3 ms·

As much as its in-vogue thing to push for higher density living some of us dread living close to each other like the plague, for very well founded reasons that

As much as its in-vogue thing to push for higher density living some of us dread living close to each other like the plague, for very well founded reasons that have been proven right over and over again. Our population density (in the United States) is very high as it is in, most metropolitan regions. I'm sure there are perfectly valid reasons for some to want to live in close quarters to one another. But it isn't for everyone given the intense polarization of the American public off late, around even issues that were unchallenged only a few years ago. Unfortunately, there is no end in sight for this development. It's better for everyone to choose to live as they see fit for their safety & security. (Tim Ferriss even cites risk of terrorism for him leaving the Bay area entirely! [1]) Fully autonomous zero-waste cars should be welcomed and not shunned. [1] I am Tim Ferriss, host of “The Tim Ferriss Show” and author of “Tribe of Mentors.” AMA! https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/7erct8/i_am_tim_ferriss_host_of_the_tim_ferriss_show_and/dq6zrh1/ https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/7erct8/i_am_tim_ferri...

epistasis 7y ago
> As much as its in-vogue thing to push for higher density living some of us dread living close to each other like the plague, for very well founded reasons that have been proven right over and over again. It's "en vogue" if you want to call it that, only because it's highly undersupplied. And the existence of some dense living in one place doesn't prevent you from getting your preferred lifestyle where you want it. Do what you want with your property, but also let people live the way they want to live.
- wozniacki 7y ago
  En vogue, in vogue https://grammarist.com/usage/in-vogue-en-vogue/ https://grammarist.com/usage/in-vogue-en-vogue/
  - epistasis 7y ago
    Definitely didn't mean to make a distinction between those two spellings, and hadn't noticed it!
sushisource 7y ago
I think the problem here is you can't have both things. You can't say "I hate other people and want to live away from them" and at the same time say "...but it's also my right to access all the same stuff people who are willing to live near each other have access too". So, if you want to be a hermit, go for it, but you shouldn't expect the entire world to conform to your concept of what you like even though it's demonstrably less efficient.
- scrumbledober 7y ago
  Why not? If we have the technology to solve that problem is there any reason not to?
  - Johnny555 7y ago
    It's not a solved problem, and it's not just s simple technology problem. It's a problem of getting a large number of people from far-flung suburban or even rural areas into a small urban area, and then back home again. It's still the last-mile into the city that's going to be congested, and far flung commuters complain about local commuters "Don't make dedicated bus lanes, they slow my car commut!" or "Get those bikes off the road, I'm already driving an hour to get to work, they are slowing me down" or "What do you mean you want me to park outside of the city and take the train, I'm already in my car, I'm not going to go park and then ride a train".
vkou 7y ago
I love the concept of a zero-waste, entirely sustainably sourced and operated car [1], but the total cost of building, owning, and, at end-of-life, disposing of one would easily run north of a hundred thousand dollars. Multiply that by the number of people in your city, and consider whether or not personal automobiles are the best use of that money. The future of transportation is not an electric car. It is the electric train, the electric bus, and the electric scooter. [1] Also, no such vehicle exists on the market, and even if it did, it's not clear that we could scale the concept into billions of vehicles.
BeetleB 7y ago
>Our population density (in the United States) is very high as it is in, most metropolitan regions. Have you tried living in other countries with major cities? The population density in most major US cities is a lot lower. Paris, for example, is twice as dense as NYC. I'll let you compare yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b... And if you want to limit to large enough cities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density#List_of_incorporated_cities_in_the_United_States_with_over_75,000_residents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_population_d...
- NovemberWhiskey 7y ago
  I've seen that comparison a few times, and I feel it's a little misleading. Paris is only twice as densely populated as NYC by virtue of it having an administrative definition that captures primarily the most-densely populated core of the metropolitan area. e.g. the borough of Manhattan has 30% higher population density than Paris and is about 60% of the size. However, because the boundary of the city includes relatively sparsely populated boroughs like Staten Island and Queens (the land area of which contains not one but two major airports), the average density is much lower.
  - BeetleB 7y ago
    US, but the claim wasn't "selected portions of the most dense cities in the US". It was "Our population density (in the United States) is very high as it is in, most metropolitan regions." I don't doubt Manhattan is very dense. It is far from representative when it comes to "most" metropolitan regions in the US.
    - wozniacki 7y ago
      The same distinction applies to the population density of various Amsterdam "boroughs" (or satellite districts) whether its Almere or Bos en Lommer. The density & the people you run into varies markedly although they're both accessible by public transit and are only a stone's throw away with what you typically associate with Amsterdam. How is commuting in from Zwolle or Amersfoort to Amsterdam Centraal different than say commuting in from New Canaan, Connecticut to Manhattan? I'm sure the same is the case with any large metropolitan region anywhere in Europe.

