Flibbertigibbet

Throwing two copper pieces into the ring...

Based only on this post (still at work, today - haven't been able to follow any links, yet), and extrapolating a little from my own experience, it appears to me that there are a great many optional values in each major environment (urban, sub-urban, and rural). In fact, I'd venture to say that it may take a truly capitalist society to reveal the non-optional value of the city.

There seems to be such a diversity of factors to weigh, and so many of them subject to individual sensibilities and sensitivities that I can't imagine how it could be any more predictable than the other markets we've seen in which the productive people hold sway.

Personally, I think it boils down to this: Ingenuity can solve any problem and answer any complaint. And money, rationally invested, can overcome any difficulty. So name any particular problem with the big city: noise, pollution, transportation, emergency-preparedness/access, etc. Give the geniuses free reign, and make it worth their while, and they'll come up with a way to lighten the prospect of congested living. In short, nothing is a problem -in principle- with the city. It's just another way of organizing productive effort.

Flib,

I'll try to cover the meat of your questions.

"Cannot capitalism give rise to what I'm calling deep urban environments?"

Well, it did, back in the day before cars were invented and/or mass produced.

The invention of the car, however, greatly changed the options for how people can live. It provided a new landscape - the "sprawl" as the hippies pejoratively call it - and in the 1940's and 1950's, there was a mass migration to it.

Since almost its birth, however, there has been a concentrated political and cultural campaign - perpetrated by Marxists with an ideological axe to grind - to squash and destroy this way of life.

LA is a very interesting example of how - despite open space laws and an almost total stoppage of construction of road infrastructure - people still, in mass numbers, are moving and building further and further outwards from the deep urban. Specifically, they will suffer through 3+ hour commutes and housing which is priced $300,000 or more above where it would otherwise be, simply to enjoy suburban life.

You don't have to speculate, either, to see how popular a less-regulated landscape would be. Simply look to where I live: Phoenix, AZ. It's just about the fastest growing part of the nation. Now, of course even now there are efforts to crush this city by diverting funds from much-needed roads to a train nobody wants and nobody will ever use. (see The Charlotte Capitalist on how every light rail project ever attempted has failed miserably!)

"I think you would see areas of increasing population density as people move to take advantage of the economic benefits of living, working, shopping all in close proximity"

I think that, with a proper infrastructure, the use of the car means that people in the suburbs DO live, work, and shop in close proximity. If by proximity, you mean the amount of time and effort it takes to get around.

"In spite of my recent observations about how much fun it is to drive, these stupid government-permitted multi-use facilities like the one in Atlanta whose name escapes me at the moment are a dream come true for me. In fact, I'm one of these people up supports the notion of a metropolitan superstructure deal where the city becomes one, sort of, mega-building."

That is, of course, your preference and your prerogative. And absent the various economic and other manipulations, I believe that such projects would be relegated to only those select few with the extra disposable income and personal inclination to walking as a means of transport. I think there would be quite a bit of flight from such areas if freedom were allowed to prevail.

What I mean is, the car is being artificially made less mobile and efficacious by socialist design: forced into the breadlines that are traffic jams. If this were not the case, many urbanites would not choose to live there because they would not have a need to "escape the traffic."

What would happen in the decades after that, as capitalism was allowed to return, is anyone's guess. I can only imagine that there are some forms of business which would benefit from such an arrangement, and that eventually even a well-infrastructured suburban environment would become so developed in so many directions that it might once again become profitable and sensible to start building upwards again.

Of course, such a futurist urban environment may not at all resemble the kind we see today. It might be utterly unrecognizable in its futuristic goodness. Hard to say, really.

I'm simply saying that, since the invention of the car, such building would have been put on hold, had the socialists not conspired to force us backward in time and technology. And if and when it did return, it would take the form of something more integrated with the invention of automobility - rather than in vehement ideological warfare with it.

Does that cover what you were asking? I can provide more, if needed. I always appreciate thoughtful questions such as yours, Flib, as I enjoy having something to write about. I'll probably be posting this up on my blog.

"In short, nothing is a problem -in principle- with the city."

Rachel, in principle I agree - and when you get the chance to read my posts, you'll see I say as much in my very first one. My beef is that there has been a vast economic and ideological smear campaign against the suburbs in favor of an urban environment.

I am not against the urban, as such; I am against it in the context that it is being advanced by the socialists today.

The only sense in that I am against it as such is in my personal preference: I would not want to live there, myself. But of course, when I do speak from that position, I am sure to clarify and separate it from the wider discussion.

As much as I despise subsidies for mass transit, let's not forget that the government subsidizes roads even more completely. There are at least nominal fares to travel on most mass transit systems, but most roads are "free". Suburbs exist in part because of these subsidies, plus zoning and other development regulations that control where different types of housing and businesses can be located. If all these government subsidies and regulations were removed, the result might be more suburban-style living, or it might be less, or the result might be something completely different from modern city patterns. I doubt every city would be affected the same way, because the geographical and economic circumstances differ. Phoenix, for example, might not even be a major city if government subsidies for roads, and perhaps more important for water, were removed.

