6 ms·

Because cities are awesome: density gives you choice. In a city, if I have a gifted child, I almost certainly have several options for what school to send them

by dgacmu 2y ago

Because cities are awesome: density gives you choice. In a city, if I have a gifted child, I almost certainly have several options for what school to send them to, many probably within walking distance. In a sparse suburb, I have one, unless they want an hour-long bus ride. Same goes for restaurants, and social activities -- and people! (i.e., potential friends) Cities are drastically more efficient. PV does -not- work best for personal consumption, that's actually the hardest way to go because you're not sharing available resources. Same goes for almost everything else you listed. What's not awesome are cities defined by gridlock and huge highways, something that is itself addressed by increasing the amount of residential space relative to office space.

kkfx 2y ago
Well, choice to consume, but nothing more. I was living in a big dense EU city, after others big&dense, now I'm living in the French Alps, at a short-range from the see, but high enough to have good climate, nature, still having services not like in a big city, but still enough, including good enough FTTH, roads, grocery with drive services and so on. Before? Well, before I can choose restaurants from all over the world, some fitness centers, some events, always and only services to consume and no real personal activity. Traffic congestion, lack of space and so on complete the game. no, thanks. In social terms my social life here with FAR LESS people around is IMPROVED because being less we are more social, we meet much more with different people instead of being in bubble if friends, very isolated from all others humans around. Surely mean cultural level is far lower, but due to the general cultural degradation these days to find interesting people for interesting dialogues internet is the sole means, we are too rarefied to meet IRL casually. Schools? Here every school have large green space and plenty of outdoor activities, yes not at walking distance but who care? Primary schools are normally in 30km radius on good roads, high schools are more rare, but not that far away and if young start to going out of home to study is a good thing for them. Universities became a bit more costly since you must be around them but again it's not that special. Cities IMO are SOLD to be efficient, and they are definitively not. Starting from the office model where you have a place to live, almost unused during the day, and a place to work almost only used during the day, and we build such mid/high rise buildings to use them only a bit less than half a day, wasting time for commuting, how efficient.... Oh, sure, to farm humans is efficient, to live farmed inside definitively not. P.a. actually work ONLY for self-consumption because on scale sharing energy is a nightmare for the grid, we do not have superconductive links, sharing means sharing locally, so have a locally very unstable demand for big power plants, the worst scenario for network stability, they can't keep the frequency with significant p.v. on grid. Instead IF we focus on self-consumption p.v. offer options to heat large quantity of water to have them in the night, when needed, to have geothermic heat pumps, heating the ground in summer to balance the heat get in the winter and so on. BTW cities can't exists without much highways: there anyone eat, and the food came from outside.
- HDThoreaun 2y ago
  Can you accept that different people have different preferences? Yours are valid of course, why cant the city dwellers prefer what the city offers? You seem to understand the advantages the city has but just reject them as if everyone feels the same way as you do.
  - kkfx 2y ago
    Of course, but preference and efficiency are different things: people who like living in cities have all the rights to clearly state that, as a personal preference, as I state mine, but they can't describe their life as efficient or ecological since that's definitively not the case. We do many inefficient things just because we like them, just think how absurd is smoking tobacco. Smokers have all the right to state "it's a pleasure for me", but a pleasure does not means automatically a good, sustainable and efficient thing. Personally I really like smoked salmon, however I life far from salmons natural environment, I still buy it because I can, but of course I know it's a very inefficient and absurd practice (specially since I know a bit the supply chain).
    - HDThoreaun 2y ago
      My understanding is that carbon output per capita is far lower in nyc than in american suburbia. American suburbia is a pretty unique place, hard to say how it compares to europe, but at least in the US city livers generally are more ecological at least by some definitions. I dont think many people value efficiency as highly as you do. Tons of people are fine with being inefficient, they certainly wouldnt call their actions absurd. To me there's nothing wrong with transporting salmon, and Im honestly not really sure why you think there is. Most lox is factory farmed so not like its threatening the species.
      - kkfx 2y ago
        Well, this is a counter example http://www.newgeography.com/content/006840-high-density-and-sustainability http://www.newgeography.com/content/006840-high-density-and-... and another one https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/20911-residents-of-helsinki-have-larger-consumption-footprint-than-many-others.html https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/2... beware the model I'm talking about is NOT the USA Suburbs model where there are ONLY residential settlements and ONLY commercial one well far away, I'm talking about the EU "Rivieras" model, where commerce and homes are mixed. Like a kind of large, spread, set of small villages.
