15 ms·

> I talked with either ignore it completely or argue that it's worse because it "induces sprawl". But, sprawl is only a problem because of commutes. If you had

> I talked with either ignore it completely or argue that it's worse because it "induces sprawl". But, sprawl is only a problem because of commutes. If you had sprawl with lots of small, local commercial outlets, then that's just perfect. No long commutes to work and no long commutes to get life's necessities.

Tade0 4y ago
> But, sprawl is only a problem because of commutes. I agree to an extent. To be completely fair it is less efficient than densely packed cities in terms of energy and cost of providing services like sewage/garbage disposal. That being said I see it as a tradeoff like any other and believe people should have the right to choose how they live as long as they bear the costs of that.
- naasking 4y ago
  Yes, there are some inefficiencies with sprawl. There are also mental health issues with dense cities.
  - Tade0 4y ago
    100% with you on that. I live 4km from the city centre, so essentially walking distance. I went there on the weekend. It's very lively, but I wouldn't want this sort of liveliness during the evening when the only thing I need is to wind down. I prefer living here, halfway from the centre to the city limits.
    - naasking 4y ago
      Exactly, that and issues like the lack of greenery that's consistently linked to poorer mental health outcomes, increased stress, etc.
neutronicus 4y ago
Even if you stop moving people, you still have to move goods (and electricity, and sewage) which is less efficient if the people are spread over a larger area.
- naasking 4y ago
  > Even if you stop moving people, you still have to move goods (and electricity, and sewage) which is less efficient if the people are spread over a larger area That's not necessarily true. Centralizing leads to congestion, for instance, to say nothing of the other failure modes of centralizing (single point of failure being the big one). I expect there is an optimal density for each of those, and it's not clear that "large city" is in that region. Losses in distributing electricity are fairly negligible, and distributed generation should be encouraged for some of the same reasons.

Tade0 4y ago

> But, sprawl is only a problem because of commutes. I agree to an extent. To be completely fair it is less efficient than densely packed cities in terms of energy and cost of providing services like sewage/garbage disposal. That being said I see it as a tradeoff like any other and believe people should have the right to choose how they live as long as they bear the costs of that.

naasking 4y ago
Yes, there are some inefficiencies with sprawl. There are also mental health issues with dense cities.
- Tade0 4y ago
  100% with you on that. I live 4km from the city centre, so essentially walking distance. I went there on the weekend. It's very lively, but I wouldn't want this sort of liveliness during the evening when the only thing I need is to wind down. I prefer living here, halfway from the centre to the city limits.
  - naasking 4y ago
    Exactly, that and issues like the lack of greenery that's consistently linked to poorer mental health outcomes, increased stress, etc.

neutronicus 4y ago

Even if you stop moving people, you still have to move goods (and electricity, and sewage) which is less efficient if the people are spread over a larger area.

naasking 4y ago
> Even if you stop moving people, you still have to move goods (and electricity, and sewage) which is less efficient if the people are spread over a larger area That's not necessarily true. Centralizing leads to congestion, for instance, to say nothing of the other failure modes of centralizing (single point of failure being the big one). I expect there is an optimal density for each of those, and it's not clear that "large city" is in that region. Losses in distributing electricity are fairly negligible, and distributed generation should be encouraged for some of the same reasons.