NationStates

Heloin wrote:

San Lumen wrote:No we dont need to destroy forests and other natural areas to build cookie cutter housing and strip malls.

Little boxes on the hillside,
Little boxes made of ticky tacky
Little boxes on the hillside,
Little boxes all the same,
There's a pink one and a green one
And a blue one and a yellow one
And they're all made out of ticky tacky
And they all look just the same.

I like that poem. Who wrote it?

Suburbs in a nutshell.

San Lumen wrote:

Novus America wrote:
I would not say that. Sure postmodern McMansions with nothing nearby are a not good, but suburbs are the only way for many people to afford a house, especially if they have children.

We just need better suburbs. More like the original suburbs really. A focus on affordable homes for the middle class, and many have high population densities anyways.

They should be more transit oriented and no more cookie cutter housing. I prefer city living myself

I agree that they need to be more transit orientated for sure. Which is where commuter trains come in. They can tie cities to the suburbs and exurbs better.

City living is okay for many, especially those without children. Which is fine.
I do not think one living model is best for everyone at every stage of their lives.

San Lumen wrote:

Heloin wrote:Little boxes on the hillside,
Little boxes made of ticky tacky
Little boxes on the hillside,
Little boxes all the same,
There's a pink one and a green one
And a blue one and a yellow one
And they're all made out of ticky tacky
And they all look just the same.

I like that poem. Who wrote it?

Suburbs in a nutshell.

Malvina Reynolds. It's a whole song. Quite a good one at that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_2lGkEU4Xs

Sagarmatha wrote:The reason people can't afford anything other than a 500 sq ft apartment or a cookie cutter is literally because money has been devalued. On purpose might I add. Once upon a time, just a few decades ago, you didn't have to struggle to live on a single income with 3+ kids. And prior to that, you were your own income.

Its because many cities build only luxury housing for the rich like Hudson Yards in NYC. if you stopped building stuff like that there would not be broom closets of 500 feet and putting value on land is dumb as well.

it is always time to be more respectful of our world's natural environment and our species dependence on it.

the city was fated to obsolescence from the time the invention of the airplane reversed its strategic advantage as a strong point for mutual defense.

that doesn't mean abondoning technologie. real technological advancement has no dependence on urbanization at all.

there are of course, other aspects to this question then just these two. 'the elephent in the room' is of course population itself.

urbanized or de-urbanized, its growth rate needs to be temporarily reversed and then stabalized at a sustainable level,
one which it is currently far in excess of.

none of the so called advantages of cities, actually require nor depend upon them, even with technologies no more advenced then we currently have.
transportation and institutional hubs, such as commercial spaceports, once those come on line, and major universities,
will probably continue to attract accumulation of population.

for the sake of mental well being, non-urban living needs to be accessable to persons of all income levels, not just the most fortunate,
as indeed was more often then case in the 60s, 50s and before.

ecopocalypse will complete the obsolescense of cities with its concommitant population reduction.
a painful reduction if not averted by choosing technologies intelligently,
and being propelled toward by continued excessive population increase,
as well as inappropriate, combustion powered technologies.

"Urban living is great for people without children"

Big think energy.

Sagarmatha wrote:"Urban living is great for people without children"

Big think energy.

Thats not true. Kids should grow up cultured not in some sheltered boring suburb.

San Lumen wrote:

Novus America wrote:
We do not have enough planes and ships to meet the massively expanding Chinese forces, though admittedly building weapons to defend against China while giving China hundreds of billions of dollars is silly.

But that is a different matter.

Cars will still be needed, I take a train but I have to drive a short distance to it.
Having trains and busses go to every neighborhood is impractical.

How is having buses in every neighborhood impractical?

Because many neighborhoods do not have sufficient demand.
Underutilized busses are less efficient than cars.
And of course a poor use of money.

Illinois is preparing legislation to make Chicago a separate entity.

I lived in Chicago for four years and loved it, and would hate to see this happen.

But it would be quite fitting for Philly or NYC; let them stop stealing our clean water. Go find your own, and pay a fair price for it. Raise your own food while you are at it.

Chicago was vibrant and energetic. Much friendlier than NYC. Lots of jobs. Lot of free entertainment! Dozens of ethnic neighborhoods with great food, art, and culture.
But the air and water tasted bad, and you could never see the stars at night. Maybe a few from the Navy Pier (but no longer),

So there are definitely trade offs,

The hinterlands need more jobs. IF they had that, things might balance out

Pope Joan wrote:Illinois is preparing legislation to make Chicago a separate entity.

I lived in Chicago for four years and loved it, and would hate to see this happen.

But it would be quite fitting for Philly or NYC; let them stop stealing our clean water. Go find your own, and pay a fair price for it. Raise your own food while you are at it.

Chicago was vibrant and energetic. Much friendlier than NYC. Lots of jobs. Lot of free entertainment! Dozens of ethnic neighborhoods with great food, art, and culture.
But the air and water tasted bad, and you could never see the stars at night. Maybe a few from the Navy Pier (but no longer),

So there are definitely trade offs,

The hinterlands need more jobs. IF they had that, things might balance out

What do you mean separate entity? Can you provide a source?

San Lumen wrote:

Sagarmatha wrote:"Urban living is great for people without children"

Big think energy.

Thats not true. Kids should grow up cultured not in some sheltered boring suburb.

"should"?

Esternial wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Thats not true. Kids should grow up cultured not in some sheltered boring suburb.

"should"?

Yes

San Lumen wrote:

Sagarmatha wrote:"Urban living is great for people without children"

Big think energy.

Thats not true. Kids should grow up cultured not in some sheltered boring suburb.

Tell me could you afford to house a kid in NYC?
Where are we going to put them?
High population density discourages having children.

