[Centurion]

I've always been anti-sprawl. Auckland is very sprawly and the public transport is(as Trump would say) a disaster. You virtually need a car to do anything here. The road planning is a disaster- you have traffic jams from the northern and western parts commuting to the centre every workday. It's a nightmare to get from one place to another. I'm not sure it's worse than American suburbs(some American areas are significantly worse, with hour long commutes) but it's definitely worse than many European cities and even other cities in New Zealand.

PUA/Gamewise sprawl is a disaster. Roosh even advised never to live in the suburbs, and standard game advice is to have logistics on lock- that is, live in the city centre. You walk more, and you get to do everything you want without a car.

That being said, I was on facebook and saw an Alex Jones article about a car-free condo in Austin. I thought it was pretty cool, but it seemed to be "advancing Agenda 21". http://www.infowars.com/agenda-21-develo...in-austin/ I was thinking maybe there might be a reason why the elites want to take away our cars and live densely. I've also got to admit that maybe in the 50's and 60's people built sprawly areas for a reason, which I don't fully understand.

I do believe having a really dense city and being car-free is superior though. I'm calling for a total and complete shutdown of people evangelizing about sprawl OR density, until our countries' representatives can figure out what is going on.

Thoughts?

[fortysix]

Living in a sprawl is miserable when all you are sorounded by is concrete, single story mcmansions, and walmarts and targets that take up 10 blocks - this is sole sucking and depressing. I think it can be different if you have a big piece of land and there is a big city just down the hill.

[General Stalin]

I think it has a lot to do with your personal preferences, priorities, and general lifestyle.

If you love the "big city life" and/or heavily pursue pickup, nightlife, etc. Then living in a densely populated urban center is ideal. Grocery shopping, work, entertainment, and most everything else is close by and you get the "freedom" of not having a car.

On the other side, some people (myself included) like having space. Like having a yard and privacy. Their idea of a good day/night/weekend is camping, mountain climbing, driving somewhere scenic, etc. Living in a city with no car you literally can't actually leave the city unless you pay for travel, a rental car, or rely on someone else to kart you somewhere.

I like visiting the city, but can't say I like living in it - at least not longterm. I like having wheels at my disposal. Gives me a lot of freedom and independence. I also like not living in a filing cabinet and having to share walls with other people who I have be mindful of, and conversely have to deal with if they are noisy/inconsiderate.

I would never live in the sticks or the middle of the country, but suburban areas are more my preference.

[Centurion]

I think my ideal is very mixed.

I do like pickup, and I'd enjoy nightlife more if I was in the city. I like walking to work, shop, socialise and everything else. I like the freedom of not having a car.

But I also would like those things- camping, mountain climbing, doing things in nature. I like having privacy in a way- I'd rather not live on the upper floors of an apartment, wouldn't want to be close to a cell tower when sleeping, or be disturbed by other people's noise. At the same time, I do like having moderately loud(TV level loud) music- though I don't want other people's music to be anywhere close to nightclub level loud.

I wouldn't actually mind living out in the country as much, as long as I didn't have to drive for long distances, and if I already had friends and girls to bang without having to go to the city/suburbs.

Currently I live in the kind of suburb which I find very far from the city but Americans/other Aucklanders seem to think is quite close- 8km away.

[Durango]

In America I prefer the suburbs as they have been developed recently to make things simple if you have a car. Entertainment and nightlife is more difficult, but even living in an American city things are still complicated and not very people friendly in terms of lifestyle. With the exception of New York (and arguments for a few others), all American cities essentially require a car for the current standard of living.

European cities are thousands of years old, and were built to house and take care of large populations without cars. Therefore everything is superior there logistically, and you do not need a car to have all of the staples and a social life. In Europe, would much prefer to live in the city, and in America I prefer the suburbs, while being at a maximum 20 minutes from downtown.

I'd imagine Australian cities are more similar to ones in America logistically than Europe due to a lot of development since cars were invented.

