4 ms·
It's beneficial for the rest of the US to find solutions that make high density cities successful. Such locations tend to be both your cultural and economic cen
by tomkarlo 9y ago
It's beneficial for the rest of the US to find solutions that make high density cities successful. Such locations tend to be both your cultural and economic centers, in particular due to the network effects of putting so many people in close proximity to each other. (The Internet helps but hasn't proven to be a substitute quite yet.)
Additionally, dense urban areas tend to have the smallest environmental impact per capita (lower carbon footprint in particular), and help prevent the problem of urban sprawl invading rural areas. Nobody wants to live in a suburb that covers the whole country.
- alphonsegaston 9y agoThese solutions have already been found and implemented in developed countries around the world. The problems in the US are ideological limits that circumscribe the forms of collectivist action that are required to implement strategies that work. Singapore, Western Europe, Japan etc don’t have these limits and thus don’t have the problems that result from them. Heck in Singapore, upwards of 80% of people live in some form of public housing. It’s not means tested and there’s no stigma about it. How we’re currently trying to address these problem is a bit like trying to address climate change while refusing to believe it exists.
- tomkarlo 9y agoTotally agree. However, that doesn't absolve us of trying to find solutions that are feasible within our cultural and political landscape. At least in SF, for the moment, that primarily seems to mean getting more units built within the city, since we're not going to improve transit to other towns soon, nor are neighboring communities willing to build more units to help SF.