What I don't like about the Oh the Urbanity! videos is their complete lack of ...class perspective. For them it's about supply and people's choices. There is no space for like, power relations in the urban space, and there is no understanding that density can also be a repressive power. There are places in the world (where many immigrants to Canada come from) and places in Canada where density is a signifier of poverty, bad services, lack of green space and overall bad quality of life. Without addressing this simple fact, they end up sabotaging their very valid arguments and come off as annoying smarmy neoliberals.

I'm not of course saying that poverty and density are necessarily coupled. In Canada some of the worst poverty is at some of the least dense areas (indigenous reservations ).

What I'm saying is that there is a good density and there is bad density. But good density requires a strong welfare state to put in place shared public amenities. And that's completely missing from these videos. Instead somehow "satisfying demand" will fix things alone.

Again, it's not as if suburban planning addresses any of the social problems. But it being the default in North America means that it already occupies a strong ideological position in the public imagination. The imaginary "benefits" of suburbanity are part of the default thinking, of the existing ideological hegemonic paradigm.

Density is a mixed bag - on the one hand it means your hit critical mass for local services to be viable faster (the good), but you are also usually trapped in a leasehold when you buy (the very bad). You do get a lot of noise in dense houses, and given the "cheapest viable" philosophy that isn't going away - it also means you have to be more mindful of your own noise.

Overall, I don't enjoy it, but it beats driving to work every day.

Recently got to see Japan and it was eye opening. It’s by far the densest country I’ve been to and also the most functional. The public transit is amazing, as trains can get you literally everywhere, even between cities. There is also hardly a square of wasted space when it comes to housing. Buildings are tall and they are packed. The roads are mostly one way and narrow, except on a few major roads. The cars that do exist are small. I did appreciate seeing what is possible.

That said, the amount of people is intense and you do walk a lot between trains. On one day, I hit 12 miles, and that included lots of public transit. It becomes tiring a bit. If humans want to keep increasing in number, we should do it the Japanese way. But, I also wonder if we shouldn’t just stop breeding so much if we don’t like intense density. Those are basically our choices. If we want to keep breeding, low density is not an option.

we can no longer afford to live like humans but rather like animals in stacked compartmental cages

lol the drama of someone who has never lived in a nice apartment

I wouldn't argue for others not to have it, but I absolutely do not like skyscrapers or tall buildings, or being cramped together with lots of other people. If I can, I would avoid living in or around tall buildings and cities.

I would prefer to live underground. Like a hobbit.

It's interesting that there's a disconnect between density and cost of living. Not only the roof above your head, but the availability and density of services, from healthcare to recreation, from work to food, from coffee to plumbers, from walkability to public transport.

The denser the living conditions, the more people live within a viability catchment, the more opportunities for alternatives and competition.

"I only have one plumber who can fix my blocked toilet?" in a rural setting, vs. "Which plumber should I use today?" in a high density area.

Yeah it's really weird how some people hate density. It's like they think it's cruel and unusual punishment. Many even think that to even see 3+ stories.

"Oh my ~~virgin~~ single family dwelling eyes!"