Earlier quoted context omitted.
False dichotomy. You can close all the city's nightclubs and you wouldn't have a city with only housing. Only a very small subset of people living in the city will use nightclubs. It is reasonable that they are not given priority over things essential to living (housing, accomodations, transport, public services, etc..).
Nightclubs are one thing. I said "a" reason, not "the" reason. People don't go to the expense and trouble of living in cities because they have the bare essentials of keeping yourself alive. That is available in any town. People move to the city because of things to do which includes nightclubs, restaurants, museums, theater, sports venues, cultural events, etc. If all you want is a bunch of houses and roads connecti…
> People move to the city because of things to do which includes nightclubs, restaurants, museums, theater, sports venues, cultural events, etc.
Now remove nightclubs from this list, and you still get a list of attractive reasons to settle in a city.
You don't have to infringe on the night of others to still have an enjoyable city. To repeat myself: you could close all the nightclubs in a city and you would still have plenty to live for there.