[aeroektar]

Dense city with good public transportation, which is a small list in North America: New York, Boston, Chicago, Montreal, SF, and a few others. I currently live in the downtown area of a dense second tier city in the North East with bus service only and its pretty much no better then living in the suburbs, I rely on a car. Yeah I can walk to bars and stuff but it cant compete with a big city with lots to do and a solid metro system to get around. I prefer trains over everything, and if I cant ride trains I'll buy a car.

[911]

Ideally, I like urban places that offer a bit of unexpected intimacy, like a duplex with a nice terrasse or a small backyard where you can kick back and fire up the 'cue.

(04-15-2016 04:44 PM)Centurion Wrote:  

I've always been anti-sprawl. Auckland is very sprawly and the public transport is(as Trump would say) a disaster. You virtually need a car to do anything here. The road planning is a disaster- you have traffic jams from the northern and western parts commuting to the centre every workday. It's a nightmare to get from one place to another. I'm not sure it's worse than American suburbs(some American areas are significantly worse, with hour long commutes) but it's definitely worse than many European cities and even other cities in New Zealand.

PUA/Gamewise sprawl is a disaster. Roosh even advised never to live in the suburbs, and standard game advice is to have logistics on lock- that is, live in the city centre. You walk more, and you get to do everything you want without a car.

That being said, I was on facebook and saw an Alex Jones article about a car-free condo in Austin. I thought it was pretty cool, but it seemed to be "advancing Agenda 21". http://www.infowars.com/agenda-21-develo...in-austin/ I was thinking maybe there might be a reason why the elites want to take away our cars and live densely. I've also got to admit that maybe in the 50's and 60's people built sprawly areas for a reason, which I don't fully understand.

I do believe having a really dense city and being car-free is superior though. I'm calling for a total and complete shutdown of people evangelizing about sprawl OR density, until our countries' representatives can figure out what is going on.

Thoughts?

Actually, it's the other way around. The oil industry (Rockefellers), the auto industry and local real estate interests conspired to tear off light rail public transit in cities across America in order to pave the way to car ownership and urban sprawl. This is a well-documented post-war social phenomenon.

The elites actually don't like denser housing structures as they create greater social interaction and tighter urban communities. 'Burbs on the other hand tend to be more alienating, though Manhattan-like densities have their alienating side too but that's an extreme in terms of urban density that you don't find elsewhere in N. America.

[CodyB]

Somewhere in between is nice.

Sydney, for example, 5km outside of the CBD there are free-standing homes. 5 years ago you could buy these houses for under $1 million, though that has changed recently.

It's nice having access to a public transport line in the city and having a freeway out of it.

[RIslander]

Salt Lake City is good example of a city that is both. It has a centralized downtown area with good public transit, where one could be car free. There is ample transit to Park City and skiing and outdoor recreation areas. It's one of my favorite cities in the US.

Minneapolis is also good. Highly centralized downtown area with good public transit. There are lakes, hiking areas, and cross country skiing paths on transit lines. There's also a massive urban sprawl. Any legit nature requires a car though.

Most European cities allow to be car free and still have access to nature. This is one of the very few areas I'm a socialist: I'll pay tax dollars to improve public transport and lower traffic. Ideally I could get anywhere by either transit or a personal vehicle.

[Matt Warner]

I think a big issue with Auckland and Sydney is the massive population growth (because of immigration) especially in say the last 20 years, and the physical constraints (harbour / sea and hills / national parks.
Currently our pollies refuse to acknowledge what huge immigration is doing to the major cities. Basically Auckland in New Zealand and Sydney / Melbourne (and Brisbane to a lesser extent) in Australia get to absorb the massive population growth. Despite new roads it just keeps getting worse. The population is just growing too fast.

Apart from NYC I've only been to a few second tier cities in the USA. They have sprawl and traffic but nothing like Auckland / Sydney. I was blown away by how much space they have. I reckon with a bit of planning traveling around these places would be fine. So a bit of sprawl seems ok there to me.

