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

[Ors Might]

Personally, I prefer rural living. Partially because I’d get crippling anxiety walking in a criwded sidewalk in a densely populated area but also because there are just things I can’t do in an urban setting. Only in a rural area could I comfortably raise both numerous chickens and goats. And while chickens are a bunch of feathery little shits, goats are just adorable.

Well some people want three kids.
Not everyone wants only one.
And then you still need at least two bedrooms. Already getting expensive.

I just posted a picture of cookie cutter buildings in New York.
And most apartment buildings build apartments to a few standard plans.

And if diversity is important you can go to a suburb with more diversity.
You can choose. And we will have to keep expanding out so long as out population keeps growing due to immigration. Again you can only build up so much before the cost becomes prohibitive.

I don’t want three kids and my building doesn’t look like that.

And constant expansion is unsustainable unless you want no green

There are not many suburbs that are diverse plus I dont like to drive. I get anxiety driving

Don’t take this the wrong way but I can’t really figure out the basis for your reasoning in this thread. You use a lack of nature as one of your reasons for opposing rapid expansion of suburbs but prefer to live in a major city. Major cities being mostly environmentally sterile. Something I’ve noticed among a lot of city dwellers is that they tend to love “the environment” despite being largely isolated from nature, aside from a few parks. Don’t get me wrong, I’m conservationist with a love of forests myself but y’all tend to go on about it without really having much connection to it. Just my take.

[Petrolheadia]

Millennials are getting old and having kids. The city is great until its time to send your kid to school. Then your realize lack of control really hurts and you move to the burbs like a responsible parent.

Yeah because your not a good parent if you raise your kids in multicultural environment instead of a quiet street with cookie cutter housing and a green lawn and white picket fence. I never want a house like that.

Quality of life > multiculturalism. Prove me wrong.

Well true we will not know for sure until the census but it is logical.
As cities become popular they become more expensive pricing people out of the market.
Considering how outrageously expensive New York has become it is not surprising.

Continually increasing the population of a city is not sustainable, eventually it becomes too crowded and expensive and people have to leave.

They wouldn't be pricing people out if they stopped building luxury housing for rich people and built only affordable housing and if rich people don't like it move. But its rocket science obviously

We've already had that conversation, and nobody fell for that BS.

[San Lumen]

Yeah because your not a good parent if you raise your kids in multicultural environment instead of a quiet street with cookie cutter housing and a green lawn and white picket fence. I never want a house like that.

Quality of life > multiculturalism. Prove me wrong.

They wouldn't be pricing people out if they stopped building luxury housing for rich people and built only affordable housing and if rich people don't like it move. But its rocket science obviously

We've already had that conversation, and nobody fell for that BS.

How about we stop putting value on land?

While were at it why dont we just make city living something only the rich can afford and build only luxury towers for rich oligarchs since its more profitable.

it seems to me the solution is obvious but no one has the guts to tell developers they can't build their ugly towers for the mega rich. if i was mayor id stop all construction of them including ones in progress and force them if I could to rent out their investments at reasonable prices if they wont seize the property and convert it to affordable housing and if the rich protest they can leave.

If that proposal is illegal than stop all construction of luxury housing for the rich and only build affordable housing and when the rich complain id tell them they can leave and build a mega mansion elsewhere

[The Emerald Legion]

Quality of life > multiculturalism. Prove me wrong.

We've already had that conversation, and nobody fell for that BS.

How about we stop putting value on land?

While were at it why dont we just make city living something only the rich can afford and build only luxury towers for rich oligarchs since its more profitable.

it seems to me the solution is obvious but no one has the guts to tell developers they can't build their ugly towers for the mega rich. if i was mayor id stop all construction of them including ones in progress and force them if I could to rent out their investments at reasonable prices if they wont seize the property and convert it to affordable housing and if the rich protest they can leave.

If that proposal is illegal than stop all construction of luxury housing for the rich and only build affordable housing and when the rich complain id tell them they can leave and build a mega mansion elsewhere

And then the rich would remove you from office.

[Novus America]

Quality of life > multiculturalism. Prove me wrong.

We've already had that conversation, and nobody fell for that BS.

How about we stop putting value on land?

