7 ms·

You mean American, crappily designed urban cores. Plenty of cities around the world that are safe, have plenty of green space, and are much more affordable than

You mean American, crappily designed urban cores. Plenty of cities around the world that are safe, have plenty of green space, and are much more affordable than those in the US.

refurb 4y ago
Yeah, no. I spent time in Singapore. Incredible transit system, carefully designed "Garden City" with plenty of outdoor areas, modern, efficient, affordable public housing. And what did people aspire to? Single family homes, with their own yard and a car. What HN sees as "people are forced to live in the suburbs", is in reality, people just choosing what they like best. Same in all the other countries I've lived in. Sure, 20-somethings love living in "hip" cities with "trendy" restaurants and "fun" bars to go and are willing to trade all that for tiny apartments. I don't deny that. But a very substantial part of the population don't want that. They want space, quiet neighborhoods and are willing to have to drive to get that.
- Sakos 4y ago
  I'm very confused. Singapore doesn't have the space for single family housing. The vast majority of homes there are flats/apartments. https://www.singstat.gov.sg/find-data/search-by-theme/households/households/latest-data https://www.singstat.gov.sg/find-data/search-by-theme/househ...
  - Omniusaspirer 4y ago
    Yes, but the most valuable are the freehold GCBs.
  - thablackbull 4y ago
    I think what he means is that, given the choice, people there would opt for a good class bungalow (essentially your 'detached home', but most will never be able to afford it). That is an obvious statement, but the analogy breaks down a bit as in Singapore, whether you live in a GCB or in HDB (social housing), everything is relatively close by regardless. Hence, there isn't really much of a trade-off at all - living in a GCB just affords more space and privacy (at an exponentially inflated cost).
    - refurb 4y ago
      Good class bungalows are not your typical single family home. They are on huge lots even for a US single family home. There are townhomes (shophouses), duplexes, single family homes as options as well. “To qualify as a GCB, the property must have at least 1,400 square metres (approx. 15,070 sq. ft.) of land area, and the bungalow itself is limited to a maximum of two storeys in height” People in HDBs want to live in condo, condos want to live in shophouses, shophouses want to live in detached freehold homes. Everybody wants more space. And despite the great transit system, parts of Singapore can be more remote to the point a car being almost a requirement. And that’s what many people strive for.
- RC_ITR 4y ago
  Sure. Everyone also aspires to fly private. The point being we need to figure out how to not destroy nature while allowing people to live meaningful lives and the suburbs ain’t that.
  - refurb 4y ago
    That may be true in some countries, but it's not true in the US or Canada. In fact your comment is just bizarre when you look at the numbers. The US has enough land to give every single person (man, woman, child - not household) almost 7 acres of land. The idea that we need pack ourselves in to <1% of the land mass in dense urban cores or else, as you put it we can't live "meaningful lives" (do you decide what's meaningful?) or "destroying nature" is just wrong. And the best part? We can afford it! We don't need the federal government backing "jumbo" leans for $1M apartments in San Francisco - instead they can back mortgages for 5 homes in the mid-West. And this is a big shocker - a lot of it's already developed because we need places to grow food!
