5 ms·

I hear this argument a lot, but it has never made a ton of sense to me: different area are specialized for different things, and they have a spillover effect of

I hear this argument a lot, but it has never made a ton of sense to me: different area are specialized for different things, and they have a spillover effect of that specialization into neighboring areas. Dense urban areas specialize in economic output: that economic output spills over into neighboring areas (urban areas produce more economic output than urban areas consume) Suburban and exurban areas specialize in providing labor: that labor will spill over into neighboring areas (suburbs have more workers than people working in suburbs) Rural areas specialize in production and extraction: those goods will spill over into neighboring areas (rural areas produce more raw materials than they consume.) This means that suburbs will consume more than their "fair share" of economic output, just like urban areas will consume more than their "fair share" of labor and goods.

enragedcacti 4y ago
There is nothing inherent to the design of suburbs as they are that drives their efficiency at providing workers. It is fundamentally different from the economic efficiency of a centrally located factory or a very large rural farm. The suburbs are the way they are (in part) because of the housing preferences of workers, which themselves are influenced by subsidies on sparse suburban living. A denser suburb could serve the exact same purpose in your model while supporting it's own upkeep.
- gameman144 4y ago
  Isn't this density argument true of pretty much anything, though? A really dense farm could serve the same purpose as a large rural farm while supporting its own upkeep better along multiple axes (e.g. water use, land-use, infrastructure requirements). It seems like there are two arguments here: the first is that it's unfair (or maybe unreasonable?) that suburbs are subsidized by urban taxes. This is the point that I would argue makes no sense to me: lots of regions are supported by other regions in one domain or another. There's another argument which is that denser land-use leads to more efficient land-use in almost every case. This argument makes sense to me, though I'd argue that efficiency isn't the be-all-end-all for why people choose to live where they do (e.g. lots of people even in this thread have expressed that they chose to live in a less dense area because it better suits their desired lifestyle).
  - enragedcacti 4y ago
    My argument is this: denser land-use leads to more efficient land-use in almost every case, but efficiency isn't the be-all-end-all for why people choose to live where they do. People who choose to live less efficiently should bear the burden of that inefficiency, with some exceptions such as mail delivery, education, etc. where equal access is a cultural value we want to uphold. I guess the fundamental argument is that absent other factors, there is no societal economic benefit to a person living in a single family home on a half acre compared to a townhome so there isn't a reason to subsidize the upkeep of things related to their choice of living situation. Their share of road, water/sewer, electrical maintenance, infrastructure projects that support their commute, etc. I probably should have noted earlier that I don't have a fundamental issue with taxes being a net negative from the city and a net positive to the suburbs. If that's what it takes to support social services, education, public parks, etc. then that's fine.

enragedcacti 4y ago

There is nothing inherent to the design of suburbs as they are that drives their efficiency at providing workers. It is fundamentally different from the economic efficiency of a centrally located factory or a very large rural farm. The suburbs are the way they are (in part) because of the housing preferences of workers, which themselves are influenced by subsidies on sparse suburban living. A denser suburb could serve the exact same purpose in your model while supporting it's own upkeep.

gameman144 4y ago
Isn't this density argument true of pretty much anything, though? A really dense farm could serve the same purpose as a large rural farm while supporting its own upkeep better along multiple axes (e.g. water use, land-use, infrastructure requirements). It seems like there are two arguments here: the first is that it's unfair (or maybe unreasonable?) that suburbs are subsidized by urban taxes. This is the point that I would argue makes no sense to me: lots of regions are supported by other regions in one domain or another. There's another argument which is that denser land-use leads to more efficient land-use in almost every case. This argument makes sense to me, though I'd argue that efficiency isn't the be-all-end-all for why people choose to live where they do (e.g. lots of people even in this thread have expressed that they chose to live in a less dense area because it better suits their desired lifestyle).
- enragedcacti 4y ago
  My argument is this: denser land-use leads to more efficient land-use in almost every case, but efficiency isn't the be-all-end-all for why people choose to live where they do. People who choose to live less efficiently should bear the burden of that inefficiency, with some exceptions such as mail delivery, education, etc. where equal access is a cultural value we want to uphold. I guess the fundamental argument is that absent other factors, there is no societal economic benefit to a person living in a single family home on a half acre compared to a townhome so there isn't a reason to subsidize the upkeep of things related to their choice of living situation. Their share of road, water/sewer, electrical maintenance, infrastructure projects that support their commute, etc. I probably should have noted earlier that I don't have a fundamental issue with taxes being a net negative from the city and a net positive to the suburbs. If that's what it takes to support social services, education, public parks, etc. then that's fine.