5 ms·

We only have 2 cities in the United States that even approach a "medium sized" Asian metro in population. Los Angeles and NYC. Only NYC has a usable public tran

by mlsu 3y ago

We only have 2 cities in the United States that even approach a "medium sized" Asian metro in population. Los Angeles and NYC. Only NYC has a usable public transit system. This is actually an argument for transit systems. Los Angeles, San Francisco/San Jose, Dallas, Phoenix -- could be (and should be) a global metropolises, with a populations and cultural relevance rivaling Tokyo or Hong Kong. They would be, if not for the car. There are people who commute daily from the suburbs of Stockton to the SF bay area.

nradov 3y ago
Most people who currently live in San Francisco/San Jose don't particularly want to turn it into a global metropolis and don't give a damn about abstract concepts like "cultural relevance". Cultural elitists should have some humility and not presume that they know best. Another option would be to set policies that encourage greater economic development and job growth in Stockton so that residents aren't forced to commute long distances. There's nothing special about the SF Bay Area: it's just another place.
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  The Los Angeles example pretty much proves that spinning out employment into multiple areas does not mean people will just move to the closest area to their job; it just adds another destination to the list of "places people drive an hour to." It is not really that people living in Stockton already are commuting into the Bay, but Bay Area workers are being displaced into Stockton. The Bay Area has added more jobs than housing for a while now.
  - mjevans 3y ago
    LA _could_ be much more like Tokyo if USA cared to make mass transit work. # Service accurate enough to set a clock by. # Service mesh that provides walk-able freedom. # Safety and cleanliness (both a culture and enforcement issue) Yes, there would need to be a slight increase in density as well as much more transit service; but that metro area could scale up were there enough water.
    - bobthepanda 3y ago
      Sure. But Tokyo is also everywhere to everywhere with multiple city centers. My main point is that “move the jobs” in a sufficiently large city is not generally a working way to reduce commute times.
- mlsu 3y ago
  Most people move to the Bay to get a good job, which is only possible in a large, vibrant, globally connected city. Everyone -- every single person -- who buys or rents a house in the SF bay today does so because they either have or want have "a good job." Is there a single person alive who has bought a house on the peninsula recently because it's a quiet place where nothing much happens? The Bay Area is extremely special. It's the only place to go to get a good job! There are probably 500,000 people who would move in next week if we had the apartments to house them. That is absolutely not true of Stockton. Someone who commutes to SF from Stockton isn't a resident of Stockton. They're a resident of SF who is priced out!
  - nradov 3y ago
    Are you being sarcastic or do you actually believe that nonsense? There are a huge number of places outside the SF Bay Area that have good jobs available. Lots of openings in North Dakota for good oil and gas production jobs. Plenty of high paying work in Cleveland for anyone with healthcare skills. The list goes on and on. Personally I wouldn't want to live in SF proper even if it was cheap. Most of the city is kind of a shithole and the governance is atrocious in a way that goes far beyond just failed housing policies.
zamfi 3y ago
> Los Angeles, San Francisco/San Jose, Dallas, Phoenix -- could be (and should be) a global metropolises Yes! > with a populations and cultural relevance rivaling Tokyo or Hong Kong. YES! > They would be, if not for the car. ...what? They are not because their local governments prohibit construction and actively oppose growth, which is only vaguely related to the car. Approximately zero "global metropolises" have single-family zoning in 95% of their inner core land area. Not "have single family homes", sure maybe Tokyo has that. But zoning that prohibits denser development in such a way that most (yes, most) current housing in those areas is too dense to be built today under current rules. (This last part is true even of NYC.) The US went hardcore anti-density in the 70s. And sure, that has something to do with the car.
- nine_k 3y ago
  In the 1970s, beside the prevalence of cars, there were two more factors hollowing out cities: "white flight" and the fear of a nuclear war. A nuke hitting Manhattan would certainly affect more people that a nuke hitting some suburbia, and why would a nuke be targeted there in the first place? The fear was real :(
- mlsu 3y ago
  I think we agree. But the car is a much bigger part of it than you're letting on. The reason we zone this way is because people are unable to imagine their lives without being able to drive around. The very first thing people say in my town when an apartment tower goes up is "where am I going to park? Do they have a plan for moving the parking spots that this tower displaced? Traffic on tower St. is going to get so much worse!" If the expectation is that everyone owns a car, upzoning is a huge problem -- it actually is, because everything that scares a car brain ("I can't park!" "It's going to be loud!" "This will increase traffic!") is actually true. Rather than limiting cars, of course, we choose to limit zoning. Which is actually quite a logical thing to do if everyone is to own a car. If you get rid of cars you get rid of collectors, arterials, onramps and offramps, turn lanes, parking spots... Those are things that are fundamentally incompatible with a major, dense, vibrant city. You can easily fit 50,000 people, their workplaces, senior care homes, schools, and restaurants into the land area of a 4 way cloverleaf that is designed to service 50,000 round trip commutes by car.
LunaSea 3y ago
You described hell.
- mlsu 3y ago
  If Tokyo is hell why did so many people choose to move there?
  - decafninja 3y ago
    You cannot replicate the Tokyo (or Seoul, or Taipei, or Singapore, or Hong Kong) model in the US without making certain societal choices that are either impossible or unpalatable here. We will never have anything remotely as nice as the Tokyo transit system for that reason. I love taking the Tokyo subways whenever I visit. I make it a point to avoid the NYC subway if at all possible.
    - hparadiz 3y ago
      People get so mad but this is the 100% truth.
      - decafninja 3y ago
        And by “impossible or unpalatable choices”, I’m not referring anything to do with cars.
  - LunaSea 3y ago
    Because that's where work is? It's always the same answer.
throwaway2037 3y ago
You forgot Chicago.
- handojin 3y ago
  It's easy to do that.

