11–20 of 50 posts
There was an economist whose work focused on how cities act as the fundamental hub of economic activity that supports the rest of a region, but his/her name escapes me at the moment. Some names were mentioned in the article, but they did not ring a bell. Anyone know whom i'm talking about?
Axiomatically, socially the sum of two humans is greater than the two humans apart.
And large cities, with metros, many villages that melt into one, employment opportunity, talks, bars, etc, are the embodiment of what it means to be social (with some exceptions - community feel being an important one).
In the UK this is at the forefront of politics - it is obvious to anyone that the country is governed as 'London plus appendages'. The rail and road networks are basically built around the capital. Most public transport subsidies go to the capital. The important (in a status sense, not in an absolute sense) businesses are headquartered there.
Much better would be to add a separate bar chart comparing all the countries and each bar separated into stripes for the city vs total. Perhaps on a log scale.
The chart they made might be more beautiful, but it's less informative.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2015-08-18/city-cent...
My anecdotal, off-the-top-of-my-head memories bear that out: Almost all innovative policy, from biking to fighting obesity to climate change, seem to come from cities. State and Federal governments struggle with such useful policy issues as, should we have taxes and is climate change real.
Michael Bloomberg wrote an article in Foreign Affairs saying that cities are now the centers of public policy innovation, in part because state and Federal governments are either controlled or blocked by people who want no policy and no innovation. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2015-08-18/city-cent... My anecdotal, off-the-top-of-my-head memories bear that out: Almost all innovative policy, from biking to f…
Whereas cities are human constructs and so governing them is about stewardship and exploitation of the population of the city, which is far more adaptable - and requires more sophisticated governance.
Perhaps it is intended to be an opinion piece, but the title is that of a PR message accompanying the release of a research paper.
Intuitively this seems like an obvious result of the network effect. (edit: I'm not intending to belittle anyone here and I apologise if it may seem that way). Axiomatically, socially the sum of two humans is greater than the two humans apart. And large cities, with metros, many villages that melt into one, employment opportunity, talks, bars, etc, are the embodiment of what it means to be social (with some exception…
Most public transport revenue also comes from the capital. While literally millions of London's commuters pay thousands of dollars a year each for the privilege of being herded into overfilled cattle cars twice a day, Welsh/Scots/Northerners don't actually use the public transport they demand and hence it runs at a massive loss until it inevitably gets shutdown yet again.
Intuitively this seems like an obvious result of the network effect. (edit: I'm not intending to belittle anyone here and I apologise if it may seem that way). Axiomatically, socially the sum of two humans is greater than the two humans apart. And large cities, with metros, many villages that melt into one, employment opportunity, talks, bars, etc, are the embodiment of what it means to be social (with some exception…
> Most public transport subsidies go to the capital Most public transport revenue also comes from the capital. While literally millions of London's commuters pay thousands of dollars a year each for the privilege of being herded into overfilled cattle cars twice a day, Welsh/Scots/Northerners don't actually use the public transport they demand and hence it runs at a massive loss until it inevitably gets shutdown yet…
In my opinion, it makes a lot of sense to do that anyway, at least viewed from outer space.
Stepping away from 'the economy', London's public transport system is used because it's the only option. The roads are at capacity. I say this having driven basically every possible route in rush hour. They are full. I'm often surprised that we don't literally end up having gridlock and just all getting stuck forever.
A metro system in my small northern hometown would be pointless because there's hardly any road traffic so everyone just jumps in their car and has their nice personal space.
I find this quite interesting. Public transport has to be a better option for a critical mass to use it. This can happen either by it being much better (quicker), or by the alternatives simply ceasing to work.
Michael Bloomberg wrote an article in Foreign Affairs saying that cities are now the centers of public policy innovation, in part because state and Federal governments are either controlled or blocked by people who want no policy and no innovation. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2015-08-18/city-cent... My anecdotal, off-the-top-of-my-head memories bear that out: Almost all innovative policy, from biking to f…
Any region which isn't urban is, basically, Incapable of adaptation. It is totally beholden to the natural resources it has. Fertile soil? Shale oils? Nice beaches? Forests? The environment you have basically fixes your destiny. A government presiding over a rural area basically has to become like a corporation whose sole purpose is stewardship and exploitation of that natural resource. Whereas cities are human const…
I do find it interesting how people are coming to the idea that local governments are where new ideas are formed, but degrade the concepts of States' rights or smaller federal intervention as racism whenever it doesn't suit a liberal agenda.