[throwaway3451]

"To bring it back to housing" ellides the important point GP made. They even acknowledged the excitement and advantages of growth, but pointed out some of the cost as well. If you want to advocate, don't blind yourself to those of us sensitive to the literal trash, noise, and other side-effects of growth.

With wealth comes illth - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illth

Your personal utility function may make you less sensitive to this particular illth, but it's a consideration nonetheless.

EDIT - I see you edited in a first sentence to acknowledge. Thanks - I'll let this comment stand because I think it's an important point, but appreciate your attempt to balance. Growth is good, but sustainable clean humane growth should be the real ideal - I'm not convinced modern urban design is really up to that.

[davidw]

Whether people throw their shit on the ground is more of a cultural thing than an 'urban design' thing.

In terms of sustainability, it's not that hard: denser, less carbon-intensive living, where people can walk, bike and take transit, beats sprawl hands down. People have been making cities like that for thousands of years. What changed is our 'suburban experiment':

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/1/7/americas-suburb...

[throwaway3451]

Agreed littering is cultural, but if e.g. 1/1000 people do it then it's also very much a function of density. If we're going to increase density we need to be even more proactive about sanitation, trash, noise, and "misbehavior" or edge cases in general (crime, mental health, etc.).

Strongly agreed on alternatives to driving, and I'd throw in "truly accepting remote work" (not just being "remote friendly but you should take a global trip with us every quarter"). We have a global telecommunications network, we ought to use it.

Supply chains, local food, and not overstraining our watersheds are also all key. We'll have to face the reality that some cities are just built in a way/place that they don't belong, at the size they are at least.

[bradleyjg]

Throwaway accounts are ok for sensitive information, but please don't create them routinely. On HN, users should have an identity that others can relate to.

What sensitive information is disclosed in this comment?

One off identities are a limited community resource. If they are used too routinely this becomes a de facto anonymous message board. We know what fully anonymous message boards look like and they aren't pretty. That commons should be saved for situations that call for it and not be wasted for trivial reasons like worrying about one's collection of fake internet popularity points.

[throwaway3451]

Fair, maybe I shouldn't do this. FWIW, it's actually rather the opposite - I'm not concerned about my points collection. I have no collection, and almost never comment or participate in these things. I just prefer not having a persistent "identity" for this sort of thing, but acknowledge that most people with that preference offer more noise than signal. Perhaps I should just go back to "never."

[sowbug]

As exciting as this thread is to read, it's hard for me to watch its subject change into a different one. I think the hardest aspect right now is the number of meta-level comments that are being added in replies to replies.