4 ms·

> Yet for some reason many people seem to have a visceral rejection of a future like that. What is it motivated by? I know this is unpopular with the young chi

> Yet for some reason many people seem to have a visceral rejection of a future like that. What is it motivated by? I know this is unpopular with the young childfree techie demographic of HN, but to many people, what you're proposing sounds like a human termite colony. The downtown high-rise lifestyle is great for careerists and twentysomethings whose life consists of work, happy hour, and dog parks, but most people want a little space and peace and quiet as they get older, especially if they want to raise a family. The desire to be left alone is strong. An existence of listening to your neighbors pound on your walls and ceiling and being beholden to a condo association full of petty tyrants just doesn't appeal to a large group of people. I lived in urban apartments for most of my adult life. Since moving to a semi-rural house a few years ago, my mental health is vastly improved.

c-hendricks 4y ago
The quiet, wooded property my grandparents owned when I was a kid, was great. You could get lost in the trees as a kid. Now the trees are so thin you can see the neighbors large trucks and hear them all hours of the day. Wanting peace and quiet is reasonable, but I don't think the only answer for it is perpetual sprawl.
- roarcher 4y ago
  For sure. I realize that my moving to the country to get some space means that the people who were here before me have a little less of it. And the people who come after me mean that I'll have less. It's human nature to say "I want a house out here, but I don't want anyone else to have one". I try not to have that attitude, but I recognize the paradox. I don't know what the solution to sprawl is. I was merely answering the question of why everyone isn't on board with the high-rise lifestyle. "Just put everyone in skyscrapers" is one of those obvious solutions that fails to account for human nature. People aren't widgets that can just be "put" somewhere.
  - strogonoff 4y ago
    You completely and utterly missed my point, which was questioning why many people in the US and parts of Europe find high density living distasteful and how to overcome that sentiment—high density living quite literally being the only answer to sprawl and unfolding ecological disaster, on which I agree with TFA—rather than trying to figure out how to put people somewhere against their will.
    - roarcher 4y ago
      Maybe I worded things poorly, but I understood your point: everyone would want to live in high-density housing if only they were better informed of how great it is. My point is that that's flat out wrong. Many people know from experience what that life entails and want nothing to do with it. And yes, that includes the idealized fantasy version you present in other comments, even if that actually existed. The "put" thing comes from my perception that you think the only reason someone could disagree with you on this is because they're misinformed. Maybe I've got you all wrong, but that mindset tends to eventually feel justified in forcing people to do things "for their own good". I'll reply to your other comment here so we don't have to juggle multiple threads of conversation: Anecdotally, my experience of cities vs. small towns has been the opposite of yours. Almost every apartment complex I've lived in has had one "nosy neighbor" that insists on gossiping about everyone's affairs and causing drama with everyone they can sink their social hooks into. But that's not really relevant--you prefer cities and I prefer small towns. That's fine. I'm perfectly happy for everyone to live in whichever of those suits them best, or some other arrangement. You're the one who wants to prescribe a one-size-fits-all lifestyle for everyone.
      - strogonoff 4y ago
        > Maybe I worded things poorly, but I understood your point: everyone would want to live in high-density housing if only they were better informed of how great it is. Would you want to stop using disposable plastic straws because of how awesome paper straws are? No. Would you want to stop using them if it was required to stop microplastics from appearing in your blood stream and organ tissue? Let’s imagine a positive answer for a moment. Now, apparently there are people who consider abandoning plastic straws absolutely hands-down unthinkable sacrilege. So the natural question is: why? Let’s pretend their refusal to ditch plastic straws actually hurts not only theirs but also your own body and bodies of your children, so you