the future of cities and centralised living

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

So instead we will have a massive suburban sprawl over all the good agricultural land? Seems foolish.

Build megacities in the deserts.

You ever been to Phoenix? Trust me, ball-scorching deserts + 6 million people just don't go hand in hand.

Yeah we will need to use technology, but from Bill Gates' Belmont in Arizona to Neom in Saudi Arabia, people are starting to test out ideas.

[Esternial]

It all varies heavily on a case-by-case basis. As someone working in IT I'm 100% capable of WFH and will be doing so until at least the end of August.

It's nice and dandy if you have a goal to focus on and know how to do it, but whenever something comes up which I need someone else's help with (e.g. networking issues, firewall provisioning) it's sometimes easier to talk to them in person.

Also it's nice to see the colleagues sometimes.

I think more and more companies that are able to let their employees WFH might "alternate teams", having days during which team A comes into office and others during which team B comes in.

[Plzen]

I will never want to live in the countryside, even if it becomes socially and economically feasible. Large cities tend to be less infested with critters (especially if you live high up), have better infrastructure, provide services at closer distances, etc, etc... The one complaint I have is that it's expensive.

I acknowledge that it's a matter of personal preference, but all the arguments that people make about why cities are uncomfortable and why suburban/rural life is better has never made sense to me. Perhaps if you're an outdoorsy kind of person you want a yard to hang out in, but that kind of lifestyle never really appealed to me. I'll take a 20th floor apartment in a 20-million people city over a house and yard in the countryside any day, thanks.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Personally, I have a preference for country life as I find the environment is nicer and it's less busy.

In terms of the future, there are some competing forces. The climate change agenda creates a pressure towards high density developments because these are much easier to provide public transport for and for people to get about for work, school or leisure without requiring use of a private car. It also means that, as far as possible, housing remains within its current allocated areas and allows more land to remain entirely undeveloped. But then increasing density also creates more potential problems with flooding which the climate change crisis will exacerbate.

With the increasingly negative economic environment for town high streets it may be the case that only the prime central areas in large cities will be economically sustainable (there will always be some people who want the experience of shopping "in person"). This might further tilt the appeal towards the cities for people who like regular social activity. The corona situation has highlighted the importance of things like gardens or on-development open green spaces, as well as there being space for people to work from home. However, certainly in the case of the UK, there's been worry about declining supply of housing as the developers hold off on building large sites until the market recovers. Those sites were often on the edge of towns and quite well-planned in terms of layout and spaces. With policy heading in the direction of "deregulating" the planning system, these sites are likely to be replaced with more low-quality housing below the ideal space standards.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Personally, I have a preference for country life as I find the environment is nicer and it's less busy.

In terms of the future, there are some competing forces. The climate change agenda creates a pressure towards high density developments because these are much easier to provide public transport for and for people to get about for work, school or leisure without requiring use of a private car. It also means that, as far as possible, housing remains within its current allocated areas and allows more land to remain entirely undeveloped. But then increasing density also creates more potential problems with flooding which the climate change crisis will exacerbate.

With the increasingly negative economic environment for town high streets it may be the case that only the prime central areas in large cities will be economically sustainable (there will always be some people who want the experience of shopping "in person"). This might further tilt the appeal towards the cities for people who like regular social activity. The corona situation has highlighted the importance of things like gardens or on-development open green spaces, as well as there being space for people to work from home. However, certainly in the case of the UK, there's been worry about declining supply of housing as the developers hold off on building large sites until the market recovers. Those sites were often on the edge of towns and quite well-planned in terms of layout and spaces. With policy heading in the direction of "deregulating" the planning system, these sites are likely to be replaced with more low-quality housing below the ideal space standards.

Great, more UK shoebox houses.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Personally, I have a preference for country life as I find the environment is nicer and it's less busy.

In terms of the future, there are some competing forces. The climate change agenda creates a pressure towards high density developments because these are much easier to provide public transport for and for people to get about for work, school or leisure without requiring use of a private car. It also means that, as far as possible, housing remains within its current allocated areas and allows more land to remain entirely undeveloped. But then increasing density also creates more potential problems with flooding which the climate change crisis will exacerbate.

With the increasingly negative economic environment for town high streets it may be the case that only the prime central areas in large cities will be economically sustainable (there will always be some people who want the experience of shopping "in person"). This might further tilt the appeal towards the cities for people who like regular social activity. The corona situation has highlighted the importance of things like gardens or on-development open green spaces, as well as there being space for people to work from home. However, certainly in the case of the UK, there's been worry about declining supply of housing as the developers hold off on building large sites until the market recovers. Those sites were often on the edge of towns and quite well-planned in terms of layout and spaces. With policy heading in the direction of "deregulating" the planning system, these sites are likely to be replaced with more low-quality housing below the ideal space standards.

Great, more UK shoebox houses.

Government has announced that they're going to put in further relaxing on permitted development rights and allow "building above" existing properties in centres.

The PD right to convert offices to flats with minimal reconfiguration and very little scrutiny didn't go so well but this time the deregulation will be fine I'm sure.

