How to Build a Better City

[@TheAftermathz]

The problem is lands outside the city is cheaper. Those who are not rich have to live outside the city, but travel to the city to work.

[@victormn47]

Liou David The reason they have to live outside the city, is because the supply for urban dwellings doesn't meet the demand. People haven't realised that people want an urban life, so the prices go up and gentrification happens. They need to make more urban dwellings in suburban areas.

[@RexGalilae]

Nothing more ironic than somone named ***** calling another guy a faget =D

[@Leotique]

+Liou David here in my country (switzerland) the country side/ lands outside are more expensive. In the cities, houses are also expensive but most of us are living in a smaller tiny house or apartment. the rich people can build a big house out side on the land where they have enough space to build there big houses. sorry for my english.

[@eyeees3923]

+Official Leotique. where i live (u.s.) prime exampe of this video resides. microsoft main campus is here so native people who lived in the cities are getting pushed further and further into surrounding town and suburbs because city grows bigger, fancier and just more expensive. though i wish i lived somewhere more swiss like

[@taoliu3949]

+Victor Nielsen That's not necessarily true. Prior to the suburban booms in the 50s and 60s most of U.S. population lived in cities. The suburban booms flipped the status quo and now most people live in the suburbs whilst inner cities deteriorated and many cities still suffer from underpopulation. Buffalo, New York's second largest city has lost half of its population since the 60s. Suburban flight was not made possible due to cheap land, but the ease of transportation and living due to subsidised highways and services.

[@eloujtimereaver4504]

Ideal human settlement: big dense city, with wilderness within 5 miles. I have been to a city like that before, it was amazing. It completely negated the stress issues you hear people complaining about.

[@MonstrotousM666]

What was the name of the city?

[@eloujtimereaver4504]

Taipei.

[@Mr-DNA_]

You can have the same thing with gardens in the suburbs and with parks in middle to high density areas.

[@eloujtimereaver4504]

@@Mr-DNA_ Suburbs are inherently isolating, it is not just access to a small segment of green stuff people need, but access to both untamed nature, and access to the amenities of a dense urban environment.

[@Mr-DNA_]

@@eloujtimereaver4504 That's simply a false assumption. If you look at new-urbanism communities in places like Florida, you'll see that they are designed to be combining the best of suburbs and high-density areas. In the middle you have a mixed-use middle-density core with focus on pedestrians with plazas and parks, while there's single family houses around the core within walking distance.

[@EnergyKnife]

The big question is: why did godzilla get a diploma? What was it in? How did he have the time to go to classes (and pay for them) when he was destroying Japan? Many questions, no answers

[@iwasntsmartenoughtothinkof7579]

They have a godzilla secret society, they get educated to destroy cities. I don't know how much of these leaders have trained new godzillas, but they can strike anytime.

[@flyingspacebrainedidiot]

No, he got a diploma for the subject of destroying Japan. It was free, because it didn't exist.

[@radiantsquare007jrdeluxe9]

Godzilla had the time because he had good time management skills! duhhhhhhh lol

[@xX_wiLLiam_Xx]

69 likes Nice

[@hassanyousef3657]

actully someone was paying him to do this

[@sosa2mars]

The main problem is that they have 2 godzillas living in their city

[@aaliyahfrancis7205]

+kenneth sosa haha

[@Stone_624]

(The Godzillas represent Suburban demolishment of the efficiency of the dense urban city cores)

[@sethbishop269]

I know their is two Godzilla's in the city and their is only so post to be one Godzilla why is their is their two Godzilla's it makes no sense.

[@MusicLover-jq3bz]

And how we are gonna get 2 Godzilla

[@lpsamberly360]

Alpha Raptorhunter there are actually three and a mom that killed her children

[@sunakujira]

Just my opinion, but the mixture of nature and dense buildings (dirty and clean) that are in Hong Kong are amazing. I bet most of you will disagree with me, especially the ones who haven't tried looking for nature in Hong Kong, but there are literally several hiking trails that you can go for a hike within an hour of public transit from city cores.

[@brian-bed]

aren't household prices expensive? I've heard many vids on how small the apparentments can be and how expensive, but I'd love to hear from someone who has actually lived there (assuming you have)

[@meghandenny6922]

Cities are also chock full of Pokestops

[@bouchandre]

that's important

[@markjosephcueto2883]

Don't forget gyms and rare Pokemon nests.

[@paulmag91]

And that's why cities are better. :)

[@azelfdaboi5265]

Sean Denny hahahaha lol

[@therapistbeau8427]

Sean Denny yes definitely

[@akpsyche1299]

I'm content living in the suburbs except for one major problem: lawns. I don't know why my parents have to have a lawn, and why I have to mow it. It's a waste of gasoline for the lawnmower and a waste of space that could be used for something else. You could easily replace it with a vegetable garden, or even with native plants.

[@moriadine2517]

Psycho Wolf It's a status symbol originating from the ancient past, when you were seen as rich if you could afford to not turn every inch of your land into farming so you don't starve come winter. Might as well as why sports cars, jewelry or designer apparels are so expensive. But yes, I agree, I like edible plants better.

[@brendalugaresi5410]

Lawns, trees, and other plants help regulate water (ie helps prevent flooding by absorbing rainfall) and regulate heat (they create a cooling effect as opposed to cement and asphalt which absorb and then radiate the heat from the sun.) Having soil cultivated by plants also adds oxygen to the air and filters out other pollutants, and helps keep wildlife diverse which is also highly beneficial for the environment.

[@Ginger198]

@@brendalugaresi5410 however it's not always suitable for certain climate which is often ignored in urban cities, therefore using unnecessary amount of water and energy to maintain

[@ShadowDrakken]

Yeah, how about talk about the negative aspects of big city living. Increased stress and stress related illness, increased violence, increased mental and social health issues. This video is so one-sidedly broken and wrong.

[@rohanmicklethwaite7173]

He was talking from a economic standpoint, not a socioeconomic or social standpoint.

[@ShadowDrakken]

It's not a better city if it's worse for the people, sorry.

[@Novenae_CCG]

Do you have any reseach to back that up? I imagine the increased violence is simply a result of there being more people. Suburbs wouldn't then be _less_ violent - it would just be more spread apart. I don't actually know, though. I don't have the research. And where does the stress come from? If it's about a busy job, then it doesn't matter where you live. If it's the amount of people surrounding you, then you might be antisocial, or something? If it's the consistent sounds, then I can imagine that sucks for some people, but others don't care either way. I'm sure one group could help the other. Mental and social health issues? Now I don't even know where you might be coming from. _Physical_ health I'd understand, because there's more tightly packed infrastructure. However, some of the real big cities are aiming towards a cleaner future. Anyway, I'm not trying to debunk what oyu just said, but I have to remain skeptical.

[@ShadowDrakken]

Powerpuff God Dnews (I think it was them, I watch several Rev3 and other science channels) did an episode on it. Urban suffer from stress and mental illness, rural suffer from a (comparative) lack of accessible medical care

[@MyChevySonic]

He speaks like there's no stress related to living in the burbs. Must be a nice bubble to live in. My experience with living in a small town near Princeton is usually filled with stress.There's the stress of commute (because there ain't shit for work in small towns), and higher cost of living (extreme stress).

[@max.lw.]

I live in a apartment with plants on the balcony and friendly neighbours.

[@hidirbi]

nice

[@Malenbolai]

Neighbours

[@Oversail]

@@Malenbolai umm that’s what he said and it’s not edited

[@Malenbolai]

@@Oversail yeah I was stupid

[@mienzillaz]

Who keeps their neighbors on balcony????

[@ACoroa]

The social problems associated with living in an inner city are an issue. Also, living downtown is much more expensive than in the suburbs. Driving a bit longer is a small price to pay (at an individual level) for peace of mind when it comes to finances and safety.

[@Aiasmor]

@Sean Bennington sounds like communism to me

[@gatyissafeaswellblep9608]

Seeing more greenery is also quite nice

[@chriscain2468]

Why not create a path where the city and the suburbs can run parallel with each other.

[@rafalpotasz]

The correct name for this video would be 'How to make an efficient' city. Which is great and all.

[@rodneyboehner3007]

Very naive. The reason most professionals move away from the big cities into suburbs is because urban centers are completely unliveable with riots, social unrest, crime, homelessness, third-world infectious diseases we haven't seen since medieval times, human filth, rampant drug use, violent crime, gangs, etc. thanks to Democucks who can't govern and run these cities into the ground. The terms "efficient" and "urban center" are completely opposite of one another.

[@Zander10102]

Yeah man I'd hate to live in an urban core

[@chaincat33]

we're looking at the big picture without investigating the details. Not everyone wants to live in a cluttered urban area, some people enjoy having a disconneted area where they don't have to worry about noise from neighbors and passing cars quite as much, and can be a bit louder without disturbing their neighbors.

