I think they might.
This started from my ponderings of my postman-induced petty annoyances. It's more or less axiomatic that the more people who live in close proximity to each other, the greater the probability for conflict exists. From a mathematical perspective, it makes sense that each individual added to the geographical group increases the possibility of conflict by an exponential factor. Though it's not exponential due to each individual in the area not actually coming in contact with every other individual every day, the total number of contacts in a period of time would increase on a curve that looks exponential as the population of the area increases. Or something like that. Basically, more people = more problems.
But it's also true that gathering people together in communities solves a lot of problems. We didn't invent cities just for the hell of it or because we like getting drunk and fighting each other. Clustering the population allows for the pooling of resources that is required to do certain things. A factory needs x number of people in order to operate and produce goods, and those people need a place to live, etc. From a logistical standpoint, it is easier to move goods to the end-users when the end-users are concentrated in one place. Economies of scale can be leveraged better, and greater specialization of labor is possible when the number of "customers" for a particular service is high in a single area. A man may be an expert cobbler in a large city and make a living solely at that type of work, whereas the same man in a rural area may need to also be a blacksmith, cooper, carpenter, millwright and teamster at the same time, becoming an expert at none. The community as a whole may more easily organize and pool its resources if living close to each other.
Cities also came about due to technological and logistical limitations. As soon as a farmer's farm yielded more food than his family needed, the obvious economic shift that would happen was going to be the impetus to stop farming. I wonder how that shift looked to the people at the time. Suddenly, there's all this food and nobody wants to buy yours. Well, food can only be shipped so far before it becomes unusable or requires special storage methods. So it made sense for all the people who stopped farming in favor of using their time other ways to live in close proximity to the special storage or the place where the farmers brought the food. Governance of a proximity-collected citizenry is more effective.
Cities create problems to solve. Due to the need to cluster together, other things become necessary. Sanitation, aqueducts, public safety, the need to maintain a steady food supply, housing, etc. All that stuff that formed the basis of the civil polity arose because people clustering together created problems that they had to solve together. As soon as there are more people on a piece of land too small to naturally sustain that number, those pressures exert themselves, and sometimes sooner. So the creation of problems helped humanity figure out how to organize itself and progress as a civil polity.
Some of the limitations that made cities necessary are now gone or insignificant. A man may only travel so far during the shelf life of the food he's carrying, whether walking or using some form of transportation. As the transportation and storage techniques got better, the distance increased. Now we have effectively no logistical limit on how far on the planet a fruit may go before it is consumed by a customer or spoilage. Political movements can be built on Twitter. The internet has become a tool of governance, and many people now do work which no longer requires the physical presence of their body at a certain location.
Many people who do that kind of work still go to concentrated locations to do it, but the share is decreasing, and will continue to do so because the economic factors will demand it. So will commercial real estate become like those farmers, all kinds of offices available that nobody wants? Maybe not, but there is a huge trend where I live of converting high-rise office buildings and casino properties into condos and penthouses if you want an anecdote. Transportation itself will obviously be a logistical issue for a while yet. We can't teleport from place to place. But some of the primary drivers of demand for transportation are diminishing. You can get an education from your house too.
The market is ultimately driven by the desires of the consumer, and humans want space. In the very basic question of where to live, the primary driver of choice has always been the limitations of proximity. You must live near the food supply, the bakery, the plant, the workshop. You must live near your place of employment. You must live in a place that falls within the limits of your wealth. You must live near the school that educates your children. All of those limitations required all of those places to be near where people live, which means they needed to be near each other. As we continue to check items off that list because they became location-independent, then what will be the natural tendency in the question of where to live? It will be more dependent on preference.
Why did every city in America develop sprawling tracts of suburbs as far as the eye can see? Because they could. The economics allowed it, the technology allowed it, the infrastructure allowed it and the logistics allowed it. That happened because people wanted it. When given the choice between the commute and more space and the convenience and less space, people chose space. It's also axiomatic that the more people who live in an area, the less space is available for each. That is reflected in the economics. You can rent a huge house in the countryside for the same price as a closet in Singapore. Thus, the choice of where to live became a balancing act. How far away from town can I go before the limitations of doing so become untenable? In that way people get the best quality of life they can manage without putting too great a strain on their logistical limitations.
