61–70 of 71 posts
"80.000 people live within 0 km of Paris." (ditto, 2 millions live there).
There are many other cities where the numbers are absurdly wrong. Don't take this tool too seriously, if at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> doesn't make it any less of a luxury good That's not what Veblen is. A Veblen is better the higher the price, and that is not correct for lawns. A lawn doesn't get better if the cost of the lawn is higher. A lawn is better simply for existing, which makes it a standard good.
Veblen is that the demand is higher the higher the price, instead of the opposite, but instead of getting hung up on wether or not it's a Veblen good, my larger point is that lawns are luxuries like BMWs and Rolexes. Nice if you can afford them but recognize that we've normalized being extra in this way.
Interesting, NYC vs Tokyo. NYC is winning up until 20km. We need higher density queens, Brooklyn, Staten Island and Jersey. I don't think this takes into account water around cities. For NYC harbour south of downtown pull us down?
Is higher density “winning?”
Higher density cities are the ecologically least damaging mode of housing and provide more of what makes cities great: more people doing interesting things, more opportunities for interactions, education, access to health care, etc.
Now there are plenty of people who don't want that, but then they don't want to be in an urban environment at all. So I'm not saying it's winning for every person. But on a continuum from ultra-rural to ultra dense I think a graph of "quality of life for residents-by-choice" would be a saddle curve. Less dense cities, and most suburbs (by the US definition) are neither fish nor fowl.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And you can do that with a cheaper watch also. That makes in a Veblen, but a more expensive lawn is not a better lawn. So a lawn is not a Veblen.
Having a large expansive lawn with rocky features, rare plants, water features, and fish, while being perfectly manicured attached to an estate is a way better lawn than a 12x20 green rectangle in the front of a suburban home's lot.
But you've described a more expensive lawn that is actually better, which makes it a normal good.
You are simply wrong about lawns being a Veblen, and you should acknowledge that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having a large expansive lawn with rocky features, rare plants, water features, and fish, while being perfectly manicured attached to an estate is a way better lawn than a 12x20 green rectangle in the front of a suburban home's lot.
That's the opposite of what I said. A Veblen good means the same item, if priced higher, is somehow more desirable. But you've described a more expensive lawn that is actually better, which makes it a normal good. You are simply wrong about lawns being a Veblen, and you should acknowledge that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because none of those things are linked. Most cities around the world have pretty extensive parklands, botanic gardens, and public transport links to nature reserves. Crime is area dependent, not density. And noise is mostly linked to car traffic, which is often reduced in higher density areas.
Car traffic might be reduced per capita in higher density areas, but all of it is concentrated and is right near all the people. Multiply by the sirens of ambulance and police that are constantly going somewhere. Compare to a dead-end suburb street which only 5-10 cars have any reason for driving at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Veblen is that the demand is higher the higher the price, instead of the opposite, but instead of getting hung up on wether or not it's a Veblen good, my larger point is that lawns are luxuries like BMWs and Rolexes. Nice if you can afford them but recognize that we've normalized being extra in this way.
Things you consider luxury may not be such for others and vice versa. You cannot really state your opinions as a fact and expect everyone to agree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Things you consider luxury may not be such for others and vice versa. You cannot really state your opinions as a fact and expect everyone to agree.
Obviously. And my opinion is lawns are expensive designer patches of dirt. Like a Rolls Royce or a Bentley. Really nice, and there's a whole industry surrounding them, and a whole lot of culture surrounding having one but ultimately problematic for society if everyone has to have one of their own. Which comes to the part where there are facts. A house with a lawn takes up more space than the exact same home without a…
So does adding sewer, water and electricity too. And think of all the density we could get if could get rid of inner walls and stuff people together into one room per house? It doesn't make these items "luxury" for most people in the US though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Better for the planet, better food and cultural options, shorter travel times for typical daily activities... in my book it definitely is.
And worse for the people who live there. I get anxiety just thinking of living in a dense city. Everyone I know who left a dense city never wants to go back - they talk like people who suffered from Stockholm syndrome and were now freed. And that doesn't even touch the economics: For the most part cities make money by services and not by physical items. Services are very lucrative, so on paper cities make tons of mon…
Okay. I don't know who you know but it doesn't sound like the people that I know.
> And worse for the people who live there. I get anxiety just thinking of living in a dense city.
After having lived in some small towns, I get anxiety thinking about not living in a big city. Different strokes. As it turns out, most people in most countries do choose to live in cities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Better for the planet, better food and cultural options, shorter travel times for typical daily activities... in my book it definitely is.
Have you tried living in the dense cities like Mumbai, India or Manila, Philippines? It's quite clear that with population density, trash output also increases and is harder to manage. By experience, it's not a pleasant way to live or for the environment. It's a lot dirtier.
I've lived in Hong Kong, which is a similar order of density, and which I loved; it was a feeling of being vibrantly alive that's hard to duplicate in a more spread-out environment. Also spent a decent amount of time in Mumbai and enjoyed that - though I might not have if I were one of its poorer residents. Would it be worse than being poor in a village? Not sure.
> It's quite clear that with population density, trash output also increases and is harder to manage.
You're saying that 10 people per km2 produce more trash each than 5 people per km2? What's the mechanism at work there? I'd think denser cities means smaller houses and therefore less room for spurious stuff.