I was talking to Mister Bookworm about this last night and one of the things I pointed out is that in Atlanta -- a major city built around cars -- a 15 minute jaunt (with car) might present an individual with opportunities to interact with hundreds of different businesses and individuals. In Manhattan, however, a 15 minute jaunt (on foot - cars and trains present even more opportunities) exposes one to opportunities in the thousands ranging from multinational corporations to tiny bodegas.

Not everyone bears this feeling of a need to escape the traffic. I am a prime example. I like the hustle and bustle of the city.

I say this not to poo-poo the virtues of suburbia, because having lived in all of these environments (rural, suburban, urban, and deep urban) I recognize that it's possible for people to enjoy life to its fullest in any of them. It really just depends on your optional values.

Given an ideal environment, we agree that cities would develop. I do also agree that in such a case, streets and other modes of transportation would be developed per the market demand. I would regard projections of what that demand may be as little more than speculation.

LA is a good example of a sprawling (in the factual sense of the word without the hippie-bred connotations) metropolis where there are people driving about and they persist in living further and further away from the "city proper."

By contrast, we have NYC where -- yes, many people do move out to Connecticut, NJ, and even Pennsylvania and choose to commute -- people persist in moving into the tiny island of Manhattan to enjoy life without a car.

I do not agree with the assertion that the building of skyscrapers (which needs be supported by dense commercial opportunities in order to be economically viable) and deep urban environments would have stopped after the advent of the automobile had it not been for Marxists.

But I do like your theory about autos being made less mobile by government intervention. I think that notion has some very salient points to it and strong support from the facts of reality and the nature of government itself.

I would also point out that suburbia is attractive to many, if not most, not necessarily by it's nature of being non-urban, but because it is generally cheaper than the deep urban.

Believe it or not, there is a sizable portion of the population who really enjoy life in the big city for being a big city.

Flib and Richard,

Yes, I will agree: it is definitely a speculation.

For instance this:

"I do not agree with the assertion that the building of skyscrapers (which needs be supported by dense commercial opportunities in order to be economically viable) and deep urban environments would have stopped after the advent of the automobile had it not been for Marxists."

What I mean is, simply, that there was a historic flight from the cities, and it would have been larger and longer lasting had it not been for the efforts of the Marxists. That is all I mean. Would deep urban cities exist at all? That's a matter of pure speculation. I'll throw out guesses but that's just what they are.

As for subsidies and roads, that's not entirely true. In Phoenix, there are very few "subsidies" for roads. They are paid for by expensive license plates, gasoline taxes, and other forms of taxation on motorists. To be a subsidy, they would have to be paid for by non-motorists, and non-motorists in Phoenix are very few and far between. We all pay for the roads and we all use 'em. I do not agree that they are "subsidized," in the same sense that light rail projects and other barely-used public transport are.

Water... well, that's another matter. Phoenix probably does owe its existence to government intervention in water.

Of course, water's really so cheap relatively speaking that I don't see what the big deal is. In a free market, I'd just pay more for it. I could pay double or even triple for water and still barely notice.

Now, of course, the festering politics of cities. Yeesh. Red-rum.

But like I said, if you want to put up with that, well, we all get to ride our own toboggan. Or whatever it is Billy Beck says.

I completely agree that the various species of statist movements have stunted economic growth across all sectors of development and hardest hit are, logically, the less economically robust areas like the rural and suburban areas, while the stronger sectors, the urban and deep urban, stay alive, but stagnate. We see similar parallels in business (increased regulations and higher corporate taxes slow large corporations and kill smaller ones) and in personal income (restrictions on business creation, income taxes, etc. hold the rich back and drive the poor to destitution).

I think speculation that deep urban areas would not exist at all is largely an effort in the arbitrary particularly in light of the fact that urban development has been a trend throughout the history of humanity. But I do think it's reasonable to argue that suburban development would be more robust without government interference in infrastructure development.

Hell, everything would be more robust without government interference!

I suppose I could sit around bemoaning the horrid political atmosphere of the city. I could also sit around moaning about the woefully underdeveloped state of suburbia, too. In either case, we could blame bad politics, but I come back to our previous agreement that one's choice of one environment over another is optional.

I live in the Phoenix area myself, and while I agree it is the most "sprawled" city in the US, recently there has been a substantial private development of "urban environments". Take downtown Tempe and downtown Scottsdale. There numerous tall luxury condominiums are being built around a downtown core of shops, restaurants, offices, and various mix-use buildings that collectively constitute a "deep urban" environment, though definitely not on the scale of ,say, Manhattan. This development, which are not subsidized public housing to say the least, is happening simultaneously with the rapid expansion of the suburbs on the outskirts of the city.

This suggests that a deep urban development and suburban development could happen simultaneously in a laissez-faire city. I certainly don't think they're mutually exclusive, or that one is the embodiment of statism and the other of freedom.

Ultimately, it will be determined by people's tastes and preferences, as is the production of all consumer goods.

Tom,

I've read about those mix-use developments you're talking about. They were done by New Urbanists; I remember direct quotes from them about how they were specifically targeted against the "sprawl." They were griping on and on about how it's soooo awful that you can't just walk to places in this town. (FEATURE, not bug!) And I seem to remember some kind of government interference involved.

