4 ms·

1) That past did really exist. There was towns/cities, and rural land (with houses miles apart). Suburbia tried to be a hybrid, something between country livi

by ardit33 18y ago

1) That past did really exist. There was towns/cities, and rural land (with houses miles apart). Suburbia tried to be a hybrid, something between country living and city living, but failed at doing both miserably. There are other social factors. At least, here in CA, there is a huge adversity against building more density, (the NIMBY effect). A vocal group of people are opposed to tall building/building anything close to their backyard, creating a lack of density, and artificially limiting the free market and real town-higher-density formation, at a reasonable price.

anamax 18y ago
> 1) That past did really exist. I'm referring to the delusions that he has about the "grand doings" of folks in town squares. (I do like the town squares that have an artillery piece set up by the local VFW chapter but I don't think that that's what he has in mind.) > Suburbia tried to be a hybrid, something between country living and city living, but failed at doing both miserably. Failed according to whom? Not the folks who pick suburbia over towns/cities and rural, which are still available for those who want to live in them. > At least, here in CA, there is a huge adversity against building more density, (the NIMBY effect). It's not NIMBY to point out that high density is often a disaster. Besides - CA is a big and mostly empty state. There are plenty of places where you can build high density that is no where near someone's back yard. And, it's fair to point out that CA also has govt restrictions that significantly reduce rural living.
- bokonist 18y ago
  Many people did not choose the suburbs freely. They were driven out of the cities by incredibly high levels of violence. The typical American city now has a homicide rate 10X to 100X that of a Victorian era European city. That's not a typo, 1990's DC had a homicide rate 100X that of London in 1900.
  - pg 18y ago
    I believe that statistic, but the truth is that people were driven out of cities in cars. The violence is probably effect as much as cause.
    - bokonist 18y ago
      If suburban living had been a mere preference, it would show up in real estate prices, not in population loss. To get massive population loss, people have to be unwilling to buy at any price. When the crime rate increased in the 70's, people sold their houses at fire sale prices, or just abandoned them altogether. Great swaths of American cities ended up looking like this: http://www.jim-frizzell.com/Philadelphia2001/04-18-01/04-19-01jefferson_and_darien_north_philadelphia.jpg http://www.jim-frizzell.com/Philadelphia2001/04-18-01/04-19-... Meanwhile, dense city neighborhoods that have suburban levels of violence tend to have much higher real estate prices than the suburbs. This indicates that people really do prefer cities, but it's the violence that keeps them out.
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
  - anamax 18y ago
    > The typical American city now has a homicide rate 10X to 100X that of a Victorian era European city. That's not a typo, 1990's DC had a homicide rate 100X that of London in 1900. No, it's not a typo, it's an error. DC is not a typical American city and it takes a considerable amount of ignorance (or ?) to claim that it is. The comparison with the Victorian era is somewhat odd. DC's crime rate in the 90s was considerably higher than it is now or than it was in the Victorian era. DC was proportionally less populated during the Victorian era than it was in the 90s. (It may have become somewhat smaller since the 90s.) Yes, US cities became more violent as they grew relative to suburbs and small towns. The big increases in violence happened in the 60s, when the cities were still growing. The shrinkage, where it has occurred, is very recent, since the mid 90s (and violence started dropping soon after). That said, violence in American cities that have significant violence is highly localized in areas populated by people who, for the most part, can't afford to move out. (That's not to say that folks don't move because of a fear of violence.) Note that folks who leave cities don't have to move to suburbs. They can move to small towns. They don't. (Suburb isn't a "size", it's a kind of community design. Big cities used to be surrounded by little cities. Those cities were turned into suburbs by folks who prefered that.) In fact, small towns lost population to suburbs and cities. FWIW, DC's peak murder rate was less than 1/4th of the murder rate of East Palo Alto during the same time. EPA is a suburb which borders Palo Alto (CA) and Menlo Park. Those two suburbs have a murder between them every 5-7 years. (EPA's murder rate has dropped a lot since its peak and may be under DC's now.)
    - jacoblyles 18y ago
      A trick I picked up from Moldbug is to try to look at our times through the eyes of someone living 100 years ago or 100 years in the future. It gives you perspective and helps you escape the narrow view of people immersed in our present squabbles and concerns. I think the fact that someone living 100 years ago would view our times as unspeakably violent is an interesting fact (and that is even including a drop in crime in most places since the 70s).
      - anamax 18y ago
        While it's an interesting idea, in this case it isn't clear what the value is as the typical risk of violence hasn't changed significantly. The numbers are such that changes in tiny subpopulations have a big effect on the averages. US cities are not "unspeakably violent" - certain blocks or buildings are. FWIW, the murder drop didn't start until the mid 90s.
  - rms 18y ago
    Where do you get those statistics? I wonder what the homicide rate in London in 1800, 1700, 1600, 1500, 1400... was.
    - bokonist 18y ago
      http://books.google.com/books?id=Poy_16kUIV8C&printsec=copyright&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#PPA11,M1 http://books.google.com/books?id=Poy_16kUIV8C&printsec=c... In 1914, London had 16 murders from a population of 7.1 million. That's a homicide rate of .22 per 100,000. By comparison, Detroit had a murder rate of 46 in 2007. That's 209x the rate of Edwardian England. If New York reduced its homicide rate to that of Edwardian London, it would save the number of lives lost in September 11th every four years. Historical murder rates for all of England from 1900 are here: http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.... As for murder rates going further back, Gregory Clark has a chart of this in his book Farewell to Alms. See page 127: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0691141282/ref=sib_dp_srch_pop?v=search-inside&keywords=Homicide+rates+for+males+in+england&go.x=10&go.y=11&go=Go http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0691141282/ref=sib_dp_srch_p...! The homicide rates seem to be around 20 per 100,000 for 1300, then about 5 per 100,000 for 1600, and then under 1 per 100,000 after 1800. In other words, American cities have murder rates unseen since medieval times.

