3 ms·

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

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.
naravara 7y ago
>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. This is really underselling the simple fact that our federal dollars still heavily subsidize suburban development at the expense of urban amenities and development patterns. Most of the rapidly growing cities haven't actually built any expansions of transit capacity or coverage since they hit their growth spurts over the past few decades, and the housing supply hasn't kept up either. If it's functionally illegal to build urban capacity you're not going to get urban development. It's a much simpler story than grandiose tales about how the internet obviates the need for human interaction.
- abernard1 7y ago
  > This is really underselling the simple fact that our federal dollars still heavily subsidize suburban development at the expense of urban amenities and development patterns. This is simply not true. Secondly, the restrictions around urban development are self-imposed at either the State or Local level. SF, NYC, Chicago, etc. have zoning and development restrictions that Houston, Atlanta, Austin do not. Astute observers may determine for themselves why that is, but this is not a federal or subsidy issue. (Just how much has the CA never-to-be-completed train cost again?...)
  - naravara 7y ago
    > This is simply not true. Secondly, the restrictions around urban development are self-imposed at either the State or Local level. Made possible by the unending spigot of funding for laying down asphalt. These decisions become less and less tenable when the underlying substructure goes away. What’s more is that it’s not even accurate. There is no equivalent federal impetus behind building walkable neighborhoods and transit the way there is to subsidize the maintenance of road expansions and interchanges. 4 out of 5 federal transit dollars go to highways. And it even goes into what we do through industrial policy. We didn’t bail out people who make trains or buses, we made the auto industry the national manufacturing priority. For God’s sake the government doesn’t even build railroads. They’re all private and leased. > Just how much has the CA never-to-be-completed train cost again? A fraction of DoT funding to serve way less dense population clusters. What’s more, transit projects get decided in ways that are lousy with veto points while highway funding just gets put through with little resistance.

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.

naravara 7y ago

>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. This is really underselling the simple fact that our federal dollars still heavily subsidize suburban development at the expense of urban amenities and development patterns. Most of the rapidly growing cities haven't actually built any expansions of transit capacity or coverage since they hit their growth spurts over the past few decades, and the housing supply hasn't kept up either. If it's functionally illegal to build urban capacity you're not going to get urban development. It's a much simpler story than grandiose tales about how the internet obviates the need for human interaction.

abernard1 7y ago
> This is really underselling the simple fact that our federal dollars still heavily subsidize suburban development at the expense of urban amenities and development patterns. This is simply not true. Secondly, the restrictions around urban development are self-imposed at either the State or Local level. SF, NYC, Chicago, etc. have zoning and development restrictions that Houston, Atlanta, Austin do not. Astute observers may determine for themselves why that is, but this is not a federal or subsidy issue. (Just how much has the CA never-to-be-completed train cost again?...)
- naravara 7y ago
  > This is simply not true. Secondly, the restrictions around urban development are self-imposed at either the State or Local level. Made possible by the unending spigot of funding for laying down asphalt. These decisions become less and less tenable when the underlying substructure goes away. What’s more is that it’s not even accurate. There is no equivalent federal impetus behind building walkable neighborhoods and transit the way there is to subsidize the maintenance of road expansions and interchanges. 4 out of 5 federal transit dollars go to highways. And it even goes into what we do through industrial policy. We didn’t bail out people who make trains or buses, we made the auto industry the national manufacturing priority. For God’s sake the government doesn’t even build railroads. They’re all private and leased. > Just how much has the CA never-to-be-completed train cost again? A fraction of DoT funding to serve way less dense population clusters. What’s more, transit projects get decided in ways that are lousy with veto points while highway funding just gets put through with little resistance.