As is often the case here, this thread is showing the limits of binary thinking, and I don't agree with how this discussion is being framed. People really think in terms of "house or location"? As if most people aren't considering both when they make their choice of where to live? There are a million shades of grey between hardcore urban living and exurban sprawl.
Streetcar suburban neighborhoods offer a solid mix of housing styles, including single family homes on decently big lots, with walkable commercial districts. Bethesda, MD is a great example of this, for sure, but there are so many other places like it, where people can have a house where their kids aren't cramped into a shoebox and have a yard to play in, but also can walk to the neighborhood commercial center for many of their needs.
My neighborhood in Los Angeles (Los Feliz) is like this. Plenty of people live in leafy, suburban-ish environments like
this, but are only a 5-10 minute walk from the
commercial district with restaurants, bars, a movie theater, bookstore, bakery, post office, etc. Neighborhood schools are also within walking distance. In this neighborhood, are people making a 'house vs location' decision, or are they looking at both variables? There are so many neighborhoods with these types of conditions. You might not be able to live an entirely car-free existence in a neighborhood like this, but you're also not going to be spending your life in your car like someone living in an exurban neighborhood where nothing is reachable by foot. Shades of grey, people.
Prev
and while we don't have a huge population, there are families here. Zoom in on some of those areas and you'll see swings and other kid's stuff strewn about the yard, plus there are several families including multigenerational ones on my dirt road.
Linear Mode
