5 ms·

The fundamental problem with American cities is that Americans failed to recognize them the core engine of growth and prosperity as they are. Instead cities are

by dmode 9y ago

The fundamental problem with American cities is that Americans failed to recognize them the core engine of growth and prosperity as they are. Instead cities are viewed through a political lens. This NYC's problems are to be solved by the city/county and San Francisco's are to be solved by their local city/county politicians. The Federal government, which takes in 30% of income, chips in a very limited manner. Investing in cities such as these are often viewed as "helping a blue city" and this Fed infrastructure money is spent on building Army bases in rural areas that doesn't provide any return for that investment. Similarly many city dwellers do not recognize the economic importance of the city they live in and the role of the cities in driving growth, reducing poverty etc. Thus they hang on to things like "neighborhood character" and height limits to reduce growth. This is very different in many other countries, and especially Asian countries. There Central governments realize the value cities bring to the national economy and thus investments are prioritized. Look at China and how much investment the Chinese government puts in their big cities. Same with Japan, Korea, Taiwan, UAE, India etc. Indian government prioritized building expressway link between it's megacities. They also funded the Delhi Metro project.

toomanybeersies 9y ago
I think part of the difference is that the USA has a lot more "Tier 1" cities than other countries would have for their size. Australia really has 2 major cities (Sydney and Melbourne), and two second tier cities (Perth and Brisbane). I think it's also in part to how separated the federal government is from local governments. In Australia, tax money is collected by the federal government and then disbursed to the states (bit of a simplification). There's less of a clear delineation between "federal money" and "state money".
- adventured 9y ago
  It is slightly unusual. Germany is somewhat similar, as is China (scaled to their population). The Tokyo metro is famously 30% of the population of Japan. It'd be like LA having nearly 100 million people. The Moscow metro is 11% of Russia. The NYC metro is 6% of the US by comparison. Germany's two largest metro areas - Berlin and Ruhrgebiet - have a comparable share of its population to NYC at around 6%-7%. Stockholm is 23% of Sweden. London is nearly 21% of the UK. Paris is 18% of France. Toronto is 16% of Canada. Mexico City is 16% of Mexico. Madrid is 14% of Spain. Amsterdam is 13% of the Netherlands. Bucharest is 12% of Romania. Rome is 12% of Italy. Jakarta is around 11% of Indonesia. Lagos is 11% of Nigeria. São Paulo is 10% of Brazil. Amazingly, the Shanghai and Beijing metro areas are close to or sub 2% of China.
  - freddie_mercury 9y ago
    > Stockholm is 23% of Sweden But this is like saying "Phoenix is 23% of Arizona", which is also true. (Arizona and Sweden have roughly comparable populations, though Sweden is a bit larger.)
    - toomanybeersies 9y ago
      Not really. There isn't a governmental level above Sweden (the EU doesn't really count), but there is above Arizona.
  - zby 9y ago
    And Athens is about 35% of Greece :)
- freddie_mercury 9y ago
  Without adjusting this for population I don't know what it really tells us. Yes, Australia with a population of 24 million has fewer "Tier 1" population centers than a country with 325 million. Just going by ratios I would expect the US to have 26 Tier 1 cities. I would also expect the US and Europe to have roughly the same number of Tier 1 cities, since they have roughly the same population. I agree that the federal model of the US (which cascades down and has similar boundaries at the county & city level) is probably one of the root causes. Having "NSW Police" versus 482 city police departments in California is just one of many examples.
