That isn't apartment building density, but that's about as dense as single family homes can get.
Mississauga had to raise property taxes somewhat -- still extremely competitive -- as a revenue source dried up. But those new neighbourhoods all easily pay for themselves in property taxes. Nonetheless, loads of really silly narrative comes out of Toronto writers, still foreboding this dire scenario that they've been pitching for well over a decade. It's a bit farcical at this point.
These traditional north american houses are still not very space efficient at all (large unused garden + lawn + double parking spot + garage).
“Suburban” neighborhoods in Europe easily have double or triple the density of this. I also see zero townhouses or anything with 2+ floors in that area.
Maybe you meant 2+ units? 'Cause almost all of them have 2+ floors, and many will have livable basements as well.
I don't know about you, but I actively use and enjoy every one of those things.
Perhaps you enjoy apartment living and consider anything not active indoors a waste.
If so, good for you, I wouldn't want to impose a garden or a parking spot on you. By the same token, calling these out as if they could possibly not be useful, simply because you do not think them useful, is at best, a fallacy.
You can get a little bit denser by going full street grid--Chicago's single family home districts look to mostly be rocking ~6-9k people/km².
I hate it, because if you miss a turn, you basically have to go another full mile to hit another 'cross street'.
I grew up in Chicago on a perfect grid. Now I live on a street that I picked precisely because you only drive down it if you live there. I don't like the sound of cars driving past. That's a personal preference that seems pretty generalized, even among people without kids.
And on a street like that, you don't need speed bumps, because people aren't speeding down the street.
I’m not a libertarian, I think it’s fine for government to tap rich people to provide nice things for everyone, but this particular nice thing (way more roadway than you pay for) has a pretty bad cost:benefit, and its beneficiaries are not exactly the neediest or most deserving of aid.
Not too bad in you car but it means that you can't walk or bike anywhere unless they have put in paths between blocks. Means that if a 15-year-old kids wants an ice-cream their parent has to drive them to the corner store.
Now, I think almost everyone would prefer if their one street were not integrated into the grid. That would be the ideal. You live in a grid, but with none of the downsides. But failing that, many people opt to live in denser areas rather than the burbs, even if the cost is that folks sometimes drive down their street who are going someplace else..
Roughly the equivalent of pointing to IBM as the most high paying and prestigious tech companies can get.
It would be trivial to increase the density there by reducing setback requirements, narrowing the roads, removing minimum parking requirements.
(yes I'm aware they're pretty bad for the environment)
Occasional get-togethers do help with this quite a lot, but it's not necessary.
What I find strange about this reasoning is: doesn't every hacker have friends from around the world they've never met in person? From various software projects, open source contributions, online community connections etc I have a fairly long list of people who are very important to me that I've never met in person.
It happens for some but I can't say its the norm. Most people's meaningful relationships are based on real life, at least initially or some of the time.
Meeting people in person, at least once, is valuable. It improves communication, helps people feel assimilated to the company and team, and creates a mental image of a three-dimensional co-worker (instead of just a faceless Slack handle)
Sitting physically next to people every day, especially for engineers, is often not valuable. This is especially true for those who have significant commutes or families.
Unfortunately this doesn't really cut it. There is a huge difference between the teams I worked in where we were all remote vs the ones where all of us were in the office. The camaraderie, the amount of slack we gave each other, how fast we delivered and the overall mood was much better despite having wildly different personalities.
With remote, you are interfacing with only one dimension of someone's personality and they may rub you the wrong way in a PR comment or otherwise and you can easily right them off. It's different when you go for lunch with the same person and talk about work or other stuff.
Another thing is that talking about work-related-but-not-current-project-related stuff is much easier when people in the same location and the conversation starts off spontaneously. Whereas in a remote setting it needs to be a bit more organized so there is an overhead.
There are a lot of pros to remote though, like not having to be subjected to your colleague's poor hygiene.
Doesn't ring true to me after spending 2 years in a remote-first setup. Even post-vcxx setup where everyone could meet freely didn't facilitate as much in-person interaction as I was looking forward to.
> Sitting physically next to people every day, especially for engineers, is often not valuable.
For junior engineers trying to onboard, sitting close to their mentors is big help. Same for senior TLs who are coordinating complex technical projects across a team of 10-12 engineers or even more. Having everyone around is a big time saver for the overall project. WFH/Remote setup is great only for the engineers who are self-sufficient and neither need mentoring from others nor have to coordinate and lead other engineers' work.
You make a lot of questionable assertions. Why would meeting up a few times a year be as good as seeing someone every day?
Hybrid enables a move from San Francisco to e.g. Petaluma. It doesn't permit most workers to move to Idaho. That argues for an expansion of the Bay Area over its demise.
Twitter killed itself for me when it started sending me non stop notifications for tweets from people I don't even know
HN's noprocrast mode is pretty useful
I can't tell if this is a good or bad offer. It's about a 6 week severance pay for the company to let unsuitable employees to voluntarily quit.
- Consecutive days of record breaking heat waves
- Wildfires that turn the sky red
- Floods that briefly cut off road access between Vancouver and the rest of Canada
Considering that this is just at only +1.3 C is a scary thought. As the average temperature continues to rise, extreme weather events will become more likely and happen more often.
Marriage and birth rates are plummeting even in collective societies in Asia
>The benefit of the public, of more people than oneself
Either way, our current society and economy is pretty hostile towards marriage and children hence the decline