Comment on Well done, all of you!
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 weeks agoTake that Centralizationist attitude back to Reddit.
Comment on Well done, all of you!
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 weeks agoTake that Centralizationist attitude back to Reddit.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 3 weeks ago
I think you deserve more freedoms. Right now you’ve got a car as your option, and if you’re lucky you can walk or bike to work. I want you to have your choice of bus, train, or tram to get to work. I want all three to be available to get you there in a reasonable time. The train goes faster, but you have to walk a bit farther to the station, so it’s good for exercise. The tram is slower, but you get to see the city as you go along and it’s very disability friendly thanks to level boarding. The bus goes along the lower traffic routes, it’s more direct but comes less often. I want you to have all three of those options, plus what you already have. And then you don’t have to risk your life or road rage. You can play Mario on your Nintendo while the train takes you home from work.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 weeks ago
That’s a lot of infrastructure. Seems like it would require an exorbitant population density to support all that.
Why are we stacking everyone on top of each other? Every person, urban or rural, needs 2 acres of cropland to sustainably provide their food. That’s 320 people per square mile of agricultural land.
Why are we cramming 25,000 people into a square mile of urban blight? Why not spread out enough that we aren’t all huffing each other’s farts?
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 3 weeks ago
When you spread people out, you have to build more water and gas pipes, more internet cables, more roads, deliver things farther, send the garbage trucks farther, the post, the news… It all adds up to a LOT of money. Strong Towns is a financial consultancy organisation that helps cities get out of debt, and they keep finding the same pattern, very consistently, in American cities: The urban core generates tons of revenue for the city, and then the suburbs spend it all. The suburbs are making American cities broke, because they just cost way more to maintain than the residents are paying in taxes. The city is subsidising the suburbs.
America’s “welfare queens” are the people living in detached single family homes in cul-de-sacs and making 100,000 a year. If cities charged those welfare queens a fair amount of taxes, they’d all be broke and try to move into the urban core, and the housing problems would get even worse for poor people. So cities are stuck propping up a failed economic housing model while trying to figure a way out of the crisis.
The answer that Strong Towns keeps finding is to invest more money in medium density mixed use neighbourhoods. The kind of place where you can live down the road from your office and walk there on a nice day, or take a leisurely stroll to the tram station for a day trip into the city. Those wonderful neighbourhoods full of trees, which are quiet because there are less cars, where kids can ride their bikes to school in safety, are economic powerhouses. Those neighbourhoods make more tax dollars than they spend. And I think you deserve to live somewhere like that.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 weeks ago
The urban core is consuming the resources produced in the rural surroundings. Again, two acres of agricultural land per urban dweller. The population density of land used by/for humans is 320 per square mile.
Agreed, the suburbs are terrible. More specifically, lawns are terrible. Replacing all those lawns with gardens and orchards would completely reverse that problem..
But again: every 320 people need a square mile of agricultural land, regardless of how densely you decide to pack those people. There is no replacement for that land area. Whether we cram ourselves in high-rise apartment buildings, or spread ourselves out among our crops, we’re using two acres of ag land per person.
We still need the rural roads, the rural water. Vegetation needs irrigation. We still need rural wires to convey solar and wind power from those agricultural areas back to the grid at large. Internet Cabling is a little less important: lower rural population density means substantially less interference for wireless.
Please don’t wish that on me. That sounds like the worst of all worlds. None of the benefits of rurality; none of the benefits of urbanity. Not dense enough to actually justify public transit, but still packed in like sardines. Needing to leave home and go into the city for any sort of entertainment. Needing transportation, because you don’t have enough room to simply be comfortable where you live.
It seems that “Strong Towns” is primarily interested in maximizing tax revenue. That is not an objective I find particularly appealing.
LurkingLuddite@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
If you think that’s a lot of infrastructure, wait until you learn how huge roads are.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 weeks ago
You’d have a point if you were getting rid of the roads. But you’re not. You’re leaving them underutilized, out in the boondocks, where they are needed and used to service farms and mines and everything else your urban centers require. Those same roads serving population densities of <10 people per square mile are readily capable of serving population densities of 320 people per square mile. So, again, why not spread out? Why cram ourselves in like sardines, where we need buses and trains and trams and subways and rentable scooters littered everywhere?