3 ms·

The obvious way to get rid of most cars is by squeezing as many people as possible into extremely dense high-rise cities, small areas in which mass transit can

The obvious way to get rid of most cars is by squeezing as many people as possible into extremely dense high-rise cities, small areas in which mass transit can function. But who actually wants to live like that? To live in a tiny property in a noisy city, to save a planet that you then have far less ability to explore and enjoy?

AstralStorm 5y ago
Ask South Koreans and Singaporeans. They seem to be quite fine with it.
- bluescrn 5y ago
  Big cities have an appeal to the 20-somethings, but most older people are only in cities for the jobs, and as soon as WFH becomes an option they want to go somewhere nicer and/or less expensive. And cities are usually the worst place to be during any sort of crisis (e.g. pandemic, riots, shortages/panic buying) (Maybe it's the pricing that's all wrong. Maybe living in a city should be the cheaper option, and living in a more rural area should be an expensive luxury? But that's not what the market has given us)
opportune 5y ago
Is that facetious? Many people want to live like that including me
totetsu 5y ago
Being a nature loving person who currently lives in the sprawl(but the wrong side of Tokyo bay), I have to say there are a lot of people who do want to live like that, and thats great for them, I don't understand it but, leave all the mountains empty for me and my fellow ramblers. The only problem is that as long as democracy is people weighted and not land weighted, all the big empty space will be controlled by people who have no connection to or value for it. so they will just let it become the site of extraction, or to build high ways, or wind turbines, etc.
- BoxOfRain 5y ago
  I for one would be “bottle of gin a night” depressed living in a built up area, I realise I’m in a minority but city life absolutely isn’t for everyone.
- ginja 5y ago
  Anything other than a people weighted democracy would be, well, highly undemocratic. Resource extraction, highways and wind turbines have to exist somewhere - so aren’t the more sparsely populated areas the obvious choice?
  - totetsu 5y ago
    there's no easy answers. but local regional self determination is not undemocratic is it? even if things have to exist somewhere, the people who are connected to those wheres should have some say over their future. besides its not like This country is highly democratic to begin with..
jfim 5y ago
> To save a planet that you then have far less ability to explore and enjoy? Or maybe letting future generations have an environment that they'd actually be able to explore and enjoy?
bryanrasmussen 5y ago
>But who actually wants to live like that? To live in a tiny property in a noisy city, to save a planet that you then have far less ability to explore and enjoy? people seem to accept all sorts of indignities the world over and throughout history in order to continue living and also keeping their children alive.
- bluescrn 5y ago
  If the world is that screwed, you should probably think twice about bringing kids into it.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    For me, living in a city isn’t even a cost, never mind a cost such that I would hesitate to bring children into it. Which city are you thinking of that you have such a negative feeling about them?
    - bluescrn 5y ago
      London, primarily. I just couldn't live somewhere so busy - trains/tube at peak times are a grim enough experience just doing it on occasional visits - couldn't deal with it every day, let alone during a pandemic. And then there's the insane cost of housing, and the noise.
      - ben_w 5y ago
        Seems fair to not like London for those reasons (likewise from whenever I’ve been though it!), but even then I guess I am slightly surprised you find it so bad you’d not want to raise a family in it. (That said, the pandemic has made me broody, so I get different weighing on what you want from life). The good news is cities don’t need to be like that.
  - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
    the implication is that people have suffered far worse throughout the world's history than living in a big city.
scatters 5y ago
> a planet that you then have far less ability to explore and enjoy Living in a city doesn't prevent you from getting a train, riding a bike, or (even) hiring a car to get out into nature. The only thing in the way is getting out through the suburbs and sprawl.
dalbasal 5y ago
>> who actually wants to live like that? One way to answer that is "demand." People demonstrably do want to live in a lot of dense noisy cities, with cramped living quarters, high costs, etc. They put up with a lot in order to do so. NY, SF, London, Beijing, Etc. The old "no one goes there, too crowded" quip. The counterargument (IMO) is that people want to live where be jobs, power, cultural elites, etc. Those can exist in suburban city plans, ancient city centres, etc. Some are nice. Many are not. I would say that people are adaptable. The operative question probably isn't who wants to live like that broadly. It's who will choose to move there. That'll depend on issues that are usually outside the scope of planning. Proximity. Culture. Jobs. Finance... How WFH develops is highly relevant, for example. Some things are not very amenable to "start small" approaches. Are tools in a planners realistic toolbox sufficient for doing any of these things? I think we're currently in a moment of opportunity. That means some underlying limitations are in flux. That doesn't mean planners have unlimited powers though. Ideas that require everything to change the way a planner wants them to are wishy washy.
ben_w 5y ago
Better zoning — allowing mixed use — helps a lot. Directly underneath me (Berlin apartments are mostly low-rise, not high-rise) is an office, the ground floor opposite me is a grocery store, and the same effect (though entirely horizontal) happens in areas with detached and semi-detached houses. Likewise in the UK.
occz 5y ago
55% of people worldwide live in cities and this number is growing. Consider whether you might be projecting your opinion onto everyone in this case.
adrianN 5y ago
The denser the city is, the shorter is the train or bicycle trip to much less disturbed nature. I don't want to have to cross an hour of urban sprawl to arrive in a place that is nice for hiking. I also much rather live in a multistory apartment building with a nice public park around the corner than in an area of single family homes with ten meters or grass around them. Cities are noisy because of traffic. The denser the city is, the less noisy traffic we need.
- bluescrn 5y ago
  You'll still have to travel a fairly long distance from the city to get away from the millions of other people escaping the city at the weekends. You won't find much quiet undisturbed nature close to a huge population centre.

