OT: California Dreamin': Density is the Future.

[bigbill]

Originally Posted by FlashUNC

Or people remember places like Chernobyl and Fukushima.

That ain't Hollywood.

And it's not the US. It wasn't the reactor's fault in Fukushima and Chernobyl was an inherently unstable design.

[Spaghetti Legs]

Originally Posted by bigbill

And it's not the US. It wasn't the reactor's fault in Fukushima and Chernobyl was an inherently unstable design.

Long, long time ago, when I was a midshipman (After 3 mile island, before Chernobyl) I remember a nuc sub officer telling me the big safety difference is the Navy ran it’s reactors at 10% capacity vs the civilians at 100% to maximize revenue.

Anyway, my cool smallish town of about 50k is discussing housing density. Real estate here is about $200+/sf and the people that do the heavy lifting in the town can’t afford to live here. The new zoning proposal is to include “medium density” dwellings, I.e. 4 unit apartments, etc, in certain areas, including my neighborhood close to downtown. Many of my neighbors are up in arms, but I’m ambivalent, maybe even kind of for it. The 1100 sf, 2br, unfinished basement house across the street just sold for $500k and new owners are already starting the addition to the house. Middle aged couple around our age which is cool, but big picture, that’s a starter home and probably better for the community of a new family goes in that house. Just my opinion.

I think density decisions, as others have said, are better left to local communities. That being said, the debate here seems to be dense urban (LA, NYCj vs rural but these are the extremes and these population density decisions apply better to midsize communities where transit issues, parking, groceries, other services are easier to address as density increases. Again though, that’s why best left to localities. I fully expect that my neighborhood of small to medium size houses, in 50 years, will have apartment buildings and a more urban feel. That’s just how things go. I’ll be in a nursing home then, so happy that my kids will be able to sell my home at a handsome profit to high rise developers.

[Coffee Rider]

Originally Posted by FlashUNC

Or people remember places like Chernobyl and Fukushima.

That ain't Hollywood.

FWIW, I was fine with having a nuclear power plant (San Onofre) operating 30 miles from where I live and was disappointed when it closed. I am probably not typical.

[Jaybee]

Originally Posted by bicycletricycle

High density life is low quality life.

The vast majority of people on the planet live in high density urban environments. There are marked advantages in resource efficiency, community development, and economic development recognized by living in cities. I'm not aware of any correlation of self-reported happiness with living space. In fact, suburban Americans self-report some pretty mediocre happiness.

I'm curious where the 8 billion people that will be here by 2023 are supposed to live if not in high density environments.

[buddybikes]

God I feel sooooo lucky found my daughter (Aspergers and other hypersensitivity issues) and boyfriend a house in Western MA with 13 acres. And no it wouldn't support dense housing, this land is one big piece of granite!
Internet connection and small tractor, occasional train to NYC - and they (hopefully) will happier than ever.

[bicycletricycle]

Your laundry list is impressive but unpersuasive

Originally Posted by Jaybee

The vast majority of people on the planet live in high density urban environments. There are marked advantages in resource efficiency, community development, and economic development recognized by living in cities. I'm not aware of any correlation of self-reported happiness with living space. In fact, suburban Americans self-report some pretty mediocre happiness.

I'm curious where the 8 billion people that will be here by 2023 are supposed to live if not in high density environments.

[ORMojo]

https://worldhappiness.report/ed/202...oss-the-world/

This is an urban vs rural study, so it doesn't explicitly consider "suburban," but the findings are more complex than "any correlation of self-reported happiness with living space." I understand that this thread was started as a discussion on density, but density is just one factor in living satisfaction, and "living space" is not a synonym for density.

