Quote: (01-10-2017 01:48 PM)Unchained Wrote:  

That's why you don't buy property for a home. You buy it for investment purposes and then you rent wherever you want to live. I've always thought people who spend 300k to 1.5million for a "home" are idiots. If I spend that money it's because it's an investment to flip or get rental income, not to have a yard and a pool.

If you rent close to your job, you can pack up and move conveniently. Living close to where you work is not bullshit. I've done it, and it's awesome.

Ideally, any man with means should find a location where he wants to set up base and live and work in that location.

Not sure why anyone would BUY a house somewhere just cuz they work close to there. Also I'll reiterate, unless you have a family, no reason to buy property unless for investment purposes or because it's cheaper than renting. If you move, just rent that shit out for higher than mortgage, or flip it. If you can't do that, it wasn't a smart business decision.

I agree with you about renting, but it also depends on the market. Here in Austin, the market for rentals is absolute shit. Most landlord/landladies are shit. And there are dumbfucks in this town who actually brag about signing leases of two years.

This is largely because Austin wants to be a "compact city." We have all these car haters and other ideologues who don't want to see highways built. They don't like roads. They sacrifices lanes for cars for bike lanes.

In fact, Austin is by far the largest city in the USA that has only a single interstate highway. There is only I-35. There is no other two-digit Interstate. There are no branch interstates off I-35.

I think I've always underestimated how much living in a suburban sprawl is negatively affecting my ability to meet women and socialise in general. At this point in my life (mid 20s) I'd much prefer to be living in a 30m squared apartment in the middle of a vibrant city than in a mansion in the dreary suburbs of Australia, surrounded by nothing but other huge blocks of isolated land, cars, roads and shops. Desperately need to make a change.

Urban sprawl is likely an anti-human anti-useless-eater term designed by the Big Boys.

The suburbs mostly started to be created because of crappy city design and because of the dangers of living in the cities - crime and the blessings of diversity.

Let us first assume that diversity is not an issue and that you have to flee from it to move to a good neighborhood and school area - what would be the ideal world look like?

Here I go to Frank Lloyd Wright who advocated the following systems:

Large extremely tall skyscraper each surrounded by massive parks - connected with central subway. Most people would live there. Most of the citizens would have a look out into the park regardless whether from floor 50 or floor level 2.



The green area wouldn't even have to be that big. Each building can take in thousands of people.

Current most city architecture is moronic with several stories - that is 16th century technology - heck Rome had buildings similar to what is seen in Paris.

That way you have cities which are green, but central at the same time.

In addition for the rural lovers you can still have single family homes in the countryside with large private gardens. The majority would prefer to live in the cities anyway.

Also space is not an issue with humanity - we can put 7 billion people into Texas by giving each family of 400m2 each. The rest of the world would be empty.

The distribution of humanity is just moronic - nevermind the solutions applied for current cities incl. fucked up building codes. Instead of limiting the height of buildings, they should simply demand big green spaces between high-rises. That way a city becomes greener and better more in line with what Frank Lloyd Wright had in mind.

The more well-off and nature lovers can spread out across the country-side - they won't have much of an impact either when this is done well enough.

Suburbia by the way is happening because of:

1) Diversity
2) Crime - also mostly based on diversity
3) Single mother households and feral kids
4) Bad city planning - creating 16th century city planning instead taking it up a notch and getting Hilton-like buildings surrounded by parks which most people would prefer to live in anyway

Mid-sized and large (but not too large) European cities and their close surrounding suburbs are great. Latin America also has some metros like this. Good public transport, a historic city center and historic sections of town, you can live close to the action for a fair price and still have normal people as your neighbors.

In America, suburbs all the way. They're inefficient and lack character alright, but they're at least less ridiculous as inner cities, less isolated than the sticks, some of your neighbors will still be obnoxious but at least you'll have space from them.

Quote: (03-09-2017 10:33 AM)blacknwhitespade Wrote:  

Mid-sized and large (but not too large) European cities and their close surrounding suburbs are great. Latin America also has some metros like this. Good public transport, a historic city center and historic sections of town, you can live close to the action for a fair price and still have normal people as your neighbors.

