7 ms·

I don’t think I’ve ever dreamt of living in 60 cubic feet of space. Maybe instead we should, I don’t know, create more places where people want to be, rather th

I don’t think I’ve ever dreamt of living in 60 cubic feet of space. Maybe instead we should, I don’t know, create more places where people want to be, rather than trying to cram everyone in the world into NYC and the Bay Area. One of the biggest resources in the US is cheap abundant land. Why the hell are we concentrating all the talent in a few square miles of it?

leggomylibro 9y ago
Because all the talent likes being able to walk places in a few minutes. I propose jetpacks, to vastly extend peoples' comfortable walking radii.
- codemac 9y ago
  Hate to sound like the nerd... but segways are freaking fantastic. If you haven't ridden one, go on a "segway" tour of your city. Super fun, and you can see just how simple and mobile you are. Completely replaces most small bus hops.
  - dreamcompiler 9y ago
    Not denying what you wrote, but a folding bike is cheaper, probably more portable (i.e. you can take it on a plane with you) and it doesn't need recharging.
- vilhelm_s 9y ago
  Or we could all just live in cars! It all fits.
- IgorPartola 9y ago
  Is that really the number one priority for talented people? Walking? Besides, we have a dozen modes of transportation already available: cars, buses, motorcycles, segways, bicycles, subways, trams, taxis, powered walkways, rollerblades, skateboards, hover boards, ATVs, skis, sleds, horses, etc. How exactly is walking the panacea of transportation? So much so that people would be willing to live in cars?
  - santaclaus 9y ago
    > Is that really the number one priority for talented people? Walking? Just walking? Maybe not. But fast commutes to work, easy access to restaurants, easy access to culture, lots of things to do nearby, large dating pools? Most certainly. > cars, buses, motorcycles, segways, bicycles, subways, trams, taxis, powered walkways, rollerblades, skateboards, hover boards, ATVs, skis, sleds, horses All of which take lots of time! People pay lots of money to live in certain neighborhoods (think Williamsburg and the like) for a reason.
    - newlyretired 9y ago
      I'm reading Haidt's "Happiness Hypothesis" right now, and in one section he identifies life circumstances which people never adjust to (i.e. excluded from the Hedonistic treadmill effect). A long commute is something he identifies as always a negative. Humans don't seem to adjust to a long commute -- it will always negatively impact the typical person's outlook/affect/happiness.
  - freshhawk 9y ago
    Congregating close to other talented people? Yes, it appears to be very very highly valued and the resulting cross-pollination of ideas a core reason that dense areas have very high creative output.
    - IgorPartola 9y ago
      Are you willing to have millions of people move into your city and sleep in cars in the name of having some of the more talented ones nearby? At that point, why even bother with cars? Coffin hotels are a thing, let's just cover SF in those. We could charge $3-5k/month per coffin!
      - freshhawk 9y ago
        Not at all, I'm personally a fan of very dense mixed-use plans when it comes to urban development styles. But I was just answering your question about why walking is such a priority for talented people and why "walkability scores" are a thing. Clearly if we're talking about walking most places then everyone having a large car doesn't make much sense in the first place, nevermind living in it. That's just weird Telsa fetish stuff. I grew up in suburbs and consider them soul sucking hellscapes for robots who've learned to feel despair ... so that probably colors my view of basing cities around them by having people drive all the time.
- mikepurvis 9y ago
  I got a boosted board at this beginning of this summer, and I've really enjoyed using it to get around. It's mostly for my commute, but I've definitely taken it out in the evenings and stuff too— indeed, my main complaint is that I haven't yet gotten proper lights for it, so I can't ride after dark.
Brakenshire 9y ago
Or just build more houses where people want to live? They want to be there because lots of other talented people are there, with all the opportunities of culture, education, and jobs that brings. And also they want to be able to get around easily, not rely on their car.
dogruck 9y ago
Two reasons: - living outside of a city is actually a luxury. Cheap land, but a long distance to culture and services. Most people cannot afford a car, for example. - rural living is more detrimental to the environment
- IgorPartola 9y ago
  So people who can't afford a car should give up whatever housing they have outside a city and buy a Tesla, then move into the city and live in the car? Like, I guess I don't understand how nobody is seeing the dystopian future where you have to live in a goddamn car because you can't afford proper shelter. I know it's a thing elsewhere in the world, but people are try to get out of that, not into it.
  - dogruck 9y ago
    It's actually a relative luxury to live in a car. Living in a car is more expensive than, say, living on a cot in a group shelter. If we were most concerned about maximizing efficiency, we'd all be living in dense urban environments, using shared public transportation, etc. Most people would sleep in something similar to a Capsule Hotel. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsule_hotel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsule_hotel
    - IgorPartola 9y ago
      Right. I am saying that it seems not desirable to live in Capsule hotels, cars, shared shelters. We can do better than that. Why move in that direction?
      - dogruck 9y ago
        I feel ya. I have three thoughts: 1. Could view it as a cultural thing. For example, some cultures might embrace minimal personal space. And, the media keeps talking about the "tiny house movement." 2. Everything is relative. I personally opted to buy a smaller house than I could afford, and I generally try to live minimally. 3. In general, it's better for the collective good (less waste) to move in that direction. That said, technological advance might some day allow every human to live in a McMansion.

