5 ms·

As it relates to the US, this post had interesting ideas regarding urban development, and no grasp at all of suburban development. While urban lifestyles are b

by cjf4 7y ago

As it relates to the US, this post had interesting ideas regarding urban development, and no grasp at all of suburban development. While urban lifestyles are becoming more fashionable in the US, growth is higher in the suburbs[1]. Whether this is because suburbs are the only option for people moving to new cities (as urban cores become "full"), or because Americans (including millennials) are much more comfortable with suburban lifestyles than they are given credit for is up for debate. But to speak as if a sharp turn towards public transit based cityscapes is America's fait accompli betrays a serious lack of understanding of the country and it's people as they currently are. [1]https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2019/05/24/big-city-growth-stalls-further-as-the-suburbs-make-a-comeback/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2019/05/24/big-cit...

ghaff 7y ago
Certain groups/bubbles look at their friends who, like themselves, tend to be college-educated, relatively well paid, young, childless, etc. and conclude that everyone is (or at least wants to) move into urban cores. In fact, there is a general migration out of areas like the rust belt and many very rural towns to places where there are more jobs. But the migration into urban cores is mostly fairly specific demographic groups into a relatively small number of elite cities. Which is a notable change from the net outflow as recently as 20 years ago. But it's still a relatively modest shift in the scheme of things.
- xxpor 7y ago
  Mostly because we've made it such that they're the only people who can afford to move into city cores any more.
  - ghaff 7y ago
    There are still a lot of people who could afford to live in an urban core but choose not to.
- Mountain_Skies 7y ago
  Wonder if Starlink and other LEO internet services will make rural living accessible to high salary remote workers. While the rural lifestyle isn't for everyone, it's the extreme that would also open the door to exurban and small town living. Add in online shopping and ever evolving streaming entertainment options, it wouldn't be surprising if many small towns and rural areas saw new migration into them.
  - ghaff 7y ago
    I've known people who have remote worked in tech with just satellite. It's not ideal/cheap and there are definitely compromises especially as video becomes more and more part of everything. So it can be done today, albeit with compromises. 5G could potentially improve the situation as well.
    - Mountain_Skies 7y ago
      A few years ago I saw a video on YouTube of a developer at Microsoft who lived in a yurt in rural Montana or Idaho. Seemed to work pretty well for him and his girlfriend. Though they never said it, I got the feeling that they did sometimes go into town for a bandwidth run now and then, probably for large uploads. If I'm not mistaken 5G is line of sight. If so, might be more useful in flat areas than up in the mountains though repeaters could make that work.
      - ghaff 7y ago
        Certainly none of today's alternatives to broadband are great. And I don't really know to what degree and under what circumstances 5G will help. But, yeah, it can be done even in the context of a lot of tech jobs. It does require making compromises though. Probably little or no streaming video, for example.
    - that_jojo 7y ago
      I couldn't even imagine. My family upgraded from dialup to satellite around 2006 as a luxury, and the latency was basically unworkable for anything remotely realtime. Even for a reasonably decent plan, the caps were also ridiculous as well. I could realistically watch maybe 45 minutes of YouTube per month.
abernard1 7y ago
Indeed. There is also this statement: > It’s not even an imposition. It’s opportunity. People can live in high-quality housing with access to extensive social as well as job networks Here's the author is saying that "high-quality" housing and social network is supposedly stronger in urban areas. With regards to housing quality, I think the urban/suburban quality is highly debatable. In terms of social network as well, I think this is probably most true in the context of "professional network". Many people move to more suburban or rural areas precisely because of feelings of alienation and lack of personal connection traditionally associated with large urban areas. This has been remarked on by social observers for well over a century. The most ironic thing about this whole post though is that it gives no credence to how the "future" predicted by the '90s kind of won: The Internet has made many professional and communication opportunities available to people wherever they may live. While we might not live in that IBM commercial version of an anonymized future where "The Internet does not care if you are X", we do live in a world where the internet has disseminated many of the traditional benefits of cities (and "civilization") to wherever a person may live. Knowledge, education, communication, art, work: all of these are much easier to obtain outside of cities now, and that has massively factored into why our current "future" has allowed that demographic shift into the suburbs to continue.
- tylerjwilk00 7y ago
  Agreed. The idea that a social network is better or of a higher quality simply because there are more bodies around you is a false premise. This sweeps aside the idea that people may prefer a lower density social network where each party mutually seeks another out as opposed to forced through proximity.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    People in dense cities don't have social networks based on proximity, where did you get that idea? On the contrary, the big city is where you can disappear, and live almost anonymously. The alienation comes exactly from that: the lack of forced interactions with the same people pushing you into forming social connections.
- 7y ago
FooHentai 7y ago
>While urban lifestyles are becoming more fashionable in the US, growth is higher in the suburbs You would really need to conduct surveys questioning where people want to live versus where they do live before it's possible to understand current state and likely future trends. I have a suspicion that most people would rather live in a different place, but have had to compromise because the place they have in mind doesn't exist. Not that it couldn't exist, just that today it doesn't because <circumstances>. From just observing people's personal anecdotes about where they'd like to live, I've noticed a few common situations: - Folks trying to find a way to host a growing family in a dense urban setting (examples in this thread). They often end up in suburbia, and endure soul-sucking commutes. - Young single high-earning professionals that want to live in a remote/rural/setting. They often just stay in the city while pining for the fjords as a kind of long-term early retirement plan. - Retirees that want to live in dense urban places with great public transport and medical facilities. They're simply priced out of this for the most part.

