5 ms·

We'd end up with megacities who'd continuously expand and grow denser, swallowing their surroundings in that case, wouldn't we?

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
Those two things are the opposite of one another. If a city grows denser, the size of its footprint is smaller. Suppose you create a lot of high density housing in the city. Housing costs decline. People who used to have to live with their parents get their own place. People have shorter commutes. The population of the city hasn't changed. Maybe if you're the only city doing this then it's a competitive advantage and people move there from other cities to take advantage of the lower cost of living. But if all cities do this then there is no relative advantage and all that happens is that housing is more affordable and people waste less time sitting in traffic.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > Those two things are the opposite of one another. If a city grows denser, the size of its footprint is smaller. I believe they're mostly complementary. You can't rebuild the city every other year because you have more demand for housing, it's a slow process. The city expands outwards if possible, and at the same time will be made denser when convenient. I'd love for the whole thing to be Sim City-style "we'll just remove those 12 single-story homes and add a sky scraper", but it's really not. It takes years and years, and it's really impacting the quality of life during those years. I used to live in a part of the city that got more dense housing, and it wasn't fun at all, construction sites everywhere, traffic jams everywhere, and housing prices rising sharply. It might turn out nice in 20 years when they've doubled the density, but it's absolutely not during those 20 years.
majormajor 6y ago
> We'd end up with megacities who'd continuously expand and grow denser, swallowing their surroundings in that case, wouldn't we? I imagine you'd still have the same pattern, just perhaps in more consistent circle shapes. Yesterday's "outskirts" would turn into tomorrow's "upcoming new area" and the people who lived there initially because it was all they could afford would get pushed further out, etc. The three story buildings will slowly get replaced with ten story buildings with wealthier residents, etc. Constant growth doesn't mean more that in-demand areas won't stay expensive as demand constantly grows too, or that once less-demanded areas will stay less-demanded. It's not our densest cities that our our cheapest cities. The demand is the underlying factor, not the density. (The density follows the (lack of!) demand for the cheap places.) I'm not sure how you'd lower cost of living without negative population growth. Try to reduce the footprint of the city but keep the population the same, and you still have just as much money competing for places, so the supply/demand dynamics will keep prices high for the places people want.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

Those two things are the opposite of one another. If a city grows denser, the size of its footprint is smaller. Suppose you create a lot of high density housing in the city. Housing costs decline. People who used to have to live with their parents get their own place. People have shorter commutes. The population of the city hasn't changed. Maybe if you're the only city doing this then it's a competitive advantage and people move there from other cities to take advantage of the lower cost of living. But if all cities do this then there is no relative advantage and all that happens is that housing is more affordable and people waste less time sitting in traffic.

luckylion 6y ago
> Those two things are the opposite of one another. If a city grows denser, the size of its footprint is smaller. I believe they're mostly complementary. You can't rebuild the city every other year because you have more demand for housing, it's a slow process. The city expands outwards if possible, and at the same time will be made denser when convenient. I'd love for the whole thing to be Sim City-style "we'll just remove those 12 single-story homes and add a sky scraper", but it's really not. It takes years and years, and it's really impacting the quality of life during those years. I used to live in a part of the city that got more dense housing, and it wasn't fun at all, construction sites everywhere, traffic jams everywhere, and housing prices rising sharply. It might turn out nice in 20 years when they've doubled the density, but it's absolutely not during those 20 years.

majormajor 6y ago

> We'd end up with megacities who'd continuously expand and grow denser, swallowing their surroundings in that case, wouldn't we? I imagine you'd still have the same pattern, just perhaps in more consistent circle shapes. Yesterday's "outskirts" would turn into tomorrow's "upcoming new area" and the people who lived there initially because it was all they could afford would get pushed further out, etc. The three story buildings will slowly get replaced with ten story buildings with wealthier residents, etc. Constant growth doesn't mean more that in-demand areas won't stay expensive as demand constantly grows too, or that once less-demanded areas will stay less-demanded. It's not our densest cities that our our cheapest cities. The demand is the underlying factor, not the density. (The density follows the (lack of!) demand for the cheap places.) I'm not sure how you'd lower cost of living without negative population growth. Try to reduce the footprint of the city but keep the population the same, and you still have just as much money competing for places, so the supply/demand dynamics will keep prices high for the places people want.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]