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

Sterl, a failed construction boom in Phoenix is not even remotely credible as evidence in the argument over construction in NYC. We have had a bona fide housing shortage for years!

Yes max people are just talking about geographic size and not population, clearly. They are in fact arguing that Alaska because it is so big has more jobs than anywhere else. You nailed it!

xpost: Hurting I'm just making fun of the stupid editorial which is *hailing* the boom in Phoenix.

And the boom in Phoenix was also sprawl not tall. Which isn't an argument for or against anything except for that editorial being stupid.

yeah you're misreading it

max the argument is that somehow an upper middle class person in a city has more job creating power in the service industry than the same UMC person in a suburb, which i dont think is true

here is the same author on phoenix:
http://www.ryanavent.com/blog/?p=1780

Worse still, the metropolitan economy of Phoenix relied extraordinarily heavily on home construction. Construction came to employ about one in ten workers in the area during the long housing boom. Given the massive housing overhang, it’s unlikely that most of those jobs will come back, even after the national economy recovers. It’s not surprising, then, that there are signs of population decline in the Phoenix area. I believe the city will ultimately recover, but there is little in this tale that reflects strength, and little worth emulating.

Yes max people are just talking about geographic size and not population, clearly. They are in fact arguing that Alaska because it is so big has more jobs than anywhere else. You nailed it!

xpost: Hurting I'm just making fun of the stupid editorial which is *hailing* the boom in Phoenix.

― s.clover, Wednesday, March 14, 2012 3:32 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

not arguing with you dude! arguing with john!

yeah but the argument wasnt phrased as more jobs created per square mile, it was saying that somehow the urban UMC persons money can buy more service related jobs, which is questionable at best.

in fact if anything wrt labor rates and cost of living, it would seem that the suburban peeps have more disposable income to hire lawncare services or dog day care or whatever

well i dont think id argue that suburban residents couldnt, if they wanted to, spend as much money on service as urban residents do

in fact if anything wrt labor rates and cost of living, it would seem that the suburban peeps have more disposable income to hire lawncare services or dog day care or whatever

a. there is evidence that density and productivity are linked so the average umc person is going to make and spend more money than they would elsewhere
b. cost of living = see: land use regulations, there is nothing *inherently* expensive about density
c. thought experiment: if the opposite is true, what are the consequences? if sprawl led to sustainable job creation and wealth, wouldn't even sprawlier sprawl lead to more? how would the disproportionate productivity and wealth of sf and nyc fit into that picture?

iatee, the fact that avent has written something elsewhere that shows he knows better doesn't mean that the op-ed in the times, on its own, isn't really goofy nonetheless.

every single other thing he has ever written doesn't fit with the way that you are misreading one sentence. he doesn't 'know better', he has an extremely consistent pov that has spanned years of published work.

the guy who's been writing about densitifaction for years isn't gonna accidentally say 'phoenix is awesome' in the nyt

i mean you can take cabs in the suburbs too, it is just far less common a behavior than it is in NYC

I'm just a spectator in the larger argument but on this topic, I think it's like this? Because more people want a thing or service, let's say grocery delivery, a provider of that service can make their margins based on volume rather than pricing structure? Like if only one person in my business area wants grocery delivery, I might have to charge them $100 for that. But if 20 people want it, the price comes down to $5 and suddenly my potential customer base explodes because lots of people are willing to pay $5 when they couldn't have paid $100. So in cities, where there are lots of potential customers, the hypothetical service can be a lot cheaper and therefore a valid business model.

Sorry for the over-explaining. :(

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CFibAP5IBQ

but I don't think, when you frame it like that, anyone would believe that's a great way to create jobs.

I didn't mean to imply otherwise! But I am sure some people who believe that everyone deserves a 50s-style ranch home, a chicken in every pot, and a front yard for kids to play in would say it's good.

Also, proud to own American cars. My wife has two Cadillacs she drives..

My wife has two Cadillacs she drives..

Now you guys are just trying to make iatee explode with rage, right?

what, by sarcastically quoting Mitt Romney? I think he's probably immune to that by now.

Those foreign cars are so small, right? You do need two -- one for each foot.

