• AntY@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    I’m not totally convinced that huge super-cities is the best way for society to move forward. Maybe we need more small towns and people living in the countryside.

    • Cowbee@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      What about dense, moderately sized cities with excellent city-planning? Well-developed intra-city and inter-city public transport? Cities are more efficient space-wise, but don’t have to be depressing or expensive.

      • AntY@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        I think that the key word here is moderately sized. If I would guess, the optimum could be somewhere around 5’000 to 75’000 inhabitants. With those numbers you would probably not need any public transport within the city since you could bike or walk everywhere. At the same time you will be able to support some local shops for the most essential goods.

    • abbotsbury@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      Nobody said huge super-cities, any moderately sized metropolitan area would benefit from being a population hub.

      • AntY@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        I mean, with centralization going the way that it’s going we will end up there. If the cost of living in densely populated places is so high, I think it hints at an inefficiency with the arrangement. Maybe people should live in fields and bogs a bit more?