    - kelnos 4y ago
      How do you economically electrify all those those evenly-spaced 7-acre plots of land? How do you build roads to all of them? How do you deliver mail to all of them? How do you get water and sewer lines to all of them (wells don't work everywhere, and septic tanks pollute and just generally suck)? Hell, what company is going to lay down fiber or even coax to all of them? How do you build grocery stores such that people don't have to drive 90 minutes to get one, but there aren't so few customers per store that most of the produce spoils before it can be bought? I know you're exaggerating for effect, but every degree that you spread people out means greater and greater investments in infrastructure and utilities you need to build and maintain, and some things we take for granted today just become infeasible. And I agree that it's ridiculous to pay $1,000 per square foot (or more!) for housing in San Francisco. But that's not because of some sort of natural consequence of things, it's actually because it's not dense enough, and the political will to force more building just isn't there. Housing is so expensive here because, despite all the bad things about the city, despite the alleged COVID exodus, we still have far far more people who want to live here than the available housing can support.
s1artibartfast 4y ago
Even well planned Urban cities provide very different opportunities to the rural situation. You can't go casually hiking or mountain biking or camping in the afternoon after school
- orwin 4y ago
  You absolutely can. Especially hiking (even living in Paris of all cities, you have two dozen trails you can get to by train). Mountain biking idk because I'm more of a sea guy, but i was doing a lot of river kayak after work in my previous city, and now I'm windsurfing a lot.
- nl 4y ago
  Define "Urban city"? I live in the center of a 1M+ city and went for a 1.5 hour bush hike 15 minutes drive from my house.
  - db48x 4y ago
    A 12–year–old can’t drive 15 minutes out of the city after school in order to go hiking. In a rural area the fields, farms, woods, streams, ponds, and other such attractions are all right within a few minutes walking distance. Indeed, that kid probably has to bike right past all of those things in order to get to his friend’s house to play Contra. Even in a suburban area some of those things might still be reasonably close by. When people talk about how wonderful it is to live in a dense, walkable city, they are thinking about all the nightclubs they can go to, the bars, the restaurants, art galleries, libraries, etc all within a few minute’s walk. But that’s not everyone’s vision of an ideal living environment. Folks who move to a suburb want more stability, less noise, fewer people, more open space, nice lawns, a pool in the back yard, a deck to sit on in the summer while you watch the kids swim, etc. They don’t want a nightclub on every block. Even a convenience store would not be very well regarded (especially if it’s really a gas station that also sells candy bars; Japanese–style stores that are part of the owner’s house would actually fit much better). I don’t know much about what folks living in very rural areas like, but some of my relatives who live in a quasi–rural area value the fact that nobody in the area mows their lawns. Instead the local farmers bring their tractors over once or twice a year to harvest the grass out of everyone’s back yards to make hay.

