4 ms·

It feels weird to argue against suburbs while I'm living there, but... Most pro-density/pro-mass-transit people aren't arguing against rural lifestyle. They'r

It feels weird to argue against suburbs while I'm living there, but... Most pro-density/pro-mass-transit people aren't arguing against rural lifestyle. They're against suburban, car-dominated lifestyle. I'll conjecture that, for many people, the potential benefit of living "close to nature" is more than negated by driving everywhere. Commuting in a subway in a mega-city easily racks up thirty minutes of brisk walking per day.

User23 4y ago
Unless you’re Amish or otherwise plain living, the rural lifestyle is exceedingly automobile dependent.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  These days a whole lot of the Amish are also automobile dependent. :)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
throwaway894345 4y ago
I hear a lot of them argue about how rural people waste space and how they’re sick of subsidizing rural infrastructure and we should impose policies which further incentivize people to migrate from rural to urban areas. The thrust of the issue seems to be directed at suburbs (if only because many of these folks are only marginally aware of the world beyond the suburbs), but rural life is still wholly incompatible with their car free utopian vision (although more than a few have amusingly proposed extending public transit to every rural community!).
- imw 4y ago
  Fascinating. I've spent a fair amount of time in/around pro-livability discussions, and I've never really come across what you're describing. In my experience a solid portion of the folks advocating for more human-friendly cities are urban dwellers who spend significant time in nature and/or wilderness.
- ryukafalz 4y ago
  > and how they’re sick of subsidizing rural infrastructure I mean, it’s fine if you want to live somewhere rural, but why should that be subsidized?
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    I’m fine with not subsidizing it but we subsidize all sorts of public goods—schools, libraries, etc. It’s not exactly unusual.
    - ryukafalz 4y ago
      Let me rephrase that: why should we subsidize it more than we subsidize the equivalent infrastructure in urban areas? It costs a lot more to provide infrastructure to rural areas than urban ones. If we expect both of these to be fully paid for by our taxes, and if we expect the tax burden to be similar, that means those of us living in cities are subsidizing those living in rural ones. (And note I'm not talking about actual agricultural industries that require that much space, I'm talking about people living in rural areas just because they like it better. Everyone depends on farms, we can subsidize those.) I'm fine with people living in rural areas if they want to, but I don't think we should expect city-dwellers to subsidize them if they do.
      - Loughla 4y ago
        >I'm not talking about actual agricultural industries that require that much space, I'm talking about people living in rural areas just because they like it better. Everyone depends on farms, we can subsidize those So what about the people who live there to provide education to the farmers' kids? What about the people who work at the local restaurants and grocery stores that serve farmers? What about the people who live there to provide trash service for the people who serve the farmers? Where does it end and why does it end at that point? Society [noun]: the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community. It's not like we can lay out roads and say, "this is for farm machinery only, nobody else gets to use it." So, via subsidizing agriculture, you are going to subsidize some people who choose to live out there. I don't get how you could possibly disentangle that in any way that isn't completely unsustainable. I also don't understand why you would want to; something, something, common good.
JohnBooty 4y ago
...suburban, car-dominated lifestyle. I'll conjecture that, for many people, the potential benefit of living "close to nature" is more than negated by driving everywhere It's not possible for everyone, of course, but the work-from-home rural/suburban lifestyle has a lot more plusses than minuses IMO. It's close to nature, and my driving is very minimal. In an average month I spend maybe 3 hours in a car. Can walk in the park every day, etc.

User23 4y ago

Unless you’re Amish or otherwise plain living, the rural lifestyle is exceedingly automobile dependent.

throwaway894345 4y ago
These days a whole lot of the Amish are also automobile dependent. :)
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

throwaway894345 4y ago

I hear a lot of them argue about how rural people waste space and how they’re sick of subsidizing rural infrastructure and we should impose policies which further incentivize people to migrate from rural to urban areas. The thrust of the issue seems to be directed at suburbs (if only because many of these folks are only marginally aware of the world beyond the suburbs), but rural life is still wholly incompatible with their car free utopian vision (although more than a few have amusingly proposed extending public transit to every rural community!).

imw 4y ago
Fascinating. I've spent a fair amount of time in/around pro-livability discussions, and I've never really come across what you're describing. In my experience a solid portion of the folks advocating for more human-friendly cities are urban dwellers who spend significant time in nature and/or wilderness.
ryukafalz 4y ago
> and how they’re sick of subsidizing rural infrastructure I mean, it’s fine if you want to live somewhere rural, but why should that be subsidized?
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  I’m fine with not subsidizing it but we subsidize all sorts of public goods—schools, libraries, etc. It’s not exactly unusual.
  - ryukafalz 4y ago
    Let me rephrase that: why should we subsidize it more than we subsidize the equivalent infrastructure in urban areas? It costs a lot more to provide infrastructure to rural areas than urban ones. If we expect both of these to be fully paid for by our taxes, and if we expect the tax burden to be similar, that means those of us living in cities are subsidizing those living in rural ones. (And note I'm not talking about actual agricultural industries that require that much space, I'm talking about people living in rural areas just because they like it better. Everyone depends on farms, we can subsidize those.) I'm fine with people living in rural areas if they want to, but I don't think we should expect city-dwellers to subsidize them if they do.
    - Loughla 4y ago
      >I'm not talking about actual agricultural industries that require that much space, I'm talking about people living in rural areas just because they like it better. Everyone depends on farms, we can subsidize those So what about the people who live there to provide education to the farmers' kids? What about the people who work at the local restaurants and grocery stores that serve farmers? What about the people who live there to provide trash service for the people who serve the farmers? Where does it end and why does it end at that point? Society [noun]: the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community. It's not like we can lay out roads and say, "this is for farm machinery only, nobody else gets to use it." So, via subsidizing agriculture, you are going to subsidize some people who choose to live out there. I don't get how you could possibly disentangle that in any way that isn't completely unsustainable. I also don't understand why you would want to; something, something, common good.

JohnBooty 4y ago

...suburban, car-dominated lifestyle. I'll conjecture that, for many people, the potential benefit of living "close to nature" is more than negated by driving everywhere It's not possible for everyone, of course, but the work-from-home rural/suburban lifestyle has a lot more plusses than minuses IMO. It's close to nature, and my driving is very minimal. In an average month I spend maybe 3 hours in a car. Can walk in the park every day, etc.