How To Promote Population Density?

[jankren]

Im reading Ibn Khaldun's Al Muqaddimah and in the book he says that Population Density is preferable than High Population Numbers.

So what is the best way to make people condense together rather than spreading out all over the country?

[JNS]

In terms of convincing people to live in dense cities the best way to approach it is to improve the living standards. Provide good transportation (the key to a dense functioning urban center) and other services. Also having an effective police force is very important as ussually high population densities result in hjigher crime rates. In the goverment side of things what you could make zoning laws that establish that you can only build high density buildings in some areas.

At least in america part of the problem is that most of the housing in the states is geared towards the single family home, part of the so called american dream. There has to be a change of where people want to live in order for any measures to create better populitaion distribution. Obviously people won't live where they don't feel comfortable.

[Jaketh]

make the cities less of a

[the_mango55]

Preferable in what way?

[Phier]

I'm not overly concerned what Ibn Khaldun says is good, I happen to like my nice suburb thanks

The focus could be on stacking us on top of each other comfortably, or it could be on better transportation system. I'd choose the second.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

Why would you want to be packed together? Some countries are small so they have to, but why on earth is this a desirable lifestyle when you possess ample land?

[jankren]

Why would you want to be packed together? Some countries are small so they have to, but why on earth is this a desirable lifestyle when you possess ample land?

Why have 300 million people if 200 million people is enough as long as they live closer to each other?

I'm not overly concerned what Ibn Khaldun says is good, I happen to like my nice suburb thanks

The focus could be on stacking us on top of each other comfortably, or it could be on better transportation system. I'd choose the second.

Ibn Khaldun's point is that its better to have manageable low population who live close to one another than chaotic high population spread out all over the country.

[the_mango55]

Why have 300 million people if 200 million people is enough as long as they live closer to each other?

I don't understand the question. "Enough" for what?

Why not have 300 million if 300 million can be supported?

[jankren]

I don't understand the question. "Enough" for what?

Enough to support the economy.

Why not have 300 million if 300 million can be supported?

Why have more mouths to feed if you can do fine with less mouths?

[♔DeusVult!♔]

Enough to support the economy.


Why have more mouths to feed if you can do fine with less mouths?

What? 100 million more people increase the size of the economy, they support themselves. Same with "less mouths". Last I checked, there is no state food distribution center with a set amount of supplies. If more people live in a country, they will produce or buy more food. Its a self supporting system....

[Phier]

Ibn Khaldun's point is that its better to have manageable low population who live close to one another than chaotic high population spread out all over the country.

Something like this?



The question is better how.

[Slowpoke]

So what is the best way to make people condense together rather than spreading out all over the country?

Well, the way I see it, you need a hard backbone for city transportation infrastructure. That means rails (sorry, but busses and trolleybusses just don't cut it. Plus they faq up the pavement). You also need not just passenger trams, but utility/transport ones (which you can rent for a nominal fee) as well, like they used to have back in the old days:



Trams must have enough room for people to carry their folding bikes/scooters aboard. A considerable underground network is also important, since it dramatically decreases the amount of above-ground traffic (the difference was highly noticeable during the two days of tube workers strike).

You must also enact various bits of legislation restricting car traffic. In high population density areas, car ownership, if left unchecked, can lead to the paralysis of the entire centre. Here, emergency service response times have risen considerably since the car boom of the mid-00s, especially during the day. Also, commercial vehicles should not be allowed within city premises during the day (with only a handful of exceptions). All major shop resupply/rubbish retrieval/whatever must occur after 22:00 and before 7:00.