leggomylibro 9y ago

Because all the talent likes being able to walk places in a few minutes. I propose jetpacks, to vastly extend peoples' comfortable walking radii.

codemac 9y ago
Hate to sound like the nerd... but segways are freaking fantastic. If you haven't ridden one, go on a "segway" tour of your city. Super fun, and you can see just how simple and mobile you are. Completely replaces most small bus hops.
- dreamcompiler 9y ago
  Not denying what you wrote, but a folding bike is cheaper, probably more portable (i.e. you can take it on a plane with you) and it doesn't need recharging.
vilhelm_s 9y ago
Or we could all just live in cars! It all fits.
IgorPartola 9y ago
Is that really the number one priority for talented people? Walking? Besides, we have a dozen modes of transportation already available: cars, buses, motorcycles, segways, bicycles, subways, trams, taxis, powered walkways, rollerblades, skateboards, hover boards, ATVs, skis, sleds, horses, etc. How exactly is walking the panacea of transportation? So much so that people would be willing to live in cars?
- santaclaus 9y ago
  > Is that really the number one priority for talented people? Walking? Just walking? Maybe not. But fast commutes to work, easy access to restaurants, easy access to culture, lots of things to do nearby, large dating pools? Most certainly. > cars, buses, motorcycles, segways, bicycles, subways, trams, taxis, powered walkways, rollerblades, skateboards, hover boards, ATVs, skis, sleds, horses All of which take lots of time! People pay lots of money to live in certain neighborhoods (think Williamsburg and the like) for a reason.
  - newlyretired 9y ago
    I'm reading Haidt's "Happiness Hypothesis" right now, and in one section he identifies life circumstances which people never adjust to (i.e. excluded from the Hedonistic treadmill effect). A long commute is something he identifies as always a negative. Humans don't seem to adjust to a long commute -- it will always negatively impact the typical person's outlook/affect/happiness.
- freshhawk 9y ago
  Congregating close to other talented people? Yes, it appears to be very very highly valued and the resulting cross-pollination of ideas a core reason that dense areas have very high creative output.
  - IgorPartola 9y ago
    Are you willing to have millions of people move into your city and sleep in cars in the name of having some of the more talented ones nearby? At that point, why even bother with cars? Coffin hotels are a thing, let's just cover SF in those. We could charge $3-5k/month per coffin!
    - freshhawk 9y ago
      Not at all, I'm personally a fan of very dense mixed-use plans when it comes to urban development styles. But I was just answering your question about why walking is such a priority for talented people and why "walkability scores" are a thing. Clearly if we're talking about walking most places then everyone having a large car doesn't make much sense in the first place, nevermind living in it. That's just weird Telsa fetish stuff. I grew up in suburbs and consider them soul sucking hellscapes for robots who've learned to feel despair ... so that probably colors my view of basing cities around them by having people drive all the time.
mikepurvis 9y ago
I got a boosted board at this beginning of this summer, and I've really enjoyed using it to get around. It's mostly for my commute, but I've definitely taken it out in the evenings and stuff too— indeed, my main complaint is that I haven't yet gotten proper lights for it, so I can't ride after dark.

Brakenshire 9y ago

Or just build more houses where people want to live? They want to be there because lots of other talented people are there, with all the opportunities of culture, education, and jobs that brings. And also they want to be able to get around easily, not rely on their car.

dogruck 9y ago

Two reasons: - living outside of a city is actually a luxury. Cheap land, but a long distance to culture and services. Most people cannot afford a car, for example. - rural living is more detrimental to the environment

IgorPartola 9y ago
So people who can't afford a car should give up whatever housing they have outside a city and buy a Tesla, then move into the city and live in the car? Like, I guess I don't understand how nobody is seeing the dystopian future where you have to live in a goddamn car because you can't afford proper shelter. I know it's a thing elsewhere in the world, but people are try to get out of that, not into it.
- dogruck 9y ago
  It's actually a relative luxury to live in a car. Living in a car is more expensive than, say, living on a cot in a group shelter. If we were most concerned about maximizing efficiency, we'd all be living in dense urban environments, using shared public transportation, etc. Most people would sleep in something similar to a Capsule Hotel. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsule_hotel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsule_hotel
  - IgorPartola 9y ago
    Right. I am saying that it seems not desirable to live in Capsule hotels, cars, shared shelters. We can do better than that. Why move in that direction?
    - dogruck 9y ago
      I feel ya. I have three thoughts: 1. Could view it as a cultural thing. For example, some cultures might embrace minimal personal space. And, the media keeps talking about the "tiny house movement." 2. Everything is relative. I personally opted to buy a smaller house than I could afford, and I generally try to live minimally. 3. In general, it's better for the collective good (less waste) to move in that direction. That said, technological advance might some day allow every human to live in a McMansion.