It has a lot to do with many Americans relationships to cities, and dare I say, wanting to be away from "those people" in the cities.
Some Americans can be hostile to increasing city density, arguing it will increase car traffic. Yet the whole point of dense cities is to help people avoid driving as you live next to everything.
Meanwhile development out in the hinterlands continues unabated, and the only way to get to the city if you live there is with a car.
When you ask the same Americans why they like visiting a resort or European city, they will talk about being able to walk around without a car to get everything they need.
> When you ask the same Americans why they like visiting a resort or European city, they will talk about being able to walk around without a car to get everything they need.
To be fair, you're looking for different things at a resort than you are at home. At a resort, you're not looking to do weekly food shopping, or buy supplies to do work around the house, or etc, etc. That's not to say things can't be organized to make doing so more reasonable, but living in an area where you drive to get everything and wanting to _visit_ (but not live in) an area where you can walk to everything (because you don't need major things) is not unreasonable.
Some Americans can be hostile to increasing city density, arguing it will increase car traffic. Yet the whole point of dense cities is to help people avoid driving as you live next to everything.
Meanwhile development out in the hinterlands continues unabated, and the only way to get to the city if you live there is with a car.
When you ask the same Americans why they like visiting a resort or European city, they will talk about being able to walk around without a car to get everything they need.