While were at it why dont we just make city living something only the rich can afford and build only luxury towers for rich oligarchs since its more profitable.

it seems to me the solution is obvious but no one has the guts to tell developers they can't build their ugly towers for the mega rich. if i was mayor id stop all construction of them including ones in progress and force them if I could to rent out their investments at reasonable prices if they wont seize the property and convert it to affordable housing and if the rich protest they can leave.

If that proposal is illegal than stop all construction of luxury housing for the rich and only build affordable housing and when the rich complain id tell them they can leave and build a mega mansion elsewhere

As we have been over, that does not work economically. You would have no money to build affordable housing.

[San Lumen]

How about we stop putting value on land?

While were at it why dont we just make city living something only the rich can afford and build only luxury towers for rich oligarchs since its more profitable.

it seems to me the solution is obvious but no one has the guts to tell developers they can't build their ugly towers for the mega rich. if i was mayor id stop all construction of them including ones in progress and force them if I could to rent out their investments at reasonable prices if they wont seize the property and convert it to affordable housing and if the rich protest they can leave.

If that proposal is illegal than stop all construction of luxury housing for the rich and only build affordable housing and when the rich complain id tell them they can leave and build a mega mansion elsewhere

And then the rich would remove you from office.

How? They have one vote like everyone else

How about we stop putting value on land?

While were at it why dont we just make city living something only the rich can afford and build only luxury towers for rich oligarchs since its more profitable.

it seems to me the solution is obvious but no one has the guts to tell developers they can't build their ugly towers for the mega rich. if i was mayor id stop all construction of them including ones in progress and force them if I could to rent out their investments at reasonable prices if they wont seize the property and convert it to affordable housing and if the rich protest they can leave.

If that proposal is illegal than stop all construction of luxury housing for the rich and only build affordable housing and when the rich complain id tell them they can leave and build a mega mansion elsewhere

As we have been over, that does not work economically. You would have no money to build affordable housing.

How would it not work? How would there be no money?

[Novus America]

And then the rich would remove you from office.

How? They have one vote like everyone else

As we have been over, that does not work economically. You would have no money to build affordable housing.

How would it not work? How would there be no money?

Seriously? We did this in detail how many times?

Affordable housing costs the city money. Housing for the rich generates tax money.
Reducing your cash inflows and increasing outflows does not work.
Not rocket science.

Taxes coming in must be greater than or equal too money going out or else you have a money problem.

[San Lumen]

How? They have one vote like everyone else
How would it not work? How would there be no money?

Seriously? We did this in detail how many times?

Affordable housing costs the city money. Housing for the rich generates tax money.
Reducing your cash inflows and increasing outflows does not work.
Not rocket science.

Taxes coming in must be greater than or equal too money going out or else you have a money problem.

How does affordable housing cost them money? Why not make all housing something only for the rich since it’s more profitable?

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Seriously? We did this in detail how many times?

Affordable housing costs the city money. Housing for the rich generates tax money.
Reducing your cash inflows and increasing outflows does not work.
Not rocket science.

Taxes coming in must be greater than or equal too money going out or else you have a money problem.

How does affordable housing cost them money? Why not make all housing something only for the rich since it’s more profitable?

Congratulations, you just invented gated communities.

[San Lumen]

How does affordable housing cost them money? Why not make all housing something only for the rich since it’s more profitable?

Congratulations, you just invented gated communities.

I don’t follow

[Muinordgrad]

Pol Pot would like to know your location

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Congratulations, you just invented gated communities.

I don’t follow

You were talking about communities where only the rich can afford housing.
(I might have been missing some context though)

[San Lumen]

I don’t follow

You were talking about communities where only the rich can afford housing.
(I might have been missing some context though)

Let the rich have their gated communities in a affluent suburb.

[Novus America]

Seriously? We did this in detail how many times?

Affordable housing costs the city money. Housing for the rich generates tax money.
Reducing your cash inflows and increasing outflows does not work.
Not rocket science.

Taxes coming in must be greater than or equal too money going out or else you have a money problem.

How does affordable housing cost them money? Why not make all housing something only for the rich since it’s more profitable?

Because affordable housing has to be subsidized by the government.

