3 ms·

I’m still shocked by the notion that a highly dense population is inherently good. Pollution increases, energy requirements increase, crime per-capita increase

I’m still shocked by the notion that a highly dense population is inherently good. Pollution increases, energy requirements increase, crime per-capita increases, babies per-capita tend to decrease, time spent in traffic or commuting increases, space per person decreases. I get that you get more food or entertainment options, but in general it doesn’t appear that increasing density actually improves quality of life. Though it may increase opportunity, that’s not necessarily something an existing community would be improved by.

marxisttemp 3y ago
Have you considered that density needs to be increased not to provide you with low pollution, low crime, a short commute, food or entertainment options, but instead so that people aren’t forced to live on the street?
- jahewson 3y ago
  Isn’t that logic backwards? It’s only higher-density areas that have significant numbers of people living on the streets.
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    Why would a homeless person want to live in a low density area? The solution to homelessness being more housing which means increased density has nothing to do with homeless people preferring to live in dense areas.
kevinburke 3y ago
There are very few places in the USA that have the density of Berkeley and lots of places that have much lower densities. People who don't want density have plenty of options they can move to; the problem is the misanthropes who want the amenities that come with a large city while also having none of the downsides of living in a city, including no neighbors.
apsurd 3y ago
> crime per-capita increases I learned this right here on HN! How silly is it that most any statistic talking about behaviors of populations are nothing more than population-density graphs. "Where's all the crime!?" Sure enough it's where all the people are.
cheriot 3y ago
> Pollution increases, energy requirements increase The lowest carbon emissions and least pollution per capita are in city centers. Also the lowest water usage per capita. > crime per-capita increases This is not a map of population density, https://vividmaps.com/dangerous-us-counties/ https://vividmaps.com/dangerous-us-counties/ > babies per-capita tend to decrease I keep hearing people say it's too expensive to have kids. Maybe lower housing prices would help. > time spent in traffic or commuting increases Housing closer to jobs makes commutes shorter. > space per person decreases You got me. I don't have to pay for more house than I want.
kredd 3y ago
I've lived my entire life in urban cities of different countries, and I don't think I can agree. My quality of life would be dropped significantly if I had to move to a suburban or less dense city. It's a game of priorities and balance: - Space wise, I definitely don't need more than 2 bedroom apartment to myself. I don't think I would get a bigger place unless I partnered up or something. - Especially white collar jobs are within the city, so living in a city decreases your commute time. My longest commute in the past was 20 minutes from door-to-door back in 2016. After that, it was about 15 minute walk, or under-10 minute bike ride - Energy and pollution per capita decreases just because of economies of scale to my understanding - Babies per-capita, I guess kinda decreases. But that's mostly North American thing, I would say. I've known a lot of people who grew up in very urbanized European cities. It's just times are different and people are having less babies, rather than "apartments not letting people have babies" - Crime per-capita, I guess increases. But alas, I don't care, really not a big problem where I live (relatively speaking) - I will add one big con though to your list - we have forgotten in North America how to build functional cities. And unfortunately, it shows. There's a resurgence in the past 10 years in urban planning and etc., but we'll see how it goes. In some cities, urban cleanliness, public infrastructure, and city culture is lacking. Now if you start adding actual pros that can't be replicated in less dense areas because of not having enough people: - Never have to drive anywhere, unless I'm going outside of the city like camping or something - Get to mingle with other people easily. I have a few friends living in the same neighbourhood, so a simple "wanna grab ramen in an hour?" message in a group chat ends up with a meet up - 3 proper grocery stores within 5 minute distance from me. And a downtown Costco 15 minute walk away That being said, I really wish we were able to design our cities to be full of 5-10 story buildings, rather than towers that we're building in specific pockets of lands. I understand that's the only way we can do it from zoning perspective in my city, but it just sucks, cause we could do so much better by just copying what other countries are doing.
- meeks 3y ago
  Downtown Costco, is this Vancouver perhaps?
  - kredd 3y ago
panick21_ 3y ago
Pretty much all of this is just factually wrong. > energy requirements increase > > Pollution increases I can not even fathom how somebody with even rudimentary reasoning skills can actually think that. Its just factually incorrect. The opposite is true. > time spent in traffic or commuting increases What an American thing to say. Maybe if your model of a city is a place where there are a few offices in the center and then a bunch of 15 lane highways to a bunch of apparent buildings. But that's not actually what a real city should be like. First of all, you can live much closer to your job. That means walking or biking work much better. And density also increases efficiency for public transport. It hilarious to me how in the US many cities people spend hours in traffic everyday. I can take the train to the city centers in literally 5min and I can do that pretty much most of the day. > space per person decreases If by 'space' you mean space personally owned space maybe. But that's not how cities work. You have more public space and more places you can go. And if your city doesn't sprawl and convert all the surrounding nature into a hellscape of asphalt and single family homes, nature is actually pretty damn close as well. So every individual has less space, but in reality, more common nature is preserved. > but in general it doesn’t appear that increasing density actually improves quality of life. Though it may increase opportunity, that’s not necessarily something an existing community would be improved by. These existing communities of single family homes all lose money. The city is subsidizing them. Literally the poorest parts of the population subsidizing the rich. People without cars subsidizing the those with cars. That the actual reality, if single family homes had to actually pay their far share, the world would look very different. Having fairness and equity isn't something that would improve existing communities? Much easier to keep stepping on the poorest people and keep them down, am I right? Much better to have all people under 16 in suburbs dreaming to get out and get a car. Whole generations of American art is literally dedicated to how incredible boring subberbia is.
HDThoreaun 3y ago
Very few claim it is inherently good. The claim is that people should be allowed to build dense housing on their land if they want to, and their neighbors shouldnt be able to stop them. Youve completely flipped the goal of the yimby movement.

