Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-15-2013, 09:05 PM
 
2,552 posts, read 2,448,617 times
Reputation: 1350

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhans123 View Post
Which city model is better? Why?

-Sprawling, lower cost of living, and car-centric (think Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, etc.)

-Compact, higher cost of living, green transportation is plentiful (think Boston, Portland, New York, etc.)
a) You have to define "better." Each of us will come to a unique conclusion based entirely on our contexts and perceptions because we don't have a common yard stick to measure "better."

b) Your basis is flawed. You're making assumptions about COL which do not all hold to be accurate. For example, if one moves to a dense city and one's income doubles but one's absolute COL also doubles, then one's relative COL, which is what matters, hasn't changed; the ratio of income to absolute COL has not changed despite the move to the city.


Moving beyond that, I believe that, from fiscal sustainability, equality of opportunity, and overall economic health perspectives, moderate density provides the optimal balance. PT has the ridership to make sense, but expensive subways aren't yet necessary; houses are available, yet neighborhoods are walkable; cars are valuable, but not king of the roads or necessary for living; businesses make more sense because they can serve larger populations within any given radius.

Last edited by darkeconomist; 10-15-2013 at 09:14 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-15-2013, 09:41 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
46,009 posts, read 53,194,339 times
Reputation: 15174
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeepRightPassLeft View Post
Lol, some can of worms you're opening up here my friend.
As I read it as it could be something different, rather than how you prefer the suburbs, how do you prefer the core [city proper-ish, or maybe just anything in the central part of the metro]. All the cities mentioned, really all American cities have low density suburbs. If we went outside of North America that would often not be true, but it doesn't sound like the OP had that in mind.

It's not quite the same thing: one might prefer to live in a sprawling suburb but have a dense city nearby to visit. Or one might want "city living" right near a low-density downtown

Meanwhile, in reality...here's the fact: "Better" is not really a solid criteria to define a city type, but at best it's extremely subjective. What's better for you may not be better for me, vice versa....times that by everyone in society.

If you're looking for a vote type of thread, I'll be the first to say I'd rather live/work in the first type of city any day (sprawling) over the second type (compact) ANY day...however I do enjoy visiting the second type of city often. I live in a more sprawling part of NYC and I do visit Manhattan pretty regularly, but I would never want to live there and would only want to work there if the salary was so high that it was worth the commute. If I had to really choose, I would say I'll take low density large lot suburb any day over any type of "city".

Quote:
I like being able to access things close to my house by car with abundant free parking and convenient locations near major commercial centers, I like having the option of going to an enclosed shopping mall (though I don't care for shopping much) so that I don't have to deal with the heat, cold, rain or snow nor do I have to even give a second thought about having to find a parking space.
Judging by this quote, it sounds like you prefer low density urban cores as well as suburbs. Many suburbanites might not care, unless they work downtown, many have little interest in visiting downtown anyway. Do people think of an urban core just a place where there is some entertainment, shops/restaurants, events, a job center, etc. Or something that offers something different from typical suburbia? A busier, more bustling atmosphere, with lots of things to pass by as you keep walking and interesting architecture. I would say the second. At least from my New Yorker perspective, I would partly visit Manhattan because there was stuff I wanted to do there, but I also wanted to visit just experience the feel of Manhattan. Ditto with Boston, San Francisco in a less extreme sense.

I can think of a certain family member who enjoys living in large lot suburbia but enjoys many aspects of visiting a dense city, and negatively commented about a number of less dense cities that they seemed a bit sleepy [where's the people?!]

Quote:
What I find hilarious is some folks who go on about how people like me are just so wrong and that we can't possibly enjoy that type of lifestyle, because it honestly makes me think that they have some kind of "urbanist insecurity" as if they've escaped suburbia because they found this cool urban lifestyle in Greenpoint or Hoboken, but deep inside they miss where they come from and feel the need to constantly lash out against anyone who admits that they actually don't agree that their version of lifestyle and urbanism isn't for everyone. This is not a statement to all of the pro-urban folks on this forum, but quite a few of you...yes, 100%
Seriously? As for myself, the first times I spent in urban residential neighborhoods (as an older teenager and above), my reaction was something like this: "this is awesome! Why is so little of the US like this and we all have to be stuck in suburbia?" Um, no I don't miss where I come from, though for a while I looked back and wished it was different. I don't really get that people actually like suburbia the way it's built that much, not really [though I didn't think about it that much before] until I got to this forum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KeepRightPassLeft View Post
Personally you couldn't pay my monthly rent and utilities and get me to live in that European neighborhood, but for the record I don't like neighborhoods like the Portland one either.
I'm not sure why you dislike Portland, except perhaps right by downtown. It's not really much different in density than Staten Island.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2013, 10:02 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 35,010,603 times
Reputation: 7875
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I'm not sure why you dislike Portland, except perhaps right by downtown. It's not really much different in density than Staten Island.
Actually I think the poster was talking about the specific neighborhood that was posted in the link in Portland. The Northwest district is a pretty dense neighborhood and getting more dense. I can understand why someone wouldn't like that area and wanting something a little further out from downtown.