Building codes must be revised as well. Blocks of flats (which are pretty much de rigueur for high densities) should be built in continuous linked lines, rather than as singletons. While the visual aspect is unimpressive, the space savings are not, plus the visual comfort of the inhabitants is improved. Seeing the barely-legal chickie in the flat opposite you do naked yoga in plain view may be nice, but the 55-y.o. hippie dude doing the same thing is definitely not (severe mental scarring may occur). Blocks should not be more than 8 storeys high (imagine having to use the stairs all the way to the 22nd floor, or the seasickness you'd get even during a minor earthquake), and they should have at least two elevators, one of them a heavy duty/cargo one ('cause carrying furniture up the stairs sucks, I've first-hand experience of that).


Edit: A very important thing which I've forgotten: everybody who stays more than 1 year in the city must obtain a writ of residence and those who intend to stay for 5 or more years must obtain domicile. Otherwise, severe habitation statistics distortion appears (f'r ex. the city having under 2 million inhabitants in official records, whilst having over 3 million IRL).

[jankren]

Well, the way I see it, you need a hard backbone for city transportation infrastructure. That means rails (sorry, but busses and trolleybusses just don't cut it. Plus they faq up the pavement). You also need not just passenger trams, but utility/transport ones (which you can rent for a nominal fee) as well, like they used to have back in the old days:

Trams must have enough room for people to carry their folding bikes/scooters aboard. A considerable underground network is also important, since it dramatically decreases the amount of above-ground traffic (the difference was highly noticeable during the two days of tube workers strike).

You must also enact various bits of legislation restricting car traffic. In high population density areas, car ownership, if left unchecked, can lead to the paralysis of the entire centre. Here, emergency service response times have risen considerably since the car boom of the mid-00s, especially during the day. Also, commercial vehicles should not be allowed within city premises during the day (with only a handful of exceptions). All major shop resupply/rubbish retrieval/whatever must occur after 22:00 and before 7:00.

Building codes must be revised as well. Blocks of flats (which are pretty much de rigueur for high densities) should be built in continuous linked lines, rather than as singletons. While the visual aspect is unimpressive, the space savings are not, plus the visual comfort of the inhabitants is improved. Seeing the barely-legal chickie in the flat opposite you do naked yoga in plain view may be nice, but the 55-y.o. hippie dude doing the same thing is definitely not (severe mental scarring may occur). Blocks should not be more than 8 storeys high (imagine having to use the stairs all the way to the 22nd floor, or the seasickness you'd get even during a minor earthquake), and they should have at least two elevators, one of them a heavy duty/cargo one ('cause carrying furniture up the stairs sucks, I've first-hand experience of that).

Edit: A very important thing which I've forgotten: everybody who stays more than 1 year in the city must obtain a writ of residence and those who intend to stay for 5 or more years must obtain domicile. Otherwise, severe habitation statistics distortion appears (f'r ex. the city having under 2 million inhabitants in official records, whilst having over 3 million IRL).

Very interesting.

Im very obsessed with organization.

I have always thought people should live closer to one another more in the city where private vehicles are 'discriminated' against and the roads are prioritized for advanced and sophisticated public transportation system.

Bu Im wondering is it possible for a city to work relying only on public transportation? And how to make it cost effective? I mean most public transportation systems are government funded and they tend to run on deficit revenue.

So? It is always predicted that the world population will explode and leave us all to starve. Ever heard of the Population Bomb fearmongering of the 70s? According to them, we should all be dead of starvation already. Let people decide how and where they want to live. If it is better for people to live in dense cities, they will do so. If not, they will live in rural areas or suburbs. And everything will be fine.

There was 3 billion people in 1960.

I simply think less people the better.

Ibn Khaldun also said that urbanised populations, the ''sown'', often lost their fighting spirit and relied on nomadic warriors for their wars, and were often ultimately overthrown by the same warriors, who became ''sown'' in their own right. He regarded it more as a recurring, uncareable disease than a good thing.

Lol, but we are in the 21st century and today we have a standing army.

[Hounf of Culan]

I simply think less people the better.

