Suburbia

Was it the greatest mistake in the history of civil planning?

It wasn't an intentional policy, it was the result of billions of people going

>wait, I can afford a car now
>I don't have to live in the city any more
>I can not be a farmer, and still not have to rely on either walking or public transit to get where I'm going
>cities are polluted, cramped, and crime infested

Now, this problem could have been mitigated somewhat by designing cities less around cars and more around subways, and by not fucking up social policy and creating a bunch of ghettos, but at the end of the day, it's simple economics.

A square foot of land in an area with high demand is going to be more expensive than the same amount of land in a less developed area.

I suspect the same pattern will happen in reverse if humans don't find a substitute for oil. Petroleum is the most energy dense material on earth outside of nuclear material, so individual cars would become less and less feasible again if it becomes more expensive.

/n/ is that way

>I suspect the same pattern will happen in reverse if humans don't find a substitute for oil.
Synthetic oil... You know, like we already are capable of making. Natural oil can just be produced in greater quantities and for less money. (most of the cost of oil is tax)

>so individual cars would become less and less feasible again if it becomes more expensive.
Cars were a thing at $4.50, they'll be still be a thing at $5.00.

The only difference you will see is the rise of the extended range electric vehicle because electric cars and hybrids are objectively shit.
With an EREV you should have the least amount of battery weight possible, and the lightest generator possible. You get the energy density of chemical energy and can always operate the generator at peak efficiency.

>tl;dr
extended range electric vehicles are the pinnacle of personal transport and cars will never die.

It wasn't a mistake but an intended business model orchestrated between realtor and automotive industries.

The problem is, gasoline has about 40 times as much energy per gram as lithium-ion batteries.

Natural Gas runs out too, eventually.

Synthetic oil exists, but algae based systems have proven thus far to be a pipe dream, and grain based systems have to compete directly with the market for food.

Hydrogen has extremely low density and is extremely dangerous.

I think that gasoline will endure in fields like agriculture and aviation where a fixed connection to the power grid simply is not available, but like 200 years from now, personal cars will be much rarer than they once were.

It sucks, but it would mean less suburbs.

It's entirely possible to synthesize oil every bit as good as natural oil with basic stocks that don't take away from food.

The trouble, of course, is that it takes an assload of energy. More energy than you wind up getting from the fuel you make. It's really only feasible if we switch over to something hyper-energy-dense like fission or fusion.

I'm assuming that the future from maybe 200 to 1000 years from now will belong to breeder reactors.

Which is nice, and enough to keep fuel going for specific industries, but I'm picturing the majority of people using public transportation.

The real question I've been wondering is whether nuclear powered cargo ships are as stupid as I think they are.

>The problem is, gasoline has about 40 times as much energy per gram as lithium-ion batteries.
Exactly, thats why you want to min/max battery capacity, battery weight, maximum distance without stopping, average power drain, and power output at peak generator efficiency.

Hybrids are shit at it, pure electric is shit at it, pure combustion is shit at it.
There is a reason why modern trains are extended range electric.

Say it with me, "Bye bye Mercury, your sacrifice was noble. I want a small dyson ring"
The problem with Fusion is that it also runs out eventually. We need to balance our consumption with the output from the sun. And the next logical step is to increase the effective output of the sun.

The thing is, trains can hook up directly to the power grid.

They don't need to worry about energy storage.

Neither do subways or streetcars, for the same reason.

I suspect that the energy storage problem is a physics problem rather than an engineering problem, and that it will never be fully solved, and that public transit based on railed vehicles and mains power will become the norm.

Unless artificial photosynthesis ever happens. I'm still crossing my fingers.

>It wasn't an intentional policy
It was.

t. Architect

Oil consumption isn't the only reason suburbs suck, or why their popularity may wain. For one, they're much more costly both to run and to live in than high-density housing and are also pretty fucking soul-crushing.

>and are also pretty fucking soul-crushing.
Are you trying to imply that the city isn't more soul crushing?

>For one, they're much more costly both to run and to live in than high-density housing

Yes and no.

Simple economics dictates that it's more expensive to build a house one story high than twenty stories high. So the rent per square meter of floor space will always be cheaper in a suburb than a proper urban area.

On the other hand, transport is cheaper if you can accept not having a car, and buildings follow the square cube law, so the bigger a building is, the more efficient it is to heat.

I've heard scientists arguing that the energy benefits from this are cancelled out by the cost of elevators after the seven floor mark.

The two big reasons for suburbs are safety and space. Apparently Mexico has had a huge boom in suburb construction on account of the whole cartel thing.

