[randomdata]

> We really need to get serious about improving our transportation infrastructure.

Better yet, we really need to consider urbanization. That way everything you need is right there by your own two feet. No need for any extra special transportation at all.

It seems people have a burning desire to live the rural lifestyle, though, even in so-called cities. I'm not sure we can actually overcome that pressure.

[p_j_w]

Even with heavy urbanization you'll need some form of transit on top of walking. Have you ever visited any really big cities (eg. Tokyo)? Every time I'm in one, I get the impression they would grind to a standstill without their mass transit systems.

[CalRobert]

Even a decent town puts most things within a walk or bike ride. San Luis Obispo comes to mind as an example.

[oblio]

I've never understood the argument about small towns being worse for urbanism.

Back in the day, before cars were widespread, everything had to be close by.

You don't even have to sacrifice the backyard for that, you can have a city layout that puts the houses themselves fairly close to each other, and the yards can radiate outwards. Then you connect each cluster's main street with the other ones, but unlike suburbs, you make each "subdivision" mixed-use and you allow public transit , pedestrians and cyclists to cut across subdivisions for easy access everywhere.

If anything, small towns should be urbanism done right, because they don't (shouldn't?) have the money for sprawl and they don't have all the pressures for increasing density a lot, that big cities have.

[rufus_foreman]

>> Back in the day, before cars were widespread, everything had to be close by.

My grandparents, and their parents and grandparents before them, all grew up on farms (as did the majority of Americans during that time).

No, everything did not have to be close by.

They certainly did appreciate cars when they became affordable though.

[oblio]

You're most likely talking about homesteads, which are a minority of rural housing around the world in my experience.

In most of the world villages have at least a cluster of homes nearby, since having other humans close is super handy when shit hits the fan.

[CalRobert]

Indeed, and there are small businesses mixed in with the houses. But the problem is cars (it's always cars). A coffee shop next to your house is fine - a delight even - when 20 people arrive by walking or biking. When it's 20 cars though it's misery.

[randomdata]

> Have you ever visited any really big cities (eg. Tokyo)

Yes, these are the rural areas of which we speak. Everything gets spread out and then you're stuck travelling long distances to do anything, just like those who live in actual rural areas. There is no question that transportation is necessary in a rural area.

A proper urban environment, however, puts everything right there in a short distance. No need to ever travel beyond where your feet can take you. That's the whole reason for living so close to other people.

But it's clear that people want to live in (or pretend to live in) rural areas. It seems to be in our nature. As such, there is a lot of pressure to maintain the way things are. Hence the ill-conceived cries for better transportation to maintain the rural way of life instead of actually embracing urbanity.

[ToucanLoucan]

I would say that's better characterized as an opposition to urbanization that's designed for and presumes the ownership of cars by those who live there, and to that I heartily agree! Gridlock-bound US cities are a nightmare to navigate, but again, that is not the fault of the city, that is also the fault of the car and how inefficient it is as a transport solution.

If cars simply didn't exist, our cities would not, could never have, been designed the way they are, in any way.

[randomdata]

> If cars simply didn't exist, our cities would not, could never have, been designed the way they are, in any way.

Nah. Many cities long predate the car. They absolutely were designed in the same way they are still found now, aside from what are now roads were squares for people to walk in. Return the road back to being a square and nobody would be able to recognize that there was a car era. But, so long as the people want to live a rural lifestyle, good luck…

[ar_lan]

> It seems people have a burning desire to live the rural lifestyle, though, even in so-called cities.

I just want like... to not be stacked like a sardine for $3500/mo. I would gladly take a rural lifestyle if I could find a job that would support it.

[oblio]

This is a colossal failure for humanity, primarily due to home ownership as an investment vehicle, plus regulatory capture pushed by the car companies and oil and gas companies.

There is no technical reason we can't have livable, quiet and spacious apartments, where multiple apartment buildings share a huge, enclosed backyard (almost park-like, even), a setup with tons of small shops, pharmacies, easy access to everything, etc.

Plus you can also have access to large parks, in a suburb you'd never have access to those, just your limited backyard.

But most places will never have that...

[nradov]

Even nice apartments are pretty miserable places to live if you have multiple small children, or engage in hobbies or activities that require much equipment. Imagine coming home to your apartment with a muddy mountain bike. Do you haul it up to the 4th floor in the elevator and wash it in your shower? It's possible to make it work but living in a single-family home (or townhouse with attached garage) sure makes regular life a lot easier.

[oblio]

> Imagine coming home to your apartment with a muddy mountain bike. Do you haul it up to the 4th floor in the elevator and wash it in your shower?

We have the tech for this, we could have literal multi-bike sheds/parking garages and all that's needed is 1 (ONE) water source with a hose inside. As I said, failure on the part of our species :-)

In my city there are actually a few public bike washing stations, so the game plan in this case would be just to bike that way before coming home.

[randomdata]

Stacked like a sardine for $3,500/mo, yet still have to travel long distances to do anything. The curse of the wannabe rural city. But, as people want to (or at least want to pretend to) live in a rural area, change is unlikely.

[Gibbon1]

Suburbia is this thing like commuting in a car that's great as long as everyone isn't also trying to do it.

[ghaff]

Many of us simply don't want to live in expensive urbanized environments (especially in more desirable ones)--at least at many points in our lives, so yeah no.

[ToucanLoucan]

I mean the problem isn't those who don't want to live in cities nor is it those who want to live in cities: the problem is the suburbs, which is where those two meet. People who aren't in and do not desire an actual rural lifestyle where one has a standalone home on a large plot of land in the middle of nowhere, but also don't want a condo. They want their own little plot of land, with a small yard, and a standalone home.

And like, same. That's also me.

But the problem is the actual costs of that style of home are incredibly, heavily subsidized by the cities they surround and indeed even the rural areas they border, because suburbs are just... a bad goddamn way to house people. They're incredibly inefficient, basically require your own personal car, require the most infrastructure build-out for the smallest population, require the largest footprint of services over the largest area to serve the smallest number of people, etc. etc.

And like, I don't think it's unreasonable to say if you want to live this way, that's fine, but then you need to actually pay for it. Your property taxes need to reflect how much it actually costs to serve your property, to build the huge number of roads needed to access it, to maintain those roads, to maintain the electrical grids, to maintain the water and sewage services, to bus kids to schools, etc. etc. etc.

And yeah that's going to make suburbs WAY less appealing because they're going to be fucking expensive but like, the alternative is, again, everyone wanting that, and not paying for it. The dense urban centers they surround absolutely hemorrhage money supporting the suburbs around them.

[ghaff]

Around where I live (greater Boston metro) most of the tech jobs are actually out in the suburbs/exurbubs. There were basically no tech jobs in the city ~20 years ago any longer. (It's mostly only changed with the establishment of of satellite offices of some west coast companies.)

[ToucanLoucan]

With respect, it doesn't matter. Suburbs cost far more than they bring in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IsMeKl-Sv0

[ghaff]

I don't know. My town has a budget. We argue over property taxes at town meetings. We argue over enterprise zones like distribution centers that certainly aren't going in the middle of large cities. We argue over school spending that tends to be lower than in large cities. No one is wiping out highways that connect large cities to other places.

[HeatrayEnjoyer]

Urbanization decreases costs.

[rufus_foreman]

How much does 160 acres of land cost in rural Kansas? Maybe $500,000? How much does 160 acres of land cost in Manhattan? Maybe $800,000,000?

Urbanization decreases some costs and increases others.