3 ms·

Agree. I don't think physical distance and density are important factors. Culture might be. People are more friendly in the midwest, and they are more open to

Agree. I don't think physical distance and density are important factors. Culture might be. People are more friendly in the midwest, and they are more open to talk about family matters. Family matters are in essence intimate, and the topics draw the people in the conversation together. In the big cities, these topics are regarded as "more" private (they are indeed private). It is a social norm to not share them unless to good friends. The less people share, the less opportunities to make friends. I also find it is easier for adults, especially men, to make friends in Asia, like in China and Japan.

topspin 11y ago
Culture? Hmm. Maybe. These highly ordered, dense and costly neighborhoods are hostile. Anxiety is high among residence. Remove that and replace it with a degree of liberty, some space and the need to collaborate to keep the road open and people connect naturally. The 'urban planners' and their cheerleaders have it wrong. They've decided that downsizing everyone and making them live in each others laps will end with Kumbaya. In fact it ends with everyone on edge, peering at each other silently as they sweat the value of their tiny piece of it.
- zyxley 11y ago
  > Anxiety is high among residence. [citation needed]
- TulliusCicero 11y ago
  Ok, it's pretty clear now that you just have a personal grudge against any sort of density, man. You need extra space to be happy, that's fine, but you're not everyone. Look across the pond at Western Europe or Japan: two very different cultures, both higher-density than the US, both tend to have higher social cohesion than in America, not lower. > Remove that and replace it with a degree of liberty Do you know what liberty is? It's letting the market have a say in how dense developments can be, so that people's individual choices dictate what's available, rather than the law. It's supporting all modes of transportation so that people have an actual choice in how they get around, instead of being required to drive to do anything or go anywhere. Forcing everyone into what topspin thinks is best isn't liberty, it's coercion.
  - Pyxl101 11y ago
    > Western Europe or Japan: two very different cultures, both higher-density than the US, both tend to have higher social cohesion than in America, not lower. It's a lot easier to have "high social cohesion" when you have a uniform culture that's been around for centuries, and are not living in a nation of immigrants from all over. I have nothing against that, by the way, but I'm simply pointing out that many countries like Japan are fairly xenophobic at best, racist at worst. I believe there was an article on HN recently about how difficult it is to found a start up in Japan as a foreigner. Plus, I'm not sure this kind of tight-knit culture is something I'd want to be a part of: http://www.kalzumeus.com/2014/11/07/doing-business-in-japan/ http://www.kalzumeus.com/2014/11/07/doing-business-in-japan/ > The company is your public life. Have an issue with your landlord? The company will handle it, in those cases where the company is not your landlord.[...] Need to file paperwork with City Hall? Someone from HR can do it for you. > The company is your private life. All friends you’ve made since your school days almost by definition work for your company, because you spend substantially every waking hour officially at work or at quote leisure unquote with people from work. That sounds to me like modern-day feudalism. ---- > Do you know what liberty is? It's letting the market have a say in how dense developments can be What's wrong with the people in each area voting for the laws that govern their area? If the people in an area don't want to vote for an increase in density, then so be it. Let them live their lives how they want to.
    - TulliusCicero 11y ago
      Yes, those societies are different, obviously. My point was just that it's certainly possible to have high social cohesion even with dense urban living. > What's wrong with the people in each area voting for the laws that govern their area? There's nothing necessarily wrong with localities having their own laws, of course. I'm not advocating for overthrowing democracy, I'm just arguing that overly restrictive anti-density regulations have had a number of bad impacts: - In desirable metros, skyrocketing property values caused by restrictions on new housing supply act as a large wealth transfer from the young to the old. - Needing to use a car hurts the poor, hurts college students, hurts childrens' independence, and hurts residents' healthiness. - Lower density developments are more energy- and thus carbon-intensive. - Wasted time on long commutes because the only affordable housing is far away is a huge economic sink. - The economy overall is weaker because many people avoid moving to high-productivity areas like Silicon Valley or NYC, and instead go to lower-productivity cities, because of high housing costs caused by a lack of supply: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2014/07/25/how-big-cities-that-restrict-new-housing-harm-the-economy/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2014/07/25/h...
- jessedhillon 11y ago
  I think you're trying to pound a square peg into a round hole here. You're onto something in that rural people do tend to be more open and approachable -- having grown up in a rural community I'm in agreement with you on that. As to the cause -- in my experience, rural living is a retreat from what draws people to city life. City living (this is all just my experience) is about chasing opportunity and throwing yourself intensely into the pursuit of success. Out in the country, I see people who have earned enough to buy a house with some land, and are ready to drop into a lower gear. They're willing to forego the opportunity and experience in order to achieve some stability and a slower pace of life. So it's no wonder that, when you deliberately remove major sources of tension from people's lives, they are more easy going.
TulliusCicero 11y ago
I think this is a selection bias. In a big city, you see everyone. In a rural area, people who are more anti-social are more likely to become outright recluses, they're totally invisible to the rest of society. Thus, you only see the more pro-social people in a rural area. For example, we think of people in rural areas as being those who love the outdoors, they get out a lot into nature, exercise a lot, more than city slickers, right? Except no, they're actually less healthy than urban residents. Sure, there are some there who really are going out into nature constantly and are in fantastic shape, but what you don't see are the people who just sit at home all the time watching TV and smoking, because there just ain't that much to do - http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304793504576434442652581806 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527023047935045764344...

