3 ms·

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 "othe

by 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
  I understand what PER CAPITA means and I was stating explicitly that the claims being made were, on a PER CAPITA basis, erroneous. A plot of land can only be home to several thousand people if you are willing to pay a lot of money to build it in that fashion. Building up is not a cost saving measure, it is a demand placed upon a plot of land as a consequence of population density. Building suburban homes for several thousand people will occupy more land than a dense urban apartment tower, but it will be an order of magnitude cheaper to build in the first place.
  - lkrubner 16y ago
    You write: "Building up is not a cost saving measure" There has been a consistent misreading in this thread, focusing on cost. My focus was not on cost, but on resource use. Nowhere did I suggest that cities were cheaper than the suburbs. I stated above that building in a city is pricier than building in the suburbs. However, my point was, the suburbs use more resources. The biggest resource that is used in the suburbs is land. Per capita, the suburbs use up much more land than the cities do. The geographical dispersion leads to more resource use in the suburbs. Consider electricity being carried over a wire. Some energy is lost for every kilometer the energy needs to be carried. In a city, you might have 100,000 people living in just a few blocks - the energy does not need to travel far, per capita. In the suburbs, the same 100,000 people might be spread out over many kilometers. I have not mentioned the environmental impact, but we could discuss that too. The suburbs use up a lot of land. The suburbs have a major impact on forests and lakes and rivers, and the wildlife that depends on those forests and lakes and rivers. It might help to engage in a thought experiment about how much land you could free up if all people clumped together in an urban area as dense as New York City. In the USA, the states of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire and Massachusetts have a combined population a little over 9 million. New York City has a population a bit more than 8 million. Basically, if you wanted to pack all these people into another New York, you would have a city smaller than Massachusetts, and Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire would be pure, untouched, pristine forest. Mind you, I am not suggesting this is a practical idea, I'm simply offering this as a thought experiment, as a way of imagining some of the environmental benefits of density.
lkrubner 16y ago
You write: "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." As I have said repeatedly, my focus was not on cost but on resource use. Cities use land more efficiently than suburbs. Nowhere did I say that cities were cheaper than the suburbs. I said that the cities were pricier than the suburbs. The cost and the resource use are 2 different things. In fact, you could argue that land in a city is more expensive precisely because the land is being used more efficiently. Per capita, a city uses less land than the suburbs. This is almost definitional. A city is efficient in its use of land. Land is an important resource. This is an example of how cities are more efficient in their use of resources.

by evgen 16y ago

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
I understand what PER CAPITA means and I was stating explicitly that the claims being made were, on a PER CAPITA basis, erroneous. A plot of land can only be home to several thousand people if you are willing to pay a lot of money to build it in that fashion. Building up is not a cost saving measure, it is a demand placed upon a plot of land as a consequence of population density. Building suburban homes for several thousand people will occupy more land than a dense urban apartment tower, but it will be an order of magnitude cheaper to build in the first place.
- lkrubner 16y ago
  You write: "Building up is not a cost saving measure" There has been a consistent misreading in this thread, focusing on cost. My focus was not on cost, but on resource use. Nowhere did I suggest that cities were cheaper than the suburbs. I stated above that building in a city is pricier than building in the suburbs. However, my point was, the suburbs use more resources. The biggest resource that is used in the suburbs is land. Per capita, the suburbs use up much more land than the cities do. The geographical dispersion leads to more resource use in the suburbs. Consider electricity being carried over a wire. Some energy is lost for every kilometer the energy needs to be carried. In a city, you might have 100,000 people living in just a few blocks - the energy does not need to travel far, per capita. In the suburbs, the same 100,000 people might be spread out over many kilometers. I have not mentioned the environmental impact, but we could discuss that too. The suburbs use up a lot of land. The suburbs have a major impact on forests and lakes and rivers, and the wildlife that depends on those forests and lakes and rivers. It might help to engage in a thought experiment about how much land you could free up if all people clumped together in an urban area as dense as New York City. In the USA, the states of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire and Massachusetts have a combined population a little over 9 million. New York City has a population a bit more than 8 million. Basically, if you wanted to pack all these people into another New York, you would have a city smaller than Massachusetts, and Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire would be pure, untouched, pristine forest. Mind you, I am not suggesting this is a practical idea, I'm simply offering this as a thought experiment, as a way of imagining some of the environmental benefits of density.

lkrubner 16y ago

You write: "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." As I have said repeatedly, my focus was not on cost but on resource use. Cities use land more efficiently than suburbs. Nowhere did I say that cities were cheaper than the suburbs. I said that the cities were pricier than the suburbs. The cost and the resource use are 2 different things. In fact, you could argue that land in a city is more expensive precisely because the land is being used more efficiently. Per capita, a city uses less land than the suburbs. This is almost definitional. A city is efficient in its use of land. Land is an important resource. This is an example of how cities are more efficient in their use of resources.