My first instinct is "yes" but then I thought about it and I think it's just going to exacerbate the short-stay problem unless combined with other measures.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] TheHolm@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Honesty I do not believe that many would prefer to live in units where others walking on you head than in a house. Yes you can be forced to live in such condition because unit it is all you can afford while having reasonable commute. Remove that requirements and people will spread. Historically cities were build for mutual protection after that to concentrate work force. It is no longer relevant, they have nothing to offer in modern world. Yes it is cheaper to confine population in cities, but tent camps are even cheaper. to run Cities are not something we should use in the future.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago

I do not believe that many would prefer to live in units where others walking on you head than in a house

Well, then why are children in the Netherlands the happiest in the world?

I find the way you're framing it very interesting, too. "Where others walking on your head". I think it demonstrates a pretty poor understanding of what it's actually like to live in well-built apartments. And it's certainly ignoring the townhouses and duplexes that make for some of the best gentle density.

Yes it is cheaper to confine population in cities…Cities are not something we should use in the future.

Yes, it is. If you want people to be moving out into more sprawling suburbs, or worse, rural living, why not ask them to directly pay for their own infrastructure costs like building and maintaining the roads, sewerage, and electricity, instead of expecting the taxpayers living in more sustainable housing to foot the bill. Not to mention increasing how much we charge for the impact all your increased driving has on the environment, so that it properly prices in the externalities.

Right now we heavily subsidise rural living. And it makes sense, because by and large people who live rural are providing important services like farming, or are in industries supporting those people like local stores and schools. But continuing that huge subsidy in a context where people are moving rural for the hell of it? Lol nah.