Why the push for greater urbanization?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

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.

No, that actually isn't my point, and I'd point to some of the initial responses to my post, where people said "because it is more efficient". I didn't take that as a comment on individuals making a choice as to what was more efficient for them personally, but rather an acknowledgement that society should be encouraging people to move into cities because it is more efficient for society as a whole. That is what takes it beyond "hey, where someone chooses to live really shouldn't matter to the rest of us", into "we really should be creating incentives for people to move into cities."

Now, if you're saying that position does not exist, then I suppose we'll just have to disagree on that.

[Shryke]

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.

People have been wanking over telecommuting for ages now. But it's not happening.

Especially since most people aren't in jobs where it can happen. The US economy is moving towards a service economy and you can't telecommute that shit.

No, that actually isn't my point, and I'd point to some of the initial responses to my post, where people said "because it is more efficient". I didn't take that as a comment on individuals making a choice as to what was more efficient for them personally, but rather an acknowledgement that society should be encouraging people to move into cities because it is more efficient for society as a whole. That is what takes it beyond "hey, where someone chooses to live really shouldn't matter to the rest of us", into "we really should be creating incentives for people to move into cities."

Now, if you're saying that position does not exist, then I suppose we'll just have to disagree on that.

It exists as a philosophical position. It does not exist as a policy position really.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

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.

Yes, but there is nothing saying that the leisure and hospitality industry must be located within the city limits of a major city. In my area, for example, the vast majority of the metropolitan area hotel rooms are outside the city limits. Within the city proper, there's a few really nice ones, and then a bunch of dives. Now, that clearly may not be true for other cities like New York or L.A.. But it is true for a lot of cities in the tier below the largest.

[Ormond]

I guess my problem with Flow's posts on this is his repeated use of the word "push."

Who is "pushing" people to live in urban areas? What government policies are coercing people to do this?

I don't think that having some people argue in favor of urban living for ecological or other reasons constitutes them "pushing" anyone. Why is someone making an argument in favor of an idea or value you don't agree with "pushing."?

My personal preference is to live in a medium size city. I don't like really big urban areas like Chicago, New York, or Los Angeles. Omaha suits me just fine. Yet I don't perceive people touting the benefits of living in a really big city, or those touting the benefits of living in rural, small town, or suburban areas, as "pushing" me in any particular direction. There seems to be an underlying unwarranted assumption here that people who make statements in favor of their preferred living condition are somehow being coercive of others, and I just don't see that.

[Gramsci]

I guess my problem with Flow's posts on this is his repeated use of the word "push."

Who is "pushing" people to live in urban areas? What government policies are coercing people to do this?

I don't think that having some people argue in favor of urban living for ecological or other reasons constitutes them "pushing" anyone. Why is someone making an argument in favor of an idea or value you don't agree with "pushing."?

My personal preference is to live in a medium size city. I don't like really big urban areas like Chicago, New York, or Los Angeles. Omaha suits me just fine. Yet I don't perceive people touting the benefits of living in a really big city, or those touting the benefits of living in rural, small town, or suburban areas, as "pushing" me in any particular direction. There seems to be an underlying unwarranted assumption here that people who make statements in favor of their preferred living condition are somehow being coercive of others, and I just don't see that.

To be honest, I think this is becoming the norm as far as sentiment goes. My wife and I are quite content in the Raleigh area, which is only slightly bigger than Omaha. The problem is, we are growing at a ridiculous rate. Our population growth since the last census was roughly 47%, Omaha's was only 5%.

Many medium sized cities, at least on the Atlantic Coast, are due to become very large.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

The government isn't pushing people to live in cities. In fact, by subsidizing highways, car manufacturing, petroleum production and home ownership, it's pushing people to live in suburbs.

[Sci-2]

Now, if you're saying that position does not exist, then I suppose we'll just have to disagree on that.

Who is "pushing" people to live in urban areas? What government policies are coercing people to do this?

I'm actually curious - are we talking about policies that are encouraging people to move into cities? Or is it more a cultural push?

I guess those who govern cities want to stem the flight of their tax base [or just grow this base], as well as find ways to boost the employment and sustainability prospects of current residents.

But is there a push on the other side, which would make suburban or rural living undesirable?

[Glaurung]

I've lived in the countryside, the inner city, and in suburbs and I agree with others who say that suburban living sucks.

Rural Living:

Pros: Natural beauty, fresh air, space to grow most of your food, plenty of places to fish in peace and quiet, being able to sleep with the doors unlocked, and although the neighbors are a tad ignorant they are generally extremely nice and eager to help you out when you need it.