[@acenz1366]

Don't work in a cluttered urban area then?

[@chaincat33]

+Ace NZ the video is saying cluttered cities are better.

[@banban8481]

+Dritto1010 but more efficient and effective.

[@chaincat33]

***** The problem is, your happiness and feelings are directly proportional to your efficiency as a worker and as a human being. Also, cluttered urban regions are pretty infamous for poor quality of life and really polluted air.

[@diegosanchez894]

+chaincat33 in the world we live in, not everyone can live in a house with two levels and a garden. The air pollution can be countered by banning cars and using public transportation. Also, "poor quality of life" is quite a stretch, I have no idea what people have against living in a building, they're great! Poor quality of life is living in the slums, not in an apartment with water, electricity, Internet, and sometime even common areas like a pool or a gym. I lived in NYC for 2 years, uptown east. My building had a pool, a gym, and a balcony/sundeck. I went to school by subway. If that is poor quality of life I do not know how you live!

[@BadMadChicken]

But how does the crowded, living crampt and so on effect the mind?

[@BadMadChicken]

i ment constantly walking in over crowded streets, hearing your neighbors and trafic, the exaust fumes from cars and what not. i would not mind living in one of those porteble room sized houses. just constantly having to grind asses and shulders with smelly people and so on so forth.

[@BadMadChicken]

***** To me, the bigger the city, the more assholes the population becomes, i think its called big city syndrome. the general stress of comuting and so on.

[@sokolov22]

BadMadChicken I was born in Hong Kong and now live in the US. I very much miss the hustle and bustle of the city. It's super convenient to go places due to the abundance of public transportation and close proximity to nearly all required services. So everyone walks a lot more, and has more time to be neighborly, because you aren't spending a good chunk of your day sitting in your car travelling. That said, most cities in the US I have been to don't meet this expectation for me, mostly because they aren't as well designed for pedestrian travel and public spaces with many "cities" being largely dense business urban cores surrounded by suburbs, rather than a mix of residential and business (as the video discusses).

[@MountainBlade100]

Well you start caring less for people when someone is injured , you don't have that much empathy , just because someone is hurt every day on the streets you walk by . Even thought you are surrounded by people you loose social interaction . The pollution and everything else that could give a health issue to you . The lack of nature , and the overpopulation of shades of gray . Right people ?????????

[@TheLazyKey]

This sounds good on the surface. However, I know that for me at least, if I don't get at least an hour a week of complete silence and solitude, my stress levels rise siginificantly. This usually leads to anxiety issues, resulting in a loss of sleep, grumpy moods, and mental breakdowns. Again, that's just me. But, I'm willing to bet that there's plenty more introverts out there like me who'd share a similar perspective.

[@marsbolcan9311]

I wouldn't want to live in a city. I like having my space, less noise, nature, lower crime and disease rates, along with the things I can do around my home, that I can't in a city.

[@undead890]

On average, suburban and country cities/towns have more crime per capita than major cities.

[@marsbolcan9311]

Well that's not the case where I live. Crime rates are higher in urban areas here

[@marsbolcan9311]

undead890 I actually decided to research it myself after you said that, and I only looked at North America, so maybe it's a different story on other continents but Crime Rates are higher in cities. There are actually studies that try to come up with an answer to why this is the case. Rural and Suburbs have lower rime rates in reality, especially when it comes to violent crime. Also Coincidentally I've had an armed robbery experience, and it was in the city, so from facts, to my own experience cities just aren't as safe

[@undead890]

RedMrex It's times like this I wish I would remember to bookmark certain news articles. I remember an article I saw in the Sacramento Bee, a major newspaper in Sacramento and the surrounding areas where I live, that they mentioned a couple studies that showed that living in a city was technically safer, in general, than smaller town. They then did a comparison to the really small country towns in the Sierra Nevada mountains to the unofficial (but everyone knows it pretty much is) murder capital of California at the time, Stockton. They figured that the murder rate of Stockton was in the vicinity of .015% of the city population, whereas when they brought the statistics for a few really small towns in the mountains and all of them had murder rates that were like .2%-.5%, up to 30x higher than Stockton, mainly because one murder in a town of like 100-200 is much more significant that the 50 murders in a city of over 300,000 people, which was the official recorded count for Stockton (Note, other major cities had more actual murders than Stockton, but they had much higher populations as well to balance it out). The same trends for murder were then extrapolated for things like burglary, armed robbery, etc.

[@marsbolcan9311]

again, as I said. From everything I've seen, the crime rates in cities, especially violent crime are generally higher. There's a reason parents qre more likely to let they're children wander around in rural towns vs urban cities

[@JeffManseau]

Fact of the matter is cities develop this way because many people can't stand to live tightly packed in a city so while it is mathematically true that it would be more efficient, I can't see it being humanly true or even feasable. Personnally I would rather DIE than live in an appartment downtown.

[@Silkendrum]

+francesseven Especially if the apartment is on the 25th floor, and the elevators keep breaking, or the power goes out - ever.

[@Cloudruler_]

Uncontrolled suburban sprawl is horribly wasteful when it comes to usage efficiency. We can maintain suburban style housing without the nastiness of sardine living if we worked on our infrastructure/transport

[@lobaxx]

Fact is that will likely die sooner because of it, commuting long distances is one of the most unhealthy things you can do. It increases levels of stress, adds to a sedentary lifestyle and hours of your day are just wasted getting from point A to point B which decreases life satisfaction.

[@avarixe1932]

Who the fuck wants houses?

[@onlycorner5565]

America suck their culture with their mothers milk.unimaginable to live like Frenchman in paris

[@kateapples1411]

Is it more effort to build a large building downwards, into the ground, than to build it high into the sky? It'd be interesting to see an inverted city where the surface was reserved for roads and residential housing, if anything.

[@jakehix8132]

+Kate Clementine I like this... til I move into a place with a 24hr nightclub below me :

[@JonasHamill]

+Kate Clementine and never have any sunlight? that would be quite literally depressing due to the vitamin d deficiency you'd acquire. You'd also use up more energy permanently lighting up the place.

[@bzsgzs]

+Jonas Hamill yeah good point. Both Kate and Jonas. I remember checking an underground rental place without windows and it was horrible. The moist air from bath, toilet, and clothes drying areas permeated the entire floor. That's the moment when I realized how important ventilation is.

[@tylermcguire2652]

+Jonas Hamill we have pills for that, and most places have their lights on all of the time anyways. we could just build more conservative lighting

[@roshanpaul1184]

+Kate Clementine There're already doing that in japan. But I also think that besides being super difficult,nderground construction can weaken the soil. They've gotta fix that before they move on to the future.

[@iMovingTarget3]

"cheap gas"? Where are you living MinuteEarth?

[@renewu3250]

Taiwan's gas is pretty cheap. About 1/4 of the price of Americas.

[@SuperExodian]

***** i laughed harder than i probually should've from that comment. you sir, made my day

[@behemothokun]

he probably lives in north america where gas prices are cheap.

[@HIRVIism]

Gas in the USA is really fucking cheap.

[@guiltyguildleader]

HIRVIism Comparison: Current Average gas price in €/L for Super Unleaded: US: 0,7 Germany: 1,6 Jup, its quite cheap. Edit: Fixed price, i shouldnt type before my first coffee.

[@ADdamM93]

I'm an architect and you've just summarised my entire design philosophy/outlook on cities in two minutes!

[@deXXXXter2]

As an urbanist II'm shocked by the stupidity of some of the comments here. This video is very smart, I expected some bullshit like solar panels and other stuff, but the absolute biggest problem of todays cities is urban sprawl. Takes a lot of space and uses huuuge amount of enegry. Even if building is efficient, you still got to get to work using your car. Your administraction still got to provide inefficient media. Compact cities have efficient, ecological public transportation, do not waste space, which means leaving it for nature, and are full of life. 'If you love nature, stay away from it': www.lifeedited.com/if-you-love-nature-stay-away-from-it-agree/ And dispite what some people here say you can build friendly, compact city. Look at Europe. Even America can - cities like Portland or Boston are reasonably compact and friendly.

[@deXXXXter2]

***** Asia (southeast Asia mostly) is greatly overpopulated. If you'd like to be as extensive in suburbanisation as american cities you wouldn't have any forests or crops... Just sain'...

[@sk8erboi66ericko]

deXter2 "...some bullshit like solar panels and other stuff"... wow, just wow...

[@deXXXXter2]

sk8erboi66ericko Stop wowing if you don't know shit about solar panels. In future they may be sustainable, but for now this has to be considered as one of the developing technoligies. Their importance is minimal. And in any case, they may make things even worse for the cities with problems like congestion and space (upside is better air quality).

[@sk8erboi66ericko]

deXter2 Well, I do know "shit" 'cause I'm an engineer, and I'm actually working in the Research and Development Department of a very important company here in México. I agree with you, maybe there are "more important" problems right now, but it's not a stupid technology.