by cjf4 7y ago

ghaff 7y ago

Certain groups/bubbles look at their friends who, like themselves, tend to be college-educated, relatively well paid, young, childless, etc. and conclude that everyone is (or at least wants to) move into urban cores. In fact, there is a general migration out of areas like the rust belt and many very rural towns to places where there are more jobs. But the migration into urban cores is mostly fairly specific demographic groups into a relatively small number of elite cities. Which is a notable change from the net outflow as recently as 20 years ago. But it's still a relatively modest shift in the scheme of things.

xxpor 7y ago
Mostly because we've made it such that they're the only people who can afford to move into city cores any more.
- ghaff 7y ago
  There are still a lot of people who could afford to live in an urban core but choose not to.
Mountain_Skies 7y ago
Wonder if Starlink and other LEO internet services will make rural living accessible to high salary remote workers. While the rural lifestyle isn't for everyone, it's the extreme that would also open the door to exurban and small town living. Add in online shopping and ever evolving streaming entertainment options, it wouldn't be surprising if many small towns and rural areas saw new migration into them.
- ghaff 7y ago
  I've known people who have remote worked in tech with just satellite. It's not ideal/cheap and there are definitely compromises especially as video becomes more and more part of everything. So it can be done today, albeit with compromises. 5G could potentially improve the situation as well.
  - Mountain_Skies 7y ago
    A few years ago I saw a video on YouTube of a developer at Microsoft who lived in a yurt in rural Montana or Idaho. Seemed to work pretty well for him and his girlfriend. Though they never said it, I got the feeling that they did sometimes go into town for a bandwidth run now and then, probably for large uploads. If I'm not mistaken 5G is line of sight. If so, might be more useful in flat areas than up in the mountains though repeaters could make that work.
    - ghaff 7y ago
      Certainly none of today's alternatives to broadband are great. And I don't really know to what degree and under what circumstances 5G will help. But, yeah, it can be done even in the context of a lot of tech jobs. It does require making compromises though. Probably little or no streaming video, for example.
  - that_jojo 7y ago
    I couldn't even imagine. My family upgraded from dialup to satellite around 2006 as a luxury, and the latency was basically unworkable for anything remotely realtime. Even for a reasonably decent plan, the caps were also ridiculous as well. I could realistically watch maybe 45 minutes of YouTube per month.

abernard1 7y ago

Indeed. There is also this statement: > It’s not even an imposition. It’s opportunity. People can live in high-quality housing with access to extensive social as well as job networks Here's the author is saying that "high-quality" housing and social network is supposedly stronger in urban areas. With regards to housing quality, I think the urban/suburban quality is highly debatable. In terms of social network as well, I think this is probably most true in the context of "professional network". Many people move to more suburban or rural areas precisely because of feelings of alienation and lack of personal connection traditionally associated with large urban areas. This has been remarked on by social observers for well over a century. The most ironic thing about this whole post though is that it gives no credence to how the "future" predicted by the '90s kind of won: The Internet has made many professional and communication opportunities available to people wherever they may live. While we might not live in that IBM commercial version of an anonymized future where "The Internet does not care if you are X", we do live in a world where the internet has disseminated many of the traditional benefits of cities (and "civilization") to wherever a person may live. Knowledge, education, communication, art, work: all of these are much easier to obtain outside of cities now, and that has massively factored into why our current "future" has allowed that demographic shift into the suburbs to continue.

tylerjwilk00 7y ago
Agreed. The idea that a social network is better or of a higher quality simply because there are more bodies around you is a false premise. This sweeps aside the idea that people may prefer a lower density social network where each party mutually seeks another out as opposed to forced through proximity.
- icebraining 7y ago
  People in dense cities don't have social networks based on proximity, where did you get that idea? On the contrary, the big city is where you can disappear, and live almost anonymously. The alienation comes exactly from that: the lack of forced interactions with the same people pushing you into forming social connections.
7y ago

FooHentai 7y ago

>While urban lifestyles are becoming more fashionable in the US, growth is higher in the suburbs You would really need to conduct surveys questioning where people want to live versus where they do live before it's possible to understand current state and likely future trends. I have a suspicion that most people would rather live in a different place, but have had to compromise because the place they have in mind doesn't exist. Not that it couldn't exist, just that today it doesn't because <circumstances>. From just observing people's personal anecdotes about where they'd like to live, I've noticed a few common situations: - Folks trying to find a way to host a growing family in a dense urban setting (examples in this thread). They often end up in suburbia, and endure soul-sucking commutes. - Young single high-earning professionals that want to live in a remote/rural/setting. They often just stay in the city while pining for the fjords as a kind of long-term early retirement plan. - Retirees that want to live in dense urban places with great public transport and medical facilities. They're simply priced out of this for the most part.