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.
Regarding changing jobs...I guess moving from a job in, let say, Reston to one in Rosslyn back to one in Tysons count? Just picking random job centers in NoVA as an example.
Regarding urban living - one have to remember that suburbia developed to begin with is because of the availability of lower price housing with more space. What then happened was the decline of some inner neighborhood, but many cities still have desirable urban neighborhood that stay expensive even throughout 60s/70s.
And the OP (not you...) have to realized that even in ultra dense cities like Hong Kong, a lot of people lives in "New Town" which are essentially suburban areas and commutes to business centers. Why? More space for new development that are more desirable, more space/parks for kids (especially in space limited cities like HK), etc. And if you say "Well, it's still dense enough"...the shops in most of those New Town consist of endless chains in suburban malls. Sounds familiar?
===========================
P.S. Millennials (I'm one) are also at a point where they are starting families (if they desire so) - and guess what? Once you have kids it's a totally different story.
I count suburbs as cities. Its basically just a city. Small ones at that though that surround a bigger city. There are some very walkable suburbs like in NJ, and LI, but people are sometimes lazy and dont.
The entire NEC may as well be just one large city. Hence, even in fiction Megacity One Judge Dredd fame is based on the Northeast Corridor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnythingOutdoors
And rural areas by themselves are also unsustainable. Farms depend on technology and services based in population centers. Rural areas also depend on infrastructure such as the electric grid and distribution channels for things like heating fuel and gasoline that are managed from cities. Look around your house and tell us, how many of the things you use to live day-to-day were made locally in your rural community? Your vehicles (and the gas they use), appliances, building materials used to construct your house, yard/farm equipment? Is all of your food grown and processed locally? Medicines?
This idealistic view of rural life as rugged and independent is naive and far removed from reality in the modern west. To really be independent of cities you'd need to return to a 1800s lifestyle and forgo vehicles, electricity, internet (and... um.... you're on an internet forum), refrigeration, modern medical care, and countless other technological advances. A very tiny number of people are doing this.
The reality is that cities and rural areas are mutually dependent on one another.
Farms/ranches, in conjunction smaller towns is what this country needs more of. But our small towns are dying or are already dead as people flock to the mega regions. You can even throw in smaller cities like Dodge City, Syracuse, Burlington, Spokane etc etc. These small cities are only surviving by turning into a college town which is dependent on more and more young people putting themselves into massive debt. Or they survive as the States Capitol.
What this country needs is more balance between rural, small towns, small cities and big metros. The once vaunted Rust Belt like Trenton, Camden, Pittsburgh, Cleveland which produced much of the goods itself is dying or their industrial base has been gutted. I am told they changed into a service based economy. So when you ask me where all those items are being managed from and made, I say overseas.
Fuel, and gasoline are only stored in the mega regions because its convenient to be near the customer base. The reality is our cities dont even produce that much anyways besides video games, apps, and movies/TV shows. Plus there is a region in Mississippi that has this aluminum company building another factory to make aluminum products. I say that region is pretty rural. So there you have it. We are still making things out in the sticks while our industrial cities are turning to service based economies.
Advancements in technology should make it easier to break from the cluster. So far much of the advancements has been making this smaller, lighter, and therefore easily portable. Look at smartphones. Personal vehicles like cars have the purpose being able to give individuals freedom to go where they want and not rely on the group transport network like trains. I get great cell reception out in the middle of nowhere.
I am not sure where you are going with medical services, and refrigeration. With say for example, OnStar, I can be out in the middle of nowhere have a problem, and press the OnStar button, and voila I am rescued. Refrigeration also has given us the ability to be independent. We can all have our own units of refrigeration. If you are worried about electricity; well let me ask you this. In what direction to you think electrical engineering advancements is headed if not towards being able to send power further and further away with less loss of power, or to remote generation, or stored charges that let you get away from the main grid for longer?
Like solar power is all about utilizing the sun which is everywhere for the most part. You can have your own unit that get power from the sun. You dont need to even be connected to anything except nature itself. Or better batteries that store more charges, and be plugged in less. Or items that use electricity more efficiently so dont need to plug in all the time.
