I think we might have invested a bit too heavily in material wealth as the most important hierarchy.

not nessecarily; you just need to choose the appropriate metric ratio

If I spend my money on booze carousing with friends, I will not have much left.. but I will have a helluva story to tell, assuming I survive.

you can't quantify QoL directly but you can use metrics that move in tandem

It heavily supersedes morals, corrupts our institutions and generally makes things difficult.

disposable income for example

@Laucivol Also true and you're not wrong for it.

can't drink more than you have and still pay rent

And in that hypothetical, I will not be able to meet the health challenges presented as metrics.

Material wealth is relevant, in so much as it relates to living standards.

Ultimately though, cities and politicians should not be judged on the basis of bank account balances or the total value of all products manufactured (slave plantations were very productive, mind you).

Tell that to the drunk in the street, MA. >.>

A minimum amount, sure

drunk doesn't pay rent; he is homeless

i.e. he has no assets

Might be having a gay old time, though.

agreed, politicans just like universities aren't organizations that look for the most profitable solution

they should look to find the most EQUITABLE solution

however, people tend to focus only on what they can write on a ledger

I wish the US would spread back out. THe cities have gotten so big. We have spent some time on trying to repair, or rebuild a lot of slums and rot in cities, I feel like they should be bulldozed and left open and new towns should be built elsewhere. Grant companies a lot of tax credits or however it works to go and setup a new town between some other place, especially one near a new power plant 😉

like the old housewife who added value yet that value wasn't quantifiable in terms of income

Density is incredibly useful when it comes to increasing living standards, but *you have to do it right*.

Perhaps there is a TOO dense

if that were true, then europe would be a hell hole

It's one thing to have parks on top of parking garages and mcmansions stacked on top of retail stores, with fine architecture everywhere to be seen, and quite another to have everyone living in a high density slum where nobody takes care of their trash.

it isn't despite the colloquial label

in fact, the standard of living is HIGHER in Europe

mainly BECAUSE they lack the urban sprawl that leads to isolation in the states

Density is not the problem. It's the planning that goes behind it.

that is certainly a large factor

schemes like transportation oriented design make accessibility and socialization far easier and less resource intensive

you don't NEED a car to work, live and play in most places throughout europe

You need to create distinct "population segments" in any urban area, keeping in mind that people function best in tribal groups of 150-250 people. You need to bind people together, geographically, based on their cultural backgrounds and personalities (so they actually like their neighbors).

Furthermore, you also need to embed social structures into the very design of the city, like churches and clubs so that people have other venues for social interaction.

same cannot be said for the US

i actually disagree

that is part of our CURRENT problem and an advantage europeans also have

@Arthur Grayborn I highly agree

So @ManAnimal wants to live in an apartment complex full of black nationalists?

despite the US having the most diversity, we have little chance of need to interact with others in the public forum if we don't wish

but in europe, you meet people on the street, on the train, in the town hall etc.

We should design residential areas around a traditional "village" design, where there's a heavy emphasis on the local community. Your neighbors should be your friends.

there is a public and private space there which we don't have here