Why the push for greater urbanization?

[mysig]

KAH,

question for ye. why do you reckon the EU ETS turned into the debacle it is now?

[KAH]

KAH,

question for ye. why do you reckon the EU ETS turned into the debacle it is now?

Lack of political will to use ETS the way it ought to be used.

Yes, there's the Euro crisis to consider, but even before that they were dragging their feet. With the Euro scaring the policy makers to death, the effort falls apart - present economy worries trumps future ecology worries when the heat is on.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

As you are aware, I am a supporter of taxation of carbon emissions. Those taxes should be levied neutrally towards all forms of CO2 emissions for efficiency, not just transport...although, road transport is likely the sector with the greater potential for emissions reduction, relatively speaking.

I'll point out that this will have a significant effect on transportation costs for all the goods we ship around our fairly large country. That will raise costs for all sorts of good, particularly consumables, that people need.

When I hear of three-hour daily commutes, I'm thinking that suburbia is not sustainable

I personally think that three hour commutes are asinine, and they are far more the exception than the rule. Most people don't, and wouldn't, put up with anything like that. Especially if they are driving. But I do suspect the majority of people that are commuting that distance are in a few huge metropolitan areas, likely working highly renumerative positions. They'll be able to pay the tax, and it likely won't materially effect their lifestyle. The people who will really get hammered by this aren't the suburbanites, though. It will be the rural people.

If you sense that people are anti-car, there is probably some truth to that. A carbon tax is not forthcoming, so worried people look for other solutions, and politicians are always forthcoming with "solutions" in the name of "Doing Something". Anti-car policies will be pushed because when crude tools are the only things there to work with, that is what you use.

I think you're right about that, as much as some others may be skeptical about their being a "push".

I think that you, Jeff, stalwart Republican as you are, have a duty to defend the car as the ultimate monument to Freedom and Rugged Individualism, by supporting higher (carbon) taxes! Push a comprehensive solution; be anti-emissions, not anti-car.

Can't I be pro-car and pro-emissions? I mean, I am a Republican after all.

In all seriousness, though, I do think there already are built-in incentives for people to reduce emissions, the cost of fuel, the general unpleasantness of commuting longer distances, etc.. And the reality is that in many cases, most people don't have the ability to adapt the way the urban planners would like. Few people are going to sell their homes and move closer to the city just to shave some time off their commute. Abandonment of suburbs and returning to cities is simply not going to happen in significant numbers in even the short or medium term. People will stay where they are and carpool to the extent they can (which many do already). But overall, the net effect of the carbon tax is going to me much less a changing of behaviors, and more of a reduction in standard of living for the middle and working classes. Just another tax.

[Fragile Bird]

A few things FLOW:

<excellent response>

I'm just working my way through this thread and wanted to agree with the others that this was a great post, Shryke.

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.

Also an excellent post, Naz.

As someone who has been involved in real estate and development matters for more than 30 years, I'd like to add that here in Canada, at least, cities have come to recognize that density is a huge answer to the issue of the cost of properly maintaining a well functioning city. There are suburbs around Toronto where people bought houses to have bigger lots and monster homes and wanted to be surrounded by bigger lots and monster homes, who are now waking up to the realization their municipalities are allowing smaller houses and on smaller lots to be built because people would actually like to stay in their town and downsize, or would like to experience life in the burbs but can't afford the 3,500 sq. ft. house, or don't want children and don't need the space. And with people being more environmentally aware, they want to be able to take a bus to the mall or to city hall or downtown, every now and then. And there are a lot of kids who don't have driver's licenses and don't ever want to drive (a mistake in my mind, every person should know how, even if they don't own a car), and they want to have bus service too. But you can't economically run a transportation system without density. I visited a friend in one such burb outside of Toronto in the land of 50 foot lots and was surprised to see how many medium rise and high rise apartment buildings are going up along the main thoroughfares, places where the buses run.