lotsoweiners 2y ago
> In a city, if I have a gifted child, I almost certainly have several options for what school to send them to, many probably within walking distance. In a sparse suburb, I have one, unless they want an hour-long bus ride. I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. I live in about as suburban of a town as you could imagine and there are 2 public elementary schools, a charter school, and a private Christian school within about a 15 minute walk. Within a 5-10 minute drive there are probably 5 more high quality charter schools, a few more private schools and who knows how many more public schools.
- dgacmu 2y ago
  hashtag not-all-suburbs. First of all, your description of a "suburban town" may be different from what I mean when I say "sparse suburb" (which is kind of the opposite of a town). Second, some suburbs immediately next to large cities have great schools because they're the place a lot of upper-middle class folks fled to 50 years ago. But there are also many like I describe. In the Pittsburgh area, if you're wealthy and move to the Fox Chapel suburban area, you'll have what you describe. If you move a bit farther out to Cranberry, you'll have what I described. (Now, that said, from my spot in the city, there are about 10 different elementary schools within a 2 mile radius.) I suspect we're using the terms in different ways because the term itself is a little .. messy: https://medium.com/pew-research-center-decoded/evaluating-what-makes-a-u-s-community-urban-suburban-or-rural-159f9d082842 https://medium.com/pew-research-center-decoded/evaluating-wh... Also, don't confuse my comment about choice with quality -- many US suburbs have higher quality schools than some of the cities they're adjacent to for reasons of historical racism and wealth inequality. A very separate issue from the benefits of density!
  - kkfx 2y ago
    In my post I'm talking generically about "why cities in 2024" not counting actual cities. Where I live now, is a spread area of single family homes and around here I still have a supermarket (grocery store) a 1' car, elementary school a 5', a golf club and paragliding at 7', a canyoning school at 10' alongside a generic store for wood, steel, cements, painting etc, at 15' a kind of multipurpose center (used as seasonal cinema/theater, cultural center, ...) and a medical clinic, at the same time distance various other commerce, all immersed in the wood. The point is not what is there now in a specific place of the Earth but what we could do in various places on Earth. The society and the economy I've found here, arranged as described, do works very well. In the region there are a significant variety of human settlements ranging from the ITER nuclear research center, the European Design Center of Toyota, to various sheep farms and tourism. All spread in few hours car range in an economy that's still flourishing and alive even in the current global state of things. There are many different people intermixed, only around my home there is a home an USA-French top manager working mostly in the middle east and aside his home one of a retired chef of a small restaurant in Monaco, in the neighborhood at a walking comfy distance we are no more than 30 people, with 7 different nationalities and a variety of expertise and wealth. Oh, it's a small place, but there are many small places like that and they can thrive as well. From where I'm from I barely know my neighbors in the same building. Oh sure, I've study at the uni just 1km away from my old home, nice, but for what? If I have a child till the high school anything is there, for high school there are still some local options (but I might not like their quality) and I can buy him/her an accommodation elsewhere where he/she can star experiencing an autonomous life because yes, teenagers nowadays need to be autonomous and most of them are totally unable to be due to their glued, iper-surveillant parents. After their studies, after having started a career and a family they can choose whatever they want to live, after parent's death they can choose to go back or sell the old settlements and the society keep turning. A day we will have flying cars? No issue, there is space for them. We have added p.v.? No issue again, there was already space for it. Geothermal heat pumps? No issues the tallest home is three story on it's own ground. The blacksmith shed 3km from here start to be used by the blacksmith and became something else? No issue is just a shed with a bit of space around, easy rebuilt and converted to something else. In a dense city NOTHING is possible or at least it's terribly costly and complicated. Just try to look why the USA can't build a high speed rail where they need it: it's simply too dense, in France was possible simply because a large slice of population leave spread in the country. A new airport? Good luck in a dense city that growing and growing have surrounded the once upon a time very on the outskirts. Good luck turning useless office towers in apartments. Good luck restoring a new working economy in a dense city. Just to get on-line retails delivery is a nightmare, while here switching from classic mailboxes meant for paper mail to huts-like ones for packages or adding remote opening to the entryphone was pretty simple and cheap. That's why I'm saying the city do not work. I understand well that some want it, feel the need of it, feel depressed outside, I know personally a handful, personal or family friends, they have all the rights for their preferences but they also should acknowledge that such model can't stand anymore in the present changing world. It's not a matter of preference, it's a practical fact. Like those who love more and more frequently flooded zones, they love them, they have all the rights to love them, but they can't expect insurances pay an year after another big money for after-flood restoration.

