Is Tech Bringing Us Closer Together Instead of Allowing Us to Sprawl?

A columnist for Wired has an interesting look at how telecommunications are actually making it more interesting to reside in populated areas instead of allowing the complete disregard for distance. "Technology makes it more fun and more profitable to live and work close to the people who matter most to your life and work. Harvard economist Ed Glaeser, an expert on city economies, argues that communications technology and face-to-face interactions are complements like salt and pepper, rather than substitutes like butter and margarine. Paradoxically, your cell phone, email, and Facebook networks are making it more attractive to meet people in the flesh."

Comments

Tech can't let us sprawl

[c0d3h4x0r]

You can't get cheap high-speed internet, reliable cellular service, or even reliable grounded electricity out in many smaller rural areas. Tech doesn't facilitate sprawl; sprawl facilitates tech.

Re:Tech can't let us sprawl

[QuasiEvil]

Um, unless you live up in the air, lack of a reliable ground is your own damn fault no matter where you live. It's provided by a giant rod out by the meter, connected to the ground conductors, and pounded deep into just what you'd expect - the ground.

Absolutely

[overshoot]

Paradoxically, your cell phone, email, and Facebook networks are making it more attractive to meet people in the flesh."

And as a result, I choose to live in a place where I don't have to drive to go everywhere: a small town where walking actually gets me places instead of an endless sea of other residences.

Re:Absolutely

[NIckGorton]

I think the article and you are both right. Smaller places that are close to the 'Superstar Cities' in TFA are the ideal. I live in Davis, CA, which has the small town feel (though its actually a small city.) It is 70 miles from the closest 'Superstar City', San Francisco - which I visit just enough for it to be pleasant (several times a month.)

So I get the high speed access, university atmosphere, and small town feel while still having access to SFO. Now if it weren't for all the drunk college kids it would be perfect.

Re:Absolutely

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Our cities are absolutely wonderful places to be. When I'm driving around, my 4 wheels are always on solid pavement. Sometimes I'm asked to move at 70 miles an hour or more, but it's not all work. I spend vast amounts of time driving very slowly with thousands of other cars, bumper to bumper. It's a great opportunity to get to know the cute Chevrolet in the next lane. And several times a day I get to go out to parking lots where I can do more mingling with other cars in parking lots. My driver almost never walks anywhere. He buys me all the gas I need. I've very well taken care of.

On the other hand, if I were a human, these cities wouldn't be very good at all. It's obvious to everybody that these beautiful cities just weren't designed for people at all. They are designed for cars like me, and it's wonderful being a car in these modern American cities. I don't know why the humans don't just leave for someplace they might feel more comfortable.

That's because...

[Paul Pierce]

All girls look hot in their Profile Pictures

I live in NZ and work around the world

[EmbeddedJanitor]

I can do this because of the internet + phone etc. Because I work from home it is easy for me to schedule international conference calls late at night etc. So yes, geographic distance is reduced. Where I work does not have to be where I live.

But what about personal/relationship distance? Communications via email, text etc does seem to be replacing quality relationship time with a higher quantity of low-quality interactions. At a personal level we're drifting further apart. People no longer see themselves as members of a tight-knit local community but more as members of a global community. This defitiely impacts negatively on local neighbourhoods.

Re:How I cope

[c0d3h4x0r]

Yes, but your situation doesn't invalidate my point.

My point is that technology follows sprawl, not the other way around. When enough people move out to new areas and start creating enough demand for the tech in those areas, then the tech infrastructure will finally get built. Until then, very few tech-minded people are going to choose to live in remote areas, and those that do (such as yourself) are going to have to pay extra and use workarounds.

Not so much...

[DoctorPepper]

I commute 50+ miles each way to work, but sometimes I work from home. Depends on how I feel. The nice "tech" the company provides me with: a ThinkPad T61, a cellphone and a bridge line, also allow me to maintain contact with my team, some of which are in Jacksonville (FL), while others are in Charlotte, NC, San Francisco, CA, and others are in Hyderabad, India.

I talk with team members via phone, email and instant messaging constantly, and the majority of these people I've never met face-to-face.

Sounds to me like tech is making it easier for work groups to "sprawl" around the country, and the world.

Re:Neighborhoods

[AuMatar]

There already are. There's the Portugese Ghetto (Orkut), the Korean ghetto (Starcraft forums), the American Ghetto (Myspace), etc.

Outsourcing killed the telecommuters

[heroine]

In the sense that almost every job which can be done remotely is done from India, there is great interest in jobs that involve face time. If those were most of the remaining jobs in recession 1.0, they'll be the only jobs left in recession 2.0.

Re:How I cope

[mini me]

I live out on the farm and have access to pretty much all the technology that most people who live in major cities have. The government has made a big push to make sure the less populated areas are not left behind. If it were truly a free market, you'd be right, but there are other factors that come into play.

There are some worthwhile cities

[overshoot]

I too choose to live in a place where I don't have to drive to go everywhere: a large town where walking actually gets me places instead of an endless sea of other residences.

Most reasonably livable cities predate zoning. Once the idea of limiting what was allowed to be where came in, the inevitable end was the Southern California bedroom community, where it's illegal to have anything but residential property -- for miles in all directions. If you want to drop in for a pint, the nearest tap is ten miles away.

I'll class San Francisco as partly livable; Pacific Heights being a powerful counterexample. The older parts of Portland are still OK, but the burbs are a disaster. Seattle was all right until the Microsoft Millionaires bought up so much of the in-town real estate for game nights. Most other Western cities are a joke.

The East is a lot more complicated, but what bright spots I've seen are specs in a sea of creeping unlivability. I haven't seen that much of Europe from ground level but what I have seen isn't encouraging.

Not if you're a ham radio operator

[LM741N]

Parts of the hobby are dying out because people no longer have any space to put up antennas. And if they try something indoors, they find it flooded with computer hash. I'll take a country farm any day.