the future of cities and centralised living

[San Lumen]

Population density is a very controversial subject. It is common among poorer developing regions of the word such as Bangladesh or the Philippines, but also in developed places such as Japan. It is frowned upon by many, but could it be the future of urban living? The more densely populated cities are, the less they sprawl and thus use up much less land. People would also likely socialize more as people live in close proximity to one another. This could help reduce effects of over population if build alongside vertical farming or apartments become self sustaining. People wouldn't necessarily need cars as the more densely populated an area is, the more self sustaining it becomes. There are down sides of course, for example during a pandemic. It would be very difficult to control the spread of a disease in such a densely populated environment.

Densely populated areas will never be self sustaining. Even vehicle farming will never produce nearly enough food to support the population of a dense city, roof top solar and such becomes less viable (as you have less roof space for people). It also means fewer people can afford homes, more people crammed together can create adverse effects, and as pointed out very dense cities and public transportation are also ill suited for pandemics, and also other disasters, a spread out population is less vulnerable to nuclear attacks, and not as easily devastated by a single localized disaster. And public transport collapses in a disaster were having a private vehicle gives you much more flexibility.

Medium density is probably a good compromise many places. We just need to do it better, a medium density suburb can be made walkable by distributing smaller shopping centers more evenly and using proper road planning. Actually many of the earlier inner suburbs are walkable and well planned, even if the later McMansion types are not.

That and using electrification of cars and nuclearization of electric production solves air pollution from cars anyways.

The problem is many suburbs aren't designed that way in the first place and have terrible public transport and trying to rectify that would be quite difficult

[Novus America]

Densely populated areas will never be self sustaining. Even vehicle farming will never produce nearly enough food to support the population of a dense city, roof top solar and such becomes less viable (as you have less roof space for people). It also means fewer people can afford homes, more people crammed together can create adverse effects, and as pointed out very dense cities and public transportation are also ill suited for pandemics, and also other disasters, a spread out population is less vulnerable to nuclear attacks, and not as easily devastated by a single localized disaster. And public transport collapses in a disaster were having a private vehicle gives you much more flexibility.

Medium density is probably a good compromise many places. We just need to do it better, a medium density suburb can be made walkable by distributing smaller shopping centers more evenly and using proper road planning. Actually many of the earlier inner suburbs are walkable and well planned, even if the later McMansion types are not.

That and using electrification of cars and nuclearization of electric production solves air pollution from cars anyways.

The problem is many suburbs aren't designed that way in the first place and have terrible public transport and trying to rectify that would be quite difficult

Public transport alone is not the solution. Private cars are superior in times of emergencies, pandemics and disasters. We just need electrification and nuclear power to fix air pollution from cars.

And most suburbs are fairly well suited for commuter rail, where you drive to the train stations as a mixed system.

Anyways this more applies to futures suburbs, you can plan an build future ones to be more like the better built 50s and 60s ones and not the later McMansion sprawls.

And many just need side walks, plus some rezoning to disperse small commercial areas at strategic points, plus sidewalks. Many are not far from it. My brother for example lives in suburb that already has this down. It is 6 unit row houses that are medium density but with sidewalks, a mostly grid pattern, and shopping areas at well spread out a strategic intersections so that you can still walk to the grocery store. But no skyscrapers blocking out the sun either. No shared apartment lobbies (everyone has their own small yard, front and back door).
Sure you still need a car, but not all the time. It is a good compromise.

[San Lumen]

The problem is many suburbs aren't designed that way in the first place and have terrible public transport and trying to rectify that would be quite difficult

Public transport alone is not the solution. Private cars are superior in times of emergencies, pandemics and disasters. We just need electrification and nuclear power to fix air pollution from cars.

And most suburbs are fairly well suited for commuter rail, where you drive to the train stations as a mixed system.

Anyways this more applies to futures suburbs, you can plan an build future ones to be more like the better built 50s and 60s ones and not the later McMansion sprawls.

