Johann von Gauss
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
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.
0
reply
Wave of Wisdom
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
(Original post by Johann von Gauss)
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.
1
reply
Johann von Gauss
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#3
(Original post by Wave of Wisdom)
You should move to the countryside.
That is the problem... people moving away from city centres, where all the services are, creating more traffic
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
(Original post by Johann von Gauss)
That is the problem... people moving away from city centres, where all the services are, creating more traffic
Yet city populations are growing.
0
reply
Johann von Gauss
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#5
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
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.
0
reply
Prince_fancybum
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
Be quiet hippie
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
(Original post by Johann von Gauss)
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?
0
reply
Johann von Gauss
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#8
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
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

0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
(Original post by Johann von Gauss)
Paris escaped most problems of 20th century

And has also seen an increase in population and a reduction of people living in squalor.
0
reply
Johann von Gauss
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#10
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
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.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
(Original post by Johann von Gauss)
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.
0
reply
Johann von Gauss
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#12
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
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...
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
(Original post by Johann von Gauss)
People were not living ten to a room in the 1960s...
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.
0
reply
Johann von Gauss
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#14
(Original post by Prince_fancybum)
Be quiet hippie
That argument tho
0
reply
ZZTop1
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
(Original post by Johann von Gauss)
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.
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.
0
reply
ZZTop1
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
1960's more like 1930's when 10-20 people lived in one house
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
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.
0
reply
Johann von Gauss
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#17
(Original post by ZZTop1)
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?
0
reply
ZZTop1
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
(Original post by Johann von Gauss)
Come again?
It was more of an anti green policy rant then anything coherent, debateable or constructive. I believe it is all one big hoax you may have your graphs but there is a lack of evidence behind them. Also it naturally warms. I just do not buy the theory
0
reply
i<3milkshake
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
(Original post by Johann von Gauss)
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.
Because people don't want to live in the absolute dumps that are UK cities. Choose from any of the following reasons;

1) Mass immigration of Muslims has made anyone with a UK culture feel an alien in their own country. See London and Birmingham. Soon these will be like Sweden and France. Want to see what they are like?
Discussed here.
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...5#post60240635

2) Mass immigration from Africa and in has turned areas such as Southall, which were never particularly great to begin with, into downtown Mogadishu. They are badly maintained, dirty, English is not spoken often there...horrible.

So far I would say that from a cultural perspective I have no wish to see no go areas where even the police cannot tread and I like to converse in English.

For some these reasons will not apply. For some the cultural change and even lack of English spoken isn't a problem. For these people;

1) The high pollution in cities is unhealthy. Might as well live in the country and smoke a couple a day.
2) The prices are insane for rent/mortgages. Why do I want to pay obsence amounts of money to live in a shoebox flat with people above, below and right next to me? No thanks. I will take my money and by a nice house with greenery around it rather than live in a tiny, more polluted, dirtier, noisier area.
3) Crime. See this map and play around with it-more people in an area will always mean more crime. A mass immigration policy worsens it.
http://illustreets.co.uk/explore-england/
4) Using public transport. I would prefer not to have to pay a lot of money for transport that is not door to door for wherever I want to go. And I'm not carrying a big load of shopping on the tube. Also, when the ticket prices go up (as they always seem to) or the buggers strike, or the train is delayed, I will wish I was outside the city. Have a car in the city? Congestion charges, high parking costs, traffic...no thanks.

So to summarise that I'm not paying more for a property to get less, and I would happily take being further out with less services but being able to drive to where I want to go than the city all in all.

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.
1
reply
Johann von Gauss
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#20
(Original post by i<3milkshake)
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.
Thank you for your response.

1) Forcing migration from rural areas to cities would deal nicely with this (until immigration eventually makes us a minority entirely - but this is another issue)
2) I don't know much about why property prices are so high, but it probably has something to do with the fact that housing isn't being built to match demand. We could build a few new cities, with nice tall buildings, to house people. With rural types out of the picture, there'd be nobody to oppose such badly needed developments. We could regenerate city centres, replacing roads with buildings. There is a lot of space used by roads and motorways in urban areas.
3) Cars are a major source of pollution; possibly the biggest local source of air pollution in cities. If we didn't need cars, there'd be a lot less.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

It is really important for me to be involved in helping make my university better

Strongly disagree (4)
11.11%
Disagree (3)
8.33%
Neither agree or disagree (10)
27.78%
Agree (11)
30.56%
Strongly Agree (8)
22.22%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed