Reminds me of an excerpt from Thomas Merton's Raids On The Unspeakable: "I am alien to the noises of cities, of people, to the greed of machinery that does not sleep, the hum of power that eats up the night. Where rain, sunlight and darkness are contemned, I cannot sleep. I do not trust anything that has been fabricated to replace the climate of woods or prairies. I can have no confidence in places where the air is first fouled and then cleansed, where the water is first made deadly and then made safe with other poisons. There is nothing in the world of buildings that is not fabricated, and if a tree gets in among the apartment houses by mistake it is taught to grow chemically. It is given a precise reason for existing. They put a sign on it saying it is for health, beauty, perspective; that it is for peace, for prosperity; that it was planted by the mayor’s daughter. All of this is mystification. The city itself lives on its own myth. Instead of waking up and silently existing, the city people prefer a stubborn and fabricated dream; they do not care to be a part of the night, or to be merely of the world. They have constructed a world outside the world, against the world, a world of mechanical fictions which contemn nature and seek only to use it up, thus preventing it from renewing itself and man."

Beautiful quote. Thank you for sharing it with us.

I would love to see a new era of affordable mid sized cities with quality public transportation.

Chicago might just be my favorite city, it was so cheap compared to LA , the people ( including my first real girlfriend!) are nicer, and the public transportation is top notch.

I really really hate driving. Many cities are the worst of both worlds,congested, mean places, where you need to own a car.

I imagine a perfect suburb, small enough to be serviced by a few light rail trains， where you can have a big house without a car. Maybe this already exists, but somewhere in Europe

> I imagine a perfect suburb, small enough to be serviced by a few light rail trains， where you can have a big house without a car. Maybe this already exists, but somewhere in Europe

All but the last requirement (big house without a car). You can live in a nice place like Lausanne with a nice metro in a 2 bedroom flat that you might be able to afford on a standard swiss salary, but the big houses are still reserved fro million and billionaires.

Big houses for the everyperson are more of a Canadian/Australian/American thing.

You're very unlikely to own a flat in Lausanne, given that over 90% of the people living in Lausanne rent. But given the price-to-rent ratio is close to 40, renting is not a bad deal.

I feel like you're definition of midsized city might be different from mine. Chicago is a major/ large city in my view. Even most large cities have limited rail options, especially in suburbs. Maybe Europe would be more likely to have that.

There's also the option of starting or revitalizing one. There are enough people bringing this sort of thing up on here. If you get someone with a ton of name recognition and financial support (eg Musk), you could make it happen. It would likely require large land purchase in a rural area. Or, it would be great to revitalize a dying Appalachian city if the residents would be amenable to it.

I didn't mean Chicago was a midsize city. Although honestly each neighborhood feels so different. Lakeview feels like a different city compared to Wicker Park

It's probably the only affordable city in America with real public transit.

I can imagine a billionaire techie creating a planned city with public transit, but it doesn't sound like a good place to live. It would be super expensive, and miss the character that real cities have

Pretty much every large city is expensive, unless in a bad neighborhood. I would think that there would be plenty of tax money to fund it based on the type of people to go there, and the fact that land would be cheap in the beginning would make it attractive to build and hopefully attract somewhat offset the construction cost (vs pricing in existing large cities).

" but it doesn't sound like a good place to live."

I don't mean they would be some ultimate ruler. You would need others to go too. But you need someone with a big name for people to believe in it. That said, I don't think current cities are good places to live, but that's just me. I would imagine a new city would be able to beat the metrics that many are measured by (affordability, crime, schools, etc).

Chicago manages to have the worst weather of any city on earth (hyperbole, kind of). In the summer it hits triple digits with humidity, and in the winter it's in the negatives with icy wind storms.

There is maybe one thing I haven't seen people mention, and that is, at least in the U.S., the cultural homogeneity of a rural city just doesn't cut it. Many cities attract a large variety of ethnicities, nationalities, and cultures.

Furthermore, because we are uncomfortable paying more than $8-10 for a good burger, the best chefs reside in cities where the population can sustain their business. The primary reason I don't leave my city is the access to some of the best food in the country. That's kind of it. Everyone has their ethics and codes and vices, but I'm not giving up ramen or Peruvian chicken anytime soon.

Hah I love this. Yes cities are still the only place you can really experience the full breadth of culture. Art museums, concert halls, shopping, worship places, and great food selection keep me in the city.