[@deXXXXter2]

sk8erboi66ericko Good for you. As a technology they are a great idea that still needs to be developed, but people telling solar panels will elliminate all cities problems are like people saying drinking vodka will make you resistant to freezing. It's just not a remedy for everything.

[@lunavarion]

I personally like this idea. Now let's see if you can come up with a city like this blended with abundant nature and nature-meshing technology--a perfect blend of city and nature.

[@jameskohls1168]

The thing is, Not everyone wants to live in skyscrapers, some people like their own houses and space without their upstairs neighbors throwing a party

[@KaosFireMaker]

So having nextdoor neighbors throwing a party is fine?

[@jameskohls1168]

well its better that the downstairs neighbors throwing a party

[@SirGeorge8600]

KaosFireMaker Not if you live in a shitty suburb. My neighbor is at least 150 feet away from me, I barely hear him when he's mowing his lawn.

[@MonstrotousM666]

James Kohls 2 walls with insulation seperated by 40 -100 feet > 1 crappy wall with little insulation. Lrn2think bruh

[@swunt10]

in what european city do people live in skyscrapers? if you don't want to live in a city. move to the country side and stay out of the city. but suburbia is "city". even though it doesn't look like it.

[@MissyMona]

Right, when the people next door have screaming children, the apartments have bedbugs and the jobs go quicker then you can apply you might think twice about living in a dense city. Just because cities have some benefits doesn't mean it has a lot.

[@paulmahoney7619]

Soundproofing.

[@3ly3lawy]

money

[@adamweishaupt3733]

Resources are limited, that's the main problem. The pros of city life are mainly useful for propaganda.

[@CadetGriffin]

What is smg4?

[@Mr-DNA_]

The city described in the video is focused on efficiency, which certainly is a factor that should play a role when building a city, but it's not the primary one. The primary factor in how we design cities should be the livability and human well-being. So an ideal city would have a high density core, middle density areas and low-density suburbs around it, while having both cars and roads, as well as transit, bike lanes and walkability.

[@balls9420]

Ideally not many cars. Since they really destroy livability and human well-being with sound pollution.

[@Mr-DNA_]

You do realize that electric vehicles, combined with low speed limits and quiet tires can also achieve a massive reduction in sound pollution?@@balls9420

[@S4R1N]

If we could have affordable inner city housing with small living spaces and thick sound-proofed walls and windows, I would be incredibly happy to live in one of those places. But the reality is, they're prohibitively expensive for even the most shitty, hollow walled, noisy neighbored apartment.

[@heart0fthedrag0n]

I actually like living in the suburbs and I never thought about it, that I could be using more resources then if I lived in a cramped apartment(and believe me, I am very self-conscious about that my environmental footprint). I can't say that I will move in an apartment in the city center, but I do try to use public transport/bike almost exclusively and I try to minimize the power that I use in my house (like, for example, using solar panels for water heating and not heating up the whole house when I don't need to). I think living in the suburbs has some positive effects too. Being close to nature allows you to appreciate it more, and by that, try to be more friendly to the environment. Living in a quiet and greener area also greatly reduces stress in people in general (speaking from personal experience) . Although I do think that suburbs have to be very carefully planned, in order to be more resource efficient and environmentally friendly, I think that they could be a good and healthy alternative to living in big metropolises.

[@MrLloydparker]

I've never disliked a ME video before. I feel strange, but, I don't agree with your message.

[@Tairneanach]

What do you not agree with? I mean, I don't want to live in a densely packed city - I much prefer rural areas, myself - but it's pretty much a fact that density and efficiency go hand in hand.

[@Tairneanach]

RedPaintedTable Well, but as the video states, you'd have to invest in (electric, likely) public transport while discouraging the use of cars. I'm guessing that industrial zones would still be kept separated from the rest as to reduce that problem too.

[@VitalVampyr]

Which message don't you agree with? Is it the part where he said that urban areas use resources more efficiently than suburban or rural areas? The part where he said that cities tend to develop suburbs around them? The part where he said it's possible to draft zoning laws that encourage urban development rather than suburban? I don't really see any part of this video where it is possible to disagree with and not be objectively wrong.

[@MrLloydparker]

The video lacks one, pretty big consideration: humans and humanity. Unfortunately, our culture won't allow such development to happen. Case in point; how many vehicles do you actually see legally using the commute lane? FAR less than the other traffic lanes. We like our space. We appreciate being able to stretch our legs out and not feel the breath of the person behind us on our necks. Too many people in any sized space is still too many.

[@Tairneanach]

lloyd parker I would argue that that is more a cultural thing than a generally human problem. Sure, there'll be people who like space in every culture, but I'd argue that, say, many Asian people have less of a problem living bunched up. I think this is something that can be changed over time - and it probably will have to change, because I don't think we're going to stop growing in the foreseeable future.

[@ananasupreme]

The problem with this is that we have to consider the following factors: Bedrock quality, soil quality, weather patterns and other factors. For instance, in the state of Florida most homes are not allowed to be built with a basement because the soil is not soil, it's sand. As lush as the place looks, Florida is a terraformed chunk of sand. Areas like the Tornado alley are always going to be facing disaster and there is no point in attempting to build massive structures because it will cost more to repair than to build. And then we have areas where the bedrock isn't ideal and there has to be a height limit to avoid it to crack. Even though some have been very idiotic to build where disaster will occur [Such as Tokyo and New Orleans] it doesn't mean we should do it too. We would have to find somewhere that the conditions are somewhat ideal as to reduce the cost of maintenance in the case of disaster and keep everyone safe.

[@Stone_624]

I think the main thing that most people who complain miss in this, and what is probably the main and most important overall message of this entire video, is the 2nd to last sentence: "When people live densely, they use resources less intensely". Cities are efficient, meaning it takes less time, effort, energy, money, and so forth to distribute goods and services, and that means cities minimise loss. Low density, large spread out areas spend, and waste, much more resources than compact, high density, small areas to do the same things.

[@samuelsmith2707]

Have a tightly packed city with low crime, cheap effective transport, lots of services, cheap housing, lots of varied jobs, excellent education. Then to make it so people with families can live there, make lots of parks, turn the rooftops of every building into a green space and also surround the whole city in easily accessible green land that can't be built on. This could be very reasonable, however places like this have been built before from scratch in china and they are mostly empty. So we need to be more like some germanic cities, where the cities just end and you have the empty green spaces to enjoy surrounding the city.

[@Owlettehoo]

Not everyone is going to be a city person. For those that are, great. Have at it. But people like me, that have seen both rural and urban living AND prefer rural, that's not so great. I don't want to bump elbows with everyone I walk past. I like having a yard, I like living in a quiet neighborhood, I like having a house instead of an apartment. Yes, there are down sides like having to drive farther to get places and not as much stuff to do, but I'm willing to give that up for something a little more quiet. (I probably feel this way because I life a couple minutes from the interstate and can get to the closest big city in 25 to 30 minutes.)

[@Utmoon]

You missed the point of the video. We are running out of everything at a faster and faster pace. By 'better city', he means better for the planet, not just people that want a yard and some elbow room.

[@Utmoon]

Mattias Jonsson By "the planet", I meant everything not human. You know, all those other living things we are driving to extinction by sucking up more and more of their living space.

[@Owlettehoo]

Oh hello. So this was a thing that I forgot about. So the original argument was we were running out of resources, which unless you're thinking of oil, natural gas, and other things of the sort, we're not. There's plenty of space, plenty of food, plenty of essentials for life and that efficiency just keeps getting better and better as our technology gets better. The only thing in that category that we need improvement on is our water supply and this is mainly about getting cleaner, cheaper water to more third world countries. Then the argument turned to the betterment of the environment, which most of the pollution comes from cities. Take Hong Kong and Beijing, for example. So I'm not against building a better, more efficient city. It's necessary if we don't want to kill off all living things on this planet in the next thousand years or so because cities won't go away. In my original comment, I was saying that I didn't want to live in the city. The reason for saying that was because the video implied that everyone _needed_ to live in the city. From my recollection anyway. I didn't go back and rewatch the video so it's been a few months.

[@LivvieLynn]

Love the city. Hate living in the city. Life is stressful enough as it is. :(

[@Mefous2]

Are you saying high gas prices are a good thing?

[@rohanmicklethwaite7173]

Reduced pollution, less overall tax, public transport more effectively used. Sounds pretty good to me!

[@doubeld.7536]

Maybe not for your wallet but certainly for the environment.

[@dshcfh]

No. People could just as easily be forced to get a second job and have to drive around more. :[ Nobody know what the effects would be, I hate it when people back things up that could easily backfire. Raising gas prices to get people to take the bus seems as stupid as slapping them all on the wrist as they drive into the gas station.

