6 ms·

> We need very high density around where people live. This is the most important thing ever. Strongly disagree, why? In the suburbs you spend 10x less time in

> We need very high density around where people live. This is the most important thing ever. Strongly disagree, why? In the suburbs you spend 10x less time in traffic, and have access to 10x more because it takes 15 minutes to go 10 miles vs the 1 hour I spend every day traveling 7 miles to work in the bay area. Significantly, less energy and time is lost in the suburbs. Plus, cities have ridiculous pricing for less space, hence people with families dislike cities (on average).

julespitt 10y ago
You do not have access to 10x more things, because the suburbs have less things spread out over much more area. There's no free lunch.
- lettergram 10y ago
  Are you kidding? It depends where you are in the suburbs I'm sure. However, in general because of the ease of transit with a car you have access to far more. For example, in NYC I wouldn't have access to a soccer field, a place to go horse back ridding, a place to go off roading, fishing, a Macy's, an Steak house, McDonalds, a Red Lobster, etc. all within 10-15 minutes. All at the same time, having a 4 bedroom, 2 bathroom house with a yard at $1500/month. > suburbs have less things spread out over much more area Again, it is spread out over a larger area, but the accessibility of those regions is much greater (i.e. far less traffic, 45+ mph speed limit, and cheaper fuel costs). If you want stuff within walking distance, or public transit it will not be as accessible and thus you'll have access to less. Living in the Bay Area (even with a car) it'll take me 25 minutes to get to the Costco 4 miles from my apartment which costs me 5x what it would in the suburbs of say Chicago, Austin, or countless other locations.
  - alonmower 10y ago
    If you're comparing the accessibility and cost of chain stores in and out of cities I'm going to assert that you're missing a lot of what cities have to offer (museums, interesting restaurants, live music, parks with lots of people in them, etc...). Also some people truly enjoy not needing to get into a car to accomplish even the most basic task Cost of living and accessibility to nature and open space are the big compromises though
    - lettergram 10y ago
      I'll agree the suburbs have less (if any) museums, live music, and parks with people in them. What I would argue, that if someone from the suburbs wants to visit/participate in city events it's relatively easy (although getting home drunk or something would be difficult). That's more-or-less the clear trade. You can't walk home drunk or visit these places without figuring out transportation, which often is less enjoyable. I would like to say, I used to visit Greek Town, neighborhood festivities, or the Art Institute in Chicago pretty regularly and it took about an hour to and from the city on the weekends (I lived about 30 miles away). Living in the city, it took roughly the same time if you lived 2-3 miles away, but didn't use a car (the benefit being less responsibility)... So honestly, I see little difference in the cultural aspects. I think this is how most American's see this as well. The cities are for the young who want to party, the suburbs are for the more established families wanting to raise children/relax.
    - cableshaft 10y ago
      There's interesting restaurants in the (Chicago) suburbs too. They might not be as gimmicky (no "say the secret password to get in" types), but you can find just about every cuisine and the food is usually just as good. Museums are great, but they're something I only get the urge to see a couple of times per year. Live music (and you should have said shows/theatre also) is definitely lacking, but if I want to see that, I can drive an hour to go downtown or take the train to see them. Even when I was super gung-ho about going to those, I didn't go to more than a show per month. And several of those were in the suburbs (Ravinia, Oddball Comedy Festival, Chicago Improv, etc). And parks? Except for the beach at Lake Michigan, the suburbs has the city beat in parks by a huge margin. Tons of forest preserves and parks out here, plenty to explore. There's a lot more smaller but still enjoyable things in the suburbs too, community theatre, smaller concerts, sports events that don't cost a minimum of $80 per ticket, and town festivals which I prefer to big city events because you can actually walk without being constantly smushed by everyone else (literally true in Taste of Chicago). But yeah, those don't want to use cars need not apply. And granted, there will be people who want to see a show 2 or 3 times per week and visit a museum at lunch every other day, who would of course prefer living in a big city. But it's not for everyone.
  - julespitt 10y ago
    I'm not kidding. I am saying there are tradeoffs between suburban living and urban living. You give up a yard in the city. It is more expensive for far less space. However… - I have Fishing, a Steakhouse, McDonalds, several seafood places better than Red Lobster within a 10-15 minute walk in NYC. Up until a few years ago, had horseback riding as well. - If you expand this to a 10-15 minute subway ride, the selection gets insane. So, no, you do not get access to more things in the suburbs, not by a lot. But as you said - you are closer to outdoorsy activities, have a yard, pay less. These are the tradeoffs.
- mikeash 10y ago
  If the only difference was the travel time, a 10x improvement in travel times would give you access to 100x more things, because we live on a two-dimensional surface. The reduction in density cuts down on that, but it's not 100x less dense.
hx87 10y ago
> it takes 15 minutes to go 10 miles Said no one who lives in suburban Boston, ever.
Decade 10y ago
Strongly disagree with your disagreement, why? Bay Area traffic is horrible because of the low density and poor street planning of the past, pushing people into cars. Modern urban planners call it “induced demand” for traffic. [0] I recently saw a Planning Department presentation about one particular neighborhood of San Francisco (slides here [1], web site here [2]), and the key issue is that traffic is horrible because there are too many parking lots and transit is impractical. Even in San Francisco, neighborhoods like the Outer Sunset practically require you to have a car, especially if your daily routine deviates from doing home -> work downtown -> home. Significantly more energy and time are lost in the suburbs. I’m concerned about long-term sustainability, and it takes tremendously less energy to walk 3 blocks to a grocery store than to drive 3 miles. For an extreme, outside the Bay Area, example, my grandmother moved to Tucson because she thought she could play with friends who live in Tucson, but then she discovered that Tucson is spread over 200 square miles, and she would have to drive an hour to reach her friend. They play much less than she expected. Not to mention the vast expanses of roads and pipes necessary to keep the suburb working. I hear the bonds that are used to finance suburb infrastructure inherently require growth, in that without growth, they would be unable to afford the upkeep. I think this is behind so many crises about poor infrastructure maintenance across the US. [3] [0] http://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/ http://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/ [1] http://default.sfplanning.org/plans-and-programs/planning-for-the-city/public-sites/balboareservoir/balboareservoir_CAC_Presentation-TDM-04132016_FINAL.pdf http://default.sfplanning.org/plans-and-programs/planning-fo... [2] https://www.sfmta.com/projects-planning/projects/transportation-demand-management https://www.sfmta.com/projects-planning/projects/transportat... [3] http://time.com/3031079/suburbs-will-die-sprawl/ http://time.com/3031079/suburbs-will-die-sprawl/
- lettergram 10y ago
  Maybe you're a bit too use to focused on the Bay Area/San Fransisco. > low density and poor street planning of the past You're just wrong about San Fransisco's population density being low. It is 21st most populated place per square mile in the U.S.[1]. As for you're argument that there is "induced demand" for traffic I would argue that there needs to be actual evidence for that (not a wired article). The fact is, lots of lanes create slower traffic[2], and the "induced demand" argument would mean building a bridge to no-where would suddenly make people come (which seems pretty false). Further, if you are concerned about: > I’m concerned about long-term sustainability Being more distributed reduces the need to transport water (arguably the single most important resource) vast distances. The same can be argued for energy; renewable forms of energy such as wind and solar farms are often built great distances from cities, you can place them closer to residence using them in suburbs. Not to mention, suburbs eventually becoming cities (or as populated as such). Meaning I really wouldn't worry about this "long-term," at least 50 or so years. Regardless, that's not really the point though. My argument was that the suburbs have access to at least just as much as a city, at a more affordable price. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b... [2] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019126150500055X http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191261505...