by ardit33 18y ago

anamax 18y ago

> 1) That past did really exist. I'm referring to the delusions that he has about the "grand doings" of folks in town squares. (I do like the town squares that have an artillery piece set up by the local VFW chapter but I don't think that that's what he has in mind.) > Suburbia tried to be a hybrid, something between country living and city living, but failed at doing both miserably. Failed according to whom? Not the folks who pick suburbia over towns/cities and rural, which are still available for those who want to live in them. > At least, here in CA, there is a huge adversity against building more density, (the NIMBY effect). It's not NIMBY to point out that high density is often a disaster. Besides - CA is a big and mostly empty state. There are plenty of places where you can build high density that is no where near someone's back yard. And, it's fair to point out that CA also has govt restrictions that significantly reduce rural living.

bokonist 18y ago
Many people did not choose the suburbs freely. They were driven out of the cities by incredibly high levels of violence. The typical American city now has a homicide rate 10X to 100X that of a Victorian era European city. That's not a typo, 1990's DC had a homicide rate 100X that of London in 1900.
- pg 18y ago
  I believe that statistic, but the truth is that people were driven out of cities in cars. The violence is probably effect as much as cause.
  - bokonist 18y ago
    If suburban living had been a mere preference, it would show up in real estate prices, not in population loss. To get massive population loss, people have to be unwilling to buy at any price. When the crime rate increased in the 70's, people sold their houses at fire sale prices, or just abandoned them altogether. Great swaths of American cities ended up looking like this: http://www.jim-frizzell.com/Philadelphia2001/04-18-01/04-19-01jefferson_and_darien_north_philadelphia.jpg http://www.jim-frizzell.com/Philadelphia2001/04-18-01/04-19-... Meanwhile, dense city neighborhoods that have suburban levels of violence tend to have much higher real estate prices than the suburbs. This indicates that people really do prefer cities, but it's the violence that keeps them out.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- anamax 18y ago
  > The typical American city now has a homicide rate 10X to 100X that of a Victorian era European city. That's not a typo, 1990's DC had a homicide rate 100X that of London in 1900. No, it's not a typo, it's an error. DC is not a typical American city and it takes a considerable amount of ignorance (or ?) to claim that it is. The comparison with the Victorian era is somewhat odd. DC's crime rate in the 90s was considerably higher than it is now or than it was in the Victorian era. DC was proportionally less populated during the Victorian era than it was in the 90s. (It may have become somewhat smaller since the 90s.) Yes, US cities became more violent as they grew relative to suburbs and small towns. The big increases in violence happened in the 60s, when the cities were still growing. The shrinkage, where it has occurred, is very recent, since the mid 90s (and violence started dropping soon after). That said, violence in American cities that have significant violence is highly localized in areas populated by people who, for the most part, can't afford to move out. (That's not to say that folks don't move because of a fear of violence.) Note that folks who leave cities don't have to move to suburbs. They can move to small towns. They don't. (Suburb isn't a "size", it's a kind of community design. Big cities used to be surrounded by little cities. Those cities were turned into suburbs by folks who prefered that.) In fact, small towns lost population to suburbs and cities. FWIW, DC's peak murder rate was less than 1/4th of the murder rate of East Palo Alto during the same time. EPA is a suburb which borders Palo Alto (CA) and Menlo Park. Those two suburbs have a murder between them every 5-7 years. (EPA's murder rate has dropped a lot since its peak and may be under DC's now.)
  - jacoblyles 18y ago
    A trick I picked up from Moldbug is to try to look at our times through the eyes of someone living 100 years ago or 100 years in the future. It gives you perspective and helps you escape the narrow view of people immersed in our present squabbles and concerns. I think the fact that someone living 100 years ago would view our times as unspeakably violent is an interesting fact (and that is even including a drop in crime in most places since the 70s).
    - anamax 18y ago
      While it's an interesting idea, in this case it isn't clear what the value is as the typical risk of violence hasn't changed significantly. The numbers are such that changes in tiny subpopulations have a big effect on the averages. US cities are not "unspeakably violent" - certain blocks or buildings are. FWIW, the murder drop didn't start until the mid 90s.
- rms 18y ago
  Where do you get those statistics? I wonder what the homicide rate in London in 1800, 1700, 1600, 1500, 1400... was.
  - bokonist 18y ago
    http://books.google.com/books?id=Poy_16kUIV8C&printsec=copyright&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#PPA11,M1 http://books.google.com/books?id=Poy_16kUIV8C&printsec=c... In 1914, London had 16 murders from a population of 7.1 million. That's a homicide rate of .22 per 100,000. By comparison, Detroit had a murder rate of 46 in 2007. That's 209x the rate of Edwardian England. If New York reduced its homicide rate to that of Edwardian London, it would save the number of lives lost in September 11th every four years. Historical murder rates for all of England from 1900 are here: http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.... As for murder rates going further back, Gregory Clark has a chart of this in his book Farewell to Alms. See page 127: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0691141282/ref=sib_dp_srch_pop?v=search-inside&keywords=Homicide+rates+for+males+in+england&go.x=10&go.y=11&go=Go http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0691141282/ref=sib_dp_srch_p...! The homicide rates seem to be around 20 per 100,000 for 1300, then about 5 per 100,000 for 1600, and then under 1 per 100,000 after 1800. In other words, American cities have murder rates unseen since medieval times.