  - toomanybeersies 9y ago
    About 40% of the population of Australia lives in the Melbourne and Sydney metros, about evenly split. So 20% of the population lives in Sydney, and 20% in Melbourne. By contrast, the NYC metro area has around 6% of the population of the USA. But it's also about bulk number of large cities. If the federal government wants to inject funding into a large city in Australia, they have 2 options. You can't really play politics there, especially since Sydney and Melbourne have similar political makeups.
  - simongray 9y ago
    > I would also expect the US and Europe to have roughly the same number of Tier 1 cities, since they have roughly the same population. Europe's population is around twice that of the US and the EU itself has around 50% more people than the US, so that is not an entirely accurate statement.
0x4f3759df 9y ago
The suburbanization (or decentralization) was promoted by the Federal Government as a deterrent against nuclear strikes https://www.oftwominds.com/blogjuly10/suburbs-defense-07-10.html https://www.oftwominds.com/blogjuly10/suburbs-defense-07-10....
- chrischen 9y ago
  Funny how Japan actually got nuclear striken and they took the completely opposite approach.
stonogo 9y ago
This is not just an oversimplification, it is also incorrect. Military installations are put in rural areas because nobody wants artillery practice to happen near their houses. That money comes from the DoD, not generally classed as 'infrastructure spending.' Futhermore, all interstate freeways are built with federal investment, and HUD is heavily involved in funding development of low-income housing nationwide -- this is also subject to staggering amounts of NIMBYism. Mass transit is even worse -- there are major American cities who want to build, and have lined up federal funding, only to be blocked by state government intervention on behalf of more NIMBY. Baltimore's Red Line is the most recent example of this that springs to mind. So yes, this is very much a problem for city and state politics to solve -- the federal government can't invest without their cooperation. As for comparisons to Asian cities, I can only thank God that we don't handle our development that way here. Our rural residents have enough problems without repeating the mistakes of India here.
- chrischen 9y ago
  I’m not sure you can bundle India with the likes of Japan. Two totally different levels of development.
  - wemdyjreichert 9y ago
    For what it's worth, Japan is hardly a model. Huge suicide rates and elderly so lonely they turn to petty crime just so the can go to prison, along with a rapidly aging and shrinking population. A lesson, yes; a model, no.
    - eecsninja 9y ago
      I wish people would stop spreading these half truths about Japan. Japan's suicide rate is not significantly higher than that of Finland, Argentina, and the USA. South Korea is the one developed Asian country that has a notably high suicide rate.[1] And yes Japan's population is shrinking and aging, but that is mostly a rural/inaka phenomenon. Tokyo is actually growing in population and manages to have lower rents than SF, NYC, London, and HK. Not to mention a meticulously run rail system that puts the NYC MTA to shame. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide...
dominotw 9y ago
Oh man I live in jeedimetla, Hyderabad,India ( lower) middle class neighborhood. We still have buses from the 90s, no paved roads, pigs, cows, musqitos, constant steet noise, no garbage pickup, twice a week water supply, nasty industrial air. Yeah please look at India from San Francisco.

