There is an overwhelming amount of arguments for living in the city. And I don’t mean cities like Santa Clara, CA or Columbia, MD. And don’t even get me started on Clifton Park, NY. When I say city, I am really referring to a dense urban environment. Such as Ljubljana Slovenia, San Francisco USA, and Munich Germany. You can call this the European style or whatever. As long as there is a large population in close proximity.
Large in this case is a relative term though. Ljubljana, for example, has only 300,000 people or so. So, it is not all about the number of people. It is more about the density. The denser the population, better the infrastructure can be. Imagine things like electricity, transportation, heating, cooling, stores, etc.
When I have this argument with people, they typically counter with arguments such as congestion, neighbors, and pollution. I would argue that you can counter all of them using proper city design.
Congestion is really the cause of people traveling from residential areas to the business areas. If you mix the residential and business areas, then the average distance traveled gets minimized and congestion is reduced. Of course the layout of the city is much more conducive towards the less destructive modes of transportation, such as walking, biking, and public transportation.
People tend to prefer the suburbia for their independence from the neighbors, by having access to large back yard, no shared walls, etc. Reasoning for that are things like safety, peace and quiet. In the dense city, there will be inherently less space for private yards. Also, in most condominiums, the apartments share walls. But, there are community gardens, community pools, community parks. They can be maintained much more efficiently. Same goes for the maintenance of outside of the apartment buildings versus the detached houses. And people are way to isolated as is with all the modern technology, so having neighbors that you interact with is a good thing.
Finally, environmentally, well designed cities tend to be much better than any form of suburbia. Apartment building for example, consumes has significantly less energy for heating, cooling, lighting, etc then a large number of detached homes. Since things are close together in the city, there is much less impact on the surroundings. For example, a single apartment building can host hundreds of families, and take a fraction of land that single family houses would. Because of that you can simplify the utility delivery, such as water, power, telecommunications.
I get asked by people something like why would I like to live in the city if I love to bike in the nature. Well, the answer is because I love to bike in the nature instead of bike in perpetual suburbia. For example, in upstate NY or Maryland, you have to bike really far to get out of the housing developments. Since San Jose is surrounded by suburbia, you have to bike pretty far to get anywhere without population. On the other hand, Ljubljana has several hills and mountains very close to downtown. So does San Francisco.
Of course, there are limits on the density. At some point the city density is too high and the benefits get diminished by the drawbacks. Typical examples of that are cities in Asia. That said, with proper urban development and with proper mixture of residential and business areas in the city, the lifestyle in the city is significantly sustainable than lifestyle in suburbia.
Here are some of interesting articles about the city living:
please wait...
Rating: 4.0/5 (1 vote cast)
Tags: City,Environment
Categories: Environment, Rants
2 Comments »