Poll of the Day > So I hear America is going to build ALL the bridges

(+) Yeah! (+)

A trillion dollars for infrastructure

Wowzers!

---

Porter Bridges?

---

We're even rebuilding Nash Bridges.

Who knew!

---

the best bridges?

---

Well, half the ones we have are falling down, sooo....

Decaying infrastructure is one of the arguments in favor of doing away with the concept of the suburbs. They've got the most expensive upkeep in general.
---

That would be super cheap if they want to herd the masses into cities. Then you don't even need bridges and stuff and can get rid of them and give gotham back to the people.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

doing away with the concept of the suburbs.

And just have what?

---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Well, half the ones we have are falling down, sooo....

Decaying infrastructure is one of the arguments in favor of doing away with the concept of the suburbs. They've got the most expensive upkeep in general.

I like living in the suburbs though, it's that sweet middle spot between too many people and too few people

---

FatalAccident posted...

And just have what?

idiots think everyone should be packed in tightly with no space
---

Muscles posted...

I like living in the suburbs though, it's that sweet middle spot between too many people and too few people

Same. Just a shame we have a joke of a mass transit system, so going other places takes a long time by car.

Ideally, we'd have condensed walkable cities with cheap/free trains or subways to get around and almost no streets for cars, then along the perimeter of each city, train stations to bring in people from the suburbs, which also have stations for people to park and ditch their cars at.

streamofthesky posted...

Same. Just a shame we have a joke of a mass transit system, so going other places takes a long time by car.

Ideally, we'd have condensed walkable cities with cheap/free trains or subways to get around and almost no streets for cars, then along the perimeter of each city, train stations to bring in people from the suburbs, which also have stations for people to park and ditch their cars at.

Then there'd be less housing so less room for people who need to live there.
---

FatalAccident posted...

And just have what?

Cities.

Or if you want to go full sci-fi, hives or arcologies.



Muscles posted...

I like living in the suburbs though, it's that sweet middle spot between too many people and too few people

Yeah, but that's comfort and preference, not efficiency.

Don't get me wrong, the suburbs are pretty much my preferred style of living as well, but it is definitely the most expensive and least efficient in terms of utilizing space and maintaining infrastructure.

It's sort of like eating meat. Sure, we may love it (and I certainly do), but it's incredibly wasteful of resources and land in general, and is one of the most energy inefficient types of food we produce. Which is why sci-fi settings projected into an overpopulated future tend to assume the meat industry is going to go extinct, with either artificial meat replacements, insect-based protein sources, or just straight up vegan lifestyles with hydroponic foods and synthetic materials replacing animal products.



Krazy_Kirby posted...

idiots think everyone should be packed in tightly with no space

To be fair, there's a counter-argument that modern Western culture and its emphasis on individuality, personal space, and privacy is incredibly egotistical, narcissistic, and selfish. And it becomes destructive to some degree if you're indulging it at the expense of others or the planet as a whole.

But as population continues to grow, it's also a future we're inevitably going to have to start considering unless we manage to figure out a way to start firing off excess population in rockets to other planets (not likely), or start engaging in some draconian population controls (which would probably stir up a lot more resentment and protest than simply asking people to live more closely packed in).

Hive-like structures or arcologies may also become both inevitable and unavoidable if we keep fucking up the planet's ecosystem, because if we start triggering rampant climate change issues, we may need to start spending 100% of our time indoors to avoid catastrophic weather shifts and hostile conditions. As is, it kind of feels like a pipe-dream when people push for carbon neutrality by 2050, because of fears that it will be too late to reverse systemic and self-sustaining greenhouse reaction past that point. To be brutally honest, we're probably kind of fucked, because no one really wants to give up their own advantages while expecting everyone else to do it instead.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Then there'd be less housing so less room for people who need to live there.

How so?

If you reduced the number of streets usable by cars and got rid of most of the parking spaces for said cars, the city would have way more room for housing.
Pedestrian and bicycle paths take up far less space.

ParanoidObsessive posted... Yeah, but that's comfort and preference, not efficiency.
Don't get me wrong, the suburbs are pretty much my preferred style of living as well, but it is definitely the most expensive and least efficient in terms of utilizing space and maintaining infrastructure.

Uh...compared to a city, i'm sure it's way less efficient. Still better than rural, though. It's not the "most" expensive and "least" efficient.

But until blasting music or being a loud ass hole is a jail-able offense, I'm gonna want some space from other people, thanks.

streamofthesky posted...

Still better than rural, though. It's not the "most" expensive and "least" efficient.

Rural tends to use less services than suburbs afaik? Suburbs are basically cities with a much wider footprint, whereas rural can be another beast entirely.


---

streamofthesky posted...

Uh...compared to a city, i'm sure it's way less efficient. Still better than rural, though. It's not the "most" expensive and "least" efficient.

Except it's not. Rural generally doesn't require the same level of support, because reduced population requires less infrastructure. It can also be more self-supporting to some degree.