I didn't take his comment as him saying he hated all of downtown, just didn't care for that one neighborhood.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2013, 11:37 PM
 
830 posts, read 1,528,037 times
Reputation: 1108
When absolute cost of living doubles, salary doesn't double. There are cities in which it is simply more expensive to live, even taking into account higher salaries. And the increase in salary in more expensive cities like Boston and NYC really varies by field, anyway. I know from experience that Boston is simply much more expensive than many other US cities, even taking into account a somewhat higher median salary in my field.

I personally FAR prefer compact cities, with lots of mixed-use areas. I think this has to do with the New England "model" in which I spent all my formative years. I don't even really consider sprawling cities to be "cities" even though technically the are. Cities like LA seem like giant sprawling suburbs to me. I haven't been to LA in 10 years, but when I was there I was pretty shocked to see that the downtown business district was absolutely dead on the weekend. Restaurants weren't even open because the business people weren't around. That kind of separation between business areas and residential areas... in a city... is foreign to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2013, 08:25 AM
 
Location: Monmouth County, NJ & Staten Island, NY
406 posts, read 497,992 times
Reputation: 661
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
As I read it as it could be something different, rather than how you prefer the suburbs, how do you prefer the core [city proper-ish, or maybe just anything in the central part of the metro]. All the cities mentioned, really all American cities have low density suburbs. If we went outside of North America that would often not be true, but it doesn't sound like the OP had that in mind.

It's not quite the same thing: one might prefer to live in a sprawling suburb but have a dense city nearby to visit. Or one might want "city living" right near a low-density downtown
That makes sense, I can understand and even relate to those viewpoints to some degree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Judging by this quote, it sounds like you prefer low density urban cores as well as suburbs. Many suburbanites might not care, unless they work downtown, many have little interest in visiting downtown anyway. Do people think of an urban core just a place where there is some entertainment, shops/restaurants, events, a job center, etc. Or something that offers something different from typical suburbia? A busier, more bustling atmosphere, with lots of things to pass by as you keep walking and interesting architecture. I would say the second. At least from my New Yorker perspective, I would partly visit Manhattan because there was stuff I wanted to do there, but I also wanted to visit just experience the feel of Manhattan. Ditto with Boston, San Francisco in a less extreme sense.
How people view what "downtown" is depends on the person, and to some extent depends on the city. I do enjoy visiting Manhattan often because it's Manhattan, the hustle and bustle and sheer amount of crazy things to do is great. That being said, if I had the choice of where I wanted to work, I'd rather it be a less dense, more car-friendly city so that I can more likely afford to and conveniently drive to work and other things in the do in the city. I'll still drive in Manhattan for non-commuting reasons (though occasionally take transit for various reasons) however if I had the choice between working in and having to take transit to a place like Manhattan every day versus drive to a low density city, I'd ultimately prefer the latter. Manhattan does have a lot to offer though and I can see why it'd be a fun place to work with all of the things to do after work (bars, shopping, etc) but the tradeoff is crowded, slow transit commutes to virtually anywhere with an even somewhat suburban feel to it. Number one reason why I would ever do it is money, because job opportunities and salary amounts tend to be very high in Manhattan. I'm currently very happy with my job in suburban NJ though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Seriously? As for myself, the first times I spent in urban residential neighborhoods (as an older teenager and above), my reaction was something like this: "this is awesome! Why is so little of the US like this and we all have to be stuck in suburbia?" Um, no I don't miss where I come from, though for a while I looked back and wished it was different. I don't really get that people actually like suburbia the way it's built that much, not really [though I didn't think about it that much before] until I got to this forum.
Yes, seriously. You should know by now that I wasn't referring to you, in fact really that would only apply to a very small percentage of the posters here, maybe 2 or 3 that participate actively. I totally get the whole reaction to that kind of exposure as exciting and interesting, and as I've said before I totally see the appeal for some folks. Even I love the old school charm of older, urban dense places (I just don't want to live there lol). My issue is with a select few folks who believe in this and then have to take it a step further by insulting the viewpoints and lifestyles of others who don't follow their train of thought with all of the insulting hyperbolic nonsense about how bad it is and that nobody could possibly really be happy there or that how could anyone possibly want to live there...if someone is so happy with their new found urban lifestyle, stop bothering people who don't want that because it damn sure looks like they might be insecure about their choices. If you're truly happy about where you live, you shouldn't feel the need to constantly put people down about their choices like an assclown, it speaks a lot about the person putting others down.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I'm not sure why you dislike Portland, except perhaps right by downtown. It's not really much different in density than Staten Island.
Personally I'm not a fan of the whole political leanings/vibe of that area, not to mention the weather. Just not a fan of it, but I can see the appeal for some folks. The density itself doesn't bother me, though that particular neighborhood was not something I would find appealing. We have neighborhoods on the north shore of SI that look/feel like that and I also don't like them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Actually I think the poster was talking about the specific neighborhood that was posted in the link in Portland. The Northwest district is a pretty dense neighborhood and getting more dense. I can understand why someone wouldn't like that area and wanting something a little further out from downtown.

