Ask HN: Should people move away from cities?
Since Covid, there's been a lot of talk about leaving cities and moving to smaller towns and the country-side. I also saw a growing interest in ideas like coliving, eco villages, and digital nomads.
It seems to me that a lot of people are either looking for a change, or for community - and aren't finding it in the cities. The internet seems to have subsumed all of culture and everyone's energy, so that you're either in the rat race, working for the interests of the internet, or escaping to the country-side to farm potatoes. I'm wary of moving to a rural area, because I can't really see anything going on there either. Won't most people just become more isolated than they feel in the city?
Of course, I understand many people are perfectly happy and have strong roots where they live, and many people who feel that living in the city is just... well, better. That's not what I'm talking about. There are many people who are unrooted. I don't care about the restaurants, the shops, or the concerts. Don't care about beautiful architecture or finding a group to play Dungeons & Dragons with. Those things, for many people, sound good on paper but the reality is often very disappointing. For me, the city is a place to come to once a month to do one thing then leave - but I wouldn't know where to leave to.
What I'm not seeing anywhere is a grounded movement of people doing something cool. Not consuming, not escaping, but doing. I'm tired of talking to people who are "just looking around" or "studying". My eyes instantly glaze over when someone starts telling me about their incomprehensible job, or the amazingly inconsequential places they've been to, or their favorite consumables.
Another quote that resonates with me, from a song called Seattle Party: "Your tattoos are so deep, they really make me think /s", perfectly encapsulates my utter despair with living in the city.
What I'm talking about is in the quote from Eric Weinstein. Where are you supposed to go when you want something more (or less)? Where are the Willy Wonkas at? Where are the easy riders?
Are cities in general dead places? Is it just me?
inb4 Burning Man.
48 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 98.2 ms ] threadBut the "putting down roots" thing. When the pandemic hit I was renting a cabin in a corner of Scotland after selling my family home, prior to a few years of nomadism in Europe. And I realised I had so many roots online - meaningful ones, some with friends I've probably spent hundreds of hours talking to, but rarely get to meet in person. And maybe that's a new version of "putting down roots" that has never been easier? So maybe there's a traditional prejudice with that term, one that doesn't fit the newer, more fluid reality for so many folk. (Not just younger generations, either! I was 50 last year.)
All this reminds me a bit of Venkat Rao talking about permanent nomads, and how their constant movement is how they feel stable and rested: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2011/07/31/on-being-an-illegible-... Maybe many folk look "unrooted" but they're actually rooted in ways many people just can't get their heads around properly? Maybe (maybe) it's sometimes not about the place at all?
It feels like everyone is always in their own world. It's not a very productive way to live.
And yeah, I can respect a real nomad; but at least create some bases!
So yep, totally agree that a siloed existence is a miserable one - and unhealthy too. I just think it can happen everywhere, including in small communities. It sounds super-trite, but there's nothing that kicks me out of a self-absorbed funk more than genuinely helping a friend with something and feeling like I did a good thing. That's not really a location phenomenon, that's more an attitude-based one? And it's infectious too. We're all herd animals really...
Chicago might just be my favorite city, it was so cheap compared to LA , the people ( including my first real girlfriend!) are nicer, and the public transportation is top notch.
I really really hate driving. Many cities are the worst of both worlds,congested, mean places, where you need to own a car.
I imagine a perfect suburb, small enough to be serviced by a few light rail trains， where you can have a big house without a car. Maybe this already exists, but somewhere in Europe
There's also the option of starting or revitalizing one. There are enough people bringing this sort of thing up on here. If you get someone with a ton of name recognition and financial support (eg Musk), you could make it happen. It would likely require large land purchase in a rural area. Or, it would be great to revitalize a dying Appalachian city if the residents would be amenable to it.
It's probably the only affordable city in America with real public transit.
I can imagine a billionaire techie creating a planned city with public transit, but it doesn't sound like a good place to live. It would be super expensive, and miss the character that real cities have
" but it doesn't sound like a good place to live."
I don't mean they would be some ultimate ruler. You would need others to go too. But you need someone with a big name for people to believe in it. That said, I don't think current cities are good places to live, but that's just me. I would imagine a new city would be able to beat the metrics that many are measured by (affordability, crime, schools, etc).
All but the last requirement (big house without a car). You can live in a nice place like Lausanne with a nice metro in a 2 bedroom flat that you might be able to afford on a standard swiss salary, but the big houses are still reserved fro million and billionaires.
Big houses for the everyperson are more of a Canadian/Australian/American thing.
