A planet of suburbs
economist.com
economist.com
All this said, it's somewhat subjective what is a "suburb" versus what is a legitimate (and possibly charming) small town. And while Los Angeles is a large city, it's sprawling and ugly and has no moral high ground over some town adjacent to Philadelphia or Boston that happens to be "suburban" because it has a different city-name on its postal address.
All of this said, car culture is objectively bad. Suburbia was supposed to make it possible for middle-class people to save instead of throwing their disposable income away for the benefit of urban landlords, but over time the car (through escalating costs and the catastrophic time loss of traffic) became the new landlord. The clearing and leveling of forests to build tasteless, cookie-cutter houses is also objectively bad. The environment doesn't have a vote, but it should, because I'd rather have a healthy environment than 4600 SF of unneeded housing space for everyone. Suburbia gets such a bad rap in the U.S. because it's done wrong, both in terms of aesthetics and in terms of ecological footprint.
If you have lived in a big city but have not lived in Los Angeles, it is not reasonable to use your experience to model Los Angeles. It is much more like a loose federation of nearby townships than it is a city like New York City. This is as much a cause is it is an effect of car culture and freeways; the two feed each other and cannot be meaningfully separated into cause and effect as far as I am concerned.
There are parts of "LA Metro" that I find charming, and parts that I find terrible. But there is nothing that I would call representative of the whole. Downtown vs Santa Monica vs Redondo vs San Fernando vs Eagle Rock vs Alhambra etc. Treating LA as a monolith is not a useful approximation. (to be clear, I spent a substantial amount of time living in major cities across Europe and the US, including London and San Francisco, so I'm speaking with a moderate amount of diverse experience).
Large suburban cities without freeways suck (poor/incomplete public transport is assumed). Look at a map of Sydney or Melbourne and LA at the same scale. Compare the density of freeways. I really value the convenience that LA's grid of freeways provide. To have a car based suburban city without freeways seems the worst of all choices.
I'm finding this same pattern in the Bay Area too (moved to Mountain View last spring). Does this match your experience? I've never explored LA.
In any case, the many-small-town structure is kind of disorienting coming from a another city with a central, lively downtown, but I can also sort of see an appeal that the locality has. People who live in e.g. Mountain View or Palo Alto or Redwood City feel like they have a nice, small-town "main street" nearby in a way that most suburbs don't. Done right, small federated towns are not necessarily a bad way to scale. (Putting housing-density issues aside, of course; Mountain View in particular has a really nasty supply-constraint problem now that more and denser apartment buildings would go a long way toward solving.)
That said, there are things that you can't find in your own town, so you rely on the regional federated structure for those things, and then you have transportation issues because (i) it's less efficient to cover the decentralized area with mass transit than to build a spoke-and-hub system around a real downtown, and (ii) regional political coordination to build/improve systems like Caltrain/BART is much harder when you have a distributed governance structure. (Does LA have similar problems with coordinating city governments?)
So I think I prefer the 'single big central lively downtown' model better but both models are interesting, IMHO.
I think the Mountain View / Palo Alto / Sunnyvale area mirrors the San Gabriel valley structure pretty closely (with Palo Alto ~= Pasadena, Menlo Park+Atherton ~= San Marino, Sunnyvale+Mountain View ~= Glendale+Burbank). So in that sense they are similar in one particular region.
On the other hand, LA downtown is surrounded by confederate townships. San Francisco is in some sense a city on a hill. Similarly, there is nothing like the Venice / Santa Monica / Malibu cluster providing "coastal" political influence to the city. There is no way that, e.g., Pacifica or Half Moon Bay would ever be able to be first class citizens in local politics the way that Venice/Santa Monica/Malibu are in LA politics.
Continuing the contrast, the LA area doesn't really have anything like the East Bay.
I could go on and on, but I will leave it at that for now. I do think that anyone who thinks they have an opinion on LA, but hasn't lived there, should take a moment and think that maybe it really is different from their expectations or previous experience of large cities.
Edit: one could, I suppose, say that Long Beach is, in some sense, analogous to the East Bay. They are parallel in an economic and social class sense, but I still think the East Bay is much more of a cultural component of SFBA than Long Beach is of LA Metro.
It's a false dichotomy. Manhattan is not the only way to build a dense city. It's not the most pleasant way to do so, either, but neither is it even the most unpleasant.
There are ways to build dense cities that people can afford to live in and actually enjoy living in. What there's not a lot of is political will to implement these ways of doing things, because location is assumed to be a zero-sum privilege people should pay for instead of a public good people should share.
> There are ways to build dense cities that people can afford to live in and actually enjoy living in.
