Is urbanization bad or good thing?
For me it's bad thing, when people are gathering to large cities and abandoning smaller places.
Large cities often collect social problems (crime/riots) and they'll need huge amount of resources, which are depleeded area nearby them. Large urban areas also have pollution and enviromental issues.
One of the major problems are the resources. Because they are depleeded near major urban areas and areas of high populationdensity, the unused resources are in wildernesses and areas of low population density. And if population are packing to the major urban areas and there's no new setlements coming up in wildernesses and lowdensity areas, the cost of resources wll be much higher and more infrastructure is needed to build to get them from middle of nowhere.
We should spread more, to ensure that we have acces to resources and more living space and fresh air.
It depends. What we need are more small/medium-sized cities. Then again, you probably won't get rid of crime or social problems that way. The people who cause problems are gonna have to live somewhere, whether that be a big city or a small town. However, maybe big cities are big simply because they are so much more efficient in other ways, and in today's society, we are always constantly striving to be more efficient.
Well, but in big cities there often forms a suburb of bad reputation and gangs. Small cities and towns are too small for them.
Think if Siberia is the only place with full of minerals and oil and all the people are packed in Middle-Europe.
Also it will take lots of time to change urban structure to self-sustainable or it can be even impossible.
[quote] people are gathering to large cities and abandoning smaller places.[/quote]
Look at Detroit.... when the inverse happens, all hell breaksl oose.
That happens when the city runs out of resources and industry and supply.
Fall of large places causes massive problems.
[editline]12th October 2011[/editline]
Lets have a aggravated exaple about Britain and Central-Europe:
Britain has many huge cities and nearly rest of the areas is full of farms. Britain's population cant grow much more or they'll need to import it and because Central-Europe is too in similar situation, they'll need to import it overseas and it will cost. And if the nation wich sells food suffers a major floods and 70% of the harvest is lost, then their government is mostlikely to stop the trade, because they'll need them all.
[editline]12th October 2011[/editline]
[video=youtube;zBSPcIGGcIc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBSPcIGGcIc[/video]
In some places that is huge problem.
If that happens, it will cut many large cities out of supply and cause serious problems.
Small cities and towns can survive lack of electricity and running water much better.
There can be farmed in Siberia, but it wouldn't be as effective as in Central-Europe, but its enough to sustain it's population.
According to this Southern-Siberia is fine for farming:
[img]http://earth.rice.edu/mtpe/bio/biosphere/topics/biomes/biomes_map_final.gif[/img]
One advantage of urban centres is that the residents within tend to become atheistic and less conservative, in opposition to rural persons. With a lot of people within the cities political, social and economic change can happen much more quickly and effectively than it would with rural environs.
You're talking about huge urban areas with millions of citizens or does medium city with 50 000 pop. count?
[editline]12th October 2011[/editline]
Ratings doesn't work on this forum?
Bad for what exactly? The environment? Sure it is but look at what it has allowed us to achieve.
Urbanization allows for the greater expanse of the social, economical and modernization of a civilization. There's a reason why the 'old west' in America for example, died out as society began to further develop in urban centers. Generally speaking of course.
I'm not argueing against cities, i'm argueing against huge urban-metropolitian areas with millions of citizens.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;32736402]One advantage of urban centres is that the residents within tend to become atheistic and less conservative, in opposition to rural persons. With a lot of people within the cities political, social and economic change can happen much more quickly and effectively than it would with rural environs.[/QUOTE]
Whether that's an advantage or not is a matter of opinion, not fact.
[QUOTE=N0 WAR;32742696]Whether that's an advantage or not is a matter of opinion, not fact.[/QUOTE]
Well lets say for example a law legalising marriage between homosexuals was passed.
With an urban environment it would be much more easier to enforce, whilst a lot more difficult in the countryside since everybody is so spread out and more difficult to know about.
It also means taxation can be done more efficiently, bureaucracies and the such can conduct work more effectively, infrastructure is better and industrial production is higher.
A society based around villages would progress much more slowly than a society based around cities as heavy industrial production and mobility of people will not exist. Along with this the people inside the villages will tend to be more ignorant of world affairs and keep to themselves.
New urbanization is probably the best method.
It addresses all of the issues of the city and all the issues of the suburb.