[Purpelia]

As much as I despise cities sadly they are and will remain the most efficient way to house a large population. It simply easier to supply people with food, shelter, water, medical care, education and other such necessities if you pack them up like chickens in a battery farm than it is if you give them the freedom to roam free and have nice homes. And with the future being one of ever rising populations and diminishing resources cities and megacities are what awaits us.

[Thepeopl]

https://www.childinthecity.org/2019/04/ ... dpr=accept

Cities are great for firing creativity, for culture to bloom and to actually think about space, how to organize it.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... fic-lights

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018 ... pontevedra

[Shanghai industrial complex]

I love city.The countryside is too quiet and boring,and I will begin think about the meaning of boring life.There are 24 hours of lighting, service and entertainment in the city.

[Port Spratly]

I love city.The countryside is too quiet and boring,and I will begin think about the meaning of boring life.There are 24 hours of lighting, service and entertainment in the city.

Personally I prefer the balance of the rush city living and the slow-paced life of the countryside. the ongoing digital office and remote working especially after the epidemic will make working from the countryside made possible.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Can I have two houses? I'd like one in the country and one in the city.

*checks bank balance*
A new tent it is then!

[Nuroblav]

Cities tend to be too crowded and noisy for my liking, but I also find countryside to be too quiet for me.

Now where I live is a town, which obviously varies in what would constitute as such from place, but generally they are bigger than a village but smaller than a city. For me that is enough activity to keep me interested but not too much noise to become a pain.

Mind you with all population rising, I think there will be a need for more high density building, as it makes it easier for public transport and connectivity with emergency services. Basically most what Dumb Ideologies said sums up my thoughts on the future of housing.

Great, more UK shoebox houses.

More stunning houses?

Yeah these new homes seem very tightly packed...

[Plzen]

Great, more UK shoebox houses.

More stunning houses?

Yeah these new homes seem very tightly packed...

Hey, Camden’s council apartments are artistic works of beauty that don’t need to take no bad lip from any of y’all.

:(

[HypErcApitAl]

Not sure how I feel.

Being a Technocracy ideologue, and knowing that Technocracy is pro-city, or rather, a Metropolis or some other kind of Megacity, that's good - I'm all for Progression.

Knowing the insipid and idiotic people that live at Cities - no thanks.

I'm anti-stupidity, and I think Technocracy is anti-stupidity so maybe, in the Future, we won't have brainlets clogging up our cities - we'd have more innovators and scientists.

[Nuroblav]

More stunning houses?

Yeah these new homes seem very tightly packed...

Hey, Camden’s council apartments are artistic works of beauty that don’t need to take no bad lip from any of y’all.

I believe I have seen those before. Definitely interesting, but it feels a little crowded for my liking.

[Cameroi]

cities would be obsolete at the level of technology we have now, if we didn't keep increasing human population, which is what eco-pocalypse will ultimeate correct.

as for defensive strongholds, that advantage became a disadvantage, turning them into 'sitting ducks' when the airplane was invented.

the only marginally logical reason for them to still exist now, is the human species social compulsion.

but really there is nothing else, then physical proximity itself, that cities deliver, that cannot be delivered by technologies, we already have,
and for the most part have now had for decades. some of these hadn't reached today's level of refinement, or in some cases even yet exist,
70 years ago when i was born, but we have them now. about the only things we really don't have yet are star trek's replicators,
or a.i.'s with GPP *genuine people personalities. but we do have the guide in the form of kendle.

and i really thing cities are killing us, although with our numbers being what they are, the consiquences of those numbers, their demand on resources,
nature's correction, to use the economic term, is bringing on our near demise as a species, with or without them.

and its no longer a question of avoiding ecopocalypse entirely, this current plague is nature's shot accross our bow, but if our species will survive it and how well.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Cities tend to be too crowded and noisy for my liking, but I also find countryside to be too quiet for me.

Now where I live is a town, which obviously varies in what would constitute as such from place, but generally they are bigger than a village but smaller than a city. For me that is enough activity to keep me interested but not too much noise to become a pain.

Mind you with all population rising, I think there will be a need for more high density building, as it makes it easier for public transport and connectivity with emergency services. Basically most what Dumb Ideologies said sums up my thoughts on the future of housing.

Great, more UK shoebox houses.

More stunning houses?

Yeah these new homes seem very tightly packed...

My pessimistic view of things is that the dissonance between the talk about higher quality design versus the deregulation and more permitted development rights for "building above" is that they mean for countryside Tories to have nice houses and the power to object to poor development within a properly regulated planning system while working-class city dwellers will be shovelled into tower blocks that have minimal scrutiny of design, safety and space standards.

[San Lumen]

The recent talk of a planetary capitol made me question the need for cities.

And I have a steaming hot take.

Centralised urban centres have just received their first ring of the death bell.
The ability for office staff to work from home opens up a range of competitive and cost cutting measures. The days of the everyday commute to the office are numbered.

Amazon has proven the same for commercial districts.