The biggest thing you could do to kill the suburb in the US is reform American drug policy and try to lower unemployment among young men, especially brown young men.

>The biggest thing you could do to kill the suburb in the US is reform American drug policy and try to lower unemployment among young men, especially brown young men.
Detroit would suggest that you want the most niggers possible to kill the suburbs.
Fine negro gentlemen won't kill suburbs, they would live in them.

You can have unsafe low-density housing, just look at California's ghettos for a US example. With regards to costs, this infographic goes a little further than what you mention. It's not just about the initial cost of building the house, it's the running costs as well.

Yes.

Detroit actually died because everyone moved into suburbs, because it was Detroit.

The ring of lower density, higher cost areas around Detroit is actually quite rich. The city literally spread out in a ring around the heart of the infestation.

To make a suburb, you need niggers. To kill one, you need cities that are actually nice to live in.

Presumably legalizing cannabis and treating heroin addiction medically much more aggressively would cut down on the profits to organized crime, and help this out.

After that, I dunno. How do you unfuck somebody that comes from 4 or 5 generations of single parent households and unemployment. If a family is in poverty long enough, they literally have no living memory of not being poor, and it becomes dramatically harder for them to return to the middle class.

The key here is "household."

A household in an urban area is smaller in terms of square feet.

People desperately want those square feet.

And it's harder for small towns to support organized crime, and easier for local governments to manage the problem.

Of course, the main thing being that poor people can't afford to follow out into the suburbs. Section 8 is changing that somewhat.

>ignoring crime and murder rates
>3/10

This.
It becomes even more apparent when you travel outside of the US. You then realize how laughable the majority of our public infrastructure is.

I would argue that the suburbs are far more soul crushing. I lived in a small town in France where everything was within walking distance. Coming back to the US and realizing that I'd need to drive a minimum of 10 min anywhere is a huge hassle.

/thread

Class causes crime not urban planning. In America the suburbs are rich and the urban neighbourhoods poor, it's exactly the other way round in Europe. Crime and murder rates are lower in suburbs because that's where the rich people live, not because of their design.

>How do you unfuck somebody that comes from 4 or 5 generations of single parent households and unemployment.
Completely end welfare. They will either adapt or die as they should.

>If a family is in poverty long enough, they literally have no living memory of not being poor, and it becomes dramatically harder for them to return to the middle class.
Complete bullshit. "my parents were poor" is valid excuse for starting off poor in life, but all it takes to be middle class is to learn a trade.

Poverty is a culture as much as it is an actual economic condition.

You get people who have no real idea how to adapt to the modern world, and what they have is all they know.

As far as I can tell, we need schools to push trades a lot harder, especially for poor kids.

I genuinely can't figure out how to unfuck the family situation though. You have generations of kids raised by low income single mothers, who simply are not encouraged in any way to pursue educational advancement.

Childhood poverty dramatically worsens future outcomes for a child, so I'm pretty sure cutting welfare would actually worsen the situation.

Maybe you require the children to get a certain grade in school in order to get them bennies.

>Poverty is a culture as much as it is an actual economic condition.
I would argue it's an IQ thing much more than culture or economics. There is a reason why you don't find people who are rich and stupid.

>You get people who have no real idea how to adapt to the modern world, and what they have is all they know.
So?

>As far as I can tell, we need schools to push trades a lot harder, especially for poor kids.
Yes. The everyone needs to go to college meme needs to die.

>I genuinely can't figure out how to unfuck the family situation though
End welfare.

>You have generations of kids raised by low income single mothers, who simply are not encouraged in any way to pursue educational advancement.
Because the state is their man. They don't need no man because you are subsidizing their bullshit.

>Maybe you require the children to get a certain grade in school in order to get them bennies.
Or make literally everyone better off and end them outright.....

IQ is also determined by culture and economics though.

For example, we know for a fact that children that grow up in poverty get worse nutrition, which in turn leads to lower adult intelligence.

We know that a child from a lower class family will hear like a million less words by the time they're 6 years old than a child from a middle class family.

This impacts IQ too. It's hard to separate nature and nurture.

When I was an edgy little /pol/fag I went looking for adoption studies to prove my thinking about race, but it turns out that the evidence from that is basically inconclusive. You have one study that showed a racial component to IQ, and then like five studies that were inconclusive. I consider the body of evidence incomplete.

>They don't need no man because you are subsidizing their bullshit.

