3 ms·

> If we’re going to create cities where everyone can live and work, we need density -- there’s just no way around it. Is it safe to say that, in US cities, qua

> If we’re going to create cities where everyone can live and work, we need density -- there’s just no way around it. Is it safe to say that, in US cities, quality of life generally gets worse with increases in population density? If so, is it because US local and state governments are pretty bad at managing population increase, in general?

mmagin 10y ago
I think that's true, except for the rich and powerful that can enjoy comfortable living in higher (average) density areas. Comfortably isolated from the grime and noise and poor mass transit.
enf 10y ago
Not without being explicit about what you mean by "quality of life." There are amenities of density and there are amenities of sparseness and people disagree about the relative importance of those amenities.
eagsalazar2 10y ago
I would say that is not safe to say at all.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ergothus 10y ago
> Is it safe to say that, in US cities, quality of life generally gets worse with increases in population density? I'd have a hard time saying that. First, you have "in US cities", so you've already stepped up your density from a non-city situation. Moving to Seattle from smaller East Coast towns and cities was a notable increase in quality of life for me. (more to do, more people that share my interests, less effort/travel involved in doing things, more medical/food resources of various types, better public transit, etc). Historically, urban centers (more dense) have always represented more opportunities than rural areas (less dense). Without a doubt, some people in these dense areas have lower quality of life. But enough have the opposite that it keeps happening. Second, you'll have lots of individual variation. I've seen HN posters that LOVE their small-town areas, and others that love having everything needed in a high density 10 block areas. Very hard to make a generalization. All anecdotal, but there it is. > If so, is it because US local and state governments are pretty bad at managing population increase, in general? That's a statement I'd generally back. Govts represent the current populace, and the smaller the govt body, the more short-term the vision usually is. Whether it's putting in building height restrictions, avoiding loud construction, or losing a ton of money on stadium construction, there are a lot of examples of poor management. (I suspect there are examples of GOOD management, but that's much harder to _notice_.) I recall reading a condemnation of cul-de-sacs (they promote heavy car use and tend to create unwalkable neighborhoods, and thus drive away small shops and stores towards stripmalls at best). Despite this, they were (are?) heavily promoted by the federal govt, and you can see from aerial views of areas when they were built. (some areas have cul-de-sacs off the roads. 10 years later you see a fern-like structure of roads having roads off of them that have cul-de-sacs off of them. 10 years after that you gets these fractalish spiraling structures of roads of roads of roads of cul-de-sacs). In my view, poor management repeated over and over again.
Retric 10y ago
I would say the opposite, quality of life increases with density. NYC being the prime example. It's just not linear and takes good infrastructure. DC for example is a horrible 'city' due to height restrictions and poor infrastructure, but it's suburbs are much worse. The advantage to density is people don't need to travel as far to do things so you can support a lot more niche activities. Making it easer to connect with people and get a bite to eat at 4AM. Or put another way, you need density to overcome the downsides. Sprawl means you get the same amenitys as a small city which has better traffic and lower costs.
hkmurakami 10y ago
A density increase is often a side effect of other strong factors that push the QoL upwards.

mmagin 10y ago

I think that's true, except for the rich and powerful that can enjoy comfortable living in higher (average) density areas. Comfortably isolated from the grime and noise and poor mass transit.

enf 10y ago

Not without being explicit about what you mean by "quality of life." There are amenities of density and there are amenities of sparseness and people disagree about the relative importance of those amenities.

eagsalazar2 10y ago

I would say that is not safe to say at all.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

ergothus 10y ago

> Is it safe to say that, in US cities, quality of life generally gets worse with increases in population density? I'd have a hard time saying that. First, you have "in US cities", so you've already stepped up your density from a non-city situation. Moving to Seattle from smaller East Coast towns and cities was a notable increase in quality of life for me. (more to do, more people that share my interests, less effort/travel involved in doing things, more medical/food resources of various types, better public transit, etc). Historically, urban centers (more dense) have always represented more opportunities than rural areas (less dense). Without a doubt, some people in these dense areas have lower quality of life. But enough have the opposite that it keeps happening. Second, you'll have lots of individual variation. I've seen HN posters that LOVE their small-town areas, and others that love having everything needed in a high density 10 block areas. Very hard to make a generalization. All anecdotal, but there it is. > If so, is it because US local and state governments are pretty bad at managing population increase, in general? That's a statement I'd generally back. Govts represent the current populace, and the smaller the govt body, the more short-term the vision usually is. Whether it's putting in building height restrictions, avoiding loud construction, or losing a ton of money on stadium construction, there are a lot of examples of poor management. (I suspect there are examples of GOOD management, but that's much harder to _notice_.) I recall reading a condemnation of cul-de-sacs (they promote heavy car use and tend to create unwalkable neighborhoods, and thus drive away small shops and stores towards stripmalls at best). Despite this, they were (are?) heavily promoted by the federal govt, and you can see from aerial views of areas when they were built. (some areas have cul-de-sacs off the roads. 10 years later you see a fern-like structure of roads having roads off of them that have cul-de-sacs off of them. 10 years after that you gets these fractalish spiraling structures of roads of roads of roads of cul-de-sacs). In my view, poor management repeated over and over again.

Retric 10y ago

I would say the opposite, quality of life increases with density. NYC being the prime example. It's just not linear and takes good infrastructure. DC for example is a horrible 'city' due to height restrictions and poor infrastructure, but it's suburbs are much worse. The advantage to density is people don't need to travel as far to do things so you can support a lot more niche activities. Making it easer to connect with people and get a bite to eat at 4AM. Or put another way, you need density to overcome the downsides. Sprawl means you get the same amenitys as a small city which has better traffic and lower costs.

hkmurakami 10y ago

A density increase is often a side effect of other strong factors that push the QoL upwards.