De-urbanisation - is it time to go back to the country?

[The Great-German Empire]

8 million and growing like London. That doesnt mean you have to reside there.

Plus it depends on what we are calling a city. Stamford, Connecticut for example is a city but only about 125,000

Correction, 8 million and growing reside in London. Doesn't mean they have to like it.

I never said cities of that caliber are unnecessary or harmful. 100,000 is actually a pretty darn sweet spot for population figures. As I said, my problem is with metropolises.

[San Lumen]

8 million and growing like London. That doesnt mean you have to reside there.

Plus it depends on what we are calling a city. Stamford, Connecticut for example is a city but only about 125,000

Correction, 8 million and growing reside in London. Doesn't mean they have to like it.

I never said cities of that caliber are unnecessary or harmful. 100,000 is actually a pretty darn sweet spot for population figures. As I said, my problem is with metropolises.

Thank your for the correction. Those people obviously do like it or they would not reside there.

Plus the city i used as an example happens to be a very nice cosmopolitan city. A lot of tech companies have offices there. Its also the HQ of Con-Air.

I dont have a problem with metropolises. What is yours? Plus what are we defining as a metropolis?

[The Great-German Empire]

Thank your for the correction. Those people obviously do like it or they would not reside there.

Plus the city i used as an example happens to be a very nice cosmopolitan city. A lot of tech companies have offices there. Its also the HQ of Con-Air.

I dont have a problem with metropolises. What is yours? Plus what are we defining as a metropolis?

Not everybody has the means to move on a whim, some study there, and some have their dream job unfortunately based there. It's never as simple.

I'll take your word for it.

I define metropolises as anything that's a major hub of nationwide (or regionwide is the nation has a small population) importance - bonus points if densely populated. So Bay Area, NYC, London, Moscow, Berlin (though that one is actually pretty nice). My problem is that they are nigh-ubiquitously gridlocked at least during rush hour, most of the public spaces are crowded and very loud, the buildings are tall and suffocating, etc. - and, combined with the fact that there is no sharp requirement for them anymore, I just dislike being there. Of course, I'm not trying to convince you to have a problem with it - if you're comfortable living in one or frequently passing through, more power to you.

[San Lumen]

Thank your for the correction. Those people obviously do like it or they would not reside there.

Plus the city i used as an example happens to be a very nice cosmopolitan city. A lot of tech companies have offices there. Its also the HQ of Con-Air.

I dont have a problem with metropolises. What is yours? Plus what are we defining as a metropolis?

Not everybody has the means to move on a whim, some study there, and some have their dream job unfortunately based there. It's never as simple.

I'll take your word for it.

I define metropolises as anything that's a major hub of nationwide (or regionwide is the nation has a small population) importance - bonus points if densely populated. So Bay Area, NYC, London, Moscow, Berlin (though that one is actually pretty nice). My problem is that they are nigh-ubiquitously gridlocked at least during rush hour, most of the public spaces are crowded and very loud, the buildings are tall and suffocating, etc. - and, combined with the fact that there is no sharp requirement for them anymore, I just dislike being there. Of course, I'm not trying to convince you to have a problem with it - if you're comfortable living in one or frequently passing through, more power to you.

Yes true not everyone can move easily.

Plus Stamford is also home to Vineyard Vines and Indeed which are probably more well known than Con Air.

I wouldnt say there are gridlocked. Many walk or take public transit.

I dont consider public spaces loud or crowded. It also depends on what time of day you go to certain places.

How are tall buildings suffocating and what do you mean by no sharp requirement for them?

I strongly dislike the country and the suburbs. Im a city person. Im pleased we can have a disagreement but not inherently dislike each other. That's very commendable compared to others I have come across on similar topics to this.

[Novus America]

Not everybody has the means to move on a whim, some study there, and some have their dream job unfortunately based there. It's never as simple.

I'll take your word for it.

I define metropolises as anything that's a major hub of nationwide (or regionwide is the nation has a small population) importance - bonus points if densely populated. So Bay Area, NYC, London, Moscow, Berlin (though that one is actually pretty nice). My problem is that they are nigh-ubiquitously gridlocked at least during rush hour, most of the public spaces are crowded and very loud, the buildings are tall and suffocating, etc. - and, combined with the fact that there is no sharp requirement for them anymore, I just dislike being there. Of course, I'm not trying to convince you to have a problem with it - if you're comfortable living in one or frequently passing through, more power to you.

Yes true not everyone can move easily.

Plus Stamford is also home to Vineyard Vines and Indeed which are probably more well known than Con Air.

I wouldnt say there are gridlocked. Many walk or take public transit.