This is a subject that deeply interests me. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on what you consider viable alternative models; personally, Manhattan and its satellites seem the closest to a realistic (if obviously flawed) design strategy for achieving livable density.
I may object to a car-centric lifestyle based on my aesthetics but that's not enough to make me actually do something. OTOH, demanding a subsidy and lowering my quality of life so you can enjoy your lifestyle, that's something which will make me vote/support a politician etc.
The extent of this subsidy varies greatly from place to place, but that is the primary cause of urban-suburban tension.
My word, really, you'll definitely have to come up with some backing behind your comments, please. Because blaming people with such direct and specific words such as "demanding/getting subsidy", and "lowering quality of life" simply by virtue of them not choosing to live the way you deem the most "efficient" is quite arrogant.
>"I may object to a car-centric lifestyle based on my aesthetics but that's not enough to make me actually do something. OTOH, demanding a subsidy and lowering my quality of life so you can enjoy your lifestyle, that's something which will make me vote/support a politician etc."
Way to turn around the blame here. You've taken a purely simple, innocent action such as "choosing to live in a quiet, less-populated area, away from traffic", into some hostile, directed act. You then claim that them doing so is justification for you to actually vote against them or their way of life. I don't see you mentioning what that voting or politician will do to fix this supposed problem, but I can bet you that whatever it is, it's more hostile, directed, and purposeful than what you claim these people did to make you vote that way in the first place.
1) It is pretty clearly documented that suburban development is much more environmentally impactful than urban infill development. If nothing else, the non captured externalities of this environmental impact acts as a subsidy to the suburbs.
2) The mortgage interest tax subsidy is non-proportionately paid to suburban home owners than to urban ones.
3) On a per rider, and a per trip basis, suburban mass transit is more subsidized than urban mass transit (you will notice that suburban transit systems always want to use "per mile" statistics.)
4) By nearly every economic statistic you can find, urban centers generate more productivity than suburban ones.
All that said, you can definitely find lots of subsidies that are disproportionately paid from suburban areas to urban ones, but even the ones that seem obvious (subsidized food, crime, education, etc) are actually trending towards suburban subsidies.
There are economies of scale involved in building infrastructure for many people. If you have a low population density in an area (like a suburb) you can't collect enough tax to pay for the infrastructure (which is more spread out, while there are fewer people to pay for it). That money has to come from somewhere. In the article it's Federal grants. Where do you think the money for those Federal grants comes from?
Suburbs are fundamentally unsustainable. There are not enough people there to pay for the infrastructure. That infrastructure is more expensive because it has to cover a larger area to serve a given number of people.
... yes, this is not a direct explanation, but you can extrapolate how subsidies arise for the suburbs when calculated on a per capita rather than per district basis.
This was often true -- up until the 1960s. However, under the rule laid down in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), state legislative districts were required to be apportioned so as to provide "substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens".
http://www.thestranger.com/binary/ea57/CityLead-CLICK.jpg
It depicts the denser, more urban, and/or more populated counties of Washington State contributing more and receiving less from the overall state pool of revenue than less populated, rural counties. (The graphic frames it as Democratic-voting versus Republican-voting but the population difference is also similar.)
Here are some examples from my own time living in an urban setting versus the suburbs:
- Road packages are always a given and almost never subject to a vote unless, as in the case of Washington State, someone bothers to get an initiative or ratification on the ballot. Urban mass transit, like buses and light rail, always come with a vote. So transit has to clear the legislature, the governor, and then the people. That presupposes that the legislature actually does anything. Roads only get stuck with the first two and "building the future" is wildly popular.
- Going back to roads for a second dip: Road funding for rural and suburban areas tends to be at the state level. A highway through Okanogan or Ferry counties is paid for by King county residents. In contrast, cities in King county tend to fund their road needs through local taxes--usually through the much-hated vehicle registration tax--and have to do so in a series of piecemeal ballot votes. So rural areas get taxed once, urban areas twice or three times depending on how many taxing jurisdictions are at play and how much roads versus transit is needed.
- Services which would be inefficient to fund through direct charges, like sewer systems or electric, get paid for at the state or county level and the urban areas pay into those pools but get little back.
In Texas, there is a saying that "build the houses and the roads [or electric lines or what have you] will follow." I have lost count of the number of times my electric bill in my former residence went up because the poles-and-wires company needed to serve more far-flung suburban sprawl.
There is a lot to be said for taxing ourselves as a society to pay for our shared good. Education, clean water, sanitary sewers, transportation; all good topics. The problem comes with, as inevitably happens, those folks in the suburban and rural areas both declaring that they "did it all by themselves" and also denying the urban areas the ability to tax ourselves to build what we now need.
Is it an intentional act by the individuals who move to the suburbs? No, but it sure feels that way when the ballots are cast.