But people also don't want isolation. Social animals, and all that. Some clustering is necessary, I think, just on a psychological level. Some people simply want to be where the action is, surrounded by many others and are comforted by that. Strangely, that desire is not universal though. The rest are unnerved by the very same circumstance. Maybe it's 50-50 or something, I don't know. But I do know that there are levels at which most people are comfortable somewhere in the middle. Maybe cities will be like that. Maybe they will find a middle ground--as the limitations on where people can choose to live drop away, maybe the small cities will grow and the large ones will shrink until they get closer to some optimal population density for the human animal. I don't know, but I'm not investing in commercial office space.
What of social movements? Now that one is a wild card. People want organic, locally-grown, earth-friendly, lead-free, biodegradable, non-corporate, crowdsourced, all-natural and...affordable. The farmers' markets are becoming incredibly popular--(also a great place to find women I noticed, for you single guys). Most of that stuff looks like it would play to the rural aspect, but the impact of those things on actual decision-making tends to be muted, I think. People will buy organic and locally-grown, but only if you truck it to the grocery store downstairs from their apartment, if you know what I mean.
TL:DR - Skim the bold bits.
The opposite. Large numbers of people have bid up the most desirable real estate in the world: compact, walkable urban centers.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2013, 08:04:02 PM
The opposite. Large numbers of people have bid up the most desirable real estate in the world: compact, walkable urban centers.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2013, 08:04:02 PM
The opposite. Large numbers of people have bid up the most desirable real estate in the world: compact, walkable urban centers.
And the reasons they did so are going away. Which is kinda why I thought of the question. :P
When modern, technical society comes to an end. Barring that, large-scale free or nearly-free teleportation might put a damper on city size.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 09, 2013, 08:08:54 PM
And the reasons they did so are going away. Which is kinda why I thought of the question. :P
People don't want to live in The Village because it's close to the grain silos.
No.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2013, 08:10:03 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 09, 2013, 08:08:54 PM
And the reasons they did so are going away. Which is kinda why I thought of the question. :P
People don't want to live in The Village because it's close to the grain silos.
No, that limitation is gone. As are others I mentioned. And then people started leaving.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 09, 2013, 08:13:25 PM
No, that limitation is gone. As are others I mentioned. And then people started leaving.
Where's your evidence? Most cities in the world have kept on growing.
In the future, we will all live underground. That's what Arthur C. Clarke told me, anyway.
Josq should be condemned to an American suburb, condemned to driving everywhere and falling afoul of the drunk in public laws.
It seems like the trend of going in the other direction. Urbanization is accelerating again, or so is my impression. I do agree that the basic determinant of the importance of cities is transportation. If you can be teleported anywhere in the country at any time at no cost of any kind, then I imagine that the population would be almost evenly spread out along all habitable land.
I would also disagree about the social aspects of living in a city. IMO, big cities are a perfect example of a crowd being the loneliest place. I imagine that in fact small towns are the more sociable places, precisely because everyone knows everyone, and thus you have to support the human connections with strangers you run into every day.
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.
Isn't the growth in city size and urban occupancy one of the more consistent trends in history ? :unsure:
Also are we on course to see majority of humanity living in cities during this centre, perhaps within the lifetime of some of us ?
Which maybe the first time this has occurred in human history ?
Maybe but they will become larger, much larger first.
Quote from: DGuller on October 09, 2013, 08:17:09 PM
I would also disagree about the social aspects of living in a city. IMO, big cities are a perfect example of a crowd being the loneliest place. I imagine that in fact small towns are the more sociable places, precisely because everyone knows everyone, and thus you have to support the human connections with strangers you run into every day.
Unless, of course, you don't fit into the mold of what the small town wants its populace to be like. That'd be pretty isolating.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2013, 08:14:39 PM
Where's your evidence? Most cities in the world have kept on growing.
Well the whole population kept growing. Suburbs/exurbs grew faster, I think. By most definitions, suburbs count as urban, but that's not what I mean when I say cities.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 09, 2013, 08:01:04 PM
I think they might.
God I hope not. All you monkeys need to stay in your cities.. :mad:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2013, 08:04:02 PM
The opposite. Large numbers of people have bid up the most desirable real estate in the world: compact, walkable urban centers.
Yep. London's bigger than it's been since the 1930s and growing at an enormous rate. There was a decline in urban areas in the 20th century, but so far in the developed world the trend at the minute is that people want to live in cities more than ever.
