Why American cities are broke (2021) [video]

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Aug 17, 2022, 4:21 PM UTC

sfifs wrote: post #73

azemetre wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

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…

Post by throw0101a » Wed, Aug 17, 2022, 4:38 PM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #150

davidn20 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with that analogy is, suburbs doesn't benefit anyone besides the people living in them. So, by that logic, they should sustain themselves. Maps, Docs, and etc provide value to people outside themselves.

Suburbs provides housing. Housing on its own doesn't benefit anyone but those who live in them regardless of the density .

Post by jrkatz » Wed, Aug 17, 2022, 4:40 PM UTC

TigeriusKirk wrote: post #116

germinalphrase wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which doesn't necessitate the presence of the suburban environment. If suburban residents want a lifestyle distinct from living in the city, that is absolutely fine - but they should pay the costs of that lifestyle as it is a choice (just as living in a single family home versus an apartment is a choice urban residents make and should pay the corresponding costs to support).

Why shouldn't the city pay the costs necessary to attract the labor they need?

Post by throw0101a » Wed, Aug 17, 2022, 4:48 PM UTC

dionidium wrote: post #41

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…

Post by throw0101a » Wed, Aug 17, 2022, 4:52 PM UTC

bbarn wrote: post #89

dionidium wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…