3 ms·

Is efficiency for the sake of efficiency worth it though? There's a second order effect I observed which I feel isn't discussed enough: when it's assumed that

by Tade0 5y ago

Is efficiency for the sake of efficiency worth it though? There's a second order effect I observed which I feel isn't discussed enough: when it's assumed that you can only walk/cycle or perhaps take the bus in an area, suddenly there's an additional premium imposed on space. The net result is accelerated gentrification. Anecdata: just about anyone I know from my generation was priced out of those walkable districts with access to public transportation they grew up in - simply because investors are aware of what is in demand, so they put all their money there and not into places you can only reliably access via car. What follows is people buying not homes, but apartments built in the middle of buttfuck nowhere and driving to/from there, because that's what they can afford. A net negative, but here we are. I'm all for livable cities, but what good is it if the only ones who can afford it are the 1%?

pantalaimon 5y ago
That argument is ridiculous. So dense neighborhoods are popular, therefore prices are rising because more people want to live in a dense neighborhood. The solution to that is not "let's build more undesirable neighborhoods so prices are not increasing" but to change zoning regulations so more dense neighborhoods can be build to satisfy demand!
- Tade0 5y ago
  The point I'm making is different - cars give you range and thus leverage in situations where you would otherwise be forced to buy/rent real estate close to the place you work/shop at and have to compete over it with those who buy it purely for investment purposes. Sure, this is suboptimal and those who opt to live further away and drive everywhere lose time and money but often they're not even eligible for a mortgage within city limits, so they don't have much of a choice anyway.
- tluyben2 5y ago
  Or are they living there for jobs? That’s what I always hear as excuse for people to live there, not that they like dense neighbourhoods. I am old though so my network and (news/social) reading habits might be different.
  - MiddleEndian 5y ago
    I like living in a dense city. I can walk almost everywhere, I don't need a car, there's nice parks, things are open later (although not late enough for my preferences sometimes), there's good variety of restaurants, entertainment, art, food, bars, dancing, sports, clubs for nerds, and so on. The outer walls of my condo are made of concrete, I hear less from my neighbors than when I lived in a house. The jobs situation is/was also convenient, but I now work remotely and still enjoy living in the city. Of course, I'm sure there are plenty of people who live in a city and don't like it, and also plenty of people who would prefer to live in the city but cannot afford it or their circumstances keep them somewhere more remote. If my circumstances change so that I do not enjoy it anymore, or if my material needs change, then I'll adapt appropriately, whether it's moving to a different neighborhood, to a beach town, to the mountains, or to the moon.
    - tluyben2 5y ago
      Yeah, think that's a healthy attitude. I never really liked living in cities, but I do like visiting them, especially mega ones that are open most of 24/7 (cities that close before 5 am I find utterly boring I noticed and I lived in a few; but people with kids like that or so I heard). Clubs for nerds sounds good; is that some kind of meatspace IRC?
      - MiddleEndian 5y ago
        >Clubs for nerds sounds good; is that some kind of meatspace IRC? Pretty much, you get everything from board games to Linux meetups, and then like IRC channels, they usually collapse through drama or mismanagement and then a few more pop up lol
woah 5y ago
What a ridiculous take. Walkable districts are a good thing, and instead of building more, you want to ban them?
- Tade0 5y ago
  I said I want to ban density over a certain number. Or specifically: leave space for modes of personal transportation other than walking or cycling. Such cities can still be walkable - I grew up in one so I should know. But I also lived on the outskirts of a very dense (due to historic architecture) city and would never want to move any further inward, because that place was hell. Bottom line is density is a bad target. Livability is a good one and density doesn't equal livability. Actually, my whole point is that there exists a level of population density which is actually worse than detached housing.

by Tade0 5y ago

pantalaimon 5y ago

That argument is ridiculous. So dense neighborhoods are popular, therefore prices are rising because more people want to live in a dense neighborhood. The solution to that is not "let's build more undesirable neighborhoods so prices are not increasing" but to change zoning regulations so more dense neighborhoods can be build to satisfy demand!

Tade0 5y ago
The point I'm making is different - cars give you range and thus leverage in situations where you would otherwise be forced to buy/rent real estate close to the place you work/shop at and have to compete over it with those who buy it purely for investment purposes. Sure, this is suboptimal and those who opt to live further away and drive everywhere lose time and money but often they're not even eligible for a mortgage within city limits, so they don't have much of a choice anyway.
tluyben2 5y ago
Or are they living there for jobs? That’s what I always hear as excuse for people to live there, not that they like dense neighbourhoods. I am old though so my network and (news/social) reading habits might be different.
- MiddleEndian 5y ago
  I like living in a dense city. I can walk almost everywhere, I don't need a car, there's nice parks, things are open later (although not late enough for my preferences sometimes), there's good variety of restaurants, entertainment, art, food, bars, dancing, sports, clubs for nerds, and so on. The outer walls of my condo are made of concrete, I hear less from my neighbors than when I lived in a house. The jobs situation is/was also convenient, but I now work remotely and still enjoy living in the city. Of course, I'm sure there are plenty of people who live in a city and don't like it, and also plenty of people who would prefer to live in the city but cannot afford it or their circumstances keep them somewhere more remote. If my circumstances change so that I do not enjoy it anymore, or if my material needs change, then I'll adapt appropriately, whether it's moving to a different neighborhood, to a beach town, to the mountains, or to the moon.
  - tluyben2 5y ago
    Yeah, think that's a healthy attitude. I never really liked living in cities, but I do like visiting them, especially mega ones that are open most of 24/7 (cities that close before 5 am I find utterly boring I noticed and I lived in a few; but people with kids like that or so I heard). Clubs for nerds sounds good; is that some kind of meatspace IRC?
    - MiddleEndian 5y ago
      >Clubs for nerds sounds good; is that some kind of meatspace IRC? Pretty much, you get everything from board games to Linux meetups, and then like IRC channels, they usually collapse through drama or mismanagement and then a few more pop up lol

woah 5y ago

What a ridiculous take. Walkable districts are a good thing, and instead of building more, you want to ban them?

Tade0 5y ago
I said I want to ban density over a certain number. Or specifically: leave space for modes of personal transportation other than walking or cycling. Such cities can still be walkable - I grew up in one so I should know. But I also lived on the outskirts of a very dense (due to historic architecture) city and would never want to move any further inward, because that place was hell. Bottom line is density is a bad target. Livability is a good one and density doesn't equal livability. Actually, my whole point is that there exists a level of population density which is actually worse than detached housing.