4 ms·

If I'm reading this correctly, you choose to live in a small apartment, suffer the commute on a train, and work in an office you'd prefer not to be in, just so

If I'm reading this correctly, you choose to live in a small apartment, suffer the commute on a train, and work in an office you'd prefer not to be in, just so you don't have to move to a big house in the suburbs with your kids.

blululu 4y ago
You are reading a lot into the OP's statement. A dense city has a much smaller environmental footprint than a sprawling suburb. The statement is just about the relative environmental impact of the two options nothing more.
- raxxorraxor 4y ago
  I doubt the footprint difference would be in any way significant. Depends on the city layout maybe, even with the additional logistical difficulties. For many it is well worth it to escape the noise of high-density residential areas, especially with kids or for people that just like nature. Your footprint is probably > 95% consumption anyway. I don't understand how high-density living seems to be so attractive to many here.
  - agentultra 4y ago
    Because the land use is that much more productive. High density cities pay for suburbs which are a net-drain on city finances and are terrible for the environment. The numbers in North America are pretty staggering. There are plenty of examples around the world where dense urban living can be rather pleasant. You can walk to get your food, kids can cycle around town, and you can sit and gather in public places that are designed for people instead of moving traffic.
    - raxxorraxor 4y ago
      That can always be an argument. You could place all humans in Great Britain easily. Would perhaps be more productive as well. Imagine all the biotopes that could strive again. But it isn't a question about productivity and I believe the vast majority live in high density setups for utility. At least I do. It is nice enough but it remains a compromise. Not from the US, but expect this story about high density areas paying for the others is a stupendous political argument to get people angry at those suburbians and not too much else. The distribution of funds is probably unjust, but the solution is certainly not to bring everyone into high density living.
      - agentultra 4y ago
        The solution is to enable more mixed-use zoning and enable more dense development. The situation in North America is that we can only build low-productivity, high-cost, environmentally damaging suburbs. Which, in turn, leads to noisy, polluted cities with high levels of traffic congestion, collisions, and massive amounts of unproductive parking lots. Plenty of European and Asian cities are good examples of how one can transform modern cities to be better balanced and pleasant for humans to live in.
    - twobitshifter 4y ago
      US cities don’t do well without the suburbs, it’s a symbiotic relationship, you can’t separate the suburb cost from cities, suburban residents go to the cities to work where they register their economic value.
      - agentultra 4y ago
        How is it symbiotic? The developed, urban areas generate enough revenue to subsidize suburbs. Without those urban zones suburbs cannot generate enough revenue to provide the infrastructure and services they use. If the suburbs were to be re-zoned for more dense development and mix-use zoning I don't think the urban areas would see any drop in revenue. They would probably see an increase.
      - Karrot_Kream 4y ago
        It absolutely is not, it's a parasitic relationship. Enough suburbs are aware of this dynamic that their local leadership tries really hard to annex their suburb into the city so that suburbanites can vote to change policies in the urban area. Suburbs strong arming cities into annexation is a common theme in the US and Canada.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - blululu 4y ago
    Consumption goes up when things are more spaced out. Electricity needs to travel farther on lossy lines. Water needs to be pumped over longer distances. Deliveries need to be sent to farther and farther points. Heating needs to cover a wider surface area. Unfortunately all of these relationship grow as a power law of density so your consumption must increase by a substantial amount with a more and more spacious development plan. A quick look at the CO2 emissions per capita of high standard of living countries quickly shows that expansive countries like Canada, Australia or the United States have much higher energy consumption than dense ones like the United Kingdom, Sweden or Japan.
rr888 4y ago
Yes I like my apartment. The commute is just a few stops. I like the office, prefer to WFH. I like the suburbs but wife would rather be in the city, I'm happy here too. The main point is that living in a city and commuting probably has a smaller environmental impact than WFH, which is the opposite of what OP is saying.
- ivan_gammel 4y ago
  Why not living in the city in a sufficiently big apartment and working from home?
  - Root_Denied 4y ago
    That's cost prohibitive for the amount of space you'd need as compared with moving to suburban/rural locations. Possible? Yes, but not necessarily the best financial decision when cities seem to be allergic to increasing population density.
  - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
    The message of the original post appears to be that all other things being equal the poster would rather live in the suburbs in a larger home with a more carbon-intensive lifestyle. However, the misery of the commute from the suburbs to the office overwhelms that preference resulting in the decision to live in the city. i.e. the assumption that the reduction in commuting would not be offset by changes in other areas is unjustified.
  - rr888 4y ago
    There are very few 3-4 bedroom apartments around but a townhouse or similar could work. Maybe I'm just stuck in a rut, I like my lifestyle right now and happy to continue. If I was WFH every day it just feels like it is artificially expensive to live in a big city and I should move. It opens a lot of alternatives which could be very good but I automatically ignore them because I'm happy right now. And the wife probably doesn't want that log cabin in the woods - so its easier not to think about it. :)
parthdesai 4y ago
No, you're reading it wrong. They choose to live in a smaller apartment in the city, it's a *short commute* to office and don't have to drive 20-30 minutes for basic errands. Also, not every has/wants kids.
moooo99 4y ago
You are interpreting a lot into a very short comment, presumably based on your own preferences. Some people don't mind commuting or even enjoy it, some people prefer living in a decently sized apartment in a city instead of a single family home in the suburbs. It is a matter of preference and personally, I can see the appeal in the approach posted by OP
throwaway2037 4y ago
The GP wrote: <<a short train ride from the office>> You then transformed it into <<suffer the commute on a train>> I'm confused about that.

