3 ms·

>But anything that can both revitalize rural areas and mitigate the housing shortages in urban/suburban areas is a good idea. Perhaps you have a better, more wo

>But anything that can both revitalize rural areas and mitigate the housing shortages in urban/suburban areas is a good idea. Perhaps you have a better, more workable solution? Yeah, it's simple: fix the glaring problems in urban areas, and have people move there. If there's a housing shortage, build more housing. Fix the stupid zoning laws that prevents that. That's a lot easier than this ridiculous HSR ring idea.

nobody9999 3y ago
>Yeah, it's simple: fix the glaring problems in urban areas, and have people move there. If there's a housing shortage, build more housing. Fix the stupid zoning laws that prevents that. That's a lot easier than this ridiculous HSR ring idea. And leave folks who live in rural areas to rot, without even a hope of revitalizing their communities? That seems both reductive and likely harmful. Because the issue isn't just housing shortages in urban areas, it's also the decline of much of the US by flight from rural areas. Which has been the source of a great deal of the economic dissatisfaction in the US for many folks for a long time. I'd point out that people who live in rural areas are humans too and, at least in the US, for the most part Americans, with just as much right to exist and thrive as anyone else.[0] I'm not saying that you feel this way, but the sense I get from your response is: "I don't like rural areas or the people who live in them. In fact, I hope they all leave or die." If that's not what you're trying to say, my apologies -- although you might want to try to be more clear about what you're saying if you don't want to be perceived that way. [0] I'd note that I was born, raised and have lived almost all of my life (and still do) in the most urban city in the US.
- midoridensha 3y ago
  If people in rural areas want the services and conveniences of urban areas, they should move there. It's very simple. >"I don't like rural areas or the people who live in them. In fact, I hope they all leave or die." No, my attitude is that rural people live an unsustainable lifestyle that demands subsidization by city dwellers. Why should rural dwellers get this if they're not able to afford the extravagance of rural living on their own? If they want money and jobs, they need to move to where the jobs are. Human societies have been working this way for thousands of years now. This isn't something brand-new. If rural dwellers like it so much in rural areas, they need to learn to accept and live with the downsides that go with that, such as lack of medical services, instead of complaining.
  - prottog 3y ago
    > rural people live an unsustainable lifestyle that demands subsidization by city dwellers I see this idea in a lot of places but don't understand it. You could equally fairly say that city dwellers live an unsustainable lifestyle that demands subsidization by farmers in Kansas or oil drillers in North Dakota.
    - midoridensha 3y ago
      You have trouble understanding this? Try this: can 90% of the population live in cities, supported by food and oil produced by the other 10%? The answer is yes. Now, can 90% of the population live with the farmers and oil workers (in a very rural lifestyle) and still yield the level of civilization and economic development we have now? The answer is no. Without cities, there's no modern economy: just look at any place that's still agrarian, or was in the recent past. Or even the US during its civil war (the agrarian, rural South had no chance against the industrialized North).
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
There is plenty of housing in shrinking urban areas, like Detroit. You mean build new housing in popular urban areas, where people want to move to. Maybe if Seattle is as dense as Manhattan it will be as cheap as Manhattan, right?
- asdajksah2123 3y ago
  It's not a coincidence that Detroit, the standout example of a failed city, is also the home of the automobile industry in the US.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    The suburbs around Detroit aren't doing that bad, but there are plenty of "failed" cities around the USA if you look close enough. Any city without a mild climate and access to nice outdoor areas nearby is considered a failed city in many people's books...who wants to move to Tulsa these days?
nobody9999 3y ago
I'd add that changing zoning laws and building more densely in urban areas is absolutely a good thing -- and we should definitely do that as well. But doing so does absolutely nothing to revitalize lower population density areas, where 20% of the population[0] lives. I'd expect that better communication/transportation infrastructure would increase that somewhat as well, since if you don't need to live in an urban metro area to have a good job, a whole bunch of people would move to those areas. Potentially making them not rural any more, but why does that even matter? Or should we just tell folks in rural areas to fuck off and die? I don't support that, although I'm sure there are some (you, perhaps?) who do. [0] https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2017/08/rural-america.html https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2017/08/rural-america...
asdajksah2123 3y ago
Manhattan/NYC is as expensive as it is because the housing stock in the NYC metro area has actually reduced in the past 20 years, even though the population has increased significantly. For context, between the 2010 and 2020 censuses, a period where NYC growth was considered slow, NYC added a 1.5x Atlanta's worth of population, but with hardly any additional housing.

