Why are cities and city life glorified?

Why is living in cities, especially downtown glorified so much? Especially in media? Why are city properties and the city lifestyle so much more expensive?

I'm about to move somewhere for work. I'm a single nobody who doesn't know anyone where I am going to move to. I can more or less make the choice between spending a lot more money to live near the city core, paying way more for all the goods and services that are 'conveniently' available near by like food etc, paying out the ass for parking and so on, or live out in the burbs where its cheaper but I need to drive everywhere to do anything at all.

It seems like most people I ask about city living are like "oh yeah bro its wicked you can walk to a bar or club, get hella drunk and walk home!!"

Everything is stupid fucking expensive too, like $15 meals, $5 coffees, etc and there's no parking anywhere so you have to use public transport for anything which is almost as inconvenient as driving in the first place (even more sometimes)

redpill me on urban living. Even though objectively it seems like there are so many shitty parts to it, some core part of me still wants to do it, like I've been subliminally conditioned to want to live it up in a big city

visiting is great

living in a city would be a fucking nightmare

t. chicago suburbs

Because for centuries, city life was the ideal life.

Everyone wanted to live in cities. They were the centers of empires and the centers of culture and the arts.
If you made it to the city, it meant you made it in life and don't have to toil in the fields anymore like a plebeian.

Now, cities are destroyed by niggers so that's why they have a bad reputation. There's still some good ones left though.

I lived on 55th in Chicago and it was nice because the 55 bus and the red line ran all night so you could get anyways. Now there is Uber so I guess that is less relevant.

Supply and Demand. Tell people where they should want to live and you increase demand. Own all the property in that area and you own the supply. Profit.

Pretty much this. All the properties are owned by Chinks and Jews in all major cities

I don't know. Vancouver has to be the most overrated piece of craps city in the world though. It rains for like 10 months of the year, the metro closes at 1 am so the nightlife is shit, you need a fucking city permit to have a dancefloor in your business, you need a permit to serve things on a balcony. Basically entrepreneurship is stifled and the infrastructure is shot. There's nothing to do in this shifty fucking city and everyone's in denial. "Muh hiking, muh kayaking, muh mountains!" A: you can't hike in the fucking city, you need to drive 45 minutes out. B: you can't kayak in the city. What is this, fucking Venice? C: hang a few pictures of mountains on your wall if you love then so much. Your precious mountains are the reason your real estate prices are so high. You can't build a fucking house on a 60 degree angle. It wouldn't be so bad of the retards would shut the fuck up about how great the city is and look at some of the negatives.

Bonus: Chinese people are TAKING over the bloody place and the Indians are flooding into Surrey, turning the entire fucking suburb into a warzone after 10 at night. This place should be razed to the ground.

Calgary is the new Vancouver without the rain, Chinks, Liberals, and overall faggotry that comes with Vancouver.

Because cities have been historically the forefront of human civilization. Access to newest technologies, massive commerce, diverse cultures, center of knowledge.

I for one hope that the property market is in a bubble (it isn't) and it all comes crashing down (it won't, we depend on real estate $$ too much for the people in control to let it be a free market)

What is that horrible monstrosity in that pic related?

And also, I think it is, just like anything else, propaganda -- citydwellers are vaunted as being cosmopolitan, sophisticated, and diverse...while also divorced from nature and wilderness.

It's all a plan to crush our souls and remove us from who we really are.

>being cosmopolitan, sophisticated, and diverse
>diverse cultures, center of knowledge.
i think the internet makes these things superfluous
and benefits such as
>nature and wilderness
blow any city out of the water.
in short: FUCK CITIES

realtalk: people are stupid. most can't figure out a way to make money on their own. most can't even FIND INFORMATION on their own, let alone make money.

standard iq tests rate the threshold of "independently finding and judging information from competing sources" to BEGIN at 125 iq points, which is the TOP 3% of al people. that's where it BEGINS.

given that people are helplessly stupid, they flock to city centers which give them either the tatus, social connections, or resources they need to leech their way to the top. cities provide networks of credentialism, which is why growth centers in ALL countries are always in the suburbs, where credentialists avoid, and doers set up shop.

this is literally, practically word for word, adam smith's articulation of the issue.

they are intentionally not licensing new land for development.

cities act as cattle pens where credentialists and rent seekers can herd productive people into predictable rythyms that allow them to calculate profit.

why would they let go of that control?

city = the most dense population environments we can provide which = a whole shit load of buy and sell going on

large cities in coastal markets are over rated. move to someplace like kansas city or des moines, save money, retain a civic life. the internet is the worlds greatest leverager of culture and access to information which in the end makes every city less and less unique...i live in portland, oregon. north americas hipster darling but its now too expensive and has turned into a giant shopping mall. choose someplace that is growing, but very slowly, not someplace experiencing a giant population growth spurt. and avoid dindus, they wreck everything.

