People Who Live In Suburbs: Classy, Icky, or Dudes?

no he isn't

tbh at this point i don't care what he is or isn't arguing. point is urban life is not at all appealing to a large chunk of the population, and calling them selfish and demanding they "pay for their externalities" and go live in Brooklyn or whatever is dickish plus not a very realistic solution to the problem(s).

Laurel, did you see my post about Grand Rapids upthread? Of course, it's possible that I just found the only cool things in GR.

I was in Grand Rapids last fall to visit some of my wife's friends and we actually ended up having a great time.

saying suburbs solely due to political reasons misses the simple fact that there's a lot of people who just don't want to live in an urban area! selfish as that may be.

I've said this again and again - I don't think suburban living should be illegal, I just don't think it should be massively underpriced / should accurately reflect its 'costs'.

sure, many people desire to live in suburbia, but it's not unreasonable to think that fewer would desire to live in suburbia if it were more expensive and more people would desire to live in cities if they were cheaper. I don't think anyone is 'hoodwinked by politicians', I think people are responding - often quite logically! - to incentives, and the incentive structure needs to be overhauled.

in 2010 - even in a world where the suburban good lyfe is artificially cheap - lots and lots of americans want to live a manhattan-type-urban lifestyle and cannot because demand for this lifestyle >>>>>>>> the supply - this is reflected in the prices (not just in ny! basically any nice, walkable urban neighborhood is expensive because *people want to live there*)

and the government has been doing a horrible job responding to this desire - which pretty clearly exists in 2010. the stimulus would have been a fantastic opportunity, but nah, we're basically building more roads w/ a few transit projects here and there.

lots and lots of americans want to live a manhattan-type-urban lifestyle

See I don't think this is true. I think if you were to truly poll a wide swath of Americans, the majority would lean towards wanting to live in some idyllic rural location by a lake. I don't at all think it would lean towards people wanting a Manhattan existence.

I think different people want to live in different places, and that's why we have different places, for the different people.

right, I didn't say 'all americans', I said the demand massively outstrips the supply.

I see what you are getting at, but I don't think "most Americans" want that.

Where's your proof that "lots and lots of Americans" want a Manhattan-type-urban lifestyle?

no, jon – iatee said "lots and lots" not "most." You're not reading him correctly. We never read what he writes.

lots and lots of americans want to live a manhattan-type-urban lifestyle and cannot because demand for this lifestyle >>>>>>>> the supply - this is reflected in the prices

this is like the def of basic economics tho? also lots of peeps want to have lakeshore property, and thats $$$$ for the same reasons you cited - should we be doing something to fix that inequity on a govt level?

xposts

the result of what you seem to desire would be an overcrowded city ringed by extremely affluent suburbs that are too expensive for a lot of people who would want to live in them. doesn't sound like a very good solution to anything.
your "lots and lots of americans" reads to me as "people around my age i still talk to from my hometown".

Where's your proof that "lots and lots of Americans" want a Manhattan-type-urban lifestyle?

already in my post, go read it again

this is like the def of basic economics tho? also lots of peeps want to have lakeshore property, and thats $$$$ for the same reasons you cited - should we be doing something to fix that inequity on a govt level?

yes...we shouldn't be spending massive amounts of government money on freeways to that lakeshore property.

lots and lots don't want it. lots and lots dress up as huckleberry hound on the weekend.

Is iatee's point here that many want manhattan urban living but can't afford it, while many want suburban living and can afford it, due to its subsidized nature?

yes

i don't know, lakeshore freeways sound like a pretty good idea to me

"lots and lots of americans want to live a manhattan-type-urban lifestyle and cannot because demand for this lifestyle >>>>>>>> the supply - this is reflected in the prices"

This is proof? You have census data, questionnaires, surveys, or interviews to back this up?

iatee, your posts have implied that thanks to massive psychological warfare the vast swath of Americans who live in affluent to semi-affluent suburbs haven't been able to see the glories of city life. The first half of that sentence may be correct, but you still don't account for Americans who will pay any price not to raise their children in the city.

and I am using manhattan as a reference point for urbanity, not because manhattan is a particularly special place. there's no reason why there can't be a dense city w/ good transit in iowa.

but you still don't account for Americans who will pay any price not to raise their children in the city.

no, I do account for it by saying "they should pay that price"

or who live in suburbs precisely because they want a clear division between work and play.

what this all seems to keep coming back to, iatee, is that you simply value urban living more than non-urban living. which is fine! but covering it up with a bunch of hype about how its unfair that everyone cant live in the city on the cheap because politics and subsidies and transportation and stimulus package and whatever fits at the moment is where yer argument is kind of coming unglued.

xposts

yes...we shouldn't be spending massive amounts of government money on freeways to that lakeshore property.

― iatee, Thursday, June 10, 2010 3:24 PM (48 seconds ago)

see this is what im talking about. Why? How is that different than subsidizing urban living?

so you want people in the suburbs to be poorer across the board, got it.

yeah I don't think that 'politics and subsidies and transportation and stimulus package' is 'a bunch of hype'

i mean 1st they'll be poor, but then they'll all flee to the city cause it'll be cheaper. but all the rich people will stay behind and you'll have that super affluent suburban ring.

