45 ms·
The efficiency results in abundance not possible in less dense areas, you are waiting for things that are simply not available elsewhere.
by Jensson 2y ago
The 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.