Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why American cities are broke (2021) [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 208 posts

Re: Why American cities are broke (2021) [video]

#41

Post by dionidium »

foobarian wrote: post #17

I am biased because I quite like living in the suburbs, and get quite suspicious when some manifesto comes up that dictates I should feel bad for it. Why is the solution to live in better designed cities instead of better designed suburbs? Are cities still necessary given the modern conditions?

There's a reason suburbs are located directly adjacent to density and not islands of development in the middle of nowhere. Suburbs survive by proximity to density and, in most cases, pay no taxes to support that density. Further, they use the state (via zoning laws) to prevent the natural development of more housing within their borders, guaranteeing a perpetual state of dependence, and ensuring that prices stay high enough to keep out the riffraff.

It's a fundamentally parasitic arrangement.

What suburbanites want is to be close enough to the city to enjoy all the benefits of being in a major metro area, without the hassle of supporting the project of urbanity. They want all the upsides without participating in addressing the (very real) downsides.

A suburb is in physical reality little more than just another neighborhood that has declared itself to be something else entirely in order to shirk its responsibility to the whole (sort of like if I declared my bedroom to be a separate apartment, so that I didn't have to acknowledge my roommate's chore list). Declaring yourself independent of your metro's core city doesn't magically make it so. It's just sticking your head in the sand.

Re: Why American cities are broke (2021) [video]

#42

Post by ghaff »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #36
germinalphrase wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument is that suburbs are incapable of affording the infrastructure required for their own existence. These costs are either subsidized or require persistent (perhaps unrealistic) growth to cover without dramatically increasing suburban taxes. "Are cities necessary given the modern conditions?" How many suburbs would exist without the corresponding city center? And, don't we just call suburbs without a city ce…

> And, don't we just call suburbs without a city center, you know, towns? Towns still typically need to manage their own utilities while suburbs don't.

Suburbs are towns (or small cities) in many parts of the US. I'm not sure it's even especially common in the US for cities to expand to engulf the whole surrounding area with a single central government. Although there are certainly examples such as Houston, I believe.

Re: Why American cities are broke (2021) [video]

#43

Post by azemetre »

foobarian wrote: post #17

I am biased because I quite like living in the suburbs, and get quite suspicious when some manifesto comes up that dictates I should feel bad for it. Why is the solution to live in better designed cities instead of better designed suburbs? Are cities still necessary given the modern conditions?

You shouldn't feel bad but it's more of a matter that your lifestyle is likely heavily subsidized because your town doesn't have the tax base (nor will they raise your taxes) to support the infrastructure that's required to make suburbs function.

If you were paying the true costs of living in the suburbs this wouldn't be an issue, but there's a high likelihood you don't.

Cities will always be necessary because they are one of the most efficient ways (cheaper to build, maintain, and support) to account/house large amounts of people. If you want to live in other types of areas you should, ideally, be willing to pay the true costs.

I can't link the article since I'm on a subway but Strong Towns is a good resource explaining how suburbs bankrupt themselves in the future since they won't be able to pay for the costly maintenance of their infrastructure (water, electric, roads, etc):

https://www.strongtowns.org/

Re: Why American cities are broke (2021) [video]

#44

Post by danaris »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #36
germinalphrase wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument is that suburbs are incapable of affording the infrastructure required for their own existence. These costs are either subsidized or require persistent (perhaps unrealistic) growth to cover without dramatically increasing suburban taxes. "Are cities necessary given the modern conditions?" How many suburbs would exist without the corresponding city center? And, don't we just call suburbs without a city ce…

> And, don't we just call suburbs without a city center, you know, towns? Towns still typically need to manage their own utilities while suburbs don't.

But towns that manage their own utilities do exist. That suggests that suburbs are not fundamentally unsustainable, they just need to adjust their calculations and expectations.

