it's a question I've been thinking about lately, if most people in the future will be able to do all their work on the computer then what will be the point of everyone commuting to work in one spot. Yes there's always the satisfaction of human contact but is it worth the 45 minute battle to and from your over crammed super expensive office tower?
Will computers and the internet end the need for urbanization?
- Thread starter Fart
- Start date
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
I don't want to end urbanization; I want more CONCENTRATED urbanization.
I live downtown. Suburbs suck. Rural and wildnerness areas should be allowed to stay that way. As a jazz-loving urban hepcat who digs on moderne style and the urban scene, I miss the whole idea of being stuck in Chicago in 1928.
But I digress. My point is, urbanization is not just about work/home. Urbanization is efficient from a range of perspectives - more contact with people, better services can concentrate in one place, public transit can be effective, less travel time for every activity, easier to govern, etc. Plus, it's important not to make the mistake that information age work will be the only work of the future. Even if you use robots in a factory, a factory is still a factory, requiring space, support, and thus people nearby to staff it, etc.
Ending urbanization for the reasons you state will mean a huge outflow of people to the exurbs, leaving us with a few million hamlets that have lousy services and long highways to reach them. Now, I don't know where you're writing from, but I'm from the Pacific coast of Canada and living in a big interior city, and in both areas we have more than enough people living like that for our own good if you ask me.
PS cute civname, but maybe you should consider changing it. You're asking a serious question, but it's a little hard to write for me to offer a serious answer when I have to stop every few seconds and realize that I am talking to a porous ball of methane gas that's been freshly excreted from a stranger's arse
I live downtown. Suburbs suck. Rural and wildnerness areas should be allowed to stay that way. As a jazz-loving urban hepcat who digs on moderne style and the urban scene, I miss the whole idea of being stuck in Chicago in 1928.
But I digress. My point is, urbanization is not just about work/home. Urbanization is efficient from a range of perspectives - more contact with people, better services can concentrate in one place, public transit can be effective, less travel time for every activity, easier to govern, etc. Plus, it's important not to make the mistake that information age work will be the only work of the future. Even if you use robots in a factory, a factory is still a factory, requiring space, support, and thus people nearby to staff it, etc.
Ending urbanization for the reasons you state will mean a huge outflow of people to the exurbs, leaving us with a few million hamlets that have lousy services and long highways to reach them. Now, I don't know where you're writing from, but I'm from the Pacific coast of Canada and living in a big interior city, and in both areas we have more than enough people living like that for our own good if you ask me.
PS cute civname, but maybe you should consider changing it. You're asking a serious question, but it's a little hard to write for me to offer a serious answer when I have to stop every few seconds and realize that I am talking to a porous ball of methane gas that's been freshly excreted from a stranger's arse
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
Whoops, I just looked and saw that you're from Albany. I rest on both cases.
R.III
R.III
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
How exactly is this related to Civ????
Originally posted by Richard III
it's a little hard to write for me to offer a serious answer when I have to stop every few seconds and realize that I am talking to a porous ball of methane gas that's been freshly excreted from a stranger's arse
f***ing hilarious. Your other points were right on. Who wants to live anywhere outside of a sprawling metropolis anyway?
Dinorius R.
Somnambulist
To Richard III:
On urbanization, yes, I agree that suburbs really suck. The tendency for humans to congregate and work in concentrated groups is favoured by both economic and psychological factors, so I can't see city centres disappearing in future. However, the rise of the suburb, prompted initially by the automobile and cheap oil will be promoted even more by the trend of working from home made possible by computers/telecoms etc. So, from that stance, Civ 3's depiction of cities just getting bigger and more sophisticated seems reasonable to me.
I'm old enough to remember the cartoon series "The Jetsons" and according to that popular 1960's view of the future, we are all supposed to be living in glass bubbles and commuting to work in nuclear-powered jet-cars by now. It's sobering to think that the vast majority of us still prefer to live in the same old bricks/mortar/timber dwellings that have been popular for a century or more (with a few mod cons added). I can't see this changing anytime soon just because some of us are becoming more reliant on computers in our jobs. In my opinion, the IT revolution and the internet are vastly over-rated (and so far, I think the stock market agrees with me on this).
On your other point about Fart's nickname, I agree with you again, but did you realize that "Richard-the-third" is pretty common rhyming slang for "turd"? Not that I'm saying you are one, it just struck me as ironic.
