WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2026 Poal.co

1.3K

I'm not talking about tall office towers. I'm talking about dense walking style living.

Where do you think would be the best place to have the New York competitor city and how would it get built / transformed?

I'm guessing if we got New Orleans that might be a good choice to build up but I'm assuming subways are impossible there. Miami Beach has urban style however I don't think we could have subways there either.

I'm not talking about tall office towers. I'm talking about dense walking style living. Where do you think would be the best place to have the New York competitor city and how would it get built / transformed? I'm guessing if we got New Orleans that might be a good choice to build up but I'm assuming subways are impossible there. Miami Beach has urban style however I don't think we could have subways there either.

(post is archived)

[–] 8 pts

Densely packed urban centers are what produce liberals. We don't need more people who think that that sort of environment is healthy for a lifestyle. There's plenty of land all around to spread out, but you have to give up the notion that cities need to be coastal and built around public transportation. Wide open spaces with clear sky views and no gaudy modern architecture make for much clearer heads and happier hearts. Urbanites don't understand that because they are too busy trying to entertain themselves so they don't have to interact with other people when in reality interacting with other people is what would make them healthier and happier. Big cities drain you of your humanity and your soul. They're not worth losing your very being for.

[–] 1 pt

I disagree. Cities are cultural centers and they are targeted aggressively by liberals. That's the only reason they produce more liberals. What happens in cities has a ton of influence and that's why they're preferred by people who want to spread cultural poison. I've had a front row seat to some of the events that get talked about here, and all over the world - it doesn't take a ton of people, the thing that gives it relevance is because cities are a focus for culture.

Hitler didn't come to power by spending time in a some remote Dorf, and from what I understand once he was in power the character of Weimar was no longer part of the urban German experience.

Don't get me wrong I love to spend lots of time in nature and agree it's healthier in general but the issue isn't that cities exist, it's the fact that the wrong forces are dominating them. They're an essential part of civilization and our heritage.

[–] 3 pts

Cities should be centers of commerce and industry, not intended for habitation. Only the dregs should reside there.

[–] -1 pt

What a silly thing to say.

[–] 0 pt (edited )

Well put. I just moved from a major city to a much smaller city. Sadly one thing I’ve noticed in more rural America is the sad state of health people are in. The rural diet on average is terrible and the people are drug addicted and overweight. Certainly this exists in the city as well, but seems much more prevalent in more rural places. I love the country as much as I love the city, they are both necessary. The problem I see is the one where rural folks romanticize the country in the way the person you replied to did. And the city people who think they’re all superior in their big city pretensions. All the while they miss the point that the are both part of the same system, they are all the same people… which is why they are all fat.

[–] 0 pt

Yeah I think both groups (Country mice and city mice) have trouble seeing things big picture. And it's such an easy copout to just blame a group you're not part of for problems.

That's human nature though and I know I do it too sometimes.

[–] 0 pt

So far as I can determine, every major city in America is either under leftist-libtard dominion, or in the process of being taken over. If one accepts this as a given, what possible incentive would there be to create another one? “If you always do what you’ve always done, you always get what you’ve always gotten.”

[–] 0 pt

I agree that making a new one is pointless. We need to learn how to take the existing ones back.

[–] 1 pt

This is correct. Urban living causes a form of brain damage. Cities have always been dysgenic.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10190

Current city living was associated with increased amygdala activity, whereas urban upbringing affected the perigenual anterior cingulate cortex, a key region for regulation of amygdala activity, negative affect9 and stress10. These findings were regionally and behaviourally specific, as no other brain structures were affected and no urbanicity effect was seen during control experiments invoking cognitive processing without stress.

[–] 0 pt

Besides, walking is for faggots. I prefer to teleport everywhere.

[+] [deleted] 2 pts
[–] 1 pt

Denver, or Americas Frankfurt, as I call it.

[–] 0 pt

Filled with Liberals, no? Wasn’t Colorado the first state to legalize marijuana?

