Why the push for greater urbanization?

[Mad Monkey]

If urban areas were really easier to monitor and control then wouldn't that suggest that crime rates should be much lower in urban areas than they are anywhere else, at least on average?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it definitely isn't true that you can control and monitor urban areas better than suburban or rural areas, only that it's kind of a flat assertion that doesn't really fit historical trends or current paradigms, right?

[TheLoneliestMonk]

I read earlier today, in an article on lead and its relationship to crime, that the difference between crime rates in cities and rural areas is gone, or nearly gone.

[DreamSongs]

Khal....I think that 'monitoring the civilian population en masse' opens up a whole new concept. Isn't that what is already occurring via Facebook and cell phones?

I know that the main reason that I am moving... a jerk with nothing better to do than take pictures of me and my urban garden. Why? Because he isn't physically capable of caring for plants and has admitted that he is resentful that he can't have a garden himself. Instead of accepting my offer to supply him with peppers, cukes and tomatoes, he decided to comb over the general lease and force me to get rid of my container vegetable garden that has been in place for 3 years. I live in the Southeast US and daily watering is environmentally irresponsible and not great for the plants. Plants that are watered every 2-3 days are hardier and produce more. He decided to take pics on day 3 just as I was watering :devil:

Everyone is so damned afraid that someone will get what they want and can't have immediately. Its gotten to the point of being ridiculous.

[honeyed chicken]

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

The political right in America worked very hard for that ignorance of history, so don't go running it down.

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.

Agreed. See my other comments at the bottom.

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?

I don't know if there's a "They want us to" thing going on. There has been some evidence that urbanization means more efficient use of resources, but more importantly, many cities have cleaned themselves up dramatically in the last 20 years.

As a kid, I wanted nothing to do with the city - hot smelly places full of rats, smog and crime. That has largely changed. My daughter wants to live in a city and is doing so now rather than live up here in the country, because the city calls to her and her generation.

My wife and I went to NYC and few years back and had a very pleasant experience - nothing like the NYC I remember visiting as a child (my dad had a cousin in the city).

I really believe people are going to the cities now because it makes sense.

I grew up on a dirt road 2 miles away from a village of maybe 500. Now we live in a town of 12,000 - much prefer it this way.

[Demonblade]

I was thinking about all of the arguments for urbanization vs. ruralization, but it seems that historically speaking, there has always been a balance between the two in civilizations. The only thing that I can think of to rationalize urbanization today is because we have yet to find our balance, with regards to urbanization, ruralization, available resources and self-sustainability.

[blasted_saber]

You'll have to drag me kicking and screaming from my rural home. I'll never live in an urban setting of my own volition.

[Shryke]

I was thinking about all of the arguments for urbanization vs. ruralization, but it seems that historically speaking, there has always been a balance between the two in civilizations. The only thing that I can think of to rationalize urbanization today is because we have yet to find our balance, with regards to urbanization, ruralization, available resources and self-sustainability.

When has there really been a balance and what does a balance even mean in this case?

There's always been a specific number of people in urban vs rural environments, but there's also been a long term trend for hundreds of years now at least of people moving into urban areas.

[lokisnow]

Living on a farm is pretty awesome. Living in a city is really spectacular. Living in the suburbs stinks.

Looking at today's revolutions, the marriage revolution began in cities and is largely being opposed by rural areas... ;)

[Demonblade]

Well the first thing that comes to mind is ancient Egypt, which sustained its civilization for roughly 3500 years, but one could argue Rome's prominence throughout Pax Romana is a fine example as well.

[naz]

I was thinking about all of the arguments for urbanization vs. ruralization, but it seems that historically speaking, there has always been a balance between the two in civilizations. The only thing that I can think of to rationalize urbanization today is because we have yet to find our balance, with regards to urbanization, ruralization, available resources and self-sustainability.

This may be somewhat true (in the sense that there may not be a balance per se, but there is a duality), but suburbs are something that really has only been seen for the last 100 years or so (in industrialized countries, and mostly in the US of course). And there are very specific reasons for them, most of which have to do with technology, but also with culture and the mindsets of large populations.

[sologdin]

rural populations don't need to be monitored and controlled, as their atomization and retrograde development tends to make them reliable authoritarians, sympathizers with carcerators, shills for moneyed interests, fundamentalists, talking-point believers. the state likes this type of citizen. the state probably likes them best when they complain about how much the gubmint is against them.

