4 ms·

I was very involved with public transit activism for two decades. One of the most disappointing things about the switch to remote work during the pandemic is ho

I was very involved with public transit activism for two decades. One of the most disappointing things about the switch to remote work during the pandemic is how many of my friends I met through transit activism have turned against WFH. We used to push for "commute alternatives" of which both transit and work from home were just two of a range of alternatives. But it turns out much of that was simple lip service to transit alternatives that were easy to support because they weren't widely adopted. Once WFH suddenly gained a large chunk of market share, they got very hostile to it. Transit became the one and only acceptable choice. Turned out that many weren't motivated by wanting to have less dependence on private automobiles that clog up and pollute cities but rather they have a vision of everyone living in dense high rise buildings clustered together in city centers. Even though WFH helps unclog city streets and cleans the air, it is now considered bad because it goes against the ultimate goal of dense cities with plentiful transit to get around within the city. If people can live in low population density areas while eliminating 90% of the miles driven per year, that's considered a bad thing because it doesn't support the urban vision they have that can only work if alternatives aren't allowed to exist. Quite disappointing.

joe_the_user 5y ago
Actually, While never a transit activist, I would be in favor of dense, walkable cities regardless of work-from-home. I think these are more healthy in a multitude of ways. If people can live in low population density areas while eliminating 90% of the miles driven per year, that's considered a bad thing because it doesn't support the urban vision they have that can only work if alternatives aren't allowed to exist. Can you really eliminate 90% of miles driven by doing work-from-home in an entirely car oriented place? I live in small city surrounded by rural areas. Plenty of people have to drive five mile or more to get to anything. If someone did out once every ten days, it would unhealthy in other ways even if it conserved fuel, imo.
- gkop 5y ago
  Not only that but the urban vision could come blasting back. If people spend more time at home, they spend more time in their neighborhoods, so they start to care about neighborhood amenities, and suburban just can't compete with urban in the neighborhood amenities (let's wave away cars/driving, noting that in America most cities are actually fairly friendly for driving, as well as have low-density residential districts that are still much more sustainable than the suburbs). Maybe?
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    I think more time spent at home (both you and your neighbors) will drive demand for more interior space, sound isolation between neighbors, and private outside space, than it will drive desire for neighborhood amenities. (It will increase all of those things, but things higher on that list more.) I live in a low-ish density section of a city. If I still lived in my old mid-density apartment, I’d have broken my lease early in the pandemic to get out to get more space and not have people walking above me all day.
- zdragnar 5y ago
  The stress of living in high density areas is itself harmful to some people. I drive less now that I work from home in the country than when I commuted in the city, though the rise of two day shipping (Amazon, best buy, Walmart, etc) contributes a lot to that as well. On top of that, I have access to forests, rivers and a prairie preserve without having to drive, and it is fantastic. I'm not saying all 7 billion people need to live the way I do, but I'm glad the option exists and WFH helps make it possible.
  - GekkePrutser 5y ago
    It depends on the person. I live in a dense city and have been looking for a house. Unfortunately I can only afford highly residential areas further away (boring areas yet still in the city limits) and the thought of this really stresses me out. I just love the buzz and activity all around me. People having fun, drinking, playing music. As I live alone I know I would be extremely isolated in the countryside. I've lived in more remote areas in other countries which is precisely why I moved here :) But people differ a lot and there's not one size that fits all. Some of my friends live in the areas I call "boring" and they actually hate coming out here. Where I live is pretty much the hospitality / nightlife center and although I'm too old for all night binges I just love the feel of this in the area. When people are having fun that kind of radiates.
    - zdragnar 5y ago
      I totally get it. Two of my closest friends wouldn't trade city living for anywhere else, and a third has been gradually moving further and further out, realizing that he likes it more and more each time he moves. To each their own!
  - joe_the_user 5y ago
    On top of that, I have access to forests, rivers and a prairie preserve without having to drive, and it is fantastic. Well, I happen to know most people in rural areas in the US don't have anything like this. Nearly all land in the US is cris-crossed with fences and "out in the country" on average presents one with no place to hike pleasantly anywhere in walking distance to one's private property. The last time I lived in the country, I could walk along a busy highway to a small graveyard and that was it. Living in-town, Nevada City, I have far more walking options and can see forest, rivers and mountains because having lots of paths helps this place maintain it's tourist town status. Of course, when I lived in Berkeley, CA, I also had lots of walking options, including through forests and hills and that was full "urban" experience. American rural life is often unhappy for this and other reasons. A lot of people living in rural areas are poor and angry with little interest in despoiled, formerly natural areas they grew up in since they generally descend from workers in extractive industries that have moved on (mining and logging). So, I remain an advocate of dense, urban living.
- chaostheory 5y ago
  It depends. We get everything including groceries delivered now so if more people use the same services, which they are, there probably will be savings in terms of traffic and fuel. People who are really against an idea tend to not think of solutions to downsides.