Re: Why American cities are broke (2021) [video]

#45

Post by agent281 »

ghaff wrote: post #35
Retric wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that’s a rather unfair question as cities should be resilient to significant population shifts. The world isn’t constant so the inability to handle change means you already have issues. Population shifts don’t just happen in an afternoon if a city can’t deal with a 10% population decline over a decade it was already in dire straits. Pensions for example are’t inherently an issue, it’s just a debt that should…

A great many US cities were losing population in the post-WWII era including some that are now regarded as "elite" coastal cities. Boston, for example, was losing population well into the nineties and, lots of universities notwithstanding, had no real major tech industry left by the time Teradyne moved out. (All the local computer companies and defense contractors were out in the suburbs/exurbs.) So some cities did w…

Wouldn't these be good examples? Boston is a pre-car city that weathered population decline well. Detroit was a city that rebuilt itself around the car and experienced decline.

Re: Why American cities are broke (2021) [video]

#46

Post by ghaff »

TrispusAttucks wrote: post #39
germinalphrase wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument is that suburbs are incapable of affording the infrastructure required for their own existence. These costs are either subsidized or require persistent (perhaps unrealistic) growth to cover without dramatically increasing suburban taxes. "Are cities necessary given the modern conditions?" How many suburbs would exist without the corresponding city center? And, don't we just call suburbs without a city ce…

Isn't this an infinite regress? How could cities survive without farm land? How could cities survive without outsourced materials? We live in an interdependent interconnected global society where everything and everyone subsidizes everyone else.

There seems to be a naive belief that if everyone just lived in dense urban cores there would be no need to pay for infrastructure beyond the city limits.

Re: Why American cities are broke (2021) [video]

#47

Post by treeman79 »

Retric wrote: post #19
quantumwannabe wrote: post #4

Can someone name an example of a city that has gone bankrupt due to infrastructure costs that didn't also lose a large amount of its population or lose key local industries?

I think that’s a rather unfair question as cities should be resilient to significant population shifts. The world isn’t constant so the inability to handle change means you already have issues. Population shifts don’t just happen in an afternoon if a city can’t deal with a 10% population decline over a decade it was already in dire straits. Pensions for example are’t inherently an issue, it’s just a debt that should…

Trouble is poor don’t pay taxes but consume a lot of services. If the middle class and rich who do pay the bills leave them a city can have a huge decline in coke from a small population decline.

Re: Why American cities are broke (2021) [video]

#48

Post by technovader »

foobarian wrote: post #17

I am biased because I quite like living in the suburbs, and get quite suspicious when some manifesto comes up that dictates I should feel bad for it. Why is the solution to live in better designed cities instead of better designed suburbs? Are cities still necessary given the modern conditions?

This is addressed in another video by the same person https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0

But basically suburbs can be designed well too.

It needs to have strong public transit that connects to the city (or wherever most people work).

And you still need good walkable and bikable paths everywhere. Because driving cars just sucks for everyone.

Re: Why American cities are broke (2021) [video]

#49

Post by alistairSH »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #24
m0llusk wrote: post #2

Found the text version more compelling myself: https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme

Thanks; the "Why", or the interesting part of "Why", seems only alluded to, rather than explicitly discussed. Is it that the low density of suburban development means that tax collected per area unit, is less than infrastructure maintenance per area unit? And is the even more implied solution to increase urban density at least to the point where revenue per area matches expenses per area?

Basically, yes. The typical American suburb, even "dense" inner suburbs, often don't generate enough tax revenue to maintain infrastructure. The areas get built out with various subsidies from different levels of government; it's only 30 years down the road, when major infrastructure needs updated that the costs become apparent.

Re: Why American cities are broke (2021) [video]

#50

Post by Retric »

SoftTalker wrote: post #29
Retric wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that’s a rather unfair question as cities should be resilient to significant population shifts. The world isn’t constant so the inability to handle change means you already have issues. Population shifts don’t just happen in an afternoon if a city can’t deal with a 10% population decline over a decade it was already in dire straits. Pensions for example are’t inherently an issue, it’s just a debt that should…

It seems clear to me that a city that loses say half its population is not going to be able to just absorb that and move on. Like a large ant colony, a large number of ants are needed to support and maintain it.

Ant colonies are resiliant to large population drops. Colony size depends not just on species but also time of year and available food. As to cities, there isn’t a minimum viable size we just call tiny cities towns.
Post reply on HN