City or Suburbs

I was responding to a post in a different thread, and was inspired by a different dialogue that was emerging from it. When I moved to the Bay Area in March, I considered several different living options - the East Bay, the Peninsula/South Bay, and the city. Ultimately it came down to roommate fit and I ended up in the Peninsula, but San Francisco was definitely an option that was high on my list. I decided not to live there for several reasons:

1. It is COLD

2. Parking is often difficult to find, depending on the neighborhood, and I am far too dependent on my car out here.

3. Pound for pound, it is more expensive.

4. I lived in Manhattan on and off for four and a half years. I've had the city experience. I wanted something different, and something California that offered me coastal access, sunshine, warmer temperatures, outdoor activities, while still being in a quintessential California area. Palo Alto fit the bill.

But this got me thinking - which is better, the city or the suburbs? Each one has its own charm, its own appeal, but there are drawbacks as well. Even as a young person, I prefer the suburbs if I am living in the Bay Area, but often envy city-dwellers for their proximity to so many things.

Thoughts?