4 ms·

Why is this being downvoted? Does someone want to make the argument that life in suburbs in less resource intensive per capita than life in a dense urban core?

Why is this being downvoted? Does someone want to make the argument that life in suburbs in less resource intensive per capita than life in a dense urban core? If so, they should make that argument and I'll make my counter-argument. But my point is fairly obvious: people living close together can share be provided with infrastructure with less resources per capita, or to put it another way, the denser the population the more intensely used any given piece of infrastructure is likely to be used (the same point, stated the other way round). Think of a road in New York City, and then think of a road west of Washington DC, in the suburbs of Virginia. Which gets more use? I suspect that anyone wanting to downvote my comment is someone who themselves lives in the suburbs, and they are downvoting my comment because my post makes them uncomfortable. But just because an idea makes you uncomfortable doesn't make it untrue. My point is entirely valid, and it is correct.

usaar333 16y ago
I didn't downvote, but I am not convinced infrastructure cost is that much higher in the suburbs. In a dense core, maintenance and development are vastly much costlier than in the suburbs Acquiring land for any project is going to be harder and pricier. If you close a road in a suburb to do work on it or do other construction, no big deal; in a city, you create horrible traffic problems. Politically you have to deal with 3-4x as many people per mile work of anything in a city. In an urban environment, sure fuel costs per person drop drastically, but when other costs are taken into account, I remain unconvinced it is so much cheaper. Just look how expensive it is to live in a big city in the US relative to a suburb.
- lkrubner 16y ago
  You do not understand what I've written. No where did I mention absolute price. I am talking strictly about resources used per capita. Let me emphasize that: PER CAPITA You write: "Acquiring land for any project is going to be harder and pricier. " Yes, obviously. Of course the land is pricier in the big urban cities. This has nothing to do with what I wrote. The resources used PER CAPITA in suburbs will be greater than the resources used PER CAPITA in a dense urban core, other things being equal. This is a simple matter of space and resource use. Resources will tend to be more heavily used in a dense urban core, therefore society gains more benefit from that those resources, assuming the point of the resource is to be used. Compare the use of fuel in the city, and fuel in suburbs. Much fuel in the suburb is spent on automobiles, which are well known to be inefficient. In a city you will have mass transit, which offers a more efficient use of fuel, per capita. You write: "In an urban environment, sure fuel costs per person drop drastically, but when other costs are taken into account, I remain unconvinced it is so much cheaper." Nowhere did I say the city was cheaper than the suburbs. I suggest the opposite - the suburbs are cheaper than the cities. And I suggest the reason why - it is because the suburbs are subsidized to a greater extent than the cities. There is a large literature on this subject in the field of urban planning.
  - evgen 16y ago
    When you talk about "subsidies" for abstract "resources" and then try to decouple them from the available market in these resources (through such terms as "other things being equal") you are engaging in a bit of sophistry. Yes, resource usage may be greater per capita in the suburbs, but the most expensive resource in most cases is space/land and it is very, very expensive in urban cores. Urban space is so expensive that it often washes out the more efficient usage of other resources that density can offer. You can claim that in a city people will have mass transit available, but with only a few exceptions in the US that mass transit is underutilized and really only serves to get a small fraction of the urban residents to work and back; it does not serve other daily needs quite as well, so after taking mass transit back from work you will hop into your car to go get groceries or go out for some entertainment in the evening. If these magical subsidies truly existed at the level you are suggesting they would be both obvious and a source of growing political friction given the re-urbanization of the American population. Could you point out some examples of these subsidies? [And before you start, "fuel" does not really count since it cuts both ways in this argument and urban residents to not lead significantly more fuel efficient lives than their suburban counterparts.]
    - meric 16y ago
      "Urban space is so expensive that it often washes out the more efficient usage of other resources that density can offer." Err... He capitalized "PER CAPITA". In cities, a piece of land the size of 6 suburban homes (counting backyard) can be home to several thousand people, that's why land is expensive. Go to Hong Kong, you'll see apartment buildings with 40 floors. On each floor there are 20 units. In each unit there are 2 rooms, a living room, a kitchen and a toilet. Each room is 2.5 metres by 2.5 metres, the living room 3 times that. Anywhere from 2 to 6 people can live in a single unit, but usually 4; The government doesn't hand out public housing with 2 rooms to only 2 people. 4 * 20 * 40 is over 3200 residents. In the suburbs the same land is home to only around two dozen people. Thus it would make sense that in Hong Kong land could be a hundred times more expensive than in a suburb anywhere else.
      - evgen 16y ago
krschultz 16y ago
I've lived in a city, I've lived in a suburb. I like the city far better. I disagree with your point on resources. Energy wise, the people in the city use far less. But that is mostly becuase they have smaller apartments and use less heat. Give everyone in the suburbs 800 sq ft and then run the comparison again. You definition of "resource" is a little strange. Would the pebbles in the asphalt on a street in NYC see more tires run over them per year than the pebbles in the asphalt in the suburbs. Probably true. When you look at the cost of maitaining a mile of road in NYC and compare it to a mile of road in the suburbs, the difference is striking. You are spending 10x+ for everything in the city because it is a logistics nightmare. Even something as simple as a dedicated fiber line for a business, in the suburbs they can just run a line underground easily. In the city, it is a major problem becuase everything underground is already filled, so it comes down to getting a permit to run a line through the underground manholes (an existing, and very limited, resource) and it can be difficult if not impossible. Not to mention compare a house made of 2x4s, plywood, to one made of steel and brick. Wood grows back. Steel doesn't. Steel also uses an insane amount of energy. And construction in the city is very time consuming, energy consuming, and expensive.