It's possible they'll realize that most of their stress and problems are caused by other people.
Some people even enjoy relative isolation - One Man's Wilderness, Into The Wild, etc are some accounts.
I think that affects the mental state of those who are just immersed in those environments. When literally everyone you meet is an asshole, you end up thinking that way of the world, and in many people, they become part of the problem as well.
It's not limited to cities or urban density. I think it's self-selective. I noticed the attitude is worst in financial districts or hardcore poor areas. I would bet certain high paying tech districts might be similar too.
Outside of a certain city core, you do have exponentially more places to pick where to live. So the self-selection effect might also fall differently. Someone who chooses to live in an area with nice gardens might have a different personality to someone who chooses an expensive condominium.
Who is Eric Weinstein and what is the quote from?
I really miss the character and people of big cities. I missing the public transit. I miss being able to walk for hours and just look at the cool stuff around me.
Climate change is very real and contributing to sprawl and car culture is an extremely selfish decision.
I understand many people want to live in houses with yards, but think about the world 250 years from now. People are going to have a lot fewer choices about how they live and it’s due in part to the decisions we make today.
And I understand this is a radical view and I’m not going to change anyone’s mind, but it’s the way I choose to live.
If the people that say they support sustainable living actually understood what is meant by that phrase almost none of them would support it. It’s not just billionaires giving up their jets as is the popular notion, but as you point out, basically giving up everything Americans consider staples of middle class life.
I think we’ve got a better chance inventing a giant machine that removes greenhouse gases from the atmosphere than we do of convincing people to follow your way of life. And climate change is just the tip of the ice berg.
:eyeroll:
Yeah, no need to explain the details of how encouraging people to live in cities would result in global war.
When the prices of basic necessities increase people affected by the price increases don't usually think to themselves, well gee! I'll just move to those wonderful cities I've heard so much about full of those people who I have nothing in common with culturally. It's not like there's mutual distrust and is totally gonna be such a great time!
I even go a bit further than what I talked about. I don’t eat meat, have never driven a car (fortunately healthy enough to bicycle/walk everywhere), and don’t fly in airplanes. It’s funny when I talk about how I live and people say, “Wow how do you do it?I just have to _________.” I don’t have the heart to tell them that their great great grandchildren may not have that choice.
In that sense, I do feel like it doesn’t matter what we do today. The cards have been shuffled, dealt, and the hand has been played. All that’s left is to turn them face up.
Mostly talking out of my ass. I’m sure there’s someone on here with the answers you seek.
It's not just cars, think of infrastructure like water, electricity or roads. Think about supplying to those people in remote shops or thinks about the land they use and climate change they produce locally and globally just by that
I've lived in Seattle for over 20 years now. I left Alaska because there was no tech scene and other personal pursuits weren't ending in anything with a future at the time. I managed to catch this city right as it was getting it's first dose of gentrification blotting out all those references that inspired and sustained the "grunge" scene as it had already died, was creamated by the record label and became "Alt-Rock" as told by the local radio station reference KNDD. This past year, my partner passed away and while I already had this fuzzy/warm idea of relocating out of town. So looking at the geopolitics, recent personal events and my home value that has literally exploded over the past 10+ years, I present my opinion with these optics and pragmatism.
It honestly boils down to your own goals and where you think opportunity would have a greater chance of landing or being realized.
Humans and especially hyper-nerds like HN readers are always datamining information from "the great collective" as if it's a sure thing. But that's honestly a fallacy of human nature to be "reassured" that is reinforced/exploited by cable news "commentary shows" and a form of rhetorical bias to get the dopamine fix through self-affirming data.
If you are not into the communal/rural collective, neighbor helping neighbor even if they could be MAGA-hat wearing, Ted Cruz worshipping, God/Guns/Glory rednecks that espouse every stereotype and have no problems living within their own echo chamber because they are in "'Murrica" and wonder why you aren't stepping in line with the rest of "us" sheep person OR are profoundly judea-christian religous but not a Jew, then cities maybe better just in the context of finding like-minded people. It's the same reason why swing states often have a duality of "blue cities/red rural districts".
States have different vibes, politics and laws steming from said political vibes. Whether or not city or country inside the state doesn't matter as much as "commute time vs. lifestyle-opportunity goals" in most cases. If you think you are a corner case, then test it. But this is how I'm breaking down the information.
In the city, we try to get as much done inside the localized 24 hours we have.
