Why the push for greater urbanization?

[MinDonner]

I'm so glad that people with more knowledge are taking issue with that (admittedly hilarious) phrase. I kind of picture it being typed one-handed, even with the capitalisation of Freedom. :thumbsup:

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I will address one thing, though. All these things you and your kids are doing, you're probably doing them alone, or maybe with a small group of close friends or neighbors. Who are probably a lot like you in class, race, or ethnicity.

That's tough to say. Neighborhood activities are generally "class-based" simply because neighborhoods tend to have people of similar means. But otherwise? When we go to a lake, or river, or bike ride, or go to any of the other areas, there are all sorts of people around. You don't have to be a certain, race, ethnicity, or class to enjoy nature.

Some people value being able to do this with others, especially with others who are strangers and come from substantially different backgrounds than themselves. I'm not going to say that one mentality is better or worse than the other, but to answer your questions in general: there are people who value that, and are willing to overlook some of the more negative aspects of urban life in order to get it.

If someone would rather have their kid playing on asphalt and broken glass rather than grass, because they think the race of his playmates matters that much, fine. I have nothing against people who want to move to cities. What I'm arguing against is the push for the rest of us to do so.

[naz]

If someone would rather have their kid playing on asphalt and broken glass rather than grass, because they think the race of his playmates matters that much, fine. I have nothing against people who want to move to cities. What I'm arguing against is the push for the rest of us to do so.

Again, you have this image that cities are all asphalt and broken glass (which they're not) and that suburbs/exurbs are idyllic pastoral dreamscapes (which they're not). Until you're willing to abandon this artificial and polarized view of the issue, then I'm afraid you're not going to get answers that are satisfying to you.

[thecryptile]

A revolution that started in Boston, if you recall.

I really wasn't thinking about revolution in post #2, I was thinking of CCTV and the greater number of police in urban settings. I think there is less supervision out in the country, though I admit that the US government isn't really adept at controlling anyone regardless of location.

This is 100% a myth. I have recommended on these boards before, but please read A Respectable Army: The Military Origins Of The Republic, 1763-1789 by James Kirby Martin. Most historians agree that the popular image of the rugged frontiersman running through the woods taking shots at the British in the Native American fashion is not true to what actually occurred.

IIRC Washington wanted a standing army organized on European lines, but the narrative I was taught in school was pretty heavy on the rugged frontiersmen sniping the Redcoats. Even the Brits acknowledged that the American Riflemen were the best marksmen in the world at that time.

ETA: I'll check that book out, I added it to my amazon.com wishlist.

[Gramsci]

A few things FLOW:

1) Urbanization is not a political agenda. I don't understand why you continually try and frame it as such in this thread. Urbanization just happens. It's a natural consequence of long-term changes in the economy away from agriculture. No one is "pushing" anything.

2) Cities develop because having a bunch of people close together makes everyone more productive. It makes shipping goods from one industry to another cheaper, yes. But more importantly it's a huge boon for the purchase of labour. By concentrating a ton of people in one spot, you increase the available labour supply for any job and also provide each individual labourer with more opportunities. Concentration of resources is a big boon to EVERY industry out there.

3) Commuting is still a HUGE part of life for the vast majority of workers. Hence, urbanization. People want to commute as little as possible to get to work. The work they have now or the work they will have later when they have a different job.

4) And that brings us to the idea of "greenspaces". Greenspaces are valued in cities too. Alot. It's just people want them close by, just like they want everything close by. Cities are not the polar opposite of greenspaces, they contain them.

5) As for why unemployment is high in cities? Because poverty is and cities are simply more viable to live in while poor in most cases. More resources and jobs available for less effort. There's also the fact that the poor can't leave the city easily, since relocation is expensive. You move in to get work and when you lose work you can't leave.

Frankly, your problem seems to be that you see urbanization as a political movement pushed by a certain class of people and this is colouring your entire perception. People aren't pushed into cities, people migrate into cities on their own and always have.

Cities concentrate labour and businesses together in one spot, making them more efficient and more productive and allowing labour and labour-seekers to more easily match themselves up with each other.

You also seem to be hung up on manufacturing, which isn't as much a part of the economy anymore as you are implying here.

I think this is probably the best way of summarizing it. Manchester in 1800 or even better, Chicago/Boston/San Francisco at the turn of the 20th century are probably good for a bit of microcosmic research into the process, especially the "greenspaces" Shryke mentioned.

As is my way, I am going to recommend a book: City of the Century: The Epic of Chicago and the Making of America excellent book that discusses these issues and more.