In the developing world urbanisations always been going on.
QuoteNo, that limitation is gone. As are others I mentioned. And then people started leaving.
But I think that happened once in the 20th century when there was a movement to the suburbs. In the UK certainly that was tied to slum clearance and war, there'll be other factors elsewhere. Right now the trend in London but also in other cities - Bristol, Manchester, Sheffield - is for people to want to move there.
In addition I think Yi's right. There's a move against urban sprawl, not urban living.
QuoteAlso are we on course to see majority of humanity living in cities during this centre, perhaps within the lifetime of some of us ?
Happened in 2009.
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2013, 08:21:00 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 09, 2013, 08:17:09 PM
I would also disagree about the social aspects of living in a city. IMO, big cities are a perfect example of a crowd being the loneliest place. I imagine that in fact small towns are the more sociable places, precisely because everyone knows everyone, and thus you have to support the human connections with strangers you run into every day.
Unless, of course, you don't fit into the mold of what the small town wants its populace to be like. That'd be pretty isolating.
That's a good point, there is a much greater pressure to conform in small population centers (though one may argue that it's part of socializing). That's also why there is a consistent pattern throughout the world of more liberal political parties being supported by the urban areas, and more autocratic parties being supported by the suburban and rural areas.
If there are no cities we will be uncivilized.
Quote from: PDH on October 09, 2013, 08:31:06 PM
If there are no cities we will be uncivilized.
Hey man, but what about our virtual cities like this place ? :hmm:
google gave me "rectum civitatem" for virtual city. Anus-city they shall be known as.
Quote from: PDH on October 09, 2013, 08:40:31 PM
google gave me "rectum civitatem" for virtual city. Anus-city they shall be known as.
I like to drive the Hershey Highway.
Quote from: PDH on October 09, 2013, 08:40:31 PM
google gave me "rectum civitatem" for virtual city. Anus-city they shall be known as.
I've seen little here or elsewhere to contradict that.
Quote from: mongers on October 09, 2013, 08:43:11 PM
Quote from: PDH on October 09, 2013, 08:40:31 PM
google gave me "rectum civitatem" for virtual city. Anus-city they shall be known as.
I've seen little here or elsewhere to contradict that.
And yet some here get most of their social interaction this way. :P
When gas was cheap there was definitely a move in that direction in the US, but with the increasing cost of fuel the trend has reversed and mirrors the development of the rest of the world.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 09, 2013, 08:44:28 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 09, 2013, 08:43:11 PM
Quote from: PDH on October 09, 2013, 08:40:31 PM
google gave me "rectum civitatem" for virtual city. Anus-city they shall be known as.
I've seen little here or elsewhere to contradict that.
And yet some here get most of their social interaction this way. :P
I get plenty of that in the real world, it's just others appreciate it's 'quality' :D
Nah.
Economic pressure to live outside the city center dissipates as prices decrease inside the city center. "Nobody goes there, it's too crowded" is a problem that fixes itself. Also, cities attract people who wish to have close proximity to various social & cultural activities that don't thrive unless there's a large local population.
The population itself can be a draw. There's a lot more diversity for people who want to meet lots of people and there's a lot less chance of running into people you've known before for people who want to avoid people.
Metropoli that only exist because of industry pressures may fade once those pressures do(this is probably happening in Detroit), but cultural pressures to bunch together as well as generally high population density in certain desirable regions mean large cities remain inevitable.
Quote from: mongers on October 09, 2013, 08:19:26 PM
Isn't the growth in city size and urban occupancy one of the more consistent trends in history ? :unsure:
Also are we on course to see majority of humanity living in cities during this centre, perhaps within the lifetime of some of us ?
Which maybe the first time this has occurred in human history ?
According to the UN, we passed the point where half of the world's population lives in urban areas in 2008.
MIM, I think you are speaking from wishful thinking, not reality.
I wish I could easily escape back to the country / north. But all of human history seems like a rush to live in ever-increasing cities. :(
I'll see if I can find the article, but there was a guy who did research on population centers and all sorts of inputs and outputs. Energy, material consumption. Economic, technological, creative production. Many other things I'm forgetting, but the upshot was that for each doubling of the size of a city there was around a 15% increase in the optimization of all of those factors. So given everything else being the same a city twice the size of another one used 15% less per capita energy and material but was 15% more per capita economically and creatively active.
