Why suburbia sucks (Atlanta, Marietta, Smyrna: new home, shopping mall, moving to)

[abalashov]

Another big problem, from the vantage point of a business owner, is that even though my car commute may be five minutes, everyone else's is not likely to be. I'm dooming 90% of my work force to sitting in their car for a lot of their waking hours, no matter who I hire. That's the problem when everything is spread all over the galaxy and nothing is centralised or efficient.

Yes, I'm in IT, you don't have to sell me on the virtues of remote working. It has its place, but so does in-person work in a lot of industries. All my employees have always been remote because I didn't want to doom them to pointless commutes through billboard wasteland. Furthermore, I have a sense it wouldn't be such a hot topic of agitprop if it weren't so long, arduous, tedious, and boring to go into the office to begin with. As it stands now, anyone would do almost anything to avoid sitting in their car for 45 min in order to get to a fluorescently lit cube farm that's equally in the middle of nowhere. That's understandable.

[abalashov]

The low-density sprawl causes another insidious issue: labour market friction. I had lots of colleagues who turned down career advancement opportunities and/or better-paying jobs because it would require either enduring a punishing commute or moving across the city. The latter means selling their house--and most of them had houses, thanks to the policy distortions our government has applied to the market in support of home ownership and the single-family home-building industries. For a lot of reasons, that was either financially or logistically prohibitive; they might have to take a loss on their home (Great Recession years), or they may not be able to afford living closer to their new "employment centre". This reason for reduced fluidity and mobility in the labour market doesn't see much discussion, but, anecdotally, seems to be a very serious factor for many people.

In a more dense, centralised city with quick, efficient and effective public transportation that has good reach into most of its corners, it doesn't matter that much where you live in relation to your work. Even if it's on the other end of the city--and indeed, many jobs everywhere are not in the city centre--it's not that big of a deal. It doesn't mean you might have to make a rush-hour drive from Stone Mountain to Alpharetta or Peachtree City to Kennesaw, although, as we all know, in Atlanta traffic, a car commute doesn't need to be nearly so long to be very oppressive and adversely affect one's quality of life when done in both directions daily. For a variety of psychological reasons, even 30-45 minutes in a train is much more pleasant, invigorating and healthy than being chained to a steering wheel, sitting in parking-lot traffic in billboard wasteland (and in my experience, most public transit commutes aren't nearly that long; we're talking here about effective, reliable public transport systems that run at short headways, not MARTA).

[sstsunami55]

Originally Posted by abalashov

Did you read the inline quote to which your comment was ostensibly a reply? At no point did I say that everyone should want "urban paradise", or that everyone does.

It was my contention that far more people want it, or would want it, if the incentives were not, in every other respect, highly skewed. But it was never about taking away choice.

BTW, well-developed cities have busier and quieter parts, the latter of which are sought after by older people, couples with families, and just people looking for a slower pace. I've already mentioned repeatedly what that looks like. Throngs of crowds and tourists, and hustle and bustle generalluy, aren't a mandatory part of city life, but neither should my only choices be Fifth Avenue or living in a vast moonscape of highway-side billboards. There is a vast continuum between those extremes, and good cities offer a lot of options along the spectrum.

Yeah, I don't get why people tend to generalize and only talk about the extremes. You can live in a quiet area of a city if you want.

[sstsunami55]

Originally Posted by abalashov

The low-density sprawl causes another insidious issue: labour market friction. I had lots of colleagues who turned down career advancement opportunities and/or better-paying jobs because it would require either enduring a punishing commute or moving across the city. The latter means selling their house--and most of them had houses, thanks to the policy distortions our government has applied to the market in support of home ownership and the single-family home-building industries. For a lot of reasons, that was either financially or logistically prohibitive; they might have to take a loss on their home (Great Recession years), or they may not be able to afford living closer to their new "employment centre". This reason for reduced fluidity and mobility in the labour market doesn't see much discussion, but, anecdotally, seems to be a very serious factor for many people.

In a more dense, centralised city with quick, efficient and effective public transportation that has good reach into most of its corners, it doesn't matter that much where you live in relation to your work. Even if it's on the other end of the city--and indeed, many jobs everywhere are not in the city centre--it's not that big of a deal. It doesn't mean you might have to make a rush-hour drive from Stone Mountain to Alpharetta or Peachtree City to Kennesaw, although, as we all know, in Atlanta traffic, a car commute doesn't need to be nearly so long to be very oppressive and adversely affect one's quality of life when done in both directions daily. For a variety of psychological reasons, even 30-45 minutes in a train is much more pleasant, invigorating and healthy than being chained to a steering wheel, sitting in parking-lot traffic in billboard wasteland (and in my experience, most public transit commutes aren't nearly that long; we're talking here about effective, reliable public transport systems that run at short headways, not MARTA).