I dont consider public spaces loud or crowded. It also depends on what time of day you go to certain places.

How are tall buildings suffocating and what do you mean by no sharp requirement for them?

I strongly dislike the country and the suburbs. Im a city person. Im pleased we can have a disagreement but not inherently dislike each other. That's very commendable compared to others I have come across on similar topics to this.

And you are welcome to be a city person.
I think our focus should be on better integrating cities with their exurbs and suburbs.
That way people can choose where they want to live.

[The Great-German Empire]

Yes true not everyone can move easily.

Plus Stamford is also home to Vineyard Vines and Indeed which are probably more well known than Con Air.

I wouldnt say there are gridlocked. Many walk or take public transit.

I dont consider public spaces loud or crowded. It also depends on what time of day you go to certain places.

How are tall buildings suffocating and what do you mean by no sharp requirement for them?

I strongly dislike the country and the suburbs. Im a city person. Im pleased we can have a disagreement but not inherently dislike each other. That's very commendable compared to others I have come across on similar topics to this.

The Bay Area is even dead on a good day. It's one of the worst metropolitan areas, to be fair, but it's often like this. Road repairs exacerbate the problem in many other cities, and there are few things that are more (disgustingly) familiar to me than a chock-full subway train or bus.

True, public spaces can be quiet. At 2 AM. When I'm asleep.

I am uncomfortable when I am in a tight space surrounded by buildings or walls, and tall buildings make it worse as they even block out large parts of the sky. I mean no sharp requirement as in it's possible for the world to work much in the same way and at the same economic pace as it does now - but without 10-million-person huge mistakes of human nature like NYC.

I am also happy that you can understand that other people can have their own points of view. In today's philosophical and political climate, some people are starting to act like it's a crime to think differently from others.

[San Lumen]

Yes true not everyone can move easily.

Plus Stamford is also home to Vineyard Vines and Indeed which are probably more well known than Con Air.

I wouldnt say there are gridlocked. Many walk or take public transit.

I dont consider public spaces loud or crowded. It also depends on what time of day you go to certain places.

How are tall buildings suffocating and what do you mean by no sharp requirement for them?

I strongly dislike the country and the suburbs. Im a city person. Im pleased we can have a disagreement but not inherently dislike each other. That's very commendable compared to others I have come across on similar topics to this.

And you are welcome to be a city person.
I think our focus should be on better integrating cities with their exurbs and suburbs.
That way people can choose where they want to live.

What do you mean by integrating?

Something like Indianapolis or Louisville which absorbed every municipality in the entire county?

[Novus America]

And you are welcome to be a city person.
I think our focus should be on better integrating cities with their exurbs and suburbs.
That way people can choose where they want to live.

What do you mean by integrating?

Something like Indianapolis or Louisville which absorbed every municipality in the entire county?

Well the consolidated city county can work in many places (Las Vegas and Clark County is an interesting model) but I was think less in terms of full political integration (though metropolitan regions should have coordinating inter governmental bodies) and more in terms of a integrated transportation network and economy.

In many cases exurbs and suburbs might lay well beyond the county.
For example Harper’s Ferry and Martinsburg WV are DC exurbs now.

[San Lumen]

What do you mean by integrating?

Something like Indianapolis or Louisville which absorbed every municipality in the entire county?

Well the consolidated city county can work in many places (Las Vegas and Clark County is an interesting model) but I was think less in terms of full political integration (though metropolitan regions should have coordinating inter governmental bodies) and more in terms of a integrated transportation network and economy.

In many cases exurbs and suburbs might lay well beyond the county.
For example Harper’s Ferry and Martinsburg WV are DC exurbs now.

Las Vegas and Clark County aren't unified.

They are very few municipal and and no county goverments that cross counties but its a interesting concept. I know that Kansas City Missouri spans multiple counties as does Oklahoma City. Ive always wondered how governing those municipalities works at the county level considering county laws can vary on some things.

[Orostan]

Let also not forget that building interstate highways destroyed the economics of many small towns because instead of people driving through them fueling the economy they were bypassed and the economy collapsed.

The movie Cars tells the story in the kid friendly way but gets the point across very well.

Economics comes and gos due to change, we cant save every town from a change that ultimate benefits the majority of people. The rise and fall of the Dutch Tulip Industry was bound to rise and fall

Thus its not a proper excuse to destroy a interstate or prevent its construction for the sake of a few town economics. On the other hand, some town boomed turning into the suburban we know to day, like the US Dallas-Fortworth Metroplex.

The economy changes - but you don't have to screw a bunch of people in the process.

1) The interstate highway system is a highly inefficient mode of transport and a huge subsidy to the auto industry. Highways being everywhere isn't an argument anyways.