Hm. I go to the city for art museums and concert halls. Worship places are everywhere. Food selections again, I can find in a nearby city occasionally.

So living outside a city has few downsides, and many upsides it seems. As I tell anybody that will listen, "Life at home, visit the circus"

Commuting into the city to do those things is just not the same to me. I used to do it, but I'm now much happier living within my city.

COmmuting? It takes me less time to drive into the city, than it takes a resident to cross town.

I've found cities fascinating all my life - and I've also found them incredibly stressful to spend a long amount of time in. I've also never lived in one fulltime, which may be a factor, and I grew up in a rural, economically depressed corner of England, so...that too.

But the "putting down roots" thing. When the pandemic hit I was renting a cabin in a corner of Scotland after selling my family home, prior to a few years of nomadism in Europe. And I realised I had so many roots online - meaningful ones, some with friends I've probably spent hundreds of hours talking to, but rarely get to meet in person. And maybe that's a new version of "putting down roots" that has never been easier? So maybe there's a traditional prejudice with that term, one that doesn't fit the newer, more fluid reality for so many folk. (Not just younger generations, either! I was 50 last year.)

All this reminds me a bit of Venkat Rao talking about permanent nomads, and how their constant movement is how they feel stable and rested: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2011/07/31/on-being-an-illegible-... Maybe many folk look "unrooted" but they're actually rooted in ways many people just can't get their heads around properly? Maybe (maybe) it's sometimes not about the place at all?

Most of my friendships are long distance nowadays, or over the internet, so I tend to know people for like half of my life and meet them once a year if it all. That's all good, but sometimes I just think why not actually organize and do something? Everyone is struggling with their own things and we talk about it often, but it'd be great to actually contribute and help each other out.

It feels like everyone is always in their own world. It's not a very productive way to live.

And yeah, I can respect a real nomad; but at least create some bases!

Agreed - but I think some of that is just people being people. I know very settled & traditionally rooted folk who have absolutely retreated from the world. I don't think being in one place automatically makes you more sociable and communally minded. (Also, the longer you're somewhere, the more you tune stuff out & stop seeing what's really going on around you...)

So yep, totally agree that a siloed existence is a miserable one - and unhealthy too. I just think it can happen everywhere, including in small communities. It sounds super-trite, but there's nothing that kicks me out of a self-absorbed funk more than genuinely helping a friend with something and feeling like I did a good thing. That's not really a location phenomenon, that's more an attitude-based one? And it's infectious too. We're all herd animals really...

There are parts of the city that are just really nasty. People are murderously aggressive on the roads. They never smile anywhere, never have time for anyone, including their closest family members. They seek entertainment as an escape, then get into addictions.

I think that affects the mental state of those who are just immersed in those environments. When literally everyone you meet is an asshole, you end up thinking that way of the world, and in many people, they become part of the problem as well.

It's not limited to cities or urban density. I think it's self-selective. I noticed the attitude is worst in financial districts or hardcore poor areas. I would bet certain high paying tech districts might be similar too.

Outside of a certain city core, you do have exponentially more places to pick where to live. So the self-selection effect might also fall differently. Someone who chooses to live in an area with nice gardens might have a different personality to someone who chooses an expensive condominium.

Definitely seen murderous driving in the sticks as well, it’s just usually oversized trucks instead of taxis and crossovers.

No, it’s you! You’re an introvert - I’m same way! Moved to small town “temporarily” 15+ years ago! I don’t see myself ever living in a big city - visits can be fun tho!

you just don't want more people around ;-)

In my opinion, there’s one ethical way to live for those with the privilege to make the choice. It’s small, dense, multi-family housing in an urban area with minimal automobile reliance.

Climate change is very real and contributing to sprawl and car culture is an extremely selfish decision.

I understand many people want to live in houses with yards, but think about the world 250 years from now. People are going to have a lot fewer choices about how they live and it’s due in part to the decisions we make today.

And I understand this is a radical view and I’m not going to change anyone’s mind, but it’s the way I choose to live.

I don’t find issues with your views but I think it’s completely untenable to make this happen politically and will either result in global war or the collapse of our civilization. Kind of saying the same thing twice I suppose.

If the people that say they support sustainable living actually understood what is meant by that phrase almost none of them would support it. It’s not just billionaires giving up their jets as is the popular notion, but as you point out, basically giving up everything Americans consider staples of middle class life.

