7 ms·

I'm inclined to think a lot of people only live near cities because 1) they work in it and have no choice but to live nearby, otherwise suffer a nightmarish com

I'm inclined to think a lot of people only live near cities because 1) they work in it and have no choice but to live nearby, otherwise suffer a nightmarish commute and 2) it's the only city near them. Why isn't building new, smaller cities a viable option? Surely building something from scratch also comes with advantages, like being able to plan and build infrastructure optimally from the start, rather than trying to retroactively update ancient infrastructure piecemeal. If we're going to go with a state or federal level approach anyway why funnel the money into existing cities?

xapata 5y ago
I suppose a single example can't contradict "a lot of people," but I am one such person. I live in the city, because I like cities.
- elymar 5y ago
  Same here. I pay a premium to live in NYC even though I work remote. I love the vibe and culture.
jacobolus 5y ago
> why funnel the money into existing cities? Among other reasons, we should because the existing cities are the most resource-efficient and lowest-environmental-impact living places we have at scale, and typically subsidize the infrastructure of other places.
- CalRobert 5y ago
  True, though US "cities" are generally asphalt hellscapes. Design something like Houten, or let Culdesac loose to build a whole city, and now you're talking.
  - taza999 5y ago
    1 giant apartment complex? Culdesac is not the answer.
- refurb 5y ago
  Sure, but based on how it’s current done it’s a huge drag on the economy when people pay $1.5M go houses that are worth $300k in other cities. Seems like taking a short term hit in resource efficient and environmental impact in order to have people live elsewhere would be overall positive.
  - maccard 5y ago
    The reason people want the $1.5M houses rather than the $300k houses is likely because they're nicer places to live (ameneties, greenspaces, schools). If you build a new nice city 30 minutes from San Jose (apologies but I don't know how far you need to go out of SJ to have more space to build) you don't inteoduxe 300k housing, you just introduce more $1.5m housing.
    - refurb 5y ago
      It’s $1.5M because of limited supply, not because it has to be that expensive. You’re ignoring two things: 1) many people don’t care about city living just access to jobs, thus a cheaper city with jobs is a good substitute and 2) sure there is a price premium, but $600k seems more reasonable than $1.5M.
      - maccard 5y ago
        And you're ignoring that many people _do_ care about city living. > sure there is a price premium, but $600k seems more reasonable than $1.5M. So now you've built $600k houses, not $300k houses. And if there are desireable jobs in the area, that pushes the demand for thouse $600k houses up to the amount that is paid in the area.
        danaris 5y ago
        And you also need to bear in mind that a 2x increase in house price means much more than a 2x decrease in the number of people who can afford it.
    - noduerme 5y ago
- dwiel 5y ago
  Cities are resource efficient and low environmental impact only if you count the tight core/downtown and exclude all of the suburbs and sprawl surrounding nearly every big city in the US. Everyone driving an hour to get to everywhere is not resource efficient or low environmental impact. Small cities/large towns are actually more efficient on average in the US since everyone is a 10-15 minute drive of everything. Rural areas can be very inefficient.
  - novok 5y ago
    When people say cities, they talk about them in the global context with functioning metro systems, not the sprawling monster american 'suburities' that require you to drive everywhere. If you want less suburities with their shit traffic, you'd support getting rid of zoning laws that force this form of city. I don't like US 'cities'. I do like cities elsewhere in the world. More about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxykI30fS54 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxykI30fS54
    - dwiel 5y ago
      I agree, and I've loved the European cities I've visited, but this is an article about US housing prices and the parent was talking about "existing cities" and how they "are the most resource efficient we have", which is plain wrong. I am all for making them more resource efficient by making them more like cities in other parts of the world.
perl4ever 5y ago
>Why isn't building new, smaller cities a viable option? What's "smaller"? It appears substantially more than half the country lives in a metro area smaller than the Columbus, OH MSA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistical_areas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistic...
- vitus 5y ago
  Are you making a point about Columbus (the biggest city in the 7th most populous state in the country) that I'm missing? MSAs can sometimes be rather small in area -- for instance, the Bay Area is split into 9 MSAs, all but one of which (SF-Oakland-Berkeley) are less populous than the Columbus MSA. So, everyone in the South Bay lives in a MSA smaller than Columbus (San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara). If instead, say, you opted to take all CSAs with > 1 million people (per the 2020 census), you'd cover just over 2/3 of the population. (Even so, affordability isn't purely a function of city size. Chicago is eminently more affordable than DC or SF despite being larger than either, whether you consider the CSA, MSA, or just the urban core.)
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    >Are you making a point about Columbus Not really, I was fishing for context, for whether someone who says we need small cities considers Columbus small, large, or negligible.
rustybelt 5y ago
No need to build new. There are plenty of existing underutilized cities with infrastructure in place to handle much larger populations : St Louis, Detroit, South Bend, Decatur, Buffalo . . . the list of places large and small goes on and on.
- novok 5y ago
  No good jobs there, which is why it's cheap. Cities arise as socio-economic hubs, it's not just about the housing price and a place to exist and store shit. The book order without design goes into good detail about this.
  - rustybelt 5y ago
    What jobs are in brand new greenfield cities suggested in parent post?
neutronicus 5y ago
That's how White Flight happened So to answer your question, because there's an enormous attack surface for elites to abuse the planning process to self-segregate, consume publicly funded infrastructure, and stick someone else with the responsibility for urban social problems

xapata 5y ago

I suppose a single example can't contradict "a lot of people," but I am one such person. I live in the city, because I like cities.

elymar 5y ago
Same here. I pay a premium to live in NYC even though I work remote. I love the vibe and culture.

jacobolus 5y ago

> why funnel the money into existing cities? Among other reasons, we should because the existing cities are the most resource-efficient and lowest-environmental-impact living places we have at scale, and typically subsidize the infrastructure of other places.

