5 ms·

There's actually a much more obvious and selfish reason somebody would want to do this: the tradeoffs are worth it. The reason people cluster together in citie

There's actually a much more obvious and selfish reason somebody would want to do this: the tradeoffs are worth it. The reason people cluster together in cities is so that they can trade with each other and have sex with each other and learn from each other and attend gatherings with each other and look at each other's art and so on. And even most sexless, joyless, introvert-art-haters need to sell their labor or their wares. So, sure, everybody would like more space, more privacy, etc, but the way the world actually works is that you have to make tradeoffs.

tharne 5y ago
> So, sure, everybody would like more space, more privacy, etc, but the way the world actually works is that you have to make tradeoffs. That's the beauty of technology though. I really don't have to make these tradeoffs anymore. I can work from home which means I'm no longer limited to the job market in my immediate geography. I can order practically any product I want online so it really doesn't matter if I live close to a city with great stores or not. I can use a plethora of apps to meet people and date. And of course, I have my car (and uber as a backup) so I don't need to be cramped into some terrible apartment in order to make the world accessible. We love to romanticize these crowded industrial era cities, but when given the choice, most people would rather not live in dense cities at all.
- dionidium 5y ago
  I'll just reiterate that I think you should be free to live however you want. What you should not be allowed to do is use zoning laws to enforce your preferences on everybody else. If a conservative is somebody standing athwart history yelling stop, then a NIMBY is someone who does the same thing to the city as it grows around them. That's a right you claim for yourself that I don't acknowledge. In fact I think it's plainly illegitimate and Unconstitutional.
  - pandaman 5y ago
    Zoning laws are at the township level. People living in the same location voted for them. Are you arguing that it's unconstitutional? On what grounds if you don't mind my asking?
    - dionidium 5y ago
      Because private property rights shouldn't be subject to a vote. That's the whole point of a Constitution. It's for the things that aren't up to a vote -- the things we agree are rights so fundamental that they are guaranteed, not subject to the whims of the electorate.
      - pandaman 5y ago
        Are you talking about the US Constitution or something else? The US Constitution explicitly limits private property rights in the 5th amendment.
        dionidium 5y ago
        The SCOTUS case that modern zoning grows out of is Euclid v. Ambler. It's a plainly ridiculous ruling, full of irrelevant editorializing about the desirability of urban environments. Consider this passage from the majority: > With particular reference to apartment houses, it is pointed out that the development of detached house sections is greatly retarded by the coming of apartment houses, which has sometimes resulted in destroying the entire section for private house purposes; that in such sections very often the apartment house is a mere parasite, constructed in order to take advantage of the open spaces and attractive surroundings created by the residential character of the district. Moreover, the coming of one apartment house is followed by others, interfering by their height and bulk with the free circulation of air and monopolizing the rays of the sun which otherwise would fall upon the smaller homes, and bringing, as their necessary accompaniments, the disturbing noises incident to increased traffic and business, and the occupation, by means of moving and parked automobiles, of larger portions of the streets, thus detracting from their safety and depriving children of the privilege of quiet and open spaces for play, enjoyed by those in more favored localities-until, finally, the residential character of the neighborhood and its desirability as a place of detached residences are utterly destroyed. Under these circumstances, apartment houses, which in a different environment would be not only entirely unobjectionable but highly desirable, come very near to being nuisances. What is this nonsense? "[T]he apartment house is a mere parasite." So the Court prefers suburbs to apartment living? Who cares? This is no basis for overturning fundamental property rights. The Court in Euclid did what NIMBYs often do, which is to listen to all the arguments and then say, ultimately, "yeah, yeah, productivity, property rights, freedom, etc, I get it, I get it, but I don't want more density near me and isn't the intensity of my preferences on this issue what really matters?"
- kd913 5y ago
  I don't think you understand how much it costs to maintain the infrastructure to your house. Not Just Bikes did an excellent series on this specific problem. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IsMeKl-Sv0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IsMeKl-Sv0
