4 ms·

I’d argue that cities will shrink over time. It’s going to become easier for people to live in rural areas. I don’t think there is some magic formula to manage

I’d argue that cities will shrink over time. It’s going to become easier for people to live in rural areas. I don’t think there is some magic formula to manage the inevitable congestion (not just traffic). Edit: It’d also be interesting to see the environmental impact of mega cities. And what about cities like Portland where they have put in a lot effort to plan around growth? Is it working?

adwww 8y ago
It's not happening though. My parents live in a beautiful part of the rural UK and have super-fast fibre to the premises internet, next day Amazon prime available, online food shopping from 4 or so supermarkets locally, etc. Basically everything you'd think you'd need to live away from the city, but still the area is depopulating rapidly. Younger people don't want a life of car dependancy and social isolation.
- shawabawa3 8y ago
  I think there's a chance that remote working might really take off. From a cost-saving perspective it makes so much sense - we already went from offices -> open plan, if we go from open plan -> remote being the new norm, suddenly there will be jobs everywhere, and that will change everything
  - asdff 8y ago
    Not every job can be remote if people need shared equipment or resources. There's a lot of intangible benefits to having everyone working nearby. I get a lot of help from people just because they are nearby and I can ask them a question about something or their advice, and I think that alone outweighs for me being able to sit on my couch in sweatpants with my laptop.
- geocar 8y ago
  If you don't mind: Which part of the rural UK is this? I live in London and have pants for Internet (oversubscribed FTTC).
  - adwww 8y ago
    Cornwall. I think the EU funded the fibre - they've had it for years. Massive leave voting area, of course.
- SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
  > Younger people don't want a life of car dependency and social isolation. When I moved from my families acreage that was 10 minutes out of town it wasn't because of social isolation or car dependence - it was because I couldn't get an post-secondary education in my community. Even if I hadn't gone for an education, there was a ton more employment opportunities in the urban centre. I stayed in the city because "junior software developer" is a super hard sell in a town of 2,500. Now that I've more experience I could probably swing the "work remote" thing, but it just wasn't an option starting my career.
  - adwww 8y ago
    Ah yeah I didn't mention employment which is clearly the biggest barrier at the moment to living outside urban areas, as I assumed the parent comment was suggesting remote working is what will enable moving away from big cities.
- randomdata 8y ago
  It seems to be happening in Canada. The latest official population figures are, unfortunately, from way back in 2016, however at that time the numbers showed that communities with more than 100,000 people were already losing share of population. If we can use home sales data (activity and price) as a proxy for where people are living more recently, there has been a sharp decline in Canada's cities in the last year. At the same time, predominately rural areas have seen a huge spike. This suggests that the trend that was already becoming visible in 2016 has only accelerated. It is not like whole cities have decided to leave overnight, but there is a noticeable shift going on.
  - dashundchen 8y ago
    I'm curious what statistics you are looking at. I honestly would be shocked if rural regions were growing in Canada, and the stats you were looking at were more a story of urbanization taking over formerly exurban or rural small towns in a metro region. I guess the oil and gas regions might be an exception there. https://www.statista.com/statistics/271208/urbanization-in-canada/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/271208/urbanization-in-c... From my perspective, the Golden Horseshoe from Toronto to the Niagara region has been intensifying non-stop for decades and is unrecognizable from 30 years ago. Skyscrapers and condos in former low density suburbs inside the greenbelt, and townhouses and plazas in former farm communities outside it. It's now almost continuously developed down to Niagara Falls. You might have called them rural two decades ago but at this point they're solidly in the GTA.
    - randomdata 8y ago
