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.
If the suburbanite lives with his family of 4, and works at home, or 2 miles away from his office and he rides his bike, the energy difference is negligible.
That may be true, but not really relevant. The measure discuss the average (per capita) energy usage not individual usage. Is it possible for an individual situation of a suburbanite to use less energy than the average New Yorker? Yes, but that's not the average suburbanite.
]That may be true, but not really relevant. [/b]The measure discuss the average (per capita) energy usage not individual usage. Is it possible for an individual situation of a suburbanite to use less energy than the average New Yorker? Yes, but that's not the average suburbanite.
The same is true of the post I responded to in my post that you quoted. See below:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler
This is true in general, but the NYC system is an outlier -- it's about 2/3rds the energy compared to cars, IIRC. And there's fewer miles traveled. It's not surprising that a NYC resident living in a "spacious" 500 sq ft apartment and commuting 2 miles to work via subway uses less energy than a suburbanite living in a 2000 sq ft home and commuting 15 miles to work via car, even if there were no efficiency differences.
Now I think we're seeing the exact opposite trend from that suggested by the OP: NYC, LA, Chicago and the like will continue to propel further, towards more and more economic prosperity and global significance. Meanwhile, the second-tier cities such as Indianapolis, Baltimore and Cleveland will stagnate, and third-tier cities such as Dayton (Ohio) or Peoria (Illinois) will keep declining. Amongst the towns (too small to properly be cities), university-towns and tourist magnets will prosper, while the rest will decline. In sum, I would expect the opposite to happen, from what was supposed by the OP.
I think this is the most accurate statement on here. I'm a young person going into college, and the general consensus among people my age is that the "Big City" is the place to be. Young people want to live in places like NYC, LA, Philly, Boston, SF, DC, Chicago, etc... and even smaller cities on the rise that have that "cool factor," places like Seattle, Portland, Austin, and Pittsburgh. This is in large part due to the full emergence of wireless interconnectivity between people and places thanks to the likes of smartphones and such. Dense city living creates the "Live, work, play" environment that people want, and smartphones enable it. You can get bus schedules, pay for things, take photos, post them online, get directions, order food, talk to friends and SO MANY other things. Young people of today are (IMO) a lot more social that people of the past and the big cities are the most social places. Though ultimately, for young people, it's all about walkability, which gives the advantage to the larger cities. The second and third tier cities lack in population and walkabilty compared to our biggest cities, and are thus less desirable; I believe they will, as this poster wrote, stagnate and decline respectively. On the other hand, small walkable towns close to large cities, towns with colleges, and tourist destination places will prosper. In a world which everyone has a smartphone, anywhere not close to a big city will decline.
Last edited by PhillyPhan95; 07-14-2014 at 07:27 PM..
I think this is the most accurate statement on here. I'm a young person going into college, and the general consensus among people my age is that the "Big City" is the place to be. Young people want to live in places like NYC, LA, Philly, Boston, SF, DC, Chicago, etc... and even smaller cities on the rise that have that "cool factor," places like Seattle, Portland, Austin, and Pittsburgh. This is in large part due to the full emergence wireless interconnectivity between people and places thanks to the likes of smartphones and such. Dense city living creates the "Live, work, play" environment that people want, and smartphones enable it. You can get bus schedules, pay for things, take photos, post them online, get directions, order food, talk to friends and SO MANY other things. Young people of today are (IMO) a lot more social that people of the past and the big cities are the most social places. Though ultimately, for young people, it's all about walkability, which gives the advantage to the larger cities. The second and third tier cities lack in population and walkabilty compared to our biggest cities, and are thus less desirable; I believe they will, as this poster wrote, stagnate and decline respectively. On the other hand, small walkable towns close to large cities, towns with colleges, and tourist destination places will prosper. In a world which everyone has a smartphone, anywhere not close to a big city will decline.
Out of curiosity, exactly what have you decided to major in at this stage?
IC_deLight, I'm an incoming freshman at Penn, and I'm looking to major in mathematical economics, with possible minors in either actuarial mathematics or urban studies!
You are looking at a significant investment and several years of hard work. Were you planning to stay in academia upon graduation or were you planning to develop an education resume suitable for professional employment outside of an academic environment?
Your thesis: "In a world which everyone has a smartphone, anywhere not close to a big city will decline" might be an interesting topic to write about but is not likely to be borne out. Not everyone has or even wants a "smartphone" nor is smartphone use limited to big cities. Many folks view them as a tether and an anti-social device rather than as some social device. You are referring to a psychological dependency on a gadget as a basis for staying in or moving to a "big city".
As technology advances small-mid size cities become more able to provide more and more amenities of bigger cities. This combined with the advances of transportation technology leads me to believe that the future is cities of about 50-150k that have increasingly more amenities without the crime of huge cities, cost, etc....
Your thesis: "In a world which everyone has a smartphone, anywhere not close to a big city will decline" might be an interesting topic to write about but is not likely to be borne out. Not everyone has or even wants a "smartphone" nor is smartphone use limited to big cities. Many folks view them as a tether and an anti-social device rather than as some social device. You are referring to a psychological dependency on a gadget as a basis for staying in or moving to a "big city".
You could substitute the word "car" for the word "smartphone" and "suburb" for "big city" in this post and it makes a lot more sense...
Quote:
Your thesis: "In a world which everyone has a car, anywhere not close to a suburb will decline" might be an interesting topic to write about but is not likely to be borne out. Not everyone has or even wants a car nor is car use limited to suburbs. Many folks view them as a tether and an anti-social device rather than as some social device. You are referring to a psychological dependency on a gadget as a basis for staying in or moving to a "suburb".
There was a thread on another forum complaining about leaf blowers. I chimed in, joining the anti-leaf blowers side and added, "isn't the point of having lots of green space in your neighborhood so that you can have so nature and quiet?" A lot responded back, "if you want quiet move to the countryside, I want my manicured property!" Definitely didn't think they were living in a rural area.
Wanting one's manicured property is definitely more of a rural thing. And folks in rural areas tend to actually make lots of noise quite often (from loud farm equipment to recreational shooting guns off the back porch) and tend to treat their ability to make whatever noises they want, whenever they want, a sacred right. So yeah, basically the illusion is so complete that anyone acting as though they live in a community and have to get along (like moderating the noise you make to avoid bothering neighbors) is an affront to their property rights.
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.