  - tharne 5y ago
    > I don't think you understand how much it costs to maintain the infrastructure to your house. I sure do understand it, but I also understand that when it comes to comparing the environmental impact of upper middle class urbanites and suburbanites, we're splitting hairs. Neither of these lifestyles as they exist now are sustainable, so what this really boils down to is a bunch of rich folks living in cities looking down their noses at us middle class plebs in the burbs, simply because they find suburbs aesthetically distasteful rather than out of any genuine concern for the environment.
    - kd913 5y ago
      >I sure do understand it, but I also understand that when it comes to comparing the environmental impact of upper middle class urbanites and suburbanites, we're splitting hairs Yea that is not at all true. You can literally compare the CO2 per capita for an average American/Canadian and someone from Europe and in general they produce 1/3 of the CO2. It is not a negligible difference. This is largely caused because of the urban designs which don't focus on gas dependent suburbia. Or the benefits from efficiency at scale which can only be achieved in high density living accommodations. https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/ https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-pe... It is also a plain fact that downtown urban blocks are the profit generators for cities whilst suburbia is largely a financial hole. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI You looking at a classist angle is I think an internal bias. There are poor/rich in both areas. It's just a straight fact though that suburban design is not sustainable both economically and ecologically.
      - tharne 5y ago
        > It's just a straight fact though that suburban design is not sustainable both economically and ecologically. I've never disputed this fact. It's true, the American suburban model is not sustainable. However, the urban lifestyle common in North America or Europe is likewise not sustainable either. So it does become a class/political issue since neither lifestyle actually address the issue at hand. It's just a bunch of people judging each other for their unsustainable lifestyles.
- oblio 5y ago
  The problem is, you're externalizing all your rural and suburban problems. Ruralia and Suburbia are not financially or environmentally sustainable, not as modern society. And even in rural areas, you expect all that technology to come to you. So yeah, it works for you, because a lot of people think like you and you're a big voting bloc, but ultimately, you're increasing debt levels for everyone and burning the planet down. But hey, you got yours, so we're cool...
  - teakettle42 5y ago
    > Ruralia and Suburbia are not financially or environmentally sustainable, not as modern society. You think your city is sustainable? Just two simple questions to put that lie to rest: 1. Where does your food come from? 2. Where does your water come from?
    - oblio 5y ago
      Who pays for that food and water? It's all about money. More people have more money.
      - teakettle42 5y ago
        Is this a sustainability argument?
        oblio 5y ago
        Well, yes. More people bunched up together use less CO2 for doing stuff and can pool expenses better. The fact that we've pulled people out of agriculture and we can grow food for 100 with just 1-2 actually growing it is great for the planet, for the economy, for human development.
        teakettle42 5y ago
        You cannot satisfy your most fundamental need for food and water. “Ruralia” is already entirely ecologically sustainable. If you don’t want to subsidize rural infrastructure through your tax dollars, then frankly, we should just charge you exorbitant rates for our food and water, and then — by your metric — we’ll be entirely financially sustainable, too.
- chriswarbo 5y ago
  > And of course, I have my car (and uber as a backup) Do you have your own paved road infrastructure, or are you relying on others to pay for that? Road infrastructure for low-density housing is a net drain on the public purse (unlike e.g. free healthcare, space exploration, etc. which are a net win, economically)
  - adwn 5y ago
    > (unlike e.g. free healthcare, space exploration, etc. which are a net win, economically) I'm a big fan of space exploration, but I seriously doubt that it's an economic net win.
    - chriswarbo 5y ago
      https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/2020_nasa_eir_brochure_for_fy19.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/2020_na... estimates a "total economic output" of 64 billion dollars from Nasa activities in 2019, for a budget of 21.5 billion.
navbaker 5y ago
If only there was a world-wide communication network that enabled people to live apart from other people and still perform all these functions...