“Inefficient” I could say constructing railroads or bloody anything is inefficient. You just pick the least desirable feature of any bloody thing and point it out. Like applying railways, to apply a multi route railway system is quite inefficient, especially when considering you have to decide before hand where it go’s, which effects it’s determined use.

2) "a guy decides for you" - Do you know what a railway is? You get on a train, that train is going somewhere. You choose which train you get on. It's a transport network not a 'take me to a random place' system.

Whether you read this and just decided to avoid my point or put your head in the sand is beyond me, but you should know damn well what I meant. A train requires tracks to determine the route it go’s, constructing the roads can take years, thus a integrate system of railways stretching across the USA, is never going to work because you not only have to have to have a train station in every bloody city and town, but multiple for cities. Not to mention the lack of staff in said towns effecting the system.

I never once said that I supported Japan or Europe tier railway networks in the US, I said i supported the use of rail as the primary tool of transit planning.

Well, when your argueing for “for getting rid of its (private transportation) place at the center of American transportation.” its sounds like your suggesting something like japan or europe to base it upon. And hearing no alternative suggestions, you either have no idea how trains should be managed or are avoiding it feeling like its not worth consideration.

As I wrote this and read further into your post, I realized that your entire argument boils down to "CARS ARE BETTER BECAUSE THEY EXIST NOW". Your entire post is a non-argument, and even blatantly false at some points like where you claim cars have little infrastructure cost

What is a road to you, or to anyone. A flat expanse of painted concrete. Pretty cheap and simple compared to making a thousand fucking stations and railways.

("what the fuck is a paved road").

Cute, putting my words out of context, and reconstructing them

You also claim I don't offer a solution other than 'trains', and then ignore what I said about towns and intercity travel. You ignored most of the substance of my argument.

If I recall, you suggested to construct stations at small tiny towns with a small population. Given that, that some populations are incredibly small, you might as well hire the entire town to run the station, otherwise it suffers from being understaffed and mismanaged. I ignored your point because it was bloody stupid, and was imagining a countrywide railway system, and how much of a nightmare that is.

On another note: I understand you can keep the roads, for those small towns, so that they can get to the city rather then deal with a understaffed train station, but that begs the question. If your goal is to cut back on the exspensive road system and save money, it begs the question “why pay for both a train system and road way?” I understand some incredibly large population cities need both as they are no alternative, but not every city fits that standard. Take Japan for example, who cracks down on private transportation for parking to long in one area at a time.

In summary, your post is not just garbage, it exemplifies what every garbage post strives to be.

I think I found the main point of the post, you don’t want to fucking debate, just critique my post, and focus on that then any of my fucking points really.

But the interstate is inefficient, costly, and damaging to the environment.

Lmao, but the train network isn’t? While it isn’t as damaging to the as a road network, but I would argue its almost costly and in some fields inefficient. Inefficient because if the railway were to be damaged it would delay travel, costly because maintenance and pay of the train station. ANY mode of transportation, is exspensive regardless, some more then others, however the “But its costly” arguement doesnt work.

Helicopters are expensive and require their own infrastructure, and proposing helicopters and interstates as a de-urbanized society sounds like an idea that would make transit and living worse for everyone involved. Imagine the traffic that could be avoided, the cars that wouldn't have to be produced, and how much easier and more efficient it would be to just densify.

He wasn’t argueing for helicopters being a standard, moreso that he receives the same benefits as does those in the city. However you seem on a tangent of shitposting on every mode of transportation that isn’t trains.

1) Rail isn't inefficient at all. You can put a lot more people on a rail line than an interstate full of cars. There's always an infrastructure cost, but you don't need to maintain three lanes of road and associated infrastructure, or use all the fuel in cars, or assemble all those cars in the first place. You can do a lot more with trains for less overall infrastructure and external costs.

2) I never said rail should be the only way to get around. I have said it multiple times before that I believe rail has its part to play in a transport network, same as cars. So far the only claim I have made is that a great number of interstates could be replaced by trains, and that rail should be made the transportation backbone of areas when possible. I said it would be great if the car could be gotten rid of, but so far we can't do that.

3) I have stated numerous times exactly what I want. I want commuter networks and intercity high speed rail to take the place of a lot of current car travel. That is what I want. Do you want me to give you a map or something?

4/5) A road is a bit more than that. A road has got a little more than just concrete involved in producing it.

https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7- ... --,00.html

Not to mention the cost of maintaining all the infrastructure associated with roads which includes drainage systems, overpasses, and so on.