[@h0riz0n45]

Here in Fresno California, if we went taller, then city bonuses would be gone for we have 110+ heat and 40 and below cold. Wide good. Tall bad!

[@moekitsune]

+shannon robinson I doubt that.

[@C4Fuu]

To be honest, it also depends on the public service too For example, my city (Jakarta) is highly dense with people and they are rarely any suburban areas around the cities Traffic jam is all time high even though my country is already include in the top 3 places expensive to buy a car and gasoline (according to Jalopnik, and it's true, $40,000 for a single mini van? damn. Even Japan is not that expensive) A lot of people usually make houses near a river (making the water dirty and forced us to buy bottled water rather tap water) and other dangerous places that can either kill them or other people too, This is because they are less place to be build houses and the a lot of the people also couldn't afford apartments since their prices are too high Poverty is all time high since there's a lot of corrupted government using people's money for their own advantage Lack of public service maintenance making public transportation, parks, other place less desirable to take a ride or go to More places to be build mall and expensive apartments rather homes, cheap apartments, or maybe places for work That reminds me, Work place is scarce, people have more chance to be poor and homeless, rather having a house and have meals at their houses TL;DR Basically Jakarta is like New York, you think the place is great to change your life to the better, but the fact is that it only worsen you To have a better city, you not only need to build buildings upward, but also the care for public service and organizing the people for a better life P.S. If you want to go the big city, think first. What can you do in a big city? and what job can you get from that city? If you don't qualify to do anything in the city, then might as well live in your hometown and be happy rather than in a city but feels miserable The city life is tough, there is no such thing as an easy life

[@Xidnaf]

Glad to see someone has the balls to say that gas prices should be higher.

[@hasanmuhammad6651]

6 years later...

[@tiagoaguiar9534]

But I dont want to live in an overcrowded city where I don't even see the stars at night because of so much lighting that there is. I want to be able to look at my phone at the street without worrying that someone will run into me because of so much people that there are in the side walk... But most important: I DON'T WANT TO LIVE IN A FLAT! (apartment) Great vid anyways, it was very well done :D

[@FranciscoSilva84]

I agree that cities are not well organized but this is not a solution. without going too far firefighters from all countries agree that any building that has over 7 floors, it is very difficult to save people or extinguish the fire, and raise the price of fuel, several countries in Europe have tried or even as payment systems to enter some areas with private transport. to enhance the public transport and pollute less, eg London, but studies show that people still pay more or than public transport pollute equally or more because of the increase in users

[@FranciscoSilva84]

iamihop sorry I am European and for my work I have been several times in varis countries in Europe, and I agree that the price of gasoline is higher than in USA, but europe do not buy small cars because they save gasoline is more like an extra, cars are bought small because cities do not have enough parking and are very narrow, You have to keep in mind most cars in Europe are diesel giving over 500 miles per tank this has been so for several decades is no new.and cities like London, Madrid and Rome having proximity meter and even high-speed trains connect cities and towns That That has come to be three hours away by car in just 45 minutes and the pollution of These cities is huge, So still do not agree with this solution, you have to go first to live in such cities the only one that comes close is New york start thinking there o.k.

[@FranciscoSilva84]

iamihop you are very happy it is under a 100 And also 200 is normal Has you live in Europe or visit?

[@DoodieSmoothie]

Francisco Silva 200 is normal? That was a little too much. My mother drives 2 km to get to work, and my step-dad needs to drive about 50 km to get to work.

[@FranciscoSilva84]

***** in what city do you live becose in London, Rome Madrid Barcelona Milan Munich Berlin Paris most of the person thas and that is my point the big citys

[@DoodieSmoothie]

I live in Norway, Steinkjer.

[@kanduyog1182]

technically not all dense cities are as good as you say they are, because look at manila it's a very dense city with insanely high amount of population not only from those who live there but from people from provinces going there to work and as with you said people from provinces use cars to get there causing massive traffic congestions, and there are a lot more cities that are way more polluted than suburbs.

[@oafkad]

I hope this doesn't become the case in my lifetime. I'd rather we become more efficient with our power, transport, and resource usage rather than get shoveled into LA. I work here but I'd never ever want to live here. Santa Clarita is a nice quiet place where I can relax. LA never stops being noisy. Very unpleasant if you aren't an outgoing social person.

[@oafkad]

iamihop To put it in the words of someone else who works here. "I love how it is so smelly and dirty here. Everyone is packed in tightly and it feels really claustrophobic! It reminds me a lot of home!" Her home being somewhere in India. Just what she finds lovely I find rather not. To each their own I suppose. Khris D. Inconveniencing yourself (or demanding others do so) because of personal laziness is not really a virtue. It's also a short term fix that really only benefits the people who are profiting off of that laziness. They get to keep monopolizing dirty energy systems, selling fairly crappy cars, and the likes. There is nothing inherently destructive about the system. Only the current itineration of it. I think people should do their part to improve efficiency, not because it is easy, but because it is hard. I think someone said that about something else a while back. [For instance I'll be leaving the gas powered car industry by the end of this year. Sure the power for now is coming from dirty sources but it doesn't NEED to. However a gas car, by contrast, will always be dirty. Sure you could ask people to drive less, or live closer, etc. But they'd still be polluting, changing it so that they aren't polluting regardless of lifestyle is the proper and most future conscious solution. The mass transit that is running around here has started switching to electric as well apparently. Saw one a few days back.]

[@fullerstudent]

I think you touched on something very important that needs to be added to this discussion, the psychology of population density. We have all sorts of research on Zoo animals and what captivity and over-density does to psychologically. I struggle with anxiety and one of the best things I've done for my emotional health was to move from the OC to rural WA on the Canadian border. I mean, look at the crime in cities, particularly organized crime whether mafia or street gangs. Density is packed with problems.

[@CLeach13]

iamihop the noise, the traffic, the cramped conditions, the insanely high rent, the smog in the air, the trash lined streets, after living there a month I never wanted to go back.

[@oafkad]

Khris D. "Well, if only more people moved to the city, prices wouldn't have to be so high to break even" So all you need to do is convince thousands of people to all move at once and convince renters to lower the prices at the same time. Seems simple! :D I feel silly for just thinking we could improve standards and make it not a problem. This is why I also suggest everyone turn off everything in their home instead of demanding better sources of energy from their governments. I mean...why improve when you can just inconvenience yourself? So much easier and you don't need to write anyone or lobby anything :3. I like this plan, lets do this!

[@oafkad]

Khris D. If it weren't immediate you could get the same results just by improving power sources (which creates jobs as well) and other efficiency systems. In human history we could have always said "Let's just not expand because that would require work." but in the end that expansion is why you have the internet to be concerned about expansion. Humans are destroying the environment because they want the quick easy solution. I'm suggesting that's not the correct solution. There is no reason our power consumption and travel should be polluting the planet. There is certainly no reason cars should still be running on fossil fuels after a century (outside of it being quick, easy, and profitable). Moving away from factory farms to either eating insects or some kind of lab grown flesh (which does sound weird but I'm open to new things if they work). Stuff like that. Our problems are in many ways a matter of business and that it runs very dirty when left to its own devices.

[@william97able2]

leaving in a dense city is a good idea, u say?? haha.. nope.. Look at cities in Asia like Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, Jakarta, Bangkok and Tokyo and Shanghai for example.. If you ever visit any of these cities, you wouldn't think of living there..

[@saltyman7888]

+william97able KL, JK, and BK not so much, SG, SH, Tokyo are great, along with HK, SZ, Seoul

[@danielmorales1824]

That's because the majority of the cities you listed are either overcrowded because of lack of space or stricken with poverty

[@irite6177]

I choose to sprawl, and I sprawl proudly!

[@alexanderyoung8628]

Reading through the comments section is why I sometimes wish we had an environmentally aware, socially just, globally understanding, humanitarian, forward thinking, benevolent dictatorship.

[@poopeyinmymouth]

Benevolent dictatorship? Seriously? Maybe in ancient Rome but our society doesn't have 1/1000th the solidarity for that to work.

[@alexanderyoung8628]

I know it would never work, but sometimes I really do think that a system like that is, in theory at least, better in many ways than democracy. But if you gave the the choice of living today in either a dictatorship or a democracy, I would undoubtedly choose democracy.

[@poopeyinmymouth]

Something like that would be cool in the past when information was less instantaneous, but it is largely unnecessary today because there is really no point. Anything like it would end in corruption if it ever ended at all.

[@Colonel1954Dz]

Find me that and I'll die fighting for it xD

[@ArtistryofDebauchery]

Alexander Young I've thought about this as well and think it's at least theoretically appealing. Plato wrote explicitly that an ideal state ought to be governed by an aristocracy whose souls are committed to the "Good"-not popularity. "Dictatorship" is a very stigmatized concept to begin with. However, given the level of rationality our populous demonstrates in its own governance, I personally would be quite alright with letting a philosopher king be president. On the other hand, whether US government can be truly called "democratic" is is another story altogether.

