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.
Doesn't it cost less to heat and cool one large office building instead of several smaller outposts? So much of this comes down to economies of scale and cities win.
Doesn't it cost less to heat and cool one large office building instead of several smaller outposts? So much of this comes down to economies of scale and cities win.
The larger the space, the more it costs to heat and cool. My guess is that it takes less energy to heat an area 20 feet off the ground than an area that is 200 feet off of the ground b/c of the difference in temperature as you get higher off of the ground.
But the real advantage is the lower price for office space outside major cities and the fact that it may be closer to your employees. Afterall, people don't live in office buildings.
A proposal for a suburban mass transit initiative is one thing. Getting people who live in the affected areas to vote it in is something else again. In Atlanta, the people voted down a proposal that would have greatly expanded the local mass transit system. Their reason was that nobody has the right to tell them not to drive! Very well--if that's the way they feel, then let 'em live with their four-hour-plus commutes to work. Money earmarked for mass transit could be better spent in areas where the people actually see it as a benefit.
Assuming you're talking about the suburbs around New York City, my question is: do you think people who live in Westchester and Long Island would vote in favor of mass transit expansion?
You know what? Too many people who have their cars are too dependent on them. I truly believe that with with the rejection of conjestion pricing in New York, people truly missed the boat, especially with the rising oil. That initiative would have vastly improved public transportation in the outer boroughs (outer edges of the city), decreasing the need for cars.
The larger the space, the more it costs to heat and cool. My guess is that it takes less energy to heat an area 20 feet off the ground than an area that is 200 feet off of the ground b/c of the difference in temperature as you get higher off of the ground.
But the real advantage is the lower price for office space outside major cities and the fact that it may be closer to your employees. Afterall, people don't live in office buildings.
I think it costs more to heat and cool a larger open space, but less to cool several smaller spaces that are closer together. For example, it costs less to heat the 44 apartments in my building than it would cost to heat 44 single family homes because the shared walls retain heat.
Honestly a lot of what you wrote seems like a pipe dream.
Yes people can work at home more often, but what happens to their productivity? Does as much get done if you're sitting in your living room working on your laptop instead of in the office? Will you eventually get passed over for promotions by your boss if you are at your house instead of at the office?
Yes they do have faster trains in Europe and Japan, but bullet trains generally aren't for commuting. In Japan the cost of riding on a bullet train is quite expensive. That is why most normal Japanese opt to live closer into the city and use normal mass transit.
Regarding the price of mass transit. Costs have certainly gone up, but nearly all of the trains running in and around NYC are electrified at this point. A small number of them do still run on diesel, but the vast majority of commuter trains and all subway cars, PATH trains, and NJ light rail cars are electrified to my knowledge. The city gets a lot of our electricity from Nuclear (Indian Point). I think it makes up 40-50% of the city's power.
We could easily increase this by building a new nuclear plant, and mitigate any further increases in the cost of oil/natural gas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthQueens149
There has been talk for some time about building a high speed rail link between Manhattan and Sullivan County, NY. The last stop before the city would be Poughkeepsie, and then the train would express to Manhattan in about 45 minutes-1 hr.
I don't think the suburbs are going anywhere. There are 20 million people living in the NYC Metro area, and many live in the suburbs as there is no room in the area's cities to absorb the suburbanites.
There are two opposite forces at play right now with regards to the Urban-Suburban debate:
Technology: Faster computers and evergrowing high speed networks (DSL, FIOS, Cable) are connecting more and more people and making work away from the office (ie at home) more of an option. Even mass transit costs money, and letting your workers work from home could save them thousands of dollars a yr.
Fuel: Makes commuting more expensive--even mass transit has to pass on the higher cost of gasoline, Diesel, electricity. Commuting 50-150 miles a day by car becomes almost impossible/impossible for many with near $5 a gallon gasoilne.
So which wins out? Well, technology will keep marching on, and not just computer technology. The technology to make cars that run on electricity, hydrogen fuel cells, compressed air, and even water is already here, it's just a matter of mass producing them. So that solves the car problem. But technology can also making mass transit faster, as it has done in Europe and Japan. That means people can travel from further and further to and from Urban areas in less time--which makes both the suburbs and exurbs an option for residential living.
