5 ms·

>This is the key to Tokyo and other very large metropolis cities. But they also live in small apartments and homes. I'm not convinced that Tokyo is a good exam

>This is the key to Tokyo and other very large metropolis cities. But they also live in small apartments and homes. I'm not convinced that Tokyo is a good example here. The key to this problem is to have jobs in places that aren't large urban centers. This way the population spreads out and housing becomes more affordable.

bayesian_horse 8y ago
Don't think so. There are good reasons why the existing centers are drawing more and more people and business. Moving to the outside is often detrimental. A better way may be to create new urban centers or develop lesser ones.
icebraining 8y ago
That creates gridlock, because even if people start by working close to their home, they'll change jobs and start commuting farther, and you can't have a dense network of public transport over a huge area, so people start using cars and clogging up everything.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
MagnumOpus 8y ago
> have jobs in places that aren't large urban centers That creates a very different lower-density city. Think about a sprawl like LA rather than a squeeze like Manhattan. Public transport won't work but parking spaces might actually exist. Your Afghan Bagel place will be 1 hour drive rather than 15 minute by subway on the way to work etc. More space, but less selection and diversity in terms of food, entertainment and other venues.
- theandrewbailey 8y ago
  Perhaps we can have jobs in smaller mid-size cities instead of only in big heavily populated (5+ million) metro areas.
vvillena 8y ago
This is also how Tokyo does it. There's no main, well-defined downtown where people go to work. Spreading the commutes across the whole transport network is a tremendous optimization.
helen___keller 8y ago
I don't completely agree with your assumption that living in Tokyo means you need to live in a shoebox (and especially not in Osaka which is about 2/3rds the price of Tokyo), but actually I think there's a case for cheap, somewhat-cramped housing with good transit access to the city, for those who want it. In Japan, a middle class family can own a somewhat cramped (say 900 sqft?) 3bedroom house/apartment walking distance to a world class rail system and generally walking distance to schools and some stores too. In America's top cities, a middle class family can't afford to own a 3 bedroom apartment with rail access generally, so they move outside the city to the suburbs where they often have to drive to work - which means they need to buy a car, buy gas, etc But if you don't want the lawn and the picket fence, why is this the only option available? We've taken a one-size-fits-all approach with covering the vast majority of the country with big suburban houses, and the free market is proving people want options, evidenced by wildly inflating prices of urban properties.
- beauzero 8y ago
  ...also loans (in the USA) are determined on the size of the house as collateral. You are incentivized to buy a large house and small land. I would rather buy large land and a small house so that I can grow more food, trees, other natural resources. Our family has no need for a large house and they are inefficient to cool and heat.
  - vonmoltke 8y ago
    > ...also loans (in the USA) are determined on the size of the house as collateral. What are you talking about? The collateral is the full property, not just the structure.
pj_mukh 8y ago
Please don't spread out. Leave the forests and grasslands alone and don't just keep adding subdivisions just so people can have manicured lawns. Its fair to say that the jobs could move to other city centers, but the solution isn't suburbia. What would it take for America to have 20 New Yorks, instead of 50 Atlantas [1] [1]: https://www.citylab.com/life/2014/04/ranking-most-sprawling-us-metro-areas-and-why-you-should-care/8782/ https://www.citylab.com/life/2014/04/ranking-most-sprawling-...

bayesian_horse 8y ago

Don't think so. There are good reasons why the existing centers are drawing more and more people and business. Moving to the outside is often detrimental. A better way may be to create new urban centers or develop lesser ones.

icebraining 8y ago

That creates gridlock, because even if people start by working close to their home, they'll change jobs and start commuting farther, and you can't have a dense network of public transport over a huge area, so people start using cars and clogging up everything.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

MagnumOpus 8y ago

> have jobs in places that aren't large urban centers That creates a very different lower-density city. Think about a sprawl like LA rather than a squeeze like Manhattan. Public transport won't work but parking spaces might actually exist. Your Afghan Bagel place will be 1 hour drive rather than 15 minute by subway on the way to work etc. More space, but less selection and diversity in terms of food, entertainment and other venues.

theandrewbailey 8y ago
Perhaps we can have jobs in smaller mid-size cities instead of only in big heavily populated (5+ million) metro areas.

vvillena 8y ago

This is also how Tokyo does it. There's no main, well-defined downtown where people go to work. Spreading the commutes across the whole transport network is a tremendous optimization.

helen___keller 8y ago

I don't completely agree with your assumption that living in Tokyo means you need to live in a shoebox (and especially not in Osaka which is about 2/3rds the price of Tokyo), but actually I think there's a case for cheap, somewhat-cramped housing with good transit access to the city, for those who want it. In Japan, a middle class family can own a somewhat cramped (say 900 sqft?) 3bedroom house/apartment walking distance to a world class rail system and generally walking distance to schools and some stores too. In America's top cities, a middle class family can't afford to own a 3 bedroom apartment with rail access generally, so they move outside the city to the suburbs where they often have to drive to work - which means they need to buy a car, buy gas, etc But if you don't want the lawn and the picket fence, why is this the only option available? We've taken a one-size-fits-all approach with covering the vast majority of the country with big suburban houses, and the free market is proving people want options, evidenced by wildly inflating prices of urban properties.

beauzero 8y ago
...also loans (in the USA) are determined on the size of the house as collateral. You are incentivized to buy a large house and small land. I would rather buy large land and a small house so that I can grow more food, trees, other natural resources. Our family has no need for a large house and they are inefficient to cool and heat.
- vonmoltke 8y ago
  > ...also loans (in the USA) are determined on the size of the house as collateral. What are you talking about? The collateral is the full property, not just the structure.

pj_mukh 8y ago

Please don't spread out. Leave the forests and grasslands alone and don't just keep adding subdivisions just so people can have manicured lawns. Its fair to say that the jobs could move to other city centers, but the solution isn't suburbia. What would it take for America to have 20 New Yorks, instead of 50 Atlantas [1] [1]: https://www.citylab.com/life/2014/04/ranking-most-sprawling-us-metro-areas-and-why-you-should-care/8782/ https://www.citylab.com/life/2014/04/ranking-most-sprawling-...