[@ShawnRavenfire]

I've been saying this for years. These zoning laws in the suburbs put industrial parks way far away from residential areas. I remember several years ago, when I was living in the sticks and car broke down. Everyone online kept telling me to walk to work or take public transportation, and I had to explain that it would be physically impossible to get to work without a car, because 1) the roads go along the mountains where I'd have to be standing in the path of traffic, and in several places, crossing dangerous intersections with "no pedestrian" signs, 2) even at a full run, the trip would have taken me over twenty-four hours, which meant that I'd need two extra days between work shifts, and 3) there is NO public transportation in areas like these, except for taxi services, which would cost more than a day's wages to get to work each day anyway.

[@buttercupkat]

WE CAN BE BETTER BY BEING NICE AND KIND AND SAVING THIS PLACE WE LIVE ON

[@LadyUnicornEJG]

The densly populated cities promoted as "better" have their downsides too. Disease and some pests spread faster when people are packed more closely together. Additionally, noise and light pollution (not to mention what is normally thought of as pollution) tend to be more dramatic and problematic with denser populations. Not to mention crime, which seems more common in more densly packed areas (though this might correlate more with something else - like income or opportunity - or even be more visible rather than a higher actual rate). Plus cities and suburbs can be improved in other ways and resource use could be reduced by continuing to make vehicles and appliances more efficient and by improving or finding new types or sources of power - preferrably less detrimental ones. It could also be improved by reducing the distance some items need to travel to reach the consumer. Community (food) gardens, promoting gardening, solar panels and/or lights, and much more could improve cities without having to push suburb or rural residents into what some might view as a sardine can.

[@CoffeeSnep]

Right, im tired of people saying that suburbs should be outright demolished to rebuild urban areas in their place--as if all that demolition and construction won't be horrendous for the environment

[@sumaiyazaman8126]

When the ad at the beginning is longer than the actual video.

[@sarahd2623]

I'm just thinking .. who wants to live in an apartment really? I mean, everyone would rather have a nice roomy house. I think shoving people into a too compact space will create more of a depressing environment.

[@Tetramir1]

But still MANY people think otherwise. This video misses the point of why people accept to move furher away.

[@rdormer]

Then you haven't seen enough apartments yet. Trust me, there are some *very* cozy apartments in this world, and some that would take your breath away.

[@mksabourinable]

If it's just one person I don't see why you would want or need the space. A 2bdrm is _a lot_ of space for one person. Hell I'm happy in a bachelor/studio!!

[@JJ-te2pi]

Its okay for a time, but you soon feel isolated so high up, with no garden and no greenery to look at.

[@moriadine2517]

Kate Speaks You are not the universe. What, are you going to shame claustrophobes for spending their legally earned money on what they, quite frankly, need? My mother has frequent bouts of depression and the sight of our own yard and house is what boosts her mood and poor health. And you want to take that away from her?

[@at27850]

I feel that this video is a great source of information for children and adults who are looking to rediscover the main principles of a city both urban and suburban. Thank You ! I support your cause MinuteEarth

[@voytek5550]

i don't get why people are so opposed to the idea that just _maybe_ cities are better than suburbs? suburbs are the antithesis of livability and convenience and use more water and power than houses and apartments in the city. the major problem is that they're just not walkable. you have to drive to get around quickly which is an inconvenience in itself since things like petrol/gas costs and pollution add up, not to mention the higher safety risk of getting hit by a car in the suburbs vs in the city. trains, trams, buses and ubers are much more economically viable and even though speeds vary between cities they're usually a lot better. driving everywhere instead of walking also increases obesity rates; obesity is consistently higher in suburbs than in cities and countries orientated towards suburbia and cars such as the US and Australia have higher obesity rates than those who have more compact cities such as Germany and France. suburbs are also economically less efficient and beneficial than cities and are hotbeds of mental conditions such as depression and anxiety and abuse problems such as alcohol and an assortment of soft and hard drugs. i recommend g16sley who posts videos about it. this is such one video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y52naImnhsele9k

[@AzKam84]

So, you're basically saying cram more people into smaller areas? My city is busy enough as it is, especially in rush hour! And I like having a yard thank you very much! It's probably the only natural thing I see all day, I don't want to loose that too! And as for your advocating of rising gas prices to encourage people to live closer together... seriously dude? If those super wealthy BP CEO's aren't already paying you for this, then they ought to be.

[@LeftClickShift]

If regulation begins affecting how cities are developed, part of that should be that insuring necessary infrastructure to support larger crowds. Plus that, denser commuting and high gasoline prices, fundamentally incentivise people to ditch their cars and take public transportation like buses, trains and subways which will expend less gasoline than separate car drivers. So, city planning can be done poorly, which means more traffic, higher living costs, and inefficient transportation alternatives. But, just because a job can be done poorly doesn't mean it isn't a job worth doing.

[@HIRVIism]

Higher gas prices does not equal more profit for oil companies.

[@jonathanwong8960]

All the money from the gas prices don't have to go to the company. We could raise gas prices by making gas taxes, like Canada, who have high gas prices not because of more profit from companies, but for tax revenue. This could actually help the US by actually making a working universal healthcare system.

[@acp778]

The point of raising gas prices is to reduce the demand for gas, making other alternatives more sought after - not to the fill the pockets of oil executives.

[@jkhdfkjashdfk]

Jonathan Wong Let's just the tax the hell out of everything! How about you just limit the government's involvement in my life as much as possible and reduce taxes to the bare minimum needed to maintain roads, police force, the court system, and nothing else.

[@a-bird-lover]

My dream is to live in a high up, small apartment with lots of birds and a small balcony instead of an expensive house where I don't use anything except the coffee maker and the bed.

[@SCIFIguy64]

Until you have kids and suddenly need 3 or 4 bedrooms, a kitchen, personal laundry machines, and room to breathe without getting on each other's nerves.

[@a-bird-lover]

Joseph Stassup I hate children. My babies will be my birdies.

[@SCIFIguy64]

A Bird Lover So a depressing apartment block seems perfect for you then.

[@a-bird-lover]

Joseph Stassup It may be depressing to you, but you aren't me. So to me, it doesn't seem depressing at all.

[@SCIFIguy64]

A Bird Lover It's subjective, then.

[@Soapmore]

When I was 13 I thought like this video. But I know big cities are much more dangerous than rural areas and staying safe trumps everything else

[@RyanGatts]

iamihop Thank you for actually citing something :D I saw the OP's comment and when to go find the same statistics, but you beat me to it!

[@Dgfrmxon]

iamihop It's possible to interpret statistics the wrong way even if the numbers themselves are correct. The examples you're using of rural deaths sound largely voluntary. In this case, it DOES seem to matter what type of danger it is. Your evidence likely shows that rural people have a greater risk tolerance, not that they're living in a more dangerous location. This is not an argument in favor of living in an urban area.

[@Trucker_Josh]

Sprawl! No way am I living in an urban setting! Lol I'm country and I'm staying that way. I live an hour from the nearest "suburb" around the city. My home insurance deems my home "remote" now THAT'S what I'm talking about! :D love it! It's like being at a cottage everyday

[@Sorenzo]

I was having a conversation about this just yesterday. Europeans live in significantly denser environments, and it has a whole ton of benefits... If you don't mind living near other people. Which a lot of people do. It's kind of sad that people always want privacy and independence, associated with free-standing houses and large cars, but this ends up making people less happy in the long run because social cohesion suffers and resources are wasted that could be spent on a raft of public and private goods. Of course, in Europe, it's all due to zoning. I think our agricultural lands are also taken less for granted because there are so many of us on such a small continent, and we'd like to export foods to our neighbours instead of importing it from overseas.

[@isgdre]

sprawl or tall is a false dichotomy.

[@Ancor3]

*Minute* Earth, don't expect a elaborate explanation.

[@lollertoaster]

What are the other options? making new cities is the same as sprawl and going underground is damn expensive.

[@isgdre]

***** Well, Lots. But if you think underground is not an option because when it's only a money problem. Then good luck changing peoples base personalities in order to make tall the best option for eveyone.

[@lollertoaster]

isgdre Yeah, but to make tall you need legislations, not money. And what are those lots, I'm genuinely curious?

[@isgdre]

***** Ok, Well, Sprawl and Tall don't even measure the same thing. What would you call a city with only tall building that are far apart from each other? What he was getting at is normally measured in population density. Which is not a you have it or you don't. It's more of a sliding scale. In the video he also heavy implies that tall is better. It is of course is only better from a resource per capita point of view an is therefor almost useless. Agreed that it's not totally useless, but almost. On the other hand higher densities are better at spreading diseases and death and that will address the root problem. i.e. Population control. But I don't think that's what he was referring too.

