3 ms·

I agree. The whole idea seems to be based on people that adore living in tiny boxes in concrete paradise. It really is mind boggling to me. If you're a person

I agree. The whole idea seems to be based on people that adore living in tiny boxes in concrete paradise. It really is mind boggling to me. If you're a person that wants to live in such conditions, go for it. There is a reason that the wealthy have holiday homes. Apartments in capital cities are based on the needs of capitalism and the workplace, not on the needs of humans.

vidarh 11y ago
Consider that many cities aren't "concrete paradise" despite being high density. A large proportion of London is parkland. Parts of my suburb is outright rural, and I live in an area full of terraced houses with gardens, and about a dozen parks within walking distance, of which one is a "country park" where you can easily walk for half an hour without seeing a car - or other people. London still has a density of 5,437/km2 (14,080/sq mi). Yes, some of the inner boroughs have little green space, but even most of them have large parks. As for being based on the needs of capitalism over humans, I don't agree. It is both. I don't want to live in the countryside, or in a small town. I moved this "far out" because this is where it was affordable to buy, not because I had any issues with living further in (now that I have a young child, I might have picked an area like this for that reason, but not for myself). There are appeals to many of living in a big city. In just living near the edge of one, I still miss the days when I lived two minutes from Oxford Street (one of the busiest shopping streets in Central London) and could wander out at 3am and walk a couple of minutes to buy ice cream, or could go out during the weekend and just walk to Soho where the big night clubs are (I don't care so much about that any more, but in my 20's that was a big plus), and could walk home rather than depend on expensive cab rides or rare night trains. A lot of the reasons we seek together in big cities are not about (just) jobs, but about the social factors and the network effects that for many makes it hard to imagine living somewhere smaller after you've come to expect there to always be something to do or see, or people to meet, no more than a few blocks away, any time, day or night.
- stegosaurus 11y ago
  I agree in a lot of ways. I've kind of dramatised the point for clarity. I live in London, out in Zone 6. In some ways it's the best of both worlds, but often it feels daft that I don't just live in the actual countryside. (I previously lived in Z1/2 - great for 'doing stuff', but it had me feeling like a farm animal fairly rapidly). There is indeed lots of green space, within the city and outside of the city. But it's still a city. It's almost completely manmade, there's pollution or at least distraction everywhere (billboards, vehicle noise and fumes, people). It doesn't appeal to everyone, and the idea that it's the 'way forward' I find quite obscene. We should be giving people the choice. There are lots of parts of living in the city I enjoy, and lots of parts of living in the country that I enjoy, and I think we should be setting up society so that people can choose their poison. Remote working would be a great start. I think the most basic issue I have is with the idea that all of the problems of cities can be solved. There's at least one which is impossible to solve - and that is the sheer number of humans and the restrictions that go along with that. I don't want to live in a street or a tower block that has 10,000 other humans in. It makes me feel like I'm in an ant farm.
- TillE 11y ago
  And (central) London is a lot more concrete-heavy than Berlin, for example, which has trees everywhere. The only thing I'd change about Berlin is switching all the cars to electric, so we'd have clean air. Some day, inevitably. It's a beautiful city otherwise, lively but rarely uncomfortably crowded.
  - mafribe 11y ago
    I agree, Berlin being so green is a great plus. Something I'd change about Berlin is to make the place more dense. For example by doubling the height of each house.
    - lispm 11y ago
      Berlin does not need more density in the first place. They need more jobs. Work. Companies. Berlin already hasn't enough jobs and a relatively low GDP per capita rate - for Germany.
      - mafribe 11y ago
        Jobs come with people. The more people, the more interesting the cultural life, the more exchange of ideas. Berlin is still recovering from being surrounded by / part of a communist society. It will slowly normalise. Berlin is now the capital of a European power and money as well as jobs follow power.
- danans 11y ago
  As a counterpoint to London, consider that in equivalently thriving cities in the US, due to poor planning and investment in transit infrastructure, living near the outer edge of the city means very long commutes into the jobs and idea centers. By comparison, people I know living in "outer" London Suburbs (Wembley, Harrow, etc.) enjoy many public infrastructure benefits that you have to be in the inner urban core to enjoy in the US (again, in equivalently vibrant regions in the US, not in the dying cities). Also, UK and European suburbs and small towns seem to have more mixed-use or close proximity residential and retail zones, perhaps because their layout predates the advent of cars, trucks, and freeways. Not that it's all peaches over there, but in some ways, the urban "planning" seems much better.
  - stegosaurus 11y ago
    Wembley and Harrow being considered 'outer' suburbs feels quite odd to me. Wembley is ~10mi by road and Harrow ~13mi. A quick scroll through Rightmove has me getting bored before I can find an affordable 1br flat (got to 180,000 and got bored). A better example would be just inside the M25, where you're either at a station, or in a blank spot with no rail. I don't disagree that London has better public transport than some places. Just making a comment because almost definitionally it feels like the 'outer city' is the bit that isn't well connected (i.e. it's not really the city any more).
jp555 11y ago
Tiny boxes of private space, and a HUGE public "backyard" full of things to do. The inverse, a big house in the middle of nothing is also mind boggling to many.
marssaxman 11y ago
It's not the tininess of the box, it's the overflowing wealth of opportunities for profit and for experience provided by the surrounding city. Most people want to live in such conditions, and judge the smallness of the private living space to be a reasonable tradeoff. There is a reason that those wealthy people only visit their holiday homes and don't simply move to the remote places where they are located.

