6 ms·

This comment really irks me as someone who lives in a rural area. The typical urbanite attitude seems to be that everything outside the city should be untouche

This comment really irks me as someone who lives in a rural area. The typical urbanite attitude seems to be that everything outside the city should be untouched, pristine wilderness which exists only for their occasional amusement when they feel like hiking, camping or bike riding.

afterburner 3y ago
It's ok, the actual real reason urbanites live in the city is for the jobs, and for all the other people they know there, that are also there for jobs. That said green belts are great for stopping urban sprawl. They don't extend indefinitely though and they certainly don't uproot existing small towns/villages.
- t-writescode 3y ago
  I try to live in urban areas because walkability measurably improves my health in every metric.
  - afterburner 3y ago
    To be honest I was mostly trying to reassure the reactionary urbanite-hater that we aren't trying to take their stuff.
RIMR 3y ago
If all of the urbanites changed their minds and moved to rural areas, there would be no more rural areas. The suburban sprawl would just end up creeping in and destroying the nature that exists there. Feel as irked as you want about it, you're free to continue whatever lifestyle you please, but the ecological footprint of rural living is an order of magnitude higher than that of urban living. Rural living, outside those with careers in agriculture, is not scalable or sustainable.
- bequanna 3y ago
  I'm not saying that urbanites should move to rural areas, I'm saying they should stop trying to legislate against development and stop blocking job-creating projects in rural areas because they are worried it will disrupt a biking trail they visit once every few years. > Rural living, outside those with careers in agriculture, is not scalable or sustainable. I have no idea what you mean by this. Everyone outside of the city isn't a rancher or farmer. Ag is a huge industry with a lot of opportunity, but not the only game in town. If you're talking about population density, we could easily double the number of people in my area with very little change in observable density. In the sq mile that I live there is only one other family. Combine remote work with low property taxes and lower real estate values, living in a rural area is increasingly attractive and makes a hell of a lot of sense to those interested in that lifestyle.
  - boplicity 3y ago
    Rural living has a huge carbon footprint compared to city living for many people. This is a real issue. Not that it can't be solved, but it is something that should be taken seriously.
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      As far as I can tell, unless an energy source as convenient, cheap, and portable as fossil fuels is discovered, the additional carbon footprint of moving more mass further distances (rural living) is unavoidable.
    - bequanna 3y ago
      > Rural living has a huge carbon footprint compared to city living for many people. Ugh... I want to assume the best about comments like this, but what is the point of citing this metric without context? It just feels like the only point is shaming and virtue signaling.
      - boplicity 3y ago
        My post was in response to this: > > Rural living, outside those with careers in agriculture, is not scalable or sustainable. > I have no idea what you mean by this. It was an attempt to explain how rural living is not scalable or sustainable. Maybe you do understand how unsustainable carbon emissions are, especially in terms of the rural versus urban footprint. I don't know.
whitakerch 3y ago
I'd say Rural folk are fine in the grand scheme of damaging the environment thru land use. Tho it is terrible when people own incredibly large swaths of land and then proceed to fence it all off disrupting migration patterns. The Suburbanites are the real problem. Urban Sprawl. And of course it isn't the people themselves who are at fault. They have no choice. It's the idiotic way we've developed around cars. This was only ever considered a good idea to begin with because the Auto/Oil industry pushed it thru propaganda and lobbying; and now it's sunken into people brains.
- next_xibalba 3y ago
  update: deleted
  - greiskul 3y ago
    How about we make suburbs pay for the infrastructure they use? Most suburbs have urbans level of infrastructure with a tax base that is not enough to maintain it due to the lower density, and end up being paid for by city centers. Is that also fine?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - whitakerch 3y ago
      Suburbia's ability to exist is currently funded by all of us. Small cities across the US are literally just sitting in a ponzy scheme of debt. The basics: 1. When you develop new stuff like a suburban neighborhood or one of those roads that has fast food restaurants and gas stations on it that are copy pasted all over our country, you get money from various different sources. 2. Federal > State > Local all fund this based on the idea that it's an overall good thing to develop stuff. So the Local cost is a small fraction of the total. 3. Cool. It's built now and once stuff is built then that's it right? No. 4. Maintenance. This doesn't rear its head until around 10-15 years later. Federal, and maybe State, have nothing to do with this cost. The Locals are responsible. OK! Well lets take all that month the new development made us and maintain it... But wait... the taxes don't even cover the costs. That McDonalds doesn't actually generate that much for the Local gov due to the ENORMOUS amount of space it takes up with a parking lot. Those Suburbia taxes won't even replace the roads. 5. Ponzy. Welp we gotta get money from somewhere.... So we build MORE Suburbia and MORE giant parking lot fast food restaurants, take that lump sum from Federal/State funds, use part of that to maintain our existing debt, and kick the can. This is who pays for Suburbia. The only places that generate a net positive for a Local gov are city center-ish types. You know that nice little shopping area that has lots of different food/shop options that people flock to to walk around. That's probably net positive. That downtown Main St zone of a small city that's mostly dead now? Believe it or not even THAT is probably still net positive. The ugly road littered with nothing but shit food and gas stations? Paid for by the above. The asphalt hellscape with dots of corporate feed troughs (Applebees, Longhorn, Olive Garden, etc)? Paid for by the above unless they circle a shopping mall that covers them. *The other guy seems to have deleted his post that this was responding to

afterburner 3y ago

It's ok, the actual real reason urbanites live in the city is for the jobs, and for all the other people they know there, that are also there for jobs. That said green belts are great for stopping urban sprawl. They don't extend indefinitely though and they certainly don't uproot existing small towns/villages.

t-writescode 3y ago
I try to live in urban areas because walkability measurably improves my health in every metric.
- afterburner 3y ago
  To be honest I was mostly trying to reassure the reactionary urbanite-hater that we aren't trying to take their stuff.

