4 ms·

The overwhelming majority of habitable land in the world is uninhabited. The problem is most people want to live close to cities, where land and housing is expe

The overwhelming majority of habitable land in the world is uninhabited. The problem is most people want to live close to cities, where land and housing is expensive. We need to decentralize.

kitsunesoba 4y ago
I think there are probably serious limits on the extent to which decentralization is viable in North America. The lifestyle that comes with rural life for example is not one that the majority of the population finds attractive, with how far removed from not only creature comforts but also employment opportunities and essential services it makes one. There's also many things that don't work out economically for towns below a certain size. This is why little towns of 1k-10k tend to have only megacorp chain shops and restaurants — despite the cost of operations being so much cheaper than they are in more urban areas, things like little family owned bakeries, delis, etc are mostly found in cities in the US. The latter of those paragraphs could perhaps be changed, but it'd take an earth-shattering level of infrastructural redevelopment that I don't see happening any time soon.
alistairSH 4y ago
We need to decentralize. Hard disagree here. Decentralization might reduce housing costs, but makes many other things more expensive. More roads to pave and maintain. Higher delivery costs. More time in the car to get to work, shopping, entertainment. What we need is more/smarter infill development. And the elimination of R1 zoning (single-family only). Let the market decide what housing density should exist on a given block (within reason).
- tzs 4y ago
  > Hard disagree here. Decentralization might reduce housing costs, but makes many other things more expensive. More roads to pave and maintain. Higher delivery costs. More time in the car to get to work, shopping, entertainment. I think when people talk about decentralization they usually mean people moving from the big cities to existing less big cities. Those less big cities are usually built on the road and/or rail networks that are used to supply the big cities. Decentralizing to such exiting smaller cities wouldn't necessarily be costly, especially if not done too fast.
Freire_Herval 4y ago
The reason why the US is the number 1 producer of greenhouse gases is because of decentralization. Our cities are built unlike any other city in the world. We live in vast swaths of suburban sprawl that is so decentralized you get cities like LA where it takes over an hour to get anywhere within the city. The problem is opposite. We aren't dense enough. No plot of land should be single family. Sb-9 and adus are designed to help relieve this problem, but ultimately residential areas should all be apartment units 10 stories high when there's a population mismatch with housing and people. Singapore, Shenzhen, Tokyo, Shanghai and any other city evolves their urban infrastructure with a change in population. The western US chooses not to do shit.
- seanmcdirmid 4y ago
  You can go an hour in Beijing or Shanghai and not get anywhere in those cities. They are sprawling also, but well, those places in Pudong eventually became popular as Shanghai became more popular. LA traffic is way way better than Beijing traffic. They aren't even comparable, really.
  - Freire_Herval 4y ago
    That's different. Shanghai and Beijing are still cities that are built really densely. LA is suburban sprawl which means everybody lives on a parcel of land and has a backyard. That same parcel of land in shanghai probably has 30 people living there in a tall building.
    - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
      > LA is suburban sprawl which means everybody lives on a parcel of land and has a backyard. Having lived in LA before (Westwood actually), I know that is false. While Shanghai is pretty dense, Beijing is much less so, although the notion of a city in China includes rural areas as well. Both are denser than LA, but I’m not sure Americans are ready to live in 30 story concrete boxes. Yes, China has lots of people, but the infrastructure to support their density still isn’t that great. It has improved, driving still sucks but subway is a real option now vs in 2007.
ascotan 4y ago
There is a reason these places are uninhabited.

The overwhelming majority of habitable land in the world is uninhabited. The problem is most people want to live close to cities, where land and housing is expensive. We need to decentralize.

kitsunesoba 4y ago

I think there are probably serious limits on the extent to which decentralization is viable in North America. The lifestyle that comes with rural life for example is not one that the majority of the population finds attractive, with how far removed from not only creature comforts but also employment opportunities and essential services it makes one. There's also many things that don't work out economically for towns below a certain size. This is why little towns of 1k-10k tend to have only megacorp chain shops and restaurants — despite the cost of operations being so much cheaper than they are in more urban areas, things like little family owned bakeries, delis, etc are mostly found in cities in the US. The latter of those paragraphs could perhaps be changed, but it'd take an earth-shattering level of infrastructural redevelopment that I don't see happening any time soon.

alistairSH 4y ago

We need to decentralize. Hard disagree here. Decentralization might reduce housing costs, but makes many other things more expensive. More roads to pave and maintain. Higher delivery costs. More time in the car to get to work, shopping, entertainment. What we need is more/smarter infill development. And the elimination of R1 zoning (single-family only). Let the market decide what housing density should exist on a given block (within reason).

tzs 4y ago
> Hard disagree here. Decentralization might reduce housing costs, but makes many other things more expensive. More roads to pave and maintain. Higher delivery costs. More time in the car to get to work, shopping, entertainment. I think when people talk about decentralization they usually mean people moving from the big cities to existing less big cities. Those less big cities are usually built on the road and/or rail networks that are used to supply the big cities. Decentralizing to such exiting smaller cities wouldn't necessarily be costly, especially if not done too fast.

Freire_Herval 4y ago

The reason why the US is the number 1 producer of greenhouse gases is because of decentralization. Our cities are built unlike any other city in the world. We live in vast swaths of suburban sprawl that is so decentralized you get cities like LA where it takes over an hour to get anywhere within the city. The problem is opposite. We aren't dense enough. No plot of land should be single family. Sb-9 and adus are designed to help relieve this problem, but ultimately residential areas should all be apartment units 10 stories high when there's a population mismatch with housing and people. Singapore, Shenzhen, Tokyo, Shanghai and any other city evolves their urban infrastructure with a change in population. The western US chooses not to do shit.

seanmcdirmid 4y ago
You can go an hour in Beijing or Shanghai and not get anywhere in those cities. They are sprawling also, but well, those places in Pudong eventually became popular as Shanghai became more popular. LA traffic is way way better than Beijing traffic. They aren't even comparable, really.
- Freire_Herval 4y ago
  That's different. Shanghai and Beijing are still cities that are built really densely. LA is suburban sprawl which means everybody lives on a parcel of land and has a backyard. That same parcel of land in shanghai probably has 30 people living there in a tall building.
  - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
    > LA is suburban sprawl which means everybody lives on a parcel of land and has a backyard. Having lived in LA before (Westwood actually), I know that is false. While Shanghai is pretty dense, Beijing is much less so, although the notion of a city in China includes rural areas as well. Both are denser than LA, but I’m not sure Americans are ready to live in 30 story concrete boxes. Yes, China has lots of people, but the infrastructure to support their density still isn’t that great. It has improved, driving still sucks but subway is a real option now vs in 2007.

ascotan 4y ago

There is a reason these places are uninhabited.