4 ms·

Trying not to be uncharitable here, but, if you live in Midtown, then why are you making assertions about Connecticut? Apparently you know your comment wasn't

by mildbow 10y ago

Trying not to be uncharitable here, but, if you live in Midtown, then why are you making assertions about Connecticut? Apparently you know your comment wasn't too truthful which is why you backed off with "I live in Midtown [..even so..] I can't get downtown in less than an hour". So, what exactly was the point of your comment? Also note: household of 2 is not a household when talking about middle-class income. Why? Well, household of 2 adults is basically the best case scenario financially (both have jobs without additional dependents). As a anecdote/data point: even making >300+k with both parents working still is a drag in NYC when you have 2 kids, regardless of what BS you hear online.

JumpCrisscross 10y ago
> if you live in Midtown, then why are you making assertions about Connecticut? I've lived in Stamford. I would not want to live there again. Between ample space, proximity and disposable cash, I chose the latter two. If I wanted more space, Connecticut offers a fair deal for saving money or being close to the train station. > you know your comment wasn't too truthful Not sure why you went straight for the deep end. It's the holidays. I'm budgeting 45 minutes to the Upper West Side. The smiley implied facetiousness. It's 50 minutes from Grand Central to Stamford [1]. That's comparable to the average American's 25-minute commute [2]. My core and recurring point is simply that cities are defined by density. If you want lots of space, you're fighting the current. [1] http://as0.mta.info/mnr/schedules/sched_form.cfm http://as0.mta.info/mnr/schedules/sched_form.cfm [2] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/05/americans-commutes-not-getting-longer/1963409/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/05/america...
- mildbow 10y ago
  tbh, I went for the "deep end" because your formula that one needs to "choose 2" as a fact of life is weird to me. Your point of "choose 2" isn't anything more than a compromise you've made. That is, not something that is "correct" but a compromise you've settled on. I'm happy for you to settle on that as a baseline for your life, but it irks me to hear you spout it as a "truth".
  - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
    > your formula...as a fact of life is weird to me Cities are defined by density. What makes them valuable is density. Density is people per unit of space. You can do some things going vertically, but there are costs and limits associated with that, both practical and political. Lots of people in high density means low average space per person. If you want more space it will be expensive and eat into your cash. If you want to keep that cash, you don't have options in a high-density city. Yes, you can have all three with lots of cash. But you can't have a city with most having lots of space, because that means they live in low density and are no longer in a city.

by mildbow 10y ago

JumpCrisscross 10y ago

> if you live in Midtown, then why are you making assertions about Connecticut? I've lived in Stamford. I would not want to live there again. Between ample space, proximity and disposable cash, I chose the latter two. If I wanted more space, Connecticut offers a fair deal for saving money or being close to the train station. > you know your comment wasn't too truthful Not sure why you went straight for the deep end. It's the holidays. I'm budgeting 45 minutes to the Upper West Side. The smiley implied facetiousness. It's 50 minutes from Grand Central to Stamford [1]. That's comparable to the average American's 25-minute commute [2]. My core and recurring point is simply that cities are defined by density. If you want lots of space, you're fighting the current. [1] http://as0.mta.info/mnr/schedules/sched_form.cfm http://as0.mta.info/mnr/schedules/sched_form.cfm [2] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/05/americans-commutes-not-getting-longer/1963409/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/05/america...

mildbow 10y ago
tbh, I went for the "deep end" because your formula that one needs to "choose 2" as a fact of life is weird to me. Your point of "choose 2" isn't anything more than a compromise you've made. That is, not something that is "correct" but a compromise you've settled on. I'm happy for you to settle on that as a baseline for your life, but it irks me to hear you spout it as a "truth".
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  > your formula...as a fact of life is weird to me Cities are defined by density. What makes them valuable is density. Density is people per unit of space. You can do some things going vertically, but there are costs and limits associated with that, both practical and political. Lots of people in high density means low average space per person. If you want more space it will be expensive and eat into your cash. If you want to keep that cash, you don't have options in a high-density city. Yes, you can have all three with lots of cash. But you can't have a city with most having lots of space, because that means they live in low density and are no longer in a city.