4 ms·

Some of the comments in the article seems a bit disingenuous. The Dhaka vs DC graph was kind of funny, because the quality of life in Dhaka is probably much lo

by abruzzi 11y ago

Some of the comments in the article seems a bit disingenuous. The Dhaka vs DC graph was kind of funny, because the quality of life in Dhaka is probably much lower in large part due to that density. But more to the point, I agree that no one has a right to the density they've become accustomed to, but that doesn't mean that an increase in density won't amount to a drop in the quality of life to them. Take for instance the comment where someone sad something to the effect that without going all Hong Kong, SF could increase density by 30 or 40% by utilizing unused/undeveloped parcels, and adding a few floors to existing buildings. Thats probably true, but that has no effect on the public spaces. So you now have 30-40% more people on the sidewalks. 30-40% more cars on the road. 30-40% higher density. For some people that is a positive thing, but for those that think it is a negative thing, no amount of hand waving is change that. By hand waving, I mean assertion without argument. You may convince them that more and better restaurants will open, and that may genuinely change their mind, but many people I've talked to that prefer the high density lifestyle have a hard time grasping that there are those of us that genuinely do not. I live in a city of 120k in one of the least densely populated states in the US. It was 50k when I first came here. It has been genuinely intolerable for me, and I spend all my free time getting away to significantly less dense areas, and I am actively looking for jobs in areas lower than 50k (hard to do in technical fields). Of course I'm an extreme example, but the point being that trying to portray the quality of life concerns of people that prefer lower density as irrelevant is not an honest comeback. Disregard those concerns as being counter to the larger good, but don't pretend that people that hold those concerns will be happy about all the things they will gain at higher densities.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
cousin_it 11y ago
Yeah. Not everyone wants to live like this: http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1510808/original.jpg http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1510808/original.jpg
- ceras 11y ago
  I wonder if we should find a word other than "dense" to describe dense urban living. Images like those are exactly what non-urban people picture when they hear "dense," but it doesn't have to be anything like that. For example, I live in one of the densest residential neighorhoods in New York[1], pushing 80k-100k people per square mile, and the buildings largely range from 5-7 stories. I have close access to parks, tree-lined sidewalks, and no skyscrapers blocking sunlight. The buildings and storefronts are varied, colorful, and interesting to walk past: no concrete jungle slabs of grey here. [1] Typical block: http://gettingpurlywithit.com/sites/gettingpurlywithit.com/files/imagecache/slide/images/EastVillageNYC9.jpg http://gettingpurlywithit.com/sites/gettingpurlywithit.com/f...
thrownaway123 11y ago
Agreed that the article fails to empathize with different preferences - I would also argue that it really only considered one side of the environmental argument. Density leads to efficiency in many cases, but the culture of high consumption, travel, and general activity that is promoted by density can result in more pollution rather than less. In the ideal if we could hold human behavior constant, high density would still be more efficient per capita. Also certainly there are suburbanites who consume and travel with the best of them - but to an individual who is self-aware of their carbon footprint, living in a less dense area may even be an improvement (for instance if it makes the idea of a walking or bicycling commute less unpleasant). And certainly our planet cannot support billions of people driving and buying new plastic toys every year in perpetuity, regardless of where or how densely they live. Ultimately, if we want to fix the environmental/ecological issues our species faces, it will take more than building some new residences in major cities. This isn't to say it shouldn't be done - but the article definitely seems to overstate the impact of it.
snowwrestler 11y ago
