Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Big Cities Vs Smaller Cities

wonderwoman
Posts: 744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 3:33:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Ok, Hypothetically speaking If back in the day when cities were first being developed would it have been better to set a 50,000 population cap or let the cities grow as big as they want?

The question at hand is status quo vs. a hypothetical.

Essentially, this is assuming the status quo never existed would it have been better for the 50,000 population cap to allow.

Or is it better that the status quo came into effect and humanity is better off to let cities grow as big as they want?
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 3:38:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 3:33:50 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
Ok, Hypothetically speaking If back in the day when cities were first being developed would it have been better to set a 50,000 population cap or let the cities grow as big as they want?

The question at hand is status quo vs. a hypothetical.

Essentially, this is assuming the status quo never existed would it have been better for the 50,000 population cap to allow.

Or is it better that the status quo came into effect and humanity is better off to let cities grow as big as they want?

I don't think a pop. cap should exist. The worlds biggest city is also one of the most successful.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 3:41:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 3:38:36 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 2/17/2010 3:33:50 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
Ok, Hypothetically speaking If back in the day when cities were first being developed would it have been better to set a 50,000 population cap or let the cities grow as big as they want?

The question at hand is status quo vs. a hypothetical.

Essentially, this is assuming the status quo never existed would it have been better for the 50,000 population cap to allow.

Or is it better that the status quo came into effect and humanity is better off to let cities grow as big as they want?

I don't think a pop. cap should exist. The worlds biggest city is also one of the most successful.

Yet the most successful, often don't live in the city. They usually live outside the city in a suburb.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 3:46:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 3:33:50 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
Ok, Hypothetically speaking If back in the day when cities were first being developed would it have been better to set a 50,000 population cap or let the cities grow as big as they want?

The question at hand is status quo vs. a hypothetical.

Essentially, this is assuming the status quo never existed would it have been better for the 50,000 population cap to allow.

Or is it better that the status quo came into effect and humanity is better off to let cities grow as big as they want?

No, there is no reason to set a cap. A cap limits supply which causes price to SKYROCKET (of apartments and housing and such) and apartments in cities are already extremely expensive.

This also cuts into job opportunity and growth potential. Since there is only, at most, 50,000 potential customers, rather then millions. That means likely, less jobs, and probably lower pay.

This would also greatly cut into farm land, since a city could only have 50,000 people there would be a heck of a lot more "cities" taking up more room. This would lead to a lot more roads, and actually more traffic jams. From Portland to Sacramento is 485 miles with only 1 big city, Salam, OR. If there was a cap on city population, that would mean there would likely be 10 cities on that strip of road.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 3:47:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I don't really see what it matters, though I guess cities would be nicer if they were smaller (I think of Boston, but hey maybe it wouldn't), but that would probably mean there'd be more of them which would probably help to destroy the wonderful outdoors :*(
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
wonderwoman
Posts: 744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 5:01:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Sanitation would be better in smaller cities.

Resources wouldn't be as scarce.

Disease control would be easier.

Mapping out of more area and getting more territory for the country.

I may not have said it but I meant as in the early beginings of cities basically at the dawn of civilization
wonderwoman
Posts: 744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 5:03:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 3:46:59 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/17/2010 3:33:50 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
Ok, Hypothetically speaking If back in the day when cities were first being developed would it have been better to set a 50,000 population cap or let the cities grow as big as they want?

The question at hand is status quo vs. a hypothetical.

Essentially, this is assuming the status quo never existed would it have been better for the 50,000 population cap to allow.

Or is it better that the status quo came into effect and humanity is better off to let cities grow as big as they want?

No, there is no reason to set a cap. A cap limits supply which causes price to SKYROCKET (of apartments and housing and such) and apartments in cities are already extremely expensive.

This also cuts into job opportunity and growth potential. Since there is only, at most, 50,000 potential customers, rather then millions. That means likely, less jobs, and probably lower pay.

This would also greatly cut into farm land, since a city could only have 50,000 people there would be a heck of a lot more "cities" taking up more room. This would lead to a lot more roads, and actually more traffic jams. From Portland to Sacramento is 485 miles with only 1 big city, Salam, OR. If there was a cap on city population, that would mean there would likely be 10 cities on that strip of road.

