4 ms·

The city is where all the fun things are. There's nothing more enjoyable than going for a five minute walk and picking which of the 10 restaurants and bars I pa

The city is where all the fun things are. There's nothing more enjoyable than going for a five minute walk and picking which of the 10 restaurants and bars I pass I'd like to stop at.

theultdev 3y ago
This "problem" pretty much solves itself with the current trend. Those who want to be in cities because of what you listed will pay the premium and stay and deal with the crowding constraints and workarounds such as open offices and high rent. People are sensitive to prices differently and crowding is not too big of a deal since they like people generally. Those who want space and privacy will move out and work remotely and somewhat ease the crowding. Personally I can only "enjoy" a city for a couple days before being drained, then it's back to life as a hermit. But it doesn't look good for those who like in-office w/ private offices. I see no trend to bring that back. Sad because that's the only way I would work in-office.
pseudocomposer 3y ago
You might consider developing an interest in more sustainable hobbies, like running, the gym or an instrument. They offer less immediate gratification, but you can get out of living paycheck to paycheck as people with bar/restaurant habits do. A good way to ease into it is moving somewhere where it’s a 5 minute bike ride instead of a 5 minute walk to bars and restaurants. You’ll save money, get more fit, and get a dopamine detox.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- jrockway 3y ago
  Good luck surviving the 5 minute bike ride to a restaurant in the suburbs.
  - deathanatos 3y ago
    I'd be more concerned about the bike ride returning from the bar in that suggestion, actually.
  - mnky9800n 3y ago
    Or just live in Europe where most places still have a 5 minute bike ride somewhere. Even provincial France or Germany where everyone owns a car.
    - isbvhodnvemrwvn 3y ago
      'Just'
      - mnky9800n 3y ago
        Most people in this forum possess the skills and education necessary to get a skilled workers visa. So yes, just.
        theultdev 3y ago
        Yeah they're educated enough to know what a 50% pay reduction looks like.
    - TeMPOraL 3y ago
      If you live in Europe, you may just as well stay in the city. Still not as boring as countryside and bike-traversible.
- brailsafe 3y ago
  Vouched for the dialog. I didn't read their comment as a problem to be solved in the slightest. The great thing about living in the city is that one can also walk 5 min to their gym, then see people they might know from the gym on their way to the grocery store, and occasionally invite them to a drink within walking distance to their home if they want. Or alternatively you can get on your bike and go wherever you want too, like many city people also do. Living near options doesn't mean you're constantly engaging in those options, but if you are engaging in those too much, ya maybe move a bit further away. Problem with many suburbs is that they're basically only a place to live in isolation, with a few exceptions. You see maybe a few scant people who walk their dog, everyone else is either at work, inside, in their backyard, or they've driven somewhere else.
  - theultdev 3y ago
    You're only comparing suburbs to cities. Suburbs don't make any sense in the remote era. Small towns are a great option, you can bike literally everywhere and meet people very easily. Only two gyms, but not crowded! The suburbs really only serve a purpose to house people near a city to commute to, which is moot if you're working remotely. There's no perks of a city or a town living in a suburb. People live in them because of their jobs.
    - glimshe 3y ago
      Lots of suburbs - especially the so-called exurbs - are places that used to be a small town and still maintain a main street, but with a lot of living areas close to the main street. These suburbs are also "semi-suburbs" of the town, if that makes sense, and maintain many of the small town amenities.
