3 ms·

Neither the article nor the comment you are referring to were talking about government housing. And you’re entitled to not want to live in a dense urban enviro

Neither the article nor the comment you are referring to were talking about government housing. And you’re entitled to not want to live in a dense urban environment, but you might need to open your mind to the idea that not everyone feels the way you do.

cyberax 3y ago
> And you’re entitled to not want to live in a dense urban environment, but you might need to open your mind to the idea that not everyone feels the way you do. You're entitled to move away from a toxic river that catches fire. But you might need to open your mind to the idea that not everyone feels the way you do. Perhaps some people like to work at the factory that produces the toxic slime. Urban density is pollution. Its effects are not limited to cities. By making it easier for companies to open offices in dense urban cores, it ensures that smaller cities are starved of jobs and die. So people are forced to move to ever-densifying areas, driving up the price. This in turn makes it even easier for companies to hire people living near dense urban cores. Rinse, wash, repeat.
- Sabinus 3y ago
  Do you think there are economic efficiencies in gathering a large workforce in one location? Do you think suburbia is an efficient and effective use of land?
  - cyberax 3y ago
    > Do you think there are economic efficiencies in gathering a large workforce in one location? Oh, absolutely. It's more efficient for companies to hire workforce in dense cities and offload the externalities (increasing cost of living) onto the public. Just like with pollution: if you dump toxic sludge into rivers, your factory can make widgets cheaper, than a factory that has to take care of its waste. > Do you think suburbia is an efficient and effective use of land? I don't think _efficiency_ should be the reason for cities. A polluting factory is also more efficient than a clean factory. Yet we somehow don't appreciate that efficiency anymore. Moreover, the amount of urban areas is around 2% of the total land area in the US. De-aggregating the cities will only result in its increase by maybe 20%.
- xnx 3y ago
  Small cities are a relic from 100 years ago when 40% of the US population worked on farms. Their diminished present day stature is a indication that they are not a productive use of resources (e.g. roads and other infrastructure). We don't need government intervention to save them.
- laurencerowe 3y ago
  > Urban density is pollution. Its effects are not limited to cities. This is simply not the case. People living in dense walkable urban areas produce far less pollution than those living in the suburbs who need to drive much more and require far more infrastructure per household. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/its-not-just-cities-suburbs-and-exurbs-need-to-adopt-and-implement-climate-plans-too/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/its-not-just-cities-subur...
  - cyberax 3y ago
    Nah. It's just a propaganda piece. Switching from gas cars to EVs and downsizing from barn-sized SUVs to medium-sized cars will solve the emissions issues. Moreover, extrapolating the self-driving vehicles trend a bit, mild automated car-pooling will completely negate emissions advantage of EVERY other intracity public transit method.
    - laurencerowe 3y ago
      Even with EVs you still need to create far more infrastructure per person in the suburbs than in denser cities. When you remove most of the cars, walkable cities can be really pleasant places.

cyberax 3y ago

> And you’re entitled to not want to live in a dense urban environment, but you might need to open your mind to the idea that not everyone feels the way you do. You're entitled to move away from a toxic river that catches fire. But you might need to open your mind to the idea that not everyone feels the way you do. Perhaps some people like to work at the factory that produces the toxic slime. Urban density is pollution. Its effects are not limited to cities. By making it easier for companies to open offices in dense urban cores, it ensures that smaller cities are starved of jobs and die. So people are forced to move to ever-densifying areas, driving up the price. This in turn makes it even easier for companies to hire people living near dense urban cores. Rinse, wash, repeat.

Sabinus 3y ago
Do you think there are economic efficiencies in gathering a large workforce in one location? Do you think suburbia is an efficient and effective use of land?
- cyberax 3y ago
  > Do you think there are economic efficiencies in gathering a large workforce in one location? Oh, absolutely. It's more efficient for companies to hire workforce in dense cities and offload the externalities (increasing cost of living) onto the public. Just like with pollution: if you dump toxic sludge into rivers, your factory can make widgets cheaper, than a factory that has to take care of its waste. > Do you think suburbia is an efficient and effective use of land? I don't think _efficiency_ should be the reason for cities. A polluting factory is also more efficient than a clean factory. Yet we somehow don't appreciate that efficiency anymore. Moreover, the amount of urban areas is around 2% of the total land area in the US. De-aggregating the cities will only result in its increase by maybe 20%.
xnx 3y ago
Small cities are a relic from 100 years ago when 40% of the US population worked on farms. Their diminished present day stature is a indication that they are not a productive use of resources (e.g. roads and other infrastructure). We don't need government intervention to save them.
laurencerowe 3y ago
> Urban density is pollution. Its effects are not limited to cities. This is simply not the case. People living in dense walkable urban areas produce far less pollution than those living in the suburbs who need to drive much more and require far more infrastructure per household. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/its-not-just-cities-suburbs-and-exurbs-need-to-adopt-and-implement-climate-plans-too/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/its-not-just-cities-subur...
- cyberax 3y ago
  Nah. It's just a propaganda piece. Switching from gas cars to EVs and downsizing from barn-sized SUVs to medium-sized cars will solve the emissions issues. Moreover, extrapolating the self-driving vehicles trend a bit, mild automated car-pooling will completely negate emissions advantage of EVERY other intracity public transit method.
  - laurencerowe 3y ago
    Even with EVs you still need to create far more infrastructure per person in the suburbs than in denser cities. When you remove most of the cars, walkable cities can be really pleasant places.