Why I love cities and/or suburbs - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 Old 02-09-2014, 07:10 AM
Veggie Regular
 
ElaineV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,026

Living in a city is often more environmentally-friendly. Shared resources means fewer wasted resources and a smaller per capita footprint. Mass transit helps, closer proximity to shopping and work help, etc. See: http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/solving-cities/are-city-dwellers-more-green-than-thoreau-wannabes/

 

Cities have more human diversity. So, say you fall in love with someone from another race or religion. Well, you'll find more acceptance of your relationship in a city. In countless ways, the general rule is that people who are "different" from the majority will find more acceptance in cities than in rural areas. They will also find larger numbers of similar people in cities. 

 

Cities have more vegetarian and vegan restaurants. And more veg specialty foods.

 

Cities provide endless entertainment, from concerts to art museums to parks. There's always something to do in a city - anyone can find something they like.

 

Risk of violent death is lower in cities. The Atlantic reports: "Yes, homicide-related death rates are significantly higher in urban parts of the country. But that risk is far outweighed by the fact that you're about twice as likely to die in a car crash in rural America than you are in the most urban counties. Nationwide, the rate of "unintentional-injury death"  car crashes, drownings, falls, machinery accidents and the like  is about 15 times the rate of homicide death. Add together all the ways in which you might die prematurely by intentional or unintentional injury (as opposed to illness), and your risk of death is actually about 22 percent higher in the most rural counties in America than in the most urban ones." http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2013/07/youre-more-likely-die-violent-death-rural-america-city/6312/

 

What do you like about urban areas? 

ElaineV is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 Old 02-09-2014, 11:32 PM
Veggie Regular
 
nogardsram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,032
While I think most of that list is valid, I don't agree with the statement "Living in a city is often more environmentally-friendly." And I don't think an opinion piece or choosing averages in terms of electricity used or gallons of gas used supports that.

Cities would not exist if people also didn't live those rural lifestyles. Therefore, it's not so easy to tease out responsibility in terms of environmental impact. It's not so clear cut as per capita use.

I believe everything.
nogardsram is offline  
#3 Old 02-10-2014, 09:15 AM
Veggie Regular
 
ElaineV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,026

Higher density human living generally requires fewer resources than lower density. It's a general rule and there are exceptions, but for the vast majority of people and situations it's true. It's similar to the general rule that eating lower on the food chain requires fewer resources than eating higher on the food chain: a general rule with a few exceptions.

ElaineV is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#4 Old 02-10-2014, 01:38 PM
Beginner
 
Contro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElaineV View Post
 

Higher density human living generally requires fewer resources than lower density. It's a general rule and there are exceptions, but for the vast majority of people and situations it's true. It's similar to the general rule that eating lower on the food chain requires fewer resources than eating higher on the food chain: a general rule with a few exceptions.


What resources are higher per individual in rural areas than in the city?

Contro is offline  
#5 Old 02-10-2014, 08:07 PM
Veggie Regular
 
ElaineV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by Contro View Post


What resources are higher per individual in rural areas than in the city?

Land.

 

Also, if no sewer, which is often the case in rural areas, then generally water requires more effort per person to obtain.

 

In lower density housing, which is often the case in rural areas, it also requires more energy per person to heat or cool a home.

 

Those are just some examples. And it's contextual. For example, the worst things you can do for the planet are eat animals and use air travel. So if you do those things regularly then where you live, what kind of car you drive, or what kind of lightbulbs you use are basically negligible. I'm really just talking on a large scale about overall generalities. 

ElaineV is offline  
#6 Old 02-11-2014, 10:24 AM
Beginner
 
Contro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 171
 Originally Posted by ElaineV View Post
 

Living in a city is often more environmentally-friendly. Shared resources means fewer wasted resources and a smaller per capita footprint. Mass transit helps, closer proximity to shopping and work help, etc. See: http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/solving-cities/are-city-dwellers-more-green-than-thoreau-wannabes/ [/quote]

 I can assure you that if you take 1000 people and put them in an apartment complex, then take 1000 people and put them all in homes on 2 or 3 acre lots, the environmental impact is much less for those on the lots. Mass transit might help, however it is subsidized by the taxpayer, and that bus will run its route even if it is empty.

 

 

[quote] Cities have more human diversity. So, say you fall in love with someone from another race or religion. Well, you'll find more acceptance of your relationship in a city. In countless ways, the general rule is that people who are "different" from the majority will find more acceptance in cities than in rural areas. They will also find larger numbers of similar people in cities. [/quote]

 Diversity is fine, if it happens, but its also fine if it does not happen. Im rural and someone I ended up with a Puerto Rican Wife, the people that live on the next lot down from mine are interracial, Im not sure I buy into the acceptance angle of your argument. how can we have a greater diversity and yet at the same time find a larger number of similar people? If you mean similar in how they want to live, I would say that since the move tends to be from city to rural, the data would show that statement to be biased.

 

[quote]Cities have more vegetarian and vegan restaurants. And more veg specialty foods.[/quote] all from veggies grown in the rural areas. Interesting how that works, if you want to eat Vegetarian in the country, go to the farmers market and buy fresh picked food.

