SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
An article over at Motherboard covers the growing inequities in the US resulting from the cultivation of individualized transport options.
Carsharing, ridesharing, ride-hailing, public transit, and cycling—"all of those things are needed to replace personal cars," said [Robin Chase, co-founder of Zipcar].
It's a nice idea, but to actually kill car ownership, we're first going to need to have some very uncomfortable conversations about class and equity in the United States. Public transit used to be the great equalizer, but affordable private rides have become the new favorite of the middle class. When richer people give their money to private ride-hailing or carsharing companies, public transit loses money—and that's not good for cities, societies, or the environment.
[...] This dependence on ride-hailing is having the adverse effect of increasing traffic congestion, which in turn makes bus service slower and more frustrating. Besides, until cities change dramatically—i.e. more parks, fewer parking lots, less sprawl, better accommodations for active and public transit—decreased rates of car ownership likely won't benefit the environment if we're still travelling the same distances in cars.
Those living in countries that still have good or remnants of good mass transit will have different insights. It is unlikely that without good, reliable, vast public transit networks, there will be social and economic equity, assuming that is a goal. While public transit can suck, especially in the US, it is sometimes necessary to take one for the team and vote with your wallet. Unfortunately the situation is often framed as a false dilemma, that there can only be private cars or only mass transit, but not both coexisting and used for different ends at different times by the same people.
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Wednesday February 14 2018, @08:13AM (11 children)
> That is right: personal transit is more efficient for the users. If there are traffic jams, it is because there are too many people, and mass transit will not fix the problem.
That is quite insightful. I think that is the fundamental problem. If there are too many people per square kilometer, then all kinds of things break down.
The higher the density of humans, the more problems you have with garbage, sewage, traffic, congestion, living affordability, illness & health, etc... The solutions given: mass transit, autonomous cars, etc... are just temporary band aids.
I would think the solution is to decentralize. Why do we need to shove humans like pack rats into concrete cubes in one place? Sure, back in the day when sending a message 200 miles would take 5 days, and sending a message internationally would take months, I saw the reason to pack people into cities. Increased communication really was a benefit, and it improved a lot in society, to the point where it was worth the hassles of living in a city,
However now we have developed communication technology to the point where it is almost transparent where you are geographically located. I could be writing this post in the middle of a world urban centre, or out in some long forgotten village in the middle of nowhere , and apart from maybe an increase in latency of 30ms, you wouldn't notice.
We here, can debate and communicate across the world from all kinds of places. We can work, interact and get things done across the world. I kind of expected that increase in internet access to rural areas would result in an exodus from cities, as people would be able to work from home, not have to commute at all.
Yet I didn't expect the idea of having to "go to work" to be so ingrained in society that many would willingly waste all that fuel/energy propelling a person to an office to type on a PC and back again, every day, when said person can do the same thing from home.
Maybe it is just a case of society being slow to adjust to new technology, and one day the only people who commute to work are those who actually have to physically be there for their job.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Wednesday February 14 2018, @12:07PM (3 children)
sudo mod me up
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Unixnut on Wednesday February 14 2018, @12:21PM (2 children)
That sounds like a very inefficient way to structure a country. Why did they do it that way?
I mean, sure, you don't want heavy industry/commerce right next to your home, but it is perfectly feasible to have light commerce/industrial and residential together. Light residential and recreational even makes more sense to have nearby.
Unless you are a developing country, heavy manufacturing is going to be a small percentage of your economy. The bulk of it would be services and light manufacture/commercial, which (with prudent planning) can be near residential places.
Seems nothing sillier than forcing the entire working populace through the transport system twice a day. Waste of man hours, energy and resources.
(Score: 3, Informative) by TheRaven on Wednesday February 14 2018, @03:20PM (1 child)
Historical context is important. Most UK cities, for example, began as clusters of towns or villages that gradually expanded until they were overlapping. All of the component parts were largely self contained, because most people got around them by walking. Most of the roads were initially developed to support a horse and cart. During the industrial revolution, factories had to be built within walking distance of wherever the workforce lived, and the same applied to shops.
In contrast, most US cities experienced their big expansion at around the time that cars became cheap enough to own, and back when fuel was very cheap. As such, they're designed around the idea that you drive pretty much anywhere. This is particularly visible somewhere like San Diego, where six-lane highways run through the middle of the city and residents expect to drive anywhere more than a block away.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 15 2018, @02:07AM
That's mostly because one of the most influential planners [wikipedia.org] of the 20th century absolutely *hated* cities.