The character of a city changes as it attracts more people, even if it does not get more dense. For example, there are not more cars per linear lane mile on the streets of New York than there are on the streets of DC. In fact, DC has worse traffic than New York by any measure, despite being far less dense. (It's full of public spaces, and buildings are limited to no more than 13 floors.) As a city starts to become more attractive to people, either density or property values will go up. When property values go up, poor and middle class residents are forced out, either by property taxes, or by landlords who want to sell instead of rent. These people then need someplace to live, and the higher property values are soaring, the farther away they will have to move. These folks may have actually preferred increased density to moving away, BTW. But of course they still work in the city (that's why they lived there in the first place), and now have a huge commute. Thus even though density has not gone up appreciably, traffic and use of public transportation still go up, harming quality of life. DC is largely a commuter city and the traffic is truly awful, despite the low density. LA is another city that is not particularly dense but the traffic is awful.
RIMR 11y ago
>many people I've talked to that prefer the high density lifestyle have a hard time grasping that there are those of us that genuinely do not. Personal preferences for this kind of thing vary wildly. When my wife and I moved from suburban Memphis, TN to urban Seattle, WA, my Mother-in-law was convinced that we were making an awful decision that would make us miserable and fill us with regret. She actually broke down crying about how much she worries about us moving somewhere so dangerous, loud, and cramped. My in-laws live in rural Mississippi in a 4,000sqft home where they cannot see any of their neighbors' houses. They have to drive 20 minutes to get to the nearest store. It really baffled them to see my wife and I eating up the city life and talking about how much we love our 650sqft apartment. They couldn't believe that we valued the convenience of having a grocery store across the street given that we had to look at it every day from our room. I wouldn't want to live in rural Mississippi as much as they wouldn't want to live in urban Seattle. We're more at an understanding with each other, but it really sheds some light on how people's preferences can differ, and how those differences could lead to disagreements when cities change in population (like jumping from 50k to 120k).
yummyfajitas 11y ago
I don't know Bangladesh well, but the Indian megacities are generally far more pleasant than the rural areas. Mumbai is a wonderful place to live. Density does make life better. Admittedly, some megacities are poor, but it's hardly fair to compare a Bangladeshi megacity to a city in a wealthy town. ...and I am actively looking for jobs in areas lower than 50k (hard to do in technical fields). So it's not actually intolerable - in fact, you prefer it compared to all the other opportunities. Your revealed preferences suggest that having a tech job (a product of density) is more important than other concerns.
- abruzzi 11y ago
  Well the reason I haven't moved is I haven't found jobs that wouldn't amount to a 75% reduction in pay, not because good paying jobs don't exist in the small towns, but because my skills don't qualify me for those jobs. As a result I'm weighing my options to get the necessary skills/experience to make the move. Nothing happens instantly, so to deny my claim that it is intolerable just because I haven't abandoned everything to move to a small town and take a job as a fry cook overnight, is disingenuous. And your assertion that "Density does make life better" is just that--an assertion, and exactly the kind of assertion that dismisses the opposing offhand that I was commenting about.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    Job market liquidity is certainly one of the benefits of density. Its not just an assertion - your experience seems to prove it to be true. As well as the experience of millions of people moving to cities for better jobs.
    - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
      Job liquidity is a benefit, true. You're still completely dismissing his point of view, though. Job liquidity is not the only good in the world.
      - yummyfajitas 11y ago
dsp1234 11y ago
and I am actively looking for jobs in areas lower than 50k (hard to do in technical fields). There are multiple 15-25k population suburbs on the south/southwest side of Portland, Or, with a commute in the 30-45 minute range. Tualitin, Wilsonville, Canby, Sherwood, etc. There is a lot of farm land, acreage available between Portland and Salem. It's certainly not Billings, but there are tech jobs available in Portland (New Relic), Beaverton, Hillsboro (Intel), Wilsonville (Xerox/Flir). Then there are a lot of SMBs all over.
Retric 11y ago
US city's only have relatively low populations because so many people are willing to put up with soul sucking commutes. If DC prevented people from commuting from the outside you would see a dramatic increase in population density without adding a single building. Union City's population density is twice that of NYC specifically because we pretend meaningless markings mean suburbs are not really just another part of one big city. PS: City's get this way in large part because they can offload lot's of costs by simply having vastly more office space than residential space. One fairly simple solution is to replace zoning with a fee to add new housing / office space and then let the markets decide. Want to add 1,000 homes or a 1 Million square feet of new office space to an area? Sure, just pay for the infrastructure cost for new schools, wider roads, sewage, and whatnot up front.
