They don’t have to be ugly. Check this video out. Looks like a jungle resort in some parts. Could you please honestly tell me that a suburb you see looks prettier than this?
I did, and while it’s certainly leagues better than somewhere like NYC or Pittsburgh, it’s far from what I would consider beautiful. So many samey high rise apartments, gross.
Again, to be clear, not saying Suburbs are the better option, I just hate the way they look
The entire point is they don’t have to be that way. You are quite literally missing the entire critique. The US’s focus on cars and suburbia make it that way.
NIMBYs think if they just ban density that the 8 billion people in the world who need housing will just poof and disappear.
Personally, I prefer dense, walkable, transit-oriented cities so we can preserve as much nature as possible, and so the people living in cities aren’t separated from nature by a sea of suburban sprawl.
I was on business in a major US city. I mapped the distance from my hotel to the edge of the wilderness. Including traffic, it would take hours to get there. It’s nuts how sprawling and wasteful many of our cities are.
One of the key lines from Strong Towns was roughly “during a time of abundance, any decision you make works out”. We’ve been building out cities during a time of abundance and that abundance has run out. Now we get to see just how badly we did by overbuilding infrastructure and constructing everything around a hugely inefficient car only model for transportation.
That’s a very good way of putting it. We’ve developed our cities in a fundamentally environmentally, socially, and fiscally unsustainable manner, but we were insulated from feeling the full impacts of it by being in relatively good times. But now those debts are quickly catching up with us with the climate crisis, housing crisis, widening inequality, rapidly degrading infrastructure, and quickly draining municipal budgets.
False dichotomies are fun! There’s absolutely a type of beauty to a well-run, upkept city. Should everything be a city? Nope, we need green areas, probably even more green areas than cities. The two can and should coexist in harmony.
I think that your opinion is overly reductive. There are a lot of differences between cities and even parts of cities. There is a lot of variance between
Sure, big difference, still less easy on the eyes, in my opinion, than an open field or a forest of trees. Nature will always be more attractive to me.
Nobody is arguing that cities are more beautiful than the natural world. Rather that cities can also be beautiful in their own right if they’re properly built.
We can all agree that poorly planned cities that are filled with concrete and trash look terrible. But there are alternatives if we actually listened to professional city planners and incorporated less car-dependency (concrete roads, parking lots, box stores), more green space, etc.
I think I’d rather have very dense population centers with intermixed accessible green spaces would be far preferable to the sprawling suburbs like you see in Texas
Cities are noxious tumors on an otherwise beautiful planet.
Why not both? Have proper zoning laws in place and suddenly you’ll find the balance. Kyoto for example is just amazing.
I don’t disagree, doesn’t mean they’re not ugly.
Density is not height.
They don’t have to be ugly. Check this video out. Looks like a jungle resort in some parts. Could you please honestly tell me that a suburb you see looks prettier than this?
https://youtu.be/fl9ZksmgmPs?si=robPs0cYFQsyPFuI
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://youtu.be/fl9ZksmgmPs?si=robPs0cYFQsyPFuI
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Never said suburbs were better, I just think that cities are ugly af when compared to nature. That’s all I meant.
Did you watch the video I linked?
I did, and while it’s certainly leagues better than somewhere like NYC or Pittsburgh, it’s far from what I would consider beautiful. So many samey high rise apartments, gross.
Again, to be clear, not saying Suburbs are the better option, I just hate the way they look
The entire point is they don’t have to be that way. You are quite literally missing the entire critique. The US’s focus on cars and suburbia make it that way.
Without cars and suburbs cities would still be filled with soulless concrete and steel monoliths and trash
You’re projecting what many poorly planned, car-dependant cities look like as being a basic fact of all cities.
You clearly need to go see the world. Take this as friendly advice.
You would prefer urban sprawl? Humans gotta live somewhere, density is ecologically the best way to do it.
NIMBYs think if they just ban density that the 8 billion people in the world who need housing will just poof and disappear.
Personally, I prefer dense, walkable, transit-oriented cities so we can preserve as much nature as possible, and so the people living in cities aren’t separated from nature by a sea of suburban sprawl.
I was on business in a major US city. I mapped the distance from my hotel to the edge of the wilderness. Including traffic, it would take hours to get there. It’s nuts how sprawling and wasteful many of our cities are.
One of the key lines from Strong Towns was roughly “during a time of abundance, any decision you make works out”. We’ve been building out cities during a time of abundance and that abundance has run out. Now we get to see just how badly we did by overbuilding infrastructure and constructing everything around a hugely inefficient car only model for transportation.
That’s a very good way of putting it. We’ve developed our cities in a fundamentally environmentally, socially, and fiscally unsustainable manner, but we were insulated from feeling the full impacts of it by being in relatively good times. But now those debts are quickly catching up with us with the climate crisis, housing crisis, widening inequality, rapidly degrading infrastructure, and quickly draining municipal budgets.
I don’t want to ban cities, nor do I prefer suburbs, I just don’t think they’re anything close to beautiful thats all they’re dirty and soulless.
The modern north american cities are. That’s the point.
But cities don’t have to be the way, other places in the world have rich beautiful cities with amazing urban communities.
Never said that suburbs are better, I’m just disagreeing with the sentiment that cities are beautiful. I think they’re ugly.
Is there a less ugly way to live?
I wish brother, I wish.
False dichotomies are fun! There’s absolutely a type of beauty to a well-run, upkept city. Should everything be a city? Nope, we need green areas, probably even more green areas than cities. The two can and should coexist in harmony.
If you think cities are beautiful you are entitled to your opinion, I just disagree. I think they’re ugly
I think that your opinion is overly reductive. There are a lot of differences between cities and even parts of cities. There is a lot of variance between
Sure, big difference, still less easy on the eyes, in my opinion, than an open field or a forest of trees. Nature will always be more attractive to me.
Nobody is arguing that cities are more beautiful than the natural world. Rather that cities can also be beautiful in their own right if they’re properly built.
We can all agree that poorly planned cities that are filled with concrete and trash look terrible. But there are alternatives if we actually listened to professional city planners and incorporated less car-dependency (concrete roads, parking lots, box stores), more green space, etc.
I think I’d rather have very dense population centers with intermixed accessible green spaces would be far preferable to the sprawling suburbs like you see in Texas
I don’t disagree, doesn’t make them not ugly tho