10 ms·

No, that's what the person you replied to mean when they wrote: > hitting the limits of sprawl (congested highway commute time) There's only so far you can bu

No, that's what the person you replied to mean when they wrote: > hitting the limits of sprawl (congested highway commute time) There's only so far you can bus, train, drive, bike, walk, seaplane, helicopter, hyperloop, or transporter in to go to work. Canadian cities are, just like cities in the US, hitting this limit rather aggressively. In cities where sprawl isn't physically prohibitive, like Calgary or Toronto, the upper bound of "this shit ain't worth it" for time and money is a limiting factor. I know someone who commutes from Kitchener to Toronto on GO, so they don't even have to put up with driving, and they're debating moving back home to Winnipeg for a 40% salary cut just to not have to put up with it any more. Remote work might help with this but even there, you have people who are moving "a little further out" but not leaving the region because they want to stay nearby for other reasons (or because they're not entirely convinced that full remote is actually on the table long term).

ericmay 5y ago
> I know someone who commutes from Kitchener to Toronto on GO, so they don't even have to put up with driving, and they're debating moving back home to Winnipeg for a 40% salary cut just to not have to put up with it any more. Isn't this a good thing in some ways or maybe many/all ways? Now wealth is less concentrated in one or a few locations. Every dollar not spent commuting is a dollar spent at a local coffee shop, or money that goes into the tax base of the other city.
- paconbork 5y ago
  In theory, yes it would be nice to have the wealth more spread out, but jobs aren't concentrated in Toronto just for lack of creativity. The agglomeration of talent causes firms to be more productive, earn more money, and pay employees more. If a company moves to Winnipeg, the lose some access to the most productive employees and their employees have fewer companies to move to where they'll be more productive themselves. So while you'd be spending a larger percentage of your money locally, you'd also be spending less money in absolute terms.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    Yea but paying employees more means they can afford to buy more expensive houses. It all fits together. While I think there's a lot that Canada (and other democracies) can do to help reduce housing prices, it's almost like a truism that if you have a great city with a lot of high paying jobs, getting closer to the city and getting access to that city will be expensive. I mean, if we were to take what you were saying to heart, why doesn't all of Canada move to one city? Clearly there are some bounds. > So while you'd be spending a larger percentage of your money locally, you'd also be spending less money in absolute terms. True, but in absolute terms it's cheaper to live where you're spending the money as well, which pays for a house, etc.
  - chaostheory 5y ago
    If corporate culture embraced remote work, this wouldn’t be an issue
edgyquant 5y ago
Then shouldn’t the government be incentivizing businesses (and thus people) populate other cities?
cameronh90 5y ago
> There's only so far you can bus, train, drive, bike, walk, seaplane, helicopter, hyperloop, or transporter in to go to work. Canadian cities are, just like cities in the US, hitting this limit rather aggressively. Canada's largest urban area is 5.6 million people. London, Paris and Seoul are around double that, NYC is 19 million and Tokyo is 37 million. Why are Canadian cities hitting this limit at such a comparatively low population compared to other cities in the world? Why are all the major cities in the western world seemingly hitting this limit at the same time, even though they all have different populations? It seems to me that we've just become less aggressive at building the infrastructure necessary to support population growth.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  > Why are all the major cities in the western world seemingly hitting this limit at the same time, even though they all have different populations? I can’t speak for Canada, but in America the answer is always cars. Car based transit is wildly land inefficient, and the main reason why all car based cities hit their limit at the same time. In particular there are two huge shortcomings with cars in urban design: 1. Parking eats up a huge amount of space. Either you let that drive density way down (which means commutes get longer) or you build underground parking at exorbitant prices driving up rents. Even in the latter case the roads around housing ends up becoming an issue, limiting density far below what you’d expect in say, Paris on Chicago. 2. Car transit to a shared destination is almost comically inefficient, which is really noticeable when people try and commute via car to job centers. This wouldn’t be as bad if we restricted cars to what they’re good at, such as driving away from the city, but most American cities have the unique psychosis of demanding that transit into the city center be via car. This does not scale, and is why places with wildly different zoning laws can have equally hellish commutes. The issue is not that we can’t build, we’re really good at adding more highway lanes, it’s more that we are monomaniacally focused on building the wrong things.
  - exfascist 5y ago
    So I hate driving and actually moved to DC for work and also partly for the transit. Here's what I found: 1) Taking the metro many places (for example, from my apartment in an urban "luxury" apartment building a couple blocks from the initial station to my boat near the waterfront in downtown DC) doubled the time it took to get there. It was actually faster to drive there even during rush hour where you'll sit motionless on the 395 bridge. Yes I can redeem a lot of that time with my above average personal mobile computing set up but a: most people have a pretty mediocre personal mobile computing setup and b: now I can't use that time for anything other than programming projects. 2) I couldn't get rid of the car entirely because I still needed it to move bulky things that I really can't take on transit. It's bad enough not having a truck but losing the car entirely would create some serious logistical problems on a regular basis. So while I saved some money I couldn't save as much as I wanted. 3) Most wealthy people (many of my friends) start families^ and people who can afford it buy detached housing for that. You're not going to be taking transit to these places. It might not ever be economical. Like it or not transit will probably always lower property values in the US too. For whatever reason the more violent people here tend to take it and anywhere it goes becomes more violent so building it into suburbs like these is always going to be unpopular. 4) Bringing me to the fact that I've been accosted multiple times on transit by people who were high, drunk, or just belligerent. I have an extremely high tolerance for this sort of thing (I've wandered around some of the more violent cities early in the morning just to see what the fuss is about) but I can absolutely see why most people here would give up after that happening once at a maximum. I'm a huge fan of transit but pretending it isn't a large sacrifice to give up a car is just going to get people to ignore you, because it is and for most people it isn't worth it. (^ and for those that don't start families, many have lots of intense DIY projects that don't fit in apartment buildings and actually need either detached housing or industrial space with similar density.)