sampo 11y ago
> 30-40% more cars on the road When the population density increases over a certain limit, it becomes more economical (also faster and more efficient) to move people around by a combination of walking, subway, and buses. Like in London, Paris, New York, central Boston etc. After that, adding more people will not add more cars. Of course, in the ultra-nimby San Francisco, building a subway would also get more resistance than in most other cities of the world.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > When the population density increases over a certain limit, it becomes more economical (also faster and more efficient) to move people around by a combination of walking, subway, and buses. Only if the infrastructure for those things (particularly subway) exists. Which has to be built -- in advance of the increase in population, if quality of life isn't going to drop before it gets better. So when we start seeing concrete proposals for infrastructure improvements first, it makes sense to start talking about density increases. > Of course, in the ultra-nimby San Francisco, building a subway would also get more resistance than in most other cities of the world. If true, this suggests that people who want to build a new high-density utopia should find some other city to descend upon.
  - sampo 11y ago
    > this suggests that people who want to build a new high-density utopia should find some other city to descend upon. Yes. As far as I understand the situation, of the first world cities of similar size or larger, San Francisco was probably the worst possible choice to base the tech boom in. As it has the most conservative attitude and least desire towards growth and building new homes and infrastructure. And poor quality houses and infrastructure to begin with. Almost like a joke of history.
    - ghaff 11y ago
      What really happened (and this is true to some degree in the Boston area as well), is that the tech boom(s) actually started in what was (at least then) largely suburban or even semi-rural areas. Silicon Valley and Route 128. This was, after all, a period when there was largely a migration away from cities. When I was working in the Boston area tech industry (actually near 495) in the 80s/90s out of school, relatively few people I knew lived in the city proper or had a particular interest in doing so. But then this interest in migrating to at least a handful of specific dense cities by young professionals blossomed and the nearby cities to these booms aren't really prepared for it.
tptacek 11y ago
I think there's a significantly different question at play between the choice of whether to live in a town of 40,000 people or 120,000 people, and the choice of whether to live in a city with 18k/sqmi density or 60k/sqmi density. At less than 50,000 people, you're talking about wanting to live in a place smaller than Ann Arbor, MI. Effectively, you want to live out in the country. That's fine! But you're having a different discussion than the people in this article and in the rest of the thread, who are debating how the character of major cities changes as density changes. Density doesn't really enter into the equation when you're talking about places smaller than Auburn, Alabama.
rhino369 11y ago
By preventing some areas from getting very dense, you are forcing the rest of the city to get dense to compensate. Cities don't have to be uniformly dense, and probably shouldn't. Cities like New York and Chicago have very dense portions but also have fairly less dense areas. And those dense areas are more affordable than if no high rises were ever built. Every high rise buildling in Chicago or New York means dozens of single family homes don't have to be explanded and split into 500 sqft condos. They lower cost of living. And they reduce urban sprawl. By isolating people and businesses that want super dense areas, you actually give the rest of the city more breathing room.
lagadu 11y ago
> So you now have 30-40% more people on the sidewalks. 30-40% more cars on the road. 30-40% higher density. This is the fallacy that the article is pointing at: an increase in 50% pop density doesn't result in a 50% increase in everything: mass transit is the best example of this, higher density enables much more efficient mass transit systems. A lower density city will have most people go to work by car, a higher density one will easily have over 50% of the population commute to work by mass transit and bicycle.