[@sinephase]

Sprawl could also be explained by the fact you can have a house and yard at the same cost of having basically an apartment in the city.

[@thetruegoldenknight]

I understand what you're thinking and what you're saying, but the reason suburbs grow outwards is because residential areas - and residents themselves - feel that suburb homes with yards and some extent of privacy are great points for comfort. That's the key word: comfort. Living packed together densely may be more efficient from the scientific point of view, but from the social point of view, many humans cherish ideas such as privacy, space, and the greater sense of ownership that comes from having a single-residency house with a small plot of land as opposed to an apartment that's only a couple rooms large with no yard and no way to get away from the neighbors. Plus, residencies are already to an extent packed inside cities with row-homes and the like, so if population keeps growing but there is little more we can do to compact further, this could be a symptom of overpopulation. And finally, I imagine cities may like some level of organization: like, this area is designated for industry, while that other area is designated for research, and so forth. It gets increasingly harder to maintain such organization the more condensed cities become. Thus, it is my opinion that we should not altogether abolish sprawling suburbs. If the widening and spreading is truly growing out of hand, there might be a way to compromise (Suburban public transit might be a first step?), but if you ask me, this trend with developing cities exists for a reason.

[@MarioMjoed]

that's the whole point. we will need to sacrifice comfort - that's just the reality, there is absolutely no way around it. we can live in 50 degree heat with half the population of the world having to migrate somewhere else to not just outright die and nature crumbling down around us.... or, you know, live in a nice apartment in the city instead of a house in a suburb, not have a car, use less power and buy less useless shit.

[@AntonFetzer]

1:18 I do not understand why the German flag is shown on the side of the dense cities ? There are almost no skyscrapers in Germany and most people live in clusters of villages around small cities. Most people commute either by using the famous German public transport or their locally produced cars ;)

[@tulden1818]

As a person with interests only related to this topic (city, urban sprawl, development, architecture) this was probably the most interesting video I've ever watched compared to what other people find enjoyable

[@brianific]

Well, would your commute really use less gas or was traffic not factored into this? Traffic jams are gas guzzlers with all that starting and stopping.

[@ChocolateTeapot93]

Heino Sass There's this thing called weather. It tends to stop most people commuting by bike.

[@ChocolateTeapot93]

Heino Sass I was just explaining why most people don't use bikes.

[@brianific]

iamihop Heino Sass I've mostly heard a mixture of "I don't think its professional to arrive all sweaty" or "The sidewalks are crowded and isn't very safe to ride in the road". I don't think either of them are that unreasonable.

[@ChocolateTeapot93]

iamihop I live in Scotland. The fact that its bloody cold here and you'd show up to work wet or generally windswept and dishevelled makes a big difference.

[@ChocolateTeapot93]

iamihop I'm near Aberdeen. It doesn't get as cold here as it does in some places but its fairly cold all year round. Especially since we're on the coast and its usually windy here. A heat wave for us is 23C in summer and in the middle of winter its probably only about -2/-3C at the coldest point. You might get more rain in total in PA but I wouldn't be surprised if in Scotland it rains on more days. We tend to get lots of showers rather than massive downpours. We don't have many thunderstorms even though this summer it was between 80 and 100% humidity every day.

[@rin_etoware_2989]

Yes, let's build a tall city then watch it get toppled by the next earthquake.

[@christinehancock5995]

Pretty one sided video. There are reasons so many people prefer the suburbs. I thought this video would have at least touched on how to improve city life (parks, green space, schools, lower crime rates) not just increasing population density. Everyone wants to shrink their environmental impact, but high rise city life needs to be enticing, especially to young families; and lets face it, crowded cities are not very appealing right for raising children.

[@moekitsune]

+christine hancock Do you want MinuteEarth or HourEarth?

[@paulmahoney7619]

Green space just outside the city, which the density makes close to the center.

[@CadetGriffin]

The video seems as one-sided as Wikipedia's article on day camps. That article is unreliable because of its bias.

[@NTclaymore]

MinuteEarth: Live closer to other people! Me who survived the horror that was 2020: Nooo!

[@04cassius-jake]

To be honest no matter where you live its gonna be the smae due to how far this damn thing spread

[@darthmaul216]

The spread of Covid was lower in cities bud

[@blueberrypi4196]

As a kid i was always confused on the idea of a 'sub-urban' area, it sounded fun but now that im a teen... eh... I watched a lot of Oggy and the Cockroaches growing up and the idea of little houses occupying lot of precious space fo no reason and a big city at the centre was kinda mind bogguling

[@wspolczynnik_poissona]

Not everyone want to live in big city

[@MrMaxBoivin]

Those commies/liberals/agenda 21 supporters don't care about what you want. They gonna force you to live like they want you to live (while living in a different way). That's what the government is for. When you're idea are not good enough to persuade people, you can just use the guns of the government.

[@bballercheetahfan3]

Lay off the fox news dude. Cities have nothing to do with being liberal. In fact, conservatives like cities because it means better buissnesses and more money.

[@solank7620]

​@@MrMaxBoivin Yes, and the selfish bastards will demand that you be exploited to subsidize then. Then act like it's "free", while also saying nonsense like "we are all in it together" and talking of "empathy" and "kindness" while hatemongering against you and mocking you, and calling you selfish for not wanting to subsidize the idiots who hate you and look down on you so much. Even though they are extremely ignorant and emotional simpletons who don't understand the basics of anything, basically. They will always accuse you of what applies much more to them. I mean there was massive, massive issues with essentially everything this guy said in the video. The biggest of which is probably this guy talking about other areas being "resource hungry". It's like...dude. Cities are parasitic. Cities have a humongous territorial resource extraction footprint. Cities don't grow food, they don't mine metals, they don't provide lumber. They aren't even necessary. Other areas are actually necessary, cities are basically optional, outside of defensive/trade route/important strategic location type stuff. You actually need people living where resources are, you don't for cities. in the modern era cities are getting increasingly parasitic, they used to have factories and were important for shipping, but inreasingly they are just decadent and bourgeoisie mooch areas basically. Propped up by the massive, unbelievably bloated Machine we have that extracts by force from other areas and redistributes resources to them. It's always cognitive dissonance with these people, they are so wrong about everything it would make their heads explode. They talk about resource scarcity then advocate policies that will blow resources like mad. Just like they complain about wealth inequality and low wages and advocate policies that will skyrocket wealth inequality and depress wages. They have zero understanding of reality or causality at all. And they just keep getting zanier and zanier, and it's a vicious cycle/feedback loop.

[@unaliveeveryonenow]

a defensive and insecure comment

[@sutfolsemaj]

An equally insecure reply about original comment being offensive.

[@september1717]

A comment to try to stop the wildfire that is coming.

[@islandprincess714]

A reply saying bad things about the previous reply

[@fardtist]

a comment which has been created due to other random guys saying the exact same thing.

[@SangoProductions213]

OK. Normally, I'd agree with you. But here are some problems. 1) In such settings, you have very little space to work with in your living quarters (not a problem for me, I literally built a wooden hut and lived in it for 3 months on a dare...I did wire internet and such to it, but still) This can be especially bad if you are not good with close, tight spaces. 2) city congestion. OK. It could potentially be a lot better if more public transportation was added, and personal transportation was discouraged. But the damage from car companies buying out politicians to do the reverse has already been done, and very few people are willing to go back. Still. massive density = you can't just run down the street. You must wade through the shit that is called the human race. Except, it's even slower than wading through actual shit. Again, massive problem if you have a problem with tight spaces. 3) general desensitization of the populace. You are exposed to so many walking piles of shit, that you really lose empathy with others, over an extended period of time. (This is just an observation based on my father going to NY for 2 months on a business trip, but also on the general stereotypes of city dwellers - particularly NY, where supposedly someone was raped in the middle of the street, and no one did anything about it. It could possibly be inaccurate. It does make sense, though, if you think about it, as you could walk around hundreds of thousands of people a day, and think of them as nothing but an annoyance.) 4) People in these areas experience extreme levels of stress, and pollution tends to be a problem. Pollution can be fixed, but damned if people will want to. 5) Rent. Not Buy - Yet another problem with compact living space. The entire building is either owned by one person, or one company. You will always have to rent. You can never buy a room in a building. 6) Thin walls. Newly weds upstairs. Yeah, this is self-explanatory, no? 7) Loss of privacy. When you live so close to others, you lose the privacy you used to have. 8) Fire hazards. So, you live on the 35th floor of a building, and a fire starts on the first and makes it's way up. Good luck. 9) Height problems. So, you are scared of heights? Well, fuck you, there's no rooms lower than 35th anywhere in the entire god damned city that are freed up. Also. Have fun carrying your stuff up there. Just don't look down. Or worry when you feel the building sways slightly. It's suppose to.