The problem is, kids that grow up in poverty tend to be worse at everything. Childhood poverty really, really fucks human beings up. Clinton tried fixing the whole "welfare queen" thing in 1996 by making it legally mandatory to have a job to collect welfare, but it didn't do much.

>Or make literally everyone better off and end them outright.....

Welfare is probably cheaper, honestly.

Think of the several billion we spend sending niggers to jail and then think about how much harder they'd fight if they knew they were going to end up as Dachau style brisket barbecue.

If I was going to kill off a group of people in American society, it would be baby boomers, followed by Mexicans.

>IQ is also determined by culture and economics though.
No. IQ only tests for logic and reasoning ability.
Unless your culture is being literally sub-human it isn't an excuse.
The economics argument only works if we are talking about reaching the full potential of your IQ, we're not.

>which in turn leads to lower adult intelligence.
IQ is not intelligence. (inb4 acronym, but I mean intelligence how you're using it)
We're talking reasoning skills, not knowledge.

>It's hard to separate nature and nurture.
It's not like identical twins exist...

>When I was an edgy little /pol/fag I went looking for adoption studies to prove my thinking about race, but it turns out that the evidence from that is basically inconclusive.
Blacks consistently scoring sub 85 combined with that being somewhere ~ halfway between american whites and african IQ's is fairly convincing to me. American blacks are mostly mixed and have been for generations.

>Welfare is probably cheaper, honestly.
I'm willing to pay more because it's a decrease in government power and brings up closer back to what america should be.
Besides they already have crime as a side job to welfare, and they aren't going to stop crime. So why pay them if there will be crime either way?


>If I was going to kill off a group of people in American society, it would be baby boomers, followed by Mexicans.
I would go:
mexicans
niggers (keep in mind fine negro gentlemen are not niggers)
statists (liberals and pseudo-conservatives)
Muslims
Any ethnic/immigrant group that refuses to assimilate to traditional american values and culture.
Faggots
Cultural Jews ("muh 6 gorillion", "Israel is our greatest ally", "I say that I'm jewish because the holocaust must never happen again", "I love bagels, I'm such a jew XD", "muh 15 gorillion")

While I don't care for baby boomers, I wouldn't magically kill them.
They didn't vote in a ponzi scheme or two to fuck everyone over forever, it was their parents.

Subsidized housing

Every study I looked at pointed to a black IQ between 88 and 92, which is a full standard deviation above the malnourished ones in Africa.

Childhood nutrition and socialization actually effect the human brain permanently in just about every way.

Further muddying the waters is leaded gasoline. Everyone born before the Nixon administration is at least mildly brain damaged, and blacks got the worst of it because they lived in the polluted inner cities.

Anyway, I gotta sleep, but I've been enjoying this enough that I'll check this thread come tomorrow.

section 8 housing.

>section 8 housing.
That cancer isn't caused by city planners.

yes american blacks who most likely have white genetics tend to be smarter than native africans

not by a long shot

>civil planning thread
>IQ of blacks 30 posts in

Veeky Forums has become more /pol/ than /pol/ at this point

It's time to delete /pol/. Past time, really.

What... what is that thing?

>bird views

we're not birds lad, it's what's at ground level that's important

lived in suburbs it is a good place to spend your childhood,

commieblocks
>groundviews
flowers are nice and all, but polishing a turd will not make it taste nice

Whats so wrong with suburbia exactly?

>Those people have single family homes and lawn space in a nice neighborhood
>lol fuck those guys

the middle one probably looks ok in the spring and summer

#notallcommieblocks

>Wants to delete /pol/ because he doesn't accept the science that certain races have higher IQ's than others
nice shitpost

are suburbs the american version of commieblocks? Heck even commieblocks have more soul than the neighborhood in that pic

is this what america is actually like?

Fuck off retard that's good tier, just put shops and some activity buildings and school here and there and it's perfection

A lot of it is, yes. Far from all of it. America is diverse.

yes, they're usually even worse than commieblocks because of lack of supporting infrastructure and supposed reliance on cars.

A lot of american projects, especially the ones from the 70s were just a bunch of flats built next to eachother. See pruit ingoe.

I'll post what is a good commieblock area when i get home.

No

40x is the ancient estimate. Now its around 13-14x or so.

With standard fuels and e engines being so inefficient that roughly 70-80% gets lost due to inefficiencies, the final results are close enough.

>13x
>13%


lad....

Also, electric engines aren't 100% efficient either.

When?

They aren't there's always energy inefficiencies in any tech. However electric engines are near 95% in terms of efficiency where as combustion are around 30%

Depends on which year Mayor DeFacto chooses to start at.

