Well, at a city level, high density areas (in opposition to urban sprawl) is actually good, because you can have public transit easier so the cost in oil, roads, etc of moving the people in those cities is low. This can be acchieved even with lots of public green spaces, and also having neighborhoods of (small footprint) unifamiliar homes with gardens/yards.
But at whole geographical region, I'm not sure if having the 99.9% of population in one city and then nothing is good. If the big desolated areas are as "easier to live in" as the big city, then probably is better to have a lot of small cities equally distanced and then some bigger ones; but it depends on a shitton of things some of which you can't desing that easily. Go check !urbanism
Say the whole state is "pure cornfield" then it's similar to some places I have been to where you have ~15k population towns separated ~25 km each, with lots of industries and shit related to agriculture, and every 100 km you have a bigger ~70k pop city. You can be a farmer and live comfly in the small city; or at least have your elder relatives living there, near pharmacies, the hospital and at a walkable distance of their old friends and social clubs. If you need some big unusual thing, say a rare medical treatment or expensive tool/machinery/whatever, you can take the train or bus to the big city where that thing is. The same goes if you just wanna go out in a bigger city because they have more variety of restaurants/bars/nightclubs/whatever. If your children decide to go to college, they can move to the big city and be at home any weekend they want cheaply because of trains/buses. Also, in those towns the children of the richest fucker go to the same school than the poorest of fellas. Homelessness is maybe one person with a hard story that ends up being helped somehow, because otherwise is a fucking scandal to have a person without roof. Buying a patch of land to build your own house is easy. And if you want you can go to a nearby homestead to buy produce.
Of course, ports and rivers usually concentrates a lot of economic activity because the shit gets exported and imported through there. So a lot of industries that depends of imported raw materials/parts are gonna choose to set themselves near the ports.
Hard agree, and I'm a fan of Urbanism. I just think it's silly that Westerners make points like "Lol dystopian Russian hellscape" and then live in places like this.
My absolute favorites are when I have to take lower wacker because of roadwork and then my GPS shuts down because I'm underground in maintenance tunnels. :)
Well, at a city level, high density areas (in opposition to urban sprawl) is actually good, because you can have public transit easier so the cost in oil, roads, etc of moving the people in those cities is low. This can be acchieved even with lots of public green spaces, and also having neighborhoods of (small footprint) unifamiliar homes with gardens/yards.
But at whole geographical region, I'm not sure if having the 99.9% of population in one city and then nothing is good. If the big desolated areas are as "easier to live in" as the big city, then probably is better to have a lot of small cities equally distanced and then some bigger ones; but it depends on a shitton of things some of which you can't desing that easily. Go check !urbanism
Say the whole state is "pure cornfield" then it's similar to some places I have been to where you have ~15k population towns separated ~25 km each, with lots of industries and shit related to agriculture, and every 100 km you have a bigger ~70k pop city. You can be a farmer and live comfly in the small city; or at least have your elder relatives living there, near pharmacies, the hospital and at a walkable distance of their old friends and social clubs. If you need some big unusual thing, say a rare medical treatment or expensive tool/machinery/whatever, you can take the train or bus to the big city where that thing is. The same goes if you just wanna go out in a bigger city because they have more variety of restaurants/bars/nightclubs/whatever. If your children decide to go to college, they can move to the big city and be at home any weekend they want cheaply because of trains/buses. Also, in those towns the children of the richest fucker go to the same school than the poorest of fellas. Homelessness is maybe one person with a hard story that ends up being helped somehow, because otherwise is a fucking scandal to have a person without roof. Buying a patch of land to build your own house is easy. And if you want you can go to a nearby homestead to buy produce.
Of course, ports and rivers usually concentrates a lot of economic activity because the shit gets exported and imported through there. So a lot of industries that depends of imported raw materials/parts are gonna choose to set themselves near the ports.
Hard agree, and I'm a fan of Urbanism. I just think it's silly that Westerners make points like "Lol dystopian Russian hellscape" and then live in places like this.
I've attempted navigating that hellhole in rush hour traffic while high as fuck, -420/10 do not recommend.
My absolute favorites are when I have to take lower wacker because of roadwork and then my GPS shuts down because I'm underground in maintenance tunnels. :)
Damn look at that sprawl.
WTF is this lmao
THAT'S CHICAGO BAYBEY!
When I see sprawl like that it makes me vaguely uneasy.