Dinorius Redundicus
.
On urbanization, yes, I agree that suburbs really suck. The tendency for humans to congregate and work in concentrated groups is favoured by both economic and psychological factors, so I can't see city centres disappearing in future. However, the rise of the suburb, prompted initially by the automobile and cheap oil will be promoted even more by the trend of working from home made possible by computers/telecoms etc. So, from that stance, Civ 3's depiction of cities just getting bigger and more sophisticated seems reasonable to me.
I'm old enough to remember the cartoon series "The Jetsons" and according to that popular 1960's view of the future, we are all supposed to be living in glass bubbles and commuting to work in nuclear-powered jet-cars by now. It's sobering to think that the vast majority of us still prefer to live in the same old bricks/mortar/timber dwellings that have been popular for a century or more (with a few mod cons added). I can't see this changing anytime soon just because some of us are becoming more reliant on computers in our jobs. In my opinion, the IT revolution and the internet are vastly over-rated (and so far, I think the stock market agrees with me on this).
On your other point about Fart's nickname, I agree with you again, but did you realize that "Richard-the-third" is pretty common rhyming slang for "turd"? Not that I'm saying you are one, it just struck me as ironic.
Dinorius Redundicus
.
Telecomuting will only have a small effect on urbanization until they get high bandwidth cheaply out to the boondocks
allan
Cabrón
Cities have their advantages, small towns in the country have their advantages, and I'll agree most suburbs are pretty dull and have the disadvantages of both of the above. I've lived in all three by the way....
I don't see too much of a change happening. IT will still entail people being in or near cities, at least those techies who actually have to come in and troubleshoot a downed system....
But some businesses could be completely wired together remotely, so the individual in such businesses could choose between charming, gentrified city centers or pristine, quiet and equally charming mountain towns or whatever. Can't see too many people choosing some of the tackier burbs under such new freedom though, but whatever floats your boat....
If it were me, I'd choose a nice wilderness lodge on a northern Minnesota lake. There are some things I LIKE about the city, and I grew up here during my teens so it's familiar too, but I miss quieter settings and I'm here mainly because my job is, and there are more job opportunities here.
I don't see too much of a change happening. IT will still entail people being in or near cities, at least those techies who actually have to come in and troubleshoot a downed system....
But some businesses could be completely wired together remotely, so the individual in such businesses could choose between charming, gentrified city centers or pristine, quiet and equally charming mountain towns or whatever. Can't see too many people choosing some of the tackier burbs under such new freedom though, but whatever floats your boat....
If it were me, I'd choose a nice wilderness lodge on a northern Minnesota lake. There are some things I LIKE about the city, and I grew up here during my teens so it's familiar too, but I miss quieter settings and I'm here mainly because my job is, and there are more job opportunities here.
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
Originally posted by Dinorius R.
To Richard III:
On your other point about Fart's nickname, I agree with you again, but did you realize that "Richard-the-third" is pretty common rhyming slang for "turd"? Not that I'm saying you are one, it just struck me as ironic.
.
Okay, first off, I would think I'd get the benefit of the doubt that the obvious shakespearean reference is at least a step above naming myself after the passing of wind. But I'm scratching my head here in genuine bewilderment about the rhyming thing; this must be some bizarre cockneyesque Aussie dialect issue because, you know, well...
Because no, I did NOT realize that "Richard-the-third" is pretty common rhyming slang for turd. Perhaps it's because my girlfriend, officemates and pretty much everyone I've ever known across this wide continent does not generally speak in nickels-and-dimes, nor do they walk-the-block in crimes.
I guess you learn something everyday.
"I am determined to groove a killin'
And mate the idle measures of these lays"
Turd the Third
Racked One, Been One
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
This is the kind of question you could also raise about the telephone -- do you need a central area for communication now that you have a machine that will do it for you? The answer: yes. Cities will not cease growth because of technology, in fact, the urban areas themselves will expand because of it.
