4 ms·

If people are going to live anything resembling a modern American lifestyle, then gathering people together in cities has much lower environmental impact and lo

If people are going to live anything resembling a modern American lifestyle, then gathering people together in cities has much lower environmental impact and lower infrastructure costs than spreading them around South Dakota. People don’t expect just electricity and plumbing, they also expect modern construction techniques, roads, police, fire suppression, emergency response, schools, full-service hospitals, telecommunications, airports, parcel delivery, .... A big reason that rural / exurban living is cheap in the USA is that we massively subsidize services for people living very spread out.

ctdonath 7y ago
Consider the environmental transparency: instead of utterly devastating an environmental region as does cities, encourage each family to own a mostly-untouched >5 acres, the high-efficiency home sporting solar roof & rainwater collection, wireless/satellite high-bandwidth internet, home & prolific electric car chargers, optimized Amazon/etc delivery, home/neighborhood schooling, work-from-home norm, etc. Environmental impact? between normalizing practically everything environmentalists call for (I'm not one), and there being not much of an environment to impact (have you seen the Dakotas?), the neo-futuristic American lifestyle can be achieved while minimizing environmental footprint/impact without the hideous expense & annoyance of overpopulated cities. I think you massively overestimate the rural "subsidies". Make it easy to move rural and "go green" with minimal regulations, and you may find the problems nearly solve themselves.
- seanmcdirmid 7y ago
  You still need to give those people roads, maybe even sewer rather than having them use a horrible septic tank. They will probably want internet as well...and not the crappy satellite variety. And schools...ya, that’s a lot of bussing. Western Washington state subsidizes Eastern Washington state greatly, and that isn’t even as sparse as South Dakota (or as I like to call it, Tropical Dakota).
- jacobolus 7y ago
  > encourage each family to own a mostly-untouched >5 acres There will soon be 11 billion people in the world. This is a pipe dream, but if it came to fruition it would wreck the planet very quickly.
- nknezek 7y ago
  There are 57.5 million square miles of land on Earth, including mountains, deserts, rainforests, national parks, tundra, and Antarctica. There are currently 7.4 billion people. This works out to ~4.9 acres per person of land of any type. World arable land is ~26.2 million square miles, or about 2.2 acres per person. At 11 billion people (projection world population peak by ~2100, you get about 1.5 acres of arable land per person. There is literally, physically not enough space on Earth to put your plane into action. I like nature, but I think you underestimate the subsidies given for rural development and infrastructure and just how unsustainable our development style in the US is.
ff317 7y ago
South Dakota (and other such places) have most of those things up to reasonable standards, except perhaps the (well-connected) telecoms and airports in some cases. All of those things can come together as the population scales up and demands them. I agree that gathering people into larger population centers is way more efficient for us and the planet, but I don't think anyone's arguing for us all to spread out on 10 acre farmsteads. The middle ground is just to build more decently-sized cities in all of the vast available land. Why fight for overpriced artificially scarce land in San Francisco when there are 20 other SF-equivalent cities a state or two away (existing ones, or ones that could be hypothetically built). "Location, location, location" has got to stop being the reason people choose a city. As a side bonus: by moving a bunch of coastal persons back into the flyover country, you're re-exporting newer cultural norms into those backwaters, perhaps enough to cause meaningful cultural and political reform in places that sorely need it!
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  >"Location, location, location" has got to stop being the reason people choose a city. Why? I want to live where I get to do the things I enjoy. I would say most people I know prefer temperate, low humidity weather, access to fresh fruits and vegetables, beaches, mountains, lakes, good water quality and security, etc. The places that have these features will cost the most, since more people will be bidding up the price.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Spellman 7y ago
Strong Towns notes that the real cost of spreading out is all the infrastructure you need to maintain. Running water? Gotta run the pipes further. Road access? Gotta pave (and maintain) more road Power? Same thing Plus having decent response times for emergency services, quick commute to things like groceries as you mentioned. Not to mention having critical mass for a commercial district with any sort of variety within reasonable distances of each other to compete and cross-pollinate.
- DrScump 7y ago
  But they ignore the risks of infill where infrastructure approaches capacity. And much of the infrastructure dates back a century or more. As you infill, demand for water/sewer/gas/electricity increases.

