Hacker News Reader

Comment by screye | Hacker News Reader

I don't blame Canada. The country is running out of space really fast and they lack the technology to build more than 1 floor of house. Unlike massive countries like South Korea, they can't fit 50 million people.

Can you imagine being forced to live in slum like conditions without a half-acre yard or at least 3 parking spots? We are a developed country, do you expect us to park on the streets like the 3rd world ?

If only Canada had access to hammers & wood & nails. They could have built something. But, where might someone be able to buy any of those I wonder ?

____________

Watching sprawly nations one up each other with moral grandstanding while acting as if no one sees the elephant in the room is frustratingly funny.

If you are going to go this route, at least institute a high tax penalty for unit vacancy.

_________

edit: didn't think it was possible for people to miss such obvious sarcasm, but here we are

View on HN

Actually we are running out of space in my Canadian province.

Here in Canada's smallest province I've never seen so many apartment buildings, condos, and homes being built. A field that was empty year ago now has about a dozen apartment buildings, maybe a dozen homes. And that's just one area. The sprawl is taking over farmland.

Meanwhile people have no place to live and anyone who does gets kicked out for a "renoviction". Supposedly repairs and upgrades but often it's just a coat a paoint and rent is doubled. Or it's covered to Air Bnb or other short term rentals STR. I've never seen so many homeless people in my life here.

So many buildings yet nowhere to live.

What are you on about? Canada has been building high rises like crazy for the past two decades, and those are exactly what are often held empty by speculative investors.

> The country is running out of space really fast

I get what you're saying, but it's kinda funny since Canada is enormous and most of it is mostly empty.

I think OP was being sarcastic.

that's the joke

Oh, I thought he was being sincere. Canada's population is mostly crowded into a small part of Canada, something like 2/3rds of the country live south of the 49th Parallel (south of long straight part of the US/Canada border), and in this region the population density is quite high.

They do have a ton of land in all the rest of Canada, but for reasons of access to services, climate, etc.. most people in Canada are crammed into the Quebec-Windsor Corridor.

In case anyone is curious, southern Ontario is quite south of the 49th parallel and includes Canada's biggest city.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Ontario

The population of southern Ontario is ~13.5 million people (roughly a third of Canada).

North Korea has a similar area (slightly larger), but approximately twice the population. South Korea also has a similar area (slightly smaller), but approximately twice the population of North Korea = four times the population of southern Ontario.

In particular, ~13.5 million more people live in South Korea (which has an area smaller than southern Ontario) than in the entirety of Canada.

Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec City are all in this region. It may not be as dense as Korea, but the Korean peninsula is one of the densest parts of the world so this isn't saying much. If you visit this part of Canada, it feels much like the urban/suburban sprawl of the American North-East across the border.

My point is, that looking at the population density for the entirety of Canada is misleading because most Canadians don't live in Yukon Territory. The population density of the part of Canada people actually live in is much closer to what you'd expect from a typical developed country.

Seriously?

Would you be able to please expand on this and explicitly say what you want to say?

Wondering what you mean by "sprawly nations".

Nearly the whole post is in sarcastic jest.

By sprawly the parent means nations that don't build upwards with highrise approaches as a solution to building more residences (and instead sprawl sideways, taking up large amounts of land per residence).

Car-centric nations.

Canada and the US lead the way.

Sardine-can conditions become less necessary by the day as more industries move to WFH. Who chooses to live in Manhattan if their job doesn't demand it? Demand for nicer living conditions with lawns, space, garages, and fresh air will rise as the urban exodus continues.

The city is obsolete in the era of WFH. Let these unnatural aberrations recede. Humans were meant to live in small tribes and we see how their programming breaks down in cities rampant with crime and antisocial behavior.

Have you ever actually been to Manhattan?

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-06-07/is-new...

Can't tell whether you're being sarcastic. The world you describe sounds disgusting, and NYC is more popular than ever in our new WFH world.

> The world you describe sounds disgusting

Normal countryside villages are disgusting to you?

As it turns out, the best villages have neither lawns nor garages.

Normal countryside villages actually work really well as an accompaniment to cities.

Ironically, the most desirable villages build densely around a small core and the farms spread out radially around the village itself.

[1] https://www.roadaffair.com/most-beautiful-villages-in-the-wo...

Bruh

I find this to be a bewildering opinion. I get that people are wired different, but I am surprised that you aren't capable of envisioning a situation where a huge percent of the world chooses to live in a city.

> The city is obsolete in the era of WFH

The first thing I did after negotiating WFH is to move to a dense neighborhood of NYC (soon).

> Demand for nicer living conditions

I am. I want to walk down to local markets & restaurants. I want to go anywhere in the city without exposing myself to the main cause of youth death (cars). When I am travel to another part of town, I'd rather absentmindedly read a book, than be stuck paying attention in bumper2bumper traffic.

I want 100s of activities, cuisines & communities to be at my disposal when I want to access them. I don't want to have to ferry my future children around everywhere. I would much prefer a big bustling park with trees like Boston Common or Central Park, than a lousy unsustainable private mound of grass.

I love fresh air & low noise pollution. I wonder what's causing them. Can't be the folks in cars commuting from their beautiful suburbs can it ? [1] [2] [3]

Why do people think that cities have to concrete jungles with no social life & huge amounts of crime. Cities (esp. NYC) are safer than almost everywhere in the US. Having friends & tons of activities nearby encourages social behavior and having parks be in shared spaces means that they continue to be well funded and environmentally sustainable means you can be a lot more ambitious about the kind of big trees and gardens that can have.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20230102070924/https://www.nytim...

[2] https://youtu.be/cO6txCZpbsQ?t=55

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTV-wwszGw8&t=2s

I think the reality is somewhere in the middle. There are advantages to the suburb life and advantages to the city life. Until now, suburbs have been heavily subsidized with cheap energy and free roads, so let's see if that trend continues.

Also, suburbs have provably less pollution and noise.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com