really want to find out the answer. Eventually we might find out that some people really hate paper straws because they become soggy quickly and give paper taste to their drinks. While I don’t think either argument against paper straws (which are, incidentally, not the only alternative) outweighs the harm from the prevalence of single-use plastic straws, I can at least understand the reasoning because I, too, can notice the taste and the sogginess. That’s one analogy; so I want to know what that argument is with regards to high-density living. The arguments I heard so far are mostly misguided (no forests nearby!), refer to problems not specific to high density living (nosy neighbors!), and such. > Many people know from experience what that life entails and want nothing to do with it. Every time I talk about it in various crowds, online and off, all counter-arguments come exclusively from people who grew up in suburbia, smaller or sprawling low-density towns and cities, and they have a very skewed picture that is mostly a product of their imagination. If you have lived in a well-planned high-density (say at least 20 thousand people per square kilometer of residential area) city, you’d be the first! > And yes, that includes the idealized fantasy version you present in other comments, even if that actually existed As I wrote, the technology to live comfortably with little footprint is here—I didn’t mention it’s applied in practice much less evenly distributed. And it is not applied in practice because it’s not popular, so such areas are simply not built. And it’s not popular… Because? This is the question we’re addressing here. So let’s see what is the argument from you, as someone who lived in high-density urban areas with apparently adverse experience that is unique to those areas. > Almost every apartment complex I've lived in has had one "nosy neighbor" that insists on gossiping about everyone's affairs and causing drama with everyone they can sink their social hooks into. Did you ever have an issue with neighbors in sparser areas (like low rise apartment buildings or standalone housing)? I’ve had plenty. Shady people hanging around, people renting out flats or standalone houses to loud party goers, etc. Could it be that it isn’t about high or low density but about something else, like crime rates, mental health care, regulation of short term rentals, education availability, unemployment levels, poverty? By the way, in my experience it’s significantly more acute in lower density suburbia and sparse cities because there’s few enough people that it feels not only rude to not engage but also unsafe because if a person whom you can expect to see periodically turns out to be unstable there may be no witnesses and/or the police may be too far away to respond in timely manner. To sum up, while it doesn’t have much to do with higher density living, this is the only argument on the substance that you have put forward. Thanks! > But that's not really relevant--you prefer cities and I prefer small towns. That's fine. Not really, no. Assuming limiting humanity’s footprint is the only feasible option in the future, people like you will either be highly uncomfortable or sabotage the future of the planet. Neither is a good outcome.
- strogonoff 4y ago
  Here is one answer to my question, I guess: the common misconception that a dense city must imply a concrete jungle, while in reality it means the ability to have high rises next to natural parks and forests—and in fact much more expansive ones than if you have each of the same number of humans occupy acres of ground area.
strogonoff 4y ago
> I know this is unpopular with the young childfree techie demographic of HN On the contrary, I think your dislike is quite popular, hence my comment. Re your termite colony analogy, yes you can draw a metaphor between humans and pretty much any animal or insect. You can also draw an analogy between countryside dwelling humans and beavers; is that also bad? Or are beavers inherently better in some way that the analogy doesn’t rub you wrong? I think we humans are indeed quite similar to ants, termites, bees in the way we are social and cooperative—and living in higher density would in fact be quite in line with that. > The desire to be left alone is strong. I feel much more alone and free in a city than in a little town or village (e.g., where I was brought up) where you know—have to know—everyone and engage in a polite talk, or be perceived as rude and subsequently excluded. I can also feel not alone if I wanted to, because meeting with someone I know is easier to arrange due to proximity.

