3 ms·

Population is not constant and specially is not constant in any land, people tend to move following work opportunity, quality of life, to escape crisis etc. So

by xte 8y ago

Population is not constant and specially is not constant in any land, people tend to move following work opportunity, quality of life, to escape crisis etc. So no, while these change are slow in general they are and it's always a mess to handle "abandoned" towns than abandoned single homes... About roads: try to think how much material you need and regularly consume in a town vs countryside roads, also imaging not today but in an imaginary tomorrow world how much roads we will need in a really low dense country vs in "megacities". Without counting what happen in case of floods or other problems in a town vs elsewhere and the relevant cost to repair. Only imaging september 11th in a country without dense urban agglomeration: how much victims, costs, effects it may have had in such scenario? What help my arguments are tons of small things grouped together, the sole things it doesn't help is hospital/emergency service proximity in case of need, but that's compensated by a properly organized sanitary system and a strong public investments in that sector (a thing we desperately need also for many other reasons). Another is the problem of few residual but important labor-intensive activities that require many, many people in a concentrated place, but again this is less and less important thanks to automation. A simple, yet stupid arguments, that my clearly demonstrate advantage of single can be: what if there was a strike, a big one, and you do not found anymore essence for your car? In a town substantially anything can't work anymore, electric public transportation may work but see Gilet Jaunes in France today and Paris status these days. In the countryside nearly anyone have a big tank (500/1000 liter) of reserve. There is place for that. There is place for keep large quantity of food (perhaps with dual-energy freezer electricity/butane gas with enough cylinders, around 20Kg/month to give a quantity) etc. Imaging only elevators out of services due to a short electricity outage.

lolc 8y ago
You're ignoring facts. Again. Building and maintaining roads and utilities into urban sprawl is very expensive. Public transport is less effective there. The bigger the area you need to protect against floods, the harder it becomes. Cities hardly ever move, they grow. And the horror scenarios? Please, people in the country will be hit just the same when they can't get gas anymore. Or when the food supply stops. What you're saying is: "Wouldn't it be nice if we all lived in the countryside?" That idea has crashed decades ago. It's unrealistic. Please stop.
- xte 8y ago
  So unrealistic that it's become a common practice in most developed countries... Try asking a Swedish or a French (with exception of few Parisian) what they think about cities. BTW try to determine cost per capita of countryside living and city living, also notice that foods normally came from country and sea, not from cities, oil&gas tend to be the same (how many oil/gas extraction are done inside NY?)... This idea crashed only in few countries, mostly from the third world, in the developed world only USA, Russia and eastern Europe.
  - lolc 8y ago
    > try to determine cost per capita of countryside living and city living Only to have you telling me I'm doing it wrong based on personal anecdotes? No thanks. I have no trust it would lead to a useful discussion. > also notice that foods normally came from country and sea, not from cities, Food and gas don't come out of suburbia either. What's your point? > This idea crashed only in few countries, mostly from the third world, in the developed world only USA, Russia and eastern Europe. What third-world countries? It's not 1960 anymore. People all over the world are moving into large cities. They are not waiting for the cities to build the roads and pipes your idea requires.

by xte 8y ago

lolc 8y ago

You're ignoring facts. Again. Building and maintaining roads and utilities into urban sprawl is very expensive. Public transport is less effective there. The bigger the area you need to protect against floods, the harder it becomes. Cities hardly ever move, they grow. And the horror scenarios? Please, people in the country will be hit just the same when they can't get gas anymore. Or when the food supply stops. What you're saying is: "Wouldn't it be nice if we all lived in the countryside?" That idea has crashed decades ago. It's unrealistic. Please stop.

xte 8y ago
So unrealistic that it's become a common practice in most developed countries... Try asking a Swedish or a French (with exception of few Parisian) what they think about cities. BTW try to determine cost per capita of countryside living and city living, also notice that foods normally came from country and sea, not from cities, oil&gas tend to be the same (how many oil/gas extraction are done inside NY?)... This idea crashed only in few countries, mostly from the third world, in the developed world only USA, Russia and eastern Europe.
- lolc 8y ago
  > try to determine cost per capita of countryside living and city living Only to have you telling me I'm doing it wrong based on personal anecdotes? No thanks. I have no trust it would lead to a useful discussion. > also notice that foods normally came from country and sea, not from cities, Food and gas don't come out of suburbia either. What's your point? > This idea crashed only in few countries, mostly from the third world, in the developed world only USA, Russia and eastern Europe. What third-world countries? It's not 1960 anymore. People all over the world are moving into large cities. They are not waiting for the cities to build the roads and pipes your idea requires.