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

181–190 of 208 posts

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

#181

Post by jjav »

dionidium wrote: post #99
bbarn wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This point of view ignores the fact that suburbs are also necessary for employers to be able to have an ample worker pool without paying salaries that are high enough to afford city-only residents (a cost that would go even higher as more people moved into a city for work). Many people in suburbs who work in cities would not be able to afford living in that city, or, flat out refuse to because cities aren't always th…

Urbanization is a compromise (primarily of access vs. space/privacy). Suburbs, on the other hand, are a stubborn refusal to compromise. Everybody has to make tradeoffs about cost, space, time, etc, but suburbanites say, "no, no, no -- no tradeoffs for me. In this narrow zone we're just going to make it illegal to build the kind of housing that acknowledges the tradeoffs of urban life. In this zone it is illegal to ma…

> no tradeoffs for me

Of course there are tradeoffs, usually in the form of a longer commute.

> In this zone it is illegal to make urban housing.

So you'd propose forcefully building your preferred style of housing everywhere, even if the local residents don't want it?

Short of declaring a dictatorship, it won't succeed to force everyone to live in the same style of building. A very large part of the population has no interest in living in a high-rise apartment.

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

#182

Post by jjav »

adamsmith143 wrote: post #106
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?

It's because a lot of the problem has to do with how Car centric the US is and Suburbs in particular are extremely car dependent. It's not super clear you can change that without massively rebuilding them. So take an example: let's say you want to go grocery shopping from your home in a walk-able urban center, it could be a 10 minute walk to get that done. In my suburban neighborhood a 6 minute drive to the nearest g…

> So take an example: let's say you want to go grocery shopping from your home in a walk-able urban center, it could be a 10 minute walk to get that done.

But it's not like that is the distinguishing factor between a suburb and a city center.

From my suburb house I can walk to one supermarket in 5 minutes and to another one in maybe 6-7 minutes. Yet it's definitely a suburb.

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

#183

Post by jjav »

theshrike79 wrote: post #147
LatteLazy wrote: post #5

The US system means you can live outside cities (and so avoid paying city taxes) and travel in to enjoy the amenities they provide. The result is a classic "failure of the commons" where contributors move out and people in need move in. The growth fallacy relies on cities already being short of cash, it is a symptom, not a disease.

As an European Suburbs feel just wrong to me. I've lived in small towns and big cities in Europe. Every time there has been a grocery store within walking or biking distance (5-10 minutes). Suburbs don't have that. If you need more milk, it's a good 30 minute car ride away. Walking or going by bike are completely impossible.

> Suburbs don't have that. If you need more milk, it's a good 30 minute car ride away.

Can you name a handful of suburbs where you need to drive 30 minutes to the closest shop that sells milk?

From my suburban house I can walk to a supermarket in 5 minutes. Although if all I need is milk, I can walk to a 7-11 in about 3 minutes.

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

#184

Post by jjav »

theshrike79 wrote: post #175
Jensson wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me most important is independent children. In Europe every kid I know walked to school, walked to go and buy groceries or other errands, walked to friends etc. But apparently that isn't really a thing in American suburbs, must be horrible for those kids to be so dependent on their parents until they can get a car themselves.

Yep, my kid walked to school from the first day of the first grade. Now as a fourth grader they just call me when school's out and tell me which friend's house they're going after school and walk there (or notify me if they're coming to our place). Sometimes they stop by the store on the way to get some snacks. And when dinner is ready, we call them home and they walk back. During the summer holidays they scoot or bi…

> An American Suburbia kid could never do any of this without someone calling the police or CPS for child endangerment even if there was a school, shop or a playground within walking distance.

There's a lot of generalizations about suburbs in these discussions.

From my office window here in suburbia, about a block away from a middle school, every day I see hundreds of kids leave on foot. I imagine most go home in the nearby suburbs, although there are plenty of shops within easy walking distance so perhaps some of them stop at those. There's also a large park/playground not far from the school they might go to.

This idea of a suburb being a place that has nothing and you can't walk anywhere is weird to me. I'm sure such suburbs exist somehwere, but I've never seen one.

(I'm in California.)

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

#185

Post by TrispusAttucks »

Ensorceled wrote: post #180
TrispusAttucks wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It cost more to maintain infrastructure that experiences an order of magnitude more usage than an infrequently used set of infrastructure. The hinges of a door used once a day will last longer than the hinges of a door used one thousand. A road that sees one delivery truck a month will last longer than one that sees thousands.