In America, suburbs all the way. They're inefficient and lack character alright, but they're at least less ridiculous as inner cities, less isolated than the sticks, some of your neighbors will still be obnoxious but at least you'll have space from them.

Not sure I'd agree ,there's the motivation factor. I'm from the state of NY very(relatively) close by train to Manhattan. My cousin lives in Queens about equal distance to Manhattan, on a cold winter night no one is going to want to hit up any venues.

Currently in Beograd and there is the same pattern. The weather hasn't been great and less people are definitely outside, around and about, day or night.

Beograd is mostly a suburban city while NY since the suburbs are technically separate is more compact. Not everyone lives waaay out like Queens in NY and people definitely live farther out on average in Beograd.

Distance matters, especially if you work part or full time.


My dad recently moved from the burbs to Manhattan and even he's more active and happier as an old man. It really depends on your life. If your work ,everything else is in the suburbs then it can be better. A city that is dependent on the suburbs for people like Beograd or Toronto, sprawls can make a city harder for game, meeting people, ect when the weather is bad.

Quote: (03-09-2017 06:26 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

Urban sprawl is likely an anti-human anti-useless-eater term designed by the Big Boys.

The suburbs mostly started to be created because of crappy city design and because of the dangers of living in the cities - crime and the blessings of diversity.

Let us first assume that diversity is not an issue and that you have to flee from it to move to a good neighborhood and school area - what would be the ideal world look like?

Here I go to Frank Lloyd Wright who advocated the following systems:

Large extremely tall skyscraper each surrounded by massive parks - connected with central subway. Most people would live there. Most of the citizens would have a look out into the park regardless whether from floor 50 or floor level 2.



The green area wouldn't even have to be that big. Each building can take in thousands of people.

Current most city architecture is moronic with several stories - that is 16th century technology - heck Rome had buildings similar to what is seen in Paris.

That way you have cities which are green, but central at the same time.

In addition for the rural lovers you can still have single family homes in the countryside with large private gardens. The majority would prefer to live in the cities anyway.

Also space is not an issue with humanity - we can put 7 billion people into Texas by giving each family of 400m2 each. The rest of the world would be empty.

The distribution of humanity is just moronic - nevermind the solutions applied for current cities incl. fucked up building codes. Instead of limiting the height of buildings, they should simply demand big green spaces between high-rises. That way a city becomes greener and better more in line with what Frank Lloyd Wright had in mind.

The more well-off and nature lovers can spread out across the country-side - they won't have much of an impact either when this is done well enough.

Suburbia by the way is happening because of:

1) Diversity
2) Crime - also mostly based on diversity
3) Single mother households and feral kids
4) Bad city planning - creating 16th century city planning instead taking it up a notch and getting Hilton-like buildings surrounded by parks which most people would prefer to live in anyway

If only all cities were constructed like Wien

Bad city planning is definitely an issue. Urban planning in the Anglosphere is next to moronic.

Quote: (01-02-2017 03:21 PM)Orion Wrote:  

Quote: (01-02-2017 12:59 AM)puckerman Wrote:  

I love urban sprawl. It just works.

It doesn't. What you call "works" is a frog about to get cooked that's still in warm water. American urban planners also agree that American urban policy is a complete failure. The only advocates of American model are not urban planners at all, but economists.

....

When I used to work for the government all of the Urban Planners at our meetings were hipster faggots or conscious carbon footprint lesbians with no children that wanted to build more bike lanes, brew pubs, gay safe sex parks and high density urban developments. Never a word was spoken about accommodating families, schools or churches.

So of course, childless hillary voters would call single housing developments "aka urban spral" to accomodate single families while providing space and security "a disaster"...that par for the course for what i remember "urban planners" to be.

Quote: (03-09-2017 07:27 PM)Nowak Wrote:  

If only all cities were constructed like Wien

Bad city planning is definitely an issue. Urban planning in the Anglosphere is next to moronic.

