this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2023
851 points (95.7% liked)
> Greentext
7436 readers
6 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why do we accept that urban life is worse than rural life?
Cars ruin cities. There's more we can do to make cities better but that's the big one
I mean, do you think cars aren't a thing in rural areas or something? You think us country bumpkins are riding our horses around?
No, but it's much, much easier to get rid of them in cities where they can be replaced by subways, tramways, buses, bikes, and the like.
All of which make for a way better quality of life than car hell. If people wern't sitting in unbearable traffic all day complaints about urban living would be far less common
Dunno. In rural areas I know there are more bikes than in city or cars in same area. Cause you know, cars are expensive.
What if you want to leave the city?
When you want to travel to the third world countries that connect the cities of the US you could rent a car, which is necessary because rural areas have apparently forgotten about public transit of any kind. In civilized countries, there's a solid network of mass transit basically everywhere. It doesn't matter that you're in a podunk town, a bus comes by every half hour because it's a necessity to have a regular bus more than a full one.
Bullshit. There are vast areas of the western US and Alaska where this simply is not economically possible or even desirable. The same is true for huge parts of Canada and Australia and other countries that have very remote and thinly settled regions. Even when I lived in Ireland, which is tiny and relatively densely populated, there were rural communities that only had bus service once or twice a day.
Life is not economically possible or desirable by capitalism.
Then you take the train. If this is not an available option, you take the car, one of which you either own but barely use when staying within the city, or that you buy (which is the option I chose, it's a lot cheaper than to own one).
There also should absolutely be trains that connect cities together too, it's already mostly the case in Europe which is around as big as the US, including high speed trains between major cities, but there is also a lot of regular trains that connect moderately sized towns with their nearby city. This can be both a cheaper and faster alternative to driving a car if you go somewhere you won't need a car (say, a city with very good public transit). China may be more comparable to the US as it is a single country with a similar size, but the size of their train network grew tremendously over the last twenty years, especially their high speed network. I guess a good start for the US would be to connect the major cities on the East Coast with high speed trains, such as DC, New York, Chicago, and other cities nearby, I can guarantee you there will be demand for that.
In fact, I'm about to take a high speed train from Paris to Lyon. Including the time I'll have spent in public transit to go to and come back from the train station, it'll take me three hours total vs four and a half hours by car without stops on traffic jams to travel some 400km (around 250 miles). The tickets cost me 90€ both ways, including the subway and tramway, while the same travel by car would cost me at least that much in not double.
ЭД4
There's enough space out there it's not an issue. Cars are a rural technology we bulldozed half the city to makebroom for and then complained about not enough parking and too much traffic
Yeah, you didn't know? As soon as you leave a city all vehicles disappear.
Rural areas don't have the same density of cars that a lot of urban areas do, so a lot of the problem of high density traffic just don't apply.
It's like saying that rural areas also have people, so it's not like urban areas have any unique people based problems.
My grocery store is on the intersection of two five lane roads that are busy all day every day. The crosswalks are about a 20 minute walk apart.
A lot of things that people cite as benefits of small old towns are just benefits of not requiring massive amounts of parking and huge roads.
Ignorance plain and simple. Most people nowadays live their whole lives in big urban centers, they have an idealistic view of country life and take the conveniences of city life for granted. City life can suck, I won't deny it, but living in bumfuck nowhere also has it's major drawbacks.
Eh, I've lived both, now in the city, it's got its advantages but I'd be lying if I said I don't dream of going back from time to time.
"Lets eat out tonight!"
Rural guy: "Well we've got Subway, a shitty Chinese place, and the local bar."
Urban guy: "What nations food would you like to try?"
I was raised in and lived in a very rural area for a while and you would be surprised at how good the food is at a lot of small town places. I still take weekend trips out to a lot of those places because they've just got good cheap food. I'm not going to argue that the high budget options aren't better in cities because they definitely are, but when it comes to afordable good food, the rural areas still have the city beat, at least in my area. Not to mention, many rural places use mostly locally grown food. If you grab a burger at the bar then it wouldn't be unusual to have the guy that raised the cow sitting next to you.
For example, in my area we have:
The big problem for non locals is that everything I just described is spread out over an area over 100 miles wide and none of it is advertized. So if you aren't a local who is very familiar with the area and used to rural distances then you have no way to know any of that exists. If you just rolled into that rural town, then all you're going to see are the subway, the shitty chinese place, and the bars. But if you ask a local then odds are they can point you to some dirt cheap damn good food.
So potentially a 5-6 hour total (1-2 out, 1 to eat, 1-2 back) trip for some dinner at a "nicer" place? Think I'll stick with the quick jaunt downtown to 30 different places.
In some cases it is.
I live on an acre about 100 miles from the nearest sizable city. I've got a workshop, pecan trees, a pool, a smoker trailer, a bonfire pit fifteen feet across, and lots of peace and quiet. No HOA, no city ordinances, no traffic, and the only loud neighbor is a donkey that brays a few times a day.
That would cost me at least half a million in the city. The little apartment I used to rent Pre-COVID cost me nearly as much as the house payment I pay now.
Is it for everyone? No. There's no excitement, limited shopping and dining options, and anywhere I want to go is at least a twenty minute drive. But it's great for me. My job sends me all over the world so I get my fill of the city while living in hotels. Going home is a breath of fresh air.
The key is to live in the countryside but not actually work in the countryside.
Yep.
Suburbs!
Having a decent income and wealth makes living on a rural location idyllic. Someone with a low income farming job and an acre in a rural location won't see the exact same house the same way because they will be struggling financially.
Oh, for sure. I lived not too far from where I do now when I was younger and flipped burgers for a living. I had holes in the floor of my trailer where possums would come up at night and raid the cat food.
Still, being able to wake up, walk outside, and take my morning piss off the front porch while watching the sunrise was some compensation. Being out away from everyone is appealing to some people.