[choeger]

Yeah, more density, because all that matters is the size of cities and their economy. 90% of children never waking up to the sounds of birds around their house? Who cares? 90% of grownups never plant even a tomatoes? What does it matter! Families of four or more confined to single-bathroom, two-bedroom apartments? The cosier, the better! The most important bit is that the cheap workforce reaches their dull jobs in time to make the city work for the elite and God forbid they don't behave "ecologically efficient" when doing so!

[nindalf]

> God forbid they don't behave "ecologically efficient" when doing so

I like how you casually take a dump on being environmentally friendly. Yes, city dwellers do have less of an impact on the environment. Like all animals we like as much space as possible. But unlike other animals we don’t need it to survive.

If more of us fit in cities, there would be more space that could be left for wild animals. Maybe that equilibrium will help the planet flourish for longer. That’s actually a good thing, even if your condescending comment won’t acknowledge it.

[pharmakom]

- high density cities

- rewilding

- fast and expansive rail network

- right to roam

Get these things right and we can lower our environmental footprint whilst maintaining - or even improving - quality of life for the average individual.

[Broken_Hippo]

A rail network is only part of the solution: It certainly won't visit many small towns. A robust bus service truly needs to be in place as well so that folks can travel from town to town to train.

Heck, trains don't even have to be fast for much of it: Simply making passenger trains a priority would be a huge improvement - right now, passenger trains have to wait for freight trains.

[pharmakom]

Rail networks in the UK once visited even small villages. It can be done but requires political will.

If the settlements are very small then the number of people driving to the nearest station will be low anyway.

I’m optimistic for services that are halfway between bus and taxi.

[maxerickson]

The US is considerably less dense than the UK. We could afford lots more rail in higher density areas, rail to everywhere doesn't make any sense (we have freight tracks, the part that wouldn't make sense is frequent passenger service).

My county is rural but not that rural and has a density of 12 per km². It's a 2 hour drive to a small city.

[bobthepanda]

When we talk about where would rail work there are really only two or three places worth talking about; California and everything east of I-35.

As an example, the Midwest has roughly the same population as France, and the TGV network overlaid kind of lines up with major population centers. https://pedestrianobservations.com/2021/04/04/european-urban...

[ryandrake]

> It certainly won't visit many small towns.

Some people who constantly advocate for dense urban often would also rather small towns just didn't exist. Dense urban for everybody! They imagine utopia to be a hand full of dense cities, surrounded by wilderness untouched by human habitation, with high speed train tracks crisscrossing that wilderness to get people from one dense city to another. No roads, no cars, no suburbs, no towns or rural villages. Just pack everyone into these urban islands. Things like bus service, and "last mile" are not needed in this utopia.

[bobthepanda]

A lot of Americans (including some density advocates) also do not realize that you can have very small scale density.

Three narrowish three-story houses replacing one McMansion is still a tripling of density on a single lot. Take this Dutch village for instance: https://www.melbtravel.com/edam-netherlands-village-preserve...

[PoignardAzur]

I mean... I don't think I've ever planted a tomato in my life, and I don't feel like a hollow shell performing a simulacrum of life?

(I have planted potatoes though)

[vagrantJin]

I recall my niece visiting my new house in the bundus. She saw the milky way for the first time at 11 years old. It has been raining and foggy on the way there but it cleared up a a bit before we got to the house. She had no idea the night sky isn't a dull shade of orange with the moon. All she might have seen was sparse clouds and a blanket of shining stars too numerous to count, almost like a diamond dress (her words not mine)

Consequently, it's not something we consciously think about. We just assume everyone has seen the night sky. I certainly never thought seeing the stars and the milky way would mean so much for an 11 year old. She wanted to stay outside so she could stare at them all night. But the mosquitoes, bless them, put a stop to those plans.

[nindalf]

Nah mate, tomatoes are completely different from potatoes. Truly life changing. I pity the 90% who hasn’t planted one. /s

[lupire]

It's the best way to get truly acquainted with the repeated deaths of life forms you care for.

[nicoburns]

I had a similar relationship with the phrase "can't even boil an egg". I never liked eggs growing up, so I learnt to cook quite a few significantly more complicated dishes several years before I learnt how to boil an egg.

[dionidium]

Notice the sleight of hand in this comment. Those who oppose development posture as if it’s urbanists who are interested in enforcing their way of life on everyone else, but it’s quite plainly the other way around.

Only one side in this debate wants to make laws that encode their particular housing preferences in law. It’s the side that wants to prevent new construction, not the side that wants to allow people to make free choices in an open market.

[robben1234]

Bigger city density means less demand on outskirts and easier life for anyone who wants to live there, i.e. cheaper prices, less regulations, smaller commute.

[renewiltord]

Well, we know what the alternative is. People have less tomato planting time because they spend longer commuting.

So we optimize to put people close to their jobs so they get lots of leisure time with their family.

If they don't want that they can always live farther out. That way everyone is happy.

[tovej]

That's not the alternative at all. The alternative is sensible city planning with mixed zoning neighborhoods that create comfortable centers all around the city. Add metros, bike lanes, and parks and you have a pleasant city instead of a concrete jungle or a suburban sprawl.

[renewiltord]

I'll believe it when I see it. Every American development like this is a massive money hole.

[tovej]

Look around Europe and you can see it. The reason US city development is a money hole is because you do city-level urban services in sprawling communities. The tax-payer density is just not high enough to economically support the cost of that infrastructure.

[renewiltord]

Sure, I used to live there. But that's no model for US cities. It's like transplanting a cow's stomach into me to help me digest grass.

The political situation and the relative expectations of the local communities are sufficiently different so as to cause European style urban planning to fail here. You have to engineer to the human and political constraints as well.

US towns and cities are drunk on debt and bailouts and that is a competitive constraint on growth.

[knolax]

> 90% of children never waking up to the sounds of birds around their house?

As someone who grew up in such an environment, 90+% of my peers spent the entirety of our adolescence doing as much as possible to get away from suburban hells like that. And you know what's ironic? I have way more access to actual nature now that I live in a city close to some national parks than I did when I was younger and was trapped in endless suburbia.