[@henrischiltz]

VERY intersting video ! I mean it. It's my field of expertise and i'm usualy upset by the shortcup people uses but you made just the right ones keeping the video simple and clear to understand. But... I'm a bit in a shock reading the comments here ! I expected your viewers to be a bit more aware of the environment.

[@MegaMementoMori]

It's the first time I minused MinuteSomething. Suburbs with large yards are awesome, my parents have a house in one, while my grandma lives in a city block. Guess which place I prefer to visit? Plus my dad is obsessed about planting fruit trees, which fruits we turn into completely organic food. And we make our own wine from grapes from our yard. We can have bonfires, make roasted sausages, and so on an so forth. We can make parties without worrying about neighbours and police. Living in suburbs can be both more cost-efficient (all of the $ saved on wine and fruit nearly makes up for the increased property taxes and bills) and nature friendly (as I said, my dad is obsessed about planting fruit trees... we have over 100 of them on a place where there was nothing but grass and weeds previously). Overall, suburbs rule!

[@harveylopezt]

I think that from a psychological and emotional perspective, taller cities are the ones with the unhappiest persons. I encourage you to watch the contra-perspective of this in the video of better cities from "The School of Life" (a youtube channel). Is an interesting view (and is all the contrary of this video). Have every body an awesome day!

[@chengyanboon]

+Nebula Actually the video was a little bit disingenuous by showing a bunch of skyscrapers as an efficient city. Skyscrapers are just as inefficient as suburban homes because building them taller exposes them more to the elements so you have to pay for all sorts of inefficiencies in heating, elevators, etc. You don't necessarily need skyscrapers to have adequate density, townhomes and fitting more people into homes via rental suites, laneway housing, duplexes etc. is more than enough to make things viable.

[@bristoled93]

+Chengyan Boon In the cities we have there is simply no space for townhouses we have to build up.

[@chengyanboon]

bristoled93 I'd argue it depends from city to city. In New York, London, Shanghai, sure it's probably not worth looking into options besides skyscrapers. But there's plenty of areas in, say, Toronto and Vancouver and similar sized cities where you can accommodate hundreds of thousands of people by increasing density via low-rises. Once you get to the density point where transit with decent headways becomes possible, you're most of the way there already.

[@bristoled93]

Chengyan Boon Not just London but any where in the United Kingdom, there is not the space to not build up.

[@chengyanboon]

What about somewhere like Bristol?

[@HenriZwols]

So a high, dense city is a 'better' city... Well, better for the environment maybe, not for the people living there. Why do you think suburbs exists in the first place?

[@SmilingJack100]

racism, to a large extent.

[@adnanilyas6368]

Suburbs exist because land was cheap in the US and the interstate highway system made it very easy to get around. If you look at other parts of the world, suburbs constitute a much smaller part of the city.

[@RyanGatts]

I moved from the safest suburbs in the nation to a city. Cities are objectively better in every measure possible. Actually, on that note frankjohnson123 , is parroting an unsubstantiated fallacy. Here's some data about where it's safe to live and where it isn't: www.virginia.edu/topnews/releases2002/lucy-april-30-2002.html and another: www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/263826.php Suburbs aren't safer than cities, they are a way of distancing yourself from people and surrounding you and your family with an image of safe pastoral living... an image largely divorced from reality.

[@frankjohnson123]

Ryan Gatts Didn't mention safety, I was talking about crime. "Cities are objectively better in every measure possible." Suburbs are infinity+1.

[@MoonLiteNite]

in the end, zoning laws screw us. Houston has it right!

[@MTobias]

+Christopher Banacka ...you are kidding, right? Right!!!???

[@Bobelponge123]

Of all the cities... Houston???

[@chris-hu7tm]

the simpler the better, a straight line is better

[@PwnEveryBody]

Honestly, why are you guys complaining about high gas prices and how they shouldn't be raised even further, when the whole idea behind higher gas prices is to encourage more environmentally friendly ways of transportation, like walking, cycling, public transport, biofuel, and electric cars? You literally can't keep using fossil fuels for much longer, so you're going to have to ditch gas and diesel for more environmentally friendly kinds of fuel anyway. Why not start now?

[@UltroGmr]

0:14 “ *Jobs,* art, *jobs* “

[@acglass]

Man, I am so happy that my life is not about efficiency, rather about quality.

[@gopesizdopes]

it's not that simple... owning houses allows you to own your own land, which is not the case for cities... although mixed zoning sounds like a great idea

[@coolcitydude123]

What's so important about owning your own land ?

[@gopesizdopes]

+Brandon Persaud when you pay for a house, you're paying for land and house construction... over time when your house's value goes up, it's because of the land. land's value appreciates a lot in a relatively short time, as such it's important mostly because of financial benefit... condos don't have that benefit and the value usually depriciates as building gets older or increases slowly (if in big cities because it's already expensive)..... other benefits include having freedom to do things on your own property (with restrictions of course).. even if its for a short time, buying and then selling a house is way cheaper then buying a condo and definitely better than renting

[@pabrodi]

+Go K It seems you never owned a condo.

[@gopesizdopes]

+pabrodi are you referring to buying a new condo development in a remote location, wait for the city to develop around it which will definitely increase it's value? ... I think this conversation is more about living in a condo in an already fully developed city

[@pabrodi]

My family owns two houses and two condos. All of them in a huge city. The houses didn't get half of value increase of condos.

[@martinkasse1932]

Yes, BUT big and compact citys have there own problems, for example developing an Haze umbrelle wich rises the temprature. Citys often have no Gardens or Yards so the ground is sealed wider and more tightly, this leads to 1. worse drainage and therefore 2. the ground water levle sinks. These are espacily a Problem near the coast because then you get salt water intrusion and overflow of the sea or rivers are much worse. Also Citys are often much louder, stinky and expensive. I don't think that we should go for more citys.

[@joshanniedsilva6921]

This video totally changed my idea of rural areas!

[@alexnguyen8913]

I honestly thought that this was going to help me with Sims City...

[@SaitamaIRL]

What about crime...?

[@therealcellar1969]

what about the environment?

[@Phroshy]

Yes, what about crime? There is no natural, direct correlation between crime rate and population density. The higher crimerate in North-American cities is due to further poor policy-making which has the poor aggregate in cities and the rich flee to their own, segregated suburbia. In countries with a better social mixture in large cities there is no evident correlation between density and crime, violent or otherwise.

[@therealcellar1969]

JaffeCakeINC and what about godzilla?

[@therealcellar1969]

JaffeCakeINC What about the children?

[@dviator86]

Crime is eco-friendly and progressive! :)

[@davec1615]

The anti-suburb folks are thinking too much about finances and the environment instead of livability. Ill keep my 4 bedroom single family home with a big yard and lawn, thank you

[@jasonbikeracer1]

Also he neglected to mention that it builds no equity spending your life paying into massive rental companies, instead of paying off a home.

[@camnew1602]

Not all suburb houses are rented. Almost all the houses in my neighborhood are owned.

[@kallistiX1]

The burbs are outdated and outmoded. That big lawn and yard is wasteful and that house is an energy sponge. *_IF_* you weren't surrounded by *_DOZENS AND DOZENS_* of other people doing the exact same thing, this wouldn't be a problem. But, you are. And, people like you are the reason folks think we need less people because that is the only way you can sustain your wasteful lifestyle; you want to control the birth rates in other countries because you're afraid you wont get to water your begonias while you run your Jacuzzi.

[@JovialDescent]

well the channel is called minute earth not minute you after all

[@Vitorruy1]

Best argument against the human population myth i ever heard.

[@wormsblink2887]

Hi Henry I really enjoyed the video, although I did come up with some counter-arguments along the way and would like the KZbin audience to evaluate them if possible. Ok here goes. It is economically better to cluster commercial and industrial areas together due to economies of scale. By integrating workplaces and homes together, there is less efficient resource management (eg supply trucks travel to many locations instead of a commercial hub). Building taller might solve the problem of Rapidly expanding cities, but then you have to consider the energy required to ferry that mass of people and goods up against gravity, the extra resources to be invested in support structures and the risks due to natural disasters etc.

[@nicolasmauser]

I dont wanna live in a future like the dystopian novel "Brave New World" ,thank you.

[@spudbot69]

Wow wow wow, gas prices are high enough ha ha. No but really not everyone can't afford to live in the big city. Especially when the jobs are in the suburbs not the city and its cheaper to live outside the city

[@icannotchoose]

We'll just get solar roadways and drive electric cars.

[@spudbot69]

Thats funny too because their are decent electric cars out there. Even if you want performance there are cars with good performance and electric. But why their are not more electrics I bet you know. But this video seems to assume every one works in the city. I might be wrong but yeah we have a long way to go

[@CalebdGM]

Drama_Llama_5000 Solar roadways would be pretty great, but like changing to fluorescent bulbs they have the downside of making us feel like we've done enough. Also, James, you make a good point, I feel like the idea of this video is that if our leaders build cities like this then it will be easier to afford to live in the city and there would be more jobs there.