Ah, here (http://urbandemographics.blogspot.com/2011/08/science-of-cities-and-15-percent-rule.html) is the TED talk.
Cities have tremendous advantages. They make it easier or cheaper to find a job, talent for your business and access to raw materials, manufactured goods, culture and services.
And fewer fat chicks.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 09, 2013, 11:35:09 PM
Not in absolute numbers.
I'd be willing to bet there are fewer fat chicks in absolute numbers in cities than elsewhere.
QuoteFace of US poverty: These days, more poor live in suburbs than in cities
The rise in suburban poverty reflects long-term demographic shifts – America is more than ever a suburban nation – as well as economic changes.
By Richard Mertens, Correspondent / September 11, 2013
Suburbs are increasingly becoming the address of America's poor. Suburban poverty across the country grew 53 percent between 2000 and 2010, more than twice the rate of urban poverty, according to a recent report by the Brookings Institution. For the first time, more poor people live in the suburbs than in cities.
"I think suburban poverty is here to stay," says Alan Berube, one of the authors. "It's not going to revert back to the cities."
Much of the rise in suburban poverty is due to the impoverishment of working families already living there. The decline in manufacturing, the Great Recession, and widespread foreclosures have left many longtime suburban families reeling.
At the same time, the suburbs have become a destination for poor and low-income people arriving from somewhere else. Some, like Thomas, have abandoned poor urban neighborhoods in hopes of living somewhere better – with safer streets, better schools, and housing that's cheaper than in gentrifying urban areas. And new immigrants, many of them poor, are bypassing the urban neighborhoods where they once settled and heading straight to the suburbs.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2013/0911/Face-of-US-poverty-These-days-more-poor-live-in-suburbs-than-in-cities
Cities are seeing a reversal of their losses over the last several decades. Between the suburbs getting hit by the recession, people getting sick and tired of spending countless hours in traffic, the attraction of city life and cities as financial centers as the last real source of urban employment, you're starting to see White Flight reversing itself in a lot of cities.
Hell, Baltimore saw its population increase last year for the first time in God knows how many decades; some of it was due to increased immigration, but it's a lot of trendy hipster neighborhoods seeing growth by trendy hipster white people moving in that like the city life and see no reason to sit on the beltway for 45 minutes every day to get to work.
Just looking at Vienna - the city population has grown by ca. 10% in the last 10 years (ca. +150,000), twice as fast as the rest of Austria. So in Austria, at least, the large city is nowhere near dying yet (even though the estate sales prices in Vienna have risen by 20% in the same period).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2013, 11:32:31 PM
And fewer fat chicks.
:huh: I would have guessed the opposite. The urban poor is renowned for being fat in America.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 09, 2013, 11:46:13 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2013, 11:32:31 PM
And fewer fat chicks.
:huh: I would have guessed the opposite. The urban poor is renowned for being fat in America.
I'm with Yi. Maybe urban poor are fat in America, but rural everyone is fat in America.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2013, 11:36:39 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 09, 2013, 11:35:09 PM
Not in absolute numbers.
I'd be willing to bet there are fewer fat chicks in absolute numbers in cities than elsewhere.
Tempted, but my gut tells me not to put money on this one.
Quote from: DGuller on October 09, 2013, 11:53:31 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 09, 2013, 11:46:13 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2013, 11:32:31 PM
And fewer fat chicks.
:huh: I would have guessed the opposite. The urban poor is renowned for being fat in America.
I'm with Yi. Maybe urban poor are fat in America, but rural everyone is fat in America.
Meth keeps them svelte.
Quote from: DGuller on October 09, 2013, 08:17:09 PM
It seems like the trend of going in the other direction. Urbanization is accelerating again, or so is my impression. I do agree that the basic determinant of the importance of cities is transportation. If you can be teleported anywhere in the country at any time at no cost of any kind, then I imagine that the population would be almost evenly spread out along all habitable land.
I would also disagree about the social aspects of living in a city. IMO, big cities are a perfect example of a crowd being the loneliest place. I imagine that in fact small towns are the more sociable places, precisely because everyone knows everyone, and thus you have to support the human connections with strangers you run into every day.
I get lonely. :(
Speaking from inside a megacity, you don't see the urban sprawl, you just see your own self-contained little village that happens to be conveniently located to travel to the other villages where you work, your friends live etc.
Good point, B. That certainly describes my experiences living in a city of 12 million+ people.
