Why the push for greater urbanization?

[Shryke]

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.

Yeah, sprawl is a reference to suburban living, not rural living.

[TrackerNeil]

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.

And that's how we urbanites get to these green spaces you're talking about. In fact, car share is a great resource for city dwellers who need a car a few times a month but don't want to own one.

[Dinsdale!]

Hi FLOW,

This is an interesting question. I think (contra-Shryke) there is a definitely a political push towards greater urbanization. There are two reasons. There are definitely natural forces; but have you ever heard of a politician that doesn't like jumping on a band-wagon and taking credit for it?

1. Gentrification: rich people are moving into cities. Rich people have political power and start to enact changes to make cities better for them. How much is urbanization really about rich people moving into cities and forcing poor people out into suburbs? I have observed this dynamic in all of the cities I know well (Boston, New York, SF, LA). Note that these are all prosperous cities.

2. Political Foresight. Gentrification means that the poor will not be able to live in the center of cities (i.e. where the jobs are). If one predicts that the price of transport is going to go up, than them living further away becomes less tenable. Therefore politicians take measure to encourage densification of the outlying suburbs into mini-urban centers.

Basically middle class and rich people have decided that they would like all the benefits of cities without the downside of crime. Urban managers have solved this problem (see NYC under Giuliani and Bloomberg), though the racial aspects of their strategy is questionable.

So the rich and middle class are urbanizing.

Poor people cannot afford to live far from their jobs. Living far from your job is a luxury. And so they get to live in dense near-suburbs. American cities are all turning into Paris.*

* as an LA county resident, I am curious how much our sprawling metropolis will just transform in this way. Every time I drive through downtown LA, it's visibly more gentrified.

[Sci-2]

By not preparing you for the rigors of college, do you mean academically?

My high school wasn't terrible, but there were some simple things about how to structure arguments, how to do basic proofs, various historical facts, and a few other points of general knowledge that would have come in handy.

Looking back I was better off than others, so I shouldn't fault my school too much. It just seems there are some foundational parts to education that could easily have been formally taught.

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.

It is probably a good reason to live in a suburb. We had drug dealing but AFAIK no serious incidents of drug related violence, high percentage of the school was driven, and there were a wide number of extracurricular activities available.

All that does help, even if the actual education was subpar.

[Shryke]

How are any of these movements political and not just economic?

People gentrificate neighbourhoods because of their good location, cheap prices and "character". Cities encourage gentrification because it turns slums into nice areas with less crime and higher tax revenue, but it's simply helping meet existing demand.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

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.

I think gated communities raise a different issue, but as to the 'burbs....

Given my choice, I'd rather live in a rural area, perhaps because that's where I grew up. For a variety of reasons, I can't do that for a few more years. But, being in a 'burb does place me significantly closer to a more rural area, and it certainly is more rural-ish than living in a city. We're within biking distance of usable beaches (the ones near the city are nasty), and a short drive away from a couple of rivers. We've got a lot of trees, the sidewalks are safe, and there is room for animals. Doing a lot of outdoor stuff means you've got a lot of stuff and need a place to store it, and means to transport. -- kayak and gear for that, bikes, skiing gear, fishing gear, camping gear, etc. so not having a car would mean we simply couldn't do that stuff anymore. We sometimes set up the tent in the backyard so the kids can hang out, or set up the volleyball net and have neighbors. Got a garden 50' X 30', and we manage to grow a decent amount of stuff in it.

For some reason, that kind of lifestyle seems to really bother some folks, which has always struck me as oddly amusing. It's like they take it personally that other people live in the burbs.

[Galactus]

I should probably note that "city" in the administrative sense and "city" in the sociological sense aren't really the same thing at all. (London is arguably the most salient example)

[lady narcissa]

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.

No, I was talking about actual cougars, not the human variety. Although I actually meant to write coyotes, not cougars. We have coyotes living in the city. Cougars have been sighted in the surrounding areas and one was actually found in the city.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704062604576106433474887082.html#articleTabs=article

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/14/cougars-back-in-chicago-r_n_186759.html

I live in Chicago now so that is what I was referring to. It's a pretty densely populated city. But for the coyotes, however, my experience in NYC wasn't much different. Maybe the difference is in living in the cities versus visiting them. As a visitor you aren't often getting out in the city and seeing the neighborhoods and exploring the local parks and outdoor spaces so you aren't always aware of all the options.

[Galactus]

Coyotes, foxes, etc. are pretty adaptable critters, and can turn urban pretty fast.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Hi FLOW,

This is an interesting question. I think (contra-Shryke) there is a definitely a political push towards greater urbanization. There are two reasons. There are definitely natural forces; but have you ever heard of a politician that doesn't like jumping on a band-wagon and taking credit for it?