topspin 11y ago

Culture? Hmm. Maybe. These highly ordered, dense and costly neighborhoods are hostile. Anxiety is high among residence. Remove that and replace it with a degree of liberty, some space and the need to collaborate to keep the road open and people connect naturally. The 'urban planners' and their cheerleaders have it wrong. They've decided that downsizing everyone and making them live in each others laps will end with Kumbaya. In fact it ends with everyone on edge, peering at each other silently as they sweat the value of their tiny piece of it.

zyxley 11y ago
> Anxiety is high among residence. [citation needed]
TulliusCicero 11y ago
Ok, it's pretty clear now that you just have a personal grudge against any sort of density, man. You need extra space to be happy, that's fine, but you're not everyone. Look across the pond at Western Europe or Japan: two very different cultures, both higher-density than the US, both tend to have higher social cohesion than in America, not lower. > Remove that and replace it with a degree of liberty Do you know what liberty is? It's letting the market have a say in how dense developments can be, so that people's individual choices dictate what's available, rather than the law. It's supporting all modes of transportation so that people have an actual choice in how they get around, instead of being required to drive to do anything or go anywhere. Forcing everyone into what topspin thinks is best isn't liberty, it's coercion.
- Pyxl101 11y ago
  > Western Europe or Japan: two very different cultures, both higher-density than the US, both tend to have higher social cohesion than in America, not lower. It's a lot easier to have "high social cohesion" when you have a uniform culture that's been around for centuries, and are not living in a nation of immigrants from all over. I have nothing against that, by the way, but I'm simply pointing out that many countries like Japan are fairly xenophobic at best, racist at worst. I believe there was an article on HN recently about how difficult it is to found a start up in Japan as a foreigner. Plus, I'm not sure this kind of tight-knit culture is something I'd want to be a part of: http://www.kalzumeus.com/2014/11/07/doing-business-in-japan/ http://www.kalzumeus.com/2014/11/07/doing-business-in-japan/ > The company is your public life. Have an issue with your landlord? The company will handle it, in those cases where the company is not your landlord.[...] Need to file paperwork with City Hall? Someone from HR can do it for you. > The company is your private life. All friends you’ve made since your school days almost by definition work for your company, because you spend substantially every waking hour officially at work or at quote leisure unquote with people from work. That sounds to me like modern-day feudalism. ---- > Do you know what liberty is? It's letting the market have a say in how dense developments can be What's wrong with the people in each area voting for the laws that govern their area? If the people in an area don't want to vote for an increase in density, then so be it. Let them live their lives how they want to.
  - TulliusCicero 11y ago
    Yes, those societies are different, obviously. My point was just that it's certainly possible to have high social cohesion even with dense urban living. > What's wrong with the people in each area voting for the laws that govern their area? There's nothing necessarily wrong with localities having their own laws, of course. I'm not advocating for overthrowing democracy, I'm just arguing that overly restrictive anti-density regulations have had a number of bad impacts: - In desirable metros, skyrocketing property values caused by restrictions on new housing supply act as a large wealth transfer from the young to the old. - Needing to use a car hurts the poor, hurts college students, hurts childrens' independence, and hurts residents' healthiness. - Lower density developments are more energy- and thus carbon-intensive. - Wasted time on long commutes because the only affordable housing is far away is a huge economic sink. - The economy overall is weaker because many people avoid moving to high-productivity areas like Silicon Valley or NYC, and instead go to lower-productivity cities, because of high housing costs caused by a lack of supply: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2014/07/25/how-big-cities-that-restrict-new-housing-harm-the-economy/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2014/07/25/h...
jessedhillon 11y ago
I think you're trying to pound a square peg into a round hole here. You're onto something in that rural people do tend to be more open and approachable -- having grown up in a rural community I'm in agreement with you on that. As to the cause -- in my experience, rural living is a retreat from what draws people to city life. City living (this is all just my experience) is about chasing opportunity and throwing yourself intensely into the pursuit of success. Out in the country, I see people who have earned enough to buy a house with some land, and are ready to drop into a lower gear. They're willing to forego the opportunity and experience in order to achieve some stability and a slower pace of life. So it's no wonder that, when you deliberately remove major sources of tension from people's lives, they are more easy going.

TulliusCicero 11y ago

I think this is a selection bias. In a big city, you see everyone. In a rural area, people who are more anti-social are more likely to become outright recluses, they're totally invisible to the rest of society. Thus, you only see the more pro-social people in a rural area. For example, we think of people in rural areas as being those who love the outdoors, they get out a lot into nature, exercise a lot, more than city slickers, right? Except no, they're actually less healthy than urban residents. Sure, there are some there who really are going out into nature constantly and are in fantastic shape, but what you don't see are the people who just sit at home all the time watching TV and smoking, because there just ain't that much to do - http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304793504576434442652581806 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527023047935045764344...