3 ms·

That sounds wonderful. Just as soon as you pry the car culture and suburbs from the hands of the folks who live in say Kansas and enjoy the status quo...

nocman 10y ago
Not everyone who lives in the U. S. wants to live in a city. Are you suggesting we should give up our right to chose where we want to live so you can have more small cities?
- dublinben 10y ago
  There is every indication that more people would like to live in cities, but can't afford to.
  - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
    Pittsburg seems nice enough but seems to be pretty reasonable. Dallas? I'd say very nice, with a mix of suburbs and city spaces and a much nicer set of roads and light rail than was there in the 1980s. Perhaps there is compromise? Perhaps this is really only a real problem in SanFran and NYC. Even NYC has The Bronx and good rail service.
    - sporkenfang 10y ago
      I find Dallas horrifically laid out. Too many suburbs, too many big roads, waste of space. Pittsburgh and all the other cities that boomed during the 'great' periods of America have the same problem, which, notably, San Francisco and NYC have somewhat less of -- big roads for big cars, and big garages to take those cars home to. The problem isn't sparseness or density, it's a combination of readily available fossil fuels and mindset, I believe.
      - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
        Dallas proper has pretty good light rail which extends all the way to some of what used to be considered exurbs ( like McKinney ). There's the usual clusters of 3-7ish story condo blocks in spots, towards University, around Deep Ellum. Even in Plano, close to the tracks. If the position is simply to oppose cars altogether, then I don't know where you can go. But I suppose you can find a bus to take you there...
  - dasil003 10y ago
    There are also a lot of people who don't want to live in big cities, but do it for the economic opportunity.
  - gozur88 10y ago
    Paying more for housing is part of moving to a big city.
- mc32 10y ago
  I'd never suggest giving up the right to live where you want while you have the means. We can have both mice smallish but well-cultured cities that respect their surroundings as well as have vibrant rural communities. Think Heidelberg and its surrounds, maybe Ithaca in NY.
mc32 10y ago
I think you can but you have to have something to divert the kids who graduate away from going to the big cities and have them build local cities [with local attractions such as jobs, education, cultural things, entertainment options]. Sure it will evacuate some of the rural areas some, but it should build nicer --perhaps even semi-planned areas, close by. It would require some central planning, which is a bit antithetical to us Americans but some people from other places might relate. And sure, some people do like living closer to nature. I acknowledge we have a nice core of people who love nature and land and cultivating the earth, what have you --they can still have their smaller ag-centered communities.

nocman 10y ago

Not everyone who lives in the U. S. wants to live in a city. Are you suggesting we should give up our right to chose where we want to live so you can have more small cities?

dublinben 10y ago
There is every indication that more people would like to live in cities, but can't afford to.
- ArkyBeagle 10y ago
  Pittsburg seems nice enough but seems to be pretty reasonable. Dallas? I'd say very nice, with a mix of suburbs and city spaces and a much nicer set of roads and light rail than was there in the 1980s. Perhaps there is compromise? Perhaps this is really only a real problem in SanFran and NYC. Even NYC has The Bronx and good rail service.
  - sporkenfang 10y ago
    I find Dallas horrifically laid out. Too many suburbs, too many big roads, waste of space. Pittsburgh and all the other cities that boomed during the 'great' periods of America have the same problem, which, notably, San Francisco and NYC have somewhat less of -- big roads for big cars, and big garages to take those cars home to. The problem isn't sparseness or density, it's a combination of readily available fossil fuels and mindset, I believe.
    - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
      Dallas proper has pretty good light rail which extends all the way to some of what used to be considered exurbs ( like McKinney ). There's the usual clusters of 3-7ish story condo blocks in spots, towards University, around Deep Ellum. Even in Plano, close to the tracks. If the position is simply to oppose cars altogether, then I don't know where you can go. But I suppose you can find a bus to take you there...
- dasil003 10y ago
  There are also a lot of people who don't want to live in big cities, but do it for the economic opportunity.
- gozur88 10y ago
  Paying more for housing is part of moving to a big city.
mc32 10y ago
I'd never suggest giving up the right to live where you want while you have the means. We can have both mice smallish but well-cultured cities that respect their surroundings as well as have vibrant rural communities. Think Heidelberg and its surrounds, maybe Ithaca in NY.

mc32 10y ago

I think you can but you have to have something to divert the kids who graduate away from going to the big cities and have them build local cities [with local attractions such as jobs, education, cultural things, entertainment options]. Sure it will evacuate some of the rural areas some, but it should build nicer --perhaps even semi-planned areas, close by. It would require some central planning, which is a bit antithetical to us Americans but some people from other places might relate. And sure, some people do like living closer to nature. I acknowledge we have a nice core of people who love nature and land and cultivating the earth, what have you --they can still have their smaller ag-centered communities.