Why Invest in Cities? There's Always Another Boise

As somebody who literally lives in Boise I think my city is a shining example of poor urban planning, our public transit system is ill equipped to properly service our population which is spread out far too thin making it economically challenging to do so; at the same time we live in a fish bowl of a valley and nasty inversions are becoming more frequent as more cars get on the road every year due to our growing population.

I hope other municipalities learn from our mistakes before it becomes too late, I’m planning on leaving the area after living here almost my entire life because it’s unsustainable.

This is not just an oversimplification, it is also incorrect. Military installations are put in rural areas because nobody wants artillery practice to happen near their houses. That money comes from the DoD, not generally classed as 'infrastructure spending.'

Futhermore, all interstate freeways are built with federal investment, and HUD is heavily involved in funding development of low-income housing nationwide -- this is also subject to staggering amounts of NIMBYism. Mass transit is even worse -- there are major American cities who want to build, and have lined up federal funding, only to be blocked by state government intervention on behalf of more NIMBY. Baltimore's Red Line is the most recent example of this that springs to mind.

So yes, this is very much a problem for city and state politics to solve -- the federal government can't invest without their cooperation.

As for comparisons to Asian cities, I can only thank God that we don't handle our development that way here. Our rural residents have enough problems without repeating the mistakes of India here.

> Is Manhattan considered a mistake

It's not so much a 'mistake' as it is an instant feeling of "no living thing could ever afford Manhattan". It's like a physical manifestation of the saying, "no one ever goes there anymore, it's too crowded".

> (Manhattan is) one of the most desirable residences and tourist destinations in the world, everyone is deathly allergic to even the slightest hint that someone might want to replicate it elsewhere.

Sure, absolutely. And Lamborghinis are some of the most desirable cars in the world. But if you told everyone in Milwaukee that all other cars were being destroyed ('upzoned' into Lambos) and all Milwaukee citizens would be forced to buy a Lambo or never drive in Milwaukee again -- residents would be freaking out in a similar way.

Personally, I actually like high-rises. I like the look, I like the use of space, and I like the lifestyle. But even as a person with a decent tech income, I could never afford to live in one (in any city, anywhere in the US). And I would be terrified if my city became even 10% more similar to Manhattan, because people already struggle to afford living here as it is.

Try telling families that can't afford $200k-$300k houses that their city should "be like Manhattan" and they hear "you should be paying 1 million to 4 million dollars for a 3 bed apartment, just like Manhattan".

I mean, may be eventually? Just because Boise is the fastest growing city doesn't mean San Fran and LA have negative growth.

The answer of whether Boise will stifle city planners' dreams will come down to the actual numbers over time which in general is hard to predict. People saying "SF is over" or "Seattle is over" seem to only look at the second derivative and ignore the fact that these cities are still growing today.