My first instinct is “yes” but then I thought about it and I think it’s just going to exacerbate the short-stay problem unless combined with other measures.

  • Zagorath
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    Cities are still good even if you don’t need to commute into work. Having higher density means people can walk or cycle to visit friends, or when going to social and sporting clubs. They mean you can get to the shops much more easily, and are more likely to have access to a wide variety of niche stores.

    They’re better for the environment because they reduce dependency on cars, and reducing the need to drive everywhere is excellent for children and teens who can gain a greater degree of independence when they don’t have to be driven everywhere by a parent. And good for health because more passive exercise is amazing as a substitute for driving everywhere, as well as because of the reduction in pollutants in the local air caused by driving.

    In short, suggesting people should spread out ad infinitum might be fine when you just look at it in terms of “home” and “work” travel, but in a much broader sense there are huge advantages to keeping people located together.

    • hitmyspot
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      While I don’t disagree that cities give better access and is better for the environment, I do disagree about the independence for young people. In the city, it is not seen as safe for a young person, like under 10, to walk to their friends house in the same suburb. In the country that would be perfectly normal. I do agree, car transport becomes a necessity for events and meet ups that are further afield. However, that’s also the case in the city. Just no for every event due to better public transport, but our public transport systems are not all covering.

      • Zagorath
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You seem to be conflating both the inner city and the current car-dependent sprawling suburbia, and in so doing you’re contrasting car-dependent suburbia with rural living. But my entire point is to contrast the difference between low density living (whether it’s rural or suburban sprawl) with the higher density that city living offers.

        The thing is, when you increase density it becomes a lot easier to put in place better public transport routes. Our current poor transport networks are partly the result of how inefficient it is to deliver public transport to low density environments. When things are closer together, it also puts more things within range to cycle places, which is absolutely perfect for kids and teens. Statistically, kids in the famously dense and cyclable Netherlands are the happiest in the world.

        When you’ve got reasonable density and eyes on the ground, and lack that soulless feeling of large stroads they have to walk or ride along, people feel safer letting their kids walk or ride to go play with friends or get to school or to sports clubs.

        • hitmyspot
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Oh, no, I’m not. I’ve lived in all 3 you’ve mentioned. I think what is confusing you is that everything is on a spectrum. With high density, there can be safety issues and transport issues due to the density. With low density there can be safety issues and transport issues due to the isolation. There are different problems with each. Denser living will improve, not fix things.

    • TheHolm
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Honesty I do not believe that many would prefer to live in units where others walking on you head than in a house. Yes you can be forced to live in such condition because unit it is all you can afford while having reasonable commute. Remove that requirements and people will spread. Historically cities were build for mutual protection after that to concentrate work force. It is no longer relevant, they have nothing to offer in modern world. Yes it is cheaper to confine population in cities, but tent camps are even cheaper. to run Cities are not something we should use in the future.

      • Zagorath
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I do not believe that many would prefer to live in units where others walking on you head than in a house

        Well, then why are children in the Netherlands the happiest in the world?

        I find the way you’re framing it very interesting, too. “Where others walking on your head”. I think it demonstrates a pretty poor understanding of what it’s actually like to live in well-built apartments. And it’s certainly ignoring the townhouses and duplexes that make for some of the best gentle density.

        Yes it is cheaper to confine population in cities…Cities are not something we should use in the future.

        Yes, it is. If you want people to be moving out into more sprawling suburbs, or worse, rural living, why not ask them to directly pay for their own infrastructure costs like building and maintaining the roads, sewerage, and electricity, instead of expecting the taxpayers living in more sustainable housing to foot the bill. Not to mention increasing how much we charge for the impact all your increased driving has on the environment, so that it properly prices in the externalities.

        Right now we heavily subsidise rural living. And it makes sense, because by and large people who live rural are providing important services like farming, or are in industries supporting those people like local stores and schools. But continuing that huge subsidy in a context where people are moving rural for the hell of it? Lol nah.