He pushed hard to make life completely automobile-based, rather than walking, bicycling or using public transit. If he'd had his way, he would have devastated significant portions of New York City with highways across major thoroughfares [wikipedia.org]:
The most famous of these failed plans was the Lower Manhattan Expressway [curbed.com], which would have razed what is now some of the most expensive real estate in NYC, as well as several very crowded neighborhoods.
Sadly, Moses' disciples didn't have the sort of opposition that he did, and you can see it in cities all over the US.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday February 14 2018, @01:14PM (5 children)
It seems like there are many folks who are disgusted by the idea of traveling on public transportation with strangers. They want their car. And they don't want to share it with anyone.
And there are those who find public transportation to be not only more efficient, but to their liking.
As a general rule, these two sets of folks are often at odds not only when it comes to transportation but also in terms of urban living vs. suburban/rural living. What's more, they tend to diverge as to whether most people are kind, decent human beings or nasty scumbags who would happily shoot you in the back of the head if it made them a few pennies.
These kinds of dichotomies really remind me of the split in Asimov's writings between the Spacers [wikipedia.org] who despise human contact and use robots and automation to allow each individual to be alone as much as possible, without those other icky humans, and Settlers [wikipedia.org] who prefer to live in communities, share their space with other people and (gasp!) reproduce by having sex.
No, the parallels aren't perfect, but I find it interesting that Asimov homed in on those different ideas that humans have about themselves, other humans and societies. I think that's part of what made him such an engaging writer -- despite the technology and far-flung settings, he wrote real, human stories.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Wednesday February 14 2018, @01:54PM (4 children)
> As a general rule, these two sets of folks are often at odds not only when it comes to transportation but also in terms of urban living vs. suburban/rural living. What's more, they tend to diverge as to whether most people are kind, decent human beings or nasty scumbags who would happily shoot you in the back of the head if it made them a few pennies.
It is quite fascinating, I agree. I suspect it is due to experiences. My anecdotes are as follows:
- I was born and grew up in a big urban city. My experience of other people (from neighbours, to work, to strangers in the street or on public transport) has generally been a case of assholes, scumbags and people who would fuck you over if they could earn a few pennies on it. I've had it all, from being screwed out of money owed, to being robbed, to racist abuse, to people trying to hurt me with weapons. As such, the less contact you have with other human beings, the better. People here, if you walk around, always stare into the ground when they are outside. I once didn't do this, and would look and smile at people as I walked around. Reactions ranged from confusion to people actually hurling abuse at me. So I didn't do it again.
- A friend of mine lives in the countryside, and it couldn't be more different. Everyone assumes everyone else is nice, people get along, help each other, and they even share each others stuff. Very much a community feeling, of helping and being helped in return. Complete strangers will look at you, and even with you a good morning on your way to work.
Indeed I am in the process of making the transition to the countryside, and to be honest, I'm having trouble adjusting the most to the idea of strangers actually being decent human beings. Neighbours particularly I have trouble interacting with, despite it being the most commonly done thing in rural communities (being invited over to dinner/drinks). It just feels like an alien world. There is even a higher chance of actually having sex, women seem more interested in you as a person, rather than how high you sit on the social ladder and the size of your wallet, as has been my experience dating city girls.
I think cities breed assholes, quite frankly. The "rat race", chasing ever higher the social ladder, trying to keep up (or beat) prices going up by getting as much money as you can, obsession with status and material wealth, showing off to others how much better you are doing in the "race", etc... it breeds a nasty, dog eat dog culture. Also, shoving all people of the world in one pot results in clashes of cultures, of ideologies, of religions and even hygiene standards.
And then you get the locals resenting all the foreigners, the poor ones blame them for everything being expensive, or $some_other_problem, and before you know it you have issues of racial attacks and other unpleasantness.
Increasing density of cities means more and more people crammed into smaller and smaller spaces, with less and less "personal space", resulting in stress, aggravation and breakdowns. It would not surprise me to find that it is mostly city dwellers that need to see shrinks, or use "meditation apps", or just pop brain pills to stay functional.
It isn't even a matter of public transport. The people I met in the country I would not mind sharing a bus with at all (and have done so without a problem).
You do however get a wide variety of world cuisine, and always some events happening, so cities are great places to visit and go out, but I think they are horrid to live.
> No, the parallels aren't perfect, but I find it interesting that Asimov homed in on those different ideas that humans have about themselves, other humans and societies. I think that's part of what made him such an engaging writer -- despite the technology and far-flung settings, he wrote real, human stories.