Of course 30-45 minutes on a train is more pleasant. You can read a book, sleep, play phone games, work, or relax.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by sstsunami55

Of course 30-45 minutes on a train is more pleasant. You can read a book, sleep, play phone games, work, or relax.

That's also one reason I would consider riding a bus if I had an awful commute. I hate sitting in traffic.

[abalashov]

Originally Posted by sstsunami55

Yeah, I don't get why people tend to generalize and only talk about the extremes. You can live in a quiet area of a city if you want.

It doesn't strike me as overgeneralisation but rather the opposite. Since advocates of city living are, in the reference frame of most Americans, a niche special interest group of urban hipsters who want to live close to noisy bars and get rowdy with their friends, it follows that quiet areas aren't really contemplated.

Quiet areas sound like something normal people would want, not some beanie-wearing, non-cisgendered underemployed baristas with a frou-frou liberal arts degree, and quiet areas are something that would be expected to exist in a widespread or semi-default form of settlement organisation. Since only avant garde, experimentally-minded, unsettled youth want to live amidst rats, typhoid fever and crack dealers, why would there be anything but thundering bar districts, graffiti, and other indicia of seedy delinquency?

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by sstsunami55

Of course 30-45 minutes on a train is more pleasant. You can read a book, sleep, play phone games, work, or relax.

I'd say that depends on the person and the circumstances. Cruising along in a modern air conditioned vehicle is quite pleasant, especially if you've got good seats and a good sound system. You can come and go on your own schedule and travel door to door. You can easily make side trips, pick up others and carry cargo. You can carry food and drink, and snack if you are so inclined. If you have a hands free system it's a great time to catch up on your phone calls. I personally like to listen to music or books on tape.

[BR Valentine]

Originally Posted by arjay57

I'd say that depends on the person and the circumstances. Cruising along in a modern air conditioned vehicle is quite pleasant, especially if you've got good seats and a good sound system. You can come and go on your own schedule and travel door to door. You can easily make side trips, pick up others and carry cargo. You can carry food and drink, and snack if you are so inclined. If you have a hands free system it's a great time to catch up on your phone calls. I personally like to listen to music or books on tape.

It depends greatly on circumstances. I've done the 35 minute or so commuter rail commute on a line where I could get a seat most days. It was convenient way to commute most of the time. I've also done subway and bus/subway commuting in NYC. It beats owning a car, but pleasant is not a word any New Yorker would use to describe the experience.

I had to go from Long Island City to UES at rush hour last week. The only thing that's changed over the years is that the inbound train from LIC is jam packed these days. East side trains are the same rolling sardine cans they've always been.

[sstsunami55]

Originally Posted by abalashov

It doesn't strike me as overgeneralisation but rather the opposite. Since advocates of city living are, in the reference frame of most Americans, a niche special interest group of urban hipsters who want to live close to noisy bars and get rowdy with their friends, it follows that quiet areas aren't really contemplated.

Quiet areas sound like something normal people would want, not some beanie-wearing, non-cisgendered underemployed baristas with a frou-frou liberal arts degree, and quiet areas are something that would be expected to exist in a widespread or semi-default form of settlement organisation. Since only avant garde, experimentally-minded, unsettled youth want to live amidst rats, typhoid fever and crack dealers, why would there be anything but thundering bar districts, graffiti, and other indicia of seedy delinquency?

Even that's not completely true. Lots of baby boomers are downsizing their homes and moving to condos in cities. There are plenty of areas in cities that have the benefits of density and walkability without all of the problems. Only certain neighborhoods are like that. But the urban hipsters just tend to be the most vocal.

I never really understood that mentality that you described. Lots of Americans have visited European cities before. They've seen working, functioning, cities where everybody lives, not just hipsters.

[JoeTarheel]

Originally Posted by sstsunami55

Even that's not completely true. Lots of baby boomers are downsizing their homes and moving to condos in cities. There are plenty of areas in cities that have the benefits of density and walkability without all of the problems. Only certain neighborhoods are like that. But the urban hipsters just tend to be the most vocal.

I never really understood that mentality that you described. Lots of Americans have visited European cities before. They've seen working, functioning, cities where everybody lives, not just hipsters.

And they've seen the suburban areas surrounding the European cities as well...some people don't realize how much suburbia there actually is around European cities. It does exist.