AstralStorm 5y ago

Ask South Koreans and Singaporeans. They seem to be quite fine with it.

bluescrn 5y ago
Big cities have an appeal to the 20-somethings, but most older people are only in cities for the jobs, and as soon as WFH becomes an option they want to go somewhere nicer and/or less expensive. And cities are usually the worst place to be during any sort of crisis (e.g. pandemic, riots, shortages/panic buying) (Maybe it's the pricing that's all wrong. Maybe living in a city should be the cheaper option, and living in a more rural area should be an expensive luxury? But that's not what the market has given us)

opportune 5y ago

Is that facetious? Many people want to live like that including me

totetsu 5y ago

Being a nature loving person who currently lives in the sprawl(but the wrong side of Tokyo bay), I have to say there are a lot of people who do want to live like that, and thats great for them, I don't understand it but, leave all the mountains empty for me and my fellow ramblers. The only problem is that as long as democracy is people weighted and not land weighted, all the big empty space will be controlled by people who have no connection to or value for it. so they will just let it become the site of extraction, or to build high ways, or wind turbines, etc.

BoxOfRain 5y ago
I for one would be “bottle of gin a night” depressed living in a built up area, I realise I’m in a minority but city life absolutely isn’t for everyone.
ginja 5y ago
Anything other than a people weighted democracy would be, well, highly undemocratic. Resource extraction, highways and wind turbines have to exist somewhere - so aren’t the more sparsely populated areas the obvious choice?
- totetsu 5y ago
  there's no easy answers. but local regional self determination is not undemocratic is it? even if things have to exist somewhere, the people who are connected to those wheres should have some say over their future. besides its not like This country is highly democratic to begin with..

jfim 5y ago

> To save a planet that you then have far less ability to explore and enjoy? Or maybe letting future generations have an environment that they'd actually be able to explore and enjoy?

bryanrasmussen 5y ago

>But who actually wants to live like that? To live in a tiny property in a noisy city, to save a planet that you then have far less ability to explore and enjoy? people seem to accept all sorts of indignities the world over and throughout history in order to continue living and also keeping their children alive.

bluescrn 5y ago
If the world is that screwed, you should probably think twice about bringing kids into it.
- ben_w 5y ago
  For me, living in a city isn’t even a cost, never mind a cost such that I would hesitate to bring children into it. Which city are you thinking of that you have such a negative feeling about them?
  - bluescrn 5y ago
    London, primarily. I just couldn't live somewhere so busy - trains/tube at peak times are a grim enough experience just doing it on occasional visits - couldn't deal with it every day, let alone during a pandemic. And then there's the insane cost of housing, and the noise.
    - ben_w 5y ago
      Seems fair to not like London for those reasons (likewise from whenever I’ve been though it!), but even then I guess I am slightly surprised you find it so bad you’d not want to raise a family in it. (That said, the pandemic has made me broody, so I get different weighing on what you want from life). The good news is cities don’t need to be like that.
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  the implication is that people have suffered far worse throughout the world's history than living in a big city.

scatters 5y ago

> a planet that you then have far less ability to explore and enjoy Living in a city doesn't prevent you from getting a train, riding a bike, or (even) hiring a car to get out into nature. The only thing in the way is getting out through the suburbs and sprawl.

dalbasal 5y ago

>> who actually wants to live like that? One way to answer that is "demand." People demonstrably do want to live in a lot of dense noisy cities, with cramped living quarters, high costs, etc. They put up with a lot in order to do so. NY, SF, London, Beijing, Etc. The old "no one goes there, too crowded" quip. The counterargument (IMO) is that people want to live where be jobs, power, cultural elites, etc. Those can exist in suburban city plans, ancient city centres, etc. Some are nice. Many are not. I would say that people are adaptable. The operative question probably isn't who wants to live like that broadly. It's who will choose to move there. That'll depend on issues that are usually outside the scope of planning. Proximity. Culture. Jobs. Finance... How WFH develops is highly relevant, for example. Some things are not very amenable to "start small" approaches. Are tools in a planners realistic toolbox sufficient for doing any of these things? I think we're currently in a moment of opportunity. That means some underlying limitations are in flux. That doesn't mean planners have unlimited powers though. Ideas that require everything to change the way a planner wants them to are wishy washy.

ben_w 5y ago

Better zoning — allowing mixed use — helps a lot. Directly underneath me (Berlin apartments are mostly low-rise, not high-rise) is an office, the ground floor opposite me is a grocery store, and the same effect (though entirely horizontal) happens in areas with detached and semi-detached houses. Likewise in the UK.

occz 5y ago

55% of people worldwide live in cities and this number is growing. Consider whether you might be projecting your opinion onto everyone in this case.

adrianN 5y ago

The denser the city is, the shorter is the train or bicycle trip to much less disturbed nature. I don't want to have to cross an hour of urban sprawl to arrive in a place that is nice for hiking. I also much rather live in a multistory apartment building with a nice public park around the corner than in an area of single family homes with ten meters or grass around them. Cities are noisy because of traffic. The denser the city is, the less noisy traffic we need.

bluescrn 5y ago
You'll still have to travel a fairly long distance from the city to get away from the millions of other people escaping the city at the weekends. You won't find much quiet undisturbed nature close to a huge population centre.