As for all those corporations that moved from NYC to Connecticut, I'd say the big issue was taxes. The major multi-national I worked for left Manhattan, selling it's iconic building for a place in Connecticut, much to the distress of people who loved working downtown. Their corporate building is worth a lot of money, but the old corporate headquarters is worth a shit-ton more. Bad investment decision, IMO. This is a company that tore down historic buildings in one of their manufacturing complexes because having an empty lot meant lower taxes, and hell, the business unit had to make their numbers, ya know?

[lokisnow]

But I do suspect the majority of people that are commuting that distance are in a few huge metropolitan areas, likely working highly renumerative positions. They'll be able to pay the tax, and it likely won't materially effect their lifestyle. The people who will really get hammered by this aren't the suburbanites, though. It will be the rural people.

What on earth does distance have to do with the time of a commute? ;) A three hour commute (90 min each way) means you probably live within 30-40 miles of where you're working.

And you're exactly wrong. The poor souls who commute that long have bought into the mythology that owning a home is a good thing. Their insane desire to own a home forces them to find a home they can afford (below 300,000 for a 3 bedroom), they can only find homes like that if they're willing to accept the 3 hour (or more) commute. They are not highly compensated--and they especially are not highly compensated because they have a long commute--because the people who are paid a lot can afford to not have a commute and live much closer to their place of work.

They also find that once they've bought a house they're now imprisoned by the house, they can't get out, because nobody can afford to move, and that means they're stuck with their commute for the next many decades.

If anything the greater urbanization is happening because boomers aren't leaving the suburbs, meaning there are no kids/families in the suburbs, and regardless, families with kids cannot afford to live in suburbs without sacrificing family time to the commute. So if you want to be able to spend time with your kids, you have to sacrifice the house instead and live in an apartment closer to where you work. This has the added advantage, with the suburbs filled with old people, of putting families with kids in proximity of other families with kids who have all had to make the same decision to put family time as more important than commute time.

[Shryke]

As someone who has been involved in real estate and development matters for more than 30 years, I'd like to add that here in Canada, at least, cities have come to recognize that density is a huge answer to the issue of the cost of properly maintaining a well functioning city. There are suburbs around Toronto where people bought houses to have bigger lots and monster homes and wanted to be surrounded by bigger lots and monster homes, who are now waking up to the realization their municipalities are allowing smaller houses and on smaller lots to be built because people would actually like to stay in their town and downsize, or would like to experience life in the burbs but can't afford the 3,500 sq. ft. house, or don't want children and don't need the space. And with people being more environmentally aware, they want to be able to take a bus to the mall or to city hall or downtown, every now and then. And there are a lot of kids who don't have driver's licenses and don't ever want to drive (a mistake in my mind, every person should know how, even if they don't own a car), and they want to have bus service too. But you can't economically run a transportation system without density. I visited a friend in one such burb outside of Toronto in the land of 50 foot lots and was surprised to see how many medium rise and high rise apartment buildings are going up along the main thoroughfares, places where the buses run.

You also can't run a transportation system in a subdivision-setup period because the fuckers that build them make them horrible to navigate around. It's ridiculously inefficient. (also, the YRT is shit)

Which also leads back to horrible commuting times since suburbs, as much as they exist for commuters, are not ever designed for commuters but instead designed to make the place as Leave-it-to-Beaver as possible.

Is does seem like the trend with younger people now is to want smaller commutes and less car-time and be willing to put up with less space to do it though.

[Shryke]

What on earth does distance have to do with the time of a commute? ;) A three hour commute (90 min each way) means you probably live within 30-40 miles of where you're working.

And you're exactly wrong. The poor souls who commute that long have bought into the mythology that owning a home is a good thing. Their insane desire to own a home forces them to find a home they can afford (below 300,000 for a 3 bedroom), they can only find homes like that if they're willing to accept the 3 hour (or more) commute. They are not highly compensated--and they especially are not highly compensated because they have a long commute--because the people who are paid a lot can afford to not have a commute and live much closer to their place of work.