by abruzzi 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

cousin_it 11y ago

Yeah. Not everyone wants to live like this: http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1510808/original.jpg http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1510808/original.jpg

ceras 11y ago
I wonder if we should find a word other than "dense" to describe dense urban living. Images like those are exactly what non-urban people picture when they hear "dense," but it doesn't have to be anything like that. For example, I live in one of the densest residential neighorhoods in New York[1], pushing 80k-100k people per square mile, and the buildings largely range from 5-7 stories. I have close access to parks, tree-lined sidewalks, and no skyscrapers blocking sunlight. The buildings and storefronts are varied, colorful, and interesting to walk past: no concrete jungle slabs of grey here. [1] Typical block: http://gettingpurlywithit.com/sites/gettingpurlywithit.com/files/imagecache/slide/images/EastVillageNYC9.jpg http://gettingpurlywithit.com/sites/gettingpurlywithit.com/f...

thrownaway123 11y ago

Agreed that the article fails to empathize with different preferences - I would also argue that it really only considered one side of the environmental argument. Density leads to efficiency in many cases, but the culture of high consumption, travel, and general activity that is promoted by density can result in more pollution rather than less. In the ideal if we could hold human behavior constant, high density would still be more efficient per capita. Also certainly there are suburbanites who consume and travel with the best of them - but to an individual who is self-aware of their carbon footprint, living in a less dense area may even be an improvement (for instance if it makes the idea of a walking or bicycling commute less unpleasant). And certainly our planet cannot support billions of people driving and buying new plastic toys every year in perpetuity, regardless of where or how densely they live. Ultimately, if we want to fix the environmental/ecological issues our species faces, it will take more than building some new residences in major cities. This isn't to say it shouldn't be done - but the article definitely seems to overstate the impact of it.

snowwrestler 11y ago

The character of a city changes as it attracts more people, even if it does not get more dense. For example, there are not more cars per linear lane mile on the streets of New York than there are on the streets of DC. In fact, DC has worse traffic than New York by any measure, despite being far less dense. (It's full of public spaces, and buildings are limited to no more than 13 floors.) As a city starts to become more attractive to people, either density or property values will go up. When property values go up, poor and middle class residents are forced out, either by property taxes, or by landlords who want to sell instead of rent. These people then need someplace to live, and the higher property values are soaring, the farther away they will have to move. These folks may have actually preferred increased density to moving away, BTW. But of course they still work in the city (that's why they lived there in the first place), and now have a huge commute. Thus even though density has not gone up appreciably, traffic and use of public transportation still go up, harming quality of life. DC is largely a commuter city and the traffic is truly awful, despite the low density. LA is another city that is not particularly dense but the traffic is awful.

RIMR 11y ago

>many people I've talked to that prefer the high density lifestyle have a hard time grasping that there are those of us that genuinely do not. Personal preferences for this kind of thing vary wildly. When my wife and I moved from suburban Memphis, TN to urban Seattle, WA, my Mother-in-law was convinced that we were making an awful decision that would make us miserable and fill us with regret. She actually broke down crying about how much she worries about us moving somewhere so dangerous, loud, and cramped. My in-laws live in rural Mississippi in a 4,000sqft home where they cannot see any of their neighbors' houses. They have to drive 20 minutes to get to the nearest store. It really baffled them to see my wife and I eating up the city life and talking about how much we love our 650sqft apartment. They couldn't believe that we valued the convenience of having a grocery store across the street given that we had to look at it every day from our room. I wouldn't want to live in rural Mississippi as much as they wouldn't want to live in urban Seattle. We're more at an understanding with each other, but it really sheds some light on how people's preferences can differ, and how those differences could lead to disagreements when cities change in population (like jumping from 50k to 120k).

yummyfajitas 11y ago

I don't know Bangladesh well, but the Indian megacities are generally far more pleasant than the rural areas. Mumbai is a wonderful place to live. Density does make life better. Admittedly, some megacities are poor, but it's hardly fair to compare a Bangladeshi megacity to a city in a wealthy town. ...and I am actively looking for jobs in areas lower than 50k (hard to do in technical fields). So it's not actually intolerable - in fact, you prefer it compared to all the other opportunities. Your revealed preferences suggest that having a tech job (a product of density) is more important than other concerns.

abruzzi 11y ago
Well the reason I haven't moved is I haven't found jobs that wouldn't amount to a 75% reduction in pay, not because good paying jobs don't exist in the small towns, but because my skills don't qualify me for those jobs. As a result I'm weighing my options to get the necessary skills/experience to make the move. Nothing happens instantly, so to deny my claim that it is intolerable just because I haven't abandoned everything to move to a small town and take a job as a fry cook overnight, is disingenuous. And your assertion that "Density does make life better" is just that--an assertion, and exactly the kind of assertion that dismisses the opposing offhand that I was commenting about.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  Job market liquidity is certainly one of the benefits of density. Its not just an assertion - your experience seems to prove it to be true. As well as the experience of millions of people moving to cities for better jobs.
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    Job liquidity is a benefit, true. You're still completely dismissing his point of view, though. Job liquidity is not the only good in the world.
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago

dsp1234 11y ago

and I am actively looking for jobs in areas lower than 50k (hard to do in technical fields). There are multiple 15-25k population suburbs on the south/southwest side of Portland, Or, with a commute in the 30-45 minute range. Tualitin, Wilsonville, Canby, Sherwood, etc. There is a lot of farm land, acreage available between Portland and Salem. It's certainly not Billings, but there are tech jobs available in Portland (New Relic), Beaverton, Hillsboro (Intel), Wilsonville (Xerox/Flir). Then there are a lot of SMBs all over.