* Tons of street space is provided by the public for parking that would otherwise be used more efficiently.
* Parking spots become scarce, causing drivers to waste a lot of time and cause extra congestion while searching for parking spots. It's nice for people who have more time than money, but taxpayers can't collect that wasted time.
* Because voters have an expectation of unlimited free parking, local government requires new construction to include parking spaces so the additional residents don't consume existing street parking. This increases the cost of construction and wastes space, and it reduces the possibilities for land use. You can't have dense communities when half the space is consumed by parking garages.
[1] "The High Cost of Free Parking" http://www.uctc.net/papers/351.pdf
People can afford more cars and would rather make use of the public space for parking than fill their driveway or have to shuffle cars if they're parked behind one another.
I leave my second car parked out front because it's slightly more convenient than using my double driveway (crammed to get kids in the car when two cars are parked there), and because I have a pool table and table tennis table in my double garage. I am a part of the problem!
Once you get further than that your total transit time starts to grow compared to the average time you'll spend at your destination (i.e shopping, eating, going to a show, whatever). A good ratio for me is about .25 - i.e if I'm going to spend a total of 30 minutes in transit and I have a reason to stay ~> 2 hours then I'm likely to go.
The distance 10-15minutes equates to varies by place and I imagine the transportation options can also move the dial as well.
When I have children, I fully intend to move back into the suburban ring around a mid-sized city where I can regain those benefits without cutting myself off from civilization entirely.
isolation is a benefit?
Cities in Oregon have been constrained by "urban growth boundaries" since 1973, the idea is preventing sprawl and encroachment on farm land. That guarantees population increases will require "infill" and that's exactly what's happening.
This is a polar contrast to Phoenix, AZ, which happens to be the place I grew up in. Even as a kid it was easy to observe the immense sprawl associated with the region's inbred suburban culture.
The article's commentary about the sharp edges of development in the Phoenix area points ironically to a similar-appearing phenomenon in the Portland area. There are a number of roads a few miles from the center of the city where one side is jam-packed with dense residential construction, and the other traditional farm land stretching to the horizon.
It gives another meaning to the phrase, "keeping Portland weird".
Beijing municipality includes a lots of rural land (and suburbs) which brings the density down a lot, but I would hardly call those urban areas.
as far as intimation/subtext that suburbs are ultimately good, i disagree BUT i'm really appreciative of how the article is laid out in terms of substantive content.
glad it was shared.
That's just the tax money. From the personal perspective a mandate of car ownership (and until recently oil purchases) is ridding consumer of disposable income that could be spent somewhere else.
Next thing you'll be telling people "No, you can't have only one person per apartment/room, you have to share with at least 3 people in bunkbeds. One person per home/room is 'too great a tax on society's resourced to maintain'.".
Yes, that's a slippery slope. But one that points out the futility of arguments such as yours. Namely, that you've drawn an arbitrary line where you find convenient. And along with it, you've conveniently neglected to acknowledge that other people would have drawn that line further, or closer.
But, now that I think about it. I think they do, especially if it's represented by a usage tax. Say fuel levies, or property taxes.
A) Sick people are not making a deliberate lifestyle choice.
B) Public healthcare is something provided by public decision-making and majority vote.
Therefore, frankly, if the public decides it yields greater public benefit to pour taxes taken from urban areas into improving urban areas rather than into subsidizing the suburban minority of the population, that is our democratic right.
It's also important to note the actual population shift taking place: it used to be in the USA that most people lived in either rural areas, outer suburbs, or inner suburbs, with the center cities containing only a minority of the population and lacking a plurality of economic productivity. Everything was genuinely more spread out.
Nowadays, things have developed away from the post-WW2 pattern and back towards the pattern of the Industrial Revolution: heavy urbanization of the population and the economy. Most people now live in either the core cities or the inner suburbs, and so does most of the economic value-creation.
Which means that there's an entirely legitimate reason why urban issues are back on the agenda!
Now, the stick up our asses we city-dwelling types have got, is that thanks to various aspects of the districting systems, our vote counts for less than that of a rural-dweller in deciding what to do with our own damn tax money.
Most likely that is the case, yes. But you can't know for sure, as there are many actual life-style choices out there that negatively or positively impact health, and as a consequence, individuals' level of healthcare need.
>"B) Public healthcare is something provided by public decision-making and majority vote."
And we've also, by majority vote, decided that people should live where they please. And by majority vote, we've elected and chosen representatives that represent that. Let's not argue democracy here by claiming that healthcare is somehow more "democratic" or more "democratically chosen" than housing and urban-planning.
>"Therefore, frankly, if the public decides it yields greater public benefit to pour taxes taken from urban areas into improving urban areas rather than into subsidizing the suburban minority of the population, that is our democratic right."
