4 ms·

> we need to switch from a high density model, too dense for today state of tech and society, climate etc The populations of dense cities use fewer resources t

> we need to switch from a high density model, too dense for today state of tech and society, climate etc The populations of dense cities use fewer resources than the same population spread out in low-density settlements, especially when those cities are laid out to be properly walkable. It's just basic economy of scale. > in cities there are MANY ICE vehicles whose engine produce much heat, much more than any electrical motor; In cities, not having a vehicle is an option. Outside of them, it's basically required in most places.

mschuster91 3y ago
> It's just basic economy of scale. Economies of scale aren't a goal on their own. Scaling something up will always have side effects... in the case of too dense urban areas, it's for example the sheer amount of traffic. For example, a quarter full of high-rises, no way you can get away without expensive high-capacity subterranian trains to handle commuters, and surface traffic is going to be a hot mess even with just shuttling the basic supplies for supermarkets, restaurants and the likes in one direction and waste on the other direction. In contrast, even a standard European mid-sized city can get away with cheap bus and tram lines. And it's harder to provide other essentials to meaningful life in a city as well, particularly where children are involved - land is too valuable to leave it as a park, and children can't have outdoor places to play either in kindergarten because it's too expensive, so you have even more traffic just from parents bringing their kids to kindergarten/school/playgrounds/whatnot. Another effect of urban over-density that's often neglected is human health, both physical (we've seen that with COVID, just how fast pathogens can spread in urban areas) and mental. I mean, even here in Munich or Berlin we're not at the US levels of mental health and housing issues with people defecating on the sidewalk, but still it's noticeable how cities tend to have more anti-social behavior, as poverty and boredom are definitely contagious especially when not backed by the implicit social control that life even in smaller cities brings.
- lmm 3y ago
  > Economies of scale aren't a goal on their own. Scaling something up will always have side effects... in the case of too dense urban areas, it's for example the sheer amount of traffic. For example, a quarter full of high-rises, no way you can get away without expensive high-capacity subterranian trains to handle commuters, and surface traffic is going to be a hot mess even with just shuttling the basic supplies for supermarkets, restaurants and the likes in one direction and waste on the other direction. In contrast, even a standard European mid-sized city can get away with cheap bus and tram lines. But that high-capacity transit more than pays for itself (just the land value increase alone is more than the cost of building it). Yes there are costs to building densely (obviously to build a skyscraper at all costs more per square metre of floor space than building on the flat), but the end result is that more people can live (and more productively) for less total cost. > Another effect of urban over-density that's often neglected is human health, both physical (we've seen that with COVID, just how fast pathogens can spread in urban areas) and mental. I mean, even here in Munich or Berlin we're not at the US levels of mental health and housing issues with people defecating on the sidewalk, but still it's noticeable how cities tend to have more anti-social behavior, as poverty and boredom are definitely contagious especially when not backed by the implicit social control that life even in smaller cities brings. Do you have any evidence for that? The last results I've seen are that suburban living is significantly worse for mental health than dense urban cores (and I wouldn't be surprised if that was true for physical health as well), and frankly that fits with my experiences.
  - kkfx 3y ago
    > but the end result is that more people can live (and more productively) for less total cost. Another classic scam: metros are very energy efficient in travel time, when loaded enough. But you need to move at any time of the day, differently by many others needs and desire, as a result OR you make the service run 24/7 nearly empty most of the time or you can't satisfy personal traveling needs most of the time. Beside that the mere cost of a metro respect of "glorified electric golf cart" for a less dense are is ENORMOUS and no, it does not pay up. Not only why keep moving in a city? Most activities there are doable from remote, just cutting such commuting to move only for pleasure and the reaming needs is FAR cheaper. > Do you have any evidence for that? In most of the world life expectancy in cities is LESS than outside by few years, gut microbes are far less in people living in dense area not to count pollution effects.
    - lmm 3y ago