I'm not saying that cities will disappear but the main reason there was a huge movement to urban areas during the industrial revolution was because of work this won't be has necessary in the future. The power of computers and communication just keeps exploding at a faster rate and most high skilled labor should eventually be able to be done on the computer. Sure there will still be people who just like to live in the city but that will be just about it. I guess what I'm asking is will the phenomena were skyscrapers crowed together in the middle of a city end? I know skyscrapers are cooperate symbols but their mainly a means of making money and in the future it won't be necessary for people to actually be in close proximity to work together. I think skyscrapers will become a relic of the past like castles. I think it's sad but true.
allan
Cabrón
As I said though, fart (trying to keep a straight face writing those first five words, and failing miserably 
), while some businesses would be able to wire themselves remotely, there's the hardware itself that must be tended to. Of course the mainframe systems could theoretically be located anywhere, but would probably be at key cable/fiber optic junctions, i.e. cities. But wherever they are, there would still be people who must do the maintenance, troubleshooting, and repair of these systems. I.e. physically handling the equipment. They would still be "tied" by need for proximity to a given place. Ditto the people who would run maintenance on robotic factories. And don't forget the people outside the IT industry--service jobs like in restaurants; teamsters; physicians; construction workers; retail workers (I don't think physical, hands-on shopping will go away completely--enough people will still want to see and touch certain products before they buy them, I know I do, skeptic that I am); and the list could go on. Plus, many people are real social animals, and they LIKE the density and fast pace of city life. As for skyscrapers, I HOPE the great art of architecture doesn't revert to dime-a-dozen low squat office buildings. As you said, skyscrapers are SYMBOLS--symbols of power and prestige, as well as (if done right) statements of artistic beauty and creative genius. I envision structures that soar further and further up toward the heavens, as materials and structural engineering technologies continue to advance. Not because they MUST, but because we CAN.... I think humans will still have that urge to create such things of beauty and work (or live) in them. Maybe I'm just a hopeless romantic though....
However, in some of those businesses that CAN operate in remote coordination, we will probably have one guy living at a fishing lodge in Kalispell, Montana; another at his ranch in West Texas; one in Paris; one in Tahiti; and one in New York--with the business running perfectly well. However, I think that security would always remain a concern, and on some occasions depending on the business, all those associates might want to get together physically for an old-fashioned "closed door" meeting now and then....
I don't see much change in demographic trends happening, really, though. But the total freedom of living wherever you want to sure is intriguing, and there will be more opportunities for that, I'll agree, as the information revolution advances.... Can't say I foresaw much of what we have now 20 years ago, though, so who knows?
), while some businesses would be able to wire themselves remotely, there's the hardware itself that must be tended to. Of course the mainframe systems could theoretically be located anywhere, but would probably be at key cable/fiber optic junctions, i.e. cities. But wherever they are, there would still be people who must do the maintenance, troubleshooting, and repair of these systems. I.e. physically handling the equipment. They would still be "tied" by need for proximity to a given place. Ditto the people who would run maintenance on robotic factories. And don't forget the people outside the IT industry--service jobs like in restaurants; teamsters; physicians; construction workers; retail workers (I don't think physical, hands-on shopping will go away completely--enough people will still want to see and touch certain products before they buy them, I know I do, skeptic that I am); and the list could go on. Plus, many people are real social animals, and they LIKE the density and fast pace of city life. As for skyscrapers, I HOPE the great art of architecture doesn't revert to dime-a-dozen low squat office buildings. As you said, skyscrapers are SYMBOLS--symbols of power and prestige, as well as (if done right) statements of artistic beauty and creative genius. I envision structures that soar further and further up toward the heavens, as materials and structural engineering technologies continue to advance. Not because they MUST, but because we CAN.... I think humans will still have that urge to create such things of beauty and work (or live) in them. Maybe I'm just a hopeless romantic though.... However, in some of those businesses that CAN operate in remote coordination, we will probably have one guy living at a fishing lodge in Kalispell, Montana; another at his ranch in West Texas; one in Paris; one in Tahiti; and one in New York--with the business running perfectly well. However, I think that security would always remain a concern, and on some occasions depending on the business, all those associates might want to get together physically for an old-fashioned "closed door" meeting now and then....
I don't see much change in demographic trends happening, really, though. But the total freedom of living wherever you want to sure is intriguing, and there will be more opportunities for that, I'll agree, as the information revolution advances.... Can't say I foresaw much of what we have now 20 years ago, though, so who knows?
I think there will be an impact, but it won't eliminate cities. It may shrink them a bit though...
I personally work in a building with around 2,500 people. Better technology could keep about 2,300 of them home most of the time. Much of the rest are either support staff, or legitimately need to be close to each other. Eventually the cost savings of not needing this huge building for staff that come in once or twice a month will outweigh the expense of hooking them up at home. When that happens 2,500 a day could shrink to 300 a day. If that happens on a large scale, there will be changes in our social geography.