So I say either can be ok if planned. Within a few K of Sydney CBD you can get by without a car no drama. The inner suburbs served by train have pretty good nightlife eating out options as well. The city itself is pretty good always plenty happening.
Auckland has no train lines I could see, and I just couldn't believe how bad the traffic was when there a couple of months ago. In the last say 5 years it is massively worse, as bad as or worse than Sydney. Sprawl is a disaster there.

[Centurion]

@911 It's interesting. Yeah, my preference for a denser city is even more solidified now.

@Matt Interesting to hear that Sydney/Auckland is worse than the US. You always hear about how bad the US is with sprawl/suburbs/commutes. Although I've heard it's not uncommon for Americans to commute over an hour one way to work, and also that traffic is ridiculous in LA.

@Miscellaneous other comments: I do think I'd eventually move to Europe or something in the future. Likely EE to escape the degeneracy and avoid the migrants.

[911]

(04-16-2016 01:01 AM)Centurion Wrote:  

@911 It's interesting. Yeah, my preference for a denser city is even more solidified now.

@Matt Interesting to hear that Sydney/Auckland is worse than the US. You always hear about how bad the US is with sprawl/suburbs/commutes. Although I've heard it's not uncommon for Americans to commute over an hour one way to work, and also that traffic is ridiculous in LA.

@Miscellaneous other comments: I do think I'd eventually move to Europe or something in the future. Likely EE to escape the degeneracy and avoid the migrants.

Hopefully Centurion by the time you move there, Soros and co will not have finished the job... I'm kind of pessimistic about this though I haven't been there recently.

[DonovanVC]

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.

[Orion]

Hate urban sprawl, hate large suburbs. i don't mind houses as long as they are part of a compact, spontaneously formed neighborhood full with overgrown trees and curvy streets. I absolutely hate recently developed prefabricated chessboard suburbs.

That being said i also hate large cities.

My ideal place is a small town that has quick access to nature and main highways, positioned in some kind of feature-full environment, like hills, streams, rivers, forests. Good economy, and people who are not too conservative, shy or depressive.

[thoughtgypsy]

I love certain things about each place. In the cities, I like the walkability to everything necessary (grocery store, medical clinics, electronics stores) and proximity to things to do. In the country I like the privacy, sights, and peace. In the suburbs I like everything in between.

What's of more interest to me is the massively over-inflated cost of housing. I did some research on the subject a couple years back, and it's possible to build yourself a relatively comfortable off the grid house for a few thousand dollars. The problem is, it'd be a major pain in the ass to make it legal, if that were even possible. A lot of localities have certain laws and regulations in order to keep the minimum property value of the neighborhood elevated, and municipalities are in on the game to keep property tax receipts up.

I think it would be cool if most guys could own their own house before they hit their mid 20s, and could put the rest of their savings into whatever investments they wanted.

[Max Henrich]

Your typical suburbian sprawl is bad, so are McMansions, but simply building denser is no perfect solution either. If anything, big housing projects done badly (think Banlieues in Paris) are even worse than Suburbia done badly.

[chicane]

Wow, no JAFA or YAFA comments yet?

[Hell_Is_Like_Newark]

I grew up the suburbs.
I lived a good part of my teens in the country.
I have spent my 20s through my mid 40s in a dense urban area.

I prefer the dense urban life. The advantages:

I have good public transportation. When gas hit $4+ per gallon, it had almost no effect on me. When I am not working from home, I have a 40 minute commute. 12 minutes on the subway and the rest walking. Just about everything I need is within walking distance or a short drive away. My car (which is paid off) is almost 8 years old and I have less than 50k miles on it. I spend very little time and $$ on commuting costs.

Staples like food is actually cheaper and you have far more choices. It is just economy of scale. When I visit my parents in Vermont, it is sometimes shocking how much more expensive, lower quality, and fewer choices some things are (i.e. seafood).

More access to technology. I have fiber running into my home with 50 / 50 mps service. It is so reliable, it stayed up after superstorm Sandy blew through the area (cell phone service and power was down). That broadband service allows me to work from home most of the week. I finish up at 5:00 PM and instead of citing in a hellish commute to the burbs, I am working out, making dinner, or running an errand.