I count suburbs as cities. Its basically just a city. Small ones at that though that surround a bigger city. There are some very walkable suburbs like in NJ, and LI, but people are sometimes lazy and dont.
The entire NEC may as well be just one large city. Hence, even in fiction Megacity One Judge Dredd fame is based on the Northeast Corridor.
Farms/ranches, in conjunction smaller towns is what this country needs more of. But our small towns are dying or are already dead as people flock to the mega regions. You can even throw in smaller cities like Dodge City, Syracuse, Burlington, Spokane etc etc. These small cities are only surviving by turning into a college town which is dependent on more and more young people putting themselves into massive debt. Or they survive as the States Capitol.
What this country needs is more balance between rural, small towns, small cities and big metros. The once vaunted Rust Belt like Trenton, Camden, Pittsburgh, Cleveland which produced much of the goods itself is dying or their industrial base has been gutted. I am told they changed into a service based economy. So when you ask me where all those items are being managed from and made, I say overseas.
Fuel, and gasoline are only stored in the mega regions because its convenient to be near the customer base. The reality is our cities dont even produce that much anyways besides video games, apps, and movies/TV shows. Plus there is a region in Mississippi that has this aluminum company building another factory to make aluminum products. I say that region is pretty rural. So there you have it. We are still making things out in the sticks while our industrial cities are turning to service based economies.
Advancements in technology should make it easier to break from the cluster. So far much of the advancements has been making this smaller, lighter, and therefore easily portable. Look at smartphones. Personal vehicles like cars have the purpose being able to give individuals freedom to go where they want and not rely on the group transport network like trains. I get great cell reception out in the middle of nowhere.
I am not sure where you are going with medical services, and refrigeration. With say for example, OnStar, I can be out in the middle of nowhere have a problem, and press the OnStar button, and voila I am rescued. Refrigeration also has given us the ability to be independent. We can all have our own units of refrigeration. If you are worried about electricity; well let me ask you this. In what direction to you think electrical engineering advancements is headed if not towards being able to send power further and further away with less loss of power, or to remote generation, or stored charges that let you get away from the main grid for longer?
Like solar power is all about utilizing the sun which is everywhere for the most part. You can have your own unit that get power from the sun. You dont need to even be connected to anything except nature itself. Or better batteries that store more charges, and be plugged in less. Or items that use electricity more efficiently so dont need to plug in all the time.
I don't think we need anyone deciding how many people should live in the country or the city. It's a free country, people will live where the economics and preferences make sense for them, and that's how it should be.
There's a synergy that happens in cities that goes beyond just being close to customers. Having highly educated/skilled workers concentrated in an area creates all sorts of cross-pollination and entrepreneurial opportunities. I have nothing against rural areas, in fact I grew up in the country. But cities are where stuff gets designed and built.
Those solar panels? Made possible by scientific research and engineering done primarily in cities. Likely manufactured in a city in China. Shipped via logistics companies based in major cities. Passing through major port cities before being shipped by truck and/or rail, also based in cities. The same is true of the inverter and batteries used for an off-grid system. By the time all the necessary components get to your house in the country numerous cities across the global supply chain have made it all possible. And you're never free from this connection to the outside world. If something breaks or the batteries wear out you're again dependent on a far flung global network.
The medical service topic is really very simple. Small town medical facilities are fine for basic care. But if you ever need a specialist, you'll almost certainly end up in a bigger city. I live in Idaho where there are tons of small remote towns. Pretty normal here for people get flown into Boise or Salt Lake City when they need a higher level of care.
I count suburbs as cities. Its basically just a city. Small ones at that though that surround a bigger city. There are some very walkable suburbs like in NJ, and LI, but people are sometimes lazy and dont.
The entire NEC may as well be just one large city. Hence, even in fiction Megacity One Judge Dredd fame is based on the Northeast Corridor.
Well, I only mention those suburbs b/c the other OP was so anti-suburb where everyone should live in some dense rowhouse neighborhood...