We of course need to conserve energy, and I'm all in favor of walkable neighborhoods, but poor people taking over mcmansions and growing crops on their front lawns is a bit much. Sounds like a Will Smith movie.
But in the 60s and 70s poor people took over former mansions in downtowns all over the South. (I can't speak to NYC, but I imagine some similar things happened there) They just converted them into apartments. What was once a mansion, became a 20-unit dump! So, I don't know that it's that far-fetched. Although, the NYC burbs may be a different story.
In Charlotte, NC, which boomed in the 80s and 90s, the once posh east side, with relatively large homes, has become ghettoized, and other areas on the outer rings of the city are deteriorating as the once-dreaded inner-city has gotten posh. There are only a few cheap neighborhoods near downtown now.
We voted for mass transit expansion twice, and now have one train line which is filled to capacity each day. The bus system has expanded greatly in the last 10 years, but I imagine for people without a car it is very hard to get around, especially since some neighborhoods don't have any sidewalks and 6-lane roads without crosswalks are common.
I have always felt that the design of suburbs from the 1970s on was very poor. No sidewalks, no sense of community. The goal seemed to be isolation, not community. I'm sure that people prefer a sense of community. I wish I had sidewalks in my suburban home. But turning that into a doomsday scenario with everyone moving back to the city center is extreme and unlikely. Yes, many young hipsters want to be in the city, but will they as they age and have kids? Who knows. And what of the generations that follow them? I don't think anyone can predict long-term trends with accuracy. The future is unpredictible. There are wonderful things about urban living, but plenty of bad things too. Same with suburban living. Neither is right for everyone.
When I was 13, my parents bought a house in central New Jersey, and moved the whole family out of NYC. I hated it from Day One. Moved back to Brooklyn right after I got out of college and landed my first job. What it all boils down to is, some people are comfortable with suburbia, and others aren't.
This is an interesting topic... and it identifies a side effect of urban gentrification, which is a long term trend that has been happening since the mid-to-late eighties.
It's hard to imagine McMansions in formerly wealthy exurbs being occupied by 10 poor families. I personally don't see that happening any time soon. It seems like the crime described in the article was being committed by local teenagers. Solidly affluent second-ring and exurban communities will probably stay that way for a long time.
What is happening, however, is that older first ring suburbs are beginning to experience the poverty, crime and decay that used to be characteristic of inner cities. The first ring municipalities appeal to neither urban professionals nor affluent suburban/exurban families, and the smaller, older housing stock is being converted to rentals.
Housing is turning over quickly in the first ring. Currently, the first ring is considered "starter housing", with families eventually moving on to farther-out suburbs. Many residents in the first ring are also long-term empty-nesters and elderly residents who are moving out or literally dying off.
On a note related to an earlier post: suburban areas do have local communities and residents are not generally living in isolation. However, those communities are usually centered around schools. If you have kids in school, you generally get to know your neighbors.
Honestly a lot of what you wrote seems like a pipe dream.
Yes people can work at home more often, but what happens to their productivity? Does as much get done if you're sitting in your living room working on your laptop instead of in the office? Will you eventually get passed over for promotions by your boss if you are at your house instead of at the office?
Yes they do have faster trains in Europe and Japan, but bullet trains generally aren't for commuting. In Japan the cost of riding on a bullet train is quite expensive. That is why most normal Japanese opt to live closer into the city and use normal mass transit.
Regarding the price of mass transit. Costs have certainly gone up, but nearly all of the trains running in and around NYC are electrified at this point. A small number of them do still run on diesel, but the vast majority of commuter trains and all subway cars, PATH trains, and NJ light rail cars are electrified to my knowledge. The city gets a lot of our electricity from Nuclear (Indian Point). I think it makes up 40-50% of the city's power.
We could easily increase this by building a new nuclear plant, and mitigate any further increases in the cost of oil/natural gas.
Well I work from home from time to time, and personally I think its great. I get tons of work done, and I find it less distracting and I am generally more relaxed. But I'm not an advocate of working from home every day. At that point I think you start getting diminishing returns.
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.
