3 ms·
There's also a huge push to try to get people to move to "more efficient" cities, and away from rural areas. For example "Strong Towns" (which I like to call "
by ars 4y ago
There's also a huge push to try to get people to move to "more efficient" cities, and away from rural areas.
For example "Strong Towns" (which I like to call "Strong Towns weak Country") pushes this view, ones of their goals is less rural living and fewer interstates.
This type of thinking will devastate the world, people don't realize how the hard working rural people make/grown/build/mine everything people in the high paying cities need in order to survive.
- paxys 4y agoMake cities more efficient – yes. Move away from rural areas – no. Strong Towns and all such related efforts have no opinion on people who choose to live outside of cities, and aren't encouraging anyone to move anywhere. Migration to urban areas has been naturally happening all over the world ever since the industrial revolution. It isn't some new liberal conspiracy.
- decafninja 4y agoI thought Strong Towns is at least implicitly anti-suburbs.
- plorkyeran 4y agoSuburbs aren't rural.
- decafninja 4y agoThe previous post said "Strong Towns and all such related efforts have no opinion on people who choose to live outside of cities, and aren't encouraging anyone to move anywhere." My impression was that Strong Towns and similar movements do have an opinion on people that chose to live outside of cities (suburbs) and are encouraging them to move to dense cities.
- snapplebobapple 4y agoIts more they are encouraging zoning that increase density in a way that is also enjoyable to live in while increasing the viability of the city because it increase the value of the tax base above the cost of servicing the land that makes up the tax base.
- lmm 4y agoThe point of the strong towns movement is to reduce suburban living (particularly when people commute into town for work), which is the worst of both worlds. If anything it should make life easier for people who actually work in rural areas rather than using them as a fancy dormitory.
- ars 4y agoExactly how would it be easier? Now instead of having a nearby suburbs for services they need to drive many many hours to the nearest large city. Their movement would kill rural just as much as suburbs, and this would greatly harm the country.
- jonp888 4y agoYour comment makes no sense. The suburbs are next to the city, not "many hours" from it. It makes no difference to rural communities if they are there are not, they just go to the city instead, at minimal extra travel time.
- lmm 4y agoThe suburbs by their very nature take more than they give from most services - roads, water, you name it - and push up land prices and tax rates. They don't tend to offer much of what rural neighbours would need - the people who live their are car commuters, so they go to the bank/doctor/etc. in the town/city where they work, and they do their shopping at the big box store on the highway. Self-sustaining small towns - the kind that can support a population that lives and works in the area - are very much in line with the strong downs ethos, and those are the kind of towns that would benefit their rural neighbours too.
- tester457 4y agoMoving away from the suburbs ≠ moving away from rural Also suburbs aren't inherently bad, they used to be good but currently their design today is car centric. This contributes to sprawl, devouring land in an economically unsustainable way.
- ars 4y agoHow is it that people don't realize the rural doesn't work if there are no suburbs near it?
- jgwil2 4y agoThe word "suburbs" describes a different pattern of development from small towns. Small towns can exist as service hubs in rural areas. Suburbs form around cities to allow people to commute to jobs in those cities.