For some odd reason, that reminded me of something. I recall reading something very recently where there was a mention of not putting as many highway exits or access ramps nearer to cities. The concept was to make it more difficult for people to live in the burbs and commute to work, thereby forcing many of them to move into the city.

* as an LA county resident, I am curious how much our sprawling metropolis will just transform in this way. Every time I drive through downtown LA, it's visibly more gentrified.

I don't have anything against gentrification. Those folks will pay more in taxes that will help the city, so that's to the good. I really worry more about if there will be opportunities for the urban poor given that manufacturers are pulling away from many major cities.

[naz]

For some reason, that kind of lifestyle seems to really bother some folks, which has always struck me as oddly amusing. It's like they take it personally that other people live in the burbs.

That lifestyle doesn't bother anyone. Can you find anyone here that has said that they resent your lifestyle? Have you found that to be the case elsewhere? If so, then those people are indeed stupid. Or are you implying that the people "pushing" for urbanization must somehow be against your way of life, because they advocate another way of life? Are you the only one who can rise above it all and live and let live?

People who advocate for urbanism today are saying that:

- Cities are good, but not as good as they can be. Some of what makes the suburb attractive should be incorporated into urban planning (shorter commutes, green space, plentiful amenities and jobs). But not all of it.

- All those great things in the suburb are fine in and of themselves (enjoy your kayak every day if you like), but the institutionalization of such a lifestyle (via poor suburban planning, zoning, and/or sprawl) comes with a distinct social cost, i.e. lack of diversity, lack of variety, isolationism, and marginalization of lower classes and minority races/ethnicities.

- The suburban way of life is ok, but the physical manifestion and extrapolation of that lifestyle means that more and more people want to share in that lifestyle, but since suburbs are zoned horizontally, the only way to incorporate growth is more highways, more 8-lane suburban commercial arteries that divide neighborhoods, more strip malls, more parking lots, more big box retail, and more signage that is super-scaled so as to be better seen by those whizzing by in a car.

Advocating for these things is not nearly the same as being "bothered" by your cozy suburban lifestyle. Rather, it's saying that such a lifestyle is not sustainable and cannot accommodate higher demand and growth in an environmental, social, and aesthetic way. Suburbs would be fine (sort of) if they could stay finite, but they can't. So growth is pushed inevitably farther and farther outward until the entire landscape is filled with Applebee's, Walmarts, and car dealerships.

[Gramsci]

For some odd reason, that reminded me of something. I recall reading something very recently where there was a mention of not putting as many highway exits or access ramps nearer to cities. The concept was to make it more difficult for people to live in the burbs and commute to work, thereby forcing many of them to move into the city.

I don't have anything against gentrification. Those folks will pay more in taxes that will help the city, so that's to the good. I really worry more about if there will be opportunities for the urban poor given that manufacturers are pulling away from many major cities.

Manufacturers are pulling away from the country writ large. The problem is compounded with an educational deficit that exists throughout the country. The urban poor need access to a 21st century education just the same as the rural poor, because manufacturing is on its way out the door.

[Shryke]

That lifestyle doesn't bother anyone. Can you find anyone here that has said that they resent your lifestyle? Have you found that to be the case elsewhere? If so, then those people are indeed stupid. Or are you implying that the people "pushing" for urbanization must somehow be against your way of life, because they advocate another way of life? Are you the only one who can rise above it all and live and let live?

People who advocate for urbanism today are saying that:

- Cities are good, but not as good as they can be. Some of what makes the suburb attractive should be incorporated into urban planning (shorter commutes, green space, plentiful amenities and jobs). But not all of it.

- All those great things in the suburb are fine in and of themselves (enjoy your kayak every day if you like), but the institutionalization of such a lifestyle (via poor suburban planning, zoning, and/or sprawl) comes with a distinct social cost, i.e. lack of diversity, lack of variety, isolationism, and marginalization of lower classes and minority races/ethnicities.

- The suburban way of life is ok, but the physical manifestion and extrapolation of that lifestyle means that more and more people want to share in that lifestyle, but since suburbs are zoned horizontally, the only way to incorporate growth is more highways, more 8-lane suburban commercial arteries that divide neighborhoods, more strip malls, more parking lots, more big box retail, and more signage that is super-scaled so as to be better seen by those whizzing by in a car.

