Will large cities become obsolete?

[garbon]

that driving is an absolute necessity to be self-sufficient because cabs to cover the usual distances traveled would get insanely expensive FAST.

I dont think that is true.  If you used a cab to travel everywhere it would likely be less expensive then the cost of owning, parking, insuring, operating and maintaining a vehicle (here it would be by a significant margin).  People pay the premium to own a vehicle for the prestige value and the convenience factor - waiting for a taxi can be a real pain in the ass.

I don't know that is true everywhere. I believe that cabs are quite expensive, in LA, for instance - whereas in New York they are much cheaper by same unit distance.

[garbon]

Another thing I didn't mention is that the larger a city is, the more fragile a system it is. It takes more resources to sustain, it's more susceptible to supply shocks in commodities and it's a more likely to suffer more from localized adversity. I don't think that's a reason people choose to live there or not, however.

I disagree.  There may be some kind of tipping point that becomes unstable but generally the larger the city the greater the concentration of goods, services and wealth.  Significant efficiencies are realized by providing to those concentrated centres.  If all of those people were to try to obtain the same levels of goods and services in decentralized locations considerably more resources would be used simply on transportation which in turn would require considerable upgrades infrastructure in large areas - rather than concentrating all of that in smaller areas.

The other thing for you to consider is that cities are the economic engines of our world.  If people dispersed out of major centres the economy would be signficantly transformed (read slash and burn).

Again, though, you have to keep in mind what makes cities tick is not necessarily minimized geometric distances, but rather minimized transportation costs.  If we develop much more efficient ways to transport ourselves and the goods, then cities could flatten out considerably without losing the advantage of being an economic engine.

Of course, will that be the case? To mind springs air travel. Certainly faster than other methods but also a hassle given security that even if at comparable cost, short distances are easier to travel by less obnoxious methods.

[Tamas]

Another thing I didn't mention is that the larger a city is, the more fragile a system it is. It takes more resources to sustain, it's more susceptible to supply shocks in commodities and it's a more likely to suffer more from localized adversity. I don't think that's a reason people choose to live there or not, however.

I disagree.  There may be some kind of tipping point that becomes unstable but generally the larger the city the greater the concentration of goods, services and wealth.  Significant efficiencies are realized by providing to those concentrated centres.  If all of those people were to try to obtain the same levels of goods and services in decentralized locations considerably more resources would be used simply on transportation which in turn would require considerable upgrades infrastructure in large areas - rather than concentrating all of that in smaller areas.

The other thing for you to consider is that cities are the economic engines of our world.  If people dispersed out of major centres the economy would be signficantly transformed (read slash and burn).

Again, though, you have to keep in mind what makes cities tick is not necessarily minimized geometric distances, but rather minimized transportation costs.  If we develop much more efficient ways to transport ourselves and the goods, then cities could flatten out considerably without losing the advantage of being an economic engine.

Of course, will that be the case? To mind springs air travel. Certainly faster than other methods but also a hassle given security that even if at comparable cost, short distances are easier to travel by less obnoxious methods.

What he says is already in effect to a degree. Like all those people who could not actually pay for central London accomodations from their central London jobs, so they move to the outskirts and commute 10% of their life away. If efficient transportation was not available, they would be living and working elsewhere.
Or there would be shanty towns in parks in London.

[crazy canuck]

The opposite seems to be more of an emerging truth to me. Its those who can afford to live in the city and not have to buy a car who do. Cars are increasingly for the poor (and those rich enough to have one as a luxury).

Agreed.  In this area the number of drivers who are 30 and under has dropped considerably.  Bikes have become the new status symbol in that age group.  This is for a couple reasons.  First and foremost people are choosing to live closer to where they work (ie they both live and work in the city) and so biking to work is practical.  Second is the cost issue you identified.  It costs a lot of money to own, insure and operate a vehicle.

The trend is so significant that new multifamily developments are planned with far fewer parking spaces than units because the developers know that parking spaces are no longer in demand.  They can make more money using that space for other things.

Did you read what Jos said? He said that he thinks poorer people tend to have cars aka those who can't afford to live in the city.

And I agree with him.  Those who are able to afford to live in the cities and who are fortunate enough to have the high paying jobs in the cities are not choosing to have cars for all the reasons I stated.  The younger people who do have cars are those who live out in the suburbs (because they cant afford to live near to their jobs).

edit: I just realized why you failed to understand.  Did you forget this is one of the most expensive cities in which to live?