The only things needing Centralised work forces is industry, which is becoming more automated and less staffed. And entertainment, which never required high density to exist.

And they're environmental disasters.

City's are horrid cesspool of bad planning corruption and mental health issues. A diffuse rural population is easily the better option.

So what say you nsg.
Are cities living on borrowed time?

and what do you think will happen? If you moved everyone from cities to rural areas those places would become dense urban areas so what have you solved?

I very much doubt we will see the end of offices. People want to be social and some jobs can't be done from home.

Have you ever been to a city?

[Nuroblav]

My pessimistic view of things is that the dissonance between the talk about higher quality design versus the deregulation and more permitted development rights for "building above" is that they mean for countryside Tories to have nice houses and the power to object to poor development within a properly regulated planning system while working-class city dwellers will be shovelled into tower blocks that have minimal scrutiny of design, safety and space standards.

Yeah I can see how that would happen, giving more power for those in authority a bigger chance to simply ignore the problems of the working class.

[The Emerald Legion]

The recent talk of a planetary capitol made me question the need for cities.

And I have a steaming hot take.

Centralised urban centres have just received their first ring of the death bell.
The ability for office staff to work from home opens up a range of competitive and cost cutting measures. The days of the everyday commute to the office are numbered.

Amazon has proven the same for commercial districts.

The only things needing Centralised work forces is industry, which is becoming more automated and less staffed. And entertainment, which never required high density to exist.

And they're environmental disasters.

City's are horrid cesspool of bad planning corruption and mental health issues. A diffuse rural population is easily the better option.

So what say you nsg.
Are cities living on borrowed time?

and what do you think will happen? If you moved everyone from cities to rural areas those places would become dense urban areas so what have you solved?

I very much doubt we will see the end of offices. People want to be social and some jobs can't be done from home.

Have you ever been to a city?

Think of it like butter on toast. Right now there's one big blob of butter in the center, and almost none on the rest of the slice of toast.

You aren't going to get an equally sized blob by spreading it out. You're going to get something In the middle.

[Neutraligon]

The advantage of cities is the easy access to various forms of entertainment and restaurants. Those are both things that cannot be WFH. I mean sure you can see a movie, but what about a play or various festivals that the city holds. Neither of those can be done from home.

[Greed and Death]

The recent talk of a planetary capitol made me question the need for cities.

And I have a steaming hot take.

Centralised urban centres have just received their first ring of the death bell.
The ability for office staff to work from home opens up a range of competitive and cost cutting measures. The days of the everyday commute to the office are numbered.

Amazon has proven the same for commercial districts.

The only things needing Centralised work forces is industry, which is becoming more automated and less staffed. And entertainment, which never required high density to exist.

And they're environmental disasters.

City's are horrid cesspool of bad planning corruption and mental health issues. A diffuse rural population is easily the better option.

So what say you nsg.
Are cities living on borrowed time?

and what do you think will happen? If you moved everyone from cities to rural areas those places would become dense urban areas so what have you solved?

I very much doubt we will see the end of offices. People want to be social and some jobs can't be done from home.

Have you ever been to a city?

I do see many knowledge based jobs moving to the suburbs. The pandemic hit urban centers hard and many people who were middle road about an over priced urban apartment or a home will likely opt for a home.

Also certain cities are targeting their major corporations with special taxes (looking at you Seattle). I for see a lot more semi-decentralized work forces in the future with companies setting up shop in the near suburbs so their employees can live in the far suburbs.

[The Emerald Legion]

The advantage of cities is the easy access to various forms of entertainment and restaurants. Those are both things that cannot be WFH. I mean sure you can see a movie, but what about a play or various festivals that the city holds. Neither of those can be done from home.

Sure they can. You go to your VR futurepod and go on down to freedom town square. After putting a quarter into the machine.

[San Lumen]

and what do you think will happen? If you moved everyone from cities to rural areas those places would become dense urban areas so what have you solved?

I very much doubt we will see the end of offices. People want to be social and some jobs can't be done from home.

Have you ever been to a city?

Think of it like butter on toast. Right now there's one big blob of butter in the center, and almost none on the rest of the slice of toast.

You aren't going to get an equally sized blob by spreading it out. You're going to get something In the middle.

I dont follow

The advantage of cities is the easy access to various forms of entertainment and restaurants. Those are both things that cannot be WFH. I mean sure you can see a movie, but what about a play or various festivals that the city holds. Neither of those can be done from home.

Sure they can. You go to your VR futurepod and go on down to freedom town square. After putting a quarter into the machine.

Sounds like great fun. Lets just make everything virtual. Who needs to go anywhere at all?

[The Emerald Legion]

Think of it like butter on toast. Right now there's one big blob of butter in the center, and almost none on the rest of the slice of toast.

You aren't going to get an equally sized blob by spreading it out. You're going to get something In the middle.

I dont follow

Sure they can. You go to your VR futurepod and go on down to freedom town square. After putting a quarter into the machine.

Sounds like great fun. Lets just make everything virtual. Who needs to go anywhere at all?

I was being moderately facetious. You do know we have festivals and things in the country too right?