epistasis 7y ago

> As much as its in-vogue thing to push for higher density living some of us dread living close to each other like the plague, for very well founded reasons that have been proven right over and over again. It's "en vogue" if you want to call it that, only because it's highly undersupplied. And the existence of some dense living in one place doesn't prevent you from getting your preferred lifestyle where you want it. Do what you want with your property, but also let people live the way they want to live.

wozniacki 7y ago
En vogue, in vogue https://grammarist.com/usage/in-vogue-en-vogue/ https://grammarist.com/usage/in-vogue-en-vogue/
- epistasis 7y ago
  Definitely didn't mean to make a distinction between those two spellings, and hadn't noticed it!

sushisource 7y ago

I think the problem here is you can't have both things. You can't say "I hate other people and want to live away from them" and at the same time say "...but it's also my right to access all the same stuff people who are willing to live near each other have access too". So, if you want to be a hermit, go for it, but you shouldn't expect the entire world to conform to your concept of what you like even though it's demonstrably less efficient.

scrumbledober 7y ago
Why not? If we have the technology to solve that problem is there any reason not to?
- Johnny555 7y ago
  It's not a solved problem, and it's not just s simple technology problem. It's a problem of getting a large number of people from far-flung suburban or even rural areas into a small urban area, and then back home again. It's still the last-mile into the city that's going to be congested, and far flung commuters complain about local commuters "Don't make dedicated bus lanes, they slow my car commut!" or "Get those bikes off the road, I'm already driving an hour to get to work, they are slowing me down" or "What do you mean you want me to park outside of the city and take the train, I'm already in my car, I'm not going to go park and then ride a train".

vkou 7y ago

I love the concept of a zero-waste, entirely sustainably sourced and operated car [1], but the total cost of building, owning, and, at end-of-life, disposing of one would easily run north of a hundred thousand dollars. Multiply that by the number of people in your city, and consider whether or not personal automobiles are the best use of that money. The future of transportation is not an electric car. It is the electric train, the electric bus, and the electric scooter. [1] Also, no such vehicle exists on the market, and even if it did, it's not clear that we could scale the concept into billions of vehicles.

BeetleB 7y ago

>Our population density (in the United States) is very high as it is in, most metropolitan regions. Have you tried living in other countries with major cities? The population density in most major US cities is a lot lower. Paris, for example, is twice as dense as NYC. I'll let you compare yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b... And if you want to limit to large enough cities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density#List_of_incorporated_cities_in_the_United_States_with_over_75,000_residents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_population_d...

NovemberWhiskey 7y ago
I've seen that comparison a few times, and I feel it's a little misleading. Paris is only twice as densely populated as NYC by virtue of it having an administrative definition that captures primarily the most-densely populated core of the metropolitan area. e.g. the borough of Manhattan has 30% higher population density than Paris and is about 60% of the size. However, because the boundary of the city includes relatively sparsely populated boroughs like Staten Island and Queens (the land area of which contains not one but two major airports), the average density is much lower.
- BeetleB 7y ago
  US, but the claim wasn't "selected portions of the most dense cities in the US". It was "Our population density (in the United States) is very high as it is in, most metropolitan regions." I don't doubt Manhattan is very dense. It is far from representative when it comes to "most" metropolitan regions in the US.
  - wozniacki 7y ago
    The same distinction applies to the population density of various Amsterdam "boroughs" (or satellite districts) whether its Almere or Bos en Lommer. The density & the people you run into varies markedly although they're both accessible by public transit and are only a stone's throw away with what you typically associate with Amsterdam. How is commuting in from Zwolle or Amersfoort to Amsterdam Centraal different than say commuting in from New Canaan, Connecticut to Manhattan? I'm sure the same is the case with any large metropolitan region anywhere in Europe.