Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You get an 'F' for your physics analogy. The potential energy released by radioactive decay is a state function. E= mc^2, and radioactive decay is simply the conversion of mass into energy. All that a having critical mass accomplishes is kinetic, not thermodynamic.
Wait, what? So you're saying that since achieving a critical mass of uranium doesn't result in a thermonuclear (and merely an atomic reaction - you know, the kind that power nuclear power plants or blow up cities) that my ANALOGY fails?
Oh, my. . .speaking of density I think there's a bit too much between those ears.
I've always wondered why taxes and cost of living increase exponentially when the density of a place increases. That is unfortunate that it happens. Like in Tokyo which is denser than New York, the cost of living is even higher there despite the fact many people say New York is grossly over expensive for everything. Like if you wanted to buy a burger in Tokyo it would be like $7, and even native Japanese food is very expensive there. I don't think that the typical native Japanese Tokyo resident has a salary higher than the salary vs cost of living ratio than a typical New Yorker has, and thus their unit of currency has less buying power for them than what you'd get for an equivalent unit of currency in New York City.
I think that since taxes and cost of living increases exponentially and salary in cities do not increase in direct proportion to this, many people are turned off from living in high density cities or maybe even New Urbanist developments. If we want to save the environment and preserve wildlife habitat from being destroyed by out of control suburban development, this is one thing any major city should address is the cost of living. Thats one big turnoff for many white American families with children when considering where they want to live. If they have children, they need to know among things like there are good schools, it is safe without criminals shooting them, that there dollar can give them a lot since money and jobs are harder to come by these days. It would be very bad for the whole world if people made the assumption that because high density living is expensive, thus they can't even live, then high density = high cost = too hard to live = bad.
Why does it have to be White American families? Last I remembered, it was White Americans that were moving back into the inner core, raising rents, and creating an environment where the few Black Americans that were left (that could not afford suburbia) had to flee cities like New York, Chicago, LA, and now Atlanta.
If you want to enjoy the benefits of living in a dense core you'll find a way to acquire the money that it takes to live there. If you're on the fence you'll complain about prices, and find a dense core in some other city, like Pittsburgh, PA or Cleveland, OH.
So what happens to those White American couples/artists/partners/etc. that move into the inner city and reap the benefits of gentrification once they have children? Can they afford to send their children to good schools? Do they have to bus their children to better schools in more prosperous areas of the city? Can they afford to send their children to private schools?
1. Many cities have skewed tax base versus built infrastructure. The perfect example is Detroit which was built for 2 million people but has less than 700,000 very poor individuals left to pay for that infrastructure. Paying for legacy infrastructure with a depleted tax base can drive taxes up, which further drives out those taxpayers to lower tax areas, and the cycle spirals downwards. The other problem being that even where the tax base is strong there is in the USA the disposition of not investing in infrastructure. We have a pretty big funding mismatch in infrastructure projects. That poor level of upkeep makes it more expensive to run in the day-to-day.
2. COL often has to do with desirability, demand, and supply. In the USA there are very few functional urban areas left. Those few areas offer a very limited supply of living spaces which can't meet demand and so the cost is driven up.
New York is often seen as the most costly place to live in the US? But some live in rent control apartments or public housing, limiting housing costs. For retail, it is very competitive, many merchants willing to sell at a lower price. And an actual majority do not own vehicles, which greatly cuts down on transportation costs.
New York is often seen as the most costly place to live in the US? But some live in rent control apartments or public housing, limiting housing costs. For retail, it is very competitive, many merchants willing to sell at a lower price. And an actual majority do not own vehicles, which greatly cuts down on transportation costs.
NYC is also a huge city with a very diverse population. For the average person though the COL is much higher than they're used to, unless you factor in lifestyle changes like giving up the car and reducing the square footage of your home. Obviously, these are things people who live in cities are usually willing to do and its a lifestyle many adopt.
I think in a way NYC is fairly cheap... there are a lot of cheap stores and food and very low transportation costs. Though it's easy in NYC to burn money like crazy if you aren't careful! But I wouldn't be surprised if a person's 1000$ NYC apartment was cheaper overall for them than a 500$ suburban house.
Part of the crazy cost in very dense parts of urban areas is zoning laws. Cato has done a study or two on that I think! In more sparesly populated areas, zoning laws don't inhibit supply from natural market forces as much.
This is only very recent, and limited to certain metropolitan areas.
There is a 600lb gorilla in the room that no one is talking about here. The high density areas the OP is talking about are the old line cities. For decades (or even 100+ years) the poor have been concentrated here. This has given them some level of electoral power, and they've used this to saddle these cities with high social services costs, which then get passed back to the city taxpayers. Also, these cities tend to have very strong municipal unions, which have the same effect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofy328
Why does it have to be White American families? Last I remembered, it was White Americans that were moving back into the inner core, raising rents, and creating an environment where the few Black Americans that were left (that could not afford suburbia) had to flee cities like New York, Chicago, LA, and now Atlanta.
If you want to enjoy the benefits of living in a dense core you'll find a way to acquire the money that it takes to live there. If you're on the fence you'll complain about prices, and find a dense core in some other city, like Pittsburgh, PA or Cleveland, OH.
So what happens to those White American couples/artists/partners/etc. that move into the inner city and reap the benefits of gentrification once they have children? Can they afford to send their children to good schools? Do they have to bus their children to better schools in more prosperous areas of the city? Can they afford to send their children to private schools?
When I've visited NYC, I've always felt that food is actually cheaper than many less-dense cities. Note that I'm talking groceries, cafe/deli-type places, pub fare, and ethnic food, not fine dining. I imagine this is because there's always competition a block or a few blocks away. IMO, It's the cost of housing (low supply, high demand) that really gets you in dense cities, not the cost of burgers. Even local taxes are not as much of a factor as housing, though they do compound the issue.
Housing wouldn't cost so much if we didn't have such draconian zoning laws that make new construction very difficult. If we want to lower the cost of housing in cities, we need to let the supply naturally increase. Also, there is a severe shortage of dense, walkable areas in the US so that only compounds the problem, so maybe if we didn't spend the last 50 years engineering walking out of the environment, that wouldn't be a problem.
Living in a city is not inherently more expensive, yet people seem to think that it is for whatever reason. They don't understand why that might be. And there are many other factors too, of course.
I've always wondered why taxes and cost of living increase exponentially when the density of a place increases. That is unfortunate that it happens. Like in Tokyo which is denser than New York, the cost of living is even higher there despite the fact many people say New York is grossly over expensive for everything. Like if you wanted to buy a burger in Tokyo it would be like $7, and even native Japanese food is very expensive there. I don't think that the typical native Japanese Tokyo resident has a salary higher than the salary vs cost of living ratio than a typical New Yorker has, and thus their unit of currency has less buying power for them than what you'd get for an equivalent unit of currency in New York City.
I think that since taxes and cost of living increases exponetially and salary in cities do not increase in direct proportion to this, many people are turned off from living in high density cities or maybe even New Urbanist developments. If we want to save the environment and preserve wildlife habitat from being destroyed by out of control suburban development, this is one thing any major city should address is the cost of living. Thats one big turnoff for many white American families with children when considering where they want to live. If they have children, they need to know among things like there are good schools, it is safe without criminals shooting them, that there dollar can give them a lot since money and jobs are harder to come by these days. It would be very bad for the whole world if people made the assumption that because high density living is expensive, thus they can't even live, then high density = high cost = too hard to live = bad.
You should see how much it costs in one of the least dense places in the world (Nunavut).
Housing wouldn't cost so much if we didn't have such draconian zoning laws that make new construction very difficult. If we want to lower the cost of housing in cities, we need to let the supply naturally increase. Also, there is a severe shortage of dense, walkable areas in the US so that only compounds the problem, so maybe if we didn't spend the last 50 years engineering walking out of the environment, that wouldn't be a problem.
Living in a city is not inherently more expensive, yet people seem to think that it is for whatever reason. They don't understand why that might be. And there are many other factors too, of course.
Oh, not this again! Didn't we just recently discuss this? The reason zoning laws exist is, left to their own devices, developers tend to build a lot of shoddy stuff. I don't think too many people are interested in going back to tenements.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Last I remembered, it was White Americans that were moving back into the inner core, raising rents, and creating an environment where the few Black Americans that were left (that could not afford suburbia) had to flee cities like New York, Chicago, LA, and now Atlanta. 