I think we’ve got a better chance inventing a giant machine that removes greenhouse gases from the atmosphere than we do of convincing people to follow your way of life. And climate change is just the tip of the ice berg.

I was trying to decide which part of your comment to quote so I could agree with it, but I agree with the whole thing. Perhaps it is a nihilistic view, but I do think society’s options are giant magic machine or global war/collapse of civilization as we know it.

I even go a bit further than what I talked about. I don’t eat meat, have never driven a car (fortunately healthy enough to bicycle/walk everywhere), and don’t fly in airplanes. It’s funny when I talk about how I live and people say, “Wow how do you do it?I just have to _________.” I don’t have the heart to tell them that their great great grandchildren may not have that choice.

In that sense, I do feel like it doesn’t matter what we do today. The cards have been shuffled, dealt, and the hand has been played. All that’s left is to turn them face up.

but do you grow your own food or do you buy food that is trucked in and industrially produced?

Buying food from farms that get economies of scale would probably be less carbon intensive per unit than individuals tending their own plots. Those farms could also ensure they minimize/offset their own carbon footprints.

is the manual labor of tending a garden a high carbon intensity activity?

I don’t know tbh, but I think having lots of small individual plots you probably lose economies of scale. Especially if you’re growing in dense urban areas there’s probably more efficient use for the land. Although vertical farming could maybe offset this.

Mostly talking out of my ass. I’m sure there’s someone on here with the answers you seek.

Probably not, but spacing out housing enough so that every housing unit has land for its own garden to tend probably adds a lot of high carbon intensity transportation.

> but I think it’s completely untenable to make this happen politically and will either result in global war or the collapse of our civilization

:eyeroll:

Yeah, no need to explain the details of how encouraging people to live in cities would result in global war.

There's a difference between saying hey, it'd be cool if you move to cities and intentionally increasing the prices of raw materials people use (like gas prices in california) and preventing the development of projects which make those things cheaper. Implementing policies that say hey fuck you and the way that you're living and pretending its the only way forward generally doesn't win people over.

When the prices of basic necessities increase people affected by the price increases don't usually think to themselves, well gee! I'll just move to those wonderful cities I've heard so much about full of those people who I have nothing in common with culturally. It's not like there's mutual distrust and is totally gonna be such a great time!

It is not a radical view and I heard it more than once from different perspectives. Anything else but cities is not sustainable, scalable or maintainable for the long run.

It's not just cars, think of infrastructure like water, electricity or roads. Think about supplying to those people in remote shops or thinks about the land they use and climate change they produce locally and globally just by that

What most people need is a few close, intimate friends (say, 5 to 10), a larger group of semi-close friends (say, 30), and a still larger group of friendly acquaintances (say, maybe 100). If most people have that, they feel "connected" and "community".

So I wonder:

1. Do you need something different, or do you need that and don't have it?

2. If you don't have that, is it because the city is making it hard to form friendships (especially intimate ones)? Are people too busy to really connect with you? Are you too busy to really connect with people?

3. If you do have that, is the problem that you can't see that you have it because of the 10 million random strangers around you? Or that you don't have it often enough, because with everything going on in the city you don't get together with the people you know often enough?

4. Or is the problem on a completely different level? Is the problem the city itself, rather than connecting with people?

No way! Cities afford far more tangible and intangible benefits than rural or even suburban areas. And you're much more likely to find communities around your particular interests or persuasions than in a backwater. There's a reason why cities developed the world-changing communities they have, whether that's tech, film, music, finance, or whatever.

> I'm wary of moving to a rural area, because I can't really see anything going on there either. Won't most people just become more isolated than they feel in the city?

only if you stay in your house all day. i meet people, i work with people. you get to know someone quick if you work with them doing physical things.

its a totally different lifestyle form city dwelling. you spend a lot of time outdoors. working with people. its far from the same isolation as a city. i am a former city dweller. and changed my entire life and career, when covid hit. now i own a business framing houses and a nascent farm. i work out doors, and i meet lots of people. i have come to believe too much comfort and luxury is bad for mental, physical, and emotional health; for me at least.

I’m currently living in the suburb of a mid-sized US city. Planning on moving to a mega-metropolis.

I really miss the character and people of big cities. I missing the public transit. I miss being able to walk for hours and just look at the cool stuff around me.

