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.
Did you change your name...again? This is very confusing.
Anyway, and ignoring the sleight about TOD being somehow only for the pejorative meaning of hipsters, I'm not talking SOHO or some crazy, high-rent or high-density location. Any downtown/CBD for a larger metro is applicable. I'd go so far as to say it doesn't even need to be in the CBD itself, but only in reasonable proximity to it to get the density bonus.
Once a business is further out and density gets below a threshold (which isn't a high bar to begin with), small businesses have significantly fewer connections with each other and fewer employees to choose from. Below some limit, there's just way less human activity and far fewer interactions. This is measurable and represents an opportunity cost for businesses, even small mom-and-pops.
Yeah, I decided I didn't like "FallsAngel", and I was sick of Katiana. Anyway, I can give you an example-my spouse worked for a very small company (# of employees varied a little over the years but was generally 5-8) and they could not afford to locate in big business parks. They went with smaller places. Heck, even the larger company he now works for (~200 employees) couldn't afford to locate in a big business park when they were looking for a new place. They are in a small park. I know, anecdotal, but probably not unusual.
Sprawl is not going anywhere. It is easier to build out than up. I know this will probably put some city people in a frenzy but the truth is realistically we don't really need skyscrapers anymore. Internet and communications technologies have essentially eliminated the need for jobs to be centralized in one location. As a result of this, jobs no longer have to be in a cities core, they can be spread out throughout downtown and suburbs with little effect on efficiency. The sad truth is skyscrapers don't offer many advantages to businesses anymore besides good views. We will continue to build out the majority of the time until we run out of land is my opinion.
Sprawl is not going anywhere. It is easier to build out than up. I know this will probably put some city people in a frenzy but the truth is realistically we don't really need skyscrapers anymore. Internet and communications technologies have essentially eliminated the need for jobs to be centralized in one location. As a result of this, jobs no longer have to be in a cities core, they can be spread out throughout downtown and suburbs with little effect on efficiency. The sad truth is skyscrapers don't offer many advantages to businesses anymore besides good views. We will continue to build out the majority of the time until we run out of land is my opinion.
So, do you believe we'll become even more dependent on the automobile?
How do we combat the ugliness of our surroundings, that is common with sprawl? (although, most people seem to have grown numb to this, so maybe it won't be an issue)
Sprawl is not going anywhere. It is easier to build out than up. I know this will probably put some city people in a frenzy but the truth is realistically we don't really need skyscrapers anymore. Internet and communications technologies have essentially eliminated the need for jobs to be centralized in one location. As a result of this, jobs no longer have to be in a cities core, they can be spread out throughout downtown and suburbs with little effect on efficiency. The sad truth is skyscrapers don't offer many advantages to businesses anymore besides good views. We will continue to build out the majority of the time until we run out of land is my opinion.
If that's true, then why don't all the dozens if not hundreds of large financial, fashion and other types of business firms still headquartered in Manhattan relocate to somewhere else where the costs of commercial space are a heck of a lot cheaper? They don't because for those companies there are many tangible and intangible benefits to be located in the place that is historically the center of their industry. These are benefits that go way beyond "good views," like having more industry credibility and being able to easily meet with clients and others.
This isn't just a NYC thing either. Here in Washington, DC, if you're a lobbying firm, you're going to get a lot more credibility if your office is on K Street in downtown DC rather than out in Gaithersburg, Maryland, for example, even though Gaithersburg would save a lot of money in rent.
You can find similar pet industries in many other big cities around the country.
So, sorry if it sends suburb people "into a frenzy," but skyscrapers and centralized urban work locations aren't going away. Maybe there is LESS need of them than in the past due to telecommuting and the like (a very good thing my book) but that doesn't translate to NO need. They still make sense to a lot of companies.
Sprawl is not going anywhere. It is easier to build out than up. I know this will probably put some city people in a frenzy but the truth is realistically we don't really need skyscrapers anymore. Internet and communications technologies have essentially eliminated the need for jobs to be centralized in one location. As a result of this, jobs no longer have to be in a cities core, they can be spread out throughout downtown and suburbs with little effect on efficiency. The sad truth is skyscrapers don't offer many advantages to businesses anymore besides good views. We will continue to build out the majority of the time until we run out of land is my opinion.
This is a false dichotomy of 1-story office parks vs. skyscrapers.
While it may be easier to build out, it is neither difficult nor expensive to build mildly up (2-6 floors) to the level necessary to have major benefits to the local economy and governments, but it certainly is expensive to the economy as a whole and to local governments--who must supply services and maintain infrastructure--in the long-term to build wide and short and very low density.
And it isn't just me saying that density has value to business. Here's an excerpt from a paper from some economists at the NY Fed Reserve Bank:
Quote:
tests of joint significance show that density is a significant determinant of urban productivity for all of the industry sectors considered except Agricultural and Mining, and Transportation and Utilities.
While it may be easier to build out, it is neither difficult nor expensive to build mildly up (2-6 floors) to the level necessary to have major benefits to the local economy and governments
The Americans With Disabilities act changed that. It used to be you could build to moderate levels without elevators; now you need them for anything above 1 story, which increases both space requirements and capital and operating costs.
Keep like a million houses and it would be like the country again, we upgrade everything els why not cities?
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.
