5 ms·

I'm not an expert on sprawl and QoL, but I'm pretty sure sprawl makes it harder to design effective public transportation (among other things). Likewise, the un

I'm not an expert on sprawl and QoL, but I'm pretty sure sprawl makes it harder to design effective public transportation (among other things). Likewise, the unavailability of effective public transit places a heavy reliance on personal transportation (i.e. cars), and by and large means long commutes in said car. Long daily commutes in a car don't sound very desirable, and probably do negatively impact QoL.

CamperBob2 9y ago
...probably do negatively impact QoL. With all due respect, there are about 5,999,999,998 people on Earth who didn't ask you or the grandparent poster.
- adrianN 9y ago
  Luckily, using the power of statistics we can get results using only a small number of people that are nevertheless valid for the whole population with reasonably high probability. There have been some studies regarding commuting time and well-being, for example [1], that show that longer commutes impact well-being negatively. Sprawl tends to increase commute times. [1] http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/wellbeing/measuring-national-well-being/commuting-and-personal-well-being--2014/art-commuting-and-personal-well-being.html#tab-5--How-important-is-actual-commuting-time- http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/htt...
  - CamperBob2 9y ago
    What is this "commuting" you speak of? I have to agree, it doesn't sound very pleasant.
- mcv 9y ago
  Should people only voice their opinion after the people of the world have had a vote on whether they're interested in it? Because I don't remember voting on your opinion either.
  - mason240 9y ago
    Make you a deal: you can live in the type of community you want, and I will live in the type I want, and we won't try to block eachother's pursuit of happiness. Then we don't need to conduct a poll to determine what lifestyle everyone else is going to be forced into.
  - CamperBob2 9y ago
    I'm not seeing opinions being voiced in this thread. I'm seeing them stated as objective facts. You're entitled to your opinions, and maybe you're even entitled to your own facts in this remarkable age in which we find ourselves living. But either way, when you presume to speak for others, you should expect to be called out for it. "Quality of life" is a pretty subjective thing
    - mcv 9y ago
      > "Quality of life" is a pretty subjective thing It absolutely is, but that doesn't mean you can't know anything about it. You can research subjective things by asking people how they feel about their quality of life. How happy they are. It turns out that in general, people with long commutes in areas dominated by cars are less happy than people who bicycle to work.
      - CamperBob2 9y ago
        It turns out that in general, people with long commutes in areas dominated by cars are less happy than people who bicycle to work. Hmm. Maybe you're right. That sounds entirely free from the possible influence of any additional factors.
mason240 9y ago
I would definitely prefer a longer commute coming from my single family home with a yard over being forced to use public transport and live in an apartment, and it's a preference shared by a large percentage of people.
- Decade 9y ago
  The preference has been distorted by propaganda and coercive redistribution of wealth. https://www.treehugger.com/urban-design/why-sprawl-was-caused-nuclear-arms-race-and-why-matters-more-ever-today.html https://www.treehugger.com/urban-design/why-sprawl-was-cause... Sure, I would like my own single family home, as long as I have access to all the other people and activities that make life worthwhile. Even better, I would like to have a castle in the wilderness, permitting no entrance without permission, with a teleporter so I can instantly commute to civilization. In the real world, we balance the things that we desire with what we need and what we can pay. Would you want to live in a single-family home if you had to pay what it really costs? https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2016/9/2/a-thousand-hidden-subsidies https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2016/9/2/a-thousand-hidd... In California, some of us recognize that castles are sprawl that destroys the wilderness. http://www.sfhac.org http://www.sfhac.org
  - mason240 9y ago
    The implied argument here is that suburban living is subsided by others, while urban living is not. This simply not true. Just as one example, the light rail lines in my metro does not even make enough in fares to cover operating expenses (which is actually a stated goal of out MetroTransit authority), much less their initial construction or ongoing maintenance costs.
    - Decade 9y ago
      Both are subsidized by unlimited debt financing. The difference is that car-free cities are physically possible to do without subsidy, mainly having a corruption problem, while suburbs as we know them are not. In particular, mass transit works if the average number passengers per mile is pretty high. The most obvious way to do that is to have a lot of homes and destinations close to each other, so the cars have a lot of passenger trips per vehicle trip. And then to take care of crowding, they can have higher frequency service and longer hours, which make mass transit more attractive, allowing more people to take transit instead of cars. Transit and housing are interconnected. If you start from a sprawled, low-density city, then light rail doesn't work economically.