Job growth wouldn't be cut. If anything more people woul dhave jobs because the same jobs would exist in each city and 50,000 people could share/have a job.

I am not following the sky rocketing prices, and the only transportation avaliable is by horse/galley back in the good old ancient times
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 5:03:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 5:01:28 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
Sanitation would be better in smaller cities.

Most likely


Resources wouldn't be as scarce.

If you still have the same total population you'd still have the same demand for resources.


Disease control would be easier.

Actually with more cities, it would be easier for diseases to jump from city to city.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 5:07:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 5:01:28 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
Sanitation would be better in smaller cities.

Actually, it depends. You would have less people to build labour intensive projects required to improve sanitation.


Resources wouldn't be as scarce.

Again, depends. Are resources scarce in New York and Tokyo?


Disease control would be easier.

Probably.


Mapping out of more area and getting more territory for the country.

Actually big cities allow for a bigger, single pool of soldiers, which allows for expansion. Having your potential men-at-arms spread out over a wider area in an inconvenience.


I may not have said it but I meant as in the early beginings of cities basically at the dawn of civilization

At the dawn of time? No. Things need to be centralise. Communication is slow. Ideas need to be in one place for civilisation to develop.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 5:15:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 5:03:27 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
At 2/17/2010 3:46:59 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/17/2010 3:33:50 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
Ok, Hypothetically speaking If back in the day when cities were first being developed would it have been better to set a 50,000 population cap or let the cities grow as big as they want?

The question at hand is status quo vs. a hypothetical.

Essentially, this is assuming the status quo never existed would it have been better for the 50,000 population cap to allow.

Or is it better that the status quo came into effect and humanity is better off to let cities grow as big as they want?

No, there is no reason to set a cap. A cap limits supply which causes price to SKYROCKET (of apartments and housing and such) and apartments in cities are already extremely expensive.

This also cuts into job opportunity and growth potential. Since there is only, at most, 50,000 potential customers, rather then millions. That means likely, less jobs, and probably lower pay.

This would also greatly cut into farm land, since a city could only have 50,000 people there would be a heck of a lot more "cities" taking up more room. This would lead to a lot more roads, and actually more traffic jams. From Portland to Sacramento is 485 miles with only 1 big city, Salam, OR. If there was a cap on city population, that would mean there would likely be 10 cities on that strip of road.

Job growth wouldn't be cut. If anything more people woul dhave jobs because the same jobs would exist in each city and 50,000 people could share/have a job.

Large stores wouldn't be able to survive in smaller cities, they would have to be small stores. And due to the transportation costs of having to distribute products to 50 small stores instead of 5 big stores, many would have to find ways of cutting other costs (usually jobs). Then once the internet rolled around, they would shift more heavily to online shopping and shipping, which would cut department store jobs (since there would be less walk in customers).


I am not following the sky rocketing prices, and the only transportation avaliable is by horse/galley back in the good old ancient times

I guess I'm thinking about a different time era. I'm thinking about 30's, 40's, and 50's when cities and populations grew a lot more.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
wonderwoman
Posts: 744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 5:28:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
If you look at the area of Sumer (present day Iraq, Iran, Eqypt(not quite sure on that one) it was a breeding ground for trade from euope, asia, and africa. I would reckon small cities could substain a large store in this area.
Sky_ace25
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 5:42:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Big cities typically seem to have the advantages in terms of luxuries, convenience, and a large market. I do personally believe their are more opportunities in big cities that are presentable, however I do not believe they are easy to find. Further more the larger the city the more competitive it is. What it translates to is the bigger the city the more competition is available, their Pros and Con's to competition. While a small town may only have one supermarket a big city can have 5. The main thing I think you get from small cities that you do not get from big cities is the idea of a community. I've visited small cities and it is very pleasant every day to say hi to everybody you see and to really feel accepted into the town. The downfall of this is of course if you are not well liked and thus you can become isolate. So in reality their are Pros and Con's. I believe in terms of sanitation and stuff that isn't really associated with the size of one city, but more or less the actual city itself. Manhattan is a very dirty place, but Boston which is also a very large city is not necessarily as filthy. It all depends really on the skill of the city management.
Seriously, Pluto is no longer a planet?