3 ms·

Why does it have to be urban? As a rural resident I do not understand the attraction. I can walk or bike everywhere that I want to go. Thousands of miles of tra

Why does it have to be urban? As a rural resident I do not understand the attraction. I can walk or bike everywhere that I want to go. Thousands of miles of trails branch out in every direction depending on my heart's content. Farms within easy distance produce a bounty to enjoy, including world class beer. I am not sure why the growing trend toward global mega-cities is in our best interest.

ajb 10y ago
Well, in the UK, rural voters largely vote to prevent urban people moving to the countryside, by maintaining restrictive planning laws.
- dpwm 10y ago
  The UK also has a long history of poorly distributed land "ownership" [1]. Considerably more than half the land in the UK is controlled by approximately 6000 families. The wealthiest were given real law-making / killing power through the House of Lords until 1999, when most (but not all) hereditary peerages were removed. Much of this land comes with subsidies and titles. Immense amounts of money can be made from grouse shooting. There's not really an incentive to sell land. There also tends to be a stigma in selling off inherited land -- like the end of a dynasty. Much of the land that is bought by developers is land that was sold by developers. When land is sold from these families, it is sold for very high amounts because demand is high and supply is low. Land can make up ~50% of a new house price. I do not know if there is any collusion amongst those who do own the land, but any such collusion would bring enormous advantages and would almost certainly not be condemned in any way. Affordable housing in the UK is a needlessly scarce resource. Instead of focusing on supply, which would lead to a long-term solution, much of the media has jumped through hoops to focus on the short-term demand caused by immigration whilst ignoring the slightly peculiar policy to sell off state-owned affordable housing to banks. --- [1] Land ownership in England and Wales is interesting -- the Crown owns all the land, and landowners buy a title to the land. Scotland is different again and a greater proportion of land is in the hands of a smaller proportion of the population.
trynewideas 10y ago
Your rural experience isn't universal, the majority, common, or even frequent.
hillz 10y ago
Living in a city does tend to produce fewer greenhouse gases. But the reason most people live in cities? Jobs.
- frozenport 10y ago
  Also fun.
aerovistae 10y ago
Let me give you someone else's perspective (mine.) I'm 25, I'm a dev, I'm single, I like spending time with people. I like to plan far ahead. In cities, I can command a far higher pay more easily--- getting over $100k is the norm. This is important to me, because I like having excess money to buy stocks for years to come. If I wanted to live in the Montana outback, it may be difficult for me to find a company willing to pay at that level. The options would be far more limited. It would be "take what you can get," and take what they offer. But the truth is, there's not many companies hiring devs in the Montana outback. I don't like working remotely because I'm not personally comfortable with it-- I often need to ask more tenured devs a lot of questions about legacy code and I like to be there in person to do it. So that isn't an option I'm interested in. I like to have things to do after work-- rock gyms, parks, classes, shows, movies, events, martial arts, or just wandering around various city districts. In the outback, this isn't an option. In small towns you have the outdoors, but you'll often have to drive 40 minutes to get groceries (Source: I'm currently on a farm in a town you've never heard of in the middle of Virginia.) There is not a plentitude of people in their 20s available to spend time with or meet in rural settings. There are no meetups, there are no clubs, there are no rock gyms. The social groups are often more targeted towards 40+ groups, because that's who lives out there. I personally don't think it's likely I would make many new friends or find many people to date in a rural setting. In the city, I can get paid what I want, I can meet new people and try new things every day, I have hundreds or thousands of restaurants to choose from (I like eating out!), I have many stores nearby for buying all variety of goods, I can go to a beautiful park like Central Park and enjoy it and maybe meet people there. I can sign up for classes in almost anything. From where I'm sitting, it's hard to see why someone in my position wouldn't want to live in a city. Sure, once you're settled and no longer feel a need for these things, I understand it perfectly. But when you're in your early 20s? Seems the clear choice.
- bobochan 10y ago
  I can understand everything you mentioned. I am a little over 50, but I have a salary commensurate with what most developers are getting. I can imagine that rock gyms and parks are nice, but my personal preference is actual rocks and trails. You make a good some good points about clubs and proximity to groups of 20 somethings though, those are certainly in short supply where I am. Different locations are attractive at different stages in life, so I'm glad your are enjoying your 20s. I spent my 20s working around the world in Europe, Asia, and Africa, and I have never regretted a single minute of that time. At this point in my life I'm very happy to have a general store, a brew pub, a French restaurant, and my office within an easy ski or walk of where I live.
genericpseudo 10y ago
Energy efficiency. Rural living cannot be made energy-efficient and as such is, ironically enough, catastrophically environmentally unfriendly.
- Anasufovic 10y ago
  Plus depending on where you are it may be subsidized.
BjoernKW 10y ago
Everyone's different. I certainly like nature but I can't imagine living in the countryside. Just to give you my perspective why I think city life is fantastic: First thing that comes to mind: I like (mostly non-mainstream) music and I like to go to live music events. There's no way I can do that frequently in a rural area. Well, apart from driving to the next larger city, that is. Which brings me to the next point: While public transport in larger cities often is far from perfect it's ok to pretty decent most of the time. Living in a rural area requires owning a car, something which I've given up on years ago and never intend to do again. Then there's the economic aspect of cities: Where there's a greater density of people and companies there also is more potential income available. Cities allow you to make new connections on a regular basis. Meeting new people allows you to explore new opportunities - economic or otherwise - if only by serendipity. Apart from that, large cities counterintuitively also make sense ecologically because they require less resources than if the some number of human beings lived spread out through the country.
- bobochan 10y ago
  All good points. I personally consider every time I get in the car to be a failure on my part that I regret. It takes some planning, but I get around mostly by walking, biking, and taking advantage of our regional bus system (which admittedly does not come very often). Other friends of mine commute by cross country skiing or by rowing when the weather makes it conducive. There is a lot of great music in rural areas, especially live music. It helps if you develop an appreciation for fiddle music and sad songs about logging camps, the love that you lost, and really good dogs. Admittedly these may be acquired tastes. Having close contacts in urban areas certainly helps on the income front, and I will admit is that a minimum of a three hour drive to the nearest major airport makes jetting off to speak or consult challenging. I am definitely going to look into the ecological balance, because I that is something I cannot speak to. A lot of my neighbors have solar panels and are off the grid, but you could be right about that.