They are putting more high-rises next to the UN city - which is adjacent to a large park and in front of the river Danube.

Still - they could add far more than that, because the park area is massive.

Vienna has city planners which have more power than local mayors - they get their job for life. Too bad that diversity will burn the city in the future.

You guys are all looking in the wrong direction.

Sprawl is ugly and soul killing.

Ugly:



Not so ugly are the houses set around the woodlands of cities like Boston.

As I said before - most folk would not choose to live in crappy suburbia with 2 hours driving each day if they were given a high-rise condo set overlooking a mini-central-park each at the same price. Especially since that would reduce their commute to 30 minutes and their kids could go to school on their own (or get picked up at the door).

But .... the future of the globalist cities are:

+ tiny crappy container appartments for the majority
+ a few secluded posh neighborhoods for the moderately well off
+ small number of exclusive high-rises and town-houses in prime locations
+ small number of rural massive estates for the super-wealthy

The majority of the population is set to be housed in Judge Dredd conditions while rural living is to be penalized according to UN Global Warming Scam Agenda 21 guidelines.

Quote: (03-10-2017 03:17 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

Ugly:



Not so ugly are the houses set around the woodlands of cities like Boston.

As I said before - most folk would not choose to live in crappy suburbia with 2 hours driving each day if they were given a high-rise condo set overlooking a mini-central-park each at the same price. Especially since that would reduce their commute to 30 minutes and their kids could go to school on their own (or get picked up at the door).

But .... the future of the globalist cities are:

+ tiny crappy container appartments for the majority
+ a few secluded posh neighborhoods for the moderately well off
+ small number of exclusive high-rises and town-houses in prime locations
+ small number of rural massive estates for the super-wealthy

The majority of the population is set to be housed in Judge Dredd conditions while rural living is to be penalized according to UN Global Warming Scam Agenda 21 guidelines.

Funny you should mention this. Nice recent podcast by James Kunstler and a guest about this issue. They have good ideas about livable cities, especially his guest, but don't seem to understand the forces up against them, and if anyone doesn't know what I'm talking about, check out almost any of Zelcorpion's posts.

Quote:Quote:

This episode’s featured interview is with transportation expert and urbanist Taras Grescoe, author of Straphanger: Saving Our Cities and Ourselves from the Automobile. Taras writes: “In the 20th century, our greatest cities were almost ruined by the automobile. Only a global revolution in transportation can bring them back from the brink.” He consults on these matters and reports from cities around world from: Paris, to Moscow, Shanghai, Tokyo, Bogota, Vancouver, Phoenix. Taras Grescoe lives in Montreal. It’s a pleasure to welcome him to the podcast.

http://kunstler.com/podcast/kunstlercast...s-grescoe/

Quote: (04-16-2016 04:35 PM)DonovanVC Wrote:  

I hate urban sprawl. Way harder to meet girls. Pretty much kills all day game opportunities and forces you to rely on night and online game.

I don't see how anyone who actually approaches women would be a fan, in any way, shape, or form, of urban sprawl. It adversely affects day game, night game, pulling, and setting up dates. I've seen both sides of this living in Chicago and NYC then moving to dumpy ass Los Mangeles.

The ideal set-up is probably in Evanston, Illinois, a nice, clean, peaceful suburban town that oddly enough has the logistics (walkable, foot traffic, strong public transit) of a dense city, not to mention it actually borders a major, dense city (Chicago). That's the best of both worlds right there. #NorthwesternMafia

New York is held up as an example because there are so many shitty cities in North America. In America there is really only 8 cities which are largely nice and designed well in its more compact parts.

NYC
New Orleans
San Fransico
Boston
Philly/Chicago (in some parts)
Savanah GA
Charleston, SC
Portland, ME

The rest of America is a shit hole. The only two caveats are Miami and Las Vegas which can give you a good high quality of life but you gotta drive and pick your spots well.

In Canada it is much worse as only Montreal, Vancouver, Toronto is big cities. Great towns in Victoria, Halifax, and Quebec City (throw Sherbrooke and Kingston in there) but the rest of Canada is suburban trash.