Very true. Asimov was the first SciFi I ever read, and who got me hooked. I am a big fan of his work.
The parallels do seem to be there, but I do find it funny that the people most packed together are the ones who detest human contact the most. Maybe because they are forced to be in contact with other humans constantly, to the point where having "your space alone" is a luxury.
I guess the flip side, of one man on a desert island, would be overjoyed at interacting with another human being, anyone, just to compensate for loneliness.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday February 14 2018, @05:16PM (3 children)
Your perspective is quite interesting. Thanks for sharing it. I've had (mostly) the opposite experience.
I was also born, grew up and, in fact, still live in the most urban city in the US.
While I have encountered assholes throughout my life, the vast majority of people that I've interacted with have been decent, kind and happy to help.
Yes, in a big city where there's little personal space, people generally don't smile and say hello as they walk by, and usually not on public transport either. However, I've discovered that this is actually a form of respect. In a place that's crowded, if you smile and say hello to everyone you pass by, you'll be doing that for *hours* rather than doing the things you need and/or want to do. What's more, since it is crowded, personal space is at a minimum. In that circumstance, when you inject yourself into someone else's space, you're reducing what small personal space they have. As such, that's rather rude.
At the same time, if you have need to interact with others, my experience has been, except in a very few situations, quite positive. Yes, I've had people be nasty to me, or combative. Yes, I've had guns pointed at me more than once. Yes, I even got mugged once. However, in over fifty years, those experiences are rare enough that I can remember each instance. I can't even count the number of times that people have been kind, concerned and happy to interact, and even assist if necessary.
I've traveled quite a bit around the US, and lived in various places, both big and small, and I have to say that most of the people I've interacted with have similarly been kind and pleasant.
I'm not sure why our experiences have been so different. I suppose we could compare notes and see if we can figure it out.
I have to disagree with that first point. As I mentioned, almost all of the people I deal with are decent, friendly and don't give me a moment's trouble or concern. I will say that I've met many people who moved to my city who tend to get burned out by, as you say, the "rat race" and end up leaving. And there certainly are those who are obsessed with material gain. I don't really like those people either and choose not to be around them. There certainly are many, many more people who are not quite so obsessed. At the same time, the big city can be a hard place to make a living.
Most of the people I know (either personally or professionally) are pretty decent, and while they do look out for number one, they don't see life as a zero sum game.
I revel in the multitude of cultures, clothing, languages and cuisines. There certainly are bigoted people here, who hate and fear what's different. But I've seen Muslims friendly with orthodox Jews (in fact, I, an Atheist, and three friends, a Christian, a Muslim and an Orthodox Jew have dinner together on a pretty regular basis), people ranging from ashen pale to deep brown sharing friendships, romantic relationships and families. As for personal hygiene, well I've found that to be quite varied wherever I've gone.
Just within a quarter mile square around where I live there are very wealthy folks, middle class folks, relatively poor folks and *very* poor folks. What's more, there are many cultures. Asians, South Asians, Caribbean people from many different cultures, people of European extraction, Middle Easterners and more. I don't see any of that. In fact, the last time I heard about a racial attack was when some guy came in from hundreds of miles away, intent on killing black folks. He slashed one guy with a sword and was promptly arrested.
Sure, there are bigots here. And as long as they keep their bigotry to themselves in public, and only take it out when they're with their bigoted scumbag compatriots, no one really cares.
Here's a news flash for you: There are assholes and scum of *all* stripes.
I can't speak for everyone, but as I mentioned above, we have surprisingly effective ways to deal with the lack of personal space. It does get to some people, although it's been my experience that those are mostly people that have come from elsewhere (whether it be commuters from the suburbs -- you couldn't pay me to do that --- Ugh!) or folks from other places that find it difficult to fit in. Most of the people from here that have issues will generally just move elsewhere, like yourself.
I'm glad you've surrounded yourself with people who are decent, caring and kind. I think that's critical to having a good life.
I will say that some of the *worst* experiences I have had with other humans has been in suburban areas. In small towns and rural areas, I've found that people are generally quite decent and pleasant. I guess the common thread is that when you treat others with kindness and respect, you'll usually get the same back. But there are assholes everywhere.
As for Asimov, he really carried these things to extremes, but it was the Spacers who didn't want to be around others, so much so that they'd reproduce by having robots transport gametes to be fertilized in artificial wombs rather than spend time with anyone. They lived on vast rural estates by themselves, shunning even audiovisual communications with other humans.