Why? How is that different than subsidizing urban living?

because

a. urban living is inherently cheaper on a per capita basis
b. big cities are (usually) not being subsidized on the macro level - nyc pays more in taxes than it receives in services

option b there is generally what right wing suburban nutjobs in my neck of the woods use to vote against school referendums, its basically a sour grapes argument that holds no water in my book.

well you asked "how the subsidies were different" - the difference is that, on the macro level urban life is *not being subsidized*

so what? why should it be?

yeah I don't think that 'politics and subsidies and transportation and stimulus package' is 'a bunch of hype'

― iatee, Thursday, June 10, 2010 3:31 PM (8 minutes ago)

neither do i, but when you use it as disposable coin for an unfocused argument, it is hype

once again - I was just responding to you and "how the subsidies were different"

my 'focused argument', that I've repeated a dozen times - suburbs are artificially cheap, urban areas are artificially expensive. if we were to change government policies that make this so, fewer people would live in the suburbs and fewer people would want to live in the suburbs.

and again - why does that matter? outside of the "wahhh i paid my taxes and they fixed that guys street instead of the one in front of my house" sour grapes approach, this is how things work. the reason for this is population density - more people in close proximity = higher tax base. i mean, good for NYC in being a self-sustaining economy on the taxation level, but why does that imply anything beyond that?

xpost - BUT the main problem is I have yet to hear why urban areas are "artificially" expensive. in fact your supply/demand argument (which i dont actually agree with but whatever) is kind of a total counterpoint to what you are saying.

note: the idea that money spent on outside the city infrastructure is not benefiting the city in an equal and possibly more significant way than it is the rural folks is also just so off the mark that i cant understand why you are even attempting it.

so right, overcrowded city with super affluent suburbs...

i'm not going to try to speak for iatee, but i think the sensible policy is to first remove the policies in place that overencourage suburban growth. you might: eliminate tax credits for home ownership, use congestion pricing and/or gas taxes, relax zoning restrictions to encourage mixed-use development, remove rent controls (these last two can help increase the supply of urban housing to meet the demand that sends the current supply's prices soaring), decouple housing and school assignment (this one is politically a pipe dream, tho).

i don't think you necessarily (at least immediately) go from subsidizing one paradigm to the other. i would much rather see government incentives removed first and see where the "natural" level of suburban growth would be with carbon priced for its externalities (my guess: suburbia would still be the preference for a lot if not most families! but the marginal difference might be enough to make for good policy without resorting to dramatic favoring of urban centers which may (or will) prove to have its own set of unintended consequences).

thanks to massive psychological warfare

We do lots of things thanks to massive psychological warfare. It's called advertising, on the simplest level. On a bigger plane, it's also the reason the govt has gone through so many waves of pushing Americans to spend and want bigger and better lives instead of using things up or fixing them -- not-so-coincidentally pushed on us at times when the economy needed a boost for whatever reason. The level of indebtedness that resulted certainly isn't in individuals' best interests, but they/I/we follow/ed along anyway and thought we were lucky to have "made it" enough to have that big TV or new car or whatever. You can't say Americans don't know how to drink their Kool-Aid(tm).

suburbs are artificially cheap, urban areas are artificially expensive. if we were to change government policies that make this so, fewer people would live in the suburbs and fewer people would want to live in the suburbs.

That's assuming that people's decisions on where to live are driven purely by economic factors and remain the same regardless of age, size of household, etc.

I went to my 10-year high-school reunion and talked to a couple people* who said that they tried living in Chicago for a while but it wasn't really for them and so moved back to the suburbs. I couldn't really comprehend this, but you know, people have different priorities and values. To me, the cultural aspects of urban life -- bars, restaurants, music venues, theaters, etc. -- are more than enough reason to live in a city, but some people could care less about that stuff.

*The one I remember in particular (if you're wondering, Granny Dainger) was Eug3n3 Y@u.

lots and lots of americans want to live a manhattan-type-urban lifestyle and cannot because demand for this lifestyle

Guys, this is where he actually, really said "lots and lots of americans", I wasn't making that up.

I think Alfred was teasing you because you quoted him as saying "most Americans."

if suburuban regs were relaxed they would become more dense and more city-like in the aggregate. it's not about people "moving back into the city" proper, it's about the whole urban area (urb + suburbs) being allowed to build up instead of being forced to build only out

Okay, I did accidentally do that.

(xpost)

That's assuming that people's decisions on where to live are driven purely by economic factors and remain the same regardless of age, size of household, etc.

surely they are not driven by nothing but economic factors, but "when something is more expensive, some people will buy less of it" is not a radical idea, is it?

also m bison otm, *should* be speaking for me.

^^^^ xpost to goole
economic factors gen do not affect individuals all that dramatically, but they affect lots and lots of ppl in small ways that add up meaningfully on the whole

if suburuban regs were relaxed they would become more dense and more city-like in the aggregate. it's not about people "moving back into the city" proper, it's about the whole urban area (urb + suburbs) being allowed to build up instead of being forced to build only out

^^^^

I think Alfred was teasing you because you quoted him as saying "most Americans."

Yep.

but "when something is more expensive, some people will buy less of it" is not a radical idea, is it?

Not when you're taking your Microeconomics 101 final, no, but in the real world things are more complicated than that, especially when it comes to things like "Where should I live?" People don't buy "housing" like they do "insurance" in the Progressive commercials.

economic factors gen do not affect individuals all that dramatically, but they affect lots and lots of ppl in small ways that add up meaningfully on the whole