cycling or walking. In the countryside it is much more difficult, but maybe car sharing, pool driving or delivery services can help. And if there are fewer cars on the road, bikes can be a good option even in the countryside. And, of course, only electric vehicles.
When there are fewer cars on the street, life becomes automatically more social in the city. Because you can be more on the streets and interact more easily with other people. And otherwise you have everything for social contacts in the city. Maybe it can be a little more accessible.
In the countryside, you have to create places where people can come together. A secular counterpart to a church, for example. Which is free to go to and maybe has a pick-up service for those who can’t drive.
One big part of the urban emissions is the transportation of goods. Most of the things you use and buy in the city are made elsewhere. I don’t even talk about the products from oversea, for which you have in the city still a smaller CO2 footprint, because the so called last mile is the one with the most emissions. And per capita, you have fewer emissions in the city than in the countryside.
There are several things, we can do to reduce these emissions.
First, transport the goods via train.
Second, bring them to a citywide central warehouse from where they are delivered via one public delivery service. So we have fewer vehicles on the road and can reduce emissions even if we only have electric vehicles.
Third, make more things in the city itself. Of course, nobody wants to have heavy industry in the cities, but what about indoor or vertical farming, food factories, textile manufactures? Just everything that is possible should be done in the city. And yes, this screams for an article about globalization.
Fourth, just buy less and repair more. Less transportation, fewer resources, fewer emissions, more money.
And there we are. The one thing that holds us off the track for a better system, money. (Yes, there will be an article about it.) Tax money should only be used to support and enforce sustainable housing. If someone really wants to live in a suburb, he should pay the real prize it costs. Nobody wants that. But more about housing, property and money, you guessed it, in another post. This one her is too long already, and we still are not at the end.
Vision the perfect place to live
Because at the end I paint you a picture of how I am visioning the good system of cities and countryside.
In this system there are only cities, towns and villages. No suburbs, no big random settlements without any infrastructure.
Cities are the biggest unit. There you have everything you need for your daily live plus cultural events, sport, education, and everything you imagine from a city. Each city is connected with high speed trains. You can go from Lisbon to Beijing and from Oslo to Capetown. Of course, for oversea travel there needs to be a different solution, but that’s not part of this article.
Inside the city, you can reach everything you require for your daily life by walking in under 15 minutes. For everything else, you take the bike or public transport. If you can’t do any of that, there is a specialized pickup service, that gets you everywhere.
The asphalt deserts are gone. There is much more greenery in the cities, around them is mainly forest.
Towns are the next smaller unit. They also have everything for your daily life, but less cultural and sports activities. Also, there won’t be universities or big hospitals. But you won’t need a car, because there is a frequent regional line, that brings you to the city fast.
These towns exist mostly because they have an industry nearby that can’t be in or near the city. Because of space, or needed resources, or some other reason.
This is the place for suburbanites. It is so much better, because you have an active social life there and you don’t need a car.
The smallest units are villages. They serve your basic daily needs. There may be only one store, one school, one bar and one doctor. But you have everything.
In these villages live mostly farmers. Maybe some foresters and maybe some industry workers. A local train line that is scheduled several times a day connects the villages with towns and cities.
All the units are mostly energy self-sufficient. There may be some power plants for backup if needed.
All buildings are as energy efficient and sustainable as they can be.
You can afford to live wherever you want, and you can have the best life, you can have.
This is my vision of a good system. This is what I am working for.
What is your vision? Where do you want to live? Let me know.
Further Information
You haven’t had enough yet? Well, ok. In this section, I give links to additional resources. I will update, when I find something interesting. Get informed about updates in my newsletter. The link to subscribe is at the bottom of this post.
Podcast episode related to this article.
John W. Day and Charles Hall don’t agree with me, that the city is more sustainable. But their arguments are obsolete with my vision of a good system.
The Nature article comes to the conclusion, that density is key.
A Gizmodo article covering the topic.

My name is Ian DeBay.
I am the founder of iandebay.com. I am a content creator, blogger, podcast, YouTuber. This is my blog where I talk about system change, sustainability and other fun stuff.
Leave a Reply