Some parts yes, some parts no.

We are hurting ourselves by believing that we can support suburbs, politics aside, we are doomed.

Seriously fuck this board. Not a single thread that doesn't mention pol. WHO CARES WHAT A COUPLE OF ANONS ARE TALKING ABOUT stop getting your panties in a twist about pol. You're creating the problem

pic related is what I was talking about
Am I?
I'm not the one posting about racial differences in every single fucking thread.

African kingdoms?
IQ of blacks...
Religion/islam thread?
IQ of blacks...
WW2 thread?
IQ of blacks...
Civil planning?
IQ of blacks...

And don't tell me to "lel, just ignore it", because over longer periods of time it seriously affects board culture, as seen by the /r9k/ and /pol/ migrations to /int/ in the yonderyears.
so,

Commieblocks are truly the worst

I don't know it has something going on, though I bet living there isn't exactly nice.

Suburbs are not even an american invention, why are you faggots turning this into a race issue?

>Petroleum is the most energy dense material on earth outside of nuclear material

lol
just lol

>Veeky Forums: Nerds who cannot into science

But user, the Minnesota transracial adoption study showed that even when placed in richer environments with higher access to nutrition as you layed out, African Americans still scored similar IQ's to the average of their race.

I don't see why people complain about Suburbia. It's much better than living in the actual town/city. I'd love to live in suburbia.

In cities there is stuff to do, most things are within walking distance or there is public transport.

>there are some nicer commie blocks
>all suburbs are shit by comparison
All commieblocks require living in a socialist shithole, and so are, by default, worse than the vast majority of suburbs. At least in those suburbs they have a some living space.
here is an affluent suburb to go with your affluent non-commieblock. Not all socialist architecture and city planning is a commieblock.

Beatiful, every place should look like this

Where did i say all suburbs are shit? I did nothing of the sort.

At any rate, your pic seems nice enough, although it's probably still a bitch in terms of utilities and accessability.
Although, I prefer european old village arrangement types to this homogeneic approach, but that's just like my opinion.

To add, a major failing of American cities was that most did not build subways but instead built streetcars. So when cars began taking up space on roads, streetcars emptied as they had no advantages. They were then easily torn up.

On another note, it's worth looking at how successful postwar metro systems (BART, WMATA, and MARTA) are/are not.

>just look at California's ghettos for a US example

What ghettos? Compton was taken over by mexicans and gentrified. Same for SF's Mission district, tRichmond's Iron Triangle, South Vallejo and West Oakland. Stockton has some really shit parts but doesn't even begin to compare to ghettos back east.

That's not to say California doesn't have a poverty problem, but it better mitigates the problems a lot better as everyone is forced into the same communities. Better examples of low density ghettos can be found in the Rust Belt or New Jersey.

Its not your opinion. Its a fact.

Everyone prefers comfy style over shit.

No, commie-blocks are worse.

Maybe it's because I'm gay but I find commieblocks to be aesthetic.

>biggest tree in pic is 1m high
>basically no greenery

comrade, the spirit of the proletariat yearns for mother nature

To be honest this looks shittier than any of those commieblocks. I can't imagine being "affluent" and choosing to live there. "Hooray, we all have our own square of featureless, shadeless grass to come home to after driving everywhere! And the neighbors are close enough to make it claustrophobic, but too spread out to feel like a community!" But to each his own, I guess. Some suburbs seems nice.

God damned commie-blocks are greatest mistake in city planning, they have only one good aspect, from them easy do suicidal jump.

>people think suburbs are bad
T. never lived in a ghetto.

If you can walk around outside at night alone then its not bad.

>you can only walk outside at night in suburbs

>flats in the middle of nowhere


fucking new worlders, i swear...

Guess you'd be sixth to die then.

Little boxes on the hillside...

They were designed to function as fortifications in the event of an invasion.

>It sucks

Cars are quite possibly the worst invention in the history of humanity and it will be a joyous day when human beings *gasp* actually have to treat each other well again!

>As far as I can tell, we need schools to push trades a lot harder, especially for poor kids.

The problem here is that trades only pay well if the number of tradesmen is limited. it can't be a way out of poverty for entire population groups because all those people entering trades would destroy the value of each individual tradesman's labor

To be honest, I'd like to be able to go camping without buying a horse.

"objectively shit"

do tell

>The only difference you will see is the rise of the extended range electric vehicle because electric cars and hybrids are objectively shit.
>do tell
>Electric vehicles:
Batteries are heavy.
For any realistic non-meme distance, they are inefficient and the equivalent of using a Cadillac as a pedal car.