vidarh 11y ago

Consider that many cities aren't "concrete paradise" despite being high density. A large proportion of London is parkland. Parts of my suburb is outright rural, and I live in an area full of terraced houses with gardens, and about a dozen parks within walking distance, of which one is a "country park" where you can easily walk for half an hour without seeing a car - or other people. London still has a density of 5,437/km2 (14,080/sq mi). Yes, some of the inner boroughs have little green space, but even most of them have large parks. As for being based on the needs of capitalism over humans, I don't agree. It is both. I don't want to live in the countryside, or in a small town. I moved this "far out" because this is where it was affordable to buy, not because I had any issues with living further in (now that I have a young child, I might have picked an area like this for that reason, but not for myself). There are appeals to many of living in a big city. In just living near the edge of one, I still miss the days when I lived two minutes from Oxford Street (one of the busiest shopping streets in Central London) and could wander out at 3am and walk a couple of minutes to buy ice cream, or could go out during the weekend and just walk to Soho where the big night clubs are (I don't care so much about that any more, but in my 20's that was a big plus), and could walk home rather than depend on expensive cab rides or rare night trains. A lot of the reasons we seek together in big cities are not about (just) jobs, but about the social factors and the network effects that for many makes it hard to imagine living somewhere smaller after you've come to expect there to always be something to do or see, or people to meet, no more than a few blocks away, any time, day or night.

stegosaurus 11y ago
I agree in a lot of ways. I've kind of dramatised the point for clarity. I live in London, out in Zone 6. In some ways it's the best of both worlds, but often it feels daft that I don't just live in the actual countryside. (I previously lived in Z1/2 - great for 'doing stuff', but it had me feeling like a farm animal fairly rapidly). There is indeed lots of green space, within the city and outside of the city. But it's still a city. It's almost completely manmade, there's pollution or at least distraction everywhere (billboards, vehicle noise and fumes, people). It doesn't appeal to everyone, and the idea that it's the 'way forward' I find quite obscene. We should be giving people the choice. There are lots of parts of living in the city I enjoy, and lots of parts of living in the country that I enjoy, and I think we should be setting up society so that people can choose their poison. Remote working would be a great start. I think the most basic issue I have is with the idea that all of the problems of cities can be solved. There's at least one which is impossible to solve - and that is the sheer number of humans and the restrictions that go along with that. I don't want to live in a street or a tower block that has 10,000 other humans in. It makes me feel like I'm in an ant farm.
TillE 11y ago
And (central) London is a lot more concrete-heavy than Berlin, for example, which has trees everywhere. The only thing I'd change about Berlin is switching all the cars to electric, so we'd have clean air. Some day, inevitably. It's a beautiful city otherwise, lively but rarely uncomfortably crowded.
- mafribe 11y ago
  I agree, Berlin being so green is a great plus. Something I'd change about Berlin is to make the place more dense. For example by doubling the height of each house.
  - lispm 11y ago
    Berlin does not need more density in the first place. They need more jobs. Work. Companies. Berlin already hasn't enough jobs and a relatively low GDP per capita rate - for Germany.
    - mafribe 11y ago
      Jobs come with people. The more people, the more interesting the cultural life, the more exchange of ideas. Berlin is still recovering from being surrounded by / part of a communist society. It will slowly normalise. Berlin is now the capital of a European power and money as well as jobs follow power.
danans 11y ago
As a counterpoint to London, consider that in equivalently thriving cities in the US, due to poor planning and investment in transit infrastructure, living near the outer edge of the city means very long commutes into the jobs and idea centers. By comparison, people I know living in "outer" London Suburbs (Wembley, Harrow, etc.) enjoy many public infrastructure benefits that you have to be in the inner urban core to enjoy in the US (again, in equivalently vibrant regions in the US, not in the dying cities). Also, UK and European suburbs and small towns seem to have more mixed-use or close proximity residential and retail zones, perhaps because their layout predates the advent of cars, trucks, and freeways. Not that it's all peaches over there, but in some ways, the urban "planning" seems much better.
- stegosaurus 11y ago
  Wembley and Harrow being considered 'outer' suburbs feels quite odd to me. Wembley is ~10mi by road and Harrow ~13mi. A quick scroll through Rightmove has me getting bored before I can find an affordable 1br flat (got to 180,000 and got bored). A better example would be just inside the M25, where you're either at a station, or in a blank spot with no rail. I don't disagree that London has better public transport than some places. Just making a comment because almost definitionally it feels like the 'outer city' is the bit that isn't well connected (i.e. it's not really the city any more).

jp555 11y ago

Tiny boxes of private space, and a HUGE public "backyard" full of things to do. The inverse, a big house in the middle of nothing is also mind boggling to many.

marssaxman 11y ago

It's not the tininess of the box, it's the overflowing wealth of opportunities for profit and for experience provided by the surrounding city. Most people want to live in such conditions, and judge the smallness of the private living space to be a reasonable tradeoff. There is a reason that those wealthy people only visit their holiday homes and don't simply move to the remote places where they are located.