5 years ago I maybe would have agreed. Now though yeah, the opposite is more likely to be true. Ever more people cramming into fewer and fewer large settlements with much of the earth reverting to nature and/or robot farmers.
QuoteSpeaking from inside a megacity, you don't see the urban sprawl, you just see your own self-contained little village that happens to be conveniently located to travel to the other villages where you work, your friends live etc.
Public transport is the key.
In Tokyo this is rather true. Much of the city certainly is a bunch of well connected towns.
Back in Yamanashi though, a considerably smaller city designed around the idea that everyone drives everywhere, the horrible sprawly unnatural nature of it could really be felt.
Driving everywhere is a god given right. Try to remember that, Tyr.
The physical limitations driving cities are gone, but they're being kept artificially afloat by social limitations: transportation and property are both charged at a premium, so they're going to stay out of the reach of the lowest incomes.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 10, 2013, 07:12:15 AM
The physical limitations driving cities are gone, but they're being kept artificially afloat by social limitations: transportation and property are both charged at a premium, so they're going to stay out of the reach of the lowest incomes.
Sorry, what is staying out of reach?
Quote from: Tyr on October 10, 2013, 06:22:29 AM
5 years ago I maybe would have agreed. Now though yeah, the opposite is more likely to be true. Ever more people cramming into fewer and fewer large settlements with much of the earth reverting to nature and/or robot farmers.
QuoteSpeaking from inside a megacity, you don't see the urban sprawl, you just see your own self-contained little village that happens to be conveniently located to travel to the other villages where you work, your friends live etc.
Public transport is the key.
In Tokyo this is rather true. Much of the city certainly is a bunch of well connected towns.
Back in Yamanashi though, a considerably smaller city designed around the idea that everyone drives everywhere, the horrible sprawly unnatural nature of it could really be felt.
Today Robot farmers, tomorrow Robot farmer subsidies. :mad:
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2013, 07:14:02 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 10, 2013, 07:12:15 AM
The physical limitations driving cities are gone, but they're being kept artificially afloat by social limitations: transportation and property are both charged at a premium, so they're going to stay out of the reach of the lowest incomes.
Sorry, what is staying out of reach?
The meaning of Carrot's sentence.
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2013, 07:14:02 AM
Sorry, what is staying out of reach?
Basically, every single time I've been in traffic court for whatever reason, each and every judge has said to some defendant or other, "driving is a privilege," not a right. Sure, but transportation is a right, and transportation is so fucked up in this county (there are only 3 bus routes in the entire county), that driving is an absolute necessity to be self-sufficient because cabs to cover the usual distances traveled would get insanely expensive FAST.
So if your point is that people live in the city because they can't afford cars, why link it to property, where the city is clearly the more expensive option?
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).
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 09, 2013, 08:17:56 PM
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).
Quote from: Tyr on October 10, 2013, 08:12:27 AM
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.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 10, 2013, 07:28:20 AM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2013, 11:19:23 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 09, 2013, 08:17:56 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2013, 11:23:28 AM
Quote from: Tyr on October 10, 2013, 08:12:27 AM
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.
:huh:
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2013, 11:27:36 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 10, 2013, 07:28:20 AM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on October 10, 2013, 11:36:32 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2013, 11:19:23 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 09, 2013, 08:17:56 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2013, 11:41:27 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 10, 2013, 11:36:32 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2013, 11:19:23 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 09, 2013, 08:17:56 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2013, 11:38:13 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2013, 11:23:28 AM
Quote from: Tyr on October 10, 2013, 08:12:27 AM
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.
:huh:
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.
:huh:
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?
Quote from: Tamas on October 10, 2013, 11:54:58 AM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on October 10, 2013, 11:36:32 AM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2013, 11:58:25 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2013, 11:38:13 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2013, 11:23:28 AM
Quote from: Tyr on October 10, 2013, 08:12:27 AM
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.
:huh:
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.
:huh:
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 10, 2013, 12:00:20 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2013, 12:04:37 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2013, 12:04:37 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2013, 12:07:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2013, 12:04:37 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on October 10, 2013, 12:10:32 PM
Isn't one of the issues with Modern Manhattan is that it is largely becoming the playground of the rich?
Sure among the shrill.