>Combustion:
Distinct power and torque curves means that they are shit for variable work.

>hybrids:
Worst of both.
Only good for KERS and quiet maymays.


>>extended range electric
>minimal battery weight
You only need enough storage to cover maximum load for a certain period of time.
The ideal amount (for each person) can be determined with statical analysis of driving patterns and geographic conditions.
Manufacturing wouldn't really change, other than to put in a smaller battery assembly. The battery compartment could stay the exact same size.
They only act as a buffer in EREV's, not the primary energy source.

>minimal energy weight
Hydrocarbons are tens of times more energy dense than battery storage in terms of both mass and volume.
Sure you could use fuel cells, but who wants to ride around on a literal bomb? (700 atm bruh)

>minimal engine (generator) weight
You don't need to have a powerful enough engine to handle every scenario because the battery buffer takes care of it. This lets you have a smaller and lighter engine that can always run at peak efficiency.

>Engine (generator) can be kept at the most efficient RPM
Depending on whether you want to balance for efficiency or making the only limit on range being your gas tank, you can do so.
(assuming you don't repeatedly climb up and down mountains)

The ideal efficiency scenario would place the most efficient output of the generator less than the average consumption of the engine such that the average distance it took for the vehicle to empty the batteries would be somewhere between 1 and 3 SD above the average distance you travel.

Cont.

What's the problem cuckold, not diverse enough?

Continued:

>Engine (generator) can be kept at the most efficient RPM
The "fuck it ever being realistically possible to drain the batteries" setup is one of two things.
Either have the output of the generator at peak efficiency be the average consumption of the motor and just be less efficient to generate more power when you are nearing the 'bottom' of the battery.
Min/maxing for theoretical peak consumption, realistic peak consumption, etc, etc

Or have the output of the generator at peak efficiency be slightly above the average consumption of the motor. And if you really push it by trying to pull a trailer up a steep mountain road or something, then you just run the generator less efficiently to maintain battery charge.

>Electric engines are superior to combustion engines
Torque curves.
I mean, sure CVT's get around that a little, but combustion engines are comparatively shit as outlined above.


>tl;dr
Pure electric is shit
Pure combustion is shit
Hybrids are shit
Extended range electric vehicles are the pinnacle of transport.

>Or have the output of the generator at peak efficiency be slightly above the average consumption of the motor. And if you really push it by trying to pull a trailer up a steep mountain road or something, then you just run the generator less efficiently to maintain battery charge.
I know that the method I outlined is not how the system should actually be run for efficient generation given the conditions of the system I stated.
It was just a simplification to demonstrate the general idea.

>it took 6 posts before we got to the genocide lists
Well it's better than nothing.

I guess you missed the part where I said:
>it's a decrease in government power and brings up closer back to what america should be.

The constitution does not permit such abuse of power. And while most are willing to pretend that the constitution has no meaning, I am an American.
Anyway, we're talking about a magic what-if, so please kindly return to tumblr or reddit.

it's thanks to suburbs most american cities has been taken over by niggers

Chicken and the egg

Exactly. The reason the ghettos and inner cities became shit is because rich residents went fuck it and moved to the suburbs with a garden.

However it's worth noting that it is in part due to racism and poor planning. Nations like the UK imported a lot of cheap labour from overseas which caused the more well off whites to say hell no and leave the paupers in clusters in the cities. The planning came down to moving and demolishing cluster of existing poor communities (often white) and paying them off with shoddy high density housing which started to fall to bits after 10-20 years. As prices slumped in the shit holes immigrants moved in.

Racism has done a wonderful job hiding real class issues, it's my hope we're starting to see that reverse.

>I would argue it's an IQ thing much more than culture or economics. There is a reason why you don't find people who are rich and stupid.

>There is a reason why you don't find people who are rich and stupid.


Toppest of keks.

Nice memes.
Have a chair fetishist as a reward.


Alternatively it could be that immigrants who immigrate for manual labor are worse than the average citizen...
But sure, lets go with "becuz racism, we wuz kangz" and just destroy the world while we're at it too.

Before that it was bandits and barbarian raiders. Or is that going back too far?

>Toppest of keks.
It's pretty uncommon/hard to be stupid and maintain wealth.
Ex: lottery winners and slavs.

>there have always been barbarians at the gates
>therefore the barbarians are the gates are not barbarians at the gates
Well memed I guess...
If you had a point to make it was lost on me. Next time could you try to do it somewhat coherently next time?