They also find that once they've bought a house they're now imprisoned by the house, they can't get out, because nobody can afford to move, and that means they're stuck with their commute for the next many decades.

If anything the greater urbanization is happening because boomers aren't leaving the suburbs, meaning there are no kids/families in the suburbs, and regardless, families with kids cannot afford to live in suburbs without sacrificing family time to the commute. So if you want to be able to spend time with your kids, you have to sacrifice the house instead and live in an apartment closer to where you work. This has the added advantage, with the suburbs filled with old people, of putting families with kids in proximity of other families with kids who have all had to make the same decision to put family time as more important than commute time.

Yeah, I don't understand where the idea that people with long commutes are well compensated comes from.

People with long commutes are almost always people who wanted to buy a home but don't have the money to live in the city or in one of the really close/older suburbs.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

*commuting stuff*

Okay, my point really was that I think relatively few people commute three hours, so Kay-Arne was really talking more about a myth than reality.. Here's a chart of average commuting time, by state. Seems the highest average anywhere is less than 31 minutes. And interestingly, the states with large urban centers seem to have the longest commute times, suggesting that big cities are not the way to go if you want shorter commutes.

http://www.indexmund...ommute-time#map

Yeah, I don't understand where the idea that people with long commutes are well compensated comes from.

Try here.

Workers at higher income levels and those who work at least 40 hours per week tend to have longer commutes than others.

http://www.gallup.co...ypical-Day.aspx

My guess as to why that is the case is that it just doesn't make sense to take a long commute for a job unless it pays really well.

If anything the greater urbanization is happening because boomers aren't leaving the suburbs, meaning there are no kids/families in the suburbs, and regardless, families with kids cannot afford to live in suburbs without sacrificing family time to the commute. So if you want to be able to spend time with your kids, you have to sacrifice the house instead and live in an apartment closer to where you work. This has the added advantage, with the suburbs filled with old people, of putting families with kids in proximity of other families with kids who have all had to make the same decision to put family time as more important than commute time.

The problem with talking about greater urbanization (partly my fault for the imprecision of my initial post) is that it includes cities of all sorts of sizes, including a great many that would be classified as suburbs. So to say that "urbanization" is increasing doesn't really demonstrate that the larger cities are growing proportionately faster than anywhere else. I suppose someone may want to look that up....

I also think that there is more work being performed in the suburbs themselves as opposed to purely commuting. Again, that's based on more corporate headquarters being less tied to major urban centers than they have been in the past. So really, my point is to question whether it is truly preferable to have all jobs and employment crammed into small areas, or is it a better model to have more jobs -- manufacturing, service, or otherwise -- out in smaller cities/suburbs.

As for young adults living in cities -- yes, I think that's been true for a long time. The real question is whether they stay there long-term when it comes time to raise a family. Obviously, a great many city dwellers do love it, and do like raising kids there because that's where they were raised themselves. But there are also a great many people who believe, rightly or wrongly, that it is better to raise kids outside of the larger cities.

[lokisnow]

The real question is whether they stay there long-term when it comes time to raise a family. Obviously, a great many city dwellers do love it, and do like raising kids there because that's where they were raised themselves. But there are also a great many people who believe, rightly or wrongly, that it is better to raise kids outside of the larger cities.

I think I mentioned before that the young millenial families are staying put, at least in los angeles.

As for why? This is in part because they can't afford to move. This is in part because the boomers are not moving or dieing off fast enough to free up housing stock in the suburbs. This is in part because they like the amenities of their area. This is in part because everyone staying put creates a virtuous cycle that improves the community and schools, so there are hardly any downsides. And this is in large part because the housing stock being built they can afford is urban, and there's not housing stock being built they can afford that is suburban. At least, not housing stock that is affordable that doesn't demand human sacrifice of kids and spousal relationship to the dread God of the commute.