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2013, 12:11:37 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 10, 2013, 12:10:32 PM
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 :P
Quote from: Valmy on October 10, 2013, 12:12:35 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2013, 12:11:37 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 10, 2013, 12:10:32 PM
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 :P
I think Manhattan would look very different if the only people who could afford to live here were wealthy.
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2013, 12:14:41 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2013, 12:32:02 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2013, 12:14:41 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2013, 11:41:27 AM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2013, 12:02:32 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 10, 2013, 11:36:32 AM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on October 10, 2013, 01:05:13 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2013, 12:02:32 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 10, 2013, 11:36:32 AM
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. :D
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2013, 01:37:35 PM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on October 10, 2013, 03:20:09 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2013, 01:37:35 PM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on October 10, 2013, 03:20:09 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2013, 01:37:35 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2013, 03:25:23 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 10, 2013, 03:20:09 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2013, 01:37:35 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2013, 03:27:39 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2013, 03:25:23 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 10, 2013, 03:20:09 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2013, 01:37:35 PM
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 problem is people walking slowly in the subway. If you can't walk at a brisk pace then maybe you should stay at home.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2013, 03:30:01 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2013, 03:27:39 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2013, 03:25:23 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 10, 2013, 03:20:09 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2013, 01:37:35 PM
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.
Quote from: The Brain on October 10, 2013, 03:30:12 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2013, 03:25:23 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2013, 03:34:18 PM
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.
How else am I going to pick up girls at the junior high? In a tandem bike?
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 10, 2013, 04:38:36 PM
How else am I going to pick up girls at the junior high? In a tandem bike?
Need a trunk that locks? :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on October 10, 2013, 04:39:47 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 10, 2013, 04:38:36 PM
How else am I going to pick up girls at the junior high? In a tandem bike?
Need a trunk that locks? :hmm:
Van door that locks.
Quote from: Malthus on October 10, 2013, 04:39:47 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 10, 2013, 04:38:36 PM
How else am I going to pick up girls at the junior high? In a tandem bike?
Need a trunk that locks? :hmm:
He cant get out of the vehicle...
Quote from: Valmy on October 10, 2013, 12:10:32 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2013, 12:04:37 PM
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.
I wonder how many are doing that. There is always a way to live if you really have to. Sharing with roommates, etc. What percentage of the population is making those sacrifices and what percentage is going outside and using the tube to get to work? I don't know. Also, how is that related to the fact that the population is overwhelmingly waiting until much later to get married, if they do at all. Once you've got a wifey and maybe some kids coming, the roommate economics is no longer viable.
How many of you guys actually live in the city center anyway? I live in a town where driving is not a choice, but would not mind walking if I were in London or Hong Kong or some place like that. I also have no kids. I'm willing to bet most of you live in suburbs, connected to mass transit or no, and don't live in the city core.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 10, 2013, 05:30:11 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 10, 2013, 12:10:32 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2013, 12:04:37 PM
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.
I wonder how many are doing that. There is always a way to live if you really have to. Sharing with roommates, etc. What percentage of the population is making those sacrifices and what percentage is going outside and using the tube to get to work? I don't know. Also, how is that related to the fact that the population is overwhelmingly waiting until much later to get married, if they do at all. Once you've got a wifey and maybe some kids coming, the roommate economics is no longer viable.
I think I read something like 45% of people who move to New York in their 20s have roommates.
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2013, 06:03:44 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 10, 2013, 05:30:11 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 10, 2013, 12:10:32 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2013, 12:04:37 PM
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.
I wonder how many are doing that. There is always a way to live if you really have to. Sharing with roommates, etc. What percentage of the population is making those sacrifices and what percentage is going outside and using the tube to get to work? I don't know. Also, how is that related to the fact that the population is overwhelmingly waiting until much later to get married, if they do at all. Once you've got a wifey and maybe some kids coming, the roommate economics is no longer viable.
I think I read something like 45% of people who move to New York in their 20s have roommates.
It's expensive there isn't it?
Just a tad, especially if you don't have access to grandfathered rent-controlled or rent-stabilized apartments.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 10, 2013, 07:28:20 AM
Basically, every single time I've been in traffic court for whatever reason, each and every judge has said to some defendant or other, "driving is a privilege," not a right.
