5 ms·

I don't particularly want to live in the middle of a corn-field though, I want to live near my friends, and live near other stuff that we're all into, which mea

by bigdubs 10y ago

I don't particularly want to live in the middle of a corn-field though, I want to live near my friends, and live near other stuff that we're all into, which means cities, which means smaller areas.

mc32 10y ago
But people don't have to clump only in megacities. They can clump in midsized cities throughout the Midwest and elsewhere. There is no reason there can't be more Portlands or Minneapolises in the Midwest, for example. You take all those 2,500 to 40,000 communities and build around one or the other and soak up the surrounding communities to make bigger and richer communities.
- sporkenfang 10y ago
  That sounds wonderful. Just as soon as you pry the car culture and suburbs from the hands of the folks who live in say Kansas and enjoy the status quo...
  - nocman 10y ago
    Not everyone who lives in the U. S. wants to live in a city. Are you suggesting we should give up our right to chose where we want to live so you can have more small cities?
    - dublinben 10y ago
      There is every indication that more people would like to live in cities, but can't afford to.
      - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
        Pittsburg seems nice enough but seems to be pretty reasonable. Dallas? I'd say very nice, with a mix of suburbs and city spaces and a much nicer set of roads and light rail than was there in the 1980s. Perhaps there is compromise? Perhaps this is really only a real problem in SanFran and NYC. Even NYC has The Bronx and good rail service.
        sporkenfang 10y ago
        I find Dallas horrifically laid out. Too many suburbs, too many big roads, waste of space. Pittsburgh and all the other cities that boomed during the 'great' periods of America have the same problem, which, notably, San Francisco and NYC have somewhat less of -- big roads for big cars, and big garages to take those cars home to. The problem isn't sparseness or density, it's a combination of readily available fossil fuels and mindset, I believe.
        ArkyBeagle 10y ago
        Dallas proper has pretty good light rail which extends all the way to some of what used to be considered exurbs ( like McKinney ). There's the usual clusters of 3-7ish story condo blocks in spots, towards University, around Deep Ellum. Even in Plano, close to the tracks. If the position is simply to oppose cars altogether, then I don't know where you can go. But I suppose you can find a bus to take you there...
      - dasil003 10y ago
        There are also a lot of people who don't want to live in big cities, but do it for the economic opportunity.
      - gozur88 10y ago
        Paying more for housing is part of moving to a big city.
    - mc32 10y ago
      I'd never suggest giving up the right to live where you want while you have the means. We can have both mice smallish but well-cultured cities that respect their surroundings as well as have vibrant rural communities. Think Heidelberg and its surrounds, maybe Ithaca in NY.
  - mc32 10y ago
    I think you can but you have to have something to divert the kids who graduate away from going to the big cities and have them build local cities [with local attractions such as jobs, education, cultural things, entertainment options]. Sure it will evacuate some of the rural areas some, but it should build nicer --perhaps even semi-planned areas, close by. It would require some central planning, which is a bit antithetical to us Americans but some people from other places might relate. And sure, some people do like living closer to nature. I acknowledge we have a nice core of people who love nature and land and cultivating the earth, what have you --they can still have their smaller ag-centered communities.
- maxsilver 10y ago
  > There is no reason there can't be more Portlands or Minneapolises in the Midwest, for example. In theory, sure. But in practice, there are a lot of reasons why there aren't (or won't) be more of those types of places. The Midwest is strongly anti-city. In terms of culture, lifestyle, economics, politics, etc. Even self-described "urbanists" in the midwest are typically strongly anti-city (their goal is usually to reproduce the problems of existing cities, not to attempt any solutions). It's not like there is a shortage of small cities in the Midwest. There's a reason no one is excited to move to Toledo, or Lansing, or South Bend.
  - mc32 10y ago
    >There's a reason no one is excited to move to Toledo, or Lansing, or South Bend I think if we look at what made these cities we can understand their current standing --but with effort they can change. Portland was not always Portland; Austin wasn't always Austin. People need to invest and put in effort to drive these places to where they want them. They sure don't have to be replicas of NYC or LA, or SF. They can bring to them what they find valuable while at the same time changing with the times to accommodate and attract or keep their youth as they move into the workforce from Uni. They can transform these small-to-mid-sized cities into attractive cities with (youthful) Midwestern values.
- PeterisP 10y ago
  The same reasons that make a midsize city more attractive than a cornfield also make a large city more attractive than a midsize city. As a rule, larger population center enables more and better cultural options, more and better education options, more and better industries and choice of jobs - There's a zillion of things that aren't feasible in a 100k city simply due to lack of scale.
zanny 10y ago
You can blame property tax funded roads and state sales tax funded electrical. In absolute dollars, especially on the order of decades, medium density (3-5 stories, depending on foundation needs up to 10) is the "maximally" efficient housing right now. As building materials and efficiency improve, denser structures become more economical, but the fundamental reality is that the cost of the infrastructure to support rural or suburban areas are gigantic, on such an order that while building wood houses in the forest is cheaper in the immediate term than concrete, supplying it with infrastructure access is dramatically more costly. But we subsidize private real estate with public infrastructure paid for by not-the-developer. It biases the market towards less dense housing because the costs are absorbed by either an entire township, the entire state, or the entire country.