[Shryke]

Again, you have this image that cities are all asphalt and broken glass (which they're not) and that suburbs/exurbs are idyllic pastoral dreamscapes (which they're not). Until you're willing to abandon this artificial and polarized view of the issue, then I'm afraid you're not going to get answers that are satisfying to you.

Who knew so many lived in a concrete-constructed nature-less garbage-filled hellscape without even realising it? It must be all that propaganda pushing us into cities that is fucking with our minds.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

words

I have to admit, I was about to type up a response, but you've said just about everything I was about to say, except much more eloquently.

Also, a walkable city where people can walk or take public transportation from living area to nightlife will significantly reduce the amount of drunk driving.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

FLOW, I'm not going to try to debate all your points because, frankly, you're not going to change your mind. However, your image of cities tends to be a rather archaic one, where worker drones flow into harsh concrete warrens in a stupor and and flow mindlessly back home again, as if things like bars, restaurants, entertainment centers, parks, shops, museums, etc. didn't exist at all. Yes, I know that the periphery has these things too, but it's not really the way you're describing it either.

Actually, I think my image of cities is the more up to date one. Cities have always been the cultural centers -- I don't dispute that. But there has been a major economic shift that I think has been overlooked. Why is it that so many cities in the U.S. are in such terrible economic shape? What you've got are large urban populations without the manufacturing base that previously supported them. That is a major problem. And I honestly think there's a bit of tunnel vision on the part of some of the more well-educated urban elites. Yes, there are the museums, fine restaurants, tony shops, high culture, etc.. But a great many people simply do not have the means to enjoy them. They don't hold advanced degrees, and don't make huge amounts of money. So they hit the free museum once on a while, and that's pretty much it.

As I said, we're seeing more corporate headquarters moving outside downtown, and manufacturing in many cities is a shell of what it once was. So if the jobs are leaving city cores, why should people move there?

[Shryke]

I have to admit, I was about to type up a response, but you've said just about everything I was about to say, except much more eloquently.

Also, a walkable city where people can walk or take public transportation from living area to nightlife will significantly reduce the amount of drunk driving.

Being able to stumble all the way home drunk is man's greatest achievement.

[Shryke]

Actually, I think my image of cities is the more up to date one. Cities have always been the cultural centers -- I don't dispute that. But there has been a major economic shift that I think has been overlooked. Why is it that so many cities in the U.S. are in such terrible economic shape? What you've got are large urban populations without the manufacturing base that previously supported them. That is a major problem. And I honestly think there's a bit of tunnel vision on the part of some of the more well-educated urban elites. Yes, there are the museums, fine restaurants, tony shops, high culture, etc.. But a great many people simply do not have the means to enjoy them. They don't hold advanced degrees, and don't make huge amounts of money. So they hit the free museum once on a while, and that's pretty much it.

As I said, we're seeing more corporate headquarters moving outside downtown, and manufacturing in many cities is a shell of what it once was. So if the jobs are leaving city cores, why should people move there?

Oh? What are you basing these perceptions on?

Again, you seem to have some strange dystopian image of city living going on here, with the wealthy-elite living segregated lives while the rest of the city drowns in Judge-Dredd-esque squalor. It's kinda silly.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Being able to stumble all the way home drunk is man's greatest achievement.

I like a lot things about Houston (much more than I thought I would), but not being able to do that is my biggest gripe.

ETA: The fact the FLoW lives in Ohio (?) may be coloring his perception. In New York, UBS, which moved it's main office to Stamford, is now trying desperately to move back to Manhattan after just over a decade.

[naz]

Actually, I think my image of cities is the more up to date one. Cities have always been the cultural centers -- I don't dispute that. But there has been a major economic shift that I think has been overlooked. Why is it that so many cities in the U.S. are in such terrible economic shape? What you've got are large urban populations without the manufacturing base that previously supported them. That is a major problem. And I honestly think there's a bit of tunnel vision on the part of some of the more well-educated urban elites. Yes, there are the museums, fine restaurants, tony shops, high culture, etc.. But a great many people simply do not have the means to enjoy them. They don't hold advanced degrees, and don't make huge amounts of money. So they hit the free museum once on a while, and that's pretty much it.

Sigh.... It's useless. So now cities are not asphalt jungles, but elite, tony, upscale cultural enclaves as well? There are also bodegas, and chip shops, and chinese buffets, and 99-cent stores, and playgrounds, and movie theaters.... all of which are not restricted to the so-called urban elite. The point is that the city harbors a much greater variety of lifestyle options for ALL levels of society, not just the urban poor or elite, but for everyone in between.

As I said, we're seeing more corporate headquarters moving outside downtown, and manufacturing in many cities is a shell of what it once was. So if the jobs are leaving city cores, why should people move there?