6) Why do you continue to be so dense? I have said before, again and again, that I believe the train should be the core of future transit planning. I did not say "build a train station in every small town". I've also stated repeatadly that I am in favor of densification, the elimination of tiny towns in favor of large cities with large amounts of economic output. I don't think we should plan for tiny towns unless there is a good economic reason to do so, like farming.

7) A train network is highly efficient and can transport large volumes of people quickly and safely moderate to long distances. All logistics are complicated and expensive, just some more so. I fail to see how an interstate and car travel is more efficient than rail in any way.

As a last note, I'm not going to keep responding if you keep demanding I repeat myself every post.

[San Lumen]

Yes true not everyone can move easily.

Plus Stamford is also home to Vineyard Vines and Indeed which are probably more well known than Con Air.

I wouldnt say there are gridlocked. Many walk or take public transit.

I dont consider public spaces loud or crowded. It also depends on what time of day you go to certain places.

How are tall buildings suffocating and what do you mean by no sharp requirement for them?

I strongly dislike the country and the suburbs. Im a city person. Im pleased we can have a disagreement but not inherently dislike each other. That's very commendable compared to others I have come across on similar topics to this.

The Bay Area is even dead on a good day. It's one of the worst metropolitan areas, to be fair, but it's often like this. Road repairs exacerbate the problem in many other cities, and there are few things that are more (disgustingly) familiar to me than a chock-full subway train or bus.

True, public spaces can be quiet. At 2 AM. When I'm asleep.

I am uncomfortable when I am in a tight space surrounded by buildings or walls, and tall buildings make it worse as they even block out large parts of the sky. I mean no sharp requirement as in it's possible for the world to work much in the same way and at the same economic pace as it does now - but without 10-million-person huge mistakes of human nature like NYC.

I am also happy that you can understand that other people can have their own points of view. In today's philosophical and political climate, some people are starting to act like it's a crime to think differently from others.

Ive been to San Francisco and found it to be very lively.

Tall buildings arent for everyone but with limited space its all you can do. Why is NYC a huge mistake?

It is sad that some see as a bad thing to think differently. I am pleased we can have a civil debate about this

[Novus America]

Well the consolidated city county can work in many places (Las Vegas and Clark County is an interesting model) but I was think less in terms of full political integration (though metropolitan regions should have coordinating inter governmental bodies) and more in terms of a integrated transportation network and economy.

In many cases exurbs and suburbs might lay well beyond the county.
For example Harper’s Ferry and Martinsburg WV are DC exurbs now.

Las Vegas and Clark County aren't unified.

They are very few municipal and and no county goverments that cross counties but its a interesting concept. I know that Kansas City Missouri spans multiple counties as does Oklahoma City. Ive always wondered how governing those municipalities works at the county level considering county laws can vary on some things.

True, Clark County and Las Vegas are not fully unified but certain functions are shared.
The County and city police are unified for example.

Which is why it is an interesting model. Not full unification but partial consolidation of certain services.

[San Lumen]

Las Vegas and Clark County aren't unified.

They are very few municipal and and no county goverments that cross counties but its a interesting concept. I know that Kansas City Missouri spans multiple counties as does Oklahoma City. Ive always wondered how governing those municipalities works at the county level considering county laws can vary on some things.

True, Clark County and Las Vegas are not fully unified but certain functions are shared.
The County and city police are unified for example.

Which is why it is an interesting model. Not full unification but partial consolidation of certain services.

Yes but Las Vegas has its own city government as well.

Other than in very large counties im not sure where that would work. Some smaller municipalities might be reluctant to give up their local police departments

[Broader Confederate States]

Personally, I detest the experience of being in cities. It's not enjoyable, not even a little. My preference and plan with my wife is to have rural acreage where we can have animals and peace. I get why some people like living in cities but I want no part of it.

I don't think everyone flocking out to the countryside would be a good idea, either.

Yeah, I'm pretty much in tune with you on that. There are hundreds more million people now than there were during the Industrial Revolution, and I'm not entirely even sure that small communities could even form anymore if everyone spread out evenly. Not to mention, where would all the lazy people who don't want to do farm work go?

[Novus America]

True, Clark County and Las Vegas are not fully unified but certain functions are shared.
The County and city police are unified for example.

Which is why it is an interesting model. Not full unification but partial consolidation of certain services.

Yes but Las Vegas has its own city government as well.

Other than in very large counties im not sure where that would work. Some smaller municipalities might be reluctant to give up their local police departments

They do. My point was that might be a better model than completely combining, where the city and suburbs share some functions but not all functions.
It would not necessarily have to be police either.

Sometimes the cities and suburbs can be adversarial which is not productive.
A cooperative approach is better.