Humans just live better in places where it's constructed to live by a horse. Compact, walkable, with good scale and scope to be around activities and close to things. This provides an atmosphere where humans can be in around social interactions and produce a more safe atmosphere.

American has some nice suburbs, but the nicest suburbs are just B-level versions of the European towns which are the superior form of urban human living. The urban townhome provides lots of space and you are close by via foot or train to the busy city centre where all the hustle is. Your town/'Hood has shops, bars, cafes, and cute girls all around running errands and socialising. It becomes easy to run into familiar faces and also find women to chat up as you go about you day.

There is a sweet spot for a number of people per hectare or the density of how people are clustered together. You don't have to have Manhattan. How buildings are put together and aligned matters much more than tall skyscrapers.

An example is that Toronto has more density than Budapest.

But...

Budapest looks like this in much of the city, with few to zero skyscrapers:



While Toronto, downtown is impressive:


but much of the city looks like this:


Or like this:


Tall buildings or a better quality of town all around? It is all about balance. Budapest is less dense than Toronto but has a much more vibrant urban lifestyle with easy top walk places and people all around. Toronto has the big buildings but unless you live downtown or in a nice neighbourhood you will live in dumpy sprawl with bad logistics.

Quote: (04-18-2017 11:34 PM)kosko Wrote:  

New York is held up as an example because there are so many shitty cities in North America. In America there is really only 8 cities which are largely nice and designed well in its more compact parts.

NYC
New Orleans
San Fransico
Boston
Philly/Chicago (in some parts)
Savanah GA
Charleston, SC
Portland, ME

The rest of America is a shit hole. The only two caveats are Miami and Las Vegas which can give you a good high quality of life but you gotta drive and pick your spots well.

In Canada it is much worse as only Montreal, Vancouver, Toronto is big cities. Great towns in Victoria, Halifax, and Quebec City (throw Sherbrooke and Kingston in there) but the rest of Canada is suburban trash.

Humans just live better in places where it's constructed to live by a horse. Compact, walkable, with good scale and scope to be around activities and close to things. This provides an atmosphere where humans can be in around social interactions and produce a more safe atmosphere.

American has some nice suburbs, but the nicest suburbs are just B-level versions of the European towns which are the superior form of urban human living. The urban townhome provides lots of space and you are close by via foot or train to the busy city centre where all the hustle is. Your town/'Hood has shops, bars, cafes, and cute girls all around running errands and socialising. It becomes easy to run into familiar faces and also find women to chat up as you go about you day.

There is a sweet spot for a number of people per hectare or the density of how people are clustered together. You don't have to have Manhattan. How buildings are put together and aligned matters much more than tall skyscrapers.

An example is that Toronto has more density than Budapest.

But...

Budapest looks like this in much of the city, with few to zero skyscrapers:



While Toronto, downtown is impressive:


but much of the city looks like this:


Or like this:


Tall buildings or a better quality of town all around? It is all about balance. Budapest is less dense than Toronto but has a much more vibrant urban lifestyle with easy top walk places and people all around. Toronto has the big buildings but unless you live downtown or in a nice neighbourhood you will live in dumpy sprawl with bad logistics.

Glad to see my top 3 cities to move to (Chicago, Killadelphia, and NYC) on here. Pretty shocked to see those last 3 but I have heard Savannah and Charleston are really nice.

Moving from SF to Phoenix, I can really say that I hate sprawl. It is indeed so lifeless and phony, and a piss poor excuse of a "city."

I love urban sprawl. Look at these beautiful pictures:



You have lots of lanes, but not that many cars. People can move.



It is so easy to get from one place to another. I could get to anywhere in the area code from my apartment within a half hour.



Lots of roads give lots of options. If there is a wreck on one road, other roads can take over the traffic. People can get where they need to go. It's easy.

I love cars. I love roads. I love streets. I love moving. I love going places. I love going 70 through downtown. Life is great when you have urban sprawl.