julespitt 10y ago

You do not have access to 10x more things, because the suburbs have less things spread out over much more area. There's no free lunch.

lettergram 10y ago
Are you kidding? It depends where you are in the suburbs I'm sure. However, in general because of the ease of transit with a car you have access to far more. For example, in NYC I wouldn't have access to a soccer field, a place to go horse back ridding, a place to go off roading, fishing, a Macy's, an Steak house, McDonalds, a Red Lobster, etc. all within 10-15 minutes. All at the same time, having a 4 bedroom, 2 bathroom house with a yard at $1500/month. > suburbs have less things spread out over much more area Again, it is spread out over a larger area, but the accessibility of those regions is much greater (i.e. far less traffic, 45+ mph speed limit, and cheaper fuel costs). If you want stuff within walking distance, or public transit it will not be as accessible and thus you'll have access to less. Living in the Bay Area (even with a car) it'll take me 25 minutes to get to the Costco 4 miles from my apartment which costs me 5x what it would in the suburbs of say Chicago, Austin, or countless other locations.
- alonmower 10y ago
  If you're comparing the accessibility and cost of chain stores in and out of cities I'm going to assert that you're missing a lot of what cities have to offer (museums, interesting restaurants, live music, parks with lots of people in them, etc...). Also some people truly enjoy not needing to get into a car to accomplish even the most basic task Cost of living and accessibility to nature and open space are the big compromises though
  - lettergram 10y ago
    I'll agree the suburbs have less (if any) museums, live music, and parks with people in them. What I would argue, that if someone from the suburbs wants to visit/participate in city events it's relatively easy (although getting home drunk or something would be difficult). That's more-or-less the clear trade. You can't walk home drunk or visit these places without figuring out transportation, which often is less enjoyable. I would like to say, I used to visit Greek Town, neighborhood festivities, or the Art Institute in Chicago pretty regularly and it took about an hour to and from the city on the weekends (I lived about 30 miles away). Living in the city, it took roughly the same time if you lived 2-3 miles away, but didn't use a car (the benefit being less responsibility)... So honestly, I see little difference in the cultural aspects. I think this is how most American's see this as well. The cities are for the young who want to party, the suburbs are for the more established families wanting to raise children/relax.
  - cableshaft 10y ago
    There's interesting restaurants in the (Chicago) suburbs too. They might not be as gimmicky (no "say the secret password to get in" types), but you can find just about every cuisine and the food is usually just as good. Museums are great, but they're something I only get the urge to see a couple of times per year. Live music (and you should have said shows/theatre also) is definitely lacking, but if I want to see that, I can drive an hour to go downtown or take the train to see them. Even when I was super gung-ho about going to those, I didn't go to more than a show per month. And several of those were in the suburbs (Ravinia, Oddball Comedy Festival, Chicago Improv, etc). And parks? Except for the beach at Lake Michigan, the suburbs has the city beat in parks by a huge margin. Tons of forest preserves and parks out here, plenty to explore. There's a lot more smaller but still enjoyable things in the suburbs too, community theatre, smaller concerts, sports events that don't cost a minimum of $80 per ticket, and town festivals which I prefer to big city events because you can actually walk without being constantly smushed by everyone else (literally true in Taste of Chicago). But yeah, those don't want to use cars need not apply. And granted, there will be people who want to see a show 2 or 3 times per week and visit a museum at lunch every other day, who would of course prefer living in a big city. But it's not for everyone.
- julespitt 10y ago
  I'm not kidding. I am saying there are tradeoffs between suburban living and urban living. You give up a yard in the city. It is more expensive for far less space. However… - I have Fishing, a Steakhouse, McDonalds, several seafood places better than Red Lobster within a 10-15 minute walk in NYC. Up until a few years ago, had horseback riding as well. - If you expand this to a 10-15 minute subway ride, the selection gets insane. So, no, you do not get access to more things in the suburbs, not by a lot. But as you said - you are closer to outdoorsy activities, have a yard, pay less. These are the tradeoffs.
mikeash 10y ago
If the only difference was the travel time, a 10x improvement in travel times would give you access to 100x more things, because we live on a two-dimensional surface. The reduction in density cuts down on that, but it's not 100x less dense.