marxisttemp 3y ago

Have you considered that density needs to be increased not to provide you with low pollution, low crime, a short commute, food or entertainment options, but instead so that people aren’t forced to live on the street?

jahewson 3y ago
Isn’t that logic backwards? It’s only higher-density areas that have significant numbers of people living on the streets.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  Why would a homeless person want to live in a low density area? The solution to homelessness being more housing which means increased density has nothing to do with homeless people preferring to live in dense areas.

kevinburke 3y ago

There are very few places in the USA that have the density of Berkeley and lots of places that have much lower densities. People who don't want density have plenty of options they can move to; the problem is the misanthropes who want the amenities that come with a large city while also having none of the downsides of living in a city, including no neighbors.

apsurd 3y ago

> crime per-capita increases I learned this right here on HN! How silly is it that most any statistic talking about behaviors of populations are nothing more than population-density graphs. "Where's all the crime!?" Sure enough it's where all the people are.

cheriot 3y ago

> Pollution increases, energy requirements increase The lowest carbon emissions and least pollution per capita are in city centers. Also the lowest water usage per capita. > crime per-capita increases This is not a map of population density, https://vividmaps.com/dangerous-us-counties/ https://vividmaps.com/dangerous-us-counties/ > babies per-capita tend to decrease I keep hearing people say it's too expensive to have kids. Maybe lower housing prices would help. > time spent in traffic or commuting increases Housing closer to jobs makes commutes shorter. > space per person decreases You got me. I don't have to pay for more house than I want.

kredd 3y ago

I've lived my entire life in urban cities of different countries, and I don't think I can agree. My quality of life would be dropped significantly if I had to move to a suburban or less dense city. It's a game of priorities and balance: - Space wise, I definitely don't need more than 2 bedroom apartment to myself. I don't think I would get a bigger place unless I partnered up or something. - Especially white collar jobs are within the city, so living in a city decreases your commute time. My longest commute in the past was 20 minutes from door-to-door back in 2016. After that, it was about 15 minute walk, or under-10 minute bike ride - Energy and pollution per capita decreases just because of economies of scale to my understanding - Babies per-capita, I guess kinda decreases. But that's mostly North American thing, I would say. I've known a lot of people who grew up in very urbanized European cities. It's just times are different and people are having less babies, rather than "apartments not letting people have babies" - Crime per-capita, I guess increases. But alas, I don't care, really not a big problem where I live (relatively speaking) - I will add one big con though to your list - we have forgotten in North America how to build functional cities. And unfortunately, it shows. There's a resurgence in the past 10 years in urban planning and etc., but we'll see how it goes. In some cities, urban cleanliness, public infrastructure, and city culture is lacking. Now if you start adding actual pros that can't be replicated in less dense areas because of not having enough people: - Never have to drive anywhere, unless I'm going outside of the city like camping or something - Get to mingle with other people easily. I have a few friends living in the same neighbourhood, so a simple "wanna grab ramen in an hour?" message in a group chat ends up with a meet up - 3 proper grocery stores within 5 minute distance from me. And a downtown Costco 15 minute walk away That being said, I really wish we were able to design our cities to be full of 5-10 story buildings, rather than towers that we're building in specific pockets of lands. I understand that's the only way we can do it from zoning perspective in my city, but it just sucks, cause we could do so much better by just copying what other countries are doing.

meeks 3y ago
Downtown Costco, is this Vancouver perhaps?
- kredd 3y ago

panick21_ 3y ago

Pretty much all of this is just factually wrong. > energy requirements increase > > Pollution increases I can not even fathom how somebody with even rudimentary reasoning skills can actually think that. Its just factually incorrect. The opposite is true. > time spent in traffic or commuting increases What an American thing to say. Maybe if your model of a city is a place where there are a few offices in the center and then a bunch of 15 lane highways to a bunch of apparent buildings. But that's not actually what a real city should be like. First of all, you can live much closer to your job. That means walking or biking work much better. And density also increases efficiency for public transport. It hilarious to me how in the US many cities people spend hours in traffic everyday. I can take the train to the city centers in literally 5min and I can do that pretty much most of the day. > space per person decreases If by 'space' you mean space personally owned space maybe. But that's not how cities work. You have more public space and more places you can go. And if your city doesn't sprawl and convert all the surrounding nature into a hellscape of asphalt and single family homes, nature is actually pretty damn close as well. So every individual has less space, but in reality, more common nature is preserved. > but in general it doesn’t appear that increasing density actually improves quality of life. Though it may increase opportunity, that’s not necessarily something an existing community would be improved by. These existing communities of single family homes all lose money. The city is subsidizing them. Literally the poorest parts of the population subsidizing the rich. People without cars subsidizing the those with cars. That the actual reality, if single family homes had to actually pay their far share, the world would look very different. Having fairness and equity isn't something that would improve existing communities? Much easier to keep stepping on the poorest people and keep them down, am I right? Much better to have all people under 16 in suburbs dreaming to get out and get a car. Whole generations of American art is literally dedicated to how incredible boring subberbia is.

HDThoreaun 3y ago

Very few claim it is inherently good. The claim is that people should be allowed to build dense housing on their land if they want to, and their neighbors shouldnt be able to stop them. Youve completely flipped the goal of the yimby movement.