[–] 0 pt

Most people in this country are apolitical, they don’t give a shit about politics. They simply want to go about their lives and not have to worry about complicated things like the global supply chain. The politics of places like Colorado or California isn’t representative of the actual politics of the people the system supposedly represents. Having lived in both, I can say when it comes down to it, people are more conservative than they are liberal, they just don’t vote that way because the communists have control of the media/information. Most people in these places are just too comfortable to have to be politically aware, and in that their politics have been hijacked by a small group of communists.

[–] 1 pt

New York itself could be a great city with proper management and proper people

[–] 3 pts

My asshole could be a sanctuary for winged monkeys, too.

NYC is too far gone.

If anything, I would choose a city in maybe the Carolinas or Delaware. Or maybe sacrifice a port city for sanity and put in the midwest somewhere. Wherever trade and ports are, Jews will be. First you need to roach spray these cities for Jews.

[–] 1 pt

What a symbolic victory that would be if we had NYC though! Can you imagine how great that would feel!? The sense of total loss as jews are Hadrian'd from Brooklyn?

The whole country is too far gone but we have to fight for it anyway. We should dream big, not go for crumbs!

[–] 0 pt

I disagree with this approach.

If we become effective at aggressively countering kikery and subversion, we can and should just take it. If we don't git gud and just try to build up a competing city then they will take ours away from us like they already did.

[–] 0 pt

New Orleans is a terrible choice. Are you fucking insane?

[–] 0 pt

Why?

[–] 1 pt

A lot of people don't like to live a car bubble life and nobody cares about suburban style cities. There isn't a single suburban style city that the entire world cares about.

[–] 1 pt

Suburbs are a direct result of urban crime. Remove the criminals and no one will want to live in the suburbs. Only Judge Dredd can make cities walkable again.

[–] 0 pt

Urban crime is a funny way of spelling niggers. And you’re right. NYC suburbs are a result of the whites fleeing niggers (of all kinds). The Jew has gotten smart though, and now they are opening homeless shelters in all the white neighborhoods, where there are no homeless. I’ll let you use your imagination as to what the results of doing this are.

[–] 0 pt

Cities are where your soul is extracted.

[–] 0 pt

Why? Why would a New York City clone be required? Why would "dense walking style living" even be desirable, let alone needed?

[–] 0 pt

Do you like the idea of living in Europe? They are very protective of their walk everywhere life style.

[–] 0 pt (edited )

The key isn't mega cities with public transport. The key is a scaled web of cities.

You don't need million pop cities. You need 250k pop cities, walkable with good public transport for commerce and logistics, supported and supporting 50k towns with good manufacturing, supported and supporting 10k villages with good agriculture.

If you had a 250k city, supporting 4 50k towns, each supporting 3 10k villages, all about a half hour away each step, you have commerce agriculture and manufacturing within reasonable distribution ranges, and a small enough population to self sustain an entire ecosystem of humanity. You don't need a movie theater in the 10k villages. You don't need cornfields in the 250k cities. You don't need a sea port in the 50k towns. You could live in a village and work in a town and shop in the city all in one day. You could easily transport goods and services back and forth, and offer a wide variety of lifestyles and choices for your population. All this in less than 200 square miles. Over half a million people, all with jobs, all with the types of lives they choose to work towards, with plenty of space to grow food and make the things they need.

The answer isn't mega cities. That's where insane liberals come from because they are so far removed from the real world. The answer is grounding our cities into smaller, more localized webs of interconnected commerce and communities.

Even if you added an additional line of population center on either end to accommodate populations and area needs, you would still have a viable exchange area of goods and services and transport. We currently have about 90 square miles per million people with only about 50 - 70% of that really being livable. But even with that and finagling the numbers a bit you could have 4k hamlets, 20k villages, 100k towns, 500k cities, and 2m pop capitals. 6 million people living in an area less than half the size of Rhode Island with complete efficiency and general homogeny. We already build this way naturally, we just need to adapt our systems to it rather than force our living situations to comply to the globe globohomo urbanite cesspool way of life.