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJ Brazen_3133
Farms/ranches, in conjunction smaller towns is what this country needs more of. But our small towns are dying or are already dead as people flock to the mega regions. You can even throw in smaller cities like Dodge City, Syracuse, Burlington, Spokane etc etc. These small cities are only surviving by turning into a college town which is dependent on more and more young people putting themselves into massive debt. Or they survive as the States Capitol.
What this country needs is more balance between rural, small towns, small cities and big metros. The once vaunted Rust Belt like Trenton, Camden, Pittsburgh, Cleveland which produced much of the goods itself is dying or their industrial base has been gutted. I am told they changed into a service based economy. So when you ask me where all those items are being managed from and made, I say overseas.
Fuel, and gasoline are only stored in the mega regions because its convenient to be near the customer base. The reality is our cities dont even produce that much anyways besides video games, apps, and movies/TV shows. Plus there is a region in Mississippi that has this aluminum company building another factory to make aluminum products. I say that region is pretty rural. So there you have it. We are still making things out in the sticks while our industrial cities are turning to service based economies.
One thing that makes town dead, though, is exactly the advancement in technologies. Farms nowaday required nowhere the amount of actual labor.
Then there's cultural shift - you're telling younger generation even one that grew up in farmland to just continue to do menial hard labor in the farm for the next 30 years? Guess what? They would rather be in comfortable offices with air conditioning. It's also somewhat related to the whole illegal immigration issue - it IS true that whatever labor intensive jobs just could not find enough people no matter how people argue otherwise. You wonder why there are some random towns in the middle of nowhere Iowa all of a sudden can be more diverse than some white bread suburbs?
As far as industry goes - automation also did reduced the labor required. Even, let say, a 20% decrease in labor required means those 20% of people would have to look for jobs elsewhere.
Automation also means scale of factories increase - i.e. instead of having production in 3 small towns they basically pick 1 single "lucky" town for those production - while leaving the other 2 towns behind. That single town would now be the "economic center" not just due to the factory, but also b/c having a somewhat stable local economy means people spend money = nicer business areas including "small town main street" which attracts urbanites at times during weekend breaks. Those 2 other small towns, though, have a shuttered main street, with only low paying jobs remaining, and basically become truly "fly over country".
Large cities are increasingly not worth the trouble.
And where do business move? Suburbia of those large cities? Or "Texas" aka moving to...umm, Downtown Dallas aka one of the anchor of the 4th largest MSA / 5th largest Urban Area in the whole country?
All those talks about "crime" and umm...I guess cities like Naperville is now a no-go zone just b/c Chicago is supposed to have high crime?
Or do you think business will just go to some small dunkhole towns and lose a bunch of their employees unwilling to relocate to such places? Unless you think telework/WFH is really the future for each and every jobs with people living in some million dollar home in the mountains?
Wait...look at Boise real estate market...
P.S. How do you define "large" city? To somebody from Top 15 metros a city like, let say, Indianapolis is small. But to small town dwellers Indianapolis is the "big city"...
And where do business move? Suburbia of those large cities? Or "Texas" aka moving to...umm, Downtown Dallas aka one of the anchor of the 4th largest MSA / 5th largest Urban Area in the whole country?
You're making it false choice. It's possible for businesses to maintain a decent presence in large cities, but also start to invest more in smaller metros, which are MUCH better primed to accommodate population growth at this point, for a number of reasons (most notably, much cheaper housing).
And it's not a matter of anyone really pushing for this to happen in any coordinated fashion; it's pretty much the only path forward.
It will all be okay. Large metro areas will be getting by just fine, and likely even continue to see some growth--just not as feverish. But they're not the only act in the show, nor should they be.
If anything, remote work trends should lead to a lot more economic balance in America. It's a good thing for everyone.
You're making it false choice. It's possible for businesses to maintain a decent presence in large cities, but also start to invest more in smaller metros, which are MUCH better primed to accommodate population growth at this point, for a number of reasons (most notably, much cheaper housing).
And it's not a matter of anyone really pushing for this to happen in any coordinated fashion; it's pretty much the only path forward.
It will all be okay. Large metro areas will be getting by just fine, and likely even continue to see some growth--just not as feverish. But they're not the only act in the show, nor should they be.
