4 ms·
Any big urban centers, yes. But there's tons of smaller villages or tiny cities which are losing population. For a better quality of life for all, we have to s
by IkmoIkmo 9y ago
Any big urban centers, yes. But there's tons of smaller villages or tiny cities which are losing population.
For a better quality of life for all, we have to start thinking about ways to spread this around more because now it's a one-way stream from low-density areas to high-density areas, the former has no future (it's emptying), the latter becomes unaffordable. (the more density, the more demand/production per square meter, the higher land prices and the higher all costs->prices of any production in that area, not just housing but anything).
Population density can be very valuable (it's efficient, for one), and I'm a big proponent of cities in general, but there are limits. At some point density starts reducing quality of life.
- dba7dba 9y agoAnd I think google and other big tech companies can lead the way. It really is good for humanity and earth.
- adrianN 9y agoLower density living is not very good for the environment.
- zinckiwi 9y agoI think you're talking cross-purposes. All else being equal, higher density has the edge in many aspects. But the smaller cities need to build themselves up, rather than (in the tech industry at least) everyone flocking to the one or two hotspots in any country. Why the industry isn't embracing remote work is a mystery to me. I'm fortunate enough to work for a distributed company and the single biggest perk to me is that I don't have to live in SF (or the USA, for that matter).