I hate that meme. I know it's true, but in many places removing a person's ability to drive effectively renders them unable to function as a productive adult citizen. It should be taken more seriously and revoked only under extreme circumstances.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 10, 2013, 08:44:40 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 10, 2013, 07:28:20 AM
Basically, every single time I've been in traffic court for whatever reason, each and every judge has said to some defendant or other, "driving is a privilege," not a right.
I hate that meme. I know it's true, but in many places removing a person's ability to drive effectively renders them unable to function as a productive adult citizen. It should be taken more seriously and revoked only under extreme circumstances.
Then maybe they shouldnt break the law and get suspended or revoked in the first place.
Quote from: frunk on October 09, 2013, 11:03:01 PM
I'll see if I can find the article, but there was a guy who did research on population centers and all sorts of inputs and outputs. Energy, material consumption. Economic, technological, creative production. Many other things I'm forgetting, but the upshot was that for each doubling of the size of a city there was around a 15% increase in the optimization of all of those factors. So given everything else being the same a city twice the size of another one used 15% less per capita energy and material but was 15% more per capita economically and creatively active.
Ah, here (http://urbandemographics.blogspot.com/2011/08/science-of-cities-and-15-percent-rule.html) is the TED talk.
frunk---
Thank you for this. I watched that and applied the sigmoidal curve to a few of my trading positions and made some adjustments. :)
Quote from: 11B4V on October 10, 2013, 08:52:30 PM
Then maybe they shouldnt break the law and get suspended or revoked in the first place.
Well yes. If nobody ever did anything wrong we would not have to discuss the appropriateness or value of various penalties.
Quote from: Valmy on October 17, 2013, 09:13:37 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 10, 2013, 08:52:30 PM
Then maybe they shouldnt break the law and get suspended or revoked in the first place.
Well yes. If nobody ever did anything wrong we would not have to discuss the appropriateness or value of various penalties.
:mellow:
Quote from: 11B4V on October 17, 2013, 09:42:54 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 17, 2013, 09:13:37 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 10, 2013, 08:52:30 PM
Then maybe they shouldnt break the law and get suspended or revoked in the first place.
Well yes. If nobody ever did anything wrong we would not have to discuss the appropriateness or value of various penalties.
:mellow:
Exactly. I don't get your response at all. Of course it would be better if nobody ever broke the rules but how does that address his point even a little bit?
QuoteBasically, every single time I've been in traffic court for whatever reason, each and every judge has said to some defendant or other, "driving is a privilege," not a right.
QuoteI hate that meme. I know it's true, but in many places removing a person's ability to drive effectively renders them unable to function as a productive adult citizen. It should be taken more seriously and revoked only under extreme circumstances.
QuoteThen maybe they shouldnt break the law and get suspended or revoked in the first place.
QuoteExactly. I don't get your response at all. Of course it would be better if nobody ever broke the rules but how does that address his point even a little bit?
Tough shit. People who generally follow the traffic laws wont get the license suspended. It's not a hard thing to do.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2013, 11:27:36 AM
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.
In a suburban area, sure, but once you get out into the rural areas, cabs get INSANELY expensive, if they're even equipped to run at all. I suspect PDH or Beeb would have a better idea what I'm talking about, having lived in or near the true boonies where transportation becomes a real, serious issue.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 17, 2013, 09:17:08 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2013, 11:27:36 AM
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.
In a suburban area, sure, but once you get out into the rural areas, cabs get INSANELY expensive, if they're even equipped to run at all. I suspect PDH or Beeb would have a better idea what I'm talking about, having lived in or near the true boonies where transportation becomes a real, serious issue.
That is why PDH has a bike. And although I would agree with your characterization of Edmonton I am not sure most Edmontonians would.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 18, 2013, 03:13:17 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 17, 2013, 09:17:08 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2013, 11:27:36 AM
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.
In a suburban area, sure, but once you get out into the rural areas, cabs get INSANELY expensive, if they're even equipped to run at all. I suspect PDH or Beeb would have a better idea what I'm talking about, having lived in or near the true boonies where transportation becomes a real, serious issue.
That is why PDH has a bike. And although I would agree with your characterization of Edmonton I am not sure most Edmontonians would.
Well he did use the past tense.
Teleportation will make cities obsolete.
Surely it'd make them more popular?
If we had teleportation I'd be living in Rio right now.
Quote from: Siege on October 22, 2013, 11:18:45 AM
Teleportation will make cities obsolete.