[Ifreann]

What's wrong with running trains across large expanses of land?

Trains cannot operate well on steep grades and steep turns like cars can.
Terrain is a big issue.

You don't need to lay tracks on the ground.

Running trains across large expanses only works is if there is sufficient demand for people crossing those expanses. Nearly empty trains are less efficient than cars.

I am all for commuter trains, and building trains were there is demand.

But that would only provide for the full transport needs of some.

Many who take commuter trains drive to the stations.

American train stations are often massive parking garages with a tiny support structure to sell tickets and such.

It's my understanding that people routinely fly across the United States. I imagine you could tempt quite a few of them with a train journey instead, even if it took longer.

[San Lumen]

Yes but Las Vegas has its own city government as well.

Other than in very large counties im not sure where that would work. Some smaller municipalities might be reluctant to give up their local police departments

They do. My point was that might be a better model than completely combining, where the city and suburbs share some functions but not all functions.
It would not necessarily have to be police either.

Sometimes the cities and suburbs can be adversarial which is not productive.
A cooperative approach is better.

I agree it might work. Las Vegas seems unique though. I dont know of many other places that do that.

I agree completely. An adversarial relationship between cities and suburbs helps no one.

[Novus America]

Trains cannot operate well on steep grades and steep turns like cars can.
Terrain is a big issue.

You don't need to lay tracks on the ground.

Running trains across large expanses only works is if there is sufficient demand for people crossing those expanses. Nearly empty trains are less efficient than cars.

I am all for commuter trains, and building trains were there is demand.

But that would only provide for the full transport needs of some.

Many who take commuter trains drive to the stations.

American train stations are often massive parking garages with a tiny support structure to sell tickets and such.

It's my understanding that people routinely fly across the United States. I imagine you could tempt quite a few of them with a train journey instead, even if it took longer.

Tunnels and bridges are expensive. And we already have cross country trains.
But people prefer planes for the speed.
If people preferred the trains the trains we have would get more customers.
Trains are already an option for people.

[Ifreann]

You don't need to lay tracks on the ground.


It's my understanding that people routinely fly across the United States. I imagine you could tempt quite a few of them with a train journey instead, even if it took longer.

Tunnels and bridges are expensive.

Every transportation policy is expensive.

And we already have cross country trains.

Ah, so the answer to my question, "What's wrong with running trains across large expanses of land?", is really "Nothing, we already do that." Cool.

[Novus America]

Tunnels and bridges are expensive.

Every transportation policy is expensive.

And we already have cross country trains.

Ah, so the answer to my question, "What's wrong with running trains across large expanses of land?", is really "Nothing, we already do that." Cool.

Some are more expensive and less suited to certain terrain than others.
And we can, run trains across certain large expanses of land (they only run across a few areas).
But they also lose money and not many people ride them.

[Technocratic Uganda]

Pol Pot did kind of have a point to be quite honest, there isn't much about cities that shouldn't assault a person's moral and aesthetic sensibilities. Nothing but ugly steel, concrete and exploitation in a giant mechanical shopping center for as far as the eye can see, I despite it.

[San Lumen]

Pol Pot did kind of have a point to be quite honest, there isn't much about cities that shouldn't assault a person's moral and aesthetic sensibilities. Nothing but ugly steel, concrete and exploitation in a giant mechanical shopping center for as far as the eye can see, I despite it.

No he really didn't. No one has a right to tell someone where than can reside. If you dont like cities that's your right. Dont move to one. But there are plenty of cities that aren't ugly steel and concrete. Portland, Oregon for example has tons of parkland

[Washington Resistance Army]

Pol Pot did kind of have a point to be quite honest, there isn't much about cities that shouldn't assault a person's moral and aesthetic sensibilities. Nothing but ugly steel, concrete and exploitation in a giant mechanical shopping center for as far as the eye can see, I despite it.

No he really didn't. No one has a right to tell someone where than can reside. If you dont like cities that's your right. Dont move to one. But there are plenty of cities that aren't ugly steel and concrete. Portland, Oregon for example has tons of parkland

Portland is shit nowadays and has been for quite a few years.

[San Lumen]

No he really didn't. No one has a right to tell someone where than can reside. If you dont like cities that's your right. Dont move to one. But there are plenty of cities that aren't ugly steel and concrete. Portland, Oregon for example has tons of parkland

Portland is shit nowadays and has been for quite a few years.

On what basis?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Portland is shit nowadays and has been for quite a few years.

On what basis?

Every basis. It's not even that pretty of a city anymore, it's filled with drugs and junkies who love to hang out at the aforementioned parks, it's crime rate is stupidly higher than small town rural Oregon etc etc.