    - brailsafe 3y ago
      I'd argue that North American style suburbs have no legitimate place in the urban landscape at all, regardless of the nature of residents' jobs, as in they're an insufficient, half-hearted, and often ugly solution that people just get used to living in. I find them unsettling places to be most of the time. The difference between a small town and a neighborhood though that favors my disposition, is that there's generally more variety and specialization available in the local economy and community, as well as less of a dependence on a vehicle for visiting anywhere outside the neighborhood. There's not just 1 gym, there's 4, there's not just one physical therapy office, there's 5, there's not just one dentist or coffee shop, there's 13. Of course, I'm not visiting even 2 of these places at any given time, but others are, and it's nice to know that there are alternatives. And it's not just meeting people for the sake of socializing, it's also a platform for a broader exposure to diverse cultures and a hypothetically larger dating pool, more education opportunities, access to an international airport, more telecom providers (in theory) that can provide better services if that's important to you. Small towns however seem great if you've already done all that and just want a quiet place to putter around and maybe have access to the mountains or enjoy farming. There's a certain serenity you might not get near/in a city, and there's absolutely a lack of space that small town wouldn't have. People in that small town might be welcoming and friendly as opposed to cold and hard to pin down in the nearby city, but the reverse could also be true depending on where you've chosen. It's a perfectly valid choice, it just depends what you're into I suppose, and if there's train access that would be even better.
- rcxdude 3y ago
  If sustainability is your metric, you should prefer cities. The general environmental impact and resource usage of rural living is much worse per capita than city living. (And yes, that can be true while cities generally use much more resources and pollute more: they also have many more people living there)
  - theultdev 3y ago
    I see this talking point rattled off a lot but it makes no sense. Concentrating in one spot will be more efficient but cause more damage than dispersing. The efficiency you gain in centralizing is irrelevant since you lowered the total but concentrated it so it can grow instead of disperse. Which is worse, dumping a ton of salt in one spot in the ocean or dumping 1.2 tons throughout a large area? There's a reason cities generally have smog and towns generally don't. Dilution is the solution to pollution.
    - rcxdude 3y ago
      Dilution is only a solution if the total amount isn't harmful once diluted. That's not the case for greenhouse gases, at the very least. To say nothing of the other end of the equation: limited supplies of the raw ingreadients. The earth could likely only support a fraction of the current human population if they all lived rural lifestyles.
      - theultdev 3y ago
        > That's not the case for greenhouse gases It certainly is, especially for SLCPs. That long debate aside, today we can see the palpable smog in big cities vs the clean air in rural areas, small towns, and small cities. You also risk ozone depletion in areas with concentrated aerosol emissions, these are short lived and would disperse, but they cause the most damage of all pollutants in concentration. > The earth could likely only support a fraction of the current human population if they all lived rural lifestyles. I'm not suggesting that, I'm suggesting people live where they want to and don't fall for that inaccurate guilt-trip talking point.
bravetraveler 3y ago
It's interesting how different we can be, this meandering seems dreadful to me