hx87 10y ago

> it takes 15 minutes to go 10 miles Said no one who lives in suburban Boston, ever.

Decade 10y ago

Strongly disagree with your disagreement, why? Bay Area traffic is horrible because of the low density and poor street planning of the past, pushing people into cars. Modern urban planners call it “induced demand” for traffic. [0] I recently saw a Planning Department presentation about one particular neighborhood of San Francisco (slides here [1], web site here [2]), and the key issue is that traffic is horrible because there are too many parking lots and transit is impractical. Even in San Francisco, neighborhoods like the Outer Sunset practically require you to have a car, especially if your daily routine deviates from doing home -> work downtown -> home. Significantly more energy and time are lost in the suburbs. I’m concerned about long-term sustainability, and it takes tremendously less energy to walk 3 blocks to a grocery store than to drive 3 miles. For an extreme, outside the Bay Area, example, my grandmother moved to Tucson because she thought she could play with friends who live in Tucson, but then she discovered that Tucson is spread over 200 square miles, and she would have to drive an hour to reach her friend. They play much less than she expected. Not to mention the vast expanses of roads and pipes necessary to keep the suburb working. I hear the bonds that are used to finance suburb infrastructure inherently require growth, in that without growth, they would be unable to afford the upkeep. I think this is behind so many crises about poor infrastructure maintenance across the US. [3] [0] http://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/ http://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/ [1] http://default.sfplanning.org/plans-and-programs/planning-for-the-city/public-sites/balboareservoir/balboareservoir_CAC_Presentation-TDM-04132016_FINAL.pdf http://default.sfplanning.org/plans-and-programs/planning-fo... [2] https://www.sfmta.com/projects-planning/projects/transportation-demand-management https://www.sfmta.com/projects-planning/projects/transportat... [3] http://time.com/3031079/suburbs-will-die-sprawl/ http://time.com/3031079/suburbs-will-die-sprawl/

lettergram 10y ago
Maybe you're a bit too use to focused on the Bay Area/San Fransisco. > low density and poor street planning of the past You're just wrong about San Fransisco's population density being low. It is 21st most populated place per square mile in the U.S.[1]. As for you're argument that there is "induced demand" for traffic I would argue that there needs to be actual evidence for that (not a wired article). The fact is, lots of lanes create slower traffic[2], and the "induced demand" argument would mean building a bridge to no-where would suddenly make people come (which seems pretty false). Further, if you are concerned about: > I’m concerned about long-term sustainability Being more distributed reduces the need to transport water (arguably the single most important resource) vast distances. The same can be argued for energy; renewable forms of energy such as wind and solar farms are often built great distances from cities, you can place them closer to residence using them in suburbs. Not to mention, suburbs eventually becoming cities (or as populated as such). Meaning I really wouldn't worry about this "long-term," at least 50 or so years. Regardless, that's not really the point though. My argument was that the suburbs have access to at least just as much as a city, at a more affordable price. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b... [2] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019126150500055X http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191261505...