3 ms·

> How is high density sustainable? The question really is how is 'low density' sustainable. Can you point me to an agrarian area that has lasted for thousands

> How is high density sustainable? The question really is how is 'low density' sustainable. Can you point me to an agrarian area that has lasted for thousands of years, with continuous occupation, and continuous economic prosperity (or at least no long periods of economic destitution)? I don't think you can. On the other hand, humanity has countless examples of the sustainability of high-density cities. I can name off the top of my head many cities that have successfully housed humans with high density for thousands upon thousands of years: 1. Rome 2. Cairo 3. Chengdu 4. Baghdad 5. Bukhara 6. London 7. Mexico City/Tenochtitlan 8. Tokyo > Don’t you think it’s connected? Yes. Low density housing decreases access to education by requiring extra costs to achieve the same ends. All the civilizations listed above managed not only to house people, but also to educate them, hence retaining the prominence they held thousands of years ago to the present day. The issue is not enough high density housing. Having lived in some of the cities listed above, San Francisco feels like living in the country side. Do not respond by asking how high density is working in San Francisco. San Francisco is not high density. It acts as if it is a moderately sized city when it really ought to be a metropolis. This is also not an issue of taxation, as several of those cities have much lower tax rates than California. I am a libertarian at heart, so I am for lower taxes. However, it is a mistake to think California's high taxes are because of high-density. California's high taxes are a response to the need to pay for the externalities caused by low-density housing. For example, road maintenance, bus systems, etc are all much cheaper to run if people live closer together. Moreover, the schools fail not because of the density in housing but because of the lack of competition to drive prices down. Catholic schools in the inner city do a better job at turning out students than public schools, despite having broadly similar student bases (In terms of socioeconomics) and spending much less per student (limiting myself to Catholic schools because they have the lowest average tuition among private schools by far). I believe the average inner-city Catholic school class size is actually larger than the corresponding public school. Historically speaking of course, large classes were the norm. Sowell details the issues of public schooling in his book 'Education in America'. If you think California needs money to fix its schooling, I highly recommend that book.

jelliclesfarm 8y ago
Low density can be sustainable if we live in clusters that are self sustaining. Form 4-6 Dunbar number sized communities and another bunch of them forming a bigger cluster. Intra city transport to be separate from Inter city transport..maybe underground or mag lev along with surface transport. The problem is not low density. The problem is sprawl. The solution is not high density and shaming people NIMBY or coerced altruism but cooperation. Giving people incentive to cooperate and share in return for something of non material value would work better than worsening quality of life for the productive and working folks. High density can also be sustainable. Paris is a good example but it has public transport and its shaped like a snail. It would also mean segregation of regions according to income and ameneties. Also..I can’t give you any example because no system lasts for ‘thousands’ of years. I am rejecting your high density sustainable cities list but when I get the time, I will do my own research and if I am wrong in my intuition that you are off mark, I will certainly come back to you with it. Again. You are wrong about low density meaning less education dollars. In California, we have a funding formula by which all the money goes to a common pot and then redistributed. The formula ...to put it simplistically...assigns more money to school districts with kids who need free lunches, English as second language etc. so this means counties that contribute less tax dollars and less property tax dollars due to low house prices get more of the education dollars. Highly educated households and English speaking households and those are higher income where kids don’t rely on school lunches get less education dollars. This leads to no money for infrastructure improvements or overcrowding in schools and budget cuts. And yet..it’s these high property priced areas that have a higher influx of school kids. It’s not working. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/fd/ec/documents/currentexpense1718.xlsx https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/fd/ec/documents/currentexpense1718... Per student expense allocation in affluent cities is less than in areas that have lower property values. No child is truly left behind in California when it comes to education at least as far as $ redistribution is concerned. The problems we have cannot be resolved by high density building in Bay Area and LA.
- tathougies 8y ago
  > I am rejecting your high density sustainable cities list but when I get the time, I will do my own research and if I am wrong in my intuition that you are off mark, I will certainly come back to you with it. You reject the history of the world? > Also..I can’t give you any example because no system lasts for ‘thousands’ of years. Yes, they do. Humans have numerous examples of sustainable systems. The Japanese are well known for several businesses that have lasted over 1000 years. The English have their own share of institutions that have lasted centuries. Of course, institutions like the church have lasted two thousand documented years. Humans know how to build to last, but it's a matter of following the wisdom of the ages. > The solution is not high density and shaming people NIMBY or coerced altruism but cooperation Coerced altruism? We currently have coerced ruralism! San Francisco is not built the way it is because developers and property owners want it. The government of San Fracisco places artificial limits on what can be built. It's one thing to not want to upgrade your own home, but currently, the city allows your neighbor to tell you hwat you can do with your property. If you want to build higher density, your property improvement plans are subject to a hearing of your neighbors and neighborhood. This is ridiculous. People should be free to do what they want so the free market can work, and we should not be coercing them to maintain an untenable status quo. > This leads to no money for infrastructure improvements or overcrowding in schools and budget cuts. And yet..it’s these high property priced areas that have a higher influx of school kids. It’s not working. There's no such thing as overcrowding. People have been educated in large classes for many many years. The issue is a lack of focus on education and academics in the schooling system. The American school system completely lacks rigor, and teachers tend to come from the lowest ends of their educational cohort (test scores of teachers are among the lowest when compared with other groups)>