CamperBob2 9y ago

...probably do negatively impact QoL. With all due respect, there are about 5,999,999,998 people on Earth who didn't ask you or the grandparent poster.

adrianN 9y ago
Luckily, using the power of statistics we can get results using only a small number of people that are nevertheless valid for the whole population with reasonably high probability. There have been some studies regarding commuting time and well-being, for example [1], that show that longer commutes impact well-being negatively. Sprawl tends to increase commute times. [1] http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/wellbeing/measuring-national-well-being/commuting-and-personal-well-being--2014/art-commuting-and-personal-well-being.html#tab-5--How-important-is-actual-commuting-time- http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/htt...
- CamperBob2 9y ago
  What is this "commuting" you speak of? I have to agree, it doesn't sound very pleasant.
mcv 9y ago
Should people only voice their opinion after the people of the world have had a vote on whether they're interested in it? Because I don't remember voting on your opinion either.
- mason240 9y ago
  Make you a deal: you can live in the type of community you want, and I will live in the type I want, and we won't try to block eachother's pursuit of happiness. Then we don't need to conduct a poll to determine what lifestyle everyone else is going to be forced into.
- CamperBob2 9y ago
  I'm not seeing opinions being voiced in this thread. I'm seeing them stated as objective facts. You're entitled to your opinions, and maybe you're even entitled to your own facts in this remarkable age in which we find ourselves living. But either way, when you presume to speak for others, you should expect to be called out for it. "Quality of life" is a pretty subjective thing
  - mcv 9y ago
    > "Quality of life" is a pretty subjective thing It absolutely is, but that doesn't mean you can't know anything about it. You can research subjective things by asking people how they feel about their quality of life. How happy they are. It turns out that in general, people with long commutes in areas dominated by cars are less happy than people who bicycle to work.
    - CamperBob2 9y ago
      It turns out that in general, people with long commutes in areas dominated by cars are less happy than people who bicycle to work. Hmm. Maybe you're right. That sounds entirely free from the possible influence of any additional factors.

mason240 9y ago

I would definitely prefer a longer commute coming from my single family home with a yard over being forced to use public transport and live in an apartment, and it's a preference shared by a large percentage of people.

Decade 9y ago
The preference has been distorted by propaganda and coercive redistribution of wealth. https://www.treehugger.com/urban-design/why-sprawl-was-caused-nuclear-arms-race-and-why-matters-more-ever-today.html https://www.treehugger.com/urban-design/why-sprawl-was-cause... Sure, I would like my own single family home, as long as I have access to all the other people and activities that make life worthwhile. Even better, I would like to have a castle in the wilderness, permitting no entrance without permission, with a teleporter so I can instantly commute to civilization. In the real world, we balance the things that we desire with what we need and what we can pay. Would you want to live in a single-family home if you had to pay what it really costs? https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2016/9/2/a-thousand-hidden-subsidies https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2016/9/2/a-thousand-hidd... In California, some of us recognize that castles are sprawl that destroys the wilderness. http://www.sfhac.org http://www.sfhac.org
- mason240 9y ago
  The implied argument here is that suburban living is subsided by others, while urban living is not. This simply not true. Just as one example, the light rail lines in my metro does not even make enough in fares to cover operating expenses (which is actually a stated goal of out MetroTransit authority), much less their initial construction or ongoing maintenance costs.
  - Decade 9y ago
    Both are subsidized by unlimited debt financing. The difference is that car-free cities are physically possible to do without subsidy, mainly having a corruption problem, while suburbs as we know them are not. In particular, mass transit works if the average number passengers per mile is pretty high. The most obvious way to do that is to have a lot of homes and destinations close to each other, so the cars have a lot of passenger trips per vehicle trip. And then to take care of crowding, they can have higher frequency service and longer hours, which make mass transit more attractive, allowing more people to take transit instead of cars. Transit and housing are interconnected. If you start from a sprawled, low-density city, then light rail doesn't work economically.