This is definitely true for manufacturing, but is reversing for corporate headquarters and service jobs, something you acknowledged yourself a few minutes ago.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Again, you have this image that cities are all asphalt and broken glass (which they're not) and that suburbs/exurbs are idyllic pastoral dreamscapes (which they're not). Until you're willing to abandon this artificial and polarized view of the issue, then I'm afraid you're not going to get answers that are satisfying to you.

Cities are not all asphalt and broken glass. But I worked downtown for a long time, and walked every day past plenty of broken glass, garage stairwells smelling of piss, and trash. And there's pretty much asphalt everyone except for occasional patches of park too small and too crowded to really enjoy. At least for me. And again, there is objective evidence in the form of crime rates, suidice rates, etc.., that just perhaps, we weren't all cut out to live in big cities.

I have zero issue with people who can afford an upscale urban lifestyle, enjoying all the great cultural amenities a city has to offer. It's certainly a matter of personal preference, and I have a some friends in the city who have no real desire have a garden, maintain a yard, or engage in a lot of outdoor, sporting activities. That's fine. But to a great many other people, the appeal of that pales in comparison of the other lifestyle sacrifices of much greater population density, removal from outdoor recreational activities, etc..

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Manufacturing jobs are a red herring now, with regard to total employment. The modern factory employs only a man and a dog. The man feeds the dog and the dog keeps the man from touching any of the machines.

[TrackerNeil]

And I honestly think there's a bit of tunnel vision on the part of some of the more well-educated urban elites. Yes, there are the museums, fine restaurants, tony shops, high culture, etc.. But a great many people simply do not have the means to enjoy them. They don't hold advanced degrees, and don't make huge amounts of money. So they hit the free museum once on a while, and that's pretty much it.

Wow...I am pleased to know that my fiance and I, who live in Center City Philadelphia in a rowhome with a 20-year-old car, are part of the elite. I do look down upon all you suburbanites with two cars and a house twice the size of mine.

FLoW, the reason I want people to move into cities is because city living makes people Democrats and, eventually, gay.

[Gramsci]

Actually, I think my image of cities is the more up to date one. Cities have always been the cultural centers -- I don't dispute that. But there has been a major economic shift that I think has been overlooked. Why is it that so many cities in the U.S. are in such terrible economic shape? What you've got are large urban populations without the manufacturing base that previously supported them. That is a major problem. And I honestly think there's a bit of tunnel vision on the part of some of the more well-educated urban elites. Yes, there are the museums, fine restaurants, tony shops, high culture, etc.. But a great many people simply do not have the means to enjoy them. They don't hold advanced degrees, and don't make huge amounts of money. So they hit the free museum once on a while, and that's pretty much it.

As I said, we're seeing more corporate headquarters moving outside downtown, and manufacturing in many cities is a shell of what it once was. So if the jobs are leaving city cores, why should people move there?

Looking at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, leisure and hospitality is one of the fastest growing industries, with an average salary that far outdoes the salary reported among those in the manufacturing sector... Add to that the growth in business services and the city has an economic base that is likely preferable to manufacturing in almost every way imaginable.

ETA: Tables!

Consumer price index tables, you can see percent change in urban earnings at the bottom: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1306.pdf

Employment statistics: http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ceshighlights.pdf

[naz]

Cities are not all asphalt and broken glass. But I worked downtown for a long time, and walked every day past plenty of broken glass, garage stairwells smelling of piss, and trash. And there's pretty much asphalt everyone except for occasional patches of park too small and too crowded to really enjoy. At least for me. And again, there is objective evidence in the form of crime rates, suidice rates, etc.., that just perhaps, we weren't all cut out to live in big cities.

And no is claiming that we are. Your questions are specifically about why there is a trend to move back to cities (whether that's a matter of policy or not is debatable), and I'm trying to explain why, but because you personally don't value those reasons, you imagine that everyone else is clearly being forced into it as part of a larger social agenda. People are moving back to cities because they like them better and are disenfranchised by what the suburbs offer (or cannot offer). In much the same way, 60-odd years ago, people were disenfranchised by the city and moved out to the periphery because they liked them better. Social cycles - like economic cycles - are privy to change. If there is an agenda or policy shift related to this trend, then it's largely environmental and resource-driven, not social driven. Not by policy-makers, at least. Architects and planners are always trying to create what they consider a better social fabric, but no one listens to them until they start talking about money and/or ecology.