by dmode 9y ago

toomanybeersies 9y ago

I think part of the difference is that the USA has a lot more "Tier 1" cities than other countries would have for their size. Australia really has 2 major cities (Sydney and Melbourne), and two second tier cities (Perth and Brisbane). I think it's also in part to how separated the federal government is from local governments. In Australia, tax money is collected by the federal government and then disbursed to the states (bit of a simplification). There's less of a clear delineation between "federal money" and "state money".

adventured 9y ago
It is slightly unusual. Germany is somewhat similar, as is China (scaled to their population). The Tokyo metro is famously 30% of the population of Japan. It'd be like LA having nearly 100 million people. The Moscow metro is 11% of Russia. The NYC metro is 6% of the US by comparison. Germany's two largest metro areas - Berlin and Ruhrgebiet - have a comparable share of its population to NYC at around 6%-7%. Stockholm is 23% of Sweden. London is nearly 21% of the UK. Paris is 18% of France. Toronto is 16% of Canada. Mexico City is 16% of Mexico. Madrid is 14% of Spain. Amsterdam is 13% of the Netherlands. Bucharest is 12% of Romania. Rome is 12% of Italy. Jakarta is around 11% of Indonesia. Lagos is 11% of Nigeria. São Paulo is 10% of Brazil. Amazingly, the Shanghai and Beijing metro areas are close to or sub 2% of China.
- freddie_mercury 9y ago
  > Stockholm is 23% of Sweden But this is like saying "Phoenix is 23% of Arizona", which is also true. (Arizona and Sweden have roughly comparable populations, though Sweden is a bit larger.)
  - toomanybeersies 9y ago
    Not really. There isn't a governmental level above Sweden (the EU doesn't really count), but there is above Arizona.
- zby 9y ago
  And Athens is about 35% of Greece :)
freddie_mercury 9y ago
Without adjusting this for population I don't know what it really tells us. Yes, Australia with a population of 24 million has fewer "Tier 1" population centers than a country with 325 million. Just going by ratios I would expect the US to have 26 Tier 1 cities. I would also expect the US and Europe to have roughly the same number of Tier 1 cities, since they have roughly the same population. I agree that the federal model of the US (which cascades down and has similar boundaries at the county & city level) is probably one of the root causes. Having "NSW Police" versus 482 city police departments in California is just one of many examples.
- toomanybeersies 9y ago
  About 40% of the population of Australia lives in the Melbourne and Sydney metros, about evenly split. So 20% of the population lives in Sydney, and 20% in Melbourne. By contrast, the NYC metro area has around 6% of the population of the USA. But it's also about bulk number of large cities. If the federal government wants to inject funding into a large city in Australia, they have 2 options. You can't really play politics there, especially since Sydney and Melbourne have similar political makeups.
- simongray 9y ago
  > I would also expect the US and Europe to have roughly the same number of Tier 1 cities, since they have roughly the same population. Europe's population is around twice that of the US and the EU itself has around 50% more people than the US, so that is not an entirely accurate statement.

0x4f3759df 9y ago

The suburbanization (or decentralization) was promoted by the Federal Government as a deterrent against nuclear strikes https://www.oftwominds.com/blogjuly10/suburbs-defense-07-10.html https://www.oftwominds.com/blogjuly10/suburbs-defense-07-10....

chrischen 9y ago
Funny how Japan actually got nuclear striken and they took the completely opposite approach.

stonogo 9y ago

This is not just an oversimplification, it is also incorrect. Military installations are put in rural areas because nobody wants artillery practice to happen near their houses. That money comes from the DoD, not generally classed as 'infrastructure spending.' Futhermore, all interstate freeways are built with federal investment, and HUD is heavily involved in funding development of low-income housing nationwide -- this is also subject to staggering amounts of NIMBYism. Mass transit is even worse -- there are major American cities who want to build, and have lined up federal funding, only to be blocked by state government intervention on behalf of more NIMBY. Baltimore's Red Line is the most recent example of this that springs to mind. So yes, this is very much a problem for city and state politics to solve -- the federal government can't invest without their cooperation. As for comparisons to Asian cities, I can only thank God that we don't handle our development that way here. Our rural residents have enough problems without repeating the mistakes of India here.

chrischen 9y ago
I’m not sure you can bundle India with the likes of Japan. Two totally different levels of development.
- wemdyjreichert 9y ago
  For what it's worth, Japan is hardly a model. Huge suicide rates and elderly so lonely they turn to petty crime just so the can go to prison, along with a rapidly aging and shrinking population. A lesson, yes; a model, no.
  - eecsninja 9y ago
    I wish people would stop spreading these half truths about Japan. Japan's suicide rate is not significantly higher than that of Finland, Argentina, and the USA. South Korea is the one developed Asian country that has a notably high suicide rate.[1] And yes Japan's population is shrinking and aging, but that is mostly a rural/inaka phenomenon. Tokyo is actually growing in population and manages to have lower rents than SF, NYC, London, and HK. Not to mention a meticulously run rail system that puts the NYC MTA to shame. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide...

dominotw 9y ago

Oh man I live in jeedimetla, Hyderabad,India ( lower) middle class neighborhood. We still have buses from the 90s, no paved roads, pigs, cows, musqitos, constant steet noise, no garbage pickup, twice a week water supply, nasty industrial air. Yeah please look at India from San Francisco.