I sure hope not. There's so little space left that hasn't already been destroyed for human use; we need humans to cluster up as efficiently as possible so we can preserve what is still intact.

Who is Eric Weinstein and what is the quote from?

Most people here are 1-2% ers so they need to live in cities to find enough other folks at their same intelligence education and economic level. In a city of 10k you aren’t going to find a lot of like minded folks to play D&D with or whatever your niche hobby is.

Another question may be, why aren't US building more Small / Mid Size, highly organised and designed Cities?

Lack of demand. People tend to want to be where people are already at.

Even if they are cheap ( relatively speaking )? I read housing price in US is skyrocketing in every state ( or at least the media posed it as such )

Skyrocketing where people want to live. It is really hard to transfer demand from Hugh demand areas to low demand areas. It’s not like Toledo Ohio is going to be a hot market again anytime soon, but there is interest in butte Montana (and also a lack of housing).

Guess if friends and people I care for would leave as well. Then it is a no brainer. But having some roots makes things more difficult. As a Software Dev you actually can really work now days from anywhere with the right experience.

"Won't most people just become more isolated than they feel in the city?"

It's possible they'll realize that most of their stress and problems are caused by other people.

Some people even enjoy relative isolation - One Man's Wilderness, Into The Wild, etc are some accounts.

[qualifier: a parent grew up rural, strived for it while mid-life and retired rural + 8 years living in Alaska living both in Anchorage and Kenai.]

I've lived in Seattle for over 20 years now. I left Alaska because there was no tech scene and other personal pursuits weren't ending in anything with a future at the time. I managed to catch this city right as it was getting it's first dose of gentrification blotting out all those references that inspired and sustained the "grunge" scene as it had already died, was creamated by the record label and became "Alt-Rock" as told by the local radio station reference KNDD. This past year, my partner passed away and while I already had this fuzzy/warm idea of relocating out of town. So looking at the geopolitics, recent personal events and my home value that has literally exploded over the past 10+ years, I present my opinion with these optics and pragmatism.

It honestly boils down to your own goals and where you think opportunity would have a greater chance of landing or being realized.

Humans and especially hyper-nerds like HN readers are always datamining information from "the great collective" as if it's a sure thing. But that's honestly a fallacy of human nature to be "reassured" that is reinforced/exploited by cable news "commentary shows" and a form of rhetorical bias to get the dopamine fix through self-affirming data.

If you are not into the communal/rural collective, neighbor helping neighbor even if they could be MAGA-hat wearing, Ted Cruz worshipping, God/Guns/Glory rednecks that espouse every stereotype and have no problems living within their own echo chamber because they are in "'Murrica" and wonder why you aren't stepping in line with the rest of "us" sheep person OR are profoundly judea-christian religous but not a Jew, then cities maybe better just in the context of finding like-minded people. It's the same reason why swing states often have a duality of "blue cities/red rural districts".

States have different vibes, politics and laws steming from said political vibes. Whether or not city or country inside the state doesn't matter as much as "commute time vs. lifestyle-opportunity goals" in most cases. If you think you are a corner case, then test it. But this is how I'm breaking down the information.

In the city, we try to get as much done inside the localized 24 hours we have.

In the country, they are limited by nature or opportunity set by nature thus the timescale is distorted by this reality where there are hard deadlines for crop growing and harvesting which makes or breaks their bankroll. In Alaska they call it "Alaska Time" but on islands and other places, they call it "Island Time".

Surely, you could try to apply the same 24 hour logic to living rurally, but our society isn't 100% built for a 24-hour lifestyle unless you have everything from your vocation to your location tuned for it. Like working remote in Europe/Asia but live in NYC - such is almost unicorn outside such a work/life balance.

Then there is the balance itself: Why would you move to the country in the first place? Have you ever been, are you from and are you striving to return to it? Do you already have plans to be an employer or landlord? Do you understand the financial risks and capital investment needs going rural?

I finally got my parent hooked up with Starlink this year. Prior to that, they had spotty "wireless based" internet service because the local ISP didn't give two fucks as they were the only game in town due to the majors whitewashing their coverage data or groups already invested the tens of thousands of dollars to "energize" a new cable run off a feeder spur and the person at the farthest end of the span may have or may be getting reimbursed for paying the initial cost. Which is the case for most utilities - they will run you a line/feed and hook you up if you live on a private island in the middle of a ocean: if you're willing to pay for the costs involved deploying it.

