4 ms·

I was talking about Seattle in that instance. And it comes down to not creating congestion and contention for things like parking spaces in the first place. Man

I was talking about Seattle in that instance. And it comes down to not creating congestion and contention for things like parking spaces in the first place. Many cities run into scalability problems because they overbuild (both commercial and residential) and take density to an unnecessarily high level. Density isn’t a good thing, and virtually no one seeks it out as a positive trait in and of itself. The actual benefits of a city - like good restaurants, amenities, events, and so on - can be had at a much lower density than the level at which it makes transit a problem. To answer your final point, I would ask why cities need to scale further at all? Unchecked growth shouldn’t be a goal. Seattle in the 2000s had a population density of around 3000 per square kilometer, which was plenty enough to sustain a city but not so much that it brings all the negative problems with it. The density is slightly higher than that today but not as high as Barcelona, which is at 16000 per square kilometer.

Texaner 5y ago
You need density so that normal people can still afford to live there. Otherwise you'll just have all the big cities turn into places for the elites of the societies while the rest needs to live on the outskirts.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  > Otherwise you'll just have all the big cities turn into places for the elites of the societies while the rest needs to live on the outskirts. Why is that a bad thing? Not everyone has to live in one place. A more distributed economy across a web of smaller cities seems more desirable. The high cost of living is exactly what is supposed to discourage people from moving to an expensive place. If people want to put up with a high cost and live in the outskirts with a longer commute, then that is their choice - they are explicitly signaling that they accept such a trade off, and I don’t think any special accommodation should be made for them given that voluntary choice. One reason I don’t feel much sympathy for that outcome is that in the US, there are numerous locations across the country that are affordable and good places to live. The problem is that many feel entitled to live in the most desirable and trendy (in demand) places, and then bemoan the expense. But why wouldn’t it be expensive? No one is entitled to live where they want at whatever price point they want, just as I am not entitled to get a beachfront property in Hawaii just because I desire it.

Texaner 5y ago

You need density so that normal people can still afford to live there. Otherwise you'll just have all the big cities turn into places for the elites of the societies while the rest needs to live on the outskirts.

throwawaysea 5y ago
> Otherwise you'll just have all the big cities turn into places for the elites of the societies while the rest needs to live on the outskirts. Why is that a bad thing? Not everyone has to live in one place. A more distributed economy across a web of smaller cities seems more desirable. The high cost of living is exactly what is supposed to discourage people from moving to an expensive place. If people want to put up with a high cost and live in the outskirts with a longer commute, then that is their choice - they are explicitly signaling that they accept such a trade off, and I don’t think any special accommodation should be made for them given that voluntary choice. One reason I don’t feel much sympathy for that outcome is that in the US, there are numerous locations across the country that are affordable and good places to live. The problem is that many feel entitled to live in the most desirable and trendy (in demand) places, and then bemoan the expense. But why wouldn’t it be expensive? No one is entitled to live where they want at whatever price point they want, just as I am not entitled to get a beachfront property in Hawaii just because I desire it.