And seriously? We have done this how many times?
The two are not mutually exclusive.

But why do you think only housing for the rich is getting built? Because it brings the City Government money.

We could use that money to fund affordable housing but obviously the NYC governments is not so interested in that last part.

[San Lumen]

How does affordable housing cost them money? Why not make all housing something only for the rich since it’s more profitable?

Because affordable housing has to be subsidized by the government.

And seriously? We have done this how many times?
The two are not mutually exclusive.

But why do you think only housing for the rich is getting built? Because it brings the City Government money.

We could use that money to fund affordable housing but obviously the NYC governments is not so interested in that last part.

So why not build only that?

They do only build luxury housing for the rich. Monstrosities like Hudson yards or 432 Park Avenue. We should stop putting value on land and deem all land has equal value

[Novus America]

You were talking about communities where only the rich can afford housing.
(I might have been missing some context though)

Let the rich have their gated communities in a affluent suburb.

Public finance is obviously not your strong suit.

[Nazi Basurian Empire]

yes. we can do without population sinks

[Novus America]

Because affordable housing has to be subsidized by the government.

And seriously? We have done this how many times?
The two are not mutually exclusive.

But why do you think only housing for the rich is getting built? Because it brings the City Government money.

We could use that money to fund affordable housing but obviously the NYC governments is not so interested in that last part.

So why not build only that?

They do only build luxury housing for the rich. Monstrosities like Hudson yards or 432 Park Avenue. We should stop putting value on land and deem all land has equal value

Because we cannot afford to allow only affordable housing. 86% of government funds are paid by the top 25%. Drive them out and your city tax receipts plunge 86%. Then what?

And we cannot simply deem all land has equal value. Because all land is unique.
Obviously some land will be more desirable than other land.
If a thing is not equally desirable and completely fungible it is not of equal value.

[San Lumen]

So why not build only that?

They do only build luxury housing for the rich. Monstrosities like Hudson yards or 432 Park Avenue. We should stop putting value on land and deem all land has equal value

Because we cannot afford to build only affordable housing. 86% of government funds are paid by the top 25%. Drive them out and your city tax receipts plunge 86%. Then what?

And we cannot simply deem all land has equal value. Because all land is unique.
Obviously some land will be more desirable than other land.
If a thing is not equally desirable and completely fungible it is not of equal value.

Then they can have regular apartments like everyone else and not monstrosities like 432 Park Avenue or Hudson Yards

[Holy Tedalonia]

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.

“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.


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.


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.


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.

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

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.

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.


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.

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.

I didnt make you repeat yourself; you chose to repeat yourself. Its not my problem that I find your answers unsatisfactory or not enough.

1. You missed my point. Trains are meant for high volume traffic areas that go from point A to point B. Not Point A to Point A, B, and Z.

2. So? I pointed out to you, that to change how things operate on a national scale regarding infrastructure. Theres a reason our fucking power grid is outdated and can be destroyed by a simple EMP blast.

3. And I've pointed out to you that changing infrastructure on that scale is impractical and a disaster. Should I give you a article on the USA power grid? Or would you prefer water treatment standard failures due to poorly maintained infrastructure? The USA infrastructure management is a joke, and to suggest something this high maintenance without acknowledging the infrastructure management issues is fucking moronic.

4 You treat me like a idiot, who doesn't know how roads are built; I live in fucking texas, ive seen more flood drains on the roads then you ever will. This 'roads cost maintanaince bc it has flood drains and other accomodies'. Im going to point out to you if we were to make less roads that does not mean less flood drains. If you live in a place like texas, floods are a given, roads or not, thus its necessary to create the proper management. We chose to have these additions to roads, not bc they're roads, but bc we find them necessary additions to our society as a whole. We can make crappy dirt roads, but without the flood drains, texas would almost always suffer from floods roads or not. We like our cities not flooded thank you.

6 And I believe there will always be some small towns, citing that where there is collectable resources there will be a town/city. Yet you ignore this and instead insult me, real mature.