In the country, they are limited by nature or opportunity set by nature thus the timescale is distorted by this reality where there are hard deadlines for crop growing and harvesting which makes or breaks their bankroll. In Alaska they call it "Alaska Time" but on islands and other places, they call it "Island Time".
Surely, you could try to apply the same 24 hour logic to living rurally, but our society isn't 100% built for a 24-hour lifestyle unless you have everything from your vocation to your location tuned for it. Like working remote in Europe/Asia but live in NYC - such is almost unicorn outside such a work/life balance.
Then there is the balance itself: Why would you move to the country in the first place? Have you ever been, are you from and are you striving to return to it? Do you already have plans to be an employer or landlord? Do you understand the financial risks and capital investment needs going rural?
I finally got my parent hooked up with Starlink this year. Prior to that, they had spotty "wireless based" internet service because the local ISP didn't give two fucks as they were the only game in town due to the majors whitewashing their coverage data or groups already invested the tens of thousands of dollars to "energize" a new cable run off a feeder spur and the person at the farthest end of the span may have or may be getting reimbursed for paying the initial cost. Which is the case for most utilities...
It seems to me that cities are full of silly people who work each other to death in one way or another for no real benefit. You mention homelessness, and that's also part of what I'm talking about: people go to cities looking for opportunity, and end up simply subsisting. There's zero community, if you have a streak of bad luck you're fucked and serve as a warning to others. There are a few people who deeply embed themselves into elitist cliques, at great personal cost, and the rest just work 9-6 then do nothing except things that are Instagram-friendly.
My point is that all cities have lost nearly everything that once made them attractive for tech people:
1) Culture is driven by the internet now. As long as you have good internet, you're in. In Europe, that means basically anywhere. The art/tech scenes are gone. The only art scene that isn't totally dead is urban graffiti, otherwise everything is better online. When people say there's a "tech scene" somewhere they mean there's a bunch of strangers sitting around on beanbags in a warehouse called something like "Bit Factory".
2) Networking happens on the internet. Geographical proximity is now dictated by a range of time zones rather than kilometers.
3) City wealth is illusory. Software engineers in London make £40k-£60k per year, which is way more than anywhere else in Europe - but they spend £2k per month on their apartments and end up having nothing to show for it all.
The only "compelling" reason anyone ever gives these days for why you should live in a city is: good food and nightlife. Sorry, but living for nights out is embarrassingly stupid. It would be one thing if it meant fostering deep social connections, but who are we kidding? On a night out in most places you're either rich or you're a clown with piss-stained shoes.
The only reason that makes sense to me is that sometimes you need to access resources and get training in things you can't find outside of the city. Things like cooking classes, for example. This is a very good reason to have cities, but I'd be happy to commute an hour every few days to access those resources.
I have lived in the suburbs, satellite towns, and the boonies (rural), and I used to like those people much more than city people. But I don't know what those places are like anymore.
You mention having lived in Alaska, which reminds me of that show "Northern Exposure" where the big city doctor is forced to move to Anchorage and ends up becoming part of the community. I'm not sure that kind of thing is actually possible, because this isn't TV and because of the realities of a world with the internet.
If everyone moves away from the city then my place becomes a city.
Furthermore, because we are uncomfortable paying more than $8-10 for a good burger, the best chefs reside in cities where the population can sustain their business. The primary reason I don't leave my city is the access to some of the best food in the country. That's kind of it. Everyone has their ethics and codes and vices, but I'm not giving up ramen or Peruvian chicken anytime soon.
So living outside a city has few downsides, and many upsides it seems. As I tell anybody that will listen, "Life at home, visit the circus"
So I wonder:
1. Do you need something different, or do you need that and don't have it?
2. If you don't have that, is it because the city is making it hard to form friendships (especially intimate ones)? Are people too busy to really connect with you? Are you too busy to really connect with people?
3. If you do have that, is the problem that you can't see that you have it because of the 10 million random strangers around you? Or that you don't have it often enough, because with everything going on in the city you don't get together with the people you know often enough?
4. Or is the problem on a completely different level? Is the problem the city itself, rather than connecting with people?
only if you stay in your house all day. i meet people, i work with people. you get to know someone quick if you work with them doing physical things.
its a totally different lifestyle form city dwelling. you spend a lot of time outdoors. working with people. its far from the same isolation as a city. i am a former city dweller. and changed my entire life and career, when covid hit. now i own a business framing houses and a nascent farm. i work out doors, and i meet lots of people. i have come to believe too much comfort and luxury is bad for mental, physical, and emotional health; for me at least.