      > I'm curious what statistics you are looking at. Population data is provided by the Census conducted by Statistics Canada. Housing data is from the Housing Market Stats provided by CREA. > I honestly would be shocked if rural regions were growing in Canada For some perspective, Canada defines urban as 1,000 or more population with a population density of 400. Everything else is rural. This may be surprising as many consider a small farming village with 1,000 people to be rural, but officially such a community can be considered urban. All regions, including large cities and rural areas, are growing in absolute numbers. My above comment was speaking in relative terms, where population centres with more than 100,000 people now represent a smaller portion of the population than in years past. Were we have seen the most growth is in communities with 1,000 to 29,999 people. Technically urban, but probably rural from the perspective of the comments above. Such communities are certainly not what most would call cities. > From my perspective, the Golden Horseshoe from Toronto to the Niagara region has been intensifying non-stop for decades and is unrecognizable from 30 years ago. I see the same thing, but I would argue that the "Rural Renaissance", as CBC put it in a recent article about this shift, is relatively recent. The early signs were only starting to become visible in 2016 data, and I would suggest that only in the last year or so that the housing data has flipped. Much of that build-out you speak of happened over the last 30 years when cities were growing by leaps and bounds. I will reiterate that all communities types are gaining population in absolute numbers as Canada's population grows. What has changed is people are more likely to take an interest in communities that are not large cities, which is a change in behaviour to previous decades.
- jfk13 8y ago
  Not a "younger person" here, but I don't want a life of car dependency and social isolation either. But small town life (ours has pop. around 5000-ish) is pretty good! We have the high street (and a modest-sized supermarket) within 10 minutes walk, a variety of community activities to be involved in, and nature (including protected reserves) pretty much on our doorstep. And most days, the car doesn't leave the driveway. The area isn't "depopulating rapidly", like many more remote rural areas; the challenge, rather, is to manage growth such that the community is not overwhelmed by it.
- asdff 8y ago
  Social isolation is everything. In a city not only are there a lot of existing things to do, a restaurant or bar might only be around for a couple years if it's bad and the commercial space is in demand, so a new exciting thing comes to fill the space rather than a "for lease" sign for decades like you'd see in a sparse area. Take a look at a typical suburb. Where do you even walk? Sometimes the complexes wind and wind a mile or two before you hit the exit of the suburb, a 45 mph road with no sidewalks. Then it's another 2-3 miles until you hit the strip mall, then 500yds of parking lot before you hit the door of the apple bees. There's not even any greenery to enjoy, all the woods have been clear cut for housing or agriculture; living at low density like that scars the environment for miles. I'd take dial up and packages available in 40 days to ensure I'm at a safe arms length from suburban bleakness.
wefarrell 8y ago
I thought the same thing when the internet was emerging but the opposite happened. The problem with your prediction is that it will also become easier to live in cities. AV's will reduce the need in cities for land allocated to parking. I can see this first hand in my neighborhood in Queens. It's becoming far easier to live without a car and population density is increasing at a rapid rate.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- bitxbit 8y ago
  All valid points. I understand because I lived in NYC for most of my life but it’s become really congested in the past decade. Sure, there are still conveniences of living in Manhattan but some of that can now be experienced in smaller cities. My main argument is that it’s physically impossible to solve the extreme density problem. People still need to go to work during the day and eat around the same time, etc.
  - wefarrell 8y ago
    In NYC the extreme density is currently spreading out to Jersey, Williamsburg and Long Island city. high rises are going up in all of these areas at a rapid rate. > People still need to go to work during the day and eat around the same time, etc. Off the top of my head I can think of a few ways this problem is currently being solved: 1. Many restaurants are changing their business model to cater for entire companies. 2. Seamless and Square have enabled restaurants to operate with smaller storefronts or no storefronts at all. They prepare as much as possible in warehouses outside of manhattan and use their storefronts for the final assembly. 3. I recently signed up for a startup, Mealpal, which allows you to buy a preset number of meals per month and pick them up at any number of restaurants. No lines, no waiting, just walk into the restaurant and pick up your meal. Startups have been addressing urban needs faster than rural and I don't see why that is likely to change anytime soon.