 

[quote]Cities provide endless entertainment, from concerts to art museums to parks. There's always something to do in a city - anyone can find something they like.[/quote] Entertainment is subjective. I will take a day 4 wheeling over sitting in some stuffy room with 1000 other people all coughing and sneezing on me while watching a movie. You on the other hand might find 4 wheeling to be not your style, yet you might find that standing crowded in a room looking at a piece of art stimulating, nothing wrong with that. Glad you are near those options. ( I would have to drive about a half hour or so to do this)

 

[quote] Risk of violent death is lower in cities. The Atlantic reports: "Yes, homicide-related death rates are significantly higher in urban parts of the country. But that risk is far outweighed by the fact that you're about twice as likely to die in a car crash in rural America than you are in the most urban counties. Nationwide, the rate of "unintentional-injury death"  car crashes, drownings, falls, machinery accidents and the like  is about 15 times the rate of homicide death. Add together all the ways in which you might die prematurely by intentional or unintentional injury (as opposed to illness), and your risk of death is actually about 22 percent higher in the most rural counties in America than in the most urban ones." http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2013/07/youre-more-likely-die-violent-death-rural-america-city/6312/ [/quote]

 you are more likely to die in a car crash in rural areas because the cars are able to drive over 2 miles per hour. But then you have to ask, how many of those deaths on the rural highways involved people from the city?

 

Now, lets look at the writer of the article you quoted. She is a resident of Washingtion DC, she is naturally biased, as am I when it comes to the rural way of life. The majority of traffic deaths in this area are on the highway during the hours that people are going into, or leaving the city. Its been over 10 years since there was a traffic death in my area, and only one murder, that by the way was traced to someone that came from the city to steal.

 as far as water and sewage as an impact. Im on a well, the water coming from my sink tests cleaner than the water that comes from city sources. My septic does not end up back in the bay or the rivers. There are no street drains that bring debris to the water way.

Contro is offline  
#7 Old 02-11-2014, 12:20 PM
Veggie Regular
 
ElaineV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,026

Contro, would you please consider fixing your post so that it shows quotes and nonquotes correctly? It is confusing and difficult to read the way you have it. Maybe a moderator can help you.

ElaineV is offline  
#8 Old 02-11-2014, 01:06 PM
Veggie Regular
 
vegan cyberpunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Probably some airport
Posts: 1,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElaineV View Post

 

What do you like about urban areas? 

Architecture, varied people ( including pretty ladies ) at every level, fun stuff like catacombs or given markets with their mixed spices and stands with various music, second hand bookshops and their owners, historicaly charged places ( i always tend to think this and that happened here, this one and that one walked exactly here, now my turn, and tomorrow somebody else ). Having a walk around, be it with someone or alone, is obviously different.

 

Every city is different, especially among different countries.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
https://
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
https://www.autistici.org/en/index.html  https://riseup.net/en

https://pay.reddit.com/r/privacy/wiki/index

vegan cyberpunk is offline  
#9 Old 02-11-2014, 01:32 PM
Herbivorous Urchin
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,717
I love cities. I really do. Big metropolises with buildings acting as giant trees and busy little people doing busy little people things. I love the shops, the food, the city pigeons. The falcons that eat the city pigeons. The get anything-you-want-any-time-you-want services. Always something going on something to see. So many people that privacy is guaranteed, there is no privacy in small towns. The feeling that every door is open with wide opportunities. A culture all it's own. I love cities.
leedsveg likes this.

Quote:
"You will always be fond of me. I represent to you all the sins you never had the courage to commit.”
Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray
River is offline  
#10 Old 02-12-2014, 08:32 AM
Veggie Regular
 
nogardsram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElaineV View Post

Higher density human living generally requires fewer resources than lower density. It's a general rule and there are exceptions, but for the vast majority of people and situations it's true. It's similar to the general rule that eating lower on the food chain requires fewer resources than eating higher on the food chain: a general rule with a few exceptions.

Absolutely. Based on that we can say living in apartment complexes is often more environmentally friendly than living in single family houses. But I think we both know, it's not so clear cut as that. So as I stated, if we want to cherry pick a few per capita uses, like land or some simplistic measure to compare the two, we can conclude that X lifestyle is more environmentally friendly than Y. My point, is life is much more complex and I honestly don't think there's much validity to the argument comparing rural life to city life in terms environmentally friendliness.

I think there is an argument though to be made for environmental impacts based on land use in terms of population densities, or based on fuel use, electricity use, etc.

I just don't think it's so easy to compare rural vs urban with a simplistic comparison and call that "environmental impact," which to me implies some kind of overall environmental impact, without further clarification.

I believe everything.
nogardsram is offline  
#11 Old 02-12-2014, 08:34 AM
Veggie Regular
 
nogardsram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,032
I do like the variety in cities. Vegan restaurants, easier to find places where asking for a salad without egg, cheese, bacon isn't met with furrowed brows and questions. I really enjoy the diversity of activities and options.

I enjoy the architecture.

I believe everything.
nogardsram is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off