by mlsu 3y ago

nradov 3y ago

Most people who currently live in San Francisco/San Jose don't particularly want to turn it into a global metropolis and don't give a damn about abstract concepts like "cultural relevance". Cultural elitists should have some humility and not presume that they know best. Another option would be to set policies that encourage greater economic development and job growth in Stockton so that residents aren't forced to commute long distances. There's nothing special about the SF Bay Area: it's just another place.

bobthepanda 3y ago
The Los Angeles example pretty much proves that spinning out employment into multiple areas does not mean people will just move to the closest area to their job; it just adds another destination to the list of "places people drive an hour to." It is not really that people living in Stockton already are commuting into the Bay, but Bay Area workers are being displaced into Stockton. The Bay Area has added more jobs than housing for a while now.
- mjevans 3y ago
  LA _could_ be much more like Tokyo if USA cared to make mass transit work. # Service accurate enough to set a clock by. # Service mesh that provides walk-able freedom. # Safety and cleanliness (both a culture and enforcement issue) Yes, there would need to be a slight increase in density as well as much more transit service; but that metro area could scale up were there enough water.
  - bobthepanda 3y ago
    Sure. But Tokyo is also everywhere to everywhere with multiple city centers. My main point is that “move the jobs” in a sufficiently large city is not generally a working way to reduce commute times.
mlsu 3y ago
Most people move to the Bay to get a good job, which is only possible in a large, vibrant, globally connected city. Everyone -- every single person -- who buys or rents a house in the SF bay today does so because they either have or want have "a good job." Is there a single person alive who has bought a house on the peninsula recently because it's a quiet place where nothing much happens? The Bay Area is extremely special. It's the only place to go to get a good job! There are probably 500,000 people who would move in next week if we had the apartments to house them. That is absolutely not true of Stockton. Someone who commutes to SF from Stockton isn't a resident of Stockton. They're a resident of SF who is priced out!
- nradov 3y ago
  Are you being sarcastic or do you actually believe that nonsense? There are a huge number of places outside the SF Bay Area that have good jobs available. Lots of openings in North Dakota for good oil and gas production jobs. Plenty of high paying work in Cleveland for anyone with healthcare skills. The list goes on and on. Personally I wouldn't want to live in SF proper even if it was cheap. Most of the city is kind of a shithole and the governance is atrocious in a way that goes far beyond just failed housing policies.

zamfi 3y ago

> Los Angeles, San Francisco/San Jose, Dallas, Phoenix -- could be (and should be) a global metropolises Yes! > with a populations and cultural relevance rivaling Tokyo or Hong Kong. YES! > They would be, if not for the car. ...what? They are not because their local governments prohibit construction and actively oppose growth, which is only vaguely related to the car. Approximately zero "global metropolises" have single-family zoning in 95% of their inner core land area. Not "have single family homes", sure maybe Tokyo has that. But zoning that prohibits denser development in such a way that most (yes, most) current housing in those areas is too dense to be built today under current rules. (This last part is true even of NYC.) The US went hardcore anti-density in the 70s. And sure, that has something to do with the car.

nine_k 3y ago
In the 1970s, beside the prevalence of cars, there were two more factors hollowing out cities: "white flight" and the fear of a nuclear war. A nuke hitting Manhattan would certainly affect more people that a nuke hitting some suburbia, and why would a nuke be targeted there in the first place? The fear was real :(
mlsu 3y ago
I think we agree. But the car is a much bigger part of it than you're letting on. The reason we zone this way is because people are unable to imagine their lives without being able to drive around. The very first thing people say in my town when an apartment tower goes up is "where am I going to park? Do they have a plan for moving the parking spots that this tower displaced? Traffic on tower St. is going to get so much worse!" If the expectation is that everyone owns a car, upzoning is a huge problem -- it actually is, because everything that scares a car brain ("I can't park!" "It's going to be loud!" "This will increase traffic!") is actually true. Rather than limiting cars, of course, we choose to limit zoning. Which is actually quite a logical thing to do if everyone is to own a car. If you get rid of cars you get rid of collectors, arterials, onramps and offramps, turn lanes, parking spots... Those are things that are fundamentally incompatible with a major, dense, vibrant city. You can easily fit 50,000 people, their workplaces, senior care homes, schools, and restaurants into the land area of a 4 way cloverleaf that is designed to service 50,000 round trip commutes by car.

LunaSea 3y ago

You described hell.

mlsu 3y ago
If Tokyo is hell why did so many people choose to move there?
- decafninja 3y ago
  You cannot replicate the Tokyo (or Seoul, or Taipei, or Singapore, or Hong Kong) model in the US without making certain societal choices that are either impossible or unpalatable here. We will never have anything remotely as nice as the Tokyo transit system for that reason. I love taking the Tokyo subways whenever I visit. I make it a point to avoid the NYC subway if at all possible.
  - hparadiz 3y ago
    People get so mad but this is the 100% truth.
    - decafninja 3y ago
      And by “impossible or unpalatable choices”, I’m not referring anything to do with cars.
- LunaSea 3y ago
  Because that's where work is? It's always the same answer.

throwaway2037 3y ago

You forgot Chicago.

handojin 3y ago
It's easy to do that.