blululu 4y ago

You are reading a lot into the OP's statement. A dense city has a much smaller environmental footprint than a sprawling suburb. The statement is just about the relative environmental impact of the two options nothing more.

raxxorraxor 4y ago
I doubt the footprint difference would be in any way significant. Depends on the city layout maybe, even with the additional logistical difficulties. For many it is well worth it to escape the noise of high-density residential areas, especially with kids or for people that just like nature. Your footprint is probably > 95% consumption anyway. I don't understand how high-density living seems to be so attractive to many here.
- agentultra 4y ago
  Because the land use is that much more productive. High density cities pay for suburbs which are a net-drain on city finances and are terrible for the environment. The numbers in North America are pretty staggering. There are plenty of examples around the world where dense urban living can be rather pleasant. You can walk to get your food, kids can cycle around town, and you can sit and gather in public places that are designed for people instead of moving traffic.
  - raxxorraxor 4y ago
    That can always be an argument. You could place all humans in Great Britain easily. Would perhaps be more productive as well. Imagine all the biotopes that could strive again. But it isn't a question about productivity and I believe the vast majority live in high density setups for utility. At least I do. It is nice enough but it remains a compromise. Not from the US, but expect this story about high density areas paying for the others is a stupendous political argument to get people angry at those suburbians and not too much else. The distribution of funds is probably unjust, but the solution is certainly not to bring everyone into high density living.
    - agentultra 4y ago
      The solution is to enable more mixed-use zoning and enable more dense development. The situation in North America is that we can only build low-productivity, high-cost, environmentally damaging suburbs. Which, in turn, leads to noisy, polluted cities with high levels of traffic congestion, collisions, and massive amounts of unproductive parking lots. Plenty of European and Asian cities are good examples of how one can transform modern cities to be better balanced and pleasant for humans to live in.
  - twobitshifter 4y ago
    US cities don’t do well without the suburbs, it’s a symbiotic relationship, you can’t separate the suburb cost from cities, suburban residents go to the cities to work where they register their economic value.
    - agentultra 4y ago
      How is it symbiotic? The developed, urban areas generate enough revenue to subsidize suburbs. Without those urban zones suburbs cannot generate enough revenue to provide the infrastructure and services they use. If the suburbs were to be re-zoned for more dense development and mix-use zoning I don't think the urban areas would see any drop in revenue. They would probably see an increase.
    - Karrot_Kream 4y ago
      It absolutely is not, it's a parasitic relationship. Enough suburbs are aware of this dynamic that their local leadership tries really hard to annex their suburb into the city so that suburbanites can vote to change policies in the urban area. Suburbs strong arming cities into annexation is a common theme in the US and Canada.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- blululu 4y ago
  Consumption goes up when things are more spaced out. Electricity needs to travel farther on lossy lines. Water needs to be pumped over longer distances. Deliveries need to be sent to farther and farther points. Heating needs to cover a wider surface area. Unfortunately all of these relationship grow as a power law of density so your consumption must increase by a substantial amount with a more and more spacious development plan. A quick look at the CO2 emissions per capita of high standard of living countries quickly shows that expansive countries like Canada, Australia or the United States have much higher energy consumption than dense ones like the United Kingdom, Sweden or Japan.

rr888 4y ago

Yes I like my apartment. The commute is just a few stops. I like the office, prefer to WFH. I like the suburbs but wife would rather be in the city, I'm happy here too. The main point is that living in a city and commuting probably has a smaller environmental impact than WFH, which is the opposite of what OP is saying.

ivan_gammel 4y ago
Why not living in the city in a sufficiently big apartment and working from home?
- Root_Denied 4y ago
  That's cost prohibitive for the amount of space you'd need as compared with moving to suburban/rural locations. Possible? Yes, but not necessarily the best financial decision when cities seem to be allergic to increasing population density.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  The message of the original post appears to be that all other things being equal the poster would rather live in the suburbs in a larger home with a more carbon-intensive lifestyle. However, the misery of the commute from the suburbs to the office overwhelms that preference resulting in the decision to live in the city. i.e. the assumption that the reduction in commuting would not be offset by changes in other areas is unjustified.
- rr888 4y ago
  There are very few 3-4 bedroom apartments around but a townhouse or similar could work. Maybe I'm just stuck in a rut, I like my lifestyle right now and happy to continue. If I was WFH every day it just feels like it is artificially expensive to live in a big city and I should move. It opens a lot of alternatives which could be very good but I automatically ignore them because I'm happy right now. And the wife probably doesn't want that log cabin in the woods - so its easier not to think about it. :)

parthdesai 4y ago

No, you're reading it wrong. They choose to live in a smaller apartment in the city, it's a *short commute* to office and don't have to drive 20-30 minutes for basic errands. Also, not every has/wants kids.

moooo99 4y ago

You are interpreting a lot into a very short comment, presumably based on your own preferences. Some people don't mind commuting or even enjoy it, some people prefer living in a decently sized apartment in a city instead of a single family home in the suburbs. It is a matter of preference and personally, I can see the appeal in the approach posted by OP

throwaway2037 4y ago

The GP wrote: <<a short train ride from the office>> You then transformed it into <<suffer the commute on a train>> I'm confused about that.