[Sheilbh]

What he says is already in effect to a degree. Like all those people who could not actually pay for central London accomodations from their central London jobs, so they move to the outskirts and commute 10% of their life away. If efficient transportation was not available, they would be living and working elsewhere.

That's often a choice though. It's not that they can't afford it's that they prefer the suburbs. I think it's especially that way with London because, as Brazen says, each area is like it's own little village.

[crazy canuck]

Again, though, you have to keep in mind what makes cities tick is not necessarily minimized geometric distances, but rather minimized transportation costs.  If we develop much more efficient ways to transport ourselves and the goods, then cities could flatten out considerably without losing the advantage of being an economic engine.

I disagree, minimized geometric distances are a substantial reason why cities generate wealth.  Providers of goods and services can reach a much large market in a densely populated city.  The only way you could replicate that is if people had personal teleportation devices.

[garbon]

The opposite seems to be more of an emerging truth to me. Its those who can afford to live in the city and not have to buy a car who do. Cars are increasingly for the poor (and those rich enough to have one as a luxury).

Agreed.  In this area the number of drivers who are 30 and under has dropped considerably.  Bikes have become the new status symbol in that age group.  This is for a couple reasons.  First and foremost people are choosing to live closer to where they work (ie they both live and work in the city) and so biking to work is practical.  Second is the cost issue you identified.  It costs a lot of money to own, insure and operate a vehicle.

The trend is so significant that new multifamily developments are planned with far fewer parking spaces than units because the developers know that parking spaces are no longer in demand.  They can make more money using that space for other things.

Did you read what Jos said? He said that he thinks poorer people tend to have cars aka those who can't afford to live in the city.

And I agree with him.  Those who are able to afford to live in the cities and who are fortunate enough to have the high paying jobs in the cities are not choosing to have cars for all the reasons I stated.  The younger people who do have cars are those who live out in the suburbs (because they cant afford to live near to their jobs).

edit: I just realized why you failed to understand.  Did you forget this is one of the most expensive cities in which to live?

But that only speaks within a particular city. Young people generally don't have a lot of money and yet they are a big part of cities.  Jos's post to me suggested that it is the wealthy who are moving to cities which leaves the poor in the suburbs with the cars.

[Valmy]

That's often a choice though. It's not that they can't afford it's that they prefer the suburbs. I think it's especially that way with London because, as Brazen says, each area is like it's own little village.

Well if it is anything like New York they could afford it but only if they like having their entire family of four sharing one bedroom.

[crazy canuck]

But that only speaks within a particular city. Young people generally don't have a lot of money and yet they are a big part of cities.  Jos's post to me suggested that it is the wealthy who are moving to cities which leaves the poor in the suburbs with the cars.

It is the wealthy who move to cities.  Cities that are failing are obviously sad exceptions that prove the rule. 

[Valmy]

But that only speaks within a particular city. Young people generally don't have a lot of money and yet they are a big part of cities.  Jos's post to me suggested that it is the wealthy who are moving to cities which leaves the poor in the suburbs with the cars.

Well that has long been a European phenomenon hasn't it?  Besides young people are willing to do things like live with four roommates so that does not necessarily mean Jos is wrong.  Isn't one of the issues with Modern Manhattan is that it is largely becoming the playground of the rich?  I mean I would love to live in central Austin but the prices are ungodly.

[garbon]

But that only speaks within a particular city. Young people generally don't have a lot of money and yet they are a big part of cities.  Jos's post to me suggested that it is the wealthy who are moving to cities which leaves the poor in the suburbs with the cars.

It is the wealthy who move to cities.  Cities that are failing are obviously sad exceptions that prove the rule. 

Oh I forgot, you don't like to have conversations - you just want to be smug about your chosen city.

[garbon]

Isn't one of the issues with Modern Manhattan is that it is largely becoming the playground of the rich?

Sure among the shrill.

[Valmy]

Isn't one of the issues with Modern Manhattan is that it is largely becoming the playground of the rich?

Sure among the shrill.

Just because they are shrill and annoying doesn't mean they are not saying something true

[garbon]

Isn't one of the issues with Modern Manhattan is that it is largely becoming the playground of the rich?

Sure among the shrill.

Just because they are shrill and annoying doesn't mean they are not saying something true

I think Manhattan would look very different if the only people who could afford to live here were wealthy.

[crazy canuck]

I think Manhattan would look very different if the only people who could afford to live here were wealthy.

You seem to be making an odd distinction between people who live in an expensive city.  Obviously people will have different levels of living space.  But by definition they all can afford to live there or they wouldnt be there.