5 ms·

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 exa

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.
      - timthelion 9y ago
        I grew up in a neighborhood with large houses and "horse lots" and I always dreamed of living in the apartment block in the next neighborhood over, because I had no one to play with, and the "poor kids" over there were always together.
      - beingmyself2 9y ago
        The tiny house movement is because people can't afford regular houses so they build glorified sheds on whatever scraps of land they can afford. Cities are breeding grounds for disease primarily because of the lack of personal space.
      - IgorPartola 9y ago
        See I can totally get behind what you are saying. Or at least most of it. Tiny houses require a lot of external infrastructure to make work. Again, a few people camping out in Golden Gate park is not an issue. Thousands would be. Also remember that there isn’t a big difference between tiny houses and trailers. Imagine turning SF into a trailer park. But there is a huge difference between a minimally viable shelter (electricity, plumbing, standing room, privacy) and a car or a capsule. Where exactly do you have sex? Vomit when sick? Keep a pet gold fish? Cook? Poop? All of that is possible in 400 sqft apartment and not possible in a car. So it’s not quite relative.
- timthelion 9y ago
  What is dystopian about not forbidding it. I didn't suggest we force everyone to live in cars, I suggested that it shouldn't be illegal.
  - IgorPartola 9y ago
    The long term effect is that it allows for landlords who own parking spaces to charge what is currently charged for a small apartment, charge for small apartments what is currently changed for large ones, and so on. SF already has a housing problem. This would invite more people in without actually adding proper housing. How many hundreds of thousands or millions of people would do it? Have you thought about the plumbing issues associated with adding people without bathrooms? One person roughing it in a car and using public facilities is ok. Several thousand is an annoyance. Snowball that to few hundred thousand and you have a shit river.
gaius 9y ago
rural living is more detrimental to the environment Good luck with your city without rural folks to grow your food...
- TheCoelacanth 9y ago
  Less than 2% of the US's population works in agriculture. Nearly 20% live in rural areas. We are no where close to the point where we need to worry about having too few people living in rural areas to be able to grow food.
  - gaius 9y ago
    Those farmers don't need any network around them then? Just farms and more farms? Who does all the non-farming stuff in your vision of rural areas? Noone needs a plumber or a dentist or a schoolteacher?
mercutio2 9y ago
Hey, I’m pretty darn pro-density, but “most people cannot afford a car” is just a false statistical statement about the US adult population, unless you add some MAJOR caveats.

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.
    - timthelion 9y ago
      I grew up in a neighborhood with large houses and "horse lots" and I always dreamed of living in the apartment block in the next neighborhood over, because I had no one to play with, and the "poor kids" over there were always together.
    - beingmyself2 9y ago
      The tiny house movement is because people can't afford regular houses so they build glorified sheds on whatever scraps of land they can afford. Cities are breeding grounds for disease primarily because of the lack of personal space.
    - IgorPartola 9y ago
      See I can totally get behind what you are saying. Or at least most of it. Tiny houses require a lot of external infrastructure to make work. Again, a few people camping out in Golden Gate park is not an issue. Thousands would be. Also remember that there isn’t a big difference between tiny houses and trailers. Imagine turning SF into a trailer park. But there is a huge difference between a minimally viable shelter (electricity, plumbing, standing room, privacy) and a car or a capsule. Where exactly do you have sex? Vomit when sick? Keep a pet gold fish? Cook? Poop? All of that is possible in 400 sqft apartment and not possible in a car. So it’s not quite relative.
timthelion 9y ago
What is dystopian about not forbidding it. I didn't suggest we force everyone to live in cars, I suggested that it shouldn't be illegal.
- IgorPartola 9y ago
  The long term effect is that it allows for landlords who own parking spaces to charge what is currently charged for a small apartment, charge for small apartments what is currently changed for large ones, and so on. SF already has a housing problem. This would invite more people in without actually adding proper housing. How many hundreds of thousands or millions of people would do it? Have you thought about the plumbing issues associated with adding people without bathrooms? One person roughing it in a car and using public facilities is ok. Several thousand is an annoyance. Snowball that to few hundred thousand and you have a shit river.

gaius 9y ago

rural living is more detrimental to the environment Good luck with your city without rural folks to grow your food...

TheCoelacanth 9y ago
Less than 2% of the US's population works in agriculture. Nearly 20% live in rural areas. We are no where close to the point where we need to worry about having too few people living in rural areas to be able to grow food.
- gaius 9y ago
  Those farmers don't need any network around them then? Just farms and more farms? Who does all the non-farming stuff in your vision of rural areas? Noone needs a plumber or a dentist or a schoolteacher?

mercutio2 9y ago

Hey, I’m pretty darn pro-density, but “most people cannot afford a car” is just a false statistical statement about the US adult population, unless you add some MAJOR caveats.