As far as the suburbs go: I see that they are roundly criticized. I also note that that is where a lot of people choose to live. Perhaps the crowding of the city is too much for them, but they happen to like some of the services modern life provides.
I personally live in an outlying neighborhood of a satellite city. My backyard is woods, and I have deer stopping by regularly to see if my wife has put out corn. I have many conveniences within a short drive, but I do live in a city that in many respects is just an island suburb. I would not want to live in a city, as I like the privacy and space that a house provides. Clsoe proximity to the ballet and a starbucks just aren't that important to me.
My point is, don't automatically blast suburbs, some people like living there. It is simply a different mindset from your own.
I personally work in a building with around 2,500 people. Better technology could keep about 2,300 of them home most of the time. Much of the rest are either support staff, or legitimately need to be close to each other. Eventually the cost savings of not needing this huge building for staff that come in once or twice a month will outweigh the expense of hooking them up at home. When that happens 2,500 a day could shrink to 300 a day. If that happens on a large scale, there will be changes in our social geography.
As far as the suburbs go: I see that they are roundly criticized. I also note that that is where a lot of people choose to live. Perhaps the crowding of the city is too much for them, but they happen to like some of the services modern life provides.
I personally live in an outlying neighborhood of a satellite city. My backyard is woods, and I have deer stopping by regularly to see if my wife has put out corn. I have many conveniences within a short drive, but I do live in a city that in many respects is just an island suburb. I would not want to live in a city, as I like the privacy and space that a house provides. Clsoe proximity to the ballet and a starbucks just aren't that important to me.
My point is, don't automatically blast suburbs, some people like living there. It is simply a different mindset from your own.
allan
Cabrón
"My point is, don't automatically blast suburbs, some people like living there. It is simply a different mindset from your own."
Understood. If it was me you were talking about, I wasn't meaning to "blast" them, just give my own experienced opinion about them.
One good thing about the city neighborhood I live in is that I can walk to a lot of places--the corner grocery store, lots of good restaurants (authentic Mexican ones seem to predominate in my neighboorhood, as there are many Mexicans living around me--and I LOVE good Mexican food), book stores, even the Target store (a discount chain headquartered in the Twin Cities) is within walking distance. Meaning I don't have to get out and drive everywhere, which in winter means scraping ice or brushing snow off the car all the time (true, garages are nice though). And although I don't get into ballets or Starbucks (there are lots of Starbucks in the burbs too), there are certainly many other things close by that I DO get into. Cities offer things to ALL tastes, not just the "hip" and pretentious
. Only things cities don't have is large, pristine areas of wilderness (the parks and lakes of Minneapolis are the closest my city gets to this).
THAT is what the country has--well that depends. Farm country doesn't, but wooded or mountainous country (which I'd prefer) does. But small towns and isolated rural areas tend to have more people who actually get to know you, and look out for you. Plus the pace of life is slower and easier, something that I miss from time to time. Plus there's all those benefits you mentioned of having the privacy of a house and lots of land between your neighbors.
Drawbacks of cities are the faster, more stressful pace; not knowing too many of your neighbors; the "detatchedness" of everybody from everyone else (well, SOMETIMES this is a benefit, but lots of times it isn't); the poorer air quality; the noise; and the lack of lots of open living space.
Drawbacks of the country are having to drive everywhere (within town limits, this isn't the case, but the small towns don't always have what you're looking for either), sometimes TO the city for certain things; people that sometimes get TOO "into" your business (but cities have their busibodies too); lack of anonymity when sometimes that is what you want; and fewer job opportunities.
Suburbs seem to have ALL the drawbacks of the cities, plus the driving drawbacks of the country (although the distances are less, the traffic can make up for that). You said there were woods and deer in your backyard--I guess the suburbs I have grown up in weren't like that. You must live WAY out from the city--most suburbs even ten or fifteen miles from the cities here are filled with rows of houses that all look alike, and are pretty close together too. Then there are all the strip malls where you must park a hundred yards from the store itself, then when you leave you're scanning for your car amidst so many others that look alike.... And those strip malls, IMHO anyway, are just so butt-ugly--nothing original about the architecture (I guess I like good architecture--wanted to be an architect once). Rush-hour commutes--need I say more? Around here they can get nasty.... And as I in particular hate traffic (in the cities, I take back streets if the traffic is bad on the main ones, whereas in the burbs it is often impossible to get very far on the back streets), I think that is the WORST drawback.
