|
|
|
|
|
by PrimalDual
2780 days ago
|
|
This sentiment I don’t understand. What’s the problem with aggregating most of the population in a few urban centers? It makes sense to me from an economic point of view where the productivity of clusters benefits greatly from density. It also makes sense from an environmental perspective because it reduces sprawl and using elevators instead of cars should significantly lower carbon emissions. More importantly, unlike other environmentally friendly policies, like carbon taxes or not eating beef, people actually want to move to the more successful cities. Although every individual is familiar with the downsides of cities the economies seem to be large enough to overcome them. |
|
The UK is already fairly urbanized. Basically everyone lives in or around a city. You could densify the cities if the residents actually want that.
What's being discussed here is not that though, it's the problem that everyone seems to want to go to alpha cities like London/SF/NYC and treats elsewhere as "inferior".
You can't just stuff the entire population of the UK in to London because it would be a hellscape regardless of how much you improve infrastructure.