And many just need side walks, plus some rezoning to disperse small commercial areas at strategic points, plus sidewalks. Many are not far from it. My brother for example lives in suburb that already has this down. It is 6 unit row houses that are medium density but with sidewalks, a mostly grid pattern, and shopping areas at well spread out a strategic intersections so that you can still walk to the grocery store. But no skyscrapers blocking out the sun either. No shared apartment lobbies (everyone has their own small yard, front and back door).
Sure you still need a car, but not all the time. It is a good compromise.

Many of those stations are not centrally located and those that are the housing around them is ridiculously expensive and large number of them at least in the NYC metro area have high vacancy rates.

[Novus America]

Public transport alone is not the solution. Private cars are superior in times of emergencies, pandemics and disasters. We just need electrification and nuclear power to fix air pollution from cars.

And most suburbs are fairly well suited for commuter rail, where you drive to the train stations as a mixed system.

Anyways this more applies to futures suburbs, you can plan an build future ones to be more like the better built 50s and 60s ones and not the later McMansion sprawls.

And many just need side walks, plus some rezoning to disperse small commercial areas at strategic points, plus sidewalks. Many are not far from it. My brother for example lives in suburb that already has this down. It is 6 unit row houses that are medium density but with sidewalks, a mostly grid pattern, and shopping areas at well spread out a strategic intersections so that you can still walk to the grocery store. But no skyscrapers blocking out the sun either. No shared apartment lobbies (everyone has their own small yard, front and back door).
Sure you still need a car, but not all the time. It is a good compromise.

Many of those stations are not centrally located and those that are the housing around them is ridiculously expensive and large number of them at least in the NYC metro area have high vacancy rates.

Well you usually have to drive to the stations. Making for a hybrid system which is fine.

So you still have a car but do not have to drive most of the way. Sure the station I use is in an industrial area next to an airport. I do not walk to it of course. But it still means I do not drive most of the way into the city, (well when I actually did, I work from home for now, public transportation is not used much now).

You put the stations on existing rails. But if even if it takes 5 miles to drive to the station, if your total trip is 25 miles you cut the amount you were using you car by 4/5ths.

[Luziyca]

I don't think cities will go away, though I'd imagine downtowns will probably be emptier for a while, as some offices stay closed permanently, as well as other businesses dependent on the traffic. I do think that downtowns will probably be far more residential than they are today, to be honest, especially in the long run.

But I don't really plan on leaving the city for the countryside, as much as I'd love to live in Jasper or Vaduz or some other mountain town, given services are easier to access, and you don't need a car to go literally anywhere in the urban core.

hopefully rent prices in downtowns drop. I dont think your going to see large scale decease in office spaces.

So do I.

For your point about large scale decreases in office spaces, I admit that it'll probably not happen, especially in a place like say, New York, London, Beijing, or Tokyo. If there's going to be a large scale decrease in office spaces, it'll probably be in mid-sized cities like where I live.

[San Lumen]

hopefully rent prices in downtowns drop. I dont think your going to see large scale decease in office spaces.

So do I.

For your point about large scale decreases in office spaces, I admit that it'll probably not happen, especially in a place like say, New York, London, Beijing, or Tokyo. If there's going to be a large scale decrease in office spaces, it'll probably be in mid-sized cities like where I live.

Why mid sized cities?

[Plzen]

Public transport alone is not the solution. Private cars are superior in times of emergencies, pandemics and disasters. We just need electrification and nuclear power to fix air pollution from cars.

In a well-designed high-density city, you should need a car for personal transportation basically never. If I'm too sick to take the bus to the clinic, I'm also too sick to drive there and will need an ambulance anyways. As a non-driver the only time I feel like I need someone to drive me somewhere is when I'm moving and have more stuff than can be carried.

People would also likely socialize more as people live in close proximity to one another.

No. Not true. High-density development encourages people to be asocial and isolated because there is no real sense of community. People who live in a spread-out neighbourhood definitely seem to talk to each other a lot more than people who live a hundred inhabitants per building.

And many just need side walks, plus some rezoning to disperse small commercial areas at strategic points, plus sidewalks.

