Will large cities become obsolete?

[garbon]

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.

My point is that Manhattan would look very different if only the rich lived here.

[DGuller]

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.

Air travel is not efficient for small distances.  However, I think we do have a small revolution brewing, and that is self-driving cars.  Once self-driving cars become the standard, you can make travel by road much more efficient, since every car can become part of mass transit system, and that could reverse the trend back towards suburbanization.

[DGuller]

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.

Geometric distance is correlated with transportation efficiency, but transportation efficiency is the real driver.

[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.

Geometric distance is correlated with transportation efficiency, but transportation efficiency is the real driver.

No pun intended I suppose.

The most efficient transportation is walking. People that are close enought to do that create huge efficiencies.  That is the reality for a lot of people in cities - communities within cities develop in hubs to cater to these people in both their professional and leisure endeavors.  Absent this kind fo concentration of people you wouldnt have the same efficiencies no matter how efficient transportation might become unless the efficiency reaches the same level of the efficiency of walking.  What would be the point of spending money to reach that efficiency when it is already readily available.

[DGuller]

The most efficient transportation is walking. People that are close enought to do that create huge efficiencies.  That is the reality for a lot of people in cities - communities within cities develop in hubs to cater to these people in both their professional and leisure endeavors.  Absent this kind fo concentration of people you wouldnt have the same efficiencies no matter how efficient transportation might become unless the efficiency reaches the same level of the efficiency of walking.  What would be the point of spending money to reach that efficiency when it is already readily available.

Walking is not the most efficient mode of transportation when you factor in all costs, like time.

[garbon]

The most efficient transportation is walking. People that are close enought to do that create huge efficiencies.  That is the reality for a lot of people in cities - communities within cities develop in hubs to cater to these people in both their professional and leisure endeavors.  Absent this kind fo concentration of people you wouldnt have the same efficiencies no matter how efficient transportation might become unless the efficiency reaches the same level of the efficiency of walking.  What would be the point of spending money to reach that efficiency when it is already readily available.

Walking is not the most efficient mode of transportation when you factor in all costs, like time.

Yeah even here in NYC, it would only work out as most efficient if I planned to do everything within a few blocks radius of my apartment.

[crazy canuck]

The most efficient transportation is walking. People that are close enought to do that create huge efficiencies.  That is the reality for a lot of people in cities - communities within cities develop in hubs to cater to these people in both their professional and leisure endeavors.  Absent this kind fo concentration of people you wouldnt have the same efficiencies no matter how efficient transportation might become unless the efficiency reaches the same level of the efficiency of walking.  What would be the point of spending money to reach that efficiency when it is already readily available.

Walking is not the most efficient mode of transportation when you factor in all costs, like time.

I thought you were missing the point.  The thing that makes walking (and bike riding) so much more efficient than using a car in a densely populated city is that it is cheaper and often quicker because things are so close.

[garbon]

The most efficient transportation is walking. People that are close enought to do that create huge efficiencies.  That is the reality for a lot of people in cities - communities within cities develop in hubs to cater to these people in both their professional and leisure endeavors.  Absent this kind fo concentration of people you wouldnt have the same efficiencies no matter how efficient transportation might become unless the efficiency reaches the same level of the efficiency of walking.  What would be the point of spending money to reach that efficiency when it is already readily available.

Walking is not the most efficient mode of transportation when you factor in all costs, like time.

I thought you were missing the point.  The thing that makes walking (and bike riding) so much more efficient than using a car in a densely populated city is that it is cheaper and often quicker because things are so close.

Actually I think mass transit (both buses, subways and lightrail) seem more effective.

[crazy canuck]

The most efficient transportation is walking. People that are close enought to do that create huge efficiencies.  That is the reality for a lot of people in cities - communities within cities develop in hubs to cater to these people in both their professional and leisure endeavors.  Absent this kind fo concentration of people you wouldnt have the same efficiencies no matter how efficient transportation might become unless the efficiency reaches the same level of the efficiency of walking.  What would be the point of spending money to reach that efficiency when it is already readily available.

Walking is not the most efficient mode of transportation when you factor in all costs, like time.

I thought you were missing the point.  The thing that makes walking (and bike riding) so much more efficient than using a car in a densely populated city is that it is cheaper and often quicker because things are so close.

Actually I think mass transit (both buses, subways and lightrail) seem more effective.

Those are all part of what make walking more efficient than using a car.

It seems you trying to be contrary today.

[The Brain]

The problem is people walking slowly in the subway. If you can't walk at a brisk pace then maybe you should stay at home.

[garbon]

The most efficient transportation is walking. People that are close enought to do that create huge efficiencies.  That is the reality for a lot of people in cities - communities within cities develop in hubs to cater to these people in both their professional and leisure endeavors.  Absent this kind fo concentration of people you wouldnt have the same efficiencies no matter how efficient transportation might become unless the efficiency reaches the same level of the efficiency of walking.  What would be the point of spending money to reach that efficiency when it is already readily available.

Walking is not the most efficient mode of transportation when you factor in all costs, like time.

I thought you were missing the point.  The thing that makes walking (and bike riding) so much more efficient than using a car in a densely populated city is that it is cheaper and often quicker because things are so close.

Actually I think mass transit (both buses, subways and lightrail) seem more effective.

Those are all part of what make walking more efficient than using a car.

It seems you trying to be contrary today.

But you are saying it is the most efficient method which it isn't - just more efficient than car.

I thought DG was saying that perhaps we could have a level of transport efficiency at some point that it wouldn't be an advantage to live in a city.  Saying that walking is more efficient than a car in current cities and thus people won't develop that level of transport efficiency (as they already have it) seems odd.

Maybe that's not what you are saying but that's how I read your posts.

[garbon]

The problem is people walking slowly in the subway. If you can't walk at a brisk pace then maybe you should stay at home.

Or use a car service.

[DGuller]

I thought you were missing the point.  The thing that makes walking (and bike riding) so much more efficient than using a car in a densely populated city is that it is cheaper and often quicker because things are so close.

You're missing the middle option which actually makes cities viable:  mass transit.  That's how most people commute in cities like NYC.

[DGuller]

But you are saying it is the most efficient method which it isn't - just more efficient than car.

I thought DG was saying that perhaps we could have a level of transport efficiency at some point that it wouldn't be an advantage to live in a city.  Saying that walking is more efficient than a car in current cities and thus people won't develop that level of transport efficiency (as they already have it) seems odd.

Maybe that's not what you are saying but that's how I read your posts.

Bingo.

[Ed Anger]

How else am I going to pick up girls at the junior high? In a tandem bike?