But just this fact alone kept all of my siblings from spending more than a week with my rural parents due to the horrid connectivity and the mobile speed/data costs upon their cap. And a few of them are some of the first "telecommuters" on the Internet being "[Virtual] Personal Assistants" for those who need them.

Then there was this disparity between "cable/satellite" and the multiple screen/cord-cutting we've all been party to with NetFlix and Disney+. There are offerings that never will be replayed on any "traditional" service like DirectTV or Comcast. Like the many "Amazon" or "Netflix" produced movies/series. Nor do you see them being offered in DVD/BD boxsets compilations either. But, for city people, this is such a large part of the "watercooler" talk we partake in at the office when we were there. If it wasn't this, it was usually the NFL game from the weekend, amirite?

Cities - yes there is convenience due to the proximity. And you can replicate the same experience in the country if you hire a personal assistant or subscribe with those that strive to deliver similar. Really that's what the difference is: method of delivery. If we had "matter resequencing printers" such as those in Star Trek or Neal Stephenson's "The Diamond Age", it would be another checkbox in the relocation column of urban/rural.

But cities are the people and we make up the cities even if we strive to never interact with anyone. But beware, now that we live in personal "burbclaves" in the city, realize that reality is still very real for those without homes - hence 3rd Avenue in Seattle - TODAY. Seattle has lost what made Seattle quirky under the gentrification boom of the first two 21st century decades where the push to release was the trump card to culture and social gathering. Sure we still have festivals like Bumbershoot and NW Folklife, but even all the multitude of coffee shops have been bankrupted by Starbucks and Keurig.

So unless you fall way outside of the city stereotype of "woke liberal professional/struggling but aspiring robot" and the suburbs are still too tight , or you're tired of sharing a wall, or maybe you can't contain all your crap within 1500sf of space without getting a storage unit.... stay in the city.

If you are self-sufficient and are willing to both give and take that mindset to someone who may/maynot like the color of your skin or music, go country - but be ready to invest and spread your income around sprouting new business as they don't have money and you're not likely to buy real friendship in most places without showing your willingness to shovel shit with them. As I tell the kids now, "Not everyone can be an Astronaut, but just about everyone can use a shovel."

Thanks for the in depth response, it took me a while to read it properly.

It seems to me that cities are full of silly people who work each other to death in one way or another for no real benefit. You mention homelessness, and that's also part of what I'm talking about: people go to cities looking for opportunity, and end up simply subsisting. There's zero community, if you have a streak of bad luck you're fucked and serve as a warning to others. There are a few people who deeply embed themselves into elitist cliques, at great personal cost, and the rest just work 9-6 then do nothing except things that are Instagram-friendly.

My point is that all cities have lost nearly everything that once made them attractive for tech people:

1) Culture is driven by the internet now. As long as you have good internet, you're in. In Europe, that means basically anywhere. The art/tech scenes are gone. The only art scene that isn't totally dead is urban graffiti, otherwise everything is better online. When people say there's a "tech scene" somewhere they mean there's a bunch of strangers sitting around on beanbags in a warehouse called something like "Bit Factory".

2) Networking happens on the internet. Geographical proximity is now dictated by a range of time zones rather than kilometers.

3) City wealth is illusory. Software engineers in London make £40k-£60k per year, which is way more than anywhere else in Europe - but they spend £2k per month on their apartments and end up having nothing to show for it all.

The only "compelling" reason anyone ever gives these days for why you should live in a city is: good food and nightlife. Sorry, but living for nights out is embarrassingly stupid. It would be one thing if it meant fostering deep social connections, but who are we kidding? On a night out in most places you're either rich or you're a clown with piss-stained shoes.

The only reason that makes sense to me is that sometimes you need to access resources and get training in things you can't find outside of the city. Things like cooking classes, for example. This is a very good reason to have cities, but I'd be happy to commute an hour every few days to access those resources.

I have lived in the suburbs, satellite towns, and the boonies (rural), and I used to like those people much more than city people. But I don't know what those places are like anymore.

You mention having lived in Alaska, which reminds me of that show "Northern Exposure" where the big city doctor is forced to move to Anchorage and ends up becoming part of the community. I'm not sure that kind of thing is actually possible, because this isn't TV and because of the realities of a world with the internet.

No! I live 20 minutes from a lake, the ocean and a ski hill.

If everyone moves away from the city then my place becomes a city.