ajb 10y ago

Well, in the UK, rural voters largely vote to prevent urban people moving to the countryside, by maintaining restrictive planning laws.

dpwm 10y ago
The UK also has a long history of poorly distributed land "ownership" [1]. Considerably more than half the land in the UK is controlled by approximately 6000 families. The wealthiest were given real law-making / killing power through the House of Lords until 1999, when most (but not all) hereditary peerages were removed. Much of this land comes with subsidies and titles. Immense amounts of money can be made from grouse shooting. There's not really an incentive to sell land. There also tends to be a stigma in selling off inherited land -- like the end of a dynasty. Much of the land that is bought by developers is land that was sold by developers. When land is sold from these families, it is sold for very high amounts because demand is high and supply is low. Land can make up ~50% of a new house price. I do not know if there is any collusion amongst those who do own the land, but any such collusion would bring enormous advantages and would almost certainly not be condemned in any way. Affordable housing in the UK is a needlessly scarce resource. Instead of focusing on supply, which would lead to a long-term solution, much of the media has jumped through hoops to focus on the short-term demand caused by immigration whilst ignoring the slightly peculiar policy to sell off state-owned affordable housing to banks. --- [1] Land ownership in England and Wales is interesting -- the Crown owns all the land, and landowners buy a title to the land. Scotland is different again and a greater proportion of land is in the hands of a smaller proportion of the population.

trynewideas 10y ago

Your rural experience isn't universal, the majority, common, or even frequent.

hillz 10y ago

Living in a city does tend to produce fewer greenhouse gases. But the reason most people live in cities? Jobs.

frozenport 10y ago
Also fun.

