5 ms·
The big metros are more efficient (dollar-wise) and have a lower environmental impact than small towns. Small towns, in the US, are already subsidized by big to
by klodolph 4y ago
The big metros are more efficient (dollar-wise) and have a lower environmental impact than small towns. Small towns, in the US, are already subsidized by big towns, at least economically.
- OJFord 4y agoSubsidised by more than the effect of the employee living, eating, and being entertained there? And that doesn't account for GP's immigrant case at all.
- dymk 4y agoSuburbs are economically insolvent, dense cities aren’t. That’s the case for basically every suburb and dense downtown in the US.
- OJFord 4y agoI think that's really missing the point of this hypothetical?
- sokoloff 4y agoThe suburbs around Boston are definitely not economically insolvent, and the ones in metro-west are fairly flush financially (continually building and upgrading schools and other town amenities).
- Steltek 4y agoThe suburbs around Boston are effectively dense cities because they predate railroads, nevermind cars. You don't need skyscrapers to claim "density".
- sokoloff 4y agoIs that a "No True Suburb" argument?
- Steltek 4y agoIs Cambridge a suburb of Boston? You've also called out Watertown, Arlington, etc as modern American suburbs before but their density ranks well above major cities. But that's because they're not modern American suburbs. They're classical Streetcar Suburbs that predate the car and that's a very different thing.
- sokoloff 4y agoIMO, there's zero doubt that Arlington and Watertown are suburbs of Boston by the most reasonable definitions of the word ("a. an outlying part of a city or town b. a smaller community adjacent to or within commuting distance of a city") However, if you continue to object to calling them suburbs of Boston, then look at Carlisle, Dover, Lexington, Lincoln, Sherborn, Sudbury, Wellesley, Weston, Winchester, and on and on. None of those Boston suburbs are even hurting for money, let alone "insolvent".
- mydriasis 4y agoI think that's because of what we're talking about right now -- all of these workers heading to the big cities instead of living out in the suburbs. When the workers return to the suburbs, business will follow them, and they won't be insolvent anymore.
- bluGill 4y agoSource for that claim? I hear it all the time, but never a source that actually stands up to scrutiny. (strongtowns is the most common - they are not a source)
- watwut 4y agoThis is not subsidisation. This is a small town participating in economy and offering better price for housing or better walkabikity or better socialization options or something.
- Tade0 4y ago> The big metros are more efficient (dollar-wise) Depends for who. When a studio apartment in a big metro costs as much as a house in a small town, you need to shell out much more for a comparable level of comfort. I know a couple who paid literally half per unit area just because they chose live a few kilometres from the city, not in it. They both work partially remotely, so ultimately the savings will be greater than the cost of transport, especially now that interest rates have gone up so much in this region of the world.
- carlosjobim 4y agoBig cities are dependent on agriculture and raw materials from rural regions for their survival. The small town can exist without the big city, the reversal is not true. As always through history, politicians and bankers plunder the country with taxes and interest. This wealth is then distributed by them, from the big cities, but that doesn't mean that the wealth originated there.
- UncleMeat 4y agoMost small towns where remote workers might settle are not driven by agriculture. Agriculture matters, but we don't live in an economy where everything outside of metro areas is just farms as far as the eye can see.
- carlosjobim 4y agoI'm not saying it's only agriculture, but rural areas give much more to urban areas than they receive back, evident by the massive waste and corruption within the cities and the throngs of people being sustained in the cities without producing anything of value or anything at all. In the past you could certainly say that urban areas give back just as much or even more, when factories where concentrated in cities. Today the factories are not only in the cities.
- ramphastidae 4y agoThat’s not evident at all, just your biases talking LOUD.
- carlosjobim 4y agoMaterially it is a fact that urban areas need rural areas to survive, while rural areas needs don't need the urban areas. The country side can be self sufficient, the city can never be. Thousands of trucks deliver excess goods from the country side to the city every day. Saying that it is the city that supports the country side is fancy accounting.
- 4y ago
- rosetremiere 4y ago> and have a lower environmental impact than small towns Can you expand on that (or link to more) ?
- dublinben 4y agoYou can see a map of household carbon footprint by ZIP code on this map: https://coolclimate.org/maps https://coolclimate.org/maps A cursory glance shows that the densest urban centers have the lowest carbon footprint. The suburbs are much higher, with affluent suburbs often being more than twice as high. Only some very rural areas approach levels as low as the cities.
- orwin 4y agoLook at 'Strong towns'. Not exactly what GP said, but close enough.