Cons: Lack of opportunity, ignorant people, few options in way of entertainment & food.

City Living:

Pros: Plenty to do, diversity, good food, opportunity, and hopefully a good view of the skyline...unless you live in the skyline.

Cons: Noise, crime, neighbors that don't give a damn if you're lying dead on the roadside, pollution..

Surburban Living:

Pro: Good schools

Cons: Everything else.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

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.

New York is the center of such a massive urban area that I don't doubt that is true. You've not really gaining a whole lot just by moving over the border unless there are significant regulatory or tax benefits.

[lady narcissa]

Moreover, many are anti-car. Okay, so exactly how are we supposed to get to those greenspaces to enjoy them with any frequency without cars? I'm 15 minutes from being able to drop our kayak in a lake, go fishing, hiking, etc.. We can go biking or running on trails in woods. There is more space for kids to be outside on grass playing ball, or just running around. I get deer in my yard more nights than not. Got a dog who gets to run around outside and play with his cat. We have a garden and grow some food, my kids can collect bugs and leaves, or try to chase rabbits or squirrels....And I'm supposed to believe they'd be better off living on asphalt?

I live in the middle of a very large city. I don't own a car, in fact I have never learned to drive. I have no problem getting to more green spaces than I can ever possibly visit by foot or by bus or by train. There are too many to chose from. I walk out my door and I have a huge expansive lakefront at my disposal lined with beaches and swimming and parks and playgrounds and bike paths and boating. I walk two blocks from my house and I have two parks, one of which is where I do my summer gardening with plenty of grass, trees, and flowers. It also has a path to jog on as well as a playground and baseball fields. I walk 15 minutes from my house to the north and there is an incredibly huge park with acres and acres of grass and trees as well as water from crew and boating. I walk 15 minutes from my house to the south and again, an incredibly huge park with lots of trees and grass and more boating and beaches. These are just the immediate green spaces in my vicinity. There are many others throughout the city and surrounding suburbs - all of which I can easily reach by public transportation.

On my street, I see bunnies regularly. I've even seen a skunk. There are some random cougars and deer at times. Robins and cardinals and blue jays are all residents on my block. At times I am rather bemused by the abundance of nature and animals I see in my neighborhood.

The downtown hardcore urban environment is all I have ever known. I grew up in Manhattan. And yet I have always had plenty of grass and trees to play on. And rocks to climb on. And playgrounds. And lots of water to swim in and beaches. There were plenty of bugs to torment and dogs and cats to chase. I could stand on a hill and fly a kite or slide down in in the snow. I sailed toy boats in boat ponds and rowed around lakes in bigger boats. I can't say you'd be better off growing up in a city, but you absolutely will be no worse off if you do than if you live in a house in the suburbs.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I'm actually curious - are we talking about policies that are encouraging people to move into cities? Or is it more a cultural push?

I guess those who govern cities want to stem the flight of their tax base [or just grow this base], as well as find ways to boost the employment and sustainability prospects of current residents.

But is there a push on the other side, which would make suburban or rural living undesirable?

I was referring to the former. The context in which I usually see it is when people argue that we should increase urbanization because it is more environmentally friendly.

[Sci-2]

Surburban Living:

Pro: Good schools

Any stats on this? Because I went to a "good school" (I think it was in the top 100 public schools, maybe even top 40 or 50 at the time) that didn't really prepare me for the rigors of college.

I think a lot of suburban areas benefit from parents and cultures that promote education, allowing even slacker teachers to make incredible claims about their efforts.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I live in the middle of a very large city. I don't own a car, in fact I have never learned to drive. I have no problem getting to more green spaces than I can ever possibly visit by foot or by bus or by train. There are too many to chose from. I walk out my door and I have a huge expansive lakefront at my disposal lined with beaches and swimming and parks and playgrounds and bike paths and boating. I walk two blocks from my house and I have two parks, one of which is where I do my summer gardening with plenty of grass, trees, and flowers. It also has a path to jog on as well as a playground and baseball fields. I walk 15 minutes from my house to the north and there is an incredibly huge park with acres and acres of grass and trees as well as water from crew and boating. I walk 15 minutes from my house to the south and again, an incredibly huge park with lots of trees and grass and more boating and beaches. These are just the immediate green spaces in my vicinity. There are many others throughout the city and surrounding suburbs - all of which I can easily reach by public transportation.