San Lumen wrote:

Sagarmatha wrote:The reason people can't afford anything other than a 500 sq ft apartment or a cookie cutter is literally because money has been devalued. On purpose might I add. Once upon a time, just a few decades ago, you didn't have to struggle to live on a single income with 3+ kids. And prior to that, you were your own income.

Its because many cities build only luxury housing for the rich like Hudson Yards in NYC. if you stopped building stuff like that there would not be broom closets of 500 feet and putting value on land is dumb as well.

The land should be the value! What can you do with land? Grow vegetables, raise animals, build yourself a house. You blame "the rich" or whatever but in reality it's the nature of urban areas. Lies of convenience and opportunity and the literal trap that is urban areas run the prices north.

Novus America wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Thats not true. Kids should grow up cultured not in some sheltered boring suburb.

Tell me could you afford to house a kid in NYC?

Yes plenty of people do it.

Plenty of people do it with government assistance or working twelve part time jobs. Your system is broken and it was from the start.

San Lumen wrote:

Sagarmatha wrote:"Urban living is great for people without children"

Big think energy.

Thats not true. Kids should grow up cultured not in some sheltered boring suburb.

>cultured

You mean shoved into tiny drywall boxes and only seeing publicly planned "green spaces". Growing up without room to spread their wings. Hellverse.

San Lumen wrote:

Novus America wrote:
Tell me could you afford to house a kid in NYC?

Yes plenty of people do it.

Plenty of people cannot afford to do it as well.
Higher density leads to less housing, less housing makes having children more difficult.

Sagarmatha wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Thats not true. Kids should grow up cultured not in some sheltered boring suburb.

>cultured

You mean shoved into tiny drywall boxes and only seeing publicly planned "green spaces". Growing up without room to spread their wings. Hellverse.

have you ever been to a city or do you just believe stereotypes or what right wing media tells you?

San Lumen wrote:

Esternial wrote:"should"?

Yes

Don't see what the big problem is with kids growing up in suburbs.

I'm sure you're very opinionated on it, but I'd prefer some proper evidence.

Cetacea wrote:But it is now 2019, technology is such that I can live in a small town of 3000 and jump on a train to get the center of the nearest commercial/industrial complex in an hour. I can sit on my couch and collaborate with colleagues around the world. I can sell on demand products from a facebook page and purchase supplies while I'm hiking through the mountains. If I ever do need to do a face-to-face, transport networks are such that I can do an overnight trip, secure a contract and be back home by lunchtime.

Assuming you're accurately describing your job, it's very unusual. Most people don't have jobs like that. Ever wondered where those "on demand products" come from, or how they go from where they're made to the people who want them? It ain't Santa's Workshop and there are no reindeer involved. Turns out, many people have jobs that make your luxury lifestyle possible, and those jobs require people to be in specific places at specific times most days. While your situation is a great thing to have, it speaks little to most people's reality.

Novus America wrote:

San Lumen wrote:How is having buses in every neighborhood impractical?

Because many neighborhoods do not have sufficient demand.

Specifically, I've got a book on mass transit which gives a population density floor of 12k people/square mile to make them at all practical, and higher is better (until you get to the point that rail makes more sense). Automated buses will probably lower that figure, but those aren't ready yet

How about we just let people live where they want? I don't know if I'd personally like living in a city, but that doesn't mean I want everyone else to come live out here with me.

San Lumen wrote:

Sagarmatha wrote:
>cultured

You mean shoved into tiny drywall boxes and only seeing publicly planned "green spaces". Growing up without room to spread their wings. Hellverse.

have you ever been to a city or do you just believe stereotypes or what right wing media tells you?

Yes I lived in San Francisco

>right-wing

Everyone I don't like is Breitbart uwu

There's literally heroin needles in gutter in the "good parts of town". Your cities are graveyards full of walking dead slaving away for the profit of others. Congrats, you're a neoliberal.

Lord Dominator wrote:How about we just let people live where they want? I don't know if I'd personally like living in a city, but that doesn't mean I want everyone else to come live out here with me.

Clearly you haven't heard of the Khmer Rouge and the great Pol Pot.

Northwest Slobovia wrote:

Cetacea wrote:But it is now 2019, technology is such that I can live in a small town of 3000 and jump on a train to get the center of the nearest commercial/industrial complex in an hour. I can sit on my couch and collaborate with colleagues around the world. I can sell on demand products from a facebook page and purchase supplies while I'm hiking through the mountains. If I ever do need to do a face-to-face, transport networks are such that I can do an overnight trip, secure a contract and be back home by lunchtime.

Assuming you're accurately describing your job, it's very unusual. Most people don't have jobs like that. Ever wondered where those "on demand products" come from, or how they go from where they're made to the people who want them? It ain't Santa's Workshop and there are no reindeer involved. Turns out, many people have jobs that make your luxury lifestyle possible, and those jobs require people to be in specific places at specific times most days. While your situation is a great thing to have, it speaks little to most people's reality.

Novus America wrote:Because many neighborhoods do not have sufficient demand.

Specifically, I've got a book on mass transit which gives a population density floor of 12k people/square mile to make them at all practical, and higher is better (until you get to the point that rail makes more sense). Automated buses will probably lower that figure, but those aren't ready yet

Well the products do come from cities. Hellish ones. But in China.

Actually in the US manufacturing is often done in suburban and rural areas. Factory workers can afford cars here and land is cheaper.

Lord Dominator wrote:How about we just let people live where they want? I don't know if I'd personally like living in a city, but that doesn't mean I want everyone else to come live out here with me.

I agree with you completely. if someone is anti city that is fine but dont force those who like it to move.