RIMR 3y ago

If all of the urbanites changed their minds and moved to rural areas, there would be no more rural areas. The suburban sprawl would just end up creeping in and destroying the nature that exists there. Feel as irked as you want about it, you're free to continue whatever lifestyle you please, but the ecological footprint of rural living is an order of magnitude higher than that of urban living. Rural living, outside those with careers in agriculture, is not scalable or sustainable.

bequanna 3y ago
I'm not saying that urbanites should move to rural areas, I'm saying they should stop trying to legislate against development and stop blocking job-creating projects in rural areas because they are worried it will disrupt a biking trail they visit once every few years. > Rural living, outside those with careers in agriculture, is not scalable or sustainable. I have no idea what you mean by this. Everyone outside of the city isn't a rancher or farmer. Ag is a huge industry with a lot of opportunity, but not the only game in town. If you're talking about population density, we could easily double the number of people in my area with very little change in observable density. In the sq mile that I live there is only one other family. Combine remote work with low property taxes and lower real estate values, living in a rural area is increasingly attractive and makes a hell of a lot of sense to those interested in that lifestyle.
- boplicity 3y ago
  Rural living has a huge carbon footprint compared to city living for many people. This is a real issue. Not that it can't be solved, but it is something that should be taken seriously.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    As far as I can tell, unless an energy source as convenient, cheap, and portable as fossil fuels is discovered, the additional carbon footprint of moving more mass further distances (rural living) is unavoidable.
  - bequanna 3y ago
    > Rural living has a huge carbon footprint compared to city living for many people. Ugh... I want to assume the best about comments like this, but what is the point of citing this metric without context? It just feels like the only point is shaming and virtue signaling.
    - boplicity 3y ago
      My post was in response to this: > > Rural living, outside those with careers in agriculture, is not scalable or sustainable. > I have no idea what you mean by this. It was an attempt to explain how rural living is not scalable or sustainable. Maybe you do understand how unsustainable carbon emissions are, especially in terms of the rural versus urban footprint. I don't know.

whitakerch 3y ago

I'd say Rural folk are fine in the grand scheme of damaging the environment thru land use. Tho it is terrible when people own incredibly large swaths of land and then proceed to fence it all off disrupting migration patterns. The Suburbanites are the real problem. Urban Sprawl. And of course it isn't the people themselves who are at fault. They have no choice. It's the idiotic way we've developed around cars. This was only ever considered a good idea to begin with because the Auto/Oil industry pushed it thru propaganda and lobbying; and now it's sunken into people brains.

next_xibalba 3y ago
update: deleted
- greiskul 3y ago
  How about we make suburbs pay for the infrastructure they use? Most suburbs have urbans level of infrastructure with a tax base that is not enough to maintain it due to the lower density, and end up being paid for by city centers. Is that also fine?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - whitakerch 3y ago
    Suburbia's ability to exist is currently funded by all of us. Small cities across the US are literally just sitting in a ponzy scheme of debt. The basics: 1. When you develop new stuff like a suburban neighborhood or one of those roads that has fast food restaurants and gas stations on it that are copy pasted all over our country, you get money from various different sources. 2. Federal > State > Local all fund this based on the idea that it's an overall good thing to develop stuff. So the Local cost is a small fraction of the total. 3. Cool. It's built now and once stuff is built then that's it right? No. 4. Maintenance. This doesn't rear its head until around 10-15 years later. Federal, and maybe State, have nothing to do with this cost. The Locals are responsible. OK! Well lets take all that month the new development made us and maintain it... But wait... the taxes don't even cover the costs. That McDonalds doesn't actually generate that much for the Local gov due to the ENORMOUS amount of space it takes up with a parking lot. Those Suburbia taxes won't even replace the roads. 5. Ponzy. Welp we gotta get money from somewhere.... So we build MORE Suburbia and MORE giant parking lot fast food restaurants, take that lump sum from Federal/State funds, use part of that to maintain our existing debt, and kick the can. This is who pays for Suburbia. The only places that generate a net positive for a Local gov are city center-ish types. You know that nice little shopping area that has lots of different food/shop options that people flock to to walk around. That's probably net positive. That downtown Main St zone of a small city that's mostly dead now? Believe it or not even THAT is probably still net positive. The ugly road littered with nothing but shit food and gas stations? Paid for by the above. The asphalt hellscape with dots of corporate feed troughs (Applebees, Longhorn, Olive Garden, etc)? Paid for by the above unless they circle a shopping mall that covers them. *The other guy seems to have deleted his post that this was responding to