I am greatly over-simplifying this, but my reading of the study is that happiness is greater, and does rise faster, in urban settings compared to rural settings . . . to a point, and that varies by region/country. North America is one region where that difference seems to all but disappear, and on some measures, show a higher level of happiness in the rural settings. ("in 101 of the 150 surveyed countries (67%), the average life evaluation ['happiness'] of the urban population is significantly higher than the average life evaluation of the rural population. However, none of the countries in this category can be found in Oceania and Northern America, while in the majority of Northern and Western European countries there is no statistically significant difference in how positively the urban and rural population evaluate their lives." emphasis added)

Although it will take some time, it will be very interesting to see the long-term effect of remote work patterns (largely initiated as a result of the pandemic). There are ~260 employees where I work, and I just finished chairing the agency committee to write our new hybrid work policy, which will allow nearly everyone to apply for permission to work up to nearly 100% remote post-pandemic.

[AngryScientist]

Originally Posted by ORMojo

I understand that this thread was started as a discussion on density, but density is just one factor in living satisfaction, and "living space" is not a synonym for density.

It is an interesting discussion, but i think "living satisfaction", at least in north america is directly tied to cash flow. people and families who earn a decent living, significantly above the poverty line have a lot more flexibility in where they can live and have significantly more discretionary "leisure time" to do things they like to do. people who earn a marginal "paycheck to paycheck" amount of money are much more tied to the infrastructure associated with their jobs and are much more likely to feel "stuck" in a place they dont really enjoy living but need to in order to survive.

seems to me all the other stuff is fluff and personal preference. mostly people live in the best place they can afford to live based on their individual cash flow.

[MikeD]

Originally Posted by bicycletricycle

High density life is low quality life.

+1 I hope I never have to go back to living in an apartment. Wouldn't want to live in a densely populated, big city either, like NYC.

[AngryScientist]

Originally Posted by MikeD

+1 I hope I never have to go back to living in an apartment. Wouldn't want to live in a densely populated, big city either, like NYC.

i think the pandemic has changed a lot of people's minds, even hard core NYC'ers about living in the city. not only does communicable disease spread like wildfire in densely populated urban centers that share crowded transportation systems and public spaces, but when you need to confine yourself for whatever reason to your home, a little space is golden.

I also do not buy the higher density equals higher taxes which translates to better public services like schools. in theory that works, but in practice, as i am witnessing, it fails miserably.

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by AngryScientist;297808[B

5]i think the pandemic has changed a lot of people's minds, even hard core NYC'ers about living in the city. not only does communicable disease spread like wildfire in densely populated urban centers that share crowded transportation systems and public spaces, but when you need to confine yourself for whatever reason to your home, a little space is golden. [/B]

I also do not buy the higher density equals higher taxes which translates to better public services like schools. in theory that works, but in practice, as i am witnessing, it fails miserably.

The statistics don’t bear that out. Among the states with the highest COVID rates (per every 100,000 residents), only one would be considered “densely populated”: Florida. Public policy has much more to do with health than density.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...cans-by-state/

[AngryScientist]

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

The statistics don’t bear that out. Among the states with the highest COVID rates (per every 100,000 residents), only one would be considered “densely populated”: Florida. Public policy has much more to do with health than density.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...cans-by-state/

when it comes to NY, state data is worthless. what happens in the Bronx and what happens in a deep upstate small town may as well be two different countries.

[bicycletricycle]

Originally Posted by MikeD

+1 I hope I never have to go back to living in an apartment. Wouldn't want to live in a densely populated, big city either, like NYC.

That place is a nightmare

[reuben]

Originally Posted by bicycletricycle

That place is a nightmare

I agree, but to each their own. One of my daughters lives there and loves it. All I felt was noise, crowds, and pollution. I saw a playground that was completely paved. Not just the basketball courts, but also the monkey bars, swings, etc.

[bicycletricycle]

Originally Posted by reuben

I agree, but to each their own. One of my daughters lives there and loves it. All I felt was noise, crowds, and pollution. I saw a playground that was completely paved. Not just the basketball courts, but also the monkey bars, swings, etc.

I ain’t trying to make decisions for other people, I’m glad cities exist for city people.