My issues with cities

[San Lumen]

I don’t see how having more people makes it bad.

I don't like crowds either.

Too many people, stuck in a mass group of them, all of them just moving around and me embedded amongst them, just there...

I hate it. Don't like cities as well for that reason, although some of them are aesthetically pleasing.

Rural areas are too sparse though, although they have a certain charm.

Suburbs are a perfect balance between the two for me, especially if cities and the rural parts are both within a day's drive.

If I’m going to take a middle ground I’ll chose a smaller city over a suburb.

[Resilient Acceleration]

I don't like crowds either.

Too many people, stuck in a mass group of them, all of them just moving around and me embedded amongst them, just there...

I hate it. Don't like cities as well for that reason, although some of them are aesthetically pleasing.

Rural areas are too sparse though, although they have a certain charm.

Suburbs are a perfect balance between the two for me, especially if cities and the rural parts are both within a day's drive.

If I’m going to take a middle ground I’ll chose a smaller city over a suburb.

There's less job opportunity, though. Well, I guess that's why the richer people in my country's capital don't live in the capital, but in gated small satellite cities around it. Less of "suburbs" and more of "a complete miniature city governed by real estate oligarchs".

[San Lumen]

If I’m going to take a middle ground I’ll chose a smaller city over a suburb.

There's less job opportunity, though. Well, I guess that's why the richer people in my country's capital don't live in the capital, but in gated small satellite cities around it. Less of "suburbs" and more of "a complete miniature city governed by real estate oligarchs".

It depends on what city your talking about. There is no one size fits all.

[Northwest Slobovia]

What’s so awful about it?

The people. I don't like people.

And that's fine.

But you seem to be confusing population density with population, and maybe with the boundaries of cities. There are single family homes in NYC, LA, and Chicago -- yes, within city limits, just not in the densest parts of the city -- and there are apartment buildings, including some highrises and large complexes of garden apartments, in the 'burbs.

Chicago is famously known as a low-density city; Manhattan is infamously high-density. Density is what leads to crowds, noise, and smells; I'd never live in Manhattan, but I don't mind Chicago. Brooklyn doesn't seem so bad -- at least the parts with the big houses -- but it's way too expensive for my tastes.

[Vivolkha]

Since many of the blatant problems with OP's ideas seem to have been addressed by other posters, I'll tackle on the home ownership issue.

I live in Spain, the country with the highest home ownership rates in the EU. In theory, this sounds great. In practice, it's terrible.

Since there are so few rents available, they are extremely expensive, to the point where it's cheaper to actually buy a flat/home/whatever. The problem is that buying the damn thing still easily costs around 70-80% of a decent salary per month. In other words, it's still completely out of reach for the youth and the lower classes. Want to rent to solve the problem? How about no, it's actually even more expensive and the housing offered is often of much lower quality.

It is no different in rural areas where there is even less housing available and literally zero job opportunities (which is why they are suffering huge depopulation).

[Kernen]

The people. I don't like people.

And that's fine.

But you seem to be confusing population density with population, and maybe with the boundaries of cities. There are single family homes in NYC, LA, and Chicago -- yes, within city limits, just not in the densest parts of the city -- and there are apartment buildings, including some highrises and large complexes of garden apartments, in the 'burbs.

Chicago is famously known as a low-density city; Manhattan is infamously high-density. Density is what leads to crowds, noise, and smells; I'd never live in Manhattan, but I don't mind Chicago. Brooklyn doesn't seem so bad -- at least the parts with the big houses -- but it's way too expensive for my tastes.

Those cities are also too dense for my tastes.

[San Lumen]

And that's fine.

But you seem to be confusing population density with population, and maybe with the boundaries of cities. There are single family homes in NYC, LA, and Chicago -- yes, within city limits, just not in the densest parts of the city -- and there are apartment buildings, including some highrises and large complexes of garden apartments, in the 'burbs.

Chicago is famously known as a low-density city; Manhattan is infamously high-density. Density is what leads to crowds, noise, and smells; I'd never live in Manhattan, but I don't mind Chicago. Brooklyn doesn't seem so bad -- at least the parts with the big houses -- but it's way too expensive for my tastes.

Those cities are also too dense for my tastes.

Ok but it seems you disparage all cities based on those examples. what about smaller cities like say Jefferson City or New Haven?

[Ethel mermania]

Those cities are also too dense for my tastes.

Ok but it seems you disparage all cities based on those examples. what about smaller cities like say Jefferson City or New Haven?