[Lord of Oop North]

I support urbanization because it leads to prolific amounts of delicious spicy food.

[honeyed chicken]

You'll have to drag me kicking and screaming from my rural home. I'll never live in an urban setting of my own volition.

Given your avatar, the city would probably throw you back anyway. :)

[Larry of the Lawn]

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.

booyah

[Mad Monkey]

It might be interesting to look at why policy makers pushed for the growth / support of suburban living in the first place too, to help understand why some people are pushing for the reversal of some of those policies. I think a big part of it was the urge to find a new, affordable place for people to live in the periphery of more densely populated cities; land was cheaper (or could be made so) and the development of highways as well as heavy subsidization of automobile use made it much more feasible to get people to move into these more farflung areas while still working and spending time within the city.

The only major problem I have with this scheme was the level of waste that it involved, not just environmentally but in terms of development -- there's a Kmart by my house with a massive parking lot that has at the most 10 - 15 cars in it at any one time. Most of the space is wasted in part because of the way everything sprawls in many suburbs. I always think that it would be smart for someone who has that much excess and underused parking space to rent it out for suburban commuters to use for parking. Right now, all it does is make me wonder why Kmart still exists (isn't it just a shitty version of Walmart?) and why it controls a tract of land almost as large as the nearby Walmart.

[naz]

It might be interesting to look at why policy makers pushed for the growth / support of suburban living in the first place too, to help understand why some people are pushing for the reversal of some of those policies. I think a big part of it was the urge to find a new, affordable place for people to live in the periphery of more densely populated cities; land was cheaper (or could be made so) and the development of highways as well as heavy subsidization of automobile use made it much more feasible to get people to move into these more farflung areas while still working and spending time within the city.

A great deal of it was fueled by institutionalized racism and classism (redlining, white flight), coupled with the fact that the government was (and still is) in bed with car companies and oil companies.

eta: There have been many, many books and articles written about this in the last 60 years, but one of the better ones is Crabgrass Frontier by Kenneth Jackson. It doesn't hurt to read a bit of Jane Jacobs as well.

[BLU-RAY]

Because living in the city is amazing. I can't stand most people - if I live in a city, odds are decent that I'll be within interaction distance of a few I can actually tolerate or enjoy, which can be important in terms of seeing the positive. Furthermore, public transportation and stuff within walking distance are both the best. Not to mention that in the city, you suddenly have access to a more diverse range of things - art, food, and entertainment primarily. There is a lot to be said for natural beauty and the outdoors, and so I can see the charms of rural life, but a good city (that's important, cities that blow kind of blow - anywhere you need to drive home rather than walk/cab/public transportation is not a good city) is phenomenal.

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.

Some of this, also. Easier to preserve actual rurality and nature when it's not being consumed by McMansions.

[Demonblade]

This may be somewhat true (in the sense that there may not be a balance per se, but there is a duality), but suburbs are something that really has only been seen for the last 100 years or so (in industrialized countries, and mostly in the US of course). And there are very specific reasons for them, most of which have to do with technology, but also with culture and the mindsets of large populations.

Suburbs were prevalent in Roman times. The area surrounding Rome at its height was heavily populated. When it became a backwayer, not so much.

[naz]

Suburbs were prevalent in Roman times. The area surrounding Rome at its height was heavily populated. When it became a backwayer, not so much.

If you mean that there have always been transitional zones between cities and outlying farms, even in ancient times then yes, you are right that Rome had "suburbs". But those were not like the suburbs of the 20th century. Roman "suburbs" were essentially pleasure villas for the wealthy, who did not occupy them all the time. Most of the people living there were servants and/or slaves, as domestic staff and small tenant farmers. The idea of suburbs as a sustained outward shifting of urban populations to the peripheries of cities did not truly exist until the industrial revolution, and it certainly didn't include the middle classes (and now even the poor) until well into the latter half of the 20th century.

[Demonblade]

Well ultimately how sustained are they, really? As a recent example, Detroit basically hollowed itself out. Rome's version of suburbs allowed itself to sustain itself for a time, and maintain some semblance of order. Our versions of suburbs are very new, by comparison.