7 my point is each have highs and lows. Trains are inefficient in low population using them if 3 guys use a exspensive train thats more expensive then a guy driving to work. And one minor damage on the rails can back up the entire cities train system, thus chaos ensues and traffic ensues. Or how a overeliance on trains leads to overcrowded trains, like in japan, where sexual harassment and pickpocketing is rampant. What im saying both transportation types have downsides, and ultimately im in favor of the status quo. Cars mainly used, with trains as support. Its a nice balance, with alternative routes for people to rely on. In major cities I'd support more train heavy reliance simply to manage traffic easier, but never will I have to wprry about where the government is building railway thanks to cars. As I myself can chose where I want to go, rather then yell at the government to make a railway to my grandmothers town bc the government has established a car tax to make people use the train station.

[San Lumen]

yes. we can do without population sinks

What are you suggesting?

[Novus America]

Because we cannot afford to build only affordable housing. 86% of government funds are paid by the top 25%. Drive them out and your city tax receipts plunge 86%. Then what?

And we cannot simply deem all land has equal value. Because all land is unique.
Obviously some land will be more desirable than other land.
If a thing is not equally desirable and completely fungible it is not of equal value.

Then they can have regular apartments like everyone else and not monstrosities like 432 Park Avenue or Hudson Yards

But see tall thin buildings actually take up less land. You do not like them because you deem them unsightly but they build them for a reason.

If you prefer low rises maybe the city is not for you.

[San Lumen]

Then they can have regular apartments like everyone else and not monstrosities like 432 Park Avenue or Hudson Yards

But see tall thin buildings actually take up less land. You do not like them because you deem them unsightly but they build them for a reason.

If you prefer low rises maybe the city is not for you.

they build them so rich oligarchs from Dubai or Moscow can use them for investments to look down upon the peasants. Its wasting valuable land where space is already at a premium. Land value is a stupid thing. we should consider all land to be equal in value and stop putting prices on it to keep non rich off it.

i prefer high rises to be able to be shared by all and not just rich snobs who are so rich they can invest in a building they will step foot in one day a year if even that.

[Novus America]

But see tall thin buildings actually take up less land. You do not like them because you deem them unsightly but they build them for a reason.

If you prefer low rises maybe the city is not for you.

they build them so rich oligarchs from Dubai or Moscow can use them for investments to look down upon the peasants. Its wasting valuable land where space is already at a premium. Land value is a stupid thing. we should consider all land to be equal in value and stop putting prices on it to keep non rich off it.

i prefer high rises to be able to be shared by all and not just rich snobs who are so rich they can invest in a building they will step foot in one day a year if even that.

But again tall thin buildings actually are not taking up as much land. They are tall in thin so they take up less land.
That is how it works.
And those buildings generate property tax despite not actually using up very much land. How much time you spend in a place you always pay the same property tax. You pay the same property tax on your empty condo as you do when you live in it.

And again land value is not something you can hand wave away, I told you this already.

Land is a finite resource. Different land has different utility and desirability. All land is unique. Land is therefore not fungible.
Therefore land has value, and different values.

For something to have no value it would have to be infinite. And for something to have identical value it must be fungible.

See you should really try to listen and learn more than just repeating the same sentences over and over without address counterpoints.

[San Lumen]

they build them so rich oligarchs from Dubai or Moscow can use them for investments to look down upon the peasants. Its wasting valuable land where space is already at a premium. Land value is a stupid thing. we should consider all land to be equal in value and stop putting prices on it to keep non rich off it.

i prefer high rises to be able to be shared by all and not just rich snobs who are so rich they can invest in a building they will step foot in one day a year if even that.

But again tall thin buildings actually are not taking up as much land. They are tall in thin so they take up less land.
That is how it works.
And those buildings generate property tax despite not actually using up very much land. How much time you spend in a place you always pay the same property tax. You pay the same property tax on your empty condo as you do when you live in it.

And again land value is not something you can hand wave away, I told you this already.

Land is a finite resource. Different land has different utility and desirability. All land is unique. Land is therefore not fungible.
Therefore land has value, and different values.

For something to have no value it would have to be infinite. And for something to have identical value it must be fungible.

See you should really try to listen and learn more than just repeating the same sentences over and over without address counterpoints.

why not just let rich oligarchs buy up all the available land and generate all the tax revenue? Dont built housing for anyone else. evict all the peasants.

Land is land. I dont see how its unique.