New haven is awful, the only good thing about it is the pizza, which admittingly is best in the country

[Kernen]

Those cities are also too dense for my tastes.

Ok but it seems you disparage all cities based on those examples. what about smaller cities like say Jefferson City or New Haven?

Too dense. I've lived in many cities in my life. Byproduct of a misspent youth. In my ideal arrangement, I need to go half a mile to see my nearest neighbor.

I'm not sure opining my distaste for cities is disparaging them, but I am sorry it upsets you so.

[San Lumen]

Ok but it seems you disparage all cities based on those examples. what about smaller cities like say Jefferson City or New Haven?

Too dense. I've lived in many cities in my life. Byproduct of a misspent youth. In my ideal arrangement, I need to go half a mile to see my nearest neighbor.

I'm not sure opining my distaste for cities is disparaging them, but I am sorry it upsets you so.

anyplace that's not extremely spread out like Wyoming is too dense for you?

It doesn't upset me.

[Kernen]

Too dense. I've lived in many cities in my life. Byproduct of a misspent youth. In my ideal arrangement, I need to go half a mile to see my nearest neighbor.

I'm not sure opining my distaste for cities is disparaging them, but I am sorry it upsets you so.

anyplace that's not extremely spread out like Wyoming is too dense for you?

It doesn't upset me.

More or less, yes. I don't want people near me. If I could keep up an income while living in the Canadian hinterland, I absolutely would.

[Lord Dominator]

If you dislike living in cities, you should still be thankful for their existence - their relatively higher population density is what enables your desired rather low density setups, at least in the United States.

[Adamede]

If you dislike living in cities, you should still be thankful for their existence - their relatively higher population density is what enables your desired rather low density setups, at least in the United States.

Well humans have never existed in uniform population concentrations even when the majority of the population was rural subsistence farmers or even hunter gatherers.

Some land is just more preferable for human habitation than others, regardless of cities or no.

[Lord Dominator]

If you dislike living in cities, you should still be thankful for their existence - their relatively higher population density is what enables your desired rather low density setups, at least in the United States.

Well humans have never existed in uniform population concentrations even when the majority of the population was rural subsistence farmers or even hunter gatherers.

Some land is just more preferable for human habitation than others, regardless of cities or no.

Certainly, my point was that city population density enables rural population to lower, not anything else.

[Adamede]

Well humans have never existed in uniform population concentrations even when the majority of the population was rural subsistence farmers or even hunter gatherers.

Some land is just more preferable for human habitation than others, regardless of cities or no.

Certainly, my point was that city population density enables rural population to lower, not anything else.

Rural populations have always been low, that’s why they’re rural. Cities really have nothing to do with it.

[New haven america]

Since I felt like the topic deserved a thread and to avoid further derailment into this particular topic.

1.) City life is inherently less free than country life.

2. The close confines of the city, combined with the complex infrastructure needed to keep city life going inherently limits what you can do. Combine this with the fact that most people who live in cities don't own their home, and are thus beholden to maintaining it in a saleable state for their landlord. Meaning you have little freedom within your home and even less outside it.

This is not only a problem for the obvious loss in quality of life, but also because over time it denigrates the value of freedom. Simply growing up in a city teaches you all the wrong lessons about life, through no fault of your own. When you grow up all your life in an area where you're not free to build a fort in the back yard. Or not free to make a major renovation on your home. Not free to play with toy weapons for fear of misunderstandings and accidents. Not free to have a basic social meet like a bonfire.

Instead you get channeled towards public facilities. Bars, parks, clubs. Instead of being able to get together with friends for free and cook some food over an open fire, you end up either all crammed into someones apartment. Or meeting at some either commercial or public place designed to have fun and you're once again now in public. Not able to just be with your friends and your friends alone.

3. All in all, that adds up. Already we have to contend with a public education system more concerned with teaching you to be obedient to authority than it is with your education but even after you get out of that, life in general confirms this very authoritarian outlook where 'the powers that be.' control your entire life.

4. By and large this is partly why I feel Democrats culturally care so much about sex and gender issues. Because who they sleep with and how they dress is one of the few freedoms city folk have.

5. Cities either make you incredibly poor, or incredibly rich. And if the former you get trapped. You end up almost literally chained to your job trying to keep above water because living in the city is expensive, why? Because demand is high, and other residents are rich. Particularly if you have a family you end up in a situation where staying amounts to slavery, and leaving is too expensive. Cities are more or less going to end up catering only to the super rich who inhabit them and dominate the lives of all others. So in a sense, living in a city is a bargain with those super rich. Either you do it carefully and make out with your wealth and move back to safer pastures, or you end up trapped and stuck in a never ending cycle of wage slavery.

