5 ms·

> If we went back to 19th century urban planning and transportation solutions, compact cities, apartments, bicycles and trains, we'd massively cut our CO2 emiss

> If we went back to 19th century urban planning and transportation solutions, compact cities, apartments, bicycles and trains, we'd massively cut our CO2 emissions while having no real negative impact on our standard of living. That’s a bold assertion that may, in fact, be true for you, but it would clearly, substantially, and obviously negatively impact the standard of living for millions of others who would find being crammed into sardine can utopia anything but utopia.

jodrellblank 5y ago
You could shrink roads and non-space bits of green or concrete filler, expand living areas into some of that reclaimed space while shrinking the city from the rest of that space, have more personal space of higher quality with lower air and noise pollution and closer services in a smaller city and better public transport to/from suburban living areas, and have less sardine can life than currently.
- teakettle42 5y ago
  I’m not sure how you shrink my tree-covered acreage to fit into this model, and how attempting to doing so wouldn’t be negatively impacting my quality of life.
  - jodrellblank 5y ago
    I'm not sure how you get from "reducing road and concrete no-place filler in cities" to taking tree covered land away from your country estate, or what that has to do with options to improve both quality of life and carbon emissions/resource use in typical sprawling cities.
    - harpersealtako 5y ago
      I consider a detached home with a private, wooded yard (which is still near enough to urban amenities and utilities to not be a "country estate") to be my ideal home, and don't see how this kind of home and lifestyle can fit into neo-urbanist planning schemes without a lot of friction.
danny_codes 5y ago
Oh no, living in a fully nuclear/solar-powered Amsterdam-Tokyo, the horror. This sounds great.
- teakettle42 5y ago
  > This sounds great. I’m sure it does — to you. It sounds like a one sentence horror story to me. I enjoy living somewhere small enough that I have an active role to play in my community’s basic needs, including serving as a volunteer firefighter, while still being remote enough that I don’t need to intrude on my neighbors (or request their approval) to largely live the way I want to live — and vis versa.
  - TrispusAttucks 5y ago
    Agreed. Simple life. This is the way. These megacities aren't sustainable and have consumed so many resources that could have sustained untold generations.
    - mlyle 5y ago
      Don't city dwellers use fewer resources per capita than suburban, rural, and town dwellers? e.g. more efficient transport, shorter trip distances, more efficient heating and cooling, less resource-intensive construction per resident.
      - TrispusAttucks 5y ago
        That's one narrative if you exclude a bunch of stuff and do some accounting trickery. [1] I have commented on this in the past. I stand by my analysis but welcome harsh review and criticism. Read full thread for details. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28712733 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28712733
        mlyle 5y ago
        So your argument is: - people in cities are wealthier - so, therefore, they consume more services from elsewhere, just like wealthy suburbanites or rural people do - therefore, handwave, it doesn't matter that the actual daily bits of their life (transport, logistics, construction, etc) is more resource efficient. This argument makes no sense to me. Controlling the variable, equally wealthy people emit more in suburbs, towns, and rural areas. Unless you're just hoping by moving people out of cities, enough wealth is obliterated to lower resource consumption?

jodrellblank 5y ago

You could shrink roads and non-space bits of green or concrete filler, expand living areas into some of that reclaimed space while shrinking the city from the rest of that space, have more personal space of higher quality with lower air and noise pollution and closer services in a smaller city and better public transport to/from suburban living areas, and have less sardine can life than currently.

teakettle42 5y ago
I’m not sure how you shrink my tree-covered acreage to fit into this model, and how attempting to doing so wouldn’t be negatively impacting my quality of life.
- jodrellblank 5y ago
  I'm not sure how you get from "reducing road and concrete no-place filler in cities" to taking tree covered land away from your country estate, or what that has to do with options to improve both quality of life and carbon emissions/resource use in typical sprawling cities.
  - harpersealtako 5y ago
    I consider a detached home with a private, wooded yard (which is still near enough to urban amenities and utilities to not be a "country estate") to be my ideal home, and don't see how this kind of home and lifestyle can fit into neo-urbanist planning schemes without a lot of friction.

danny_codes 5y ago

Oh no, living in a fully nuclear/solar-powered Amsterdam-Tokyo, the horror. This sounds great.

teakettle42 5y ago
> This sounds great. I’m sure it does — to you. It sounds like a one sentence horror story to me. I enjoy living somewhere small enough that I have an active role to play in my community’s basic needs, including serving as a volunteer firefighter, while still being remote enough that I don’t need to intrude on my neighbors (or request their approval) to largely live the way I want to live — and vis versa.
- TrispusAttucks 5y ago
  Agreed. Simple life. This is the way. These megacities aren't sustainable and have consumed so many resources that could have sustained untold generations.
  - mlyle 5y ago
    Don't city dwellers use fewer resources per capita than suburban, rural, and town dwellers? e.g. more efficient transport, shorter trip distances, more efficient heating and cooling, less resource-intensive construction per resident.
    - TrispusAttucks 5y ago
      That's one narrative if you exclude a bunch of stuff and do some accounting trickery. [1] I have commented on this in the past. I stand by my analysis but welcome harsh review and criticism. Read full thread for details. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28712733 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28712733
      - mlyle 5y ago
        So your argument is: - people in cities are wealthier - so, therefore, they consume more services from elsewhere, just like wealthy suburbanites or rural people do - therefore, handwave, it doesn't matter that the actual daily bits of their life (transport, logistics, construction, etc) is more resource efficient. This argument makes no sense to me. Controlling the variable, equally wealthy people emit more in suburbs, towns, and rural areas. Unless you're just hoping by moving people out of cities, enough wealth is obliterated to lower resource consumption?