hollowone wrote to Dennisk <=-

This is what I've done. Moved 50km from my big city's center. I'm there only 2 days a week to catch up with the office and I've been doing that even before COVID. the rest is my calmed down neighbourhood with a nice lake view and life balance.

Yeah, I'm on the California central coast with a hill between me and
Silicon Valley. My normal commute is between an hour and an hour and
a half. I don't mind the drive when I come home to a laid-back beach
town and an ocean view.

My wife and I were debating between moving here and moving closer to
work. Stressed out people, real estate cost twice as much, and
traffic was becoming a nightmare.

Now that we're both WFH 4 days a week, I think the bet paid off.




... Make what's perfect more human
--- MultiMail/XT v0.52
þ Synchronet þ realitycheckBBS -- http://realitycheckBBS.org

1 - 2 million is a good size for a city, even 3 or so. Where it
becomes unmanageable is when you can no longer feasibly traverse the
city freely. Melbourne is like that. If I wanted to visit a relative
or friend on the other side, and not even at the far end, you have to
make it a day trip, because it takes sooo long because of distance and traffic. You can't live on one side and work on the other, it takes
way too long to traverse. That is when it is too big. It's no longer
a functional unit, its grown beyond a manageable scale, and it leads to division. Now, that limit will vary from city to city depending on transport, geography, density, etc. But nowhere in the city should be "too far" for an activity to not be feasible, or where people from one part start to get cut off from another, and no, I don't consider over
an hour to get to the center OK, not unless you are walking.

I think that is not related to size of the city or population but how mass transit is organized, which at some point must be efficiently based on the train system.

This is what we're building here in Warsaw, unless that's organized the way it should we have traffic like in Instabul and problems you described above.

While I find London quite efficient to commute even tho the city is 4 times bigger than mine.

cars driven by individuals as the lifestyle is great if you live in a metro area smaller than a million and smaller than a square with 15km long side of
t.

/h1
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
þ Synchronet þ Amiga City - The BBS for the Amiga - more than 4,000+ files

hollowone wrote to Dennisk <=-

1 - 2 million is a good size for a city, even 3 or so. Where it
becomes unmanageable is when you can no longer feasibly traverse the
city freely. Melbourne is like that. If I wanted to visit a relative
or friend on the other side, and not even at the far end, you have to
make it a day trip, because it takes sooo long because of distance and traffic. You can't live on one side and work on the other, it takes
way too long to traverse. That is when it is too big. It's no longer
a functional unit, its grown beyond a manageable scale, and it leads to division. Now, that limit will vary from city to city depending on transport, geography, density, etc. But nowhere in the city should be "too far" for an activity to not be feasible, or where people from one part start to get cut off from another, and no, I don't consider over
an hour to get to the center OK, not unless you are walking.

I think that is not related to size of the city or population but how
mass transit is organized, which at some point must be efficiently
based on the train system.

This is what we're building here in Warsaw, unless that's organized the way it should we have traffic like in Instabul and problems you
described above.

While I find London quite efficient to commute even tho the city is 4 times bigger than mine.

cars driven by individuals as the lifestyle is great if you live in a metro area smaller than a million and smaller than a square with 15km
long side of t.

My city has basic mass transit, and is modelled more like Los Angeles, urban sprawl, freeways. Melbourne is expanding purely to give Property Developers easy cash. They plonk down shitty suburbs that are desolate and have the charm of a nuclear reactor, then move on. There is little planning or any sense of cohesiveness. It's a wierd hodge podge of apartment towers next to cottage houses, standard suburban blocks each with three bunkers running from the street back, that they call "townhouses". London does have good transport, as do many European cities. When I went to Europe I was pleasantly surprised how efficient and usable it is. I could travel within cities with the train, bus quickly, and people I knew barely needed a car.


... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
þ Synchronet þ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com

poindexter FORTRAN wrote to hollowone <=-

hollowone wrote to Dennisk <=-

This is what I've done. Moved 50km from my big city's center. I'm there only 2 days a week to catch up with the office and I've been doing that even before COVID. the rest is my calmed down neighbourhood with a nice lake view and life balance.

Yeah, I'm on the California central coast with a hill between me and
Silicon Valley. My normal commute is between an hour and an hour and
a half. I don't mind the drive when I come home to a laid-back beach
town and an ocean view.

My wife and I were debating between moving here and moving closer to
work. Stressed out people, real estate cost twice as much, and
traffic was becoming a nightmare.

Now that we're both WFH 4 days a week, I think the bet paid off.

That was exactly my motivation ;-) fingers crossed for not being enforced to reconsider!

/h1
... My American Dream came true outside US
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
þ Synchronet þ Amiga City - The BBS for the Amiga - more than 4,000+ files