joe_the_user 5y ago

Actually, While never a transit activist, I would be in favor of dense, walkable cities regardless of work-from-home. I think these are more healthy in a multitude of ways. If people can live in low population density areas while eliminating 90% of the miles driven per year, that's considered a bad thing because it doesn't support the urban vision they have that can only work if alternatives aren't allowed to exist. Can you really eliminate 90% of miles driven by doing work-from-home in an entirely car oriented place? I live in small city surrounded by rural areas. Plenty of people have to drive five mile or more to get to anything. If someone did out once every ten days, it would unhealthy in other ways even if it conserved fuel, imo.

gkop 5y ago
Not only that but the urban vision could come blasting back. If people spend more time at home, they spend more time in their neighborhoods, so they start to care about neighborhood amenities, and suburban just can't compete with urban in the neighborhood amenities (let's wave away cars/driving, noting that in America most cities are actually fairly friendly for driving, as well as have low-density residential districts that are still much more sustainable than the suburbs). Maybe?
- sokoloff 5y ago
  I think more time spent at home (both you and your neighbors) will drive demand for more interior space, sound isolation between neighbors, and private outside space, than it will drive desire for neighborhood amenities. (It will increase all of those things, but things higher on that list more.) I live in a low-ish density section of a city. If I still lived in my old mid-density apartment, I’d have broken my lease early in the pandemic to get out to get more space and not have people walking above me all day.
zdragnar 5y ago
The stress of living in high density areas is itself harmful to some people. I drive less now that I work from home in the country than when I commuted in the city, though the rise of two day shipping (Amazon, best buy, Walmart, etc) contributes a lot to that as well. On top of that, I have access to forests, rivers and a prairie preserve without having to drive, and it is fantastic. I'm not saying all 7 billion people need to live the way I do, but I'm glad the option exists and WFH helps make it possible.
- GekkePrutser 5y ago
  It depends on the person. I live in a dense city and have been looking for a house. Unfortunately I can only afford highly residential areas further away (boring areas yet still in the city limits) and the thought of this really stresses me out. I just love the buzz and activity all around me. People having fun, drinking, playing music. As I live alone I know I would be extremely isolated in the countryside. I've lived in more remote areas in other countries which is precisely why I moved here :) But people differ a lot and there's not one size that fits all. Some of my friends live in the areas I call "boring" and they actually hate coming out here. Where I live is pretty much the hospitality / nightlife center and although I'm too old for all night binges I just love the feel of this in the area. When people are having fun that kind of radiates.
  - zdragnar 5y ago
    I totally get it. Two of my closest friends wouldn't trade city living for anywhere else, and a third has been gradually moving further and further out, realizing that he likes it more and more each time he moves. To each their own!
- joe_the_user 5y ago
  On top of that, I have access to forests, rivers and a prairie preserve without having to drive, and it is fantastic. Well, I happen to know most people in rural areas in the US don't have anything like this. Nearly all land in the US is cris-crossed with fences and "out in the country" on average presents one with no place to hike pleasantly anywhere in walking distance to one's private property. The last time I lived in the country, I could walk along a busy highway to a small graveyard and that was it. Living in-town, Nevada City, I have far more walking options and can see forest, rivers and mountains because having lots of paths helps this place maintain it's tourist town status. Of course, when I lived in Berkeley, CA, I also had lots of walking options, including through forests and hills and that was full "urban" experience. American rural life is often unhappy for this and other reasons. A lot of people living in rural areas are poor and angry with little interest in despoiled, formerly natural areas they grew up in since they generally descend from workers in extractive industries that have moved on (mining and logging). So, I remain an advocate of dense, urban living.
chaostheory 5y ago
It depends. We get everything including groceries delivered now so if more people use the same services, which they are, there probably will be savings in terms of traffic and fuel. People who are really against an idea tend to not think of solutions to downsides.