ctdonath 7y ago

Consider the environmental transparency: instead of utterly devastating an environmental region as does cities, encourage each family to own a mostly-untouched >5 acres, the high-efficiency home sporting solar roof & rainwater collection, wireless/satellite high-bandwidth internet, home & prolific electric car chargers, optimized Amazon/etc delivery, home/neighborhood schooling, work-from-home norm, etc. Environmental impact? between normalizing practically everything environmentalists call for (I'm not one), and there being not much of an environment to impact (have you seen the Dakotas?), the neo-futuristic American lifestyle can be achieved while minimizing environmental footprint/impact without the hideous expense & annoyance of overpopulated cities. I think you massively overestimate the rural "subsidies". Make it easy to move rural and "go green" with minimal regulations, and you may find the problems nearly solve themselves.

seanmcdirmid 7y ago
You still need to give those people roads, maybe even sewer rather than having them use a horrible septic tank. They will probably want internet as well...and not the crappy satellite variety. And schools...ya, that’s a lot of bussing. Western Washington state subsidizes Eastern Washington state greatly, and that isn’t even as sparse as South Dakota (or as I like to call it, Tropical Dakota).
jacobolus 7y ago
> encourage each family to own a mostly-untouched >5 acres There will soon be 11 billion people in the world. This is a pipe dream, but if it came to fruition it would wreck the planet very quickly.
nknezek 7y ago
There are 57.5 million square miles of land on Earth, including mountains, deserts, rainforests, national parks, tundra, and Antarctica. There are currently 7.4 billion people. This works out to ~4.9 acres per person of land of any type. World arable land is ~26.2 million square miles, or about 2.2 acres per person. At 11 billion people (projection world population peak by ~2100, you get about 1.5 acres of arable land per person. There is literally, physically not enough space on Earth to put your plane into action. I like nature, but I think you underestimate the subsidies given for rural development and infrastructure and just how unsustainable our development style in the US is.

ff317 7y ago

South Dakota (and other such places) have most of those things up to reasonable standards, except perhaps the (well-connected) telecoms and airports in some cases. All of those things can come together as the population scales up and demands them. I agree that gathering people into larger population centers is way more efficient for us and the planet, but I don't think anyone's arguing for us all to spread out on 10 acre farmsteads. The middle ground is just to build more decently-sized cities in all of the vast available land. Why fight for overpriced artificially scarce land in San Francisco when there are 20 other SF-equivalent cities a state or two away (existing ones, or ones that could be hypothetically built). "Location, location, location" has got to stop being the reason people choose a city. As a side bonus: by moving a bunch of coastal persons back into the flyover country, you're re-exporting newer cultural norms into those backwaters, perhaps enough to cause meaningful cultural and political reform in places that sorely need it!

lotsofpulp 7y ago
>"Location, location, location" has got to stop being the reason people choose a city. Why? I want to live where I get to do the things I enjoy. I would say most people I know prefer temperate, low humidity weather, access to fresh fruits and vegetables, beaches, mountains, lakes, good water quality and security, etc. The places that have these features will cost the most, since more people will be bidding up the price.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Spellman 7y ago

Strong Towns notes that the real cost of spreading out is all the infrastructure you need to maintain. Running water? Gotta run the pipes further. Road access? Gotta pave (and maintain) more road Power? Same thing Plus having decent response times for emergency services, quick commute to things like groceries as you mentioned. Not to mention having critical mass for a commercial district with any sort of variety within reasonable distances of each other to compete and cross-pollinate.

DrScump 7y ago
But they ignore the risks of infill where infrastructure approaches capacity. And much of the infrastructure dates back a century or more. As you infill, demand for water/sewer/gas/electricity increases.