Why the push for greater urbanization?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Seems to me that there is some sort of presumed consensus out there that urbanization is the preferred route for humanity moving forward. It pops up in more and more topics not just here, but in RL as well.

I think that's an assumption worthy of challenge.

Historically, crime rates tend to be higher in cities. That's been true consistently not just in the U.S., but in most of the world. Another poster noted in the thread about the 14 year old getting shot that it was harder to raise children in a city. I know there have been experiments done where increasing the population density of lab animals results in increased violent behavior.

So why is it that so many people want more of us crammed into cities?

[thecryptile]

Perhaps because urban populations are easier to monitor and control?

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

More efficient use of space, so that greenspaces can be left intact or used for farming instead of cleared out to make lawns. Less driving has a host of environmental benefits. Cities are more economically productive, since so many people living in proximity allows for a more exchange of ideas than teleconferencing can. Labor would be more mobile since the average person would presumably live closer to a greater variety of possible employers.

That's off the top of my head.

[Seli]

US style suburban living is just too inefficient. Transport, healthcare, use of space, the whole lot. More compact urban style housing (not Manhattan levels, but somewhere in between) will be a lot cheaper, and higher population densities, with a mobile population (walking, bikes, public transport) can promote the local economy and services.

Countryside living is a bit more sustainable, but does run into the issue of limited services. Which is not suited for everyone.

[Sixshells]

Rising population levels. You can fit more efficiently more people in an urban environment. It might even be more sustainable as long as density levels don't get too high. (Extremely dense and big urban areas are huge ressource drains.)

[Ser Lepus]

Here in Europe people were laughing at the prophecies about Detroit's depopulation. "Cities don't get depopulated, people always keep going back to live to the same places even after being devastated by wars, famines, plagues, typhoons and earthquakes, no matter what", they said...and watch Detroit now. It seems that USA doesn't follow the same rules than the rest of the world when it comes to the use of urban space.

[TerraPrime]

The economy of scale applied to limited amount of resources.

[Relic]

The economy of scale applied to limited amount of resources.

Hey, that's what i was going to say. Except it would have taken me 8 rambling sentences to do so.

[Seli]

Here in Europe people were laughing at the prophecies about Detroit's depopulation. "Cities don't get depopulated, people always keep going back to live to the same places even after being devastated by wars, famines, plagues, typhoons and earthquakes, no matter what", they said...and watch Detroit now. It seems that USA doesn't follow the same rules than the rest of the world when it comes to the use of urban space.

The US is different already because they could afford to leave their industrial waste in place and just move to another location. They always had this, combine it with the way they finance cities and Detroit was inevitable.

Over here we have some cities in the outlying provinces that are planning for a shrinking population, their population is shrinking, as are many villages. The core is still growing though.

[fuseprime]

s.

[fuseprime]

Perhaps because urban populations are easier to monitor and control?

:agree:

Also, I would imagine the distribution of Soylent Green would be a lot more cost effective.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Because suburbs suck. Rural living is awesome, city living is ok. In between is shitty and boring. I want everyone out of my rurality please. Take them all into the city and leave me to my endless miles.

[MinDonner]

Perhaps because urban populations are easier to monitor and control?

What a baffling ignorance of history. Cos revolutions always come from the sparsely populated countryside?

[Galactus]

It's not so much that there's a push, as it is what's happening (for various reasons) and barring some serious changes in lifestyle trends, this is going to continue to happen.

It should probably be noted that even when cities are depopulated... People move to other cities.

[Shryke]

What a baffling ignorance of history. Cos revolutions always come from the sparsely populated countryside?

Indeed cities are actually HARDER to control. It's why you see basically all the recent revolutions and movements start in them. Riots and protests in cities are much harder to put down.

[Galactus]

Perhaps because urban populations are easier to monitor and control?

They're not, really. Any city is essentially an army waiting to happen, while in the countryside you actually have to get people together first. Look at the French Rev., the ME uprisings, the fall of the Wall, etc. etc. All centered around urban areas.

There are exceptions of course, but that tends to require a significant level of organization and coordination (like Maoist levels) but generally speaking cities are harder to control precisely because a lot of people can move around and communicate without being noticed. It's much easier to blend into a crowd. (and of course, it's much closer to the various institutions of power, which gives the government less time to respond and coordinate a crackdown)

[Shryke]

The US is different already because they could afford to leave their industrial waste in place and just move to another location. They always had this, combine it with the way they finance cities and Detroit was inevitable.

Over here we have some cities in the outlying provinces that are planning for a shrinking population, their population is shrinking, as are many villages. The core is still growing though.

Many smaller towns are shrinking these days as the local factory/whatever dries up.

Cities, in agregate, are only growing. Detroit is kind of a unique case in that people basically moved just outside the city to other urbanish environments.

Galactus nails the other part of this:

It's not so much that there's a push, as it is what's happening (for various reasons) and barring some serious changes in lifestyle trends, this is going to continue to happen.

It should probably be noted that even when cities are depopulated... People move to other cities.

Yup. It's more or less a natural consequence of the economy and industrialization.

[DreamSongs]

I'm moving from an apartment that feels like the countryside to an apartment that is suburbish (not quite urban). Why? Multiple reasons, mostly because it has features that I desire. The apartments are closer together, but that is a fair trade for hardwood flooring, granite countertops and safety.

In the new apartment, it is understood that maximizing space for personal use (veggies, herbs, etc) is accepted. The apartments that I am leaving have not quite caught onto that concept.

[Gramsci]

They're not, really. Any city is essentially an army waiting to happen, while in the countryside you actually have to get people together first. Look at the French Rev., the ME uprisings, the fall of the Wall, etc. etc. All centered around urban areas.

There are exceptions of course, but that tends to require a significant level of organization and coordination (like Maoist levels) but generally speaking cities are harder to control precisely because a lot of people can move around and communicate without being noticed. It's much easier to blend into a crowd. (and of course, it's much closer to the various institutions of power, which gives the government less time to respond and coordinate a crackdown)

Strangely enough, counter-revolutions tend to stem from the country-side or the periphery of a state. An obvious example being the Vendée or the Chouannerie during the French Revolution.

Contrary to the trend of revolutions occurring in the cities, many early attempts at revolution in Russia actually came from the countryside, though most were not particularly successful. That was because many of these revolutionary groups advocated a return to what they believed was the ideal Russian community. There were a lot of variations, but Pochvennichestvo is one of the most famous movements that led to a lot of revolutionary fervor in the hinterland.

Anyway, to the topic at hand, it just seems to be the way industrial and post-industrial societies approach the process of industrialization. There were experiments done with maintaining a broad manufacturing/service based economy that was dispersed throughout the country (again, famous example being in Russia), and they were mostly miserable failures.

[Khal-a-bunga]

What a baffling ignorance of history. Cos revolutions always come from the sparsely populated countryside?

Did he says anything about revolutions? And what does history have to teach us about a society with our level of technology, in terms of monitoring the civilian population en masse? There's no precedent. I don't think that there is a push for urbanization for the purpose of monitoring and/or controlling people, but that doesn't equate his comment with a "baffling ignorance of history" any more than your statement represents a 'baffling ignorance of context'.