Being a young guy in his late 20s, being able to buy a 2 family home gave a great boost to financial independence. My principal and interest payment was $801 a month. But I collects $825 in rent. If you are young and have modest income, buying a multi-unit property gives you a place to live with added financial security. A single family home in the burbs is always a drain on your finances.

There is more to do. One thing I hated about the burbs when I was young is that nothing was close. It got boring at times, especially when I didn't have a car. As for the country.. just getting to the supermarket was a 45 minute drive and the whole state I think was in bed by 8:00 PM. Here, my wife and I on a lark can just head out the door and find many things to do. The things to do also includes a lot of activities for kids (largely due to gentrification).

What gave cities a bad rep was the social disintegration and white flight that went into full force in the 1960s. Now the opposite is happening. I am seeing more and more gentrification (which is another reason I bought here 20 years ago). The gentrification has brought many positive changes to the area. We had a 'captains meeting' a few months ago (this is where the police chief comes in for a meeting with the locals). The biggest complaint in the last meeting was illegal parking and some jerk stealing Amazon deliveries. Ten years ago it was people being mugged, violent drug dealers taking over corners, and home invasions. The scum is being forced out as people with jobs and souls move in.

[The Wire]

(04-15-2016 04:44 PM)Centurion Wrote:  

I've also got to admit that maybe in the 50's and 60's people built sprawly areas for a reason, which I don't fully understand.

Think about what a shit hole it was to live in a city many times prior to the 50's. I think it was only natural for people to want to get out of that mess. Cars started becoming actually drivable and fast in the 50s and there wasn't a lot of traffic. I think the suburban sprawl transition made sense at the time. The problem is it never lasted, everyone has a car, traffic is a nightmare, if you have a few drinks you can get in major trouble with drunk driving and people started to become bored with the suburban sprawl since cities are much more livable now.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c...u_edit.jpg

[The Wire]

Let me just add cities like NYC are cool and probably the best spots to get laid in the world but NYC is the last place on earth you want to be if shit hits the fan. The entire infrastructure can fall hard if something goes wrong. A power outage hits the city its an issue. Theres a reason why multiple disaster movies use NYC as a setting.

[Laner]

I grew up rural, and now live in a dense urban environment. I could never imagine living in the suburbs. I go through them, I visit friends sometimes, but the thought has never occurred to me to actually buy in them.

What is most likely to happen will be that I one day just leave the city and move the family back out to the Rockies. Small, rural towns.

To me a city is meant to be a city; All the noise, pollution, crime but at the same time all the humanity, community and startling moments of beauty. People are amazing, and its in a city, living on top of each other, that I have moments of love for my fellow humans.

When I am back on the ranch, its not about people as much anymore. If I was to go back to this, I would have to be damned sure I could handle the loneliness.

Also, when I think of North America, I think of sprawl. Outside of Europe and Asia, most cities are sprawl. It was easier putting the burden of mobility on the people instead of infrastructure, and the taxes paid by the same people that owned cars also put money into the basics of public transportation.

Even my city, which is remarkable in that it has single family homes literally 3 min from the CBD of the city. I have never seen this anywhere else in the world. And yet people are having a fit because those homes cost at least $2mil. To be able to live 3min from the dense urban part of the city, yet have huge trees and a back yard and all just a quick stroll to the beach is the dream. But single family homes for all means a city designed like Calgary or Dallas which is my idea of hell.

[Orion]

(08-30-2016 11:20 PM)Laner Wrote:  

Even my city, which is remarkable in that it has single family homes literally 3 min from the CBD of the city. I have never seen this anywhere else in the world. And yet people are having a fit because those homes cost at least $2mil. To be able to live 3min from the dense urban part of the city, yet have huge trees and a back yard and all just a quick stroll to the beach is the dream. But single family homes for all means a city designed like Calgary or Dallas which is my idea of hell.