And really, who wants to live in the suburbs, 80 percent crotchety old people who will run outside screeching waving a gun if the kids that are outside are playing too loudly. Why live in a place where all the angry boomers terrorize your kids on a day to day basis? Why live in a place where retirees out number kids 8 to 1? ;)

in 20-40 years, when the Great Boomer Die Off has run its course and the world is rid of the most selfish generation to ever live, then the generation of kids being born now might start moving back to the suburbs... Hoping against hope not to disturb the angry and restless ghosts populating the empty suburban streets and abandoned houses because even dead the boomers are too selfish to move on to the next world. ;)

[naz]

I also think that there is more work being performed in the suburbs themselves as opposed to purely commuting. Again, that's based on more corporate headquarters being less tied to major urban centers than they have been in the past. So really, my point is to question whether it is truly preferable to have all jobs and employment crammed into small areas, or is it a better model to have more jobs -- manufacturing, service, or otherwise -- out in smaller cities/suburbs.

I agree that a great number of people commute suburb-to-suburb, more so than suburb-to-city. This trend is slowly reversing (very slowly, and not at all in some parts of the US), but it's still true. The problem, however (and FB and Shryke discuss this) is that suburb-to-suburb commuting is incredibly inefficient, both in time and in fuel/pollution/ecology. The suburbs were not designed for intra-suburban commuting, especially with regards to mass transit, so the large majority of this commuting is by car. The negative impact of this is that suburbs, which were already inefficiently designed, are now cut and criss-crossed by high-capacity arterial roads (not interstates), which decimate and divide neighborhoods. These arterials also tend to become wholly commercial (because no one wants to live on them), and due to zoning limitations, horizontal. Read: strip malls, parking lots, big box retail.

Not exactly your idyllic pastoral dreamscape anymore.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I agree that a great number of people commute suburb-to-suburb, more so than suburb-to-city. This trend is slowly reversing (very slowly, and not at all in some parts of the US), but it's still true. The problem, however (and FB and Shryke discuss this) is that suburb-to-suburb commuting is incredibly inefficient, both in time and in fuel/pollution/ecology.

My reading of that chart is that by far the highest number of commuters -- over 40 million -- are commuting within their suburb. Or at least, it is not clear that they are commuting between different suburbs. The next highest are people commuting within their major city, and the third highest is rural people commuting withing their rural area.

Moveover, the "suburb to suburb" generalization is a big dodgy, because logic would suggest that people would gravitate towards jobs where their commute is the easiest. People like shorter commutes. Or at least, decline/not search for new opportunities with a commute they don't like. As I said, the average commute is about 24 minutes. That doesn't seem excessive to me.

The suburbs were not designed for intra-suburban commuting, especially with regards to mass transit, so the large majority of this commuting is by car. The negative impact of this is that suburbs, which were already inefficiently designed, are now cut and criss-crossed by high-capacity arterial roads (not interstates), which decimate and divide neighborhoods. These arterials also tend to become wholly commercial (because no one wants to live on them), and due to zoning limitations, horizontal. Read: strip malls, parking lots, big box retail. Not exactly your idyllic pastoral dreamscape anymore.

The chart doesn't make clear what is commuting within a suburb, or between suburbs. As to the commercial arteries, well, yes. So people don't live on those commercial streets, and instead live in the nicer neighborhoods that aren't on those streets. They only go on those streets to work or shop, etc.. So I don't see the problem.

I never said it was idyllic. In fact, I thought I was pretty clear in saying that suburbs are a compromise. Some people find them distasteful, but it seems to me there is almost a political/social/cultural resentment going on there, as if people who choose to live in suburbs rather than in the city are somehow culturally malignant, or representative of something "bad".

