100% serious -- should dems focus on urbanizing swing states in order to lessen their institutional disadvantage?

@MarkPaul Suburban & suburban fringe living causes infinitely more scarring on the land.

@BlueVeins Yeah, but it's healthier, and less intrusive on the environment. I need to get you off this vertical obsession you have. That is no way to live.

@MarkPaul It's absolutely not. If you live out in the suburbs, you HAVE TO drive everywhere. In the cities, you can walk and bike, especially if the infrastructure is there.

@BlueVeins No... vertical living is no way to live. Driving is freedom. We need more rural zoning, not less. Stop thinking of only the convenience of walking and biking. Think of the downsides of urbanization.

@MarkPaul It's more than just convenience babe, you have a physiological need to move your body. Being able to do so while going about your daily business is incredibly good.

@BlueVeins Newsflash: you can walk on open roads to move your body. You can hike in sync with nature through wooded paths. You already know this. Stop trying to lead the uninformed. 🧐

@MarkPaul You would fucking die if you tried to walk on one of the roads that actually connect things out in the suburbs and suburban fringe. Usually those speed limits are gonna be upwards of 45 mph with little to no sidewalks, over bridges and ridges alike. And the distances are waaaaaaaaay to large for actually walking from place to place to be remotely feasible.

And sure, you can walk on footpaths through the woods, but those aren't functional routes that people use to take themselves between places they need to go. They walk those routes just for the tactile experience of ambulating outdoors, which is something that city dwellers in the Netherlands get every day on their way to work.

@BlueVeins I'm not advocating walking on highways... although many these days are built with bike lanes and sidewalks, so you do need to factor that in.

And, let's not forget there is a growing (not shrinking) trend of people working remotely (from home) which can reduce or eliminate daily commuting. I insist (INSIST) you factor that into your thought process. Tactile experiences should not be dismissed so lightly either. It can be and is relaxing and serve as a mind de-stressor. Doesn't that count for anything in your quest to see people live on top of one another?

City living is not all it is cracked up to be. I get that there can be some advantages, but you are pushing only the benefits. What about those downsides? When do we get to seriously consider those? And, the thing is... I don't want to live in some small compartment on the 50th floor of some building with cookie-cutter compartments just so when I finally reach street level I can catch a ride to wherever it is I am going with no connection at all to real-world nature.

@MarkPaul
Soooo never leave your house except to go shopping and exercise? I tried that life when COVID hit, it's abysmal.


You don't need skyscrapers if you don't have suburbs. No suburbs -> more land available to build on -> property values don't get high enough to justify skyscrapers.

@BlueVeins Look, admittedly we are talking about relying on transportation to get to and from most specific destinations (work, groceries, parks, etc.). For those who are troubled by that kind of reliance, they should move to a more urban location. But, what about those of us who don't want that lifestyle? Why can't we continue to have a choice?

Okay, so not a skyscraper, but a multi-unit dwelling is still onerous. Personally, I need some amount of space. I don't want to be a hermit, but unless it's a roommate (or more) I don't necessarily want people on the other side of every wall that surrounds me.