Seconded. These work surprisingly well. An apartment complex of a thousand inhabitants is easily enough of a community to have its own commercial district. This also reduces strain on public transportation since you don't need to go to The Mall(tm) for literally everything and a lot of daily conveniences (most notably food) are within walking distance.

Sure you still need a car, but not all the time. It is a good compromise.

I've lived in a medium-density neighbourhood (average height of residential building 2-ish floors) in one city and a high-density neighbourhood (average height of residential building 15~20 floors) in two cities. I think the only good thing I can say about the medium-density experience is that it's convenient to have room enough to jog or cycle on occasion. In every other respect I definitely prefer the sardine can experience. For me a medium-density neighbourhood is definitely a compromise, but a compromise of the "I think it's absolutely inferior, but I guess I need to accommodate the preferences of other people" kind.

Of course, that's just my personal preference. If you're the kind of person who really values physical activity or sunlight, or you want the word neighbourhood to mean more than just "people who live close by", then you might have a different opinion.

[No State Here]

Studies have repeatedly shown that working on site is almost 4 times as productive than working from home. Not to mention, for many people, work is basically the third main social sphere after friend group and family

[Ifreann]

Studies have repeatedly shown that working on site is almost 4 times as productive than working from home. Not to mention, for many people, work is basically the third main social sphere after friend group and family

Weird that people have the same assigned tasks in the office as at home, but in the office far more labour is being extracted from them for no extra pay.

[Luziyca]

So do I.

For your point about large scale decreases in office spaces, I admit that it'll probably not happen, especially in a place like say, New York, London, Beijing, or Tokyo. If there's going to be a large scale decrease in office spaces, it'll probably be in mid-sized cities like where I live.

Why mid sized cities?

In small cities, the infrastructure needed for huge numbers to work at home is probably not as well developed as say, in a large or medium-sized city, while rent for these spaces would generally be cheaper, which means that companies operating in these areas would probably want to keep the office.

Likewise, in large cities, while rent is more expensive, and the infrastructure needed to enable the workforce to work from home exists, I'd imagine many companies would want to keep the office, partially because there will be a ton of people who for whatever reason need to work at that office, and because keeping those offices would help promote themselves.

This leaves the mid-sized cities: rent is much higher than a small city, though less than a large city, while they will almost certainly have the infrastructure needed to support everyone working at home. Given that keeping an office in Omaha wouldn't really promote their presence on the world stage compared to keeping an office in Tokyo, they'd likely shut the office in Omaha before they'd shut the office in Tokyo, as the drawbacks outweigh the benefits.

[Kernen]

Centralized, planned cities are too often using the kind of architecture that limits informal social interaction and promotes state regulation. And organic cities without strong planning from the start, while better, still reek of too many people too close together.

Alas, to the trees I must flee.

[Ethel mermania]

I like my house and garden, and have and like the ability to sit outside with relative privacy.

[Fortisinunum]

Good question.

Cities in my opinion are likely going to increase and become more popular. This sounds fine until you realise that you need people in the countryside, for agricultural purposes. We don't want a Great Leap Forward situation of course. That being said, cities make for great connectivity and can help to increase public transport. Both should be encouraged.

[San Lumen]

Good question.

Cities in my opinion are likely going to increase and become more popular. This sounds fine until you realise that you need people in the countryside, for agricultural purposes. We don't want a Great Leap Forward situation of course. That being said, cities make for great connectivity and can help to increase public transport. Both should be encouraged.

I agree with that assessment. I prefer city living myself but there does have to be people to grow food. Even though urbanism is the future there are always going to be people who prefer the country

[Bear Stearns]

The period of insane gentrification in American cities from the early 2000s to today seems to be coming to an end. Get ready for 1980s-level crime rates again.

[Ethel mermania]

The period of insane gentrification in American cities from the early 2000s to today seems to be coming to an end. Get ready for 1980s-level crime rates again.

Manhattan rents are coming down, riots do wonders for making affordable housing

[Bear Stearns]

The period of insane gentrification in American cities from the early 2000s to today seems to be coming to an end. Get ready for 1980s-level crime rates again.

