Too many Americans live in places built for cars – not for human connection

Re:Too many Americans live in places built for cars – not fo... by woopwoop on Thursday August 25, 2022 @02:02PM (#32597534)

This is pretty far afield at this point, but while Chicago may not be a developer's paradise, it's substantially better than New York.

In any case, though, the original question is whether population density actually makes a place less desirable. The mere fact that Chicago is not cheap (not simply inexpensive, but actually cheap) contradicts the claim that population density is something people don't want.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Too many Americans live in places built for cars – not fo... by onlyrealcuzzo on Thursday August 25, 2022 @02:35PM (#32598055)

People want opportunity. Opportunity comes with density.

They don't want density for the sake of density.

NYC has better opportunities - that's why it's denser. It's not denser because it's more desirable, and then it just so happens that it also has opportunity.

This is true for Shenzhen and Beijing and Mexico City and Paris and London and Mumbai and every major city.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Too many Americans live in places built for cars – not fo... by woopwoop on Thursday August 25, 2022 @04:24PM (#32599514)

I'm not sure we're really disagreeing at this point. Density has a bunch of effects. It creates congestion. But it also creates opportunity. Without the people in New York, there would not be opportunity there. People _wish_ their front door led to downtown Manhattan, and their backdoor led to 100 pristine acres in rural Montana. What people _want_ is what they pay for. And that is to live in places with big network effects, which require large populations.

[ Parent | on HN ]