nobody9999 3y ago

>Yeah, it's simple: fix the glaring problems in urban areas, and have people move there. If there's a housing shortage, build more housing. Fix the stupid zoning laws that prevents that. That's a lot easier than this ridiculous HSR ring idea. And leave folks who live in rural areas to rot, without even a hope of revitalizing their communities? That seems both reductive and likely harmful. Because the issue isn't just housing shortages in urban areas, it's also the decline of much of the US by flight from rural areas. Which has been the source of a great deal of the economic dissatisfaction in the US for many folks for a long time. I'd point out that people who live in rural areas are humans too and, at least in the US, for the most part Americans, with just as much right to exist and thrive as anyone else.[0] I'm not saying that you feel this way, but the sense I get from your response is: "I don't like rural areas or the people who live in them. In fact, I hope they all leave or die." If that's not what you're trying to say, my apologies -- although you might want to try to be more clear about what you're saying if you don't want to be perceived that way. [0] I'd note that I was born, raised and have lived almost all of my life (and still do) in the most urban city in the US.

midoridensha 3y ago
If people in rural areas want the services and conveniences of urban areas, they should move there. It's very simple. >"I don't like rural areas or the people who live in them. In fact, I hope they all leave or die." No, my attitude is that rural people live an unsustainable lifestyle that demands subsidization by city dwellers. Why should rural dwellers get this if they're not able to afford the extravagance of rural living on their own? If they want money and jobs, they need to move to where the jobs are. Human societies have been working this way for thousands of years now. This isn't something brand-new. If rural dwellers like it so much in rural areas, they need to learn to accept and live with the downsides that go with that, such as lack of medical services, instead of complaining.
- prottog 3y ago
  > rural people live an unsustainable lifestyle that demands subsidization by city dwellers I see this idea in a lot of places but don't understand it. You could equally fairly say that city dwellers live an unsustainable lifestyle that demands subsidization by farmers in Kansas or oil drillers in North Dakota.
  - midoridensha 3y ago
    You have trouble understanding this? Try this: can 90% of the population live in cities, supported by food and oil produced by the other 10%? The answer is yes. Now, can 90% of the population live with the farmers and oil workers (in a very rural lifestyle) and still yield the level of civilization and economic development we have now? The answer is no. Without cities, there's no modern economy: just look at any place that's still agrarian, or was in the recent past. Or even the US during its civil war (the agrarian, rural South had no chance against the industrialized North).

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

There is plenty of housing in shrinking urban areas, like Detroit. You mean build new housing in popular urban areas, where people want to move to. Maybe if Seattle is as dense as Manhattan it will be as cheap as Manhattan, right?

asdajksah2123 3y ago
It's not a coincidence that Detroit, the standout example of a failed city, is also the home of the automobile industry in the US.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  The suburbs around Detroit aren't doing that bad, but there are plenty of "failed" cities around the USA if you look close enough. Any city without a mild climate and access to nice outdoor areas nearby is considered a failed city in many people's books...who wants to move to Tulsa these days?

nobody9999 3y ago

I'd add that changing zoning laws and building more densely in urban areas is absolutely a good thing -- and we should definitely do that as well. But doing so does absolutely nothing to revitalize lower population density areas, where 20% of the population[0] lives. I'd expect that better communication/transportation infrastructure would increase that somewhat as well, since if you don't need to live in an urban metro area to have a good job, a whole bunch of people would move to those areas. Potentially making them not rural any more, but why does that even matter? Or should we just tell folks in rural areas to fuck off and die? I don't support that, although I'm sure there are some (you, perhaps?) who do. [0] https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2017/08/rural-america.html https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2017/08/rural-america...

asdajksah2123 3y ago

Manhattan/NYC is as expensive as it is because the housing stock in the NYC metro area has actually reduced in the past 20 years, even though the population has increased significantly. For context, between the 2010 and 2020 censuses, a period where NYC growth was considered slow, NYC added a 1.5x Atlanta's worth of population, but with hardly any additional housing.