Manhattan rents are coming down, riots do wonders for making affordable housing

Bernie Goetz '84

[Ethel mermania]

Manhattan rents are coming down, riots do wonders for making affordable housing

Bernie Goetz '84

We are getting there

[Aureumterra]

Studies have repeatedly shown that working on site is almost 4 times as productive than working from home. Not to mention, for many people, work is basically the third main social sphere after friend group and family

Weird that people have the same assigned tasks in the office as at home, but in the office far more labour is being extracted from them for no extra pay.

It’s all a secret capitalist conspiracy propagated by the bourgeoisie to oppress the proletariat and keep them under

[San Lumen]

Weird that people have the same assigned tasks in the office as at home, but in the office far more labour is being extracted from them for no extra pay.

It’s all a secret capitalist conspiracy propagated by the bourgeoisie to oppress the proletariat and keep them under

What?

[Kowani]

Weird that people have the same assigned tasks in the office as at home, but in the office far more labour is being extracted from them for no extra pay.

It’s all a secret capitalist conspiracy propagated by the bourgeoisie to oppress the proletariat and keep them under

Calling it a conspiracy implies a level of organization that is usually not present outside of a few sectors seeking to oligopolize a particular market.

[Novus America]

Studies have repeatedly shown that working on site is almost 4 times as productive than working from home. Not to mention, for many people, work is basically the third main social sphere after friend group and family

Weird that people have the same assigned tasks in the office as at home, but in the office far more labour is being extracted from them for no extra pay.

Umm not really, labor theory of value does not really work in a knowledge based job, it is all about productivity. If they are less productive working from home, they are generating less value, not necessarily doing fewer hours of work.

See if you pay me to dig a ditch, fill it in and dig it again, I did labor, hard work but I was not productive because the labor I did produced no value.

White collar jobs are not simply a matter of each hour worked having equal value.

If analyzing one problem takes you a week at home due but a day in the office, you produced less per man hour, not necessarily did fewer hours of work.

See in a knowledge base job person A could take 10 hours to analyze a problem, person B 5 hours.
Person A worked more hours, but produced less value per time expended.

If my goal is to say send out information to 500 names on a list of names, sending each person an individual email takes more time (labor) than simply using mail merge to send it to everyone on a list automatically. Clicking “To”, looking up the first name on the list, copying and pasting the information in and clicking send, then repeating for each name could take hours to do.

Whereas having Excel look up everyone’s email address using a VLOOKUP or INDEX MATCH function, sending the list of addresses to mail merge, copying the email information information in once, clicking send once and then just letting the computer send each email could be done in just minutes.

The value is not in the time spent, the value is in spending less time to reach the same goal.

The goal is expending LESS time per problem solved, not merely working more hours.
Productivity is value produced/hours worked.
Hours worked is the denominator, the purpose is not to make it bigger.

Ultimately the goal is to get more value for less “labor”.
Or “work smarter, not harder”.
The goal is not to extract more labor, but to use LESS labor to do something.

[Broader Confederate States]

Personally, on the one hand I hate cities and never want to live in one, and on the other I love cities because that's 14 million people not flooding the countrysides that I value so highly, diluting the culture and being cluelessly city-mouse.

[Twicetagram and JYPe]

inb4 financial districts become huge museums about the modernisation of humanity.

[Broader Confederate States]

inb4 financial districts become huge museums about the modernisation of humanity.

Probably at some point in the 21st century. The oil crisis stuff I have for the Fo36 backstory is based entirely off real predictions from the last two decades that have so far been decently reliable, and we don't really seem to be taking it seriously at all despite that. I mean, I am, but I'm a teenage girl not really, I'm an adult woman (at least legally), but 18 turning 19 is still technically teenage, so I'll go with it to enhance the sentiment. Don't really have the credentials in line to make any comments about the oil industry or reserves, that's more something for people with degrees and experience in the industry. I can listen to what those people have to say and construct as possible and likely a timeline as I can imagine, though. Deus Ex: Human Revolution most certainly isn't that. So yeah, get ready to see the death of the roadway, or maybe even far, far more than that if we're really goofing around. Definitely gonna be a good idea to make sure you're good at farming, you might need it before 2050 rolls around.