The Settlers, on the other hand, lived together in large urban centers with big populations and procreated the old-fashioned way -- in order to be around other humans.
Most of the folks around me enjoy the company of their fellow humans. We are, after all, a social species used to living in groups. I wonder if you'll share the name of this "big city" in which you grew up, so I'll know where most of the assholes are. Because they aren't here.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Thursday February 15 2018, @11:24AM (2 children)
That is interesting, a very different experience indeed.
One thing you mentioned is that you are in the US. I am talking about the UK (London is where I am from), and while we speak English, culturally they are very different.
I had a look, and apparently the US is the first in the world on dwelling size per person, while the UK is last:
https://www.apartmenttherapy.com/average-home-sizes-around-the-151738 [apartmenttherapy.com]
So firstly, it seems you and I on opposite ends of the density spectrum. Based on what I've figured out, the average size of a home for an urban American is about what I can expect in a rural house (the rural house I am now in is around 700 sqft). How big was your urban apartment? The flat I lived in was around 400sqft, and that was considered large for a 1 bedroom (because it was built decades ago, when everything was bigger).
Based on those numbers, we here are 2.8 times more tightly packed in then you. Imagine your place being about 3 times smaller (and everyone 3x closer together) to get an idea. With that kind of density you start treading on other peoples toes (and nerves) quite rapidly.
Also, American apartments tend to be built in well defined clear blocks, with ample space between them and well laid out. Here the city is old and not well planned out for the amount of people in it.
My experience with neighbours has been overly negative. Usually when a neighbour gets in contact with me, it means a lot of stress, arguing and probably yet another trip to the lawyers. Then there are issues with vandalising of my property, pettiness, arguments over small things like where the bins were left out, or where someone parked their car, etc... just, lots of petty shit that is a waste of life and money, and that can't be solved because no matter how you look at it, there just isn't enough space, so you are constantly fighting over who has the right to what little space there is and and how. Not to mention being able to hear everything your neighbours are doing gets tiring.
And I don't need people to say hello to me, but looking up once in a while, or at least not hurling abuse at me if I smile at them would not be bad. I mean seriously, if you don't like that I smiled at you just look away and carry on. Not need to get abusive about it.
As for the experiences. Well, one thing I can say is that Americans practice assimilation of culture. You have people from all over the world, but they "leave their problems at the door", and become Americans, even if they keep some of their culture, tradition and customs (that is kept private).
Round here people keep their identity far more. I don't know what exactly, but it isn't just the locals being xenophobes. Recently there was a massive brawl on the street down the road between Turks and Kurds because of what is going on in the middle east right now. You have radical Islamists attacking, you have east europeans being abused for "taking our jobs" from the locals, and then the anger directed at Asians for seemingly being successful in business. Essentially people live in fear of one another round here, and the less human contact you have, the better.
Everywhere you go there is division and fingerpointing and arguing, since the UK decided to vote to leave the EU, the anti-immigrant rhetoric has really gone up a notch. I've had racial abuse since I was a child in school, it is just something that is common here, especially if you don't look white. However it has really gone up lately.
We also don't have guns (unless you are a criminal or the police), so normally a criminal knows you are unarmed, and is far more likely to have a go then otherwise. Usually they are armed with a blade of some kind, stabbings are very common here, for all kinds of reasons. The only time I've been stabbed (or rather, almost stabbed, moved out the way, and just ended up with a nasty scar where the blade hit my arm) was because of where I was descended from, and it wasn't from a local either.
I've been to other big cities, but visiting is very different to living, so I cannot compare. Indeed for visiting, London is awesome, I cannot recommend it enough, however I would not recommend living here unless you are very rich (and if you are very rich, well, then wherever you go, you will have a pleasant experience).
So, maybe the US overall is a more pleasant place to be an urbanite. I dislike the suburbs because of the dreary identical homes, that have no real flare or uniqueness. It is a sea of grey and misery to me.
I ended up going to Oxford, which, being a university town, means it is very diverse, and the locals in addition to being very nice, are really tolerant of different peoples and cultures (I guess after centuries of hosting students, you get used to all kinds of people). Plus the increased space means nobody has a reason to start an argument over who has the right to place their garbage here or there, so fewer reasons to argue, and more reasons to be pleasant to one another.
