25 ms·

On the other hand, rents and home prices are already unaffordable in many urban areas. If building infrastructure outside the most densely populated areas becom

On the other hand, rents and home prices are already unaffordable in many urban areas. If building infrastructure outside the most densely populated areas becomes a purely private responsibility, it will exacerbate these issues.

Wowfunhappy 7y ago
The correct solution to do this problem is to build more cities.
- fauigerzigerk 7y ago
  I agree, but "building cities" is essentially synonymous with subsidising infrastructure and providing building permits around existing towns and villages.
  - pm90 7y ago
    Investment in cities' infrastructure isn't a subsidy, its seed money to get the economic engine humming. Once it is, Governments reap in the benefits of increased tax receipts. Whereas, subsidizing rural and semi-rural populations, outside of those engaged in the primary sector, has no such benefit. In fact, they require more and more help as time passes with no benefits in tax receipts at all.
    - fauigerzigerk 7y ago
      Perhaps, but you may not always know ahead of time which one it's going to be if you let towns grow organically to become cities (or not). Building entirely new government planned cities on the green field is extremely difficult to get right. You're not just building infrastructure, you're effectively designing a social environment. What if it doesn't attract the right mix of people? What if it collides with democratic and legal rights of neighboring communities?
- Spivak 7y ago
  Not disagreeing that more urban centers would be a good thing but I don't think it would solve this specific problem because population would just grow to fill the new city until the same economic 'pressue' is reached again.
  - pm90 7y ago
    Build more cities. I don't understand the reticence in engaging in city building activity on a massive scale. That is what happened when America was explored, wasn't it? More people == more scientists, engineers, lawyers, artists == more universities == more scientific breakthroughs. Eventually colonizing other worlds will become a possibility, and then humanity will expand there too, finally becoming free of Earth.
    - ghaff 7y ago
      We could call it the Great Leap Forward or something like that.
      - dang 7y ago
        Please don't do this here.
  - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
    Then there still aren't enough cities. There logically has to be a number that satisfies supply and demand. Urbanization is crucial for environmental sustainability.
- bleh123 7y ago
  Quality of life in the country side in my opinion, tends to be far better than what you'd find even in the best of cities, but that's a personal opinion and one that individuals should be able to make on their own. If you'd like to live in a dense concrete jungle, then, yes, you should be able to do so for your own reasons. On the other hand, if you'd like to move away from a dense swath of people, you should have that option as well and having connectivity to amenities should be reasonably available. We have the technology and ability to do so today and allowing citizens to inhabit any patch of available land in a nation that's allocated to residential purposes is fine.
- ghaff 7y ago
  Perhaps people could move to the cities like Detroit that have lost significant population first before building a new city on some empty plot of land. Especially because, to a first approximation, none of the people campaigning the loudest for urban living will have the slightest inclination to move to a new centrally planned city in the middle of nowhere.
  - ericd 7y ago
    I really don't want to live in a city designed for cars first, Detroit being one of the poster children of that. But it's actually kind of hard to find a reasonably priced city that's not swamped with cars and car infrastructure, so we could use some new cities that are designed with the realization that cars don't really belong in city centers. I would absolutely move to a well planned new city, especially if cars were banned to the periphery, as in some Dutch cities. I imagine that I'm not alone in that.
    - ghaff 7y ago
      Even in the Netherlands, vehicles are not really absent from the city cores although there are more bikes in particular than in many other places. I'm not sure you contradict my basic point though. Plop down a centrally-designed city that severely limits cars and I think you'll have a lot of trouble attracting either residents or employers.
      - ericd 7y ago
        Certainly not absent from all city cores, but some cities have banished them. My point was that there's at least one resident who would be interested, and I don't think I'm unique in that. Maybe unusual, but there are a lot of people in the US, so maybe high enough in absolute number.
rgarrett88 7y ago
Suburban and rural have different costs.

Wowfunhappy 7y ago

The correct solution to do this problem is to build more cities.

fauigerzigerk 7y ago
I agree, but "building cities" is essentially synonymous with subsidising infrastructure and providing building permits around existing towns and villages.
- pm90 7y ago
  Investment in cities' infrastructure isn't a subsidy, its seed money to get the economic engine humming. Once it is, Governments reap in the benefits of increased tax receipts. Whereas, subsidizing rural and semi-rural populations, outside of those engaged in the primary sector, has no such benefit. In fact, they require more and more help as time passes with no benefits in tax receipts at all.
  - fauigerzigerk 7y ago
    Perhaps, but you may not always know ahead of time which one it's going to be if you let towns grow organically to become cities (or not). Building entirely new government planned cities on the green field is extremely difficult to get right. You're not just building infrastructure, you're effectively designing a social environment. What if it doesn't attract the right mix of people? What if it collides with democratic and legal rights of neighboring communities?
Spivak 7y ago
Not disagreeing that more urban centers would be a good thing but I don't think it would solve this specific problem because population would just grow to fill the new city until the same economic 'pressue' is reached again.
- pm90 7y ago
  Build more cities. I don't understand the reticence in engaging in city building activity on a massive scale. That is what happened when America was explored, wasn't it? More people == more scientists, engineers, lawyers, artists == more universities == more scientific breakthroughs. Eventually colonizing other worlds will become a possibility, and then humanity will expand there too, finally becoming free of Earth.
  - ghaff 7y ago
    We could call it the Great Leap Forward or something like that.
    - dang 7y ago
      Please don't do this here.
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  Then there still aren't enough cities. There logically has to be a number that satisfies supply and demand. Urbanization is crucial for environmental sustainability.
bleh123 7y ago
Quality of life in the country side in my opinion, tends to be far better than what you'd find even in the best of cities, but that's a personal opinion and one that individuals should be able to make on their own. If you'd like to live in a dense concrete jungle, then, yes, you should be able to do so for your own reasons. On the other hand, if you'd like to move away from a dense swath of people, you should have that option as well and having connectivity to amenities should be reasonably available. We have the technology and ability to do so today and allowing citizens to inhabit any patch of available land in a nation that's allocated to residential purposes is fine.
ghaff 7y ago
Perhaps people could move to the cities like Detroit that have lost significant population first before building a new city on some empty plot of land. Especially because, to a first approximation, none of the people campaigning the loudest for urban living will have the slightest inclination to move to a new centrally planned city in the middle of nowhere.
- ericd 7y ago
  I really don't want to live in a city designed for cars first, Detroit being one of the poster children of that. But it's actually kind of hard to find a reasonably priced city that's not swamped with cars and car infrastructure, so we could use some new cities that are designed with the realization that cars don't really belong in city centers. I would absolutely move to a well planned new city, especially if cars were banned to the periphery, as in some Dutch cities. I imagine that I'm not alone in that.
  - ghaff 7y ago
    Even in the Netherlands, vehicles are not really absent from the city cores although there are more bikes in particular than in many other places. I'm not sure you contradict my basic point though. Plop down a centrally-designed city that severely limits cars and I think you'll have a lot of trouble attracting either residents or employers.
    - ericd 7y ago
      Certainly not absent from all city cores, but some cities have banished them. My point was that there's at least one resident who would be interested, and I don't think I'm unique in that. Maybe unusual, but there are a lot of people in the US, so maybe high enough in absolute number.

rgarrett88 7y ago

Suburban and rural have different costs.