Retric 11y ago

US city's only have relatively low populations because so many people are willing to put up with soul sucking commutes. If DC prevented people from commuting from the outside you would see a dramatic increase in population density without adding a single building. Union City's population density is twice that of NYC specifically because we pretend meaningless markings mean suburbs are not really just another part of one big city. PS: City's get this way in large part because they can offload lot's of costs by simply having vastly more office space than residential space. One fairly simple solution is to replace zoning with a fee to add new housing / office space and then let the markets decide. Want to add 1,000 homes or a 1 Million square feet of new office space to an area? Sure, just pay for the infrastructure cost for new schools, wider roads, sewage, and whatnot up front.

sampo 11y ago

> 30-40% more cars on the road When the population density increases over a certain limit, it becomes more economical (also faster and more efficient) to move people around by a combination of walking, subway, and buses. Like in London, Paris, New York, central Boston etc. After that, adding more people will not add more cars. Of course, in the ultra-nimby San Francisco, building a subway would also get more resistance than in most other cities of the world.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> When the population density increases over a certain limit, it becomes more economical (also faster and more efficient) to move people around by a combination of walking, subway, and buses. Only if the infrastructure for those things (particularly subway) exists. Which has to be built -- in advance of the increase in population, if quality of life isn't going to drop before it gets better. So when we start seeing concrete proposals for infrastructure improvements first, it makes sense to start talking about density increases. > Of course, in the ultra-nimby San Francisco, building a subway would also get more resistance than in most other cities of the world. If true, this suggests that people who want to build a new high-density utopia should find some other city to descend upon.
- sampo 11y ago
  > this suggests that people who want to build a new high-density utopia should find some other city to descend upon. Yes. As far as I understand the situation, of the first world cities of similar size or larger, San Francisco was probably the worst possible choice to base the tech boom in. As it has the most conservative attitude and least desire towards growth and building new homes and infrastructure. And poor quality houses and infrastructure to begin with. Almost like a joke of history.
  - ghaff 11y ago
    What really happened (and this is true to some degree in the Boston area as well), is that the tech boom(s) actually started in what was (at least then) largely suburban or even semi-rural areas. Silicon Valley and Route 128. This was, after all, a period when there was largely a migration away from cities. When I was working in the Boston area tech industry (actually near 495) in the 80s/90s out of school, relatively few people I knew lived in the city proper or had a particular interest in doing so. But then this interest in migrating to at least a handful of specific dense cities by young professionals blossomed and the nearby cities to these booms aren't really prepared for it.

tptacek 11y ago

I think there's a significantly different question at play between the choice of whether to live in a town of 40,000 people or 120,000 people, and the choice of whether to live in a city with 18k/sqmi density or 60k/sqmi density. At less than 50,000 people, you're talking about wanting to live in a place smaller than Ann Arbor, MI. Effectively, you want to live out in the country. That's fine! But you're having a different discussion than the people in this article and in the rest of the thread, who are debating how the character of major cities changes as density changes. Density doesn't really enter into the equation when you're talking about places smaller than Auburn, Alabama.

rhino369 11y ago

By preventing some areas from getting very dense, you are forcing the rest of the city to get dense to compensate. Cities don't have to be uniformly dense, and probably shouldn't. Cities like New York and Chicago have very dense portions but also have fairly less dense areas. And those dense areas are more affordable than if no high rises were ever built. Every high rise buildling in Chicago or New York means dozens of single family homes don't have to be explanded and split into 500 sqft condos. They lower cost of living. And they reduce urban sprawl. By isolating people and businesses that want super dense areas, you actually give the rest of the city more breathing room.

lagadu 11y ago

> So you now have 30-40% more people on the sidewalks. 30-40% more cars on the road. 30-40% higher density. This is the fallacy that the article is pointing at: an increase in 50% pop density doesn't result in a 50% increase in everything: mass transit is the best example of this, higher density enables much more efficient mass transit systems. A lower density city will have most people go to work by car, a higher density one will easily have over 50% of the population commute to work by mass transit and bicycle.