adwww 8y ago

It's not happening though. My parents live in a beautiful part of the rural UK and have super-fast fibre to the premises internet, next day Amazon prime available, online food shopping from 4 or so supermarkets locally, etc. Basically everything you'd think you'd need to live away from the city, but still the area is depopulating rapidly. Younger people don't want a life of car dependancy and social isolation.

shawabawa3 8y ago
I think there's a chance that remote working might really take off. From a cost-saving perspective it makes so much sense - we already went from offices -> open plan, if we go from open plan -> remote being the new norm, suddenly there will be jobs everywhere, and that will change everything
- asdff 8y ago
  Not every job can be remote if people need shared equipment or resources. There's a lot of intangible benefits to having everyone working nearby. I get a lot of help from people just because they are nearby and I can ask them a question about something or their advice, and I think that alone outweighs for me being able to sit on my couch in sweatpants with my laptop.
geocar 8y ago
If you don't mind: Which part of the rural UK is this? I live in London and have pants for Internet (oversubscribed FTTC).
- adwww 8y ago
  Cornwall. I think the EU funded the fibre - they've had it for years. Massive leave voting area, of course.
SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
> Younger people don't want a life of car dependency and social isolation. When I moved from my families acreage that was 10 minutes out of town it wasn't because of social isolation or car dependence - it was because I couldn't get an post-secondary education in my community. Even if I hadn't gone for an education, there was a ton more employment opportunities in the urban centre. I stayed in the city because "junior software developer" is a super hard sell in a town of 2,500. Now that I've more experience I could probably swing the "work remote" thing, but it just wasn't an option starting my career.
- adwww 8y ago
  Ah yeah I didn't mention employment which is clearly the biggest barrier at the moment to living outside urban areas, as I assumed the parent comment was suggesting remote working is what will enable moving away from big cities.
randomdata 8y ago
It seems to be happening in Canada. The latest official population figures are, unfortunately, from way back in 2016, however at that time the numbers showed that communities with more than 100,000 people were already losing share of population. If we can use home sales data (activity and price) as a proxy for where people are living more recently, there has been a sharp decline in Canada's cities in the last year. At the same time, predominately rural areas have seen a huge spike. This suggests that the trend that was already becoming visible in 2016 has only accelerated. It is not like whole cities have decided to leave overnight, but there is a noticeable shift going on.
- dashundchen 8y ago
  I'm curious what statistics you are looking at. I honestly would be shocked if rural regions were growing in Canada, and the stats you were looking at were more a story of urbanization taking over formerly exurban or rural small towns in a metro region. I guess the oil and gas regions might be an exception there. https://www.statista.com/statistics/271208/urbanization-in-canada/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/271208/urbanization-in-c... From my perspective, the Golden Horseshoe from Toronto to the Niagara region has been intensifying non-stop for decades and is unrecognizable from 30 years ago. Skyscrapers and condos in former low density suburbs inside the greenbelt, and townhouses and plazas in former farm communities outside it. It's now almost continuously developed down to Niagara Falls. You might have called them rural two decades ago but at this point they're solidly in the GTA.
  - randomdata 8y ago
    > I'm curious what statistics you are looking at. Population data is provided by the Census conducted by Statistics Canada. Housing data is from the Housing Market Stats provided by CREA. > I honestly would be shocked if rural regions were growing in Canada For some perspective, Canada defines urban as 1,000 or more population with a population density of 400. Everything else is rural. This may be surprising as many consider a small farming village with 1,000 people to be rural, but officially such a community can be considered urban. All regions, including large cities and rural areas, are growing in absolute numbers. My above comment was speaking in relative terms, where population centres with more than 100,000 people now represent a smaller portion of the population than in years past. Were we have seen the most growth is in communities with 1,000 to 29,999 people. Technically urban, but probably rural from the perspective of the comments above. Such communities are certainly not what most would call cities. > From my perspective, the Golden Horseshoe from Toronto to the Niagara region has been intensifying non-stop for decades and is unrecognizable from 30 years ago. I see the same thing, but I would argue that the "Rural Renaissance", as CBC put it in a recent article about this shift, is relatively recent. The early signs were only starting to become visible in 2016 data, and I would suggest that only in the last year or so that the housing data has flipped. Much of that build-out you speak of happened over the last 30 years when cities were growing by leaps and bounds. I will reiterate that all communities types are gaining population in absolute numbers as Canada's population grows. What has changed is people are more likely to take an interest in communities that are not large cities, which is a change in behaviour to previous decades.
jfk13 8y ago
Not a "younger person" here, but I don't want a life of car dependency and social isolation either. But small town life (ours has pop. around 5000-ish) is pretty good! We have the high street (and a modest-sized supermarket) within 10 minutes walk, a variety of community activities to be involved in, and nature (including protected reserves) pretty much on our doorstep. And most days, the car doesn't leave the driveway. The area isn't "depopulating rapidly", like many more remote rural areas; the challenge, rather, is to manage growth such that the community is not overwhelmed by it.
asdff 8y ago
Social isolation is everything. In a city not only are there a lot of existing things to do, a restaurant or bar might only be around for a couple years if it's bad and the commercial space is in demand, so a new exciting thing comes to fill the space rather than a "for lease" sign for decades like you'd see in a sparse area. Take a look at a typical suburb. Where do you even walk? Sometimes the complexes wind and wind a mile or two before you hit the exit of the suburb, a 45 mph road with no sidewalks. Then it's another 2-3 miles until you hit the strip mall, then 500yds of parking lot before you hit the door of the apple bees. There's not even any greenery to enjoy, all the woods have been clear cut for housing or agriculture; living at low density like that scars the environment for miles. I'd take dial up and packages available in 40 days to ensure I'm at a safe arms length from suburban bleakness.

wefarrell 8y ago

I thought the same thing when the internet was emerging but the opposite happened. The problem with your prediction is that it will also become easier to live in cities. AV's will reduce the need in cities for land allocated to parking. I can see this first hand in my neighborhood in Queens. It's becoming far easier to live without a car and population density is increasing at a rapid rate.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
bitxbit 8y ago
All valid points. I understand because I lived in NYC for most of my life but it’s become really congested in the past decade. Sure, there are still conveniences of living in Manhattan but some of that can now be experienced in smaller cities. My main argument is that it’s physically impossible to solve the extreme density problem. People still need to go to work during the day and eat around the same time, etc.
- wefarrell 8y ago
  In NYC the extreme density is currently spreading out to Jersey, Williamsburg and Long Island city. high rises are going up in all of these areas at a rapid rate. > People still need to go to work during the day and eat around the same time, etc. Off the top of my head I can think of a few ways this problem is currently being solved: 1. Many restaurants are changing their business model to cater for entire companies. 2. Seamless and Square have enabled restaurants to operate with smaller storefronts or no storefronts at all. They prepare as much as possible in warehouses outside of manhattan and use their storefronts for the final assembly. 3. I recently signed up for a startup, Mealpal, which allows you to buy a preset number of meals per month and pick them up at any number of restaurants. No lines, no waiting, just walk into the restaurant and pick up your meal. Startups have been addressing urban needs faster than rural and I don't see why that is likely to change anytime soon.