> Wing said the feedback obtained during its trials had been "valuable" and it hoped to "continue the dialogue".
That's code for they have asked their lawyer to see what was legal and if they can simply ignore the complaints.
We continue to wage war on silence. The other day I was far the heck out there on a trail and the only things I could hear were squirrels birds and a few other things. My soul was at peace. We can't have that in cities or even suburbs any more. Instead we get BUMP BUMP BUMP from passing cars. The level of anxiety we get from cities is insane and people don't really even understand this until they are 60 years old. I'm 38 and I understand it.
I don't know where you live. But if you were in the US then pretty much all of the land is unpopulated and quiet (except maybe for agriculture purposes but still).
What you are looking for is city infrastructure with green scenery. That's possible but the price tag is going to be astronomical. You'd have to provide everything yourself (Water, Electricity, Gas, Food, etc...) Try that and you'll find out what you prefer living close to a city.
> What you are looking for is city infrastructure with green scenery. That's possible but the price tag is going to be astronomical.
In a car-centric culture like what dominates in North America, maybe. I've been to a city or two, though, that accomplished the hat trick of high population density, low noise levels, and nice scenery. Brussels, for example.
I'm pretty sure the magic trick is to convince your citizens that public transportation doesn't have to just be a last resort for poor people.
Indeed, I prefer noise. Silence makes me feel ill at ease, like nobody's around, like something terrible could happen and I have no recourse to anybody. I don't feel safe in silence, but whenever I tell anybody this, I'm poo-pooed as being silly.
If only there were quieter places, out in the countryside, where you could have Really Uninterrupted Relaxing And Leisure - hey, we could even call them that: R.U.R.A.L.
An available substitute is a great reason to allow a particular service to not be provided in a particular location.
If rural environments weren’t accessible it becomes much more important for cities to be more quiet. Because rural environments are available, cities can trade some silence for some pretty extraordinary economic advantages.
Building skyscrapers and moving millions of people around every day is noisy work, but it provides one heck of a boost to the GDP.
If cities can be quieter for free, they should be. If being quieter costs cities one of their inherent advantages than people who don’t like that can choose a different environ.
Sure. But we still should consider both sides of the equation. Even in a city, not every loss of silence is worth every gain of productivity or other city advantages.
Also, in this case we are not exactly talking about Manhattan, but about houses with gardens in Canberra.
That's code for they have asked their lawyer to see what was legal and if they can simply ignore the complaints.
We continue to wage war on silence. The other day I was far the heck out there on a trail and the only things I could hear were squirrels birds and a few other things. My soul was at peace. We can't have that in cities or even suburbs any more. Instead we get BUMP BUMP BUMP from passing cars. The level of anxiety we get from cities is insane and people don't really even understand this until they are 60 years old. I'm 38 and I understand it.