On my street, I see bunnies regularly. I've even seen a skunk. There are some random cougars and deer at times. Robins and cardinals and blue jays are all residents on my block. At times I am rather bemused by the abundance of nature and animals I see in my neighborhood.

The downtown hardcore urban environment is all I have ever known. I grew up in Manhattan. And yet I have always had plenty of grass and trees to play on. And rocks to climb on. And playgrounds. And lots of water to swim in and beaches. There were plenty of bugs to torment and dogs and cats to chase. I could stand on a hill and fly a kite or slide down in in the snow. I sailed toy boats in boat ponds and rowed around lakes in bigger boats. I can't say you'd be better off growing up in a city, but you absolutely will be no worse off if you do than if you live in a house in the suburbs.

Cougars in Manhatten? We're talking about the ones who cruise for younger men, right?

Anyway, I'll just say that I've been to a lot of cities, and have seen great swathes that don't match anything like what you described. You must live in a particularly accommodating or less densely populated one.

I completely understand folks who do without a car. That being said, there are a ton of outdoor activities we couldn't do if we didn't have one. We camp, we canoe, we take day trips and longer, we go skiiing in winter, etc. etc. etc.

[TrackerNeil]

However, without a car, there are a still a whole host of things you can't do outdoors.

I hear tell that, nowadays, one can rent these automo-doohickies for hours and even days at a time.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Any stats on this? Because I went to a "good school" (I think it was in the top 100 public schools, maybe even top 40 or 50 at the time) that didn't really prepare me for the rigors of college.

By not preparing you for the rigors of college, do you mean academically? I went to a pretty good high school that was never ranked near the top 100 in the country and I felt I was academically prepared in a pretty tough (if a tad grade inflated) academic environment in college. It did not however, preopare me for all the other stuff in college, such as being independent, not having your parents watching over your shoulder, drugs, alcohol, sex, too much choice regarding academics and career paths, all of which affected my academic performance. I thin the only thing that can prepare you for the other stuff is some sort of boarding school.

I think a lot of suburban areas benefit from parents and cultures that promote education, allowing even slacker teachers to make incredible claims about their efforts.

Does it matter whether the better performance in suburban schools comes from better teachers, or a community more focused on education? I mean, it matter for education policy, but for parents trying to choose where to raise their children, they should just choose better schools, regardless of why they're actually better.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I guess my problem with Flow's posts on this is his repeated use of the word "push."

Yeah, the problem is that I haven't been taking notes on posts over time to link them. It usually comes up in reference to environmental concerns, limiting so-called "sprawl", etc..

Maybe I just imagined all that, though. Anyway, I like sprawling.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I hear tell that, nowadays, one can rent these automo-doohickies for hours and even days at a time.

I don't think the frequency with which we use ours for such things makes that practical. If you're talking one or twice a month, then sure.

[Seli]

...

Maybe I just imagined all that, though. Anyway, I like sprawling.

As far as I understand sprawling usually is used in combination with the sub-urbs and gated communities. The specific type of living that constricts the freedom, the landscape and the nature you seem to love.

And it takes good planning and cooperation to prevent that, and lead the growth of cities and populations in a reasonable direction. In that way even people living in the cities (say 50k to 500k) can live 15 to 30 minutes from something resembling green and nature.

[Gramsci]

By not preparing you for the rigors of college, do you mean academically? I went to a pretty good high school that was never ranked near the top 100 in the country and I felt I was academically prepared in a pretty tough (if a tad grade inflated) academic environment in college. It did not however, preopare me for all the other stuff in college, such as being independent, not having your parents watching over your shoulder, drugs, alcohol, sex, too much choice regarding academics and career paths, all of which affected my academic performance. I thin the only thing that can prepare you for the other stuff is some sort of boarding school.

There are efforts being undertaken by some states to try and fix this, because this is a much bigger issue than academic preparation. Some solutions are bizarre, and some are common sense (especially regarding academics and career paths); unfortunately my state has decided to try neither.

Not likely anything will fix drugs, alcohol, and sex, though. People past the age of 16 seem to have lusted after one, two, or all three throughout mankind's existence. Boarding schools are probably worse about that stuff than any traditional public high school.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Not likely anything will fix drugs, alcohol, and sex, though. People past the age of 16 seem to have lusted after one, two, or all three throughout mankind's existence. Boarding schools are probably worse about that stuff than any traditional public high school.

The sense I got in college was that there is some value to learning to deal with those things and have them not be novel experiences