by dgacmu 2y ago

kkfx 2y ago

Well, choice to consume, but nothing more. I was living in a big dense EU city, after others big&dense, now I'm living in the French Alps, at a short-range from the see, but high enough to have good climate, nature, still having services not like in a big city, but still enough, including good enough FTTH, roads, grocery with drive services and so on. Before? Well, before I can choose restaurants from all over the world, some fitness centers, some events, always and only services to consume and no real personal activity. Traffic congestion, lack of space and so on complete the game. no, thanks. In social terms my social life here with FAR LESS people around is IMPROVED because being less we are more social, we meet much more with different people instead of being in bubble if friends, very isolated from all others humans around. Surely mean cultural level is far lower, but due to the general cultural degradation these days to find interesting people for interesting dialogues internet is the sole means, we are too rarefied to meet IRL casually. Schools? Here every school have large green space and plenty of outdoor activities, yes not at walking distance but who care? Primary schools are normally in 30km radius on good roads, high schools are more rare, but not that far away and if young start to going out of home to study is a good thing for them. Universities became a bit more costly since you must be around them but again it's not that special. Cities IMO are SOLD to be efficient, and they are definitively not. Starting from the office model where you have a place to live, almost unused during the day, and a place to work almost only used during the day, and we build such mid/high rise buildings to use them only a bit less than half a day, wasting time for commuting, how efficient.... Oh, sure, to farm humans is efficient, to live farmed inside definitively not. P.a. actually work ONLY for self-consumption because on scale sharing energy is a nightmare for the grid, we do not have superconductive links, sharing means sharing locally, so have a locally very unstable demand for big power plants, the worst scenario for network stability, they can't keep the frequency with significant p.v. on grid. Instead IF we focus on self-consumption p.v. offer options to heat large quantity of water to have them in the night, when needed, to have geothermic heat pumps, heating the ground in summer to balance the heat get in the winter and so on. BTW cities can't exists without much highways: there anyone eat, and the food came from outside.

HDThoreaun 2y ago
Can you accept that different people have different preferences? Yours are valid of course, why cant the city dwellers prefer what the city offers? You seem to understand the advantages the city has but just reject them as if everyone feels the same way as you do.
- kkfx 2y ago
  Of course, but preference and efficiency are different things: people who like living in cities have all the rights to clearly state that, as a personal preference, as I state mine, but they can't describe their life as efficient or ecological since that's definitively not the case. We do many inefficient things just because we like them, just think how absurd is smoking tobacco. Smokers have all the right to state "it's a pleasure for me", but a pleasure does not means automatically a good, sustainable and efficient thing. Personally I really like smoked salmon, however I life far from salmons natural environment, I still buy it because I can, but of course I know it's a very inefficient and absurd practice (specially since I know a bit the supply chain).
  - HDThoreaun 2y ago
    My understanding is that carbon output per capita is far lower in nyc than in american suburbia. American suburbia is a pretty unique place, hard to say how it compares to europe, but at least in the US city livers generally are more ecological at least by some definitions. I dont think many people value efficiency as highly as you do. Tons of people are fine with being inefficient, they certainly wouldnt call their actions absurd. To me there's nothing wrong with transporting salmon, and Im honestly not really sure why you think there is. Most lox is factory farmed so not like its threatening the species.
    - kkfx 2y ago
      Well, this is a counter example http://www.newgeography.com/content/006840-high-density-and-sustainability http://www.newgeography.com/content/006840-high-density-and-... and another one https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/20911-residents-of-helsinki-have-larger-consumption-footprint-than-many-others.html https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/2... beware the model I'm talking about is NOT the USA Suburbs model where there are ONLY residential settlements and ONLY commercial one well far away, I'm talking about the EU "Rivieras" model, where commerce and homes are mixed. Like a kind of large, spread, set of small villages.