I'm trying to figure out if you are agreeing with me or arguing with me. Rural: Low usage, low maintenance low services (road,power,internet), low tax base Urban: High usage, high maintenance, high services (water, sewer, road, power, internet, transit), high tax base Suburban: High usage, high maintenance, high services (water, sewer, road, power, internet, transit), low tax base Only one of these, by necessity need…

I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that property tax on suburban property is quite high.

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

#186

Post by t-3 »

digdugdirk wrote: post #95
sfifs wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should every small sub-section of geographies "pay-out" for themselves. The whole point of higher level organizing constructs (company, conglomerate, state, country) is we take systemically better decisions - which at a nation level will involve keeping people with different preferences united under the nation's big idea by supporting the diversity of preferences. If to take an example Google insisted every devel…

Imagine if Xerox allocated its budget to 90% PARC, and 10% everything else - without adjusting any staffing. There'd be some really cool, really fun stuff going on, and the people at PARC would love it. But without people making and selling copiers, the whole company would be out of business before long. The difference with suburbs/cities is the awareness, the expectation, and societal cost. People living in the subu…

If state and federal governments didn't subsidize suburban infrastructure, cities would directly. The broader infrastructure network is vitally important for urban areas, and the suburbs especially are essential to retain the workers needed for productivity. Framing this as cities being exploited by greedy suburbanites is just wrong.

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

#187

Post by danaris »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #59
danaris wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, I would agree with that. It's not that towns shouldn't exist, they should, it's that the weird no-man's land suburbs probably shouldn't.

But my point is: Why not?

I have yet to see anything that points to them being fundamentally worse than towns: if you just treat them as Towns Next To Cities, it seems like you solve the vast majority of the problems.

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

#188

Post by koheripbal »

technovader wrote: post #62
koheripbal wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Hard disagree. You and must have watched different videos. He provides concrete examples and solutions.

I think we have different definitions of the term "concrete solution".

His solutions are vague, wildly over-simplified, and unrealistic.

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

#189

Post by koheripbal »

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #15
koheripbal wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They make the argument that growth, in an of itself, is a "ponzi scheme". Whereas boom-bust economic cycles are nothing new, and are clearly not the same as a literal ponzi scheme. I don't think there's any novel thinking here. They're just rebranding cyclic economics for dramatic effect.

The problem isn't growth the problem is that growth is required to pay for maintenance of the currently existing infrastructure. This is ponzi-scheme adjacent because if growth ever stops (and it has to), then everything collapses.

What you are describing is not a Ponzi scheme at all. It's just regular unsustainable growth.

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

#190

Post by dionidium »

jjav wrote: post #181
dionidium wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Urbanization is a compromise (primarily of access vs. space/privacy). Suburbs, on the other hand, are a stubborn refusal to compromise. Everybody has to make tradeoffs about cost, space, time, etc, but suburbanites say, "no, no, no -- no tradeoffs for me. In this narrow zone we're just going to make it illegal to build the kind of housing that acknowledges the tradeoffs of urban life. In this zone it is illegal to ma…

> no tradeoffs for me Of course there are tradeoffs, usually in the form of a longer commute. > In this zone it is illegal to make urban housing. So you'd propose forcefully building your preferred style of housing everywhere, even if the local residents don't want it? Short of declaring a dictatorship, it won't succeed to force everyone to live in the same style of building. A very large part of the population has n…

> So you'd propose forcefully building your preferred style of housing everywhere, even if the local residents don't want it?

Forcefully? When someone builds an apartment building on their own private property and voluntarily rents the units to other free actors, then obviously nobody was forced to do anything. The neighbors, on the other hand, would like to force the property owner to do something else with their land.

It's very important that we get this part clear in our minds. Zoning is coercion, not the other way around.

You'll sometimes see headlines about a "single-family home ban" whenever a city does zoning reform. No such thing exists. When we allow more uses on a city lot, we obviously have banned nothing.

And, I care about as much what the neighbors want me to do with my private property as I care what they think about my right to free expression. It's not subject to a vote. These rights are codified in our Constitution. They are not subject to a popularity contest. Some things are fundamental. We wrote those things down in a special document and put it in a folder titled, "things you don't get to vote on."

> Short of declaring a dictatorship, it won't succeed to force everyone to live in the same style of building. A very large part of the population has no interest in living in a high-rise apartment.

It's an enormous country and those people should feel free to hit the bricks (they can move, in other words). Or, hey, this is America. If you want to control what happens on a piece of private property, then buy it.

Post reply on HN