The city is where all the fun things are. There's nothing more enjoyable than going for a five minute walk and picking which of the 10 restaurants and bars I pass I'd like to stop at.

theultdev 3y ago

This "problem" pretty much solves itself with the current trend. Those who want to be in cities because of what you listed will pay the premium and stay and deal with the crowding constraints and workarounds such as open offices and high rent. People are sensitive to prices differently and crowding is not too big of a deal since they like people generally. Those who want space and privacy will move out and work remotely and somewhat ease the crowding. Personally I can only "enjoy" a city for a couple days before being drained, then it's back to life as a hermit. But it doesn't look good for those who like in-office w/ private offices. I see no trend to bring that back. Sad because that's the only way I would work in-office.

pseudocomposer 3y ago

You might consider developing an interest in more sustainable hobbies, like running, the gym or an instrument. They offer less immediate gratification, but you can get out of living paycheck to paycheck as people with bar/restaurant habits do. A good way to ease into it is moving somewhere where it’s a 5 minute bike ride instead of a 5 minute walk to bars and restaurants. You’ll save money, get more fit, and get a dopamine detox.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jrockway 3y ago
Good luck surviving the 5 minute bike ride to a restaurant in the suburbs.
- deathanatos 3y ago
  I'd be more concerned about the bike ride returning from the bar in that suggestion, actually.
- mnky9800n 3y ago
  Or just live in Europe where most places still have a 5 minute bike ride somewhere. Even provincial France or Germany where everyone owns a car.
  - isbvhodnvemrwvn 3y ago
    'Just'
    - mnky9800n 3y ago
      Most people in this forum possess the skills and education necessary to get a skilled workers visa. So yes, just.
      - theultdev 3y ago
        Yeah they're educated enough to know what a 50% pay reduction looks like.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    If you live in Europe, you may just as well stay in the city. Still not as boring as countryside and bike-traversible.
brailsafe 3y ago
Vouched for the dialog. I didn't read their comment as a problem to be solved in the slightest. The great thing about living in the city is that one can also walk 5 min to their gym, then see people they might know from the gym on their way to the grocery store, and occasionally invite them to a drink within walking distance to their home if they want. Or alternatively you can get on your bike and go wherever you want too, like many city people also do. Living near options doesn't mean you're constantly engaging in those options, but if you are engaging in those too much, ya maybe move a bit further away. Problem with many suburbs is that they're basically only a place to live in isolation, with a few exceptions. You see maybe a few scant people who walk their dog, everyone else is either at work, inside, in their backyard, or they've driven somewhere else.
- theultdev 3y ago
  You're only comparing suburbs to cities. Suburbs don't make any sense in the remote era. Small towns are a great option, you can bike literally everywhere and meet people very easily. Only two gyms, but not crowded! The suburbs really only serve a purpose to house people near a city to commute to, which is moot if you're working remotely. There's no perks of a city or a town living in a suburb. People live in them because of their jobs.
  - glimshe 3y ago
    Lots of suburbs - especially the so-called exurbs - are places that used to be a small town and still maintain a main street, but with a lot of living areas close to the main street. These suburbs are also "semi-suburbs" of the town, if that makes sense, and maintain many of the small town amenities.
  - brailsafe 3y ago
    I'd argue that North American style suburbs have no legitimate place in the urban landscape at all, regardless of the nature of residents' jobs, as in they're an insufficient, half-hearted, and often ugly solution that people just get used to living in. I find them unsettling places to be most of the time. The difference between a small town and a neighborhood though that favors my disposition, is that there's generally more variety and specialization available in the local economy and community, as well as less of a dependence on a vehicle for visiting anywhere outside the neighborhood. There's not just 1 gym, there's 4, there's not just one physical therapy office, there's 5, there's not just one dentist or coffee shop, there's 13. Of course, I'm not visiting even 2 of these places at any given time, but others are, and it's nice to know that there are alternatives. And it's not just meeting people for the sake of socializing, it's also a platform for a broader exposure to diverse cultures and a hypothetically larger dating pool, more education opportunities, access to an international airport, more telecom providers (in theory) that can provide better services if that's important to you. Small towns however seem great if you've already done all that and just want a quiet place to putter around and maybe have access to the mountains or enjoy farming. There's a certain serenity you might not get near/in a city, and there's absolutely a lack of space that small town wouldn't have. People in that small town might be welcoming and friendly as opposed to cold and hard to pin down in the nearby city, but the reverse could also be true depending on where you've chosen. It's a perfectly valid choice, it just depends what you're into I suppose, and if there's train access that would be even better.
rcxdude 3y ago
If sustainability is your metric, you should prefer cities. The general environmental impact and resource usage of rural living is much worse per capita than city living. (And yes, that can be true while cities generally use much more resources and pollute more: they also have many more people living there)
- theultdev 3y ago
  I see this talking point rattled off a lot but it makes no sense. Concentrating in one spot will be more efficient but cause more damage than dispersing. The efficiency you gain in centralizing is irrelevant since you lowered the total but concentrated it so it can grow instead of disperse. Which is worse, dumping a ton of salt in one spot in the ocean or dumping 1.2 tons throughout a large area? There's a reason cities generally have smog and towns generally don't. Dilution is the solution to pollution.
  - rcxdude 3y ago
    Dilution is only a solution if the total amount isn't harmful once diluted. That's not the case for greenhouse gases, at the very least. To say nothing of the other end of the equation: limited supplies of the raw ingreadients. The earth could likely only support a fraction of the current human population if they all lived rural lifestyles.
    - theultdev 3y ago
      > That's not the case for greenhouse gases It certainly is, especially for SLCPs. That long debate aside, today we can see the palpable smog in big cities vs the clean air in rural areas, small towns, and small cities. You also risk ozone depletion in areas with concentrated aerosol emissions, these are short lived and would disperse, but they cause the most damage of all pollutants in concentration. > The earth could likely only support a fraction of the current human population if they all lived rural lifestyles. I'm not suggesting that, I'm suggesting people live where they want to and don't fall for that inaccurate guilt-trip talking point.

bravetraveler 3y ago

It's interesting how different we can be, this meandering seems dreadful to me