aerovistae 10y ago

Let me give you someone else's perspective (mine.) I'm 25, I'm a dev, I'm single, I like spending time with people. I like to plan far ahead. In cities, I can command a far higher pay more easily--- getting over $100k is the norm. This is important to me, because I like having excess money to buy stocks for years to come. If I wanted to live in the Montana outback, it may be difficult for me to find a company willing to pay at that level. The options would be far more limited. It would be "take what you can get," and take what they offer. But the truth is, there's not many companies hiring devs in the Montana outback. I don't like working remotely because I'm not personally comfortable with it-- I often need to ask more tenured devs a lot of questions about legacy code and I like to be there in person to do it. So that isn't an option I'm interested in. I like to have things to do after work-- rock gyms, parks, classes, shows, movies, events, martial arts, or just wandering around various city districts. In the outback, this isn't an option. In small towns you have the outdoors, but you'll often have to drive 40 minutes to get groceries (Source: I'm currently on a farm in a town you've never heard of in the middle of Virginia.) There is not a plentitude of people in their 20s available to spend time with or meet in rural settings. There are no meetups, there are no clubs, there are no rock gyms. The social groups are often more targeted towards 40+ groups, because that's who lives out there. I personally don't think it's likely I would make many new friends or find many people to date in a rural setting. In the city, I can get paid what I want, I can meet new people and try new things every day, I have hundreds or thousands of restaurants to choose from (I like eating out!), I have many stores nearby for buying all variety of goods, I can go to a beautiful park like Central Park and enjoy it and maybe meet people there. I can sign up for classes in almost anything. From where I'm sitting, it's hard to see why someone in my position wouldn't want to live in a city. Sure, once you're settled and no longer feel a need for these things, I understand it perfectly. But when you're in your early 20s? Seems the clear choice.

bobochan 10y ago
I can understand everything you mentioned. I am a little over 50, but I have a salary commensurate with what most developers are getting. I can imagine that rock gyms and parks are nice, but my personal preference is actual rocks and trails. You make a good some good points about clubs and proximity to groups of 20 somethings though, those are certainly in short supply where I am. Different locations are attractive at different stages in life, so I'm glad your are enjoying your 20s. I spent my 20s working around the world in Europe, Asia, and Africa, and I have never regretted a single minute of that time. At this point in my life I'm very happy to have a general store, a brew pub, a French restaurant, and my office within an easy ski or walk of where I live.

genericpseudo 10y ago

Energy efficiency. Rural living cannot be made energy-efficient and as such is, ironically enough, catastrophically environmentally unfriendly.

Anasufovic 10y ago
Plus depending on where you are it may be subsidized.

BjoernKW 10y ago

Everyone's different. I certainly like nature but I can't imagine living in the countryside. Just to give you my perspective why I think city life is fantastic: First thing that comes to mind: I like (mostly non-mainstream) music and I like to go to live music events. There's no way I can do that frequently in a rural area. Well, apart from driving to the next larger city, that is. Which brings me to the next point: While public transport in larger cities often is far from perfect it's ok to pretty decent most of the time. Living in a rural area requires owning a car, something which I've given up on years ago and never intend to do again. Then there's the economic aspect of cities: Where there's a greater density of people and companies there also is more potential income available. Cities allow you to make new connections on a regular basis. Meeting new people allows you to explore new opportunities - economic or otherwise - if only by serendipity. Apart from that, large cities counterintuitively also make sense ecologically because they require less resources than if the some number of human beings lived spread out through the country.

bobochan 10y ago
All good points. I personally consider every time I get in the car to be a failure on my part that I regret. It takes some planning, but I get around mostly by walking, biking, and taking advantage of our regional bus system (which admittedly does not come very often). Other friends of mine commute by cross country skiing or by rowing when the weather makes it conducive. There is a lot of great music in rural areas, especially live music. It helps if you develop an appreciation for fiddle music and sad songs about logging camps, the love that you lost, and really good dogs. Admittedly these may be acquired tastes. Having close contacts in urban areas certainly helps on the income front, and I will admit is that a minimum of a three hour drive to the nearest major airport makes jetting off to speak or consult challenging. I am definitely going to look into the ecological balance, because I that is something I cannot speak to. A lot of my neighbors have solar panels and are off the grid, but you could be right about that.