[naz]

My reading of that chart is that by far the highest percentage of commuters -- over 40% are commuting within their suburb. Given that suburbs are generally smaller than major cities, that would seem to be even more efficient than people commuting within a major city. Moveover, the "suburb to suburb" generalization is a big dodgy, because logic would suggest that people would gravitate towards jobs where their commute is the easiest. Or at least, decline/not search for new opportunities with a commute they don't like. As I said, the average commute is about 24 minutes. That doesn't seem excessive to me.

I see where you might read that because there's a grouping for suburbs of one metro area and another grouping for another metro area, and the 40.8% number is wholly within the same metro area. That doesn't mean squat, though. Just because you're staying within the metro area doesn't mean you're working in the next town over. I remember living in Columbia, MD one year and working in Towson, MD - both suburbs of Baltimore, but on opposite sides. My commute was regularly 45 min. by car.

And I'll grant that the inefficiencies I mentioned are more about environment than about time, but time is not everything. That 24 minute average commute is more inefficient within the suburbs than from suburb-to-city primarily because of lack of mass transit.

Well, yes. So people don't live on those commercial streets, and instead live in the nicer neighborhoods that aren't on those streets. They only go on those streets to work or shop, etc.. So I don't see the problem.

They do it in their cars. That's part of the problem. But the commercials strips also become barriers to interaction. Not just because you get in your car and drive from your driveway to the Walmart and back, and don't interact with anyone along the way, but also because the strips themselves are physically imposing, ugly, lacking in character, and they zone communities into polarized use groups. All residential here, all commercial there.

Now, you may love that sort of thing, but countless studies have shown that these types of barriers, divisions, and isolations are detrimental to communities in the long run. It may work for you, for the few years that you're living there, but it's not sustainable over generations, and is especially a hindrance to any increased saturation or growth. This is not only my own opinion but a well-researched and thoroughly written-about phenomenon. The problem is that people like you look at it as a snapshot... Hey, look... crime is low here. It's pretty and I can ride my bike with my kid along the street. But over time, these communities decline, become less diverse, more run-down (because of cheaply-made housing stock), and less desirable to subsequent generations.

[Shryke]

Okay, my point really was that I think relatively few people commute three hours, so Kay-Arne was really talking more about a myth than reality.. Here's a chart of average commuting time, by state. Seems the highest average anywhere is less than 31 minutes. And interestingly, the states with large urban centers seem to have the longest commute times, suggesting that big cities are not the way to go if you want shorter commutes.

http://www.indexmund...ommute-time#map

That's cause people commute into cities. Or across cities. And where there's more people, there's more traffic. Especially if you are forced to use a car.

Try here.

My guess as to why that is the case is that it just doesn't make sense to take a long commute for a job unless it pays really well.

The relationship is quite small and it only controls for income and not for where people actually live.

I mean, if urban areas have larger poor populations, you are going to have a heavy bottom end of urban dwellers at low income with shorter commutes because their commutes are not related to the people living in the suburbs. The poor are more likely to walk or take transit (although they still mostly drive)

And the problem with your suggestion is that housing prices are almost always, overall, radial. The closer to the city, the more you pay. People with long commutes don't just do them for the money, they do them because, just like you, they don't want to live in the city.

As for young adults living in cities -- yes, I think that's been true for a long time. The real question is whether they stay there long-term when it comes time to raise a family. Obviously, a great many city dwellers do love it, and do like raising kids there because that's where they were raised themselves. But there are also a great many people who believe, rightly or wrongly, that it is better to raise kids outside of the larger cities.

So far the younger generations have displayed a preference for being closer to the urban core then preceding generations. Even, afaik, when controlled for age at the time. It's still, obviously, unknown whether this will stay that way as they age, but reurbinization seems to be happening.

[lokisnow]

So far the younger generations have displayed a preference for being closer to the urban core then preceding generations. Even, afaik, when controlled for age at the time. It's still, obviously, unknown whether this will stay that way as they age, but reurbinization seems to be happening.

