One of the biggest resources in the US is cheap abundant land. Why the hell are we concentrating all the talent in a few square miles of it?
I propose jetpacks, to vastly extend peoples' comfortable walking radii.
Besides, we have a dozen modes of transportation already available: cars, buses, motorcycles, segways, bicycles, subways, trams, taxis, powered walkways, rollerblades, skateboards, hover boards, ATVs, skis, sleds, horses, etc. How exactly is walking the panacea of transportation? So much so that people would be willing to live in cars?
Just walking? Maybe not. But fast commutes to work, easy access to restaurants, easy access to culture, lots of things to do nearby, large dating pools? Most certainly.
> cars, buses, motorcycles, segways, bicycles, subways, trams, taxis, powered walkways, rollerblades, skateboards, hover boards, ATVs, skis, sleds, horses
All of which take lots of time! People pay lots of money to live in certain neighborhoods (think Williamsburg and the like) for a reason.
A long commute is something he identifies as always a negative. Humans don't seem to adjust to a long commute -- it will always negatively impact the typical person's outlook/affect/happiness.
I grew up in suburbs and consider them soul sucking hellscapes for robots who've learned to feel despair ... so that probably colors my view of basing cities around them by having people drive all the time.
You wouldn't want to walk along a highway, but because everyone drives in major US cities, even downtown has highway-sized roads.
I'm not super for sleeping in cars, but I already pay a space tax for my living quarters to have walkability (even if I end up taking the train)
Also, horses shit all over the place.
If you haven't ridden one, go on a "segway" tour of your city. Super fun, and you can see just how simple and mobile you are. Completely replaces most small bus hops.
- living outside of a city is actually a luxury. Cheap land, but a long distance to culture and services. Most people cannot afford a car, for example.
- rural living is more detrimental to the environment
Like, I guess I don't understand how nobody is seeing the dystopian future where you have to live in a goddamn car because you can't afford proper shelter. I know it's a thing elsewhere in the world, but people are try to get out of that, not into it.
If we were most concerned about maximizing efficiency, we'd all be living in dense urban environments, using shared public transportation, etc. Most people would sleep in something similar to a Capsule Hotel.
1. Could view it as a cultural thing. For example, some cultures might embrace minimal personal space. And, the media keeps talking about the "tiny house movement."
2. Everything is relative. I personally opted to buy a smaller house than I could afford, and I generally try to live minimally.
3. In general, it's better for the collective good (less waste) to move in that direction. That said, technological advance might some day allow every human to live in a McMansion.
Also remember that there isn’t a big difference between tiny houses and trailers. Imagine turning SF into a trailer park.
But there is a huge difference between a minimally viable shelter (electricity, plumbing, standing room, privacy) and a car or a capsule. Where exactly do you have sex? Vomit when sick? Keep a pet gold fish? Cook? Poop? All of that is possible in 400 sqft apartment and not possible in a car. So it’s not quite relative.
Good luck with your city without rural folks to grow your food...
Is that the case? I know it’s legal in NYC (much to the consternation of yuppies in the upper west side). In Oakland people sleep in cars and rvs parked on major roads, same in San Francisco.
Or I guess the driver can just sit in thr parked car and watch for authorities, if they knock, the driver can claim s/he's just about to depart, and their friend (you) just went out like a light.