I used to think that dense cities are unlivable because of the density, but I no longer believe that after learning about urban planning and urbanism. The gist is that cars are the wrong mode of transportation inside cities. I recommend the YouTube channel Not Just Bikes, he explains really well how cars cause most of the problems we associate with density, such as noise, low air quality, and congestion. The solution then is to use the outside public space not for roads for cars and parking spots, but pedestrian streets, parks and community gathering places. Some cities already do this better than others, such as Amsterdam.
When you realize that cars are the problem, not density, everything starts to click into place:
1. People live in dense cities because it provides them with more economic and social opportunities, and allows them to be closer to the people important to them
2. Density makes everything much more walkable. You are more likely to have places you want to go and people you want to meet within walking or biking distance
3. Density allows for better transit service, which becomes the default for mid to long distance travel, and transports many more people than cars anyway.
4. Having a nice pedestrian street with trees, places to eat and socialize, also encourages spontaneous social interactions.
I really encourage you to watch some of the videos on Not Just Bikes. It really opened my eyes to how backwards cities in North America are planned and how density can and should be a good thing. His Strong Towns series is about the economic benefits of density (tldr economics of scale. The same infrastructure and public space supports more people)
Definitely. If most people could work from home 100% of the time, it would have a huge effect on traffic. There are two reasons why I think remote work won't be enough to reverse traffic trends. The first is that it hasn't so far: even during the height of the pandemic, when pretty much everybody who could work from home was doing so, traffic was still worse than it was in most of the 80s, and that's even counting all the savings in traffic from people not going out for stuff besides work. Now most people who went remote are back in person, and traffic is back to where it was pre-pandemic, which is evidence against a coming huge & permanent shift to remote work.
The second is that to really get that SF-to-Muncie effect, jobs have to be 100% remote. Even if you're going in just a couple days a week, you still have to live within commuting distance. Lots of jobs are willing to give people that level of flexibility, but far fewer are willing to get rid of the office altogether. Whether it's enough to make a dent remains to be seen. In the meantime, like you point out, remote work will be a huge boon for the folks who can get it.
I think you forgot to mention that the US population increased by nearly 50% in the last 40 years. This is the main reason for the increase in congestion. Add the continuous rise in affluence and the drop in the cost of travel due to Uber, Airbnb, and budget airlines, and you have everybody and their brothers and sisters trudging around the same instagram sites all the time.
Agreed! More people + more money = more traffic. What compounds the problem, as you point out, is that those people don't get spread evenly across the world. Instead they all want to be in exactly the same places. One totally individual solution is to learn to like living in places that other people desire less, which gets a lot easier when the most popular places are choked with crowds.
I used to think that dense cities are unlivable because of the density, but I no longer believe that after learning about urban planning and urbanism. The gist is that cars are the wrong mode of transportation inside cities. I recommend the YouTube channel Not Just Bikes, he explains really well how cars cause most of the problems we associate with density, such as noise, low air quality, and congestion. The solution then is to use the outside public space not for roads for cars and parking spots, but pedestrian streets, parks and community gathering places. Some cities already do this better than others, such as Amsterdam.
https://youtu.be/GlXNVnftaNs
When you realize that cars are the problem, not density, everything starts to click into place:
1. People live in dense cities because it provides them with more economic and social opportunities, and allows them to be closer to the people important to them
2. Density makes everything much more walkable. You are more likely to have places you want to go and people you want to meet within walking or biking distance
3. Density allows for better transit service, which becomes the default for mid to long distance travel, and transports many more people than cars anyway.
4. Having a nice pedestrian street with trees, places to eat and socialize, also encourages spontaneous social interactions.
I really encourage you to watch some of the videos on Not Just Bikes. It really opened my eyes to how backwards cities in North America are planned and how density can and should be a good thing. His Strong Towns series is about the economic benefits of density (tldr economics of scale. The same infrastructure and public space supports more people)
https://youtu.be/RQY6WGOoYis
This one is about the Downs-Thompson paradox and the actual solution to traffic
But thats why work from home is a big deal. When my employer switched to remote work, I moved from a 3M to a 0.3M city.
If WFH stays, nothing stops people from taking their job/salary from SF to Muncie, improving conditions both in SF and Muncie.
Definitely. If most people could work from home 100% of the time, it would have a huge effect on traffic. There are two reasons why I think remote work won't be enough to reverse traffic trends. The first is that it hasn't so far: even during the height of the pandemic, when pretty much everybody who could work from home was doing so, traffic was still worse than it was in most of the 80s, and that's even counting all the savings in traffic from people not going out for stuff besides work. Now most people who went remote are back in person, and traffic is back to where it was pre-pandemic, which is evidence against a coming huge & permanent shift to remote work.
The second is that to really get that SF-to-Muncie effect, jobs have to be 100% remote. Even if you're going in just a couple days a week, you still have to live within commuting distance. Lots of jobs are willing to give people that level of flexibility, but far fewer are willing to get rid of the office altogether. Whether it's enough to make a dent remains to be seen. In the meantime, like you point out, remote work will be a huge boon for the folks who can get it.
I think you forgot to mention that the US population increased by nearly 50% in the last 40 years. This is the main reason for the increase in congestion. Add the continuous rise in affluence and the drop in the cost of travel due to Uber, Airbnb, and budget airlines, and you have everybody and their brothers and sisters trudging around the same instagram sites all the time.
Agreed! More people + more money = more traffic. What compounds the problem, as you point out, is that those people don't get spread evenly across the world. Instead they all want to be in exactly the same places. One totally individual solution is to learn to like living in places that other people desire less, which gets a lot easier when the most popular places are choked with crowds.
Imagine if the US pushed public transportation instead of building highways and genuflecting to the almighty automobile long ago...