(apols. Henny Youngman)

I knew it was sarcastic, but didn't know it was Mittens. Make sense though.

i think that part of the reason that this thread seems less like a debate and more like a series of polemics is that the two thought states seem to be "cities are great, anything else has no redeeming qualities" vs. "hey cities are cool but suburbs and rural and pretty much wherever peeps choose to live can have positives aspects as well" vs. some imaginary city hating strawman so we dont really discuss anything but mostly just make cheap points off of each other.

i mean yeah hi dere internet and all but i know thats why i only stop in here once every few months and then get frustrated and bail

yeah I don't send a lot of time talking about how much fun cities are, I mostly focus on how they're a better and more productive use of resources. I'm sure millions of americans love their lil suburb. we just shouldn't have a legal and policy structure that subsidizies them.

see right there is the self-important tone i have come to expect from this thread

people are political about political issue shockah

wellll theres a difference between political and unwilling to entertain the possibility that you are wrong about anything but well wait i guess that depends on how you define political so

well I'm not really concerned about being wrong about 'is sprawl bad for the environment'

It's weird to me to think of urban zoning restrictions as a way to subsidize suburbs. I don't think people who live in suburbs really care either way about zoning in cities. It's the people living in cities who support these zoning restrictions, largely I think because of NIMBY-ism and misguided fear of change. Cities already seem dense enough to most people, so the thought of additional density tends to be unpopular. People only think of the negative side-effects: congestion, noise, pollution, strain on infrastructure, etc. People don't usually think about the cool new businesses and restaurants that might be able to thrive in their neighborhood if it got a bit denser.

john how long have you been on ilx, you have to realize that acting super sensitive and pouty when iatee is impolitic abt his opinions just makes everyone pile on right

y/n: suburbs make people pouty

all the recent stuff abt zoning aside the big argument here is between people who think that increasing density leads to vastly more efficient and sustainable use of resources and people who get hurt when that's said in a zingy way

but this thread doesn't even read like the suburb defenders are disagreeing wrt denisty being more efficient and sustainable

like jjusten say's its just zings circling around each other at this point

Yeah I'm not being sensitive or pouty dude, I am suggesting that terrible argumentation and logic is pretty transparent when it's repeated 8 million times over in a thread.

I am in favor of increasing urban dentistry

well lets clear some stuff up

people who think that increasing density leads to vastly more efficient and sustainable use of resources

Regardless of zings, this hasn't really proved true over the course of history.

the problem isn't that iatee is wrong, its more that he goes about getting his point across in a really condescending way sometimes and i think that gets peoples dander up and they want to argue with him just because. i feel like at least 90% of the people itt agree that density is probably the most efficient and sustainable way forward, its more just arguing wrt to getting there.

why do you even need to argue with me if you agree with me?

Same reason I used to tutor people in formal logic I guess

for the record, i'm not arguing with you right now, i'm just pointing out where the shitstorms sort of start to spiral out of control. we can agree with your main thesis, but disagree with your supporting points.

voluntary human extinction is the only way

w/r/t subsidization/zoning upthread -- The zoning stuff is really a separate discussion I think that has nothing to do with the suburbs and nothing to do with disputes over higher density. The subsidization of suburbs was a much more direct thing over a long span of time. Mainly it came with homeownership incentives and various construction and tax incentives etc. But people didn't move to the suburbs because they were subsidized! The suburbs were subsidized because the people moving there were an important political force that politicians wanted to cultivate. The thing is really that suburbanization as a trend mainly reversed [or at least transformed] by the late 80s at the latest (with certain sprawl-exceptions in the sunbelt, which was a sort of different thing, and also has now collapsed). So the arguments about the problems with suburbanization all actually are sort of inescapable now, and I don't think there's even real disagreement about them?

i think some people do disagree with me about the new hampshire plan

voluntary human extinction is the only way

― mh, Wednesday, March 14, 2012 2:13 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

that or population control, yeah.

max: in new hampshire will all our food be grown on rooftop gardens or something? or will ppl have to commute to ohio or whatever to raise cows?

new hampshire is surrounded by amazing fertile land! and anyway were talking brooklyn density in NH, so theres plenty of room for community gardens, parks, even rooftop gardens

and there will be no cows in the united states of new hampshire. if there are they will be very expensive.

also new hampshire winters are kinda brutal. maybe we can build a dome over it or something?

no cows sounds like a dealbreaker, tbh.

unless you plan on making all yr united states of new hampshire food in labs, there is no way you're going to have enough rooftop gardens to grow even enough grain for yr country