Large cities were the result of the industrial revolution, which quickly created very cramped living conditions, pollution, etc. So the suburban experiment started, which flocked as far away from the city as possible and created a considerable number of far worse problems for everyone. New urbanization was started in the late 70's early 80's and is the equivalent of the small town that was described above.
Small downtowns and public spaces are the focus point, with apartments and offices built into them, local business thrives. A limit on building height depends on the area, where approximately 3 to 7 stories would be a good maximum height. Built around these centers are mixed income housing characterized by a combination of apartments, single family homes, and more luxurious housing. every 1 to 2 blocks would be a corner shop for every-day needs. Streets would be narrowed, and built in a grid style. For distant transportation, urban rails would connect point A to point B, which would be the already existing cities or other towns.
So to answer your question, I think that straight urbanization has a bad history and is not particularly good all of the issues can be fixed. The city itself isn't easy to change and probably should just be maintained the way they are, but outside the cities suburbs are the perfect places to gradually rebuild and retrofit for an urban lifestyle.
I don't think a massive expansive city is a good idea though, the place should be defined by how walkable it is. Plus the smaller size gives communities a better chance to govern themselves, and maybe create a more defined identity as well.
I live in Morganton.... there are like 400 people here, very large plots of land, we have a little over 300 acres ourselves. It has is perks and its downsides. For one I like being out here, it's nice and quite, I can do what I want, have plenty of space, and that's great. The down side is we have to drive about 30 miles if you want to do anything besides go to work or McDonald's, but I think it's just a choice for some people to make, some people want to live in a city, some don't.
[QUOTE=oskutin;32735817]Well, but in big cities there often forms a suburb of bad reputation and gangs. Small cities and towns are too small for them.[/QUOTE]
This is because those people are stuck there. So they tend to start to hate their place.
People need space. In the ancient times humans traveled in packs of maybe 10, 20 tops. Now we're crammed into a small area by millions. It's just not enough personal space in a small multi-story building.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;32736402]One advantage of urban centres is that the residents within tend to become atheistic and less conservative, in opposition to rural persons. With a lot of people within the cities political, social and economic change can happen much more quickly and effectively than it would with rural environs.[/QUOTE]
of course implying that being more liberal is intrinsically better
I was born in a small town and got out of there as soon as I could. Why? Because there's nothing to do in small towns. There are no clubs or shops, internet is slow and people are boring. Small towns just feel dead, and I didn't want to turn out like everyone else in there.
It's a common problem, and it's only going to get worse. Society in general doesn't like it when people move to bigger cities just because they can, but at the same time they fail to do anything about why the people are moving in the first place. You can't expect people to be content with less when they could easily have more.
[QUOTE=commander204;32801499]This is because those people are stuck there. So they tend to start to hate their place.[/QUOTE]
What thats not why, its cause its a way to make money most of the time.
[QUOTE=Zestence;32808384]I was born in a small town and got out of there as soon as I could. Why? Because there's nothing to do in small towns. There are no clubs or shops, internet is slow and people are boring. Small towns just feel dead, and I didn't want to turn out like everyone else in there.
It's a common problem, and it's only going to get worse. Society in general doesn't like it when people move to bigger cities just because they can, but at the same time they fail to do anything about why the people are moving in the first place. You can't expect people to be content with less when they could easily have more.[/QUOTE]
Small and remote towns are supposed to develop in to cities, not to be abandoned and people moving to super-large-metropolises.
[editline]17th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Atlascore;32736247]You aren't going to move all those people over to Siberia, it's a god damn wasteland, you can barely grow any food there.
It's not just about being able to supply industry, it's about feeding people too.[/QUOTE]
It has happened before :v:
[video=youtube;WjhU3qyuU0c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjhU3qyuU0c[/video]
(15 year old finnish sketch)
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Siberia[/url]
Russia have agressively colonized Siberia and many soviet and pre-soviet era labour camps have developed into cities.
[QUOTE=oskutin;32817782]Small and remote towns are supposed to develop in to cities, not to be abandoned and people moving to super-large-metropolises.[/QUOTE]
Yet instead of developing, they just keep dying more. Boarded up windows and lots of old people (all the young people already left). I wouldn't want to stay and fight for the growth of such place, when I could just move out and have a life.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.