1. Define Free. In the country you don't have easy access to stores, medical centers, auto shops and electronic shops, schools, law enforcement, etc...
2. Actually, ~85% of America lives in cities and urban areas, so yes, there is home ownership in cities. Also, I live in the country but I live in a rental apartment, these are things that exist, look them up. Also, open cities are a thing, The Rocky Mountain States (Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, etc...) have cities with tons of open space. I should know, I'm from there.
3. So does most of the rural South. Only place in America where adults demand to be called Sir and Ma'am by kids. (Yes sir, no ma'am, etc...)
4. No, they're concerned with it because LGBT people tend to live in cities because if they don't then they run the risk of their conservative rural parents and family murdering them and getting away with it.
5. This is also the case with rural areas. In fact, poverty and socioeconomic inequality is even more of an issue in the country, due to the fact that you have increadibly limited access to social safety nets and resources, while also contending with millionaire ranchers that own 100,000+ acres of land and who don't generally care about the wellbeing of those who don't work for them.

[Nolo gap]

any civilization sufficiently advanced technologically has no need for them.
the advantage of cities ended with the invention of aircraft.
which made them instead of safe places behind walls, sitting targets.
of course to not need cities, you need the right kind of infrastructure for transport, energy and communication.
so far, humans on earth have been mostly doing it wrong.
i can say what would be doing it right, and frequently do.
the problem is we also need to reduce human birthrate.
humans are too social for their own good in the wrong ways.
looking out for each other, all of everyone and everything is good. robbing people of their imaginations by demanding their affection and attention is not.
cars and cities are not a logical combination either.

[Lord Dominator]

Certainly, my point was that city population density enables rural population to lower, not anything else.

Rural populations have always been low, that’s why they’re rural. Cities really have nothing to do with it.

You really do seem to be missing my point, which is that rural populations can be smaller and not at all that dense because cities have much higher and denser populations. Also, cities (ie urban areas) are quite literally the usually defined opposite to rural areas, so cities very much enter into why rural areas are what they are (similarly, rural areas wouldn't be rural without urban areas to be compared to).

[Adamede]

Rural populations have always been low, that’s why they’re rural. Cities really have nothing to do with it.

You really do seem to be missing my point, which is that rural populations can be smaller and not at all that dense because cities have much higher and denser populations. Also, cities (ie urban areas) are quite literally the usually defined opposite to rural areas, so cities very much enter into why rural areas are what they are (similarly, rural areas wouldn't be rural without urban areas to be compared to).

And I’m saying that rural population has never been that large and if it wasn’t for cities the human population would not be going on 8 billion. There’s simply not enough land for everyone to realistically live a rural life style.

Rural areas have existed far longer than urban areas have. It’s just that urban areas have and continue to grow.

[Lord Dominator]

You really do seem to be missing my point, which is that rural populations can be smaller and not at all that dense because cities have much higher and denser populations. Also, cities (ie urban areas) are quite literally the usually defined opposite to rural areas, so cities very much enter into why rural areas are what they are (similarly, rural areas wouldn't be rural without urban areas to be compared to).

There’s simply not enough land for everyone to realistically live a rural life style.

And that's precisely my point

[Adamede]

There’s simply not enough land for everyone to realistically live a rural life style.

And that's precisely my point

And my point is that that if cities never existed that means that by 2021 there wouldn’t be anywhere close to as many people as there are today.

The population grew because of cities as much as cities grew because of population

Regardless this is a pointless back and forth and I’ve had far to many of those on here today.

[Aguaria Major]

Since I felt like the topic deserved a thread and to avoid further derailment into this particular topic.

1.) City life is inherently less free than country life.

The close confines of the city, combined with the complex infrastructure needed to keep city life going inherently limits what you can do. Combine this with the fact that most people who live in cities don't own their home, and are thus beholden to maintaining it in a saleable state for their landlord. Meaning you have little freedom within your home and even less outside it.

This is not only a problem for the obvious loss in quality of life, but also because over time it denigrates the value of freedom. Simply growing up in a city teaches you all the wrong lessons about life, through no fault of your own. When you grow up all your life in an area where you're not free to build a fort in the back yard. Or not free to make a major renovation on your home. Not free to play with toy weapons for fear of misunderstandings and accidents. Not free to have a basic social meet like a bonfire.

