Forced Urbanisation

Why don't we force people to live in cities? That way, we wouldn't need cars at all - we could simply have trains between cities, and then pollution in cities would then decrease.

Urban sprawl is a plague on the environment. Ever since the invention of the car, population density in cities in the West has decreased. Infrastructure built for cars reduced space for human habitation and services in cities. A thousand people making the same journey in cars spews out more pollution, and takes up more space, than the same number of people in buses, or trains.

You should move to the countryside.

That is the problem... people moving away from city centres, where all the services are, creating more traffic

Yet city populations are growing.

And density is falling. For example, central Berlin has a smaller population than it did before WWII, but the areas around Berlin have more people, so overall it has a larger population, but lower population density.

Interesting you picked a city that got levelled in WW2 and then was a flashpoint for easy and west for the next 45 years.Are you wanting people to live in slum like conditions of a family of 10 living in a two roomed shack?

Paris escaped most problems of 20th century

And has also seen an increase in population and a reduction of people living in squalor.

My point is that POPULATION DENSITY HAS DECREASED. Population for city proper has decreased ever since 1960s.

Because standards of living have increased and people don't live ten to a room any more.

People were not living ten to a room in the 1960s...

Be quiet hippie

Why don't we force people to live in cities? That way, we wouldn't need cars at all - we could simply have trains between cities, and then pollution in cities would then decrease.

Urban sprawl is a plague on the environment. Ever since the invention of the car, population density in cities in the West has decreased. Infrastructure built for cars reduced space for human habitation and services in cities. A thousand people making the same journey in cars spews out more pollution, and takes up more space, than the same number of people in buses, or trains.

I'd beg to differ. The 1960s was still seeing slum clearance in some of britains inner cities.

Society is changing. The nuclear family is changing.

A question other then you, members of the green party, green peace and environmental activitsts find me a person who cares if you decide you want to pluck the scientist fact out of the air they are educated beyond natural intelligence on it and wouldn't know better. It is a carefully planned plot for an excuse to control peoples freedoms and force them into believing this rubbish.

Come again?

Why don't we force people to live in cities? That way, we wouldn't need cars at all - we could simply have trains between cities, and then pollution in cities would then decrease.

Urban sprawl is a plague on the environment. Ever since the invention of the car, population density in cities in the West has decreased. Infrastructure built for cars reduced space for human habitation and services in cities. A thousand people making the same journey in cars spews out more pollution, and takes up more space, than the same number of people in buses, or trains.

EDIT; I would be much more likely to change my mind (as I see where you are coming from for some of your points) if;
1) The culture was a UK culture and the language English.
2) Property prices reflected the fact you were buying a tiny place surrounded by other people.
3) The pollution was cleared up.

I could accept not having my own car, but the above three are big issues for me. Cities tend to have more jobs of high and low pay so that is one big benefit.