I don't think so, more likely it will make smaller places obsolete. With teleportation people would gather in the cool places of the world to party, as Sheilbh hints Rio would be overwhelmed. For myself...............I think I might go for a pub crawl in Tel Aviv for my first teleportation jaunt, see what the Israel that rarely hits the news is like.
I'd think people would be less inclined to live in the city centers if they could easily get there from anywhere.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 17, 2013, 09:17:08 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2013, 11:27:36 AM
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.
In a suburban area, sure, but once you get out into the rural areas, cabs get INSANELY expensive, if they're even equipped to run at all. I suspect PDH or Beeb would have a better idea what I'm talking about, having lived in or near the true boonies where transportation becomes a real, serious issue.
In the Yukon, there is bus service (Greyhound) along the Alaska highway. But once you get off the highway, there is nothing. If you want to get from, say, Faro to Whitehorse you have to bum a ride or rent a car.
This was actually a major issue for the courthouse. The courthouse is responsible for bringing Crown witnesses in from their residence to court. So if we had a witness in an outlying community we would always try and see if they had friends or family who could drive them, and then pay their mileage. But once in a whiile, when there was no other option, they would rent a cab from Whitehorse, have them drive the 5 hours to pick them up, then drive 5 hours back to bring them to court (and do the same the next day to bring them back). The cost of course was in thousands of dollars.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 22, 2013, 12:22:27 PM
I'd think people would be less inclined to live in the city centers if they could easily get there from anywhere.
Yeah, if people could teleport anyway they want then property values in the cities would plummet as people left to buy larger houses on larger pieces of land. I would buy a lake and its surrounding foreshore and teleportcommute from there.
Teleport malfunctions would produce a lot of abominations.
Quote from: The Brain on October 22, 2013, 03:39:16 PM
Teleport malfunctions would produce a lot of abominations.
Your chances of teleport abomination is 10x less than a serious car accident - when we had cars
You wouldn't be able to buy land because you wouldn't have a livelihood. A society advanced enough to create a teleportation machine would have left the evils of lawyerdom behind years ago.
Quote from: Neil on October 22, 2013, 04:48:32 PM
You wouldn't be able to buy land because you wouldn't have a livelihood. A society advanced enough to create a teleportation machine would have left the evils of lawyerdom behind years ago.
Excellent. In a world where everyone says exactly what they are going to do and does exactly what they say they are going to do; a world in which there is not commercial, personal or international disagreements; a world in which all legislation is unnecessary (and so to is the need to interpret the legislation) I am sure I could find something else to do - like travel around this Star Trek universe you invisage and seek out new life and new civilizations. But until that day comes I think my ability to purchase that lake is secure.
Quote from: Siege on October 22, 2013, 11:18:45 AM
Teleportation will make cities obsolete.
Not Kosher.
Siege's fish and chicken parts will be mixed on the way to the kosher butcher.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 22, 2013, 06:23:53 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 22, 2013, 04:48:32 PM
You wouldn't be able to buy land because you wouldn't have a livelihood. A society advanced enough to create a teleportation machine would have left the evils of lawyerdom behind years ago.
Excellent. In a world where everyone says exactly what they are going to do and does exactly what they say they are going to do; a world in which there is not commercial, personal or international disagreements; a world in which all legislation is unnecessary (and so to is the need to interpret the legislation) I am sure I could find something else to do - like travel around this Star Trek universe you invisage and seek out new life and new civilizations. But until that day comes I think my ability to purchase that lake is secure.
That's what judges are for. Lawyers are only there to lie.
Quote from: Neil on October 22, 2013, 07:24:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 22, 2013, 06:23:53 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 22, 2013, 04:48:32 PM
You wouldn't be able to buy land because you wouldn't have a livelihood. A society advanced enough to create a teleportation machine would have left the evils of lawyerdom behind years ago.
Excellent. In a world where everyone says exactly what they are going to do and does exactly what they say they are going to do; a world in which there is not commercial, personal or international disagreements; a world in which all legislation is unnecessary (and so to is the need to interpret the legislation) I am sure I could find something else to do - like travel around this Star Trek universe you invisage and seek out new life and new civilizations. But until that day comes I think my ability to purchase that lake is secure.
That's what judges are for. Lawyers are only there to lie.
Thats funny, I wouldnt have thought you were one for the Napoleanic Inquisitorial style of "justice".
Neil is more for Old Testament style justice.
I'd proscribe the lawyers.