Because this is where all the (((media))) congratulate themselves for existing and claim that anyone who disagrees with their virtue signaling is an "uneducated redneck".

you guys are ignoring that the primary motivations for moving to cities are the pretense of work they offer in the form of do-nothing jobs, but jobs that can be controlled, and the social prestige that people chase from those jobs and social circles.

none of it would be possible without centralized redistribution

when small unincorporated city-states like singapore or formerly texas crop up, all of these benefits accrue to libertarian types.

the cities are a creation of centralized funding

All of these relate back to my point. Cities are artificial constructions. Man was not meant to be jammed into such a small space in concrete and plastic. But the more they glorify it, the more people will listen, because as pointed out, people are fucking dumb...and the more people listen and believe, the less appealing individualism, the natural world, and rural life becomes.

Of all the conspiracy shit on Sup Forums this one is the one with the most merit in my opinion.

My Indian hipster roommate. Knows how to cook some good Indian food.

Living in the city and using its amenities and community fosters collectivism, which is why leftists are so prevalent in cities and always on the city culture. The interdependence and dependence on government creates good sheep for the government to tax and less opposition.

Living rurally tends to breed rugged people who take care of their own problems and make their own happiness. This opens their eyes to the fact that we don't need a big government, and makes them less likely to pay their taxes and accept groupthink.

That's why governments pour so much money into cities while leaving the rural areas with nothing more than what they can provide for themselves. Which is good anyway, but you get my point.

this
I'm a new yorker but I have lived outside the state (military)

I just don't understand why people from both sides try to impose their ideas upon each other and why we even have such a strong federal govt with such a divisive line between those who take care of themselves and those unable to take care of themselves.

wut?? please explain in dum dum terms.....but im listening.....

those who can't take care of themselves need to get money. they get that money from the people who are independent. this creates the political need to subjugate them.

it's not one of those "I don't understand why we can't get along" scenarios.

the leftists are in no subtle terms aggressing against us, because they're evil. because we are less evil, we prefer not to fight back. that creates the current situation where we are not independent.

"I don't get why hte bully keeps beating up the nerd. it just doesn't make any sense! maybe if the nerd could COMPROMISE"- every leftist teacher ever

the basics are

50% of all gdp is tax spending
the majority of that tax spending is focused in blue states
which means leftists control how most tax revenue is spent
where do they focus this spending? jobs such as "social worker" or "ethnic sensitivity consultant" are not real jobs. they do nothing. they're essentially money handed out in exchange for political favors.

even "useful" jobs like management, advertising, and many engineering jobs have negative returns to a company hired on state contract, and ALWAYS have aloss to a federal department

but these jobs create a series of requirements for the disbursement of what are essentially bribes. for a social worker it is "support the democratic platform in ALL things, otherwise you're fired. protect that nigger and support our office contributions to PACs or you're fired."

these sorts of jobs aren't helping ANYONE. they're simply titles of prestige like a knighthood handed out to democratic attack dogs. like the teacher's union.

without stealing money from red states this wouldn't be possible. in texas, the jobs go to people who are productive. leeches don't have political power, and there is less exchange of bribes and favors.

that some far out thinking there mate. how about, cities exist because they are centralizing entities period. they centralize goods, services, employment and population.

kek

take out democrats and this is literally the basis of organizational psychology and management

try reading a little buddy

things don't centralize on their own. they centralize around patterns of incentives, which is what I described. there's a reason some cities are hubs and others aren't. and when some cities work better than others, there's a reason for that.

corruption isn't some magical property. it arises from real things. those things are describable. I described the basics.

The media idealizes city life because they have to justify their shirt lifestyle

>Stop liking what I don't like. You're dumb if you like something I don't like. Mankind wasn't meant to do something I don't like.

Based your logic mankind was never really 'meant' to use toilets. So we should all go back to shitting in the woods.

Some people like living out in the country. Some people like living in the cities. I'm sure there are a even a small number that like living in suburbia. There isn't some big conspiracy behind it.

dude. even amazonian brown people can be urbanists. a fishing village exists because the people are close to the resource, additional villagers move in because while they suck at fishing, they know how to cook the fish. you're reading too far into it.

Because that's where all the high paying jobs are. Don't like it? You can go ride a tractor all day in the sticks.