[@spudbot69]

Yeah see that was what I was thinking of also it was a what if video. I have heard of testing on high tech roads and other stuff. But without the money behind it it will not flourish. But you also have to think of the dangers of living in a heavily populated area.

[@Ancor3]

Drama_Llama_5000 You're joking...right?

[@georgeandrews1394]

You know, for all the complaints about living in an urban jungle, if you think about it, having people live more compactly might result in more greenspace in the city, if you planned it right (and yes, I know the near impossibility of actually making a nice space for people to live in since everyone else wants to mess it up for profit). For example (and this is probably not a good example, but just follow along), there's a small, three-story apartment block at the end of my street, with (I think) fifteen apartments total. I'm more than likely wrong; I'm not well versed in the internal layout of walkups. There are 25 houses on that side of the street, and there would be about 29 houses if it wasn't there. I know at least three of the houses on that side are home to two renters each, and I'd guess three more also have two renters. That's 35 individuals/families living on that side of the street (assuming the walkup didn't exist). If the houses were replaced with three-story walkups like the one I described, only three would be needed to house everyone on the 29 house street (to the best of my knowledge, there are no families with more than six members on the street, and I'd hazard that that's probably the norm for where I live). The walkup that is currently there takes the about same amount of space as the three houses across from it; as two of them are larger than the average house on my street, we'll call it four houses. That means that the space of only 12 houses are used to hold 35 individuals/families with the space of 17 houses useful for other things. Even assuming only nine apartments in the space, that's four walkups using the space of sixteen houses, leaving the space of 13 houses free. More compactness doesn't have to mean more urban jungle. I personally wouldn't feel comfortable living in a skyscraper or a ten-story apartment, but three stories up wouldn't be too bad, and it would help at least somewhat with space. Changing one side of one street wouldn't do much, but change a whole neighbourhood, and you have a green but more compact neighbourhood. A little goes a long way.

[@vicjr.1813]

You seem to focus on lesser space consumption but, you know, people have preferences, real estate exists because it's also one of the powerful driving forces that makes an economy go round.

[@HandsomeHanson1]

Stupid liberal thinking. Don't raise gas prices! Make cars more fuel efficient. We've been doing so since the late 70s and keep getting better and better. Im sorry but fossil fuel is here to stay. Electric cars depend on electricity made from fossil fuel. Solar panels and wind turbine magnets depend on rare earth metals that are increasingly being depleted and have a heavy environmental impact upon extraction. Living in cities is not the answer, filthy public transit is not the answer, going backwards in technology is not the answer. Lets use our logic and intellect to improve our technology and make things more energy efficient. Not destroy the suburbs and all move into a densely populated city. All your suggestions in this video included a large government involvement, that my friends is definitely not the answer.

[@TheCheck999]

If you artificially increased gas prices the market would respond by producing more fuel efficient vehicles if you use legislation to help provide an economic reason to improve technology the market will generally deliver.

[@HIRVIism]

"Fossil fuel is here to stay" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA that might be the funniest thing :D

[@TheJesterInYellow]

Yeah yeah yeah, shut the fuck up. Libertarians or whatever you like to call yourself are completely worthless. Sure, the guvment might be 100% total complete evil like you like to pretend, but they also run the sewage systems, and if you get rid of them, then nothing will change except you'll have backed up toilets.

[@seigeengine]

HandsomeHanson1 Sorry to burst your bubble, but no, it's not. Fossil fuels will go the way of whale oil. Not now, but in a relatively short time. Efficiency IS very important, but electricity is not all fossil fuels. Here in Ontario it's mostly nuclear with a bunch of hydro, a titch of wind, and a smidgen of natural gas to deal with peak demand. If better technology is the answer, why not improve renewable tech rather than non-renewable tech? Surely you can see the irony in you ignoring the one possibility. More importantly, public transport is provably more efficient than individual transport. David Bowie Sama Sensei Senpai Sama Sensei Kun I am a libertarian. There's nothing wrong with libertarianism. The problem is extremists, and morons who can't get their head out of their buckets.

[@random1234567ful]

Deliciousbutter Nuclear power is super efficient but then we run into the problem or waste

[@jillwoodral3518]

1:55 ah yes high gas prices, does not sound familiar at all🤣

[@ThePureLegend95]

"And when people live densely, they use resources less intensely." I love that line! :D

[@samin90]

No thanks, I like being able to walk out my front door and startle a deer that was piddling on my lawn in a quiet neighborhood surrounded by trees older than all of the commenters here Meanwhile an hour away in NYC someone making $100k can be renting a shoe box living paycheck to paycheck

[@kawaiiroom1014]

you really don't know until you spend a year in their shoes

[@vicjr.1813]

Well, living in the city area could be good but, I'd like some personal space, fresh air, a sizable area where I can have a gathering/party over the weekends, decent neighbors that also want to shy away from the hussle and tussle in the big city, don't get me wrong, I earn $150k annually but, I'd rather have a 30 minute drive than staying within the city.

[@lawrenceoliver105]

Vic Jr. the point of this video was to explain that cities produce less carbon dioxide and use less resources

[@vicjr.1813]

Myth City at what cost? Both have big impacts on social lives and stress level, ours is just a comparison.

[@a.j.deutsch1792]

Um I barely use any Carbon dioxide and I am in deep country! I like it when the deer are gobbling down my flowers! It makes them plumper for hunting season! So of cities produce less carbon look at CHINA! What the heck happened There! I like it when I don't have to smell garbage

[@FACTOTUM_55]

Sorry bud. But once a large portion of cars become electric raising gas prices don't do much. The prices of living quarters in the city is so high that the average person simply can't afford a place to live. For the rental fee of a apartment in Toronto you can pay a mortgage in the suburbs

[@rohanmicklethwaite7173]

It's from efficiency not wether everyone could afford it, if they could dense areas are better

[@IamSamys]

"... so, policies allow us to influence the shape of our cities." This, of course is due to another policy.

[@acp778]

Typically city jobs scale to cover the costs of living in cities; but of course this is where policy comes into place

[@frankjohnson123]

***** Clearly the argument presented in the video is too simplistic, then.

[@IamSamys]

frankjohnson123 You mean the example. The argument was to change policies with a specific goal.

[@girafmad]

Sorry but I would die if I where in a city, the noice is unbearable, I like living in the middle of nowhere.

[@KaosFireMaker]

What he is saying is suburbia should be gone, not rural (as i assume is where you live because you said middle of nowhere)

[@girafmad]

KaosFireMaker Ohh yeah My mistake.

[@Boborbot]

if the noise is a problem, install soundproof windows.

[@girafmad]

Nitay A. How would I hear the birds?

[@Boborbot]

girafmad ***** this video is not about how *current* cities are better then subbers. the idea of this video is about how cities in general are better for the environment. its about that if we want to save the planet, save on resources and slow down pollution and the planet's warming we should all move into cities. dont forget that in the close future all cars will be electric, so the only noise you will find in cities will be human beings. we will start using other ways of making electricity, mainly atomic power plants, so the air would be much cleaner then the air in todays big cities. public and personal transportation will become faster and cheaper, so factories wouldn't need to be so close to cities, because it will be simple for workers to get to them. and if you care about the planet, and i hope you do, you probably hate those companies that dont give a shit about the environment, just about the monthly check.you are just like them. arrogant. selfish. dont look at the grand picture.

[@hikodzu]

Basically grow vertically not horizontally

[@jerrygreenest]

"chock-full of jobs, art, jobs..."

[@dontpuchit]

I love living in the city, id rather live in the city than in the suburbs.

[@charcoalchest4039]

Who likes city's!!!! You are squished together in a road or in a apartment and the noice breaks my ears!!!!

[@flyhighpizzapie]

Or just live in the country, much nicer :P

[@HIRVIism]

Yeah. Farms everwhere, stupid people everywhere, nothing interesting anywhere. Fun.

[@flyhighpizzapie]

HIRVIism deadeaded Oh you guys are funny :P

[@frozendragon498]

Yeah I would rater kill myself.

[@seigeengine]

This. deadeaded HIRVIism How about you obtain actual skills that are desirable, rather than having to beg for your position? Also, there are plenty of interesting and intelligent people in the country. I've met city people, and I've met country people, and I'd rather spend the day with the latter than the former. And if you need a city to be entertained, you're pathetic.

[@MountainBlade100]

deadeaded Well its good to know you communicate to strangers in the middle of the city street ?????????

[@SCRedstone]

based MinuteEarth was orange-pilled even before the inception of Not Just Bikes

[@thomasr5302]

In Britain outside cities and big towns we have the "green belt", which is just countryside that you're not allowed to build on. 20 miles out from the centre of London and you're in the fabulous countryside but 20 minutes out from the centre of, say, New York, you're still in New York and nowhere near the countryside yet.