4 ms·

Unless you want to video-only the rest of your life too, remote work isn't good enough. We need to decrease distances for all purposes of transportation period

Unless you want to video-only the rest of your life too, remote work isn't good enough. We need to decrease distances for all purposes of transportation period for environmental, social, and economic reasons. Dense development with public transportation does for society what increasing the component density and shortening wire length does for integrate circuits. There is no substitute.

pdonis 6y ago
> We need to decrease distances for all purposes of transportation period for environmental, social, and economic reasons. "We" have all kinds of different needs and desires. Not everyone wants to live in a densely populated area. In any case, uncoupling the location of your home from the location of your job should improve your ability to live closer to the people and places you want to be close to in your personal life. That would go for everyone, those who want to live in densely populated areas and those who don't.
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  I don't want to subsidize other people's suburban and rural decadence. It's not a personal choice that doesn't effect others. Development is a collective choice no matter how much American ideology wants to obfuscate that.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > I don't want to subsidize other people's suburban and rural decadence. You don't get to decide what counts as "decadence". Nor are cities subsidizing suburban and rural areas; in most cases it's the other way around, it's the cities that continually get themselves into financial trouble and have to be bailed out, and the suburban and rural areas that are fiscally responsible. > It's not a personal choice that doesn't effect others Neither is your personal choice to live in densely populated cities. > Development is a collective choice And when there are significant sub-populations with widely different preferences, the right collective choice is to separate the sub-populations so each can have their own areas where they can implement their preferences, not for one sub-population to force its preferences on everyone else.
    - Ericson2314 6y ago
      > You don't get to decide what counts as "decadence". I don't, but the accounting does. > Nor are cities subsidizing suburban and rural areas; in most cases it's the other way around, it's the cities that continually get themselves into financial trouble and have to be bailed out, and the suburban and rural areas that are fiscally responsible. This is completely false. It seems that way because of cities offering extra services get hit with austerity first, but the base line is is not no net subsidization. You are just observing cities being unable to fund those services and subsidize the suburbs at the same time. Google "cities subsidize suburbs" and find things all across the political spectrum. For example, on the more right: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/4/16/when-apartment-dwellers-subsidize-suburban-homeowners https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/4/16/when-apartment... https://www.theamericanconservative.com/urbs/we-have-always-subsidized-suburbia/ https://www.theamericanconservative.com/urbs/we-have-always-... in addition to the original article on the left. > And when there are significant sub-populations with widely different preferences, the right collective choice is to separate the sub-populations so each can have their own areas where they can implement their preferences, not for one sub-population to force its preferences on everyone else. If suburbs can function without my money and without leaking their pollution in my air water, sure. But that is not possible.
      - pdonis 6y ago
        > I don't, but the accounting does. Assuming your facts are correct--I have seen factual claims all over the map on this, and government subsidies and favoritism are all over the place, not just in favor of suburban homeowners--this is still not an argument for forcing everyone to live in densely populated cities. It's an argument for removing government subsidies and favoritism. Which I am completely in favor of doing; I'm quite willing to pay whatever the actual costs are of living where I want to live, and factoring those costs into my choice of where to live. What I'm not willing to do is force my choices to conform to someone else's idea of how people should live. > without leaking their pollution in my air water Where is that coming from? Certainly not from the references you gave. And if you think cities don't pollute, I don't know where you're getting that from either.

pdonis 6y ago

> We need to decrease distances for all purposes of transportation period for environmental, social, and economic reasons. "We" have all kinds of different needs and desires. Not everyone wants to live in a densely populated area. In any case, uncoupling the location of your home from the location of your job should improve your ability to live closer to the people and places you want to be close to in your personal life. That would go for everyone, those who want to live in densely populated areas and those who don't.

Ericson2314 6y ago
I don't want to subsidize other people's suburban and rural decadence. It's not a personal choice that doesn't effect others. Development is a collective choice no matter how much American ideology wants to obfuscate that.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > I don't want to subsidize other people's suburban and rural decadence. You don't get to decide what counts as "decadence". Nor are cities subsidizing suburban and rural areas; in most cases it's the other way around, it's the cities that continually get themselves into financial trouble and have to be bailed out, and the suburban and rural areas that are fiscally responsible. > It's not a personal choice that doesn't effect others Neither is your personal choice to live in densely populated cities. > Development is a collective choice And when there are significant sub-populations with widely different preferences, the right collective choice is to separate the sub-populations so each can have their own areas where they can implement their preferences, not for one sub-population to force its preferences on everyone else.
  - Ericson2314 6y ago
    > You don't get to decide what counts as "decadence". I don't, but the accounting does. > Nor are cities subsidizing suburban and rural areas; in most cases it's the other way around, it's the cities that continually get themselves into financial trouble and have to be bailed out, and the suburban and rural areas that are fiscally responsible. This is completely false. It seems that way because of cities offering extra services get hit with austerity first, but the base line is is not no net subsidization. You are just observing cities being unable to fund those services and subsidize the suburbs at the same time. Google "cities subsidize suburbs" and find things all across the political spectrum. For example, on the more right: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/4/16/when-apartment-dwellers-subsidize-suburban-homeowners https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/4/16/when-apartment... https://www.theamericanconservative.com/urbs/we-have-always-subsidized-suburbia/ https://www.theamericanconservative.com/urbs/we-have-always-... in addition to the original article on the left. > And when there are significant sub-populations with widely different preferences, the right collective choice is to separate the sub-populations so each can have their own areas where they can implement their preferences, not for one sub-population to force its preferences on everyone else. If suburbs can function without my money and without leaking their pollution in my air water, sure. But that is not possible.
    - pdonis 6y ago
      > I don't, but the accounting does. Assuming your facts are correct--I have seen factual claims all over the map on this, and government subsidies and favoritism are all over the place, not just in favor of suburban homeowners--this is still not an argument for forcing everyone to live in densely populated cities. It's an argument for removing government subsidies and favoritism. Which I am completely in favor of doing; I'm quite willing to pay whatever the actual costs are of living where I want to live, and factoring those costs into my choice of where to live. What I'm not willing to do is force my choices to conform to someone else's idea of how people should live. > without leaking their pollution in my air water Where is that coming from? Certainly not from the references you gave. And if you think cities don't pollute, I don't know where you're getting that from either.