Hacker News Reader

Comment by joe_the_user | Hacker News Reader

Actually,

While never a transit activist, I would be in favor of dense, walkable cities regardless of work-from-home. I think these are more healthy in a multitude of ways.

If people can live in low population density areas while eliminating 90% of the miles driven per year, that's considered a bad thing because it doesn't support the urban vision they have that can only work if alternatives aren't allowed to exist.

Can you really eliminate 90% of miles driven by doing work-from-home in an entirely car oriented place? I live in small city surrounded by rural areas. Plenty of people have to drive five mile or more to get to anything. If someone did out once every ten days, it would unhealthy in other ways even if it conserved fuel, imo.

View on HN

The stress of living in high density areas is itself harmful to some people.

I drive less now that I work from home in the country than when I commuted in the city, though the rise of two day shipping (Amazon, best buy, Walmart, etc) contributes a lot to that as well.

On top of that, I have access to forests, rivers and a prairie preserve without having to drive, and it is fantastic. I'm not saying all 7 billion people need to live the way I do, but I'm glad the option exists and WFH helps make it possible.

It depends on the person. I live in a dense city and have been looking for a house. Unfortunately I can only afford highly residential areas further away (boring areas yet still in the city limits) and the thought of this really stresses me out.

I just love the buzz and activity all around me. People having fun, drinking, playing music. As I live alone I know I would be extremely isolated in the countryside. I've lived in more remote areas in other countries which is precisely why I moved here :)

But people differ a lot and there's not one size that fits all. Some of my friends live in the areas I call "boring" and they actually hate coming out here. Where I live is pretty much the hospitality / nightlife center and although I'm too old for all night binges I just love the feel of this in the area. When people are having fun that kind of radiates.

I totally get it. Two of my closest friends wouldn't trade city living for anywhere else, and a third has been gradually moving further and further out, realizing that he likes it more and more each time he moves. To each their own!

On top of that, I have access to forests, rivers and a prairie preserve without having to drive, and it is fantastic.

Well, I happen to know most people in rural areas in the US don't have anything like this. Nearly all land in the US is cris-crossed with fences and "out in the country" on average presents one with no place to hike pleasantly anywhere in walking distance to one's private property.

The last time I lived in the country, I could walk along a busy highway to a small graveyard and that was it. Living in-town, Nevada City, I have far more walking options and can see forest, rivers and mountains because having lots of paths helps this place maintain it's tourist town status. Of course, when I lived in Berkeley, CA, I also had lots of walking options, including through forests and hills and that was full "urban" experience.

American rural life is often unhappy for this and other reasons. A lot of people living in rural areas are poor and angry with little interest in despoiled, formerly natural areas they grew up in since they generally descend from workers in extractive industries that have moved on (mining and logging).

So, I remain an advocate of dense, urban living.

> A lot of people living in rural areas are poor and angry

This is a fair description of a lot of dense urban living as well. There are a lot of boring rural places- pretty much anywhere that is heavily dominated by farmlands. That doesn't mean that there aren't tons of beautiful, rural places as well. Go to any major city, and you'll find the same- bad neighborhoods and good. The (obvious) difference is that they're a lot closer together.

I think your case is a bit different because you don't actually want to live in the city. Obviously both city and country living have their advantages and disadvantages, and it would likely benefit most developed countries greatly if more people were willing to live outside the major cities.

The issue is mainly people wanting to live in a large city, but also wanting to live in a single family home (and most of them, although maybe not on HN, seem to favor residential zoning instead of mixed) which results in really shitty cities that are environmental disasters with endless sprawl, long commutes in city traffic, having to drive even for basic things like going to a grocery store, etc. And you don't have a "prairie preserve without having to drive" in that case, in fact you more likely than not have a longer drive to get out of the city than a person living in a denser city. Check out Perth, it's probably the best example in the world of this being taken to the extreme, with almost the entire city being just endless rows of houses.

Maybe watch Not Just Bikes or other channels similar to it in YouTube. High density living doesn’t necessarily mean it has to be miserable or lacking greenery. It can be quiet. It can have greenery. It can have access to things even better than most major cities in the USA.

And while you said you have access to some trees and stuff without driving - you apparently do have to derive to get any groceries and that’s the point. Same for other services that people rely on. And someone has to drive to your place to deliver your shit. So the miles are being used by someone.

Btw - I use two day shipping all the time too and I live in SFBA. You know why? Less time consuming than going to the store and dealing with the checkout process and finding out the item isn’t actually there even though they said it’s there in their inventory management system. (Or it’s there but it’ll take someone half an hour to find it)

I drive for groceries and such, but plan ahead to minimize trips. Less gas money and less time wasted on the road. Some places are better than others, but Amazon in particular likes to send packages to me via post office, so there's not really any extra fuel spent getting the packages to me versus some other delivery method.

As for high density living, there's simply no substituting actually not being around other people. Noise, trash, wildlife- it's a fundamentally different experience to be able to go out in the wilderness compared to the domesticated parks that constitute green spaces in large cities.

On top of that, I don't share walls with other people- no obnoxious noises or smells, listening to neighbors fight or their dogs bark incessantly. If I had stairwells, they wouldn't constantly smell of piss and ramen like that one apartment I lived in.

I've upgraded or otherwise modified the cabin I live in to be as off grid as possible- internet and electric hook ups are required, but if push came to shove and our electricity got cut I could survive indefinitely out here, even in the heart of winter. Heck, last year the power cut for 6 hours due to a brutal storm with -40 wind chills and I only noticed because we also lost our internet connection.

> via post office, so there's not really any extra fuel spent getting the packages to me versus some other delivery method.

Didn't say a post office was within walking distance so I presume you drive for that? That's extra fuel.

Again - you really should look at the Not Just Bikes channel. You're really not paying attention to what I'm saying.

We have a mailbox. Post office sends out drivers regardless of whether or not I have a package coming, unlike (say) UPS or FedEx who make specialized trips. That was more or less my point.

That said, the post office is within biking distance during summer months if I need to send something. There's no biking or hiking anything over a mile here during the winter. Even that would be extremely unpleasant in January.

In the nearest dense city to where I live, you'll occasionally see someone biking to work during winter, but even then only on the best of days. Mail, packages, and commercial shipments all still get around by truck (the total distance driven is shorter, but more trips have to be made to accommodate the extra people).

Having moved from a city to a suburb during the pandemic, the reduction in noise alone has been worth it, but the vastly increased space is excellent too. I wouldn't mind living in the city if I could afford a properly soundproofed condo with enough space to not go stir-crazy, but to do that if I'm being financially responsible I would need a salary at least 1.5x-2x higher than the already generous amount I earn which is rather insane.

Not only that but the urban vision could come blasting back. If people spend more time at home, they spend more time in their neighborhoods, so they start to care about neighborhood amenities, and suburban just can't compete with urban in the neighborhood amenities (let's wave away cars/driving, noting that in America most cities are actually fairly friendly for driving, as well as have low-density residential districts that are still much more sustainable than the suburbs). Maybe?

I think more time spent at home (both you and your neighbors) will drive demand for more interior space, sound isolation between neighbors, and private outside space, than it will drive desire for neighborhood amenities. (It will increase all of those things, but things higher on that list more.)

I live in a low-ish density section of a city. If I still lived in my old mid-density apartment, I’d have broken my lease early in the pandemic to get out to get more space and not have people walking above me all day.

It depends. We get everything including groceries delivered now so if more people use the same services, which they are, there probably will be savings in terms of traffic and fuel.

People who are really against an idea tend to not think of solutions to downsides.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com