So there we go, a bit of background :-)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:44PM (1 child)
As, I imagine, it is in the UK, in the US, flat sizes (and rental/purchase costs) vary wildly [businessinsider.com]. In New York City (where I live) the median cost of a one bedroom is US$2,200 and is 750sq feet. However, even within NYC, prices and sizes vary significantly by area and access to public transportation. I've been searching around trying to find a breakdown of costs by area within NYC, but my search hasn't led me to any decent comparisons.
I grew up in several different neighborhoods in NYC, with varying flat sizes. Where I live now (and for the past 20+ years) is a 2BR 600sq ft flat in a five (we count the ground floor as floor one) story walk-up building with a total of 20 flats. This is pretty typical for what we call "pre-war" building (the war in question is WWI, in case you're interested). My rent is about 2/3 of my neighbors due to rent regulation [wikipedia.org] laws.
When I was in London a few years ago (and I had a lovely time) I made sure to look at house/flat listings in the windows of every estate agent I walked by. I noted that housing in London is a bit more expensive than NYC. Which is rather interesting, since Greater London [wikipedia.org] is approximately twice the size of NYC [wikipedia.org] with a similar population. As such, NYC is about twice as crowded as London.
I did run across this comparison of London and NYC [businessinsider.com], and found that they are, in many respects, quite similar.
My experience has been (mostly) positive with neighbors, although, as I mentioned previously, there are assholes *everywhere*.
It's sad that some folks are so petty. I don't really concern myself with my neighbors, other than to say hello, be helpful if I can, and ogle (I live quite near a private university, and a number of students, mostly women in their late teens/early twenties live in other flats in my building) now and again.
I guess there are fewer issues (at least in the areas you mention) because each building (there are a couple dozen of similar or larger size on my block alone) has its own set of bins, and bullding superintendents [wikipedia.org] or someone contracted by them will empty the trash/recycling bins and place them out on the sidewalk for collection (in my neighborhood, collection is Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday mornings, Tuesday being the only day for the collection of recyclables) the nght before collection.
Parking is wholly egalitarian, with no restriction on *who* can park where, but with alternate-side (cars may not park on side or the other on alternate days for several hours to allow street sweepers [youtube.com] to clean the streets, along with no parking zones for schools and fire hydrants [wikipedia.org].
Vandalism can always be an issue, but that hasn't been a big issue in NYC, at least in areas where I've lived, over the past thirty years or so. There was a report the other day of a cemetery being vandalized [ny1.com].
I mostly can't hear what my neighbors are doing, although with my windows open others can, apparently, hear what I'm doing. On one occasion, I walked out of the building with my (then) girlfriend and a neighbor remarked on how much in love we must be. Granted, that GF was pretty loud. ;)
I'll need to continue this in another comment, as I ran into the 10k character limit. More to come.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:45PM
And here's the rest...
Wow! that rarely happens to me, but as I mentioned previously, given the lack of personal space, we generally (many women would disagree and the men who are such scumbags deserve a punch in the face) try not to invade that space. This guy [gothamist.com] has some interesting points to make about that. Also, New Yorkers tend to be pretty straightforward and there's much less of the "smile to your face, stab you in the back" mentality in my experience, than there is in other places. I find it quite refreshing.
NYC is *quite* multicultural. One of my neighbors (she's in her 80s) barely speaks English, even though she's lived here for decades. Headscarves, Yarmulkes, turbans and other cultural attire are quite common. The ubiquitous NYC neighborhood delis/bodegas [gothamist.com] in my neighborhood (historically, a Puerto Rican/Dominican neighborhood) are mostly run by Muslims these days. Unsurprisingly, most of them do not serve any pork products. I could go on and on, but there's plenty of cultural diversity here, as well as plenty of bigotry. It all depends on the neighborhood in which you live and the type of people with whom you associate.
I (and most folks in NYC -- this is assuredly not true in other areas of the US) generally aren't afraid. What we are is *aware* of what's going on around us.
There is quite a bit of hatred of immigrants and other cultures around the US. However, given that NYC is so diverse, that's much less here. As I mentioned, there's plenty of bigotry and intolerance in NYC too, but most people know better than to flaunt it, as they're likely to be roundly criticized and, in some cases, ostracized. I've had some encounters with folks who, either based on how I look, or their own lack of self awareness, have exposed their bigotry and hatred to me. In every case, they thought I would be sympathetic to their hateful rhetoric. They were wrong.
In other places in the US (especially the south), I've seen and heard blatantly bigoted remarks tossed off as if they were normal. I guess they are in those places. For example, I was in New Orleans talking with a middle-aged woman and the topic of soft drinks came up. You'd think that wouldn't be an area where bigotry would raise its ugly head, but I mentioned that I preferred Pepsi over Coca Cola. She replied, "Well, around here the white people drink Coke and the niggers drink Pepsi."