CalRobert 5y ago
True, though US "cities" are generally asphalt hellscapes. Design something like Houten, or let Culdesac loose to build a whole city, and now you're talking.
- taza999 5y ago
  1 giant apartment complex? Culdesac is not the answer.
refurb 5y ago
Sure, but based on how it’s current done it’s a huge drag on the economy when people pay $1.5M go houses that are worth $300k in other cities. Seems like taking a short term hit in resource efficient and environmental impact in order to have people live elsewhere would be overall positive.
- maccard 5y ago
  The reason people want the $1.5M houses rather than the $300k houses is likely because they're nicer places to live (ameneties, greenspaces, schools). If you build a new nice city 30 minutes from San Jose (apologies but I don't know how far you need to go out of SJ to have more space to build) you don't inteoduxe 300k housing, you just introduce more $1.5m housing.
  - refurb 5y ago
    It’s $1.5M because of limited supply, not because it has to be that expensive. You’re ignoring two things: 1) many people don’t care about city living just access to jobs, thus a cheaper city with jobs is a good substitute and 2) sure there is a price premium, but $600k seems more reasonable than $1.5M.
    - maccard 5y ago
      And you're ignoring that many people _do_ care about city living. > sure there is a price premium, but $600k seems more reasonable than $1.5M. So now you've built $600k houses, not $300k houses. And if there are desireable jobs in the area, that pushes the demand for thouse $600k houses up to the amount that is paid in the area.
      - danaris 5y ago
        And you also need to bear in mind that a 2x increase in house price means much more than a 2x decrease in the number of people who can afford it.
  - noduerme 5y ago
dwiel 5y ago
Cities are resource efficient and low environmental impact only if you count the tight core/downtown and exclude all of the suburbs and sprawl surrounding nearly every big city in the US. Everyone driving an hour to get to everywhere is not resource efficient or low environmental impact. Small cities/large towns are actually more efficient on average in the US since everyone is a 10-15 minute drive of everything. Rural areas can be very inefficient.
- novok 5y ago
  When people say cities, they talk about them in the global context with functioning metro systems, not the sprawling monster american 'suburities' that require you to drive everywhere. If you want less suburities with their shit traffic, you'd support getting rid of zoning laws that force this form of city. I don't like US 'cities'. I do like cities elsewhere in the world. More about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxykI30fS54 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxykI30fS54
  - dwiel 5y ago
    I agree, and I've loved the European cities I've visited, but this is an article about US housing prices and the parent was talking about "existing cities" and how they "are the most resource efficient we have", which is plain wrong. I am all for making them more resource efficient by making them more like cities in other parts of the world.

perl4ever 5y ago

>Why isn't building new, smaller cities a viable option? What's "smaller"? It appears substantially more than half the country lives in a metro area smaller than the Columbus, OH MSA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistical_areas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistic...

vitus 5y ago
Are you making a point about Columbus (the biggest city in the 7th most populous state in the country) that I'm missing? MSAs can sometimes be rather small in area -- for instance, the Bay Area is split into 9 MSAs, all but one of which (SF-Oakland-Berkeley) are less populous than the Columbus MSA. So, everyone in the South Bay lives in a MSA smaller than Columbus (San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara). If instead, say, you opted to take all CSAs with > 1 million people (per the 2020 census), you'd cover just over 2/3 of the population. (Even so, affordability isn't purely a function of city size. Chicago is eminently more affordable than DC or SF despite being larger than either, whether you consider the CSA, MSA, or just the urban core.)
- perl4ever 5y ago
  >Are you making a point about Columbus Not really, I was fishing for context, for whether someone who says we need small cities considers Columbus small, large, or negligible.

rustybelt 5y ago

No need to build new. There are plenty of existing underutilized cities with infrastructure in place to handle much larger populations : St Louis, Detroit, South Bend, Decatur, Buffalo . . . the list of places large and small goes on and on.

novok 5y ago
No good jobs there, which is why it's cheap. Cities arise as socio-economic hubs, it's not just about the housing price and a place to exist and store shit. The book order without design goes into good detail about this.
- rustybelt 5y ago
  What jobs are in brand new greenfield cities suggested in parent post?

neutronicus 5y ago

That's how White Flight happened So to answer your question, because there's an enormous attack surface for elites to abuse the planning process to self-segregate, consume publicly funded infrastructure, and stick someone else with the responsibility for urban social problems