5 ms·
I’m remembering reading once that cities are incredibly efficient in how they use resources (compared to the suburbs and rural areas, I guess), and, in light of
by toasterlovin 2y ago
I’m remembering reading once that cities are incredibly efficient in how they use resources (compared to the suburbs and rural areas, I guess), and, in light of your comment about waiting time, I’m realizing why now why they’re so unpleasant: constant resource contention.
- naming_the_user 2y agoAmusingly this is something that I see as being a huge divide in rural and urban politics. Yes, it’s inefficient. Yes, some people want that!
- fragmede 2y agoRight. Living is not an optimization problem.
- badpun 2y agoUnless not until the oil and other essential stuff run out.
- tambourine_man 2y agoOur problem is not that we are running out of stuff, but that we’re drowning on it.
- exe34 2y agowhat it means to not optimise though is that some people end up better off and many others are worse off.
- bmicraft 2y agoSorry to put it so bluntly, but you're basically saying: "I don't care it the climate's fucked, I want to live away from civilization and drive 100 miles a day everywhere" Of course we shouldn't hyper-optimize everything, but sooner people realize our environment depends on not everyone getting exactly what they want whenever they want the better. Living in a (walkable) city is just one such concession towards the environment we ought to make, even if we don't "want" to.
- naming_the_user 2y agoOr we could just compete with each other for resources as we have since forever. I’d rather do that than have no choice but to live in Kowloon. Just whack an externality tax on fossil fuels and things like cutting down wilderness, job done.
- xerox13ster 2y agoOr we can stop acting like there’s only two options: living in wide-open fields with a clear horizon or the fucking walled city of Kowloon. Also, you have the mindset of a typical anti-social coastal elite who thinks “oh no big deal we can just raise the cost of living for all the poor rural types by sticking on a tax because I want to go LARP as a Victorian manor lord. And people don’t bend to my every whim immediately or live exactly like me so I want to be in total control of the 50 miles around me.”
- naming_the_user 2y agoSure. All I'm saying is that the efficiency arguments are silly unless you are comparing like for like. If we're suggesting that people simply do less because it's more efficient, well, no-one is going to do that without an incentive. Everyone having 50 sqmi obviously isn't realistic (there actually is not enough space on the globe), but equally, if the idea is that everyone _has_ to live in a metropolitan apartment because each person has to use (1/7billion) of the resources, you're going to see an uprising, that just won't fly with people. The best outcome is probably to convince as many people as possible to live in a shoebox so that the rest of us can still have a decent life. It seems to be working!
- consteval 2y agoMaybe, but the resources it takes to live are an optimization problem.
- Jensson 2y agoThe efficiency results in abundance not possible in less dense areas, you are waiting for things that are simply not available elsewhere.
- nerdponx 2y agoSort of. Compare doing laundry at the laundromat to doing laundry in your basement.
- mgfist 2y agoThey meant things like bars, restaurants, sports stadiums, concerts, plays. Things that require sufficient density to make economic sense.
- kortilla 2y agoLA has multiple of all of those and nearly entirely suburbs
- consteval 2y agoRight, but if I had 1 hour in NYC versus 1 hour in LA how many clubs could I theoretically go to? Probably a dozen in NYC, provided I leave immediately. Probably about .5 in LA. So while what you're saying is true, it doesn't disprove anything. LA is much less dense and therefore has much less "stuff" available for its inhabitants. But it's still more than a rural area.
- kjkjadksj 2y agoThis might surprise the nyc residents on hn but you can find bars next to bars next to bars next to bars in LA too.
- toasterlovin 2y agoIt allows for a greater variety of things (museums, concerts, etc.), but to get that you have to deal with higher contention and, thus, costs across all things (whether in terms of time spent waiting or money spent outbidding others), including, crucially, the things you consume the most of (roads, housing, etc.). So maybe a good way to think about it is: if you have a lifestyle that requires a modest amount of most resources, then the variety provided by density may be worth the increased resource contention, but if you have a lifestyle that requires a lot of certain resources (like space for kids), then the tradeoff may no longer make sense.
- nuancebydefault 2y agoOn the other hand, in cities people are queueing up and talking at the bakery counter. While people in the suburbs are listening to the radio while driving to the bakery. I guess you choose to live where you feel most comfortable.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- toasterlovin 2y agoFWIW, my experience is that people are friendlier and more likely to make conversation outside of urban areas.
- nuancebydefault 2y agoIn fact that is also my experience but while urban people driving in the car they typically aren't talking to strangers
- kjkjadksj 2y agoMaybe if you are a white male. Ever drive through a rural area a month out from this election? It’s a scary place, especially right now with the rhetoric being used just on the signs people are putting in their yards.