3 ms·

What a thought provoking point. Advanced cities are good enough that the people who could pay for more are still happy with the same.

by exdsq 5y ago

arcticbull 5y ago
And where "more" isn't necessarily better. It's super frustrating that Google Maps doesn't include the time it takes to walk to your car, the time it takes to drive out of the parking lot, the time it takes to find a parking spot and the time it takes to walk from your parking spot to your destination -- or the time it takes to wait for an Uber. [edit] It just assumes there's a car out front of your house, idling, that you can drop directly off in front of your destination and forget about. On the other hand, with public transit directions, it takes into account not just how long it takes to walk to and from your destination, but in places without fixed schedules for certain routes, assumes you'll miss one and have to wait for the next one. A good example is getting from Brooklyn to JFK with the A and AirTrain via Howard Beach Station. It just adds 15 extra minutes, making transit look much worse than an Uber - where in reality, it's usually a good 10 minutes faster. In a lot of cases, biking or taking public transit are simply better choices - faster, cheaper, more convenient. That's not how they're often presented, however. I live in downtown SF, and I now exclusively take transit, scooters or my e-bike. It's just better.
- exdsq 5y ago
  I went back to edit my comment before I saw yours about "more" potentially not being better so I completely agree. I'm in Palo Alto and very happy getting around on my bike or the caltrain (or renting a car for the one-offs).
- mohanmcgeek 5y ago
  People in the US live in suburbs that are several towns worth of distance away from the city. In many cases, the train lines don't exist on those places. This culture of suburbia needs to change.
  - cplusplusfellow 5y ago
    Not really. Maybe we can live the way we want to and not pollute and use Zoom meetings. We don’t all have to live packed into cities.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      Living in cities is significantly more efficient - environmentally, economically and on energy consumption and water consumption. We could all live out in the middle of nowhere, at the expense of the environment, but only if we significantly reduced our population at the same time.
      - cplusplusfellow 5y ago
        I remain unconvinced that living outside of a city has a larger than normal share of environmental externalities.
        arcticbull 5y ago
        Interesting, I did some digging based on your reply. Seems like it's an open question. I'll do some more reading!
      - gjs278 5y ago
        jam packed into a massively increasing co2 chamber and being exposed to more crime. sounds great.
    - herbst 5y ago
      It's not the one or or the other. I live far more remote than a typical American suburb. Yet my neighbor's sell cheese, milk and other stuff all around in simple fridges with a little qr code for payment. For everything else I can just order online and get it delivered asap. I don't care that it takes me a hour or so to the nearest city by public transport. What I care is the infrastructure given there where I live.

What a thought provoking point. Advanced cities are good enough that the people who could pay for more are still happy with the same.

by exdsq 5y ago

What a thought provoking point. Advanced cities are good enough that the people who could pay for more are still happy with the same.

arcticbull 5y ago

And where "more" isn't necessarily better. It's super frustrating that Google Maps doesn't include the time it takes to walk to your car, the time it takes to drive out of the parking lot, the time it takes to find a parking spot and the time it takes to walk from your parking spot to your destination -- or the time it takes to wait for an Uber. [edit] It just assumes there's a car out front of your house, idling, that you can drop directly off in front of your destination and forget about. On the other hand, with public transit directions, it takes into account not just how long it takes to walk to and from your destination, but in places without fixed schedules for certain routes, assumes you'll miss one and have to wait for the next one. A good example is getting from Brooklyn to JFK with the A and AirTrain via Howard Beach Station. It just adds 15 extra minutes, making transit look much worse than an Uber - where in reality, it's usually a good 10 minutes faster. In a lot of cases, biking or taking public transit are simply better choices - faster, cheaper, more convenient. That's not how they're often presented, however. I live in downtown SF, and I now exclusively take transit, scooters or my e-bike. It's just better.

exdsq 5y ago
I went back to edit my comment before I saw yours about "more" potentially not being better so I completely agree. I'm in Palo Alto and very happy getting around on my bike or the caltrain (or renting a car for the one-offs).
mohanmcgeek 5y ago
People in the US live in suburbs that are several towns worth of distance away from the city. In many cases, the train lines don't exist on those places. This culture of suburbia needs to change.
- cplusplusfellow 5y ago
  Not really. Maybe we can live the way we want to and not pollute and use Zoom meetings. We don’t all have to live packed into cities.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    Living in cities is significantly more efficient - environmentally, economically and on energy consumption and water consumption. We could all live out in the middle of nowhere, at the expense of the environment, but only if we significantly reduced our population at the same time.
    - cplusplusfellow 5y ago
      I remain unconvinced that living outside of a city has a larger than normal share of environmental externalities.
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        Interesting, I did some digging based on your reply. Seems like it's an open question. I'll do some more reading!
    - gjs278 5y ago
      jam packed into a massively increasing co2 chamber and being exposed to more crime. sounds great.
  - herbst 5y ago
    It's not the one or or the other. I live far more remote than a typical American suburb. Yet my neighbor's sell cheese, milk and other stuff all around in simple fridges with a little qr code for payment. For everything else I can just order online and get it delivered asap. I don't care that it takes me a hour or so to the nearest city by public transport. What I care is the infrastructure given there where I live.