You realise that this stance is not the result of scientific study, it is merely your opinion. You are certainly entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to belittle anyone else as they are equally entitled to their opinions.
It is the result of thousands of scientific studies. I'm an environmental scientist, I have read hundreds of articles that show suburbs and sprawl as unsustainable environmentally, financially, and from a traffic/transportation standpoint.
This is a video of one of the most respected scientists out there, talking about our ecological footprint and how that ties in to suburbs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLVpk8xAtbM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ3MHq-qtWA&feature=related
The environmental case and the financial case against suburbs go hand in hand. Suburbs cannot sustain subways or constant-service rail without leading to massive financial unrecoverable losses. So highways become more or less the only means of transportation, and they end up like the 401, or like many of the freeways in LA. On top of that, suburban homes are too low density to pay for the appropriate repairing of the streets and highways they use. The number of m2 of asphault that need to be maintained for a suburban person is much much higher than those that would be needed for someone who lives in an urban setting. The solution to this would of course be tolls to pay for the maintenance of roads - but suburban dwellers are always the first to oppose such tolls. Then there's the fact sprawl destroys farmland and by extension either the economy, nature, or both.
When fertile farmland gets built over, forest needs to be destroyed somewhere else to supply the food demand. Therefore those cute backyards full of insecticides and invasive species aren't bringing 'more nature' to the city, they are destroying nature in the wild first and foremost. Likewise, they are using land in a much less wiser way than if one fourth of the farmland had been turned into higher density residential, and the rest was used to feed the people living in that area.
People in the suburbs are responsible for a much larger amount of greenhouse gases and pollution in general than people in the city - mainly because of the dependence on cars and fossil fuels. Switching to alternatives like corn-based fuel would still lead to pollution. Electric cars, while a better alternative, still rely on natural gas and, in most of the world, coal power plants to reload. So unless you are obtaining your electricity from renewable sources you are still contributing to environmental harm.
Also, I don't know if you care or not about local independent businesses, but I do. I think capitalism only works when common people can become successful on the basis of making a better product, as opposed to it all being a matter of advertisement and capital. It is proven beyond any doubt that small independent businesses can thrive in cities, but tend to die out very quickly in suburbia. The low densities coupled with the 'car-dependence' and the lack of stimulation experienced by many who grow up in the suburbs, means people are much more less likely to buy from an unknown business. People in cities are used to diversity and are on average more open to trying new things than their suburban counterparts. Extra densities mean that even if they weren't, cities would still be a better place for independents.
Look no further than craft beer availability. So many major cities' bars and pubs are now serving locally produced better quality beer. Almost no suburban establishments anywhere are. In the suburbs, whoever pays for the ads and the big signs gets the customers independently of the quality of the product.
Crime rates, contrary to popular suburban beliefs, are not higher in cities than in suburbs on a per capita basis UNLESS cities have been abandoned and have become residential areas for lower income individuals and families. But the opposite is also true. Most of the safest metropolitan areas in the world are not suburban in nature.
People are also prouder of living where they live if they are in a city than in a suburb. This is very well documented. You also don't have to try very hard to see examples of this. People in Mississauga houses and restaurants usually displays pictures of European cities like Paris, Geneva, Prague, London, etc. and usually travel (for tourism) to either built-up cities or impressive natural landscapes. Cities (like natural wonders) cause pride and admiration among people.
I could go on forever, really, I've studied this thoroughly. But hopefully you realise that it's not a matter of opinion and 'what you like best' but rather a matter of what leads to healthier more sustainable societies.