You mean American, crappily designed urban cores. Plenty of cities around the world that are safe, have plenty of green space, and are much more affordable than those in the US.

refurb 4y ago

Yeah, no. I spent time in Singapore. Incredible transit system, carefully designed "Garden City" with plenty of outdoor areas, modern, efficient, affordable public housing. And what did people aspire to? Single family homes, with their own yard and a car. What HN sees as "people are forced to live in the suburbs", is in reality, people just choosing what they like best. Same in all the other countries I've lived in. Sure, 20-somethings love living in "hip" cities with "trendy" restaurants and "fun" bars to go and are willing to trade all that for tiny apartments. I don't deny that. But a very substantial part of the population don't want that. They want space, quiet neighborhoods and are willing to have to drive to get that.

Sakos 4y ago
I'm very confused. Singapore doesn't have the space for single family housing. The vast majority of homes there are flats/apartments. https://www.singstat.gov.sg/find-data/search-by-theme/households/households/latest-data https://www.singstat.gov.sg/find-data/search-by-theme/househ...
- Omniusaspirer 4y ago
  Yes, but the most valuable are the freehold GCBs.
- thablackbull 4y ago
  I think what he means is that, given the choice, people there would opt for a good class bungalow (essentially your 'detached home', but most will never be able to afford it). That is an obvious statement, but the analogy breaks down a bit as in Singapore, whether you live in a GCB or in HDB (social housing), everything is relatively close by regardless. Hence, there isn't really much of a trade-off at all - living in a GCB just affords more space and privacy (at an exponentially inflated cost).
  - refurb 4y ago
    Good class bungalows are not your typical single family home. They are on huge lots even for a US single family home. There are townhomes (shophouses), duplexes, single family homes as options as well. “To qualify as a GCB, the property must have at least 1,400 square metres (approx. 15,070 sq. ft.) of land area, and the bungalow itself is limited to a maximum of two storeys in height” People in HDBs want to live in condo, condos want to live in shophouses, shophouses want to live in detached freehold homes. Everybody wants more space. And despite the great transit system, parts of Singapore can be more remote to the point a car being almost a requirement. And that’s what many people strive for.
RC_ITR 4y ago
Sure. Everyone also aspires to fly private. The point being we need to figure out how to not destroy nature while allowing people to live meaningful lives and the suburbs ain’t that.
- refurb 4y ago
  That may be true in some countries, but it's not true in the US or Canada. In fact your comment is just bizarre when you look at the numbers. The US has enough land to give every single person (man, woman, child - not household) almost 7 acres of land. The idea that we need pack ourselves in to <1% of the land mass in dense urban cores or else, as you put it we can't live "meaningful lives" (do you decide what's meaningful?) or "destroying nature" is just wrong. And the best part? We can afford it! We don't need the federal government backing "jumbo" leans for $1M apartments in San Francisco - instead they can back mortgages for 5 homes in the mid-West. And this is a big shocker - a lot of it's already developed because we need places to grow food!
  - kelnos 4y ago
    How do you economically electrify all those those evenly-spaced 7-acre plots of land? How do you build roads to all of them? How do you deliver mail to all of them? How do you get water and sewer lines to all of them (wells don't work everywhere, and septic tanks pollute and just generally suck)? Hell, what company is going to lay down fiber or even coax to all of them? How do you build grocery stores such that people don't have to drive 90 minutes to get one, but there aren't so few customers per store that most of the produce spoils before it can be bought? I know you're exaggerating for effect, but every degree that you spread people out means greater and greater investments in infrastructure and utilities you need to build and maintain, and some things we take for granted today just become infeasible. And I agree that it's ridiculous to pay $1,000 per square foot (or more!) for housing in San Francisco. But that's not because of some sort of natural consequence of things, it's actually because it's not dense enough, and the political will to force more building just isn't there. Housing is so expensive here because, despite all the bad things about the city, despite the alleged COVID exodus, we still have far far more people who want to live here than the available housing can support.

s1artibartfast 4y ago

Even well planned Urban cities provide very different opportunities to the rural situation. You can't go casually hiking or mountain biking or camping in the afternoon after school

orwin 4y ago
You absolutely can. Especially hiking (even living in Paris of all cities, you have two dozen trails you can get to by train). Mountain biking idk because I'm more of a sea guy, but i was doing a lot of river kayak after work in my previous city, and now I'm windsurfing a lot.
nl 4y ago
Define "Urban city"? I live in the center of a 1M+ city and went for a 1.5 hour bush hike 15 minutes drive from my house.
- db48x 4y ago
  A 12–year–old can’t drive 15 minutes out of the city after school in order to go hiking. In a rural area the fields, farms, woods, streams, ponds, and other such attractions are all right within a few minutes walking distance. Indeed, that kid probably has to bike right past all of those things in order to get to his friend’s house to play Contra. Even in a suburban area some of those things might still be reasonably close by. When people talk about how wonderful it is to live in a dense, walkable city, they are thinking about all the nightclubs they can go to, the bars, the restaurants, art galleries, libraries, etc all within a few minute’s walk. But that’s not everyone’s vision of an ideal living environment. Folks who move to a suburb want more stability, less noise, fewer people, more open space, nice lawns, a pool in the back yard, a deck to sit on in the summer while you watch the kids swim, etc. They don’t want a nightclub on every block. Even a convenience store would not be very well regarded (especially if it’s really a gas station that also sells candy bars; Japanese–style stores that are part of the owner’s house would actually fit much better). I don’t know much about what folks living in very rural areas like, but some of my relatives who live in a quasi–rural area value the fact that nobody in the area mows their lawns. Instead the local farmers bring their tractors over once or twice a year to harvest the grass out of everyone’s back yards to make hay.