      > Beside that the mere cost of a metro respect of "glorified electric golf cart" for a less dense are is ENORMOUS and no, it does not pay up. I think you missed or added some words there, so it's not very clear what you were trying to say. The cost/benefit of metros stacks up, that's why cities build them - not necessarily in terms of value that can be captured by charging fares, but certainly in terms of overall benefit. > Not only why keep moving in a city? Because the agglomeration effect still works; the more people within a 30 minute commute range, the more useful stuff they can do in less time. Again people wouldn't pay what it costs to live in a megacity if it wasn't worth it. > Most activities there are doable from remote, just cutting such commuting to move only for pleasure and the reaming needs is FAR cheaper. If there's less need for commuting then surely by your own argument that makes the case for living in a big city stronger, since there'll be less need for underground metros. > In most of the world life expectancy in cities is LESS than outside by few years Is that after controlling for wealth? > gut microbes are far less in people living in dense area Is that good or bad? > not to count pollution effects. Pollution is important though. The more you can walk or cycle, and more generally the lower the per capita energy use, the less pollution and the better for human health.
      - 3y ago
- msm_ 3y ago
  >For example, a quarter full of high-rises, no way you can get away without expensive high-capacity subterranian trains to handle commuters Aren't trains much, much more efficient than individual transport? Compare the average urban train with everyone driving their own car and it starts to look pretty good.
  - mschuster91 3y ago
    They are. The problem is they are vastly more expensive (to the tune of billions of euros) than building on-surface light rail/tram due to the cost and difficulty of boring tunnels.
  - kkfx 3y ago
    > Aren't trains much, much more efficient than individual transport? Only if well loaded and running most of the time well loaded. Meaning in practice they can't be more efficient than personal transports. OR you make a service 24/7/365 (untenable, running nearly empty most of the time) or you can't satisfy personal moving needs most of the time. Beside that just look at single stations costs compared to people moving in less dense areas in glorified electric golf carts mostly recharged via local p.v. It's an ancient scam to sell collective transportation as positive, actually it's positive only for the public-funded business owner.
kkfx 3y ago
> The populations of dense cities use fewer resources than the same population spread out in low-density settlements, especially when those cities are laid out to be properly walkable. It's just basic economy of scale. No, that's just marketing try to convince people of that... > In cities, not having a vehicle is an option. Outside of them, it's basically required in most places. Again that's marketing Did you try to think hoe many resources are needed just to build high rise buildings compared to an equivalent set of single family homes? Hint: their own structure need to be supported, just that and foundations impose MUCH MORE resources than light homes. Similarly for any implant inside, including elevators. Sewage network? Metros and so on? A city if you try to count raw material use MUCH more than an equivalent spread area. Not only: single family homes can evolve, they can be wood based and rebuild every let's say 50 years. Meaning they remain aligned to contemporary needs and tech, while rebuild a high rise building is a nightmare. If you have modern homes with EV in most part of inhabited world, WFH for eligible jobs, not suburb USA style but mixed spread are where your dentist is just a small building few km away, there is a small supermarket few km away and so on you can have small-battery EV mostly recharge via domestic p.v. in cities you can walk, sure, unfortunately groceries are not made there, they came from far away, as far as more dense is the area because anybody eat, but in dense area there is no local food production. As a result you consume less, comfortably ignoring the logistic behind anything you use locally. Now enlarge yourself talking about soil sealing who kill humus, water cycle alteration due to the big impact of such large and concentrated usage and discharge and so on. If you REALLY try to dimension a city you'll easy see that anything you believe is false, marketing pushed because dense cities means dependency on services, witch means big business for very few on the shoulders of many. Try just to imaging ready-to-eat food delivery in a spread are: there is no chance Uber Eat, Just Eat and so one model keep up. People have kitchen, stockpile of food and time to do whatever they like, far less waste, far less packaging. Oh BTW this was an ancient known scam in Europe: in the past schools have internal kitchen, then they was told to externalize to make anything more efficient. As a result food quality have dropped, costs ans waste and packaging use skyrocketed.