And go figure... the previous outward move, while representative of the social zeitgeist at the time (people wanting to get away from cities, that is) *was* actually part of a larger social agenda. People were, in fact, pushed out of the cities. The problem is that it was all the same exact type of people. That move, in particular, was completely driven by race and class, in addition to money.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Wow...I am pleased to know that my fiance and I, who live in Center City Philadelphia in a rowhome with a 20-year-old car, are part of the elite. I do look down upon all you suburbanites with two cars and a house twice the size of mine.

How about West Philly?

Look, I want to be clear about this. I am not condemining cities. I think there are certain functions that cities serve that really can't be replicated elsewhere. At the same time, I think the economic realities of a more global economy and information technology are going to make large cities less important economically than they once were because there is less need to be co-located. At least, I think we're at that point in large areas of the U.S.. Smaller satellite cities, suburbs, etc.. can be just as commercially/economically "plugged-in" as a business in the big city.

So for the things that are going on in cities, it's fine for the people who want to live in them. What I'm objecting to is the idea that more of us should live in major cities just because.

FLoW, the reason I want people to move into cities is because city living makes people Democrats and, eventually, gay.

I knew it!!

[Shryke]

Cities are not all asphalt and broken glass. But I worked downtown for a long time, and walked every day past plenty of broken glass, garage stairwells smelling of piss, and trash. And there's pretty much asphalt everyone except for occasional patches of park too small and too crowded to really enjoy. At least for me. And again, there is objective evidence in the form of crime rates, suidice rates, etc.., that just perhaps, we weren't all cut out to live in big cities.

I have zero issue with people who can afford an upscale urban lifestyle, enjoying all the great cultural amenities a city has to offer. It's certainly a matter of personal preference, and I have a some friends in the city who have no real desire have a garden, maintain a yard, or engage in a lot of outdoor, sporting activities. That's fine. But to a great many other people, the appeal of that pales in comparison of the other lifestyle sacrifices of much greater population density, removal from outdoor recreational activities, etc..

.... Is this whole thread really just an excuse for you to tell us you don't like urban living by pretending we are trying to force you into urban living? Cause it really feels like it at this point.

Also, you might want to look more closely at the numbers on suicide and crime, they are not what you think they are and/or not as simple as you think.

Some stuff I found right off the bat on suicide was quite interesting:

This one was quite interesting:

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/34/4/846.full

Results This study confirms that people living in more urbanized areas are at a higher risk of suicide than their counterparts in less urbanized areas. However, this excess risk is largely eliminated when adjusted for personal marital, income, and ethnic differences; it is even reversed when further adjusted for psychiatric status. Moreover, the impact of urbanicity on suicide risk differs significantly by sex and across age. Urban living reduces suicide risk significantly among men, especially young men, but increases the risk among women, especially women aged 24–35 or >65 years. In addition, during 1981–1997, the suicide risk associated with urbanicity remained rather constant among women, whereas it dropped significantly among men, a trend that seemingly gained strength during the last part of this period.

Conclusions Suicide risk associated with urbanicity varies significantly by sex and age groups and recent years have seen a decline in the urban–rural disparities among men. The increased risk in urban areas can largely be explained by the effects of marital status, ethnics, income, and psychiatric status.

In Australia apparently you don't even need to control for that shit. It's just straight up higher in rural areas:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20822364

More on the rural suicide in the US:

http://www.dailyyonder.com/booze-guns-and-rise-rural-suicides/2009/09/22/2358

On Crime there's alot of interesting stuff out there.

I quite ilke this comprehensive look from StatsCan:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/070628/dq070628b-eng.htm

Crime is not necessarily a big-city phenomenon in Canada, according to a new study of 2005 police-reported data. The study found that small urban areas had higher overall crime rates than both large urban areas and rural areas, and that homicide rates were highest in rural areas.

The overall crime rate in small urban areas was 43% higher than in large urban areas, defined as census metropolitan areas, and 58% higher than in rural areas. Rates of total violent crime, total property crime and break-ins were also highest in small urban areas.

This trend seems to continue somewhat in the US, although I've found it harder to find data. The more interesting thing seems to be the different character of crime in both areas.

This was interesting on that account:

http://www.victimsofcrime.org/library/crime-information-and-statistics/urban-and-rural-crime

It's interesting that it seems to confirm the inbetween areas being the worst, like in the statscan study.

And we shouldn't forget that the drug trade is going to have a huge spiking effect on homicide rates in urban areas.

[Shryke]

My eyes, my experience, my reading, etc... I've watched manufacturing facilities(particularly) and corporate headquarters move out of cities for a long time. If you don't believe that is happening in the U.S. from your Canadian vantage point, feel free to disagree.

Sorry, I meant "what are you basing this on that actually counts".

You know, data.