19 ms·

Residential skyscrapers + modern subway trains that go to suburbs made up of residential skyscrapers are the solution. I visited my friend in Kuala Lumpur. I we

Residential skyscrapers + modern subway trains that go to suburbs made up of residential skyscrapers are the solution. I visited my friend in Kuala Lumpur. I went from downtown to outside the city in just 10-15 minutes and went direct from the metro station to the condo block, about 60 meters. These clusters of skyscrapers form mini cities with access to many necessities, and then you can just take the metro to other clusters. Or if you really want to, you can drive. Other cities have much better metro systems. Commuting to the office wouldn’t be so bad if it just meant taking a train for 20 minutes while you read HN. I’m lucky enough to live with my parents in a rural area, but if I ever move out to San Francisco or NYC for work I will probably try to find the smallest possible apartment. I don’t need a kitchen or table. I just need a bed, wardrobe, and lockable door. I’ve spent enough time in hostels around the world to know I could make it.

Shawnj2 3y ago
Another less infrastructure heavy option would be to build places to live with less parking, more mid rises (~5 stories), and good transit (this can just be dedicated bus lanes and traffic lights that switch automatically when a bus goes through at the cheapest)
flatline 3y ago
That sounds like a pretty amazing layout. Maybe in 100 years we will have something like that in the US! As a single person, I do not think living in a city is that big a challenge. Sure it’s expensive, you still have to hustle, but you can get a studio or roommates or even live with family, that is how people get by. Once you are partnered and have kids it becomes much more challenging. I know someone who raised a family of five kids in a 2BR in Chicago, it can be done. But it’s a cultural issue: that is what poor people do, and nobody wants to feel poor. So we expect to have a big house that is unaffordable in the city and we move to cheaper climes and commute. The nuclear family is a big part of the problem. Going back to multi-generational housing with little private space is not a super popular option, but Gen Z seems to be dipping their toes…

Shawnj2 3y ago

Another less infrastructure heavy option would be to build places to live with less parking, more mid rises (~5 stories), and good transit (this can just be dedicated bus lanes and traffic lights that switch automatically when a bus goes through at the cheapest)

flatline 3y ago

That sounds like a pretty amazing layout. Maybe in 100 years we will have something like that in the US! As a single person, I do not think living in a city is that big a challenge. Sure it’s expensive, you still have to hustle, but you can get a studio or roommates or even live with family, that is how people get by. Once you are partnered and have kids it becomes much more challenging. I know someone who raised a family of five kids in a 2BR in Chicago, it can be done. But it’s a cultural issue: that is what poor people do, and nobody wants to feel poor. So we expect to have a big house that is unaffordable in the city and we move to cheaper climes and commute. The nuclear family is a big part of the problem. Going back to multi-generational housing with little private space is not a super popular option, but Gen Z seems to be dipping their toes…