lotsoweiners 2y ago

> In a city, if I have a gifted child, I almost certainly have several options for what school to send them to, many probably within walking distance. In a sparse suburb, I have one, unless they want an hour-long bus ride. I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. I live in about as suburban of a town as you could imagine and there are 2 public elementary schools, a charter school, and a private Christian school within about a 15 minute walk. Within a 5-10 minute drive there are probably 5 more high quality charter schools, a few more private schools and who knows how many more public schools.

dgacmu 2y ago
hashtag not-all-suburbs. First of all, your description of a "suburban town" may be different from what I mean when I say "sparse suburb" (which is kind of the opposite of a town). Second, some suburbs immediately next to large cities have great schools because they're the place a lot of upper-middle class folks fled to 50 years ago. But there are also many like I describe. In the Pittsburgh area, if you're wealthy and move to the Fox Chapel suburban area, you'll have what you describe. If you move a bit farther out to Cranberry, you'll have what I described. (Now, that said, from my spot in the city, there are about 10 different elementary schools within a 2 mile radius.) I suspect we're using the terms in different ways because the term itself is a little .. messy: https://medium.com/pew-research-center-decoded/evaluating-what-makes-a-u-s-community-urban-suburban-or-rural-159f9d082842 https://medium.com/pew-research-center-decoded/evaluating-wh... Also, don't confuse my comment about choice with quality -- many US suburbs have higher quality schools than some of the cities they're adjacent to for reasons of historical racism and wealth inequality. A very separate issue from the benefits of density!
- kkfx 2y ago
  In my post I'm talking generically about "why cities in 2024" not counting actual cities. Where I live now, is a spread area of single family homes and around here I still have a supermarket (grocery store) a 1' car, elementary school a 5', a golf club and paragliding at 7', a canyoning school at 10' alongside a generic store for wood, steel, cements, painting etc, at 15' a kind of multipurpose center (used as seasonal cinema/theater, cultural center, ...) and a medical clinic, at the same time distance various other commerce, all immersed in the wood. The point is not what is there now in a specific place of the Earth but what we could do in various places on Earth. The society and the economy I've found here, arranged as described, do works very well. In the region there are a significant variety of human settlements ranging from the ITER nuclear research center, the European Design Center of Toyota, to various sheep farms and tourism. All spread in few hours car range in an economy that's still flourishing and alive even in the current global state of things. There are many different people intermixed, only around my home there is a home an USA-French top manager working mostly in the middle east and aside his home one of a retired chef of a small restaurant in Monaco, in the neighborhood at a walking comfy distance we are no more than 30 people, with 7 different nationalities and a variety of expertise and wealth. Oh, it's a small place, but there are many small places like that and they can thrive as well. From where I'm from I barely know my neighbors in the same building. Oh sure, I've study at the uni just 1km away from my old home, nice, but for what? If I have a child till the high school anything is there, for high school there are still some local options (but I might not like their quality) and I can buy him/her an accommodation elsewhere where he/she can star experiencing an autonomous life because yes, teenagers nowadays need to be autonomous and most of them are totally unable to be due to their glued, iper-surveillant parents. After their studies, after having started a career and a family they can choose whatever they want to live, after parent's death they can choose to go back or sell the old settlements and the society keep turning. A day we will have flying cars? No issue, there is space for them. We have added p.v.? No issue again, there was already space for it. Geothermal heat pumps? No issues the tallest home is three story on it's own ground. The blacksmith shed 3km from here start to be used by the blacksmith and became something else? No issue is just a shed with a bit of space around, easy rebuilt and converted to something else. In a dense city NOTHING is possible or at least it's terribly costly and complicated. Just try to look why the USA can't build a high speed rail where they need it: it's simply too dense, in France was possible simply because a large slice of population leave spread in the country. A new airport? Good luck in a dense city that growing and growing have surrounded the once upon a time very on the outskirts. Good luck turning useless office towers in apartments. Good luck restoring a new working economy in a dense city. Just to get on-line retails delivery is a nightmare, while here switching from classic mailboxes meant for paper mail to huts-like ones for packages or adding remote opening to the entryphone was pretty simple and cheap. That's why I'm saying the city do not work. I understand well that some want it, feel the need of it, feel depressed outside, I know personally a handful, personal or family friends, they have all the rights for their preferences but they also should acknowledge that such model can't stand anymore in the present changing world. It's not a matter of preference, it's a practical fact. Like those who love more and more frequently flooded zones, they love them, they have all the rights to love them, but they can't expect insurances pay an year after another big money for after-flood restoration.