Quote: (04-21-2017 01:38 AM)puckerman Wrote:  

I love urban sprawl. Look at these beautiful pictures:



You have lots of lanes, but not that many cars. People can move.



It is so easy to get from one place to another. I could get to anywhere in the area code from my apartment within a half hour.



Lots of roads give lots of options. If there is a wreck on one road, other roads can take over the traffic. People can get where they need to go. It's easy.

I love cars. I love roads. I love streets. I love moving. I love going places. I love going 70 through downtown. Life is great when you have urban sprawl.

That first pic is gorgeous, bro.

I've seriously got to move to a city by 2019. Like no joke. A real city with a downtown, dense urban center, walkability, and public transportation.

Looks like Chicago and Philadelphia are the only affordable options. NY being an option but pricey. Boston also could be an option but is full of white liberal feminists and SJWs from what I understand.

Hate urban sprawl and suburbs and really don't understand the people who like em. Especially for game and a player lifestyle.

Quote: (01-03-2017 12:53 AM)puckerman Wrote:  

Quote: (01-02-2017 03:21 PM)Orion Wrote:  

Quote: (01-02-2017 12:59 AM)puckerman Wrote:  

I love urban sprawl. It just works.

It doesn't. What you call "works" is a frog about to get cooked that's still in warm water. American urban planners also agree that American urban policy is a complete failure. The only advocates of American model are not urban planners at all, but economists.

You are hoping for this. And what are your sources for these claims? What is the "American model"?

Quote: (01-02-2017 03:21 PM)Orion Wrote:  

The highways, and the way they are builtin USA are a huge problem. They ruin environment, knock down property prices wherever they go, promote car ownership and usage instead on relying on greener alternatives, public transport and walking, they expand cities making them essentially without any content apart from shopping malls and parking lots.

Like a lot of people, I had my car before I moved to the big city. And you must hate small towns and people who live in the country. They have more cars than people in the city.

The only time I walked to my job was when I lived in a small town. It was the only time my workplace and home were close enough.

Cities expand because people move there. Do you want something like the Kowloon Walled City in Hong Kong? It should be the car-hater's dream. It was about 30,000 people squeezed into an area the size of a few football fields:

Quote:Quote:

Yes, using a car.

Cars are great. I love having one. I will always have one.

What exactly do car haters want? I have often said there should be a separate country for car haters. They prove me correct time and time again.

Most European cities have similar densities, of the order to 30,000 people/km2, and they are very livable. Hong Kong has higher densities in its urban core though.

Quote: (07-10-2017 02:41 PM)911 Wrote:  

Most European cities have similar densities, of the order to 30,000 people/km2, and they are very livable. Hong Kong has higher densities in its urban core though.

I have to disagree with you here. The population density of European cities is not that high.
See for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Eu...on_density and https://thegeographist.wordpress.com/201...d-kingdom/

Of course, many cities have neighbourhoods with very high population densities. However, in my experience, neighbourhoods with a density over 15000 people/km2 are unliveable: postmodernist concrete jungles with a lack of daylight, open spaces, green and an excess of gimmegrants, dirt and criminality.

Quote: (07-11-2017 11:54 AM)PhDre Wrote:  

postmodernist concrete jungles with a lack of daylight, open spaces, green and an excess of gimmegrants, dirt and criminality.

I would spell it gimmigrants or gimmiegrants. I really like that word.

Urban sprawl is great for everyone. If we could just get more grid streets, everything would be even better. Things might be spread out, but I can still move around when I need to.

Screw "walkable" cities.

Nothing is worse than being forced to live in a compact city. You get the privilege of going out to bars filled with cunty women to drink over priced sugar bombs, eat at disgusting over priced restaurants, sit on poorly cleaned buses/subways, pay obscene amounts of money for sub 500 sq ft housing (which you'll never be able to own outright), and having to listen to annoying neighbors up, down, left, and right making noise at all hours of the day.

But don't let this get in the way of the off chance you might get laid, because pussy > quality of life, family building, and making a lasting legacy.