c-hendricks 4y ago

The quiet, wooded property my grandparents owned when I was a kid, was great. You could get lost in the trees as a kid. Now the trees are so thin you can see the neighbors large trucks and hear them all hours of the day. Wanting peace and quiet is reasonable, but I don't think the only answer for it is perpetual sprawl.

roarcher 4y ago
For sure. I realize that my moving to the country to get some space means that the people who were here before me have a little less of it. And the people who come after me mean that I'll have less. It's human nature to say "I want a house out here, but I don't want anyone else to have one". I try not to have that attitude, but I recognize the paradox. I don't know what the solution to sprawl is. I was merely answering the question of why everyone isn't on board with the high-rise lifestyle. "Just put everyone in skyscrapers" is one of those obvious solutions that fails to account for human nature. People aren't widgets that can just be "put" somewhere.
- strogonoff 4y ago
  You completely and utterly missed my point, which was questioning why many people in the US and parts of Europe find high density living distasteful and how to overcome that sentiment—high density living quite literally being the only answer to sprawl and unfolding ecological disaster, on which I agree with TFA—rather than trying to figure out how to put people somewhere against their will.
  - roarcher 4y ago
    Maybe I worded things poorly, but I understood your point: everyone would want to live in high-density housing if only they were better informed of how great it is. My point is that that's flat out wrong. Many people know from experience what that life entails and want nothing to do with it. And yes, that includes the idealized fantasy version you present in other comments, even if that actually existed. The "put" thing comes from my perception that you think the only reason someone could disagree with you on this is because they're misinformed. Maybe I've got you all wrong, but that mindset tends to eventually feel justified in forcing people to do things "for their own good". I'll reply to your other comment here so we don't have to juggle multiple threads of conversation: Anecdotally, my experience of cities vs. small towns has been the opposite of yours. Almost every apartment complex I've lived in has had one "nosy neighbor" that insists on gossiping about everyone's affairs and causing drama with everyone they can sink their social hooks into. But that's not really relevant--you prefer cities and I prefer small towns. That's fine. I'm perfectly happy for everyone to live in whichever of those suits them best, or some other arrangement. You're the one who wants to prescribe a one-size-fits-all lifestyle for everyone.
    - strogonoff 4y ago
      > Maybe I worded things poorly, but I understood your point: everyone would want to live in high-density housing if only they were better informed of how great it is. Would you want to stop using disposable plastic straws because of how awesome paper straws are? No. Would you want to stop using them if it was required to stop microplastics from appearing in your blood stream and organ tissue? Let’s imagine a positive answer for a moment. Now, apparently there are people who consider abandoning plastic straws absolutely hands-down unthinkable sacrilege. So the natural question is: why? Let’s pretend their refusal to ditch plastic straws actually hurts not only theirs but also your own body and bodies of your children, so you really want to find out the answer. Eventually we might find out that some people really hate paper straws because they become soggy quickly and give paper taste to their drinks. While I don’t think either argument against paper straws (which are, incidentally, not the only alternative) outweighs the harm from the prevalence of single-use plastic straws, I can at least understand the reasoning because I, too, can notice the taste and the sogginess. That’s one analogy; so I want to know what that argument is with regards to high-density living. The arguments I heard so far are mostly misguided (no forests nearby!), refer to problems not specific to high density living (nosy neighbors!), and such. > Many people know from experience what that life entails and want nothing to do with it. Every time I talk about it in various crowds, online and off, all counter-arguments come exclusively from people who grew up in suburbia, smaller or sprawling low-density towns and cities, and they have a very skewed picture that is mostly a product of their imagination. If you have lived in a well-planned high-density (say at least 20 thousand people per square kilometer of residential area) city, you’d be the first! > And yes, that includes the idealized fantasy version you present in other comments, even if that actually existed As I wrote, the technology to live comfortably with little footprint is here—I didn’t mention it’s applied in practice much less evenly distributed. And it is not applied in practice because it’s not popular, so such areas are simply not built. And it’s not popular… Because? This is the question we’re addressing here. So let’s see what is the argument from you, as someone who lived in high-density urban areas with apparently adverse experience that is unique to those areas. > Almost every apartment complex I've lived in has had one "nosy neighbor" that insists on gossiping about everyone's affairs and causing drama with everyone they can sink their social hooks into. Did you ever have an issue with neighbors in sparser areas (like low rise apartment buildings or standalone housing)? I’ve had plenty. Shady people hanging around, people renting out flats or standalone houses to loud party goers, etc. Could it be that it isn’t about high or low density but about something else, like crime rates, mental health care, regulation of short term rentals, education availability, unemployment levels, poverty? By the way, in my experience it’s significantly more acute in lower density suburbia and sparse cities because there’s few enough people that it feels not only rude to not engage but also unsafe because if a person whom you can expect to see periodically turns out to be unstable there may be no witnesses and/or the police may be too far away to respond in timely manner. To sum up, while it doesn’t have much to do with higher density living, this is the only argument on the substance that you have put forward. Thanks! > But that's not really relevant--you prefer cities and I prefer small towns. That's fine. Not really, no. Assuming limiting humanity’s footprint is the only feasible option in the future, people like you will either be highly uncomfortable or sabotage the future of the planet. Neither is a good outcome.
strogonoff 4y ago
Here is one answer to my question, I guess: the common misconception that a dense city must imply a concrete jungle, while in reality it means the ability to have high rises next to natural parks and forests—and in fact much more expansive ones than if you have each of the same number of humans occupy acres of ground area.

strogonoff 4y ago

> I know this is unpopular with the young childfree techie demographic of HN On the contrary, I think your dislike is quite popular, hence my comment. Re your termite colony analogy, yes you can draw a metaphor between humans and pretty much any animal or insect. You can also draw an analogy between countryside dwelling humans and beavers; is that also bad? Or are beavers inherently better in some way that the analogy doesn’t rub you wrong? I think we humans are indeed quite similar to ants, termites, bees in the way we are social and cooperative—and living in higher density would in fact be quite in line with that. > The desire to be left alone is strong. I feel much more alone and free in a city than in a little town or village (e.g., where I was brought up) where you know—have to know—everyone and engage in a polite talk, or be perceived as rude and subsequently excluded. I can also feel not alone if I wanted to, because meeting with someone I know is easier to arrange due to proximity.