Suburban living has the population pressures and requirements of urban life but without the advantages of shared space that allows cities to more efficiently utilize resources and infrastructure. Rural areas face much lower population pressure and infrastructure requirements, so wind up being more efficient than suburbs in their own way as well. Suburbs are basically the worst-case scenario between the two extremes.

It's also part of the reason why living in the suburbs is almost always the most expensive cost of living expense. Which is why there's demographic evidence that people tend to move out of the suburbs and into cities in times of economic downturn, while they move out of cities to the suburbs when the economy is doing well. Suburbs are ridiculously wasteful.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Which is why there's demographic evidence that people tend to move out of the suburbs and into cities in times of economic downturn, while they move out of cities to the suburbs when the economy is doing well.

That seems off to me, everything is more expensive in Chicago than the suburbs.

---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Except it's not. Rural generally doesn't require the same level of support, because reduced population requires less infrastructure. It can also be more self-supporting to some degree.

Oh, so now resources per person isn't what matters. Got it.

Suburban living has the population pressures and requirements of urban life but without the advantages of shared space that allows cities to more efficiently utilize resources and infrastructure. Rural areas face much lower population pressure and infrastructure requirements, so wind up being more efficient than suburbs in their own way as well. Suburbs are basically the worst-case scenario between the two extremes.

Suburbs are in between rural and cities in population pressure and infrastructure requirements.
Rows of detached houses all on the same water system and electrical grid with shopping complexes a few miles away are far more efficient than rural houses on acres of land that have to be reached individually by power lines and on their own closed well and septic systems each and require driving many miles to get to shopping centers.

It's also part of the reason why living in the suburbs is almost always the most expensive cost of living expense. Which is why there's demographic evidence that people tend to move out of the suburbs and into cities in times of economic downturn, while they move out of cities to the suburbs when the economy is doing well. Suburbs are ridiculously wasteful.

The cost difference to build the same size house in a suburb or rural area is negligible. The difference is the price of the land. Suburbs are more expensive than rural because people want to live there, and demand sets the price. And no, cities are easily the most expensive for the same reason (land is more valuable), unless you are extremely disingenuous and compare a 1000 ft flat in a city with a 3500 sq. ft McMansion in a suburb.
And the suburbs have seen a big influx from the cities since the pandemic despite the economic hardship. Before that, cities were growing even during the post-Great Recession boom. There's no connection between the migration to cities and economic downturn.

Muscles posted...

That seems off to me, everything is more expensive in Chicago than the suburbs.

He really wants the reverse to be true, though. Stop being so mean to him by pointing out the holes in his logic!

Is sub-rural a thing?

Like, is that like a bunch of farmsteads in a single cul-de-sac and all the land behind them is farmland... or what?

---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

idiots think everyone should be packed in tightly with no space

Under no circumstances should you of all people call someone an idiot.

streamofthesky posted...

Suburbs are in between rural and cities in population pressure and infrastructure requirements.
Rows of detached houses all on the same water system and electrical grid with shopping complexes a few miles away are far more efficient than rural houses on acres of land that have to be reached individually by power lines and on their own closed well and septic systems each and require driving many miles to get to shopping centers.

So much of this assessment is just fundamentally flawed. Suburbs are inefficient BECAUSE they share the same water system over a much, much broader spot of land which requires more upkeep and creates more logistical issues. Rural uses completely different systems where you're not relying on public infrastructure at all. A well and septic system have *no* increase to the overall footprint.

As for malls and other stores, rural areas rely on people traveling more distance to reach those, whereas suburbs just build more stuff like that. And, more importantly, many rural areas don't even have malls. You're wrongly assuming that rural areas have all of the same conveniences as cities and suburbs, which they don't. Suburbs generally have all of the same conveniences as cities -- again, just spread out further and using the same infrastructure planning as cities -- whereas rural areas don't.

As for power lines, those are a relatively small infrastructure cost compared to water. Any above-ground infrastructure will be far cheaper than anything underground.

streamofthesky posted...

The cost difference to build the same size house in a suburb or rural area is negligible.

That's largely untrue, because labor costs can vary tremendously region-to-region and then zoning laws (another huge cost) tend to be more prohibitive in cities and urban areas. Even if you claimed that the material costs are basically the same (which isn't necessarily true), there are so many other factors that make rural home construction cheaper.

A lot of the things you can do in rural areas you'd *never* get away with in suburbs.

---

The US needs those bridges for people to sleep under while the economy fails.

---

Not bridges, tunnels. I want more boring machines. Populate some caverns with a generation of people and see what happens.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

The US needs those bridges for people to sleep under while the economy fails.

O snap!

---

Everyone seems to just be getting shit from IKEA


---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

To be fair, there's a counter-argument that modern Western culture and its emphasis on individuality, personal space, and privacy is incredibly egotistical, narcissistic, and selfish.

They say the same thing about not wanting a forced/arranged marriage.

streamofthesky posted...

How so?

If you reduced the number of streets usable by cars and got rid of most of the parking spaces for said cars, the city would have way more room for housing.
Pedestrian and bicycle paths take up far less space.

By putting the train stations where people would want to live.
---