10 ms·

> You live in a city bubble Or relatively, you live in a suburban bubble? Different lifestyles, different modes of transport.

judge2020 4y ago
There is no bubble, only a lack of desire to seek out knowledge about other lifestyles. The problems with car culture were not surfaced until the rise and dominance of the internet.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  > The problems with car culture were not surfaced until the rise and dominance of the internet. I'm pretty sure it was discussed long before the Internet.
- ovi256 4y ago
  When people are accused of living in a bubble, it's usually because they show a strong universalist desire to expand their lifestyles to others, without consideration for the others' preferences. The opposite of humanist liberalism that was foundational for Western liberal democracies, or 'live and let live'.
  - femiagbabiaka 4y ago
    Although you didn't imply a preference one way or the other, this made me think: if policy that is driven by suburbanite lifestyles leads to the destruction of the planet, is it truly "live and let live"? A more accurate description of the US ideology as someone who has lived in both ultra-rural and urban environments in the midwest and west coast is: "I want to do whatever I want/believe is best, regardless of the impact it has on people outside of my circle."
  - uoaei 4y ago
    If we taxed suburbs what they actually cost us as a society, no one would want to live in suburbs. The land use is abysmal compared to cities. Suburbs are effectively subsidized by the cities they are near, and those living in suburbs get off way too easy. That's a good thing if you have an extractivist, individualist mindset, but if we are to continue functioning as a whole society, something needs to give. We love our farmers. Keep the fields going. But this business with allocating half-acre lots per 4 people (lots which are empty for literally 1/3 of the day) has got to end, or else local utilities should stop servicing those far-flung places. You want to be without the burdens of living in a society -- fine! Figure out water and power for yourself. It's easier than ever and there's still federal- and state-level rebate programs for renewables.
    - ars 4y ago
      If we actually tax them, it would be a negative tax. So many people don't seem to realize that without suburbs you don't have farms. Suburbs and farms produce all the things that cities rely on. You don't see heavy industry in the middle of a city. So we actually wanted to do your plan then cities should cough up way more money than they currently do.
      - jodrellblank 4y ago
        The poorer denser city centers (in America) subsidise the wealthier, less dense suburbs. "Suburbia is Subsidized: Here's the Math [ST07]" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI
        ars 4y ago
        I knew before watching it that it was Strong Towns propaganda. They keep ignoring that without those suburbs you won't have rural farms. Without those suburbs those "productive" cities will have nothing to eat, and nothing to buy. They measure productivity in terms of dollars - but all cities do is services, they don't produce goods. That's left to those places Strong Towns hates. If people actually implemented what Strong Towns wants, people would starve. Try the math again, but completely exclude services and let's see where you end up.
        jodrellblank 4y ago
        The video points out cities which aren't bankrupt, do you think the people in them are starving and the farms near them are gone? The video says that Canada has laws which stop cities paying more than 25% of revenue on debt payments, so they are much less bakrupt than USA cities. Do you think all Canadian cities have starving people with nothing to buy, and failed farms? What about European cities which aren't suburban car dependent sprawl and still have food? What about the explanations in the video (and the related ones on the channel) on why the suburbs are so expensive - you can't handwave away thirty six billion dollars of due road maintenance in a single city with "rural farms need it", even if true it's unsustainable. > "all cities do is services, they don't produce goods." All that needs is one counterexample: London has the largest diesel engine manufacturing site in the world - [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_London#Manufacturing_and_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_London#Manufacturin... Yes, fintech nonsense has eaten London, and services are its most profitable sectors these days, but that's not /because it's a city/, it was a major manufacturing center and a city.
  - CalRobert 4y ago
    Why is it illegal to build almost anything but suburbia?

judge2020 4y ago

There is no bubble, only a lack of desire to seek out knowledge about other lifestyles. The problems with car culture were not surfaced until the rise and dominance of the internet.

wolverine876 4y ago
> The problems with car culture were not surfaced until the rise and dominance of the internet. I'm pretty sure it was discussed long before the Internet.
ovi256 4y ago
When people are accused of living in a bubble, it's usually because they show a strong universalist desire to expand their lifestyles to others, without consideration for the others' preferences. The opposite of humanist liberalism that was foundational for Western liberal democracies, or 'live and let live'.
- femiagbabiaka 4y ago
  Although you didn't imply a preference one way or the other, this made me think: if policy that is driven by suburbanite lifestyles leads to the destruction of the planet, is it truly "live and let live"? A more accurate description of the US ideology as someone who has lived in both ultra-rural and urban environments in the midwest and west coast is: "I want to do whatever I want/believe is best, regardless of the impact it has on people outside of my circle."
- uoaei 4y ago
  If we taxed suburbs what they actually cost us as a society, no one would want to live in suburbs. The land use is abysmal compared to cities. Suburbs are effectively subsidized by the cities they are near, and those living in suburbs get off way too easy. That's a good thing if you have an extractivist, individualist mindset, but if we are to continue functioning as a whole society, something needs to give. We love our farmers. Keep the fields going. But this business with allocating half-acre lots per 4 people (lots which are empty for literally 1/3 of the day) has got to end, or else local utilities should stop servicing those far-flung places. You want to be without the burdens of living in a society -- fine! Figure out water and power for yourself. It's easier than ever and there's still federal- and state-level rebate programs for renewables.
  - ars 4y ago
    If we actually tax them, it would be a negative tax. So many people don't seem to realize that without suburbs you don't have farms. Suburbs and farms produce all the things that cities rely on. You don't see heavy industry in the middle of a city. So we actually wanted to do your plan then cities should cough up way more money than they currently do.
    - jodrellblank 4y ago
      The poorer denser city centers (in America) subsidise the wealthier, less dense suburbs. "Suburbia is Subsidized: Here's the Math [ST07]" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI
      - ars 4y ago
        I knew before watching it that it was Strong Towns propaganda. They keep ignoring that without those suburbs you won't have rural farms. Without those suburbs those "productive" cities will have nothing to eat, and nothing to buy. They measure productivity in terms of dollars - but all cities do is services, they don't produce goods. That's left to those places Strong Towns hates. If people actually implemented what Strong Towns wants, people would starve. Try the math again, but completely exclude services and let's see where you end up.
        jodrellblank 4y ago
        The video points out cities which aren't bankrupt, do you think the people in them are starving and the farms near them are gone? The video says that Canada has laws which stop cities paying more than 25% of revenue on debt payments, so they are much less bakrupt than USA cities. Do you think all Canadian cities have starving people with nothing to buy, and failed farms? What about European cities which aren't suburban car dependent sprawl and still have food? What about the explanations in the video (and the related ones on the channel) on why the suburbs are so expensive - you can't handwave away thirty six billion dollars of due road maintenance in a single city with "rural farms need it", even if true it's unsustainable. > "all cities do is services, they don't produce goods." All that needs is one counterexample: London has the largest diesel engine manufacturing site in the world - [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_London#Manufacturing_and_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_London#Manufacturin... Yes, fintech nonsense has eaten London, and services are its most profitable sectors these days, but that's not /because it's a city/, it was a major manufacturing center and a city.
- CalRobert 4y ago
  Why is it illegal to build almost anything but suburbia?