A metropolis has lots of regulations, whether pointless due to graft and ideology or necessary due to living too close together. Makes sense to me to want to start over from scratch. "This time, we'll do it right!" Plus this strand of libertarian probably likes having lots of land -- I noted each share coming with a full acre. At that point it's a lifestyle preference incompatible with big cities and totally independent of libertarianism.
Um, no. Cities as well. Suburban lot might be 1/4 acre. In Chicago, 1/14 acre (25 feet by 125 feet) is the standard lot. Some houses get more than that, but many don't, and "more than that" is likely to be 1.5 or 2 times bigger unless there's a lot of money.
authority: I grew up there, sold a house last year, and just double-checked online.
1/14 acre? That'd be a rather small lot in Stockholm, like the tiny houses the workers built in select zones in the 1930's. I did a quick sweep of summer houses and regular houses for the capital on one of the big sites and I didn't see any lot that small, most were between 0.6 and 1 acre but some of the tinier ones in attractive areas (lakefront and so on) were down towards 0.2.
San Francisco numbers: I paced out my block as 80x160 meters, most of the houses along the long side. So, a lot was 40 meters deep, minus sidewalks, about 125 feet. My building was probably 6-8 meters wide -- my main rooms were 4 meters wide, with a hallway along the side, and walls. Basically the same size, or maybe only 3/4 as wide. And the block was full of these narrow width buildings; main difference between that area and the small lots around me in Chicago was that the latter had teeny one or two-story houses on them, with actual dirt on all sides, while the SF buildings were 3 stories and wall-to-wall, with all dirt in the back.
I doubt Boston or NYC are much different in basic lot size.
I'll have to chime in on the acre here. An acre is virtually nothing. Seriously, my mother has about 0.9 acres around her little house, and it is a pitiful amount of land, space-wise. My forest is about 12 acres, and that's a _tiny_ piece of forest. I maintain 4 acres of grassland with a few friends one Saturday each summer, and again, it is not much land at all.
Anyone moving to libertariania for the vast open space of one acre of land needs his or her spatial awareness checked thoroughly.
Virtually nothing for a metropolis? Is Stockholm full of houses on acre+ lots?
I've already mentioned Chicago. Someone says Milwaukee lots are 1/9 acre. Can't find numbers for San Francisco but they're on the same order as Chicago. I had friends in Los Angeles in an area zoned for 3/4-acre lots, that was considered low-density.
For having lots of land, an acre isn't much (and maybe they anticipate people -- or households -- holding multiple shares.) For living with people, an acre is a lot. And, anyway, a lot different from any metropolis I've seen, and you were the one talking about NYC or "the metropolis".
Ahem, I though Paulville was in the countryside and not a metropolis?
Seriously, no one would consider a suburban lot noteworthy space-wise. (Of course, my mother's house is 30 kilometers from the city core, and it is almost an acre of land with that).
If I, however, would move to the countryside in order to enjoy wide open spaces and pursue the pursuit of individual freedom an acre wouldn't be a lot of space at all. I probably wouldn't consider buying a house out in the country with much less than an acre. It's what, not even 70*70 meters? That makes a population density of what, 250 persons per square kilometer? Stockholm County has a density of 260 - and most of those people live in apartments...
Yes, it's in the countryside; you were the one asking why they weren't living in a metropolis. I responded that "land" is one reason. I have no idea how much land they expect people to have, but they're talking about a minimum of one acre a share, and $500 a share. "$500 an acre" and "metropolis" don't go together.
And to me, an acre of land and wide free open spaces in the countryside don't go together. YMMV.
Plus, if the cost of the land is 500USD/acre, why bother with buying one? Why not buy fifty or a hundred right away? Sheesh, even a minimal apartment in my city would be enough to pay for hundreds of acres in Paulville.
The whopping one-acre plot did throw me off a bit, too. This sounds more and more like a gated suburb for wealthy-but-not-really-rich people who don't want to deal with the fact that they, too, are part of the society.
As for the libertarian space stations, it's hard to think of another setting where (barring Culture-level tech or so) sticking to the common rules, obligations etc. is so utterly vital so that everyone doesn't suddenly and explosively decompress.
Hmm... I think I just figured out who will colonize planets in the future: the libertarians who think things through! (Almost a vanishingly small sliver of population, but...)
Reply
Reply
authority: I grew up there, sold a house last year, and just double-checked online.
Reply
Reply
San Francisco numbers: I paced out my block as 80x160 meters, most of the houses along the long side. So, a lot was 40 meters deep, minus sidewalks, about 125 feet. My building was probably 6-8 meters wide -- my main rooms were 4 meters wide, with a hallway along the side, and walls. Basically the same size, or maybe only 3/4 as wide. And the block was full of these narrow width buildings; main difference between that area and the small lots around me in Chicago was that the latter had teeny one or two-story houses on them, with actual dirt on all sides, while the SF buildings were 3 stories and wall-to-wall, with all dirt in the back.
I doubt Boston or NYC are much different in basic lot size.
Reply
Anyone moving to libertariania for the vast open space of one acre of land needs his or her spatial awareness checked thoroughly.
Reply
I've already mentioned Chicago. Someone says Milwaukee lots are 1/9 acre. Can't find numbers for San Francisco but they're on the same order as Chicago. I had friends in Los Angeles in an area zoned for 3/4-acre lots, that was considered low-density.
For having lots of land, an acre isn't much (and maybe they anticipate people -- or households -- holding multiple shares.) For living with people, an acre is a lot. And, anyway, a lot different from any metropolis I've seen, and you were the one talking about NYC or "the metropolis".
Reply
Seriously, no one would consider a suburban lot noteworthy space-wise. (Of course, my mother's house is 30 kilometers from the city core, and it is almost an acre of land with that).
If I, however, would move to the countryside in order to enjoy wide open spaces and pursue the pursuit of individual freedom an acre wouldn't be a lot of space at all. I probably wouldn't consider buying a house out in the country with much less than an acre. It's what, not even 70*70 meters? That makes a population density of what, 250 persons per square kilometer? Stockholm County has a density of 260 - and most of those people live in apartments...
Reply
Reply
Plus, if the cost of the land is 500USD/acre, why bother with buying one? Why not buy fifty or a hundred right away? Sheesh, even a minimal apartment in my city would be enough to pay for hundreds of acres in Paulville.
Reply
As for the libertarian space stations, it's hard to think of another setting where (barring Culture-level tech or so) sticking to the common rules, obligations etc. is so utterly vital so that everyone doesn't suddenly and explosively decompress.
Hmm... I think I just figured out who will colonize planets in the future: the libertarians who think things through! (Almost a vanishingly small sliver of population, but...)
Reply
Come to a real civilised (in the old meaning) country like the Netherlands and see what you get there.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment