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.
With more people no longer working in manufacturing jobs and even traditional office jobs the need for people to live in densely packed business centers are no longer valid. It cost much more to build up then out and most Cities have huge financial liabilities. I think development should focus on sprawl outside and around the old cities in separate towns that have no tax liability to the cities themselves.
With more people no longer working in manufacturing jobs and even traditional office jobs the need for people to live in densely packed business centers are no longer valid. It cost much more to build up then out and most Cities have huge financial liabilities. I think development should focus on sprawl outside and around the old cities in separate towns that have no tax liability to the cities themselves.
This pretty accurately describes the contemporary American metropolitan reality.
99% of the country is already covered in sprawl. What more do you want? There's no more room left. But you could always move to Antarctica, where you can pursue your dreams of covering every square inch of the planet in freeways and Walmart parking lots. Don't worry about the freezing weather it'll warm up enough soon enough for you to do just that.
With more people no longer working in manufacturing jobs and even traditional office jobs the need for people to live in densely packed business centers are no longer valid. It cost much more to build up then out and most Cities have huge financial liabilities. I think development should focus on sprawl outside and around the old cities in separate towns that have no tax liability to the cities themselves.
you may think that, but the market, which shows high demand for people to live close in in many metros, and continued high demand by firms for close in office space (and when its outside traditional central cities, is often still quite concentrated in new edge cities) suggests otherwise.
We should do what is best for people, not whats best for the "city"
You seem specifically concerned with moving people where they will have no tax liability to cities. That means remaining costs must be borne either by the remaining tax payers, or the cities must default - depriving bond holders (who are also people) of their money.
If OTOH, you simply dont like bondholders, there are probably other ways to address that that do not involve forcing people to move across a line just to hurt the bondholders.
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.