usaar333 16y ago

I didn't downvote, but I am not convinced infrastructure cost is that much higher in the suburbs. In a dense core, maintenance and development are vastly much costlier than in the suburbs Acquiring land for any project is going to be harder and pricier. If you close a road in a suburb to do work on it or do other construction, no big deal; in a city, you create horrible traffic problems. Politically you have to deal with 3-4x as many people per mile work of anything in a city. In an urban environment, sure fuel costs per person drop drastically, but when other costs are taken into account, I remain unconvinced it is so much cheaper. Just look how expensive it is to live in a big city in the US relative to a suburb.

lkrubner 16y ago
You do not understand what I've written. No where did I mention absolute price. I am talking strictly about resources used per capita. Let me emphasize that: PER CAPITA You write: "Acquiring land for any project is going to be harder and pricier. " Yes, obviously. Of course the land is pricier in the big urban cities. This has nothing to do with what I wrote. The resources used PER CAPITA in suburbs will be greater than the resources used PER CAPITA in a dense urban core, other things being equal. This is a simple matter of space and resource use. Resources will tend to be more heavily used in a dense urban core, therefore society gains more benefit from that those resources, assuming the point of the resource is to be used. Compare the use of fuel in the city, and fuel in suburbs. Much fuel in the suburb is spent on automobiles, which are well known to be inefficient. In a city you will have mass transit, which offers a more efficient use of fuel, per capita. You write: "In an urban environment, sure fuel costs per person drop drastically, but when other costs are taken into account, I remain unconvinced it is so much cheaper." Nowhere did I say the city was cheaper than the suburbs. I suggest the opposite - the suburbs are cheaper than the cities. And I suggest the reason why - it is because the suburbs are subsidized to a greater extent than the cities. There is a large literature on this subject in the field of urban planning.
- evgen 16y ago
  When you talk about "subsidies" for abstract "resources" and then try to decouple them from the available market in these resources (through such terms as "other things being equal") you are engaging in a bit of sophistry. Yes, resource usage may be greater per capita in the suburbs, but the most expensive resource in most cases is space/land and it is very, very expensive in urban cores. Urban space is so expensive that it often washes out the more efficient usage of other resources that density can offer. You can claim that in a city people will have mass transit available, but with only a few exceptions in the US that mass transit is underutilized and really only serves to get a small fraction of the urban residents to work and back; it does not serve other daily needs quite as well, so after taking mass transit back from work you will hop into your car to go get groceries or go out for some entertainment in the evening. If these magical subsidies truly existed at the level you are suggesting they would be both obvious and a source of growing political friction given the re-urbanization of the American population. Could you point out some examples of these subsidies? [And before you start, "fuel" does not really count since it cuts both ways in this argument and urban residents to not lead significantly more fuel efficient lives than their suburban counterparts.]
  - meric 16y ago
    "Urban space is so expensive that it often washes out the more efficient usage of other resources that density can offer." Err... He capitalized "PER CAPITA". In cities, a piece of land the size of 6 suburban homes (counting backyard) can be home to several thousand people, that's why land is expensive. Go to Hong Kong, you'll see apartment buildings with 40 floors. On each floor there are 20 units. In each unit there are 2 rooms, a living room, a kitchen and a toilet. Each room is 2.5 metres by 2.5 metres, the living room 3 times that. Anywhere from 2 to 6 people can live in a single unit, but usually 4; The government doesn't hand out public housing with 2 rooms to only 2 people. 4 * 20 * 40 is over 3200 residents. In the suburbs the same land is home to only around two dozen people. Thus it would make sense that in Hong Kong land could be a hundred times more expensive than in a suburb anywhere else.
    - evgen 16y ago

krschultz 16y ago

I've lived in a city, I've lived in a suburb. I like the city far better. I disagree with your point on resources. Energy wise, the people in the city use far less. But that is mostly becuase they have smaller apartments and use less heat. Give everyone in the suburbs 800 sq ft and then run the comparison again. You definition of "resource" is a little strange. Would the pebbles in the asphalt on a street in NYC see more tires run over them per year than the pebbles in the asphalt in the suburbs. Probably true. When you look at the cost of maitaining a mile of road in NYC and compare it to a mile of road in the suburbs, the difference is striking. You are spending 10x+ for everything in the city because it is a logistics nightmare. Even something as simple as a dedicated fiber line for a business, in the suburbs they can just run a line underground easily. In the city, it is a major problem becuase everything underground is already filled, so it comes down to getting a permit to run a line through the underground manholes (an existing, and very limited, resource) and it can be difficult if not impossible. Not to mention compare a house made of 2x4s, plywood, to one made of steel and brick. Wood grows back. Steel doesn't. Steel also uses an insane amount of energy. And construction in the city is very time consuming, energy consuming, and expensive.