I guess I'm an "all or nothing" kind of guy though--and the burbs are just big "grey areas" in between to me. But that's just me. When I have a wife and kids, I may find them more suitable though (although DAMN those commutes too, I wanna get home and see my kids more!).
Understood. If it was me you were talking about, I wasn't meaning to "blast" them, just give my own experienced opinion about them.
One good thing about the city neighborhood I live in is that I can walk to a lot of places--the corner grocery store, lots of good restaurants (authentic Mexican ones seem to predominate in my neighboorhood, as there are many Mexicans living around me--and I LOVE good Mexican food), book stores, even the Target store (a discount chain headquartered in the Twin Cities) is within walking distance. Meaning I don't have to get out and drive everywhere, which in winter means scraping ice or brushing snow off the car all the time (true, garages are nice though). And although I don't get into ballets or Starbucks (there are lots of Starbucks in the burbs too), there are certainly many other things close by that I DO get into. Cities offer things to ALL tastes, not just the "hip" and pretentious
. Only things cities don't have is large, pristine areas of wilderness (the parks and lakes of Minneapolis are the closest my city gets to this). THAT is what the country has--well that depends. Farm country doesn't, but wooded or mountainous country (which I'd prefer) does. But small towns and isolated rural areas tend to have more people who actually get to know you, and look out for you. Plus the pace of life is slower and easier, something that I miss from time to time. Plus there's all those benefits you mentioned of having the privacy of a house and lots of land between your neighbors.
Drawbacks of cities are the faster, more stressful pace; not knowing too many of your neighbors; the "detatchedness" of everybody from everyone else (well, SOMETIMES this is a benefit, but lots of times it isn't); the poorer air quality; the noise; and the lack of lots of open living space.
Drawbacks of the country are having to drive everywhere (within town limits, this isn't the case, but the small towns don't always have what you're looking for either), sometimes TO the city for certain things; people that sometimes get TOO "into" your business (but cities have their busibodies too); lack of anonymity when sometimes that is what you want; and fewer job opportunities.
Suburbs seem to have ALL the drawbacks of the cities, plus the driving drawbacks of the country (although the distances are less, the traffic can make up for that). You said there were woods and deer in your backyard--I guess the suburbs I have grown up in weren't like that. You must live WAY out from the city--most suburbs even ten or fifteen miles from the cities here are filled with rows of houses that all look alike, and are pretty close together too. Then there are all the strip malls where you must park a hundred yards from the store itself, then when you leave you're scanning for your car amidst so many others that look alike.... And those strip malls, IMHO anyway, are just so butt-ugly--nothing original about the architecture (I guess I like good architecture--wanted to be an architect once). Rush-hour commutes--need I say more? Around here they can get nasty.... And as I in particular hate traffic (in the cities, I take back streets if the traffic is bad on the main ones, whereas in the burbs it is often impossible to get very far on the back streets), I think that is the WORST drawback.
I guess I'm an "all or nothing" kind of guy though--and the burbs are just big "grey areas" in between to me. But that's just me. When I have a wife and kids, I may find them more suitable though (although DAMN those commutes too, I wanna get home and see my kids more!).
All valid points. It's hard to say whether I live in the country or the suburbs. That is they joy of what I call a satellite city. Large enough to have the conveniences of the suburbs, but far enough out that the borders are farmlands and woodlands, not another suburb. I live in the county seat of an adjacent county to Columbus, OH. My drive is about 50 minutes to work in a large company on the edge of the city in a brand new shoping sprawl. (All the Victoria's Secret money has been turned into hundreds of acres of businesses and shops, capped off with a largish indoor outdoor mall). I deal with my drive by listening to books on CD and the time flies by.
One thing that could be affecting my preference is the fact that Columbus could be seen as one big suburb. There is no serious heart of the city with large residential areas intermixed with cultural stuff. They are trying to revive the center of the city, but I doubt they will succeed.
One thing that could be affecting my preference is the fact that Columbus could be seen as one big suburb. There is no serious heart of the city with large residential areas intermixed with cultural stuff. They are trying to revive the center of the city, but I doubt they will succeed.
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
"A suburban Starbuck's."
Disgusting.
Disgusting.
