crazytrain
Member
- Messages
- 4
- Points
- 0
I don't believe that it is in any way natural to live in a dense, physically intense, skyscraper covered metropolis. I believe that there is an optimum size for any community, in which a person can comfortably walk across the community to school or work without any form of transportation except for that of their own two legs.
But larger cities reap the benefits of being a center of trade, education, art, politics, music, or anything else that draws people together. And throughout history, cities have brought people out of ignorance and isolation and into a more social world. In America especially they have been the mini-melting pots of ideas and people. (And although technology may have had a enormous impact in bringing people together electronically, i don't think i could stand a society that only socialized on the internet or phone)
But there is no reason to believe that you cannot provide a community that benefits both ways. The lack of quality, well planned neighborhoods in urban areas is the main reason that people fled the cities into suburbia and small towns in the early 20th century. People were eager to flee the city long before the automobile became accesible to the masses. The only reason we want sprawl is because we aren't happy with the cities we have. But one look at the few cities that did provide at least adequate neighborhoods, such as New York, and you might realize that people are williing to put up with unnatural amounts of crowding and density in exchange for being in such a place. If a number of other cities had taken up a competitive philosophy, other cities would have benefited just as greatly (and maybe NY wouldn't be as crowded)/
But larger cities reap the benefits of being a center of trade, education, art, politics, music, or anything else that draws people together. And throughout history, cities have brought people out of ignorance and isolation and into a more social world. In America especially they have been the mini-melting pots of ideas and people. (And although technology may have had a enormous impact in bringing people together electronically, i don't think i could stand a society that only socialized on the internet or phone)
But there is no reason to believe that you cannot provide a community that benefits both ways. The lack of quality, well planned neighborhoods in urban areas is the main reason that people fled the cities into suburbia and small towns in the early 20th century. People were eager to flee the city long before the automobile became accesible to the masses. The only reason we want sprawl is because we aren't happy with the cities we have. But one look at the few cities that did provide at least adequate neighborhoods, such as New York, and you might realize that people are williing to put up with unnatural amounts of crowding and density in exchange for being in such a place. If a number of other cities had taken up a competitive philosophy, other cities would have benefited just as greatly (and maybe NY wouldn't be as crowded)/