Instead you get channeled towards public facilities. Bars, parks, clubs. Instead of being able to get together with friends for free and cook some food over an open fire, you end up either all crammed into someones apartment. Or meeting at some either commercial or public place designed to have fun and you're once again now in public. Not able to just be with your friends and your friends alone.

All in all, that adds up. Already we have to contend with a public education system more concerned with teaching you to be obedient to authority than it is with your education but even after you get out of that, life in general confirms this very authoritarian outlook where 'the powers that be.' control your entire life.

By and large this is partly why I feel Democrats culturally care so much about sex and gender issues. Because who they sleep with and how they dress is one of the few freedoms city folk have.

2.) Cities either make you incredibly poor, or incredibly rich. And if the former you get trapped. You end up almost literally chained to your job trying to keep above water because living in the city is expensive, why? Because demand is high, and other residents are rich. Particularly if you have a family you end up in a situation where staying amounts to slavery, and leaving is too expensive. Cities are more or less going to end up catering only to the super rich who inhabit them and dominate the lives of all others. So in a sense, living in a city is a bargain with those super rich. Either you do it carefully and make out with your wealth and move back to safer pastures, or you end up trapped and stuck in a never ending cycle of wage slavery.

First off: you are NEVER going to be able curtail urbanization and/or get rid of cities (especially with more rural professions becoming increasingly able to be done automatically). The benefits are just too great in a market economy, either socialist or capitalist. I mean, unless you want to abolish the commodity form so that the economy isn't dependent on markets (but ask the USSR how that went), or go the more futuristic route of implementing UBI so that rural people aren't forced by markets and increasing automation to move to cities, but something tells me that such actions are unthinkable for you.

Secondly: All of those issues you mention (except one) are either

a) only occurring in some cities and due to mismanagement by individual municipal governments while not being inherent to the nature of cities themselves,

b) systemic issues everywhere (which includes rural areas just as much as cities) in both the USA and the rest of the modern world due to late capitalism, or

c) a matter of differences of personal preference/opinion on living between you and city dwellers.

The one that doesn't fit any of the above criteria? "Democrats care about sex and culture because how to dress is one of the few freedoms city-dwellers actually have"; that "issue" is just complete and utter bullshit that you made up. There's no other way to put it.

If you don't want to live in a city or don't agree with the lifestyle personally, then fine. By all means, stay out there in the boonies. But don't act like your opinion is somehow equivalent to demographic or economic data, and then try to present it to the rest of us as fact.

Although, maybe I shouldn't necessarily be personally blaming you for believing your opinions are somehow automatically correct when for centuries, rural America has been fooled into thinking it has more power and clout than it actually does thanks to the disproportionate amount of power y'all have over the more powerful of the 2 Congressional houses because of its its allotment of seats being based on geography and not demography so that agricultural states with more land nationwide hold more seats, and the outdated, undemocratic presidential electoral system pushed by the proponents of slavery at the Constitutional convention that is specifically designed to disproportionally allocate more power to rural states than they actually have.

EDITS: Fixed various grammatical mistakes and cleaned my sentence structure up.

[Bienenhalde]

Certainly, my point was that city population density enables rural population to lower, not anything else.

Rural populations have always been low, that’s why they’re rural. Cities really have nothing to do with it.

In pre-industrial societies, peasant-farmers were the majority of the population and only a minority of people lived in cities. That only really changed with the industrial revolution. Of course the industrial revolution did involve massive population growth, but the shift also was related to the mechanization of agriculture and the mass movement of rural people into cities to find jobs.

[Adamede]

Rural populations have always been low, that’s why they’re rural. Cities really have nothing to do with it.

In pre-industrial societies, peasant-farmers were the majority of the population and only a minority of people lived in cities. That only really changed with the industrial revolution. Of course the industrial revolution did involve massive population growth, but the shift also was related to the mechanization of agriculture and the mass movement of rural people into cities to find jobs.

And population density was still low, because the total human population was only several hundred million.

[Bienenhalde]

In pre-industrial societies, peasant-farmers were the majority of the population and only a minority of people lived in cities. That only really changed with the industrial revolution. Of course the industrial revolution did involve massive population growth, but the shift also was related to the mechanization of agriculture and the mass movement of rural people into cities to find jobs.

And population density was still low, because the total human population was only several hundred million.

Indeed. It seems as though over-population is becoming a signficant problem in the world nowadays.