Some folks on here have been repeating this garbage as well

  • EhForumUser
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I was talking about Tokyo city.

    Seems its most dense parts top out at around 15,000 people per. Still amateur hour compared to most reasonably dense communities, which, as I said before, have more like 40,000 people.

    And Kowloon Walled City was a dystopia caused by people not being allowed to leave for generations.

    Right, I think we can all agree that nobody actually wants to live in a city. City population densities have actually shrunk considerably over the years as people long for more and more space. Rural living is clearly considered the ideal by the masses, but with the pitfall of there being essentially no wealth inequality. As such, we seek some kind of middle ground of slightly more density than a farmer’s field to enable that.

    But if you want to embrace city life, you may as well go for it. Why pussyfoot around with such low densities?

    • Dearche
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m sorry, but using a city that the living conditions are actually worse than in any dystopian movie is not something you should be using as an example for modern living conditions.

      But if you want to embrace city life, you may as well go for it. Why pussyfoot around with such low densities?> And yes, I don’t pussyfoot for such low densities. I keep championing mixed use mid-rise buildings to replace all low density housing within our cities. Separated individual houses are a waste if you live within 10km of a major city’s downtown. And if you want to live in a giant personal box in the middle of nowhere, you should properly pay for it instead of having half its costs subsidized by those who live where its cheaper to have your utilities installed.