Isn't that why we're discussing this? The public already chose and/or allowed people to live freely and in areas they choose. Not only that, but they've given tacit permission (by virtue of democratic vote) to representatives and government officials to plan the way they have, and that includes suburbia.
>"Nowadays, things have developed away from the post-WW2 pattern and back towards the pattern of the Industrial Revolution: heavy urbanization of the population and the economy. Most people now live in either the core cities or the inner suburbs, and so does most of the economic value-creation."
I don't see how this has any relevance or bearing on where people are allowed to live. Just because you deem it most efficient to optimize "economic value-creation" by packing people into as small a space as possible (seemingly against their will as they're picking suburban living now), doesn't make it the right way, or the moral way.
>"Now, the stick up our asses we city-dwelling types have got, is that thanks to various aspects of the districting systems, our vote counts for less than that of a rural-dweller in deciding what to do with our own damn tax money."
That's unfortunate. You should really get that fixed up. But let me get something a little clear, as I'm not 100% aware of the voting issues in America. Are you saying that individuals that live in suburban areas are part of a separate district? And their vote counts more than yours? That honestly doesn't sound very "democratic" to me.
No one's said "allowed to live", but where they've chosen to live. People choose to live in the suburbs for private garaging, private gardens, larger spaces, distance to neighbours, etc. No one's saying they're not nice things - I have them where I live - just that they cost more in terms of utilities/etc.
And we've also, by majority vote, decided that people should live where they please. And by majority vote, we've elected and chosen representatives that represent that.
The original point (that you were arguing poorly against) was that those living in denser areas could press their elected officials for adjusted distribution of taxes based on these sorts of costs.
I pay a water bill at my home (suburbs) and at my office (dense CBD). Even though my home uses a great deal more water (showers/baths, washing dishes and clothes, irrigation), my water bill at home is cheaper. A significant portion of water bills where I live are based on property value, and a smaller component on actual water use. So even though providing water to CBD offices and residences is probably much cheaper, that is not reflected in the pricing.
There'a quite a bit of distance between "you're drawing arbitrary lines" and "you have been free-riding due to use not properly including previously externalized costs, which will now be properly accounted for".
The suburbs are predicated on cheap land and petroleum. If you're able to continue the suburbs model while the price of both increase, more power to you. I'd rather have my tax dollars finance public transit vs limited use suburban roads though, thanks.
Its mostly a moot point though; the majority of people around the world continue to move into cities: https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&q=people%20moving%20t...
Suburbs are a compromise with positional land rents ala Ricardo/Henry George. People who want to make more humans will probably always head there.
While I can more or less understand the distaste for automobiles, I doubt they're going anywhere. And it might even be possible to have suburbs as an artifact of public transport - Bourdain did a show on The Bronx, which according to his show ends at a relatively rural setting.
I get more than enough "culture" through my cable wire in the form of cable TV and Internet. That includes Anthony Bourdain :) As a practitioner of live music since Carter was president, pardon my cynicism w.r.t. "culture".
I don't follow. Density does not merely improve _availability_ of goods and services. It improves the efficiency of providing those goods and services (besides other efficiencies). So to me it seems that density is of value, and that applies whether or not humans are the scourge of the planet. Using resources efficiently = Good. Wasting resources = Bad.
On another note, I would add that getting all your culture from the internet and tv is probably not the best thing. The cocoon of your car separates you from having to experience street/neighborhood culture firsthand. Not a good thing in my book. Far easier to detach yourself from people you see on tv than people you walk by on the street.
Density does not necessarily improve efficiency. It makes for a wider variety of ...restaurants. I might have agreed with "efficiency" before the logistics revolution of the last thirty years. If there had been actual efficiency then there would never have been suburbs in the first place. Suburbs were a (perhaps cheap) trick of finance, but ... there they are. Suburbs are a triumph of land rents avoidance.
I have plenty of exposure to "street" culture. It's hugely overrated. The term "tinpot" comes to mind - remember "Billie Joe Must Die"? That's an extreme case, but... You used to be able to go into the Five Spot and hear Ornette Coleman, or catch Buddy Emmons jamming at one of the downtown Nashville bars.
Not so much any more.
Converting that to mass market is the real test. I did a hugely unscientific and completely informal test when I was living in a downtown space - "Why do you like it here?" When we culled the things they said they liked ( museums, theater, live music ) but didn't actually do, it came down to ... bars. Or restaurants, once you don't want to be seen as a reprobate any more.
(Cable) TV is a much better resource than it's given credit for ( BookTv is great ) - but you have to be picky. The internet? Mixed at best. Books are the best, but they don't make 'em like they used to.