If anything, remote work trends should lead to a lot more economic balance in America. It's a good thing for everyone.
True...and the thing is, there are actually presence of large corporations even in smaller metros, not to mention the small/medium size one. There are also mid-size metros such as Indy or Omaha or even Des Moines that are doing fine economically.
You will have some winner and loser no matter what. Look at Ohio - Columbus is doing fine, Cincy is meh but it has a large corporate presence, Cleveland is still somewhat in transition; all three metros are somewhat cheap when it comes to housing. So maybe Ohio should have told Intel to build that plant in some metro areas that are not doing as well instead of Columbus area which is already doing fine?
tl;dr: US economy is already more balanced across the board than people give credit to. If you want true inbalance you look at places like UK (London only...rest of country? Ehh...they exist?) or France or even Japan and South Korea...
will the jobs migrate out, through remote work, to where the available affordable housing is. This affordablility gap that is present won't continue now that remote work presents a viable alternative, people will live where they can afford based on their salary.
The affordability gap has gotten this bad in the first place because job creation isn't something that's easily moved. If it were, it would have been by now! People have been bemoaning the housing price differential for decades, and yet it not only hasn't narrowed, it's only widened. A big reason why, as I pointed out in a different thread, the difference in office rents between a high-cost and low-cost metro amount to only 0.3% of a tech company's revenue per employee. The upside potentials from concentration for businesses vastly outpace the literally marginal additional costs.
neither the scale of the moves seen to date nor the most frequent format of remote work seem to forecast a wholesale decentralization of tech…*literature showing that as new technologies mature, a portion of their employment gradually spreads out geographically… “pioneer” regions, report Bloom and others, then seem to maintain a persistent advantage in early-stage development and ancillary growth. This, in turn, confers long-lasting local benefits on the early hubs.
In the 1960s-1990s, a lot of industrial firms moved their factories and offices out of major cities and to suburbs in either the north or the Sunbelt, then later overseas. Yet major cities' economic bases held, because their firms grew faster!
All I see is people spinning the tiniest bits of truth as justifying the long-held American prejudice against cities. This obsession with (comically imaginary) "self-reliance" in terms of producing physical goods, for instance, is just so weird. Cities don't produce large quantities of boring physical goods not because we can't, but because that kind of routine work is better farmed out to elsewhere.
The affordability gap has gotten this bad in the first place because job creation isn't something that's easily moved. If it were, it would have been by now! People have been bemoaning the housing price differential for decades, and yet it not only hasn't narrowed, it's only widened. A big reason why, as I pointed out in a different thread, the difference in office rents between a high-cost and low-cost metro amount to only 0.3% of a tech company's revenue per employee. The upside potentials from concentration for businesses vastly outpace the literally marginal additional costs.
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to argue here.
I'd posit that any pre-pandemic research about profitability and upsides to business concentration are effectively outdated at this point. We've now had over 2 years of a "great big experiment" of remote work, which has been disproportionately adopted by tech firms, with workforces dispersed across the country and the globe. And guess what? Productivity and profitability have been just fine.
The pandemic is what has precipitated this whole conversation, and it's not going to go away. The cat is completely out of the bag. The idea that co-location is critical to business success is just farcical now.
Employees, not businesses, will be driving investment decisions for the forseeable future, because of labor shortages that will now be the norm. Not every potential employee wants to live their life in an expensive tech hub--not even close--and it's really quite absurd for anyone to hold onto this fantasy that Joe Engineer in Sheboygan has to pack up his bags and head to the big city for an office job at Headquarters in Chicago. Certainly Joe Engineer will have that option, but employees will increasingly be given a choice.
The "old days" of everyone hauling themselves to a 9-5 desk job in the big city downtown is not coming back, folks. Better to adapt now.
All I'm saying is is that United States developers has basically refused to give anyone an option other than car-centric suburbia since most work and will continue to work in the cities.
No, developers (like me) would very happily provide other options, but very little land (even within major cities!) is required by law to be low-density, car-centric suburbia: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ly-zoning.html
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.