Then kill yourself and start helping out the environment or the species or whatever stupid reason you have for wanting a small population. Orrr all the 1st world countries could nuke, or otherwise commit genocide, against many third world countries with super high populations like China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Bangladesh and colonize the now empty lands with more productive westerners. But really all kidding aside why shouldn't we go out and "cleanse" all those poor countries I mentioned for the good of the earth or whatever?

[jankren]

Then kill yourself and start helping out the environment or the species or whatever stupid reason you have for wanting a small population. Orrr all the 1st world countries could nuke, or otherwise commit genocide, against many third world countries with super high populations like China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Bangladesh and colonize the now empty lands with more productive westerners. But really all kidding aside why shouldn't we go out and "cleanse" all those poor countries I mentioned for the good of the earth or whatever?

What the hell are you talking about?

[Dr. Croccer]

Lol, but we are in the 21st century and today we have a standing army.

The Brits lost nearly two wars against a bunch of Dutch farmers; the Soviets with their standing army lost against a bunch of Pashtun herdsmen; the US lost against a bunch of Vietnamese peasants. I wouldn't dissmiss Khaldun's theory too soon.

[jankren]

The Brits lost nearly two wars against a bunch of Dutch farmers; the Soviets with their standing army lost against a bunch of Pashtun herdsmen; the US lost against a bunch of Vietnamese peasants. I wouldn't dissmiss Khaldun's theory too soon.

If you are talking about Khaldun's assertion that 'savage' people tend to be braver than more 'civilized' people then I agree. I mean I admit that Im probably a coward compared to 13-year olds in Congo who grew up in a much more dangerous environment.

Impossible. And I'm saying this as probably the strongest supporter of public transport on this site. There will always be somebody who will encounter some sort of personal necessity that requires an automobile, and there will always be small shopkeepers/businessowners needing 'bumblebees' (small panel vans like the FIAT Doblo, Renault Kangoo etc).

Im not saying private vehicles should be banned completely.

As I said Im hypothesizing about a city where public transportation is prioritized over private vehicles. And I think this can only be achieved in a condensed city population. If people lived all over the place, the public transportation system would be severely stretched and inefficient.

A very old piece of agitprop trotted out repeatedly by a bunch of Classic Libertarian Economics sneaky faquers. What they fail to mention is that, in their calculations, they invariably omit the opportunity costs and hidden subsidies sunken into supporting car traffic and the plusvalue derived from having a stable, well-interconnected and punctual public transport network.

Yeah, I guess its like cigarette. Tobacco companies generate massive revenues but the health care cost as a result of smoking is also equally massive.

[Slowpoke]

Bu Im wondering is it possible for a city to work relying only on public transportation?

Impossible. And I'm saying this as probably the strongest supporter of public transport on this site. There will always be somebody who will encounter some sort of personal necessity that requires an automobile, and there will always be small shopkeepers/businessowners needing 'bumblebees' (small panel vans like the FIAT Doblo, Renault Kangoo etc).

I mean most public transportation systems are government funded and they tend to run on deficit revenue.

A very old piece of agitprop trotted out repeatedly by a bunch of Classic Libertarian Economics sneaky faquers. What they fail to mention is that, in their calculations, they invariably omit the opportunity costs and hidden subsidies sunken into supporting car traffic and the plusvalue derived from having a stable, well-interconnected and punctual public transport network.

[scarybandit]

Population density could be achieved by legalising marijuana.

1) Stoned people never leave the house after work.

2) If forced out for supplies (fried chicken, banana smoothies, marijuana), they don't want to walk far.

3) It's dangerous to drive stoned, so public transport and practical footpaths are appreciated.

4) Online gaming is better in well serviced broadband areas.

5) Stoners often forget to buy/use contraception, thus increasing population density in their immediate area.

NB: As a necessary addendum to #5, I should point out that in the long term, family life may force the stoner to give up marijuana and move to the suburbs, thus undermining all the good work put in previously.

[Thorn777]

Look at Ile-de-France and how that went about.

Worked for France but also has its cons. Germany on the other hand has a completely different make up which worked for us.