Ideally, I like urban places that offer a bit of unexpected intimacy, like a duplex with a nice terrasse or a small backyard where you can kick back and fire up the 'cue.
Actually, it's the other way around. The oil industry (Rockefellers), the auto industry and local real estate interests conspired to tear off light rail public transit in cities across America in order to pave the way to car ownership and urban sprawl. This is a well-documented post-war social phenomenon.
The elites actually don't like denser housing structures as they create greater social interaction and tighter urban communities. 'Burbs on the other hand tend to be more alienating, though Manhattan-like densities have their alienating side too but that's an extreme in terms of urban density that you don't find elsewhere in N. America.
Quote: (04-15-2016 04:44 PM)Centurion Wrote:
I've always been anti-sprawl. Auckland is very sprawly and the public transport is(as Trump would say) a disaster. You virtually need a car to do anything here. The road planning is a disaster- you have traffic jams from the northern and western parts commuting to the centre every workday. It's a nightmare to get from one place to another. I'm not sure it's worse than American suburbs(some American areas are significantly worse, with hour long commutes) but it's definitely worse than many European cities and even other cities in New Zealand.
PUA/Gamewise sprawl is a disaster. Roosh even advised never to live in the suburbs, and standard game advice is to have logistics on lock- that is, live in the city centre. You walk more, and you get to do everything you want without a car.
That being said, I was on facebook and saw an Alex Jones article about a car-free condo in Austin. I thought it was pretty cool, but it seemed to be "advancing Agenda 21". http://www.infowars.com/agenda-21-develo...in-austin/ I was thinking maybe there might be a reason why the elites want to take away our cars and live densely. I've also got to admit that maybe in the 50's and 60's people built sprawly areas for a reason, which I don't fully understand.
I do believe having a really dense city and being car-free is superior though. I'm calling for a total and complete shutdown of people evangelizing about sprawl OR density, until our countries' representatives can figure out what is going on.
Thoughts?
Actually, it's the other way around. The oil industry (Rockefellers), the auto industry and local real estate interests conspired to tear off light rail public transit in cities across America in order to pave the way to car ownership and urban sprawl. This is a well-documented post-war social phenomenon.
The elites actually don't like denser housing structures as they create greater social interaction and tighter urban communities. 'Burbs on the other hand tend to be more alienating, though Manhattan-like densities have their alienating side too but that's an extreme in terms of urban density that you don't find elsewhere in N. America.
“Nothing is more useful than to look upon the world as it really is.”