4 ms·

You accuse others of 'swallowing urbanist propaganda' but that's both highly uncharitable and also grossly ignorant given the extremely high demand for pre-war

You accuse others of 'swallowing urbanist propaganda' but that's both highly uncharitable and also grossly ignorant given the extremely high demand for pre-war and denser areas.

cyberax 4y ago
"pre-war"? WTF? > the extremely high demand for pre-war and denser areas. Of course there is a high demand for urban areas. It's an effect of runaway density. Companies have competitive advantage if they locate their offices in The Downtown of a large city. This in turn makes the area around it more expensive, as people try to move closer to avoid longer commutes. This is a vicious circle, leading to a sort of "density pollution". And it should be solved in exactly the same way we dealt with other forms of pollution: via regulation and gradual tightening of rules.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  Tightening of the rules to what, precisely ? "Nope, sorry, your company's locating here would push downtown density past the limit, you should find a greenfield site on the edge of town and build something new there" ???
  - cyberax 4y ago
    Yup. Exactly that. A hard limit on the amount of office space per square mile. You simply can not build any more offices. The market forces then will take care of distributing the office space accordingly. If you absolutely NEED to have an office in The Downtown, then you will just have to pay $$$$$$$$$. Otherwise you'll have to rent an office in a nearby suburbian village center. Kind of like we did cap-and-trade for sulfur emissions.
    - JPws_Prntr_Fngr 4y ago
      Why would a city do that? To make you personally feel better?
      - telotortium 4y ago
        Maybe to ensure that the country is evenly developed, which would make housing more affordable across the entire country. The US is not even that bad - unlike many other countries, it doesn't have a true primate city[1] on a national level. I'm thinking of places like England, where the privileged areas of London (and the Home Counties), Oxford, and Cambridge are the only place to earn a decent salary, but have extortionate housing costs, while the rest of the country has much lower housing costs but such lower wages that people are pushed to migrate into the privileged areas, pushing housing costs there even higher. Densifying the cities would help to some extent, but construction tends to cost a lot more in these cities, and not entirely due to zoning, planning permissions, etc. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate_city https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate_city
Tade0 4y ago
I've been observing the discussion on sprawl vs high density in the US from the safety of my commie block and my conclusion is that sprawl is silly, but cities the density of New York are dystopian. It appears that the same induced demand that makes traffic eventually occupy all lanes, no matter how many you build, works to make dense cities unaffordable and impossible to maintain. There's a middle ground to be achieved here, really, and it's better than both the extreme views I've been hearing over and over again.

You accuse others of 'swallowing urbanist propaganda' but that's both highly uncharitable and also grossly ignorant given the extremely high demand for pre-war and denser areas.

cyberax 4y ago

"pre-war"? WTF? > the extremely high demand for pre-war and denser areas. Of course there is a high demand for urban areas. It's an effect of runaway density. Companies have competitive advantage if they locate their offices in The Downtown of a large city. This in turn makes the area around it more expensive, as people try to move closer to avoid longer commutes. This is a vicious circle, leading to a sort of "density pollution". And it should be solved in exactly the same way we dealt with other forms of pollution: via regulation and gradual tightening of rules.

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
Tightening of the rules to what, precisely ? "Nope, sorry, your company's locating here would push downtown density past the limit, you should find a greenfield site on the edge of town and build something new there" ???
- cyberax 4y ago
  Yup. Exactly that. A hard limit on the amount of office space per square mile. You simply can not build any more offices. The market forces then will take care of distributing the office space accordingly. If you absolutely NEED to have an office in The Downtown, then you will just have to pay $$$$$$$$$. Otherwise you'll have to rent an office in a nearby suburbian village center. Kind of like we did cap-and-trade for sulfur emissions.
  - JPws_Prntr_Fngr 4y ago
    Why would a city do that? To make you personally feel better?
    - telotortium 4y ago
      Maybe to ensure that the country is evenly developed, which would make housing more affordable across the entire country. The US is not even that bad - unlike many other countries, it doesn't have a true primate city[1] on a national level. I'm thinking of places like England, where the privileged areas of London (and the Home Counties), Oxford, and Cambridge are the only place to earn a decent salary, but have extortionate housing costs, while the rest of the country has much lower housing costs but such lower wages that people are pushed to migrate into the privileged areas, pushing housing costs there even higher. Densifying the cities would help to some extent, but construction tends to cost a lot more in these cities, and not entirely due to zoning, planning permissions, etc. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate_city https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate_city

Tade0 4y ago

I've been observing the discussion on sprawl vs high density in the US from the safety of my commie block and my conclusion is that sprawl is silly, but cities the density of New York are dystopian. It appears that the same induced demand that makes traffic eventually occupy all lanes, no matter how many you build, works to make dense cities unaffordable and impossible to maintain. There's a middle ground to be achieved here, really, and it's better than both the extreme views I've been hearing over and over again.