jelliclesfarm 8y ago

Low density can be sustainable if we live in clusters that are self sustaining. Form 4-6 Dunbar number sized communities and another bunch of them forming a bigger cluster. Intra city transport to be separate from Inter city transport..maybe underground or mag lev along with surface transport. The problem is not low density. The problem is sprawl. The solution is not high density and shaming people NIMBY or coerced altruism but cooperation. Giving people incentive to cooperate and share in return for something of non material value would work better than worsening quality of life for the productive and working folks. High density can also be sustainable. Paris is a good example but it has public transport and its shaped like a snail. It would also mean segregation of regions according to income and ameneties. Also..I can’t give you any example because no system lasts for ‘thousands’ of years. I am rejecting your high density sustainable cities list but when I get the time, I will do my own research and if I am wrong in my intuition that you are off mark, I will certainly come back to you with it. Again. You are wrong about low density meaning less education dollars. In California, we have a funding formula by which all the money goes to a common pot and then redistributed. The formula ...to put it simplistically...assigns more money to school districts with kids who need free lunches, English as second language etc. so this means counties that contribute less tax dollars and less property tax dollars due to low house prices get more of the education dollars. Highly educated households and English speaking households and those are higher income where kids don’t rely on school lunches get less education dollars. This leads to no money for infrastructure improvements or overcrowding in schools and budget cuts. And yet..it’s these high property priced areas that have a higher influx of school kids. It’s not working. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/fd/ec/documents/currentexpense1718.xlsx https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/fd/ec/documents/currentexpense1718... Per student expense allocation in affluent cities is less than in areas that have lower property values. No child is truly left behind in California when it comes to education at least as far as $ redistribution is concerned. The problems we have cannot be resolved by high density building in Bay Area and LA.

tathougies 8y ago
> I am rejecting your high density sustainable cities list but when I get the time, I will do my own research and if I am wrong in my intuition that you are off mark, I will certainly come back to you with it. You reject the history of the world? > Also..I can’t give you any example because no system lasts for ‘thousands’ of years. Yes, they do. Humans have numerous examples of sustainable systems. The Japanese are well known for several businesses that have lasted over 1000 years. The English have their own share of institutions that have lasted centuries. Of course, institutions like the church have lasted two thousand documented years. Humans know how to build to last, but it's a matter of following the wisdom of the ages. > The solution is not high density and shaming people NIMBY or coerced altruism but cooperation Coerced altruism? We currently have coerced ruralism! San Francisco is not built the way it is because developers and property owners want it. The government of San Fracisco places artificial limits on what can be built. It's one thing to not want to upgrade your own home, but currently, the city allows your neighbor to tell you hwat you can do with your property. If you want to build higher density, your property improvement plans are subject to a hearing of your neighbors and neighborhood. This is ridiculous. People should be free to do what they want so the free market can work, and we should not be coercing them to maintain an untenable status quo. > This leads to no money for infrastructure improvements or overcrowding in schools and budget cuts. And yet..it’s these high property priced areas that have a higher influx of school kids. It’s not working. There's no such thing as overcrowding. People have been educated in large classes for many many years. The issue is a lack of focus on education and academics in the schooling system. The American school system completely lacks rigor, and teachers tend to come from the lowest ends of their educational cohort (test scores of teachers are among the lowest when compared with other groups)>