ericmay 5y ago

> I know someone who commutes from Kitchener to Toronto on GO, so they don't even have to put up with driving, and they're debating moving back home to Winnipeg for a 40% salary cut just to not have to put up with it any more. Isn't this a good thing in some ways or maybe many/all ways? Now wealth is less concentrated in one or a few locations. Every dollar not spent commuting is a dollar spent at a local coffee shop, or money that goes into the tax base of the other city.

paconbork 5y ago
In theory, yes it would be nice to have the wealth more spread out, but jobs aren't concentrated in Toronto just for lack of creativity. The agglomeration of talent causes firms to be more productive, earn more money, and pay employees more. If a company moves to Winnipeg, the lose some access to the most productive employees and their employees have fewer companies to move to where they'll be more productive themselves. So while you'd be spending a larger percentage of your money locally, you'd also be spending less money in absolute terms.
- ericmay 5y ago
  Yea but paying employees more means they can afford to buy more expensive houses. It all fits together. While I think there's a lot that Canada (and other democracies) can do to help reduce housing prices, it's almost like a truism that if you have a great city with a lot of high paying jobs, getting closer to the city and getting access to that city will be expensive. I mean, if we were to take what you were saying to heart, why doesn't all of Canada move to one city? Clearly there are some bounds. > So while you'd be spending a larger percentage of your money locally, you'd also be spending less money in absolute terms. True, but in absolute terms it's cheaper to live where you're spending the money as well, which pays for a house, etc.
- chaostheory 5y ago
  If corporate culture embraced remote work, this wouldn’t be an issue

edgyquant 5y ago

Then shouldn’t the government be incentivizing businesses (and thus people) populate other cities?

cameronh90 5y ago

> There's only so far you can bus, train, drive, bike, walk, seaplane, helicopter, hyperloop, or transporter in to go to work. Canadian cities are, just like cities in the US, hitting this limit rather aggressively. Canada's largest urban area is 5.6 million people. London, Paris and Seoul are around double that, NYC is 19 million and Tokyo is 37 million. Why are Canadian cities hitting this limit at such a comparatively low population compared to other cities in the world? Why are all the major cities in the western world seemingly hitting this limit at the same time, even though they all have different populations? It seems to me that we've just become less aggressive at building the infrastructure necessary to support population growth.

ashtonkem 5y ago
> Why are all the major cities in the western world seemingly hitting this limit at the same time, even though they all have different populations? I can’t speak for Canada, but in America the answer is always cars. Car based transit is wildly land inefficient, and the main reason why all car based cities hit their limit at the same time. In particular there are two huge shortcomings with cars in urban design: 1. Parking eats up a huge amount of space. Either you let that drive density way down (which means commutes get longer) or you build underground parking at exorbitant prices driving up rents. Even in the latter case the roads around housing ends up becoming an issue, limiting density far below what you’d expect in say, Paris on Chicago. 2. Car transit to a shared destination is almost comically inefficient, which is really noticeable when people try and commute via car to job centers. This wouldn’t be as bad if we restricted cars to what they’re good at, such as driving away from the city, but most American cities have the unique psychosis of demanding that transit into the city center be via car. This does not scale, and is why places with wildly different zoning laws can have equally hellish commutes. The issue is not that we can’t build, we’re really good at adding more highway lanes, it’s more that we are monomaniacally focused on building the wrong things.
- exfascist 5y ago
  So I hate driving and actually moved to DC for work and also partly for the transit. Here's what I found: 1) Taking the metro many places (for example, from my apartment in an urban "luxury" apartment building a couple blocks from the initial station to my boat near the waterfront in downtown DC) doubled the time it took to get there. It was actually faster to drive there even during rush hour where you'll sit motionless on the 395 bridge. Yes I can redeem a lot of that time with my above average personal mobile computing set up but a: most people have a pretty mediocre personal mobile computing setup and b: now I can't use that time for anything other than programming projects. 2) I couldn't get rid of the car entirely because I still needed it to move bulky things that I really can't take on transit. It's bad enough not having a truck but losing the car entirely would create some serious logistical problems on a regular basis. So while I saved some money I couldn't save as much as I wanted. 3) Most wealthy people (many of my friends) start families^ and people who can afford it buy detached housing for that. You're not going to be taking transit to these places. It might not ever be economical. Like it or not transit will probably always lower property values in the US too. For whatever reason the more violent people here tend to take it and anywhere it goes becomes more violent so building it into suburbs like these is always going to be unpopular. 4) Bringing me to the fact that I've been accosted multiple times on transit by people who were high, drunk, or just belligerent. I have an extremely high tolerance for this sort of thing (I've wandered around some of the more violent cities early in the morning just to see what the fuss is about) but I can absolutely see why most people here would give up after that happening once at a maximum. I'm a huge fan of transit but pretending it isn't a large sacrifice to give up a car is just going to get people to ignore you, because it is and for most people it isn't worth it. (^ and for those that don't start families, many have lots of intense DIY projects that don't fit in apartment buildings and actually need either detached housing or industrial space with similar density.)