mschuster91 3y ago

> It's just basic economy of scale. Economies of scale aren't a goal on their own. Scaling something up will always have side effects... in the case of too dense urban areas, it's for example the sheer amount of traffic. For example, a quarter full of high-rises, no way you can get away without expensive high-capacity subterranian trains to handle commuters, and surface traffic is going to be a hot mess even with just shuttling the basic supplies for supermarkets, restaurants and the likes in one direction and waste on the other direction. In contrast, even a standard European mid-sized city can get away with cheap bus and tram lines. And it's harder to provide other essentials to meaningful life in a city as well, particularly where children are involved - land is too valuable to leave it as a park, and children can't have outdoor places to play either in kindergarten because it's too expensive, so you have even more traffic just from parents bringing their kids to kindergarten/school/playgrounds/whatnot. Another effect of urban over-density that's often neglected is human health, both physical (we've seen that with COVID, just how fast pathogens can spread in urban areas) and mental. I mean, even here in Munich or Berlin we're not at the US levels of mental health and housing issues with people defecating on the sidewalk, but still it's noticeable how cities tend to have more anti-social behavior, as poverty and boredom are definitely contagious especially when not backed by the implicit social control that life even in smaller cities brings.

lmm 3y ago
> Economies of scale aren't a goal on their own. Scaling something up will always have side effects... in the case of too dense urban areas, it's for example the sheer amount of traffic. For example, a quarter full of high-rises, no way you can get away without expensive high-capacity subterranian trains to handle commuters, and surface traffic is going to be a hot mess even with just shuttling the basic supplies for supermarkets, restaurants and the likes in one direction and waste on the other direction. In contrast, even a standard European mid-sized city can get away with cheap bus and tram lines. But that high-capacity transit more than pays for itself (just the land value increase alone is more than the cost of building it). Yes there are costs to building densely (obviously to build a skyscraper at all costs more per square metre of floor space than building on the flat), but the end result is that more people can live (and more productively) for less total cost. > Another effect of urban over-density that's often neglected is human health, both physical (we've seen that with COVID, just how fast pathogens can spread in urban areas) and mental. I mean, even here in Munich or Berlin we're not at the US levels of mental health and housing issues with people defecating on the sidewalk, but still it's noticeable how cities tend to have more anti-social behavior, as poverty and boredom are definitely contagious especially when not backed by the implicit social control that life even in smaller cities brings. Do you have any evidence for that? The last results I've seen are that suburban living is significantly worse for mental health than dense urban cores (and I wouldn't be surprised if that was true for physical health as well), and frankly that fits with my experiences.
- kkfx 3y ago
  > but the end result is that more people can live (and more productively) for less total cost. Another classic scam: metros are very energy efficient in travel time, when loaded enough. But you need to move at any time of the day, differently by many others needs and desire, as a result OR you make the service run 24/7 nearly empty most of the time or you can't satisfy personal traveling needs most of the time. Beside that the mere cost of a metro respect of "glorified electric golf cart" for a less dense are is ENORMOUS and no, it does not pay up. Not only why keep moving in a city? Most activities there are doable from remote, just cutting such commuting to move only for pleasure and the reaming needs is FAR cheaper. > Do you have any evidence for that? In most of the world life expectancy in cities is LESS than outside by few years, gut microbes are far less in people living in dense area not to count pollution effects.
  - lmm 3y ago
    > Beside that the mere cost of a metro respect of "glorified electric golf cart" for a less dense are is ENORMOUS and no, it does not pay up. I think you missed or added some words there, so it's not very clear what you were trying to say. The cost/benefit of metros stacks up, that's why cities build them - not necessarily in terms of value that can be captured by charging fares, but certainly in terms of overall benefit. > Not only why keep moving in a city? Because the agglomeration effect still works; the more people within a 30 minute commute range, the more useful stuff they can do in less time. Again people wouldn't pay what it costs to live in a megacity if it wasn't worth it. > Most activities there are doable from remote, just cutting such commuting to move only for pleasure and the reaming needs is FAR cheaper. If there's less need for commuting then surely by your own argument that makes the case for living in a big city stronger, since there'll be less need for underground metros. > In most of the world life expectancy in cities is LESS than outside by few years Is that after controlling for wealth? > gut microbes are far less in people living in dense area Is that good or bad? > not to count pollution effects. Pollution is important though. The more you can walk or cycle, and more generally the lower the per capita energy use, the less pollution and the better for human health.
    - 3y ago
msm_ 3y ago
>For example, a quarter full of high-rises, no way you can get away without expensive high-capacity subterranian trains to handle commuters Aren't trains much, much more efficient than individual transport? Compare the average urban train with everyone driving their own car and it starts to look pretty good.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  They are. The problem is they are vastly more expensive (to the tune of billions of euros) than building on-surface light rail/tram due to the cost and difficulty of boring tunnels.
- kkfx 3y ago
  > Aren't trains much, much more efficient than individual transport? Only if well loaded and running most of the time well loaded. Meaning in practice they can't be more efficient than personal transports. OR you make a service 24/7/365 (untenable, running nearly empty most of the time) or you can't satisfy personal moving needs most of the time. Beside that just look at single stations costs compared to people moving in less dense areas in glorified electric golf carts mostly recharged via local p.v. It's an ancient scam to sell collective transportation as positive, actually it's positive only for the public-funded business owner.

kkfx 3y ago

> The populations of dense cities use fewer resources than the same population spread out in low-density settlements, especially when those cities are laid out to be properly walkable. It's just basic economy of scale. No, that's just marketing try to convince people of that... > In cities, not having a vehicle is an option. Outside of them, it's basically required in most places. Again that's marketing Did you try to think hoe many resources are needed just to build high rise buildings compared to an equivalent set of single family homes? Hint: their own structure need to be supported, just that and foundations impose MUCH MORE resources than light homes. Similarly for any implant inside, including elevators. Sewage network? Metros and so on? A city if you try to count raw material use MUCH more than an equivalent spread area. Not only: single family homes can evolve, they can be wood based and rebuild every let's say 50 years. Meaning they remain aligned to contemporary needs and tech, while rebuild a high rise building is a nightmare. If you have modern homes with EV in most part of inhabited world, WFH for eligible jobs, not suburb USA style but mixed spread are where your dentist is just a small building few km away, there is a small supermarket few km away and so on you can have small-battery EV mostly recharge via domestic p.v. in cities you can walk, sure, unfortunately groceries are not made there, they came from far away, as far as more dense is the area because anybody eat, but in dense area there is no local food production. As a result you consume less, comfortably ignoring the logistic behind anything you use locally. Now enlarge yourself talking about soil sealing who kill humus, water cycle alteration due to the big impact of such large and concentrated usage and discharge and so on. If you REALLY try to dimension a city you'll easy see that anything you believe is false, marketing pushed because dense cities means dependency on services, witch means big business for very few on the shoulders of many. Try just to imaging ready-to-eat food delivery in a spread are: there is no chance Uber Eat, Just Eat and so one model keep up. People have kitchen, stockpile of food and time to do whatever they like, far less waste, far less packaging. Oh BTW this was an ancient known scam in Europe: in the past schools have internal kitchen, then they was told to externalize to make anything more efficient. As a result food quality have dropped, costs ans waste and packaging use skyrocketed.