This is becoming a rarity. Even in the most old-fashioned cities of Old Europe, real estate boom created many commie like neighborhoods, far away from anything interesting, purely for shot-term profiting on real estate price turbulence. No planning, no vision.

Trend is, growing cities are growing only in one direction, without exception - more expensive life, more time needed to commute, less fun for your bucks. Everybody's goal is to move from their sleeping cells to the center of the City, instead of every corner of the city having it's own center, it's own hotspot of interesting things.

The reason i move to seaside towns during summers, whose overall structure i dislike very much, is just for the sake of experiencing that feeling of a small place having tons of fun everywhere you move, without complicated commuting. I can walk in my slippers from a bar on the beach, to a restaurant, boardwalk, yacht club, back to my place, and in the evening just change outfit, and once i step my foot out I'm already where I'm supposed to be, no logistic necessary.

[Laner]

The downside of mass urbanization.

The next decades there will be even more pressure on the civility of western cities as things like sprawl, crime and access to jobs/infrastructure/schools become more competitive.

Already cities in Canada, which are among the most consistently highly ranked, are starting to see pockets of ghettofication. Those who have the means are living in areas that can access the best of what a city has to offer. In times past, this often meant suburbs. But now, due to insane amounts of cars on the road, many people of means would rather live with a car as a luxury rather than a necessity.

The stress and anxiety of daily driving cannot be downplayed. It will wreak havoc on a mans soul as he grinds away the hours on a hot, gridlocked roadway.

Thoughts on this?
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archiv...ty/492599/

Millennials are choosing to live in dorm like spaces.

I think it will be a growing trend. Why not? Many of this generation do in fact live in a state of arrested development.

[Hell_Is_Like_Newark]

(09-01-2016 04:25 PM)Laner Wrote:  

Thoughts on this?
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archiv...ty/492599/

Millennials are choosing to live in dorm like spaces.

I think it will be a growing trend. Why not? Many of this generation do in fact live in a state of arrested development.

Yikes! I lived with a bunch of other people in a cramped, crappy, and badly insulated apartment in Hoboken for quite a while. I did it because it was what I could afford at the time. I didn't upgrade when I made more money because I was stashing away cash to buy my own place (real estate was dirt cheap back then).

The day I moved out of that apartment and had my own (albeit small) place was one of the most gratifying days in my life.

[Orion]

(09-01-2016 04:25 PM)Laner Wrote:  

The downside of mass urbanization.

The next decades there will be even more pressure on the civility of western cities as things like sprawl, crime and access to jobs/infrastructure/schools become more competitive.

Already cities in Canada, which are among the most consistently highly ranked, are starting to see pockets of ghettofication. Those who have the means are living in areas that can access the best of what a city has to offer. In times past, this often meant suburbs. But now, due to insane amounts of cars on the road, many people of means would rather live with a car as a luxury rather than a necessity.

The stress and anxiety of daily driving cannot be downplayed. It will wreak havoc on a mans soul as he grinds away the hours on a hot, gridlocked roadway.

Thoughts on this?
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archiv...ty/492599/

Millennials are choosing to live in dorm like spaces.

I think it will be a growing trend. Why not? Many of this generation do in fact live in a state of arrested development.

Canadian cities are so nightmarish in many ways. They are at once highly developed and neat, yet represent the worst aspects of post-industrial city concept. Expensive property, poor content distribution based on property boom based on fake service economy and marketing products that suck people to soulless cities to look for "opportunities" (to indulge into pleasures and spend money) all of this based on crappy economic growth plans that rely on the most deviant calculative ways of getting those numbers to rise.

Look cities are unavoidable. That's one question. Completely another question is the persistent never ending glorification of "cityness" as the only relevant lifestyle, the only real life choice, the idiotic cheerfulness over growth of cities, and constant optimism when some dumb traffic problem gets solved in an ingenious way. Yet all I'm seeing is a growing army of people whose only property consists of their personal items and a suitcase, and their minds are increasingly obsessed over the most trivial life goals such as acquiring this or that.