I didn't take his comment as him saying he hated all of downtown, just didn't care for that one neighborhood.
Bingo.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2013, 10:14 AM
 
Location: Philaburbia
41,744 posts, read 74,721,167 times
Reputation: 66682
Well, now, there's a loaded question!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2013, 03:35 PM
 
4,019 posts, read 3,931,431 times
Reputation: 2938
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
I prefer more compact cities, as for which is better, that isn't an easy answer. I think grid cities are better in the sense that they are easier to plan and easier to work transportation options into than the cul-de-sac cities.
The grid layout might be ideal for transit planning. At least in theory. But the grid is also ideal for moving large amounts of automobile traffic, so in practice it just ends up becoming overwhelmed with automobile traffic while crowding out other modes of transportation. The gridded city ends up as one great big 4 to 6 lane expressway for cars. The grid encourages driving. North American cities are nearly universally gridded, and are also universally very autocentric.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2013, 04:20 PM
 
4,019 posts, read 3,931,431 times
Reputation: 2938
The ideal urban model for me is one where there is a strong connection between urban and rural. And where it is fairly easy to move between one and the other. This is possible when cities are built compactly on a human scale which leaves a smaller footprint and greenfields are preserved. By compact I mean horizontally compact as well as vertically compact. Great big sprawling mega-metropolises are not my ideal model, nor are super high rise skyscraper cities. The ideal size for me can range from a village to a medium city a few kilometers across bordered by farmlands or forests.

These rural landscapes are where food is grown and people go for rest and recreation. The local rural areas are easy to get to because they are border the city limits. They may be accessible by bicycle or even by foot. You don't have to make an epic 50 mile road trip in a car just to get to them, which would just create huge amounts of automobile traffic and defeats the purpose of the human scale. Rural preservation makes for more aesthetically pleasing human (and natural) environments. Otherwise when things are built on the scale of the automobile, you get nothing but eyesores in the form of strip malls, skyscrapers, 200 acre parking lots and eight lane freeways everywhere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2013, 05:01 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 35,010,603 times
Reputation: 7875
Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid View Post
The grid layout might be ideal for transit planning. At least in theory. But the grid is also ideal for moving large amounts of automobile traffic, so in practice it just ends up becoming overwhelmed with automobile traffic while crowding out other modes of transportation. The gridded city ends up as one great big 4 to 6 lane expressway for cars. The grid encourages driving. North American cities are nearly universally gridded, and are also universally very autocentric.
That is a false statement, there are a number of cities that are on a grid that aren't a bunch of expressways. Portland is a great example of a successful grid city.

US cities are auto centric due to poor funding and planning of alternative forms of transportation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2013, 05:13 PM
 
4,019 posts, read 3,931,431 times
Reputation: 2938
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
That is a false statement, there are a number of cities that are on a grid that aren't a bunch of expressways. Portland is a great example of a successful grid city.

US cities are auto centric due to poor funding and planning of alternative forms of transportation.
I meant to say generally speaking because there are some exceptions like you said.
But generally speaking, grid cities do tend to promote a great deal of driving, more often than not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top