by bigdubs 10y ago

I don't particularly want to live in the middle of a corn-field though, I want to live near my friends, and live near other stuff that we're all into, which means cities, which means smaller areas.

mc32 10y ago

But people don't have to clump only in megacities. They can clump in midsized cities throughout the Midwest and elsewhere. There is no reason there can't be more Portlands or Minneapolises in the Midwest, for example. You take all those 2,500 to 40,000 communities and build around one or the other and soak up the surrounding communities to make bigger and richer communities.

sporkenfang 10y ago
That sounds wonderful. Just as soon as you pry the car culture and suburbs from the hands of the folks who live in say Kansas and enjoy the status quo...
- nocman 10y ago
  Not everyone who lives in the U. S. wants to live in a city. Are you suggesting we should give up our right to chose where we want to live so you can have more small cities?
  - dublinben 10y ago
    There is every indication that more people would like to live in cities, but can't afford to.
    - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
      Pittsburg seems nice enough but seems to be pretty reasonable. Dallas? I'd say very nice, with a mix of suburbs and city spaces and a much nicer set of roads and light rail than was there in the 1980s. Perhaps there is compromise? Perhaps this is really only a real problem in SanFran and NYC. Even NYC has The Bronx and good rail service.
      - sporkenfang 10y ago
        I find Dallas horrifically laid out. Too many suburbs, too many big roads, waste of space. Pittsburgh and all the other cities that boomed during the 'great' periods of America have the same problem, which, notably, San Francisco and NYC have somewhat less of -- big roads for big cars, and big garages to take those cars home to. The problem isn't sparseness or density, it's a combination of readily available fossil fuels and mindset, I believe.
        ArkyBeagle 10y ago
        Dallas proper has pretty good light rail which extends all the way to some of what used to be considered exurbs ( like McKinney ). There's the usual clusters of 3-7ish story condo blocks in spots, towards University, around Deep Ellum. Even in Plano, close to the tracks. If the position is simply to oppose cars altogether, then I don't know where you can go. But I suppose you can find a bus to take you there...
    - dasil003 10y ago
      There are also a lot of people who don't want to live in big cities, but do it for the economic opportunity.
    - gozur88 10y ago
      Paying more for housing is part of moving to a big city.
  - mc32 10y ago
    I'd never suggest giving up the right to live where you want while you have the means. We can have both mice smallish but well-cultured cities that respect their surroundings as well as have vibrant rural communities. Think Heidelberg and its surrounds, maybe Ithaca in NY.
- mc32 10y ago
  I think you can but you have to have something to divert the kids who graduate away from going to the big cities and have them build local cities [with local attractions such as jobs, education, cultural things, entertainment options]. Sure it will evacuate some of the rural areas some, but it should build nicer --perhaps even semi-planned areas, close by. It would require some central planning, which is a bit antithetical to us Americans but some people from other places might relate. And sure, some people do like living closer to nature. I acknowledge we have a nice core of people who love nature and land and cultivating the earth, what have you --they can still have their smaller ag-centered communities.
maxsilver 10y ago
> There is no reason there can't be more Portlands or Minneapolises in the Midwest, for example. In theory, sure. But in practice, there are a lot of reasons why there aren't (or won't) be more of those types of places. The Midwest is strongly anti-city. In terms of culture, lifestyle, economics, politics, etc. Even self-described "urbanists" in the midwest are typically strongly anti-city (their goal is usually to reproduce the problems of existing cities, not to attempt any solutions). It's not like there is a shortage of small cities in the Midwest. There's a reason no one is excited to move to Toledo, or Lansing, or South Bend.
- mc32 10y ago
  >There's a reason no one is excited to move to Toledo, or Lansing, or South Bend I think if we look at what made these cities we can understand their current standing --but with effort they can change. Portland was not always Portland; Austin wasn't always Austin. People need to invest and put in effort to drive these places to where they want them. They sure don't have to be replicas of NYC or LA, or SF. They can bring to them what they find valuable while at the same time changing with the times to accommodate and attract or keep their youth as they move into the workforce from Uni. They can transform these small-to-mid-sized cities into attractive cities with (youthful) Midwestern values.
PeterisP 10y ago
The same reasons that make a midsize city more attractive than a cornfield also make a large city more attractive than a midsize city. As a rule, larger population center enables more and better cultural options, more and better education options, more and better industries and choice of jobs - There's a zillion of things that aren't feasible in a 100k city simply due to lack of scale.

zanny 10y ago

You can blame property tax funded roads and state sales tax funded electrical. In absolute dollars, especially on the order of decades, medium density (3-5 stories, depending on foundation needs up to 10) is the "maximally" efficient housing right now. As building materials and efficiency improve, denser structures become more economical, but the fundamental reality is that the cost of the infrastructure to support rural or suburban areas are gigantic, on such an order that while building wood houses in the forest is cheaper in the immediate term than concrete, supplying it with infrastructure access is dramatically more costly. But we subsidize private real estate with public infrastructure paid for by not-the-developer. It biases the market towards less dense housing because the costs are absorbed by either an entire township, the entire state, or the entire country.