6 ms·

"Packed like sardines" is a phrase that probably needs to be retired. First of all, people aren't packed like a factory worker packs a tin of sardines; they cho

"Packed like sardines" is a phrase that probably needs to be retired. First of all, people aren't packed like a factory worker packs a tin of sardines; they choose to live in cities, because they either enjoy it or find the tradeoffs to be worth it. Second, our cities are nowhere near as dense as they once were. There was maybe a time when people really were all packed in together in a way almost all of them found uncomfortable, but that's not really true anymore. Manhattan's population density is down 40% since 1910. But, ultimately I think you should be free to live however you want to live. What you should not be free to do is enforce your way of living via regulations that prevent density. If other people want to build density on property they own, then they should be allowed to do that, even if you don't like it. Somebody once said that buying a plot of land near a city and expecting the areas around it never to densify is like buying a puppy and getting mad when it turns into a full-sized dog. Cities have to be allowed to grow, your preferences notwithstanding.

everdrive 5y ago
I don't think your arguments are incorrect, but I honestly couldn't imagine anything worse than needing to live in a city surrounded by people. I live in a suburb now, and it's still too dense for my tastes. I strongly believe in environmentalist issues, and I understand intellectually that we would be better off if we mostly resided in compact environments. One issue I see is that ultimately when there are enough people, choice is removed. Eventually there is only density left. My town isn't very dense right now, but there is definitely pressure to build more homes. When that happens, my interests will be harmed, and the interests of people who would like more density would be served. It's effectively a zero-sum game. You could say "I have a choice to move somewhere less dense" -- but so too do the people who would prefer density: they can move somewhere else and leave me alone. Now I'm not arguing that I should be able to prevent people from making my area more dense. What I am arguing is that under this regime, people who like density will always eventually win, and people who abhor density will always eventually lose. Why is it fair that one group's preferences matter and another group's preferences do not?
- dionidium 5y ago
  Because your preference requires onerous restrictions on your neighbor's right to the use of their own private property. Say your neighbor wants to build a duplex. You might not like it, but that's as far as your harm goes. To enforce your preference, though, you have to restrict your neighbor's behavior. The metaphorical "lines" here are pretty easy to draw, because they're literally property lines with direct physical representations.
  - everdrive 5y ago
    I agree with that, but their actions do impinge on my preferences. My preferences disappear the moment theirs are exercised. Here's an example. I absolutely do not believe that this is actually a fair comparison. I do believe it follows the same logic as your example. Let me explain what I mean. Let's say that I lived in an apartment, and developed a habit of listening to extremely loud music with bass starting at 10pm, and ending at 5am. My neighbors have a "preference" to be able to not hear that loud music at all, and certainly not when they're trying to sleep. They may not _like_ the loud music, but that's as far as the harm goes. To enforce _their_ preference, they would have to restrict my behavior. Now all reasonable people would agree that playing deafening bass in the middle of the night is inappropriate, and that it would be perfectly fine to restrict my behavior. In other words, we restrict others' behavior pretty frequently. And, this restriction is based on "common sense" judgements. When the preferences of somebody falls outside of the norm under this regime, they may not have much recourse. Now to be clear, this is far from a perfect comparison: there are laws against noise pollution, and property lines are not really the same issue as "being obnoxious on purpose." In other words, I agree and admit that these two scenarios are not interchangeable in effect. (I do believe that they follow the same logic, however.) It's also not the case that in the "duplex" scenario that the greatest ill is not simply that I must "see" the duplex. Really, population density in an area has a number of effects: - More people means more noise pollution. (and in some cities, kids will play loud bass in their cars no matter what time of night it is) - More crime. (if not per-capita, then in absolute terms) - More trash, debris, and pollution in my general vicinity. - Longer travel times. - More crowds. - Etc. And again, I'm not suggesting that I should have a legal right to prevent density from occurring. However it seems that when density occurs I have no recourse but move. I don't have any way to preserve something which is singularly important to me.
APMLow 5y ago
I just love the hustle and bustle of the big city
nathias 5y ago
no, we do not choose it, we are forced to it because we can't afford anything else, so its either go to the sardine can or die

everdrive 5y ago

I don't think your arguments are incorrect, but I honestly couldn't imagine anything worse than needing to live in a city surrounded by people. I live in a suburb now, and it's still too dense for my tastes. I strongly believe in environmentalist issues, and I understand intellectually that we would be better off if we mostly resided in compact environments. One issue I see is that ultimately when there are enough people, choice is removed. Eventually there is only density left. My town isn't very dense right now, but there is definitely pressure to build more homes. When that happens, my interests will be harmed, and the interests of people who would like more density would be served. It's effectively a zero-sum game. You could say "I have a choice to move somewhere less dense" -- but so too do the people who would prefer density: they can move somewhere else and leave me alone. Now I'm not arguing that I should be able to prevent people from making my area more dense. What I am arguing is that under this regime, people who like density will always eventually win, and people who abhor density will always eventually lose. Why is it fair that one group's preferences matter and another group's preferences do not?

dionidium 5y ago
Because your preference requires onerous restrictions on your neighbor's right to the use of their own private property. Say your neighbor wants to build a duplex. You might not like it, but that's as far as your harm goes. To enforce your preference, though, you have to restrict your neighbor's behavior. The metaphorical "lines" here are pretty easy to draw, because they're literally property lines with direct physical representations.
- everdrive 5y ago
  I agree with that, but their actions do impinge on my preferences. My preferences disappear the moment theirs are exercised. Here's an example. I absolutely do not believe that this is actually a fair comparison. I do believe it follows the same logic as your example. Let me explain what I mean. Let's say that I lived in an apartment, and developed a habit of listening to extremely loud music with bass starting at 10pm, and ending at 5am. My neighbors have a "preference" to be able to not hear that loud music at all, and certainly not when they're trying to sleep. They may not _like_ the loud music, but that's as far as the harm goes. To enforce _their_ preference, they would have to restrict my behavior. Now all reasonable people would agree that playing deafening bass in the middle of the night is inappropriate, and that it would be perfectly fine to restrict my behavior. In other words, we restrict others' behavior pretty frequently. And, this restriction is based on "common sense" judgements. When the preferences of somebody falls outside of the norm under this regime, they may not have much recourse. Now to be clear, this is far from a perfect comparison: there are laws against noise pollution, and property lines are not really the same issue as "being obnoxious on purpose." In other words, I agree and admit that these two scenarios are not interchangeable in effect. (I do believe that they follow the same logic, however.) It's also not the case that in the "duplex" scenario that the greatest ill is not simply that I must "see" the duplex. Really, population density in an area has a number of effects: - More people means more noise pollution. (and in some cities, kids will play loud bass in their cars no matter what time of night it is) - More crime. (if not per-capita, then in absolute terms) - More trash, debris, and pollution in my general vicinity. - Longer travel times. - More crowds. - Etc. And again, I'm not suggesting that I should have a legal right to prevent density from occurring. However it seems that when density occurs I have no recourse but move. I don't have any way to preserve something which is singularly important to me.

APMLow 5y ago

I just love the hustle and bustle of the big city

nathias 5y ago

no, we do not choose it, we are forced to it because we can't afford anything else, so its either go to the sardine can or die