tharne 5y ago

> So, sure, everybody would like more space, more privacy, etc, but the way the world actually works is that you have to make tradeoffs. That's the beauty of technology though. I really don't have to make these tradeoffs anymore. I can work from home which means I'm no longer limited to the job market in my immediate geography. I can order practically any product I want online so it really doesn't matter if I live close to a city with great stores or not. I can use a plethora of apps to meet people and date. And of course, I have my car (and uber as a backup) so I don't need to be cramped into some terrible apartment in order to make the world accessible. We love to romanticize these crowded industrial era cities, but when given the choice, most people would rather not live in dense cities at all.

dionidium 5y ago
I'll just reiterate that I think you should be free to live however you want. What you should not be allowed to do is use zoning laws to enforce your preferences on everybody else. If a conservative is somebody standing athwart history yelling stop, then a NIMBY is someone who does the same thing to the city as it grows around them. That's a right you claim for yourself that I don't acknowledge. In fact I think it's plainly illegitimate and Unconstitutional.
- pandaman 5y ago
  Zoning laws are at the township level. People living in the same location voted for them. Are you arguing that it's unconstitutional? On what grounds if you don't mind my asking?
  - dionidium 5y ago
    Because private property rights shouldn't be subject to a vote. That's the whole point of a Constitution. It's for the things that aren't up to a vote -- the things we agree are rights so fundamental that they are guaranteed, not subject to the whims of the electorate.
    - pandaman 5y ago
      Are you talking about the US Constitution or something else? The US Constitution explicitly limits private property rights in the 5th amendment.
      - dionidium 5y ago
        The SCOTUS case that modern zoning grows out of is Euclid v. Ambler. It's a plainly ridiculous ruling, full of irrelevant editorializing about the desirability of urban environments. Consider this passage from the majority: > With particular reference to apartment houses, it is pointed out that the development of detached house sections is greatly retarded by the coming of apartment houses, which has sometimes resulted in destroying the entire section for private house purposes; that in such sections very often the apartment house is a mere parasite, constructed in order to take advantage of the open spaces and attractive surroundings created by the residential character of the district. Moreover, the coming of one apartment house is followed by others, interfering by their height and bulk with the free circulation of air and monopolizing the rays of the sun which otherwise would fall upon the smaller homes, and bringing, as their necessary accompaniments, the disturbing noises incident to increased traffic and business, and the occupation, by means of moving and parked automobiles, of larger portions of the streets, thus detracting from their safety and depriving children of the privilege of quiet and open spaces for play, enjoyed by those in more favored localities-until, finally, the residential character of the neighborhood and its desirability as a place of detached residences are utterly destroyed. Under these circumstances, apartment houses, which in a different environment would be not only entirely unobjectionable but highly desirable, come very near to being nuisances. What is this nonsense? "[T]he apartment house is a mere parasite." So the Court prefers suburbs to apartment living? Who cares? This is no basis for overturning fundamental property rights. The Court in Euclid did what NIMBYs often do, which is to listen to all the arguments and then say, ultimately, "yeah, yeah, productivity, property rights, freedom, etc, I get it, I get it, but I don't want more density near me and isn't the intensity of my preferences on this issue what really matters?"
kd913 5y ago
I don't think you understand how much it costs to maintain the infrastructure to your house. Not Just Bikes did an excellent series on this specific problem. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IsMeKl-Sv0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IsMeKl-Sv0
- tharne 5y ago
  > I don't think you understand how much it costs to maintain the infrastructure to your house. I sure do understand it, but I also understand that when it comes to comparing the environmental impact of upper middle class urbanites and suburbanites, we're splitting hairs. Neither of these lifestyles as they exist now are sustainable, so what this really boils down to is a bunch of rich folks living in cities looking down their noses at us middle class plebs in the burbs, simply because they find suburbs aesthetically distasteful rather than out of any genuine concern for the environment.
  - kd913 5y ago
    >I sure do understand it, but I also understand that when it comes to comparing the environmental impact of upper middle class urbanites and suburbanites, we're splitting hairs Yea that is not at all true. You can literally compare the CO2 per capita for an average American/Canadian and someone from Europe and in general they produce 1/3 of the CO2. It is not a negligible difference. This is largely caused because of the urban designs which don't focus on gas dependent suburbia. Or the benefits from efficiency at scale which can only be achieved in high density living accommodations. https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/ https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-pe... It is also a plain fact that downtown urban blocks are the profit generators for cities whilst suburbia is largely a financial hole. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI You looking at a classist angle is I think an internal bias. There are poor/rich in both areas. It's just a straight fact though that suburban design is not sustainable both economically and ecologically.
    - tharne 5y ago
      > It's just a straight fact though that suburban design is not sustainable both economically and ecologically. I've never disputed this fact. It's true, the American suburban model is not sustainable. However, the urban lifestyle common in North America or Europe is likewise not sustainable either. So it does become a class/political issue since neither lifestyle actually address the issue at hand. It's just a bunch of people judging each other for their unsustainable lifestyles.
oblio 5y ago
The problem is, you're externalizing all your rural and suburban problems. Ruralia and Suburbia are not financially or environmentally sustainable, not as modern society. And even in rural areas, you expect all that technology to come to you. So yeah, it works for you, because a lot of people think like you and you're a big voting bloc, but ultimately, you're increasing debt levels for everyone and burning the planet down. But hey, you got yours, so we're cool...
- teakettle42 5y ago
  > Ruralia and Suburbia are not financially or environmentally sustainable, not as modern society. You think your city is sustainable? Just two simple questions to put that lie to rest: 1. Where does your food come from? 2. Where does your water come from?
  - oblio 5y ago
    Who pays for that food and water? It's all about money. More people have more money.
    - teakettle42 5y ago
      Is this a sustainability argument?
      - oblio 5y ago
        Well, yes. More people bunched up together use less CO2 for doing stuff and can pool expenses better. The fact that we've pulled people out of agriculture and we can grow food for 100 with just 1-2 actually growing it is great for the planet, for the economy, for human development.
        teakettle42 5y ago
        You cannot satisfy your most fundamental need for food and water. “Ruralia” is already entirely ecologically sustainable. If you don’t want to subsidize rural infrastructure through your tax dollars, then frankly, we should just charge you exorbitant rates for our food and water, and then — by your metric — we’ll be entirely financially sustainable, too.
chriswarbo 5y ago
> And of course, I have my car (and uber as a backup) Do you have your own paved road infrastructure, or are you relying on others to pay for that? Road infrastructure for low-density housing is a net drain on the public purse (unlike e.g. free healthcare, space exploration, etc. which are a net win, economically)
- adwn 5y ago
  > (unlike e.g. free healthcare, space exploration, etc. which are a net win, economically) I'm a big fan of space exploration, but I seriously doubt that it's an economic net win.
  - chriswarbo 5y ago
    https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/2020_nasa_eir_brochure_for_fy19.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/2020_na... estimates a "total economic output" of 64 billion dollars from Nasa activities in 2019, for a budget of 21.5 billion.

navbaker 5y ago

If only there was a world-wide communication network that enabled people to live apart from other people and still perform all these functions...