Yeah neighborhood infill is where Los Angeles growth and development is going to happen over the next few decades. LA is basically built out, there's no where left to expand the borders because it hits OC or Ventura, or Santa Clarita or the Mountains or the Ocean, so infill is the only option left.

[The Progressive]

Lol move to the oc man, prices are still reasonable here and you could take amtrak or metrolink to work in la.

[lokisnow]

yeah, but I'd have to live in OC, which would suck.

[The Crow]

Seems to me that there is some sort of presumed consensus out there that urbanization is the preferred route for humanity moving forward. It pops up in more and more topics not just here, but in RL as well.

I think that's an assumption worthy of challenge.

Historically, crime rates tend to be higher in cities. That's been true consistently not just in the U.S., but in most of the world. Another poster noted in the thread about the 14 year old getting shot that it was harder to raise children in a city. I know there have been experiments done where increasing the population density of lab animals results in increased violent behavior.

So why is it that so many people want more of us crammed into cities?

so the government can keep their 'eye' on everyone.

[ThinkerX]

I should have commented before now, as this thread touches upon the places I've lived and decisions I've made.

I grew up on an Alaskan Homestead (RURAL) at the tail end of the last homesteading 'boom' in the area. My parents were among some two dozen plus families that attempted this, all hoping for 'free land' (well, not really free, given the work involved and number of hoops that had to be jumped through). Of those two dozen plus families...four succeeded. As a kid, I used to follow overgrown roads to the cabins erected by those who quit or died or killed themselves.

Yes, killed themselves. For a very long while, the local emergency services were 'under informal orders', I guess you could call it, to report suicides as accidental deaths.

Alcoholism was rampant on the homesteads, to the point where about a quarter featured homemade stills brewing some of the flat out nastiest alcohol you could never hope to drink.

What a lot of it came down to was this: once you were out in the woods on your homestead, well, you were out in the woods. The nearest store (and bar) was over three miles off. The nearest town was almost twenty miles off, and there wasn't much there. If you didn't tend a fish site in the summer, well, you pretty much had to go elsewhere for work. My father and a lot of his peers worked in the oil fields on a couple months on, month or so off basis (until the Alaska pipeline got geared up and we hardly ever saw him).

My earlier jobs were in the local fish canneries, because that was all there was. A close friend of mine landed a job as a janitor, which to me seemed unreal: a job, with regular hours that didn't involve long shifts of gutting slimey fish! Incredible. (Then he went on a three day drunk after getting his fourth paycheck and lost the job).

Later on, when I became more mobile, (car of my own), I decided that no, I did not want to fork over an hours pay simply to get back and forth to a job twenty miles off - because I KNEW that the town, such as it was, offered far more employment opportunities than the area near the homestead. (I also anticipated the spike in gas prices decades before it happened.) When time came to build my house, I REJECTED several lots larger and cheaper than the one I finally settled on BECAUSE they were too far from town. The lot I eventually chose is four miles from the towns center by main road, and three miles by back road - a doable bicycle ride, though a bit of a long walk. Had I the money, I'd have tried for another subdivision less than a mile from the town center.

That said, present day suburbia exists SOLEY because of government (highway engineer) planning and a pact between the oil companies and automotive industry. That is far too solidly established to be open to serious dispute. Modern Suburbia, unless drastically altered, is also totally unsustainable in the long run: it devours far too many increasingly scarce resources.

[Spring Bass]

I don't think it's unsustainable, but it's definitely going to be much less efficient than a denser suburb and/or walkable city neighborhood even with the best technologies. A car-dependent suburb could hypothetically exist without dependence on fossil fuels: electric cars driving between houses with appliances and heating/A-C powered entirely by electricity, drawn from nuclear/hydro/other renewable energy.

[Nas!]

Interesting that this thread came to be, as I can only date urbanites. Suburbanites and ruralists just don't interest me. I'm not sure why, but it really cuts down on the number of people in my dating pool, I have to say. If only life weren't so complicated. Sad face emoticon.