Advocating for these things is not nearly the same as being "bothered" by your cozy suburban lifestyle. Rather, it's saying that such a lifestyle is not sustainable and cannot accommodate higher demand and growth in an environmental, social, and aesthetic way. Suburbs would be fine (sort of) if they could stay finite, but they can't. So growth is pushed inevitably farther and farther outward until the entire landscape is filled with Applebee's, Walmarts, and car dealerships.

I think you missed the more important point here that the institutionalization of that lifestyle is supported by policy decisions that encourage wasteful resource spending.

Those highways and roads and such you speak of are paid for by the government and have to exist to support the suburban lifestyle.

[naz]

Since that point was already mentioned several times in this thread - and was never challenged (indeed by anyone, not seriously) - I didn't feel the need to bring it up.

[Shryke]

Manufacturers are pulling away from the country writ large. The problem is compounded with an educational deficit that exists throughout the country. The urban poor need access to a 21st century education just the same as the rural poor, because manufacturing is on its way out the door.

Is there an education deficit though?

The problem is manufacturing is largely either leaving for places with cheaper labour (helped by cheap shipping costs) or become less labour intensive (ie - more automated). The jobs that are staying or being created are largely service jobs.

It's not always education, it's often the type of job available. There's alot of jobs that need doing that can't be outsourced or shipped overseas. The jobs that require high education aren't hurting for applicants.

[Shryke]

Since that point was already mentioned several times in this thread - and was never challenged (indeed by anyone, not seriously) - I didn't feel the need to bring it up.

I always feel the need to bring it up. :P

Especially since I have seen it challenged before.

[Dinsdale!]

I don't have anything against gentrification. Those folks will pay more in taxes that will help the city, so that's to the good. I really worry more about if there will be opportunities for the urban poor given that manufacturers are pulling away from many major cities.

I'm worried about that sort of thing as well, particularly in the short-run, but to me this has less to do with urban development policy and more to do with:

Tariff Policy: Free trade undercuts local manufacturing. In fact it seems to decrease overall global inequality while increasing local inequalities. (e.g. the richest in China or Brazil are as rich as the richest of Americans now, but there are far less of the truly dirt poor.)

Immigration Policy: We've let millions of low-skilled workers in who have little to no workplace rights.

Those are both obviously complex political issues, but they have, I believe, quite a strong effect on the job situation of the urban poor.

Though a quick policy would be to replace a large section of the income tax code with consumption taxes (i.e. lower marginal tax brackets done away with, consumption tax with rebates for the very poor instituted). That would have the effect of lower consumption, increasing savings and investment and decreasing the trade deficit, on-shoring some manufacturing.

[Gramsci]

Is there an education deficit though?

The problem is manufacturing is largely either leaving for places with cheaper labour (helped by cheap shipping costs) or become less labour intensive (ie - more automated). The jobs that are staying or being created are largely service jobs.

It's not always education, it's often the type of job available. There's alot of jobs that need doing that can't be outsourced or shipped overseas. The jobs that require high education aren't hurting for applicants.

It is definitely not because of an educational deficit that manufacturing is decreasing as a sector, but as far as 21st century oriented jobs are concerned, most people in the workforce just don't seem adequately prepared. We are going to have to move away from manufacturing and focus on educating people in preparation for jobs like information systems, if we want to maintain the levels of employment and growth that have defined the US over the last half century.

[Shryke]

It is definitely not because of an educational deficit that manufacturing is decreasing as a sector, but as far as 21st century oriented jobs are concerned, most people in the workforce just don't seem adequately prepared. We are going to have to move away from manufacturing and focus on educating people in preparation for jobs like information systems, if we want to maintain the levels of employment and growth that have defined the US over the last half century.

But that's my point. By what measure do you think people are unprepared for these modern jobs? Where are these jobs you are talking about that are going unfilled?

I mean, I know many people would like to believe that everyone can be a white collar worker or something, but what's the evidence for it?

How many people do we honestly need working in "information systems" and can you show there aren't enough now, basically.

[lokisnow]

* as an LA county resident, I am curious how much our sprawling metropolis will just transform in this way. Every time I drive through downtown LA, it's visibly more gentrified.

Single family housing in the tract between the 10 and the Expo line, bounded by Fairfax/La Cienega and the 110 is probably the cheapest housing available in central LA, at 200-400,000 it's less than half most of the surrounding areas. Because this area is transit adjacent with easy access to both the 10 and light rail, I anticipate this is the next major area to be seriously gentrified. Especially with the boom and resurgance in flipping in the past year.

Heck, I've got my eye on the area as a place we should seriously consider if we wanted to buy a house. But we don't want to buy a house (what a waste of money better spent in investments), so we probably won't bite at that very tempting apple.