Will large cities become obsolete?

[Camerus]

Good point, B.  That certainly describes my experiences living in a city of 12 million+ people.

[Josquius]

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.

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.

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.

[Grey Fox]

Driving everywhere is a god given right. Try to remember that, Tyr.

[DontSayBanana]

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.

[garbon]

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?

[Razgovory]

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.

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.

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. 

[Eddie Teach]

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.

[DontSayBanana]

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.

[Eddie Teach]

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?

[Josquius]

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).

[crazy canuck]

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).

[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.

[crazy canuck]

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.

[DGuller]

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.

[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.