I was flabbergasted. Not just because of *what* she said, but that her statement was offered in a mundane and matter-of-fact way that I was compelled to look at my watch to see if someone had set the clocks back to 1955 or something.
Sure there's plenty of anti-immigrant sentiment and outright hatred of minorities in the US, as well as violence by those bigots, but you don't see that much in NYC, as we attempt to be inclusive and civilized (although I will most certainly not spell that word with an 's'!).
This is generally true in NYC [wikipedia.org] as well, with permits being required for gun ownership/concealed carry.
I can't speak to London (although I was never harassed or robbed when I was there. In fact, the only people who were rude to me were some tourists from the US -- sigh), but crime, and especially violent crime, particularly murder [wikipedia.org], are at their lowest levels since recording of such statistics began (1928).
I was threatened with a knife by the driver of a black car (a high-end taxi) when I touched the door of his car (quite accidentally) with the door of a yellow cab (the NYC analog of London's black cabs). Fortunately, (I was 19 at the time) I had my skateboard with me and was able to use it to defend myself/keep this crazed moron away until he calmed down.
I've had guns pointed at me by criminals (once at age 12, and once at age 19) and was mugged once in my early twenties. All of those incidents were at the height of the "crack wars" in NYC. Things were much different in NYC in the 1970s, 80s and early 90s.
I find it sad that you've been attacked and disrespected because of what you look like, rather than *who* you are. That's wrong. And such speech and behavior should be called out as the bigotry and hatred it is, not accepted, not tolerated and not swept under the rug.
I was taught to judge people by what they do and say, not what they look like. This was strongly reinforced by my upbringing in such a diverse place. Yes, I have been (although, not through any desire or request of my own) the recipient of "white male privilege," but I don't want it.
I want to be judged, as Martin Luther King, Jr. famously said [aol.com], "where [i] will not be judged by the color of [my] skin but by the content of [my] character."
I've visited many other big cities as well and I agree, it's really not possible to understand what it's like to live someplace unless you actually live there. And being rich is definitely preferable *wherever* you might live.
I've lived in a few other cities in the US (Cleveland, Memphis, Tampa and San Jose) and family members live (or have lived) in Seattle, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Chicago, and I haven't found any other place like NYC in the US. Other places tend to be much more fractious, segregated along ethnic/racial lines and less welcoming of cultural diversity. So, perhaps my experience is the outlier rather than yours. If so, that's really sad.
In the US, many (most?) areas which, based on population, would be considered cities are much more suburban in their design and lifestyle, which is why most cities in the US have such crappy public transportation. The prototypical example of this is Los Angeles. I've spent quite a bit of time there, as I have a number of relatives who live in the area. It's not so much a city as it is an agglomeration of suburban communities linked by the freeway. San Jose (where I lived) is much the same, and I hated living there, for many of the reasons you cite.
On the other hand, when I've been to small towns (much smaller than Oxford) across the US, I've found them to be wonderfully pleasant, with (for the most part) kind, decent people.
Unfortunately, I don't know much about Oxford, except from information gleaned about the university culture, the books of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_DexterColin Dexter and associated television adaptations (Inspector Morse [wikipedia.org], Lewis [wikipedia.org], Endeavour [wikipedia.org]) and the discussions I had with a middle-aged couple from Oxford (the husband was a council official, don't remember what it was he actually did) while on holiday in the Caribbean.
As I mentioned previously, I'm glad you've found a place for yourself where you feel comfortable and can surround yourself with kind and decent people. In the end, I guess it really doesn't matter *where* you live, what's important is *how* you live.
Thanks for sharing your experiences and I hope my ramblings were entertaining, if not instructive.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2, Interesting) by VLM on Wednesday February 14 2018, @02:43PM
The problem with decentralization is we already invented that and it's called white people living in $800K houses in the suburbs often working at home/remote, and hipster mass transit fans are politically allied with anti-white racists.
Its like trying to convince a Klansman that if they want to experience the joys of a country united by racial nationalism they should move to Haiti, there's multiple little problems both contemporary and historical with that "solution".
So in a "Emperors New Clothes" style of speech and thinking, we in the legacy media sense of conformist leftism, need to pretend there's no solution other than building monorails and whatnot. The result of endless handwringing about lack of mass transit is inevitable.