4 ms·

His talk certainly is passionate, but there's not much evidence here. In particular, I see no attempt to grapple with how unnatural cities are. Humans evolved i

by mhartl 18y ago

His talk certainly is passionate, but there's not much evidence here. In particular, I see no attempt to grapple with how unnatural cities are. Humans evolved in small hunter-gatherer bands on the African savannah. Therefore dense urban cores are needed to create a sense of place? Non sequitur.

ardit33 18y ago
I guess you ignore the last 20,000 years of humanity. Yes, maybe it wasn't cities where people lived; but it was small towns, villages, or caves. Humans have lived bunched up close together in groups for millenia. This isolation that the suburbs inflicts on us is just un-natural. There was a great story in Discovery channel, on how immigrants from Germany, that moved in the USA mid-west, suffered heavily from depression. People were used living in towns and villages, close to family, friends, and support. Now, a lot of these german families, bought a lot of land in the middle of rural midwest, where everything was miles (and hours) of walk to the next house or town. People felt isolated, and women suffered the most. In europe, houses are usually in hills, grouped together, with a town/village center, and the farmed land is outside the town.
- gravitycop 18y ago
  In europe, houses are usually in hills, grouped together, with a town/village center, and the farmed land is outside the town. And there are/were no farmers? U.S. urban population share, 1800-2000: http://www.demographia.com/db-usrur1800.htm http://www.demographia.com/db-usrur1800.htm 1800 6.1% 1850 15.3% 1900 39.7% 1950 59.0% 2000 79.0% http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib3/eib3.htm http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib3/eib3.htm Early 20th century agriculture was labor intensive, and it took place on a large number of small, diversified farms in rural areas where more than half of the U.S. population lived. These farms employed close to half of the U.S. workforce
- mhartl 18y ago
  I don't ignore the last 20,000 years, but (for the most part) our genes do. So my argument about cities is basically sound. (See, e.g., http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/01/04/how_the_city_hurts_your_brain/. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/01/04/...) You might be right about suburbia, though; it can be quite isolating. N.B. I say this only because I myself misspelled it for years (right up until around 2000): "millennia" has double-ell, double-en. Since making this discovery, I've found that "millenni(um|a)" is misspelled ~20% of the time---and the present occurrence makes two just today!
nir 18y ago
Cities seem more natural in that they are allowed to grow as an autonomous system, rather than being designed. Not all cities, of course, but most of the good ones. There have been attempts to design a whole city and they mostly failed. It seems to me that life in the city, in many ways, are much closer to the lifestyle of small, tight communities than suburban life: short distance between various functions, constant contact with other people of various ages etc. This might sound superficial but I don't think I need much evidence that certain environments feel better than others. I think its obvious to anyone who spends time in different places that some feel better than others. Subjective issues like taste and quality of experience may not be quantifiable, but are still real and relevant to what many here try to do: build well designed user-facing software.

by mhartl 18y ago

ardit33 18y ago

I guess you ignore the last 20,000 years of humanity. Yes, maybe it wasn't cities where people lived; but it was small towns, villages, or caves. Humans have lived bunched up close together in groups for millenia. This isolation that the suburbs inflicts on us is just un-natural. There was a great story in Discovery channel, on how immigrants from Germany, that moved in the USA mid-west, suffered heavily from depression. People were used living in towns and villages, close to family, friends, and support. Now, a lot of these german families, bought a lot of land in the middle of rural midwest, where everything was miles (and hours) of walk to the next house or town. People felt isolated, and women suffered the most. In europe, houses are usually in hills, grouped together, with a town/village center, and the farmed land is outside the town.

gravitycop 18y ago
In europe, houses are usually in hills, grouped together, with a town/village center, and the farmed land is outside the town. And there are/were no farmers? U.S. urban population share, 1800-2000: http://www.demographia.com/db-usrur1800.htm http://www.demographia.com/db-usrur1800.htm 1800 6.1% 1850 15.3% 1900 39.7% 1950 59.0% 2000 79.0% http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib3/eib3.htm http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib3/eib3.htm Early 20th century agriculture was labor intensive, and it took place on a large number of small, diversified farms in rural areas where more than half of the U.S. population lived. These farms employed close to half of the U.S. workforce
mhartl 18y ago
I don't ignore the last 20,000 years, but (for the most part) our genes do. So my argument about cities is basically sound. (See, e.g., http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/01/04/how_the_city_hurts_your_brain/. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/01/04/...) You might be right about suburbia, though; it can be quite isolating. N.B. I say this only because I myself misspelled it for years (right up until around 2000): "millennia" has double-ell, double-en. Since making this discovery, I've found that "millenni(um|a)" is misspelled ~20% of the time---and the present occurrence makes two just today!

nir 18y ago

Cities seem more natural in that they are allowed to grow as an autonomous system, rather than being designed. Not all cities, of course, but most of the good ones. There have been attempts to design a whole city and they mostly failed. It seems to me that life in the city, in many ways, are much closer to the lifestyle of small, tight communities than suburban life: short distance between various functions, constant contact with other people of various ages etc. This might sound superficial but I don't think I need much evidence that certain environments feel better than others. I think its obvious to anyone who spends time in different places that some feel better than others. Subjective issues like taste and quality of experience may not be quantifiable, but are still real and relevant to what many here try to do: build well designed user-facing software.