"I completely agree that the various species of statist movements have stunted economic growth across all sectors of development and hardest hit are, logically, the less economically robust areas like the rural and suburban areas, while the stronger sectors, the urban and deep urban, stay alive, but stagnate."

I don't see how you can agree with that because I didn't say that.

I do not agree that suburban or sprawling areas are "less economically robust." They simply use a different transportation method and are thus more spread out. To count economic robustness as a factor of $$$ per land area is *cheating*. Of course they are less robust as a factor of land area, but the point is not to cram things into land area. The point is: what is accessible?

You say that in 15 minutes, you can get to thousands of businesses. Well, absent the mis-management of traffic jams, so can I: 15 minutes can get you just about anywhere in a 10-15 mile radius, in a car. I'll grant that, when the chips are down, there is probably more accessibility to businesses in NYC, but I'm simply saying that your calculations are off by an order of magnitude. Sprawls can be far more economically robust than you indicate.

And, yes, you can frame it in terms of "well, yes it would be more robust but so would everything," but that's missing the point: there was and still is mass flight from the deep urban to the suburban, and if it weren't for the concentrated efforts of Marxist New Urbanists, this flight would be accelerated.

And as for urbanization as a factor of all of human history, I have two replies to that:

1) Yes, the car really is that cool: it can reverse the course of history.

2) "Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men." The suburbs are an invention of privacy and private ownership; they are in that sense most certainly not a reversal of the course of history, but rather a step in its progress.

Now all of that said, I will once again reiterate that what you personally prefer to live in is your prerogative. But when I mention that cities are cesspools of bad politics, what I mean is that the non-privately-owned existence of city life is especially vulnerable, by its very nature, to collectivism.

Take Katrina, for instance. People with cars could simply get up and leave. But people in urban-style housing had no such option. They did not own their means of transportation (and many were dumb enough to just sit there and wait for the government to come get them).

Now don't take that the wrong way - those people were parasites no matter how you slice it and it was nobody's fault but theirs that they didn't escape.

But the less of your life and its operation that you own, the more literally dependent on others you are. Non-urban life, by its nature, requires certain amounts of ownership and responsibility, teaching lessons in independence. Urban life does not.

Now, a smart fellow like you, Flib, can know how to be independent even if his environment does not require it of him. But the same can't be said for most people today. The price of the "convenience" of the Urban is that you turn much of your life over to others. And that, in an intellectual vacuum such as today, can breed some nasty politics, indeed.

It's a ripe environment for statism to breed. And the statists know it: they are frantically pushing for it. That has to tell you something.

Does that mean cities=statist and suburbs=capitalist? Well, I will say that yes, suburbs=capitalist, if you mean the American, car-based ones. But to say cities=statist is an oversimplification. It's a factor of the context involved. At best, I'd say "sort of" to that.

And again, what you choose to put up with - and give up - in pursuit of what you value is your business. If you want to live in the cesspool to gain certain benefits, well, that's your business.

First, let me apologize for agreeing with you on the widespread economic devastation wrought by statism. Although, I do hold that to be a valid point to which I an reasonably assured that you agree.

Moving on. Whether or not deep urban environments would exist or not is not speculation. They do exist. They have existed since the dawn of civilization insofar as such civilizations had the capabilities to develop them. They certainly would exist in an ideal political environment.

We can also agree that suburbs would would exist as well. They do already and I will get to why they exist in a moment.

"To count economic robustness as a factor of $$$ per land area is *cheating*."

It is not cheating. That is precisely what I mean. I can't think of any other way to rationally define the economic robustness of a geographic area.

My contention is not that this means that we should always develop land into the most economically robust configuration because it would be impertinent to tell other people what to do with their property. Make a suburb if you want it, but don't kid yourself about how you could make more money with the same area of land.

The question of accessibility is a valid one, however, given that more is accessible in a deep urban environment with less effort, it begs the question of why you contend otherwise. Why drive to a grocery store when there is one downstairs? Some businesses -- such as grocery delivery -- are actually only economically viable in areas of high population density and although you might argue that with reduced travel costs they could deliver to a wider area, the point still remains the denser populations are more profitable. Still assuming the ideal environment in which streets and other modes of transportation would be managed by the market, if you add the car to the mix and you compound the economic advantages of living in the city well beyond the reaches of those in a suburb.

I don't agree with your assessment of the economic advantages of cities versus suburbs. Not to put too fine a point on it, there are no facts to support such a contention.

You say, "there was and still is mass flight from the deep urban to the suburban, and if it weren't for the concentrated efforts of Marxist New Urbanists, this flight would be accelerated."

In making this assertion, you seem to hold that the only reason people move out of cities is because they don't like living in the city and they have cars, so they can and do. It is extremely unlikely that that is the case. Some people may move out of cities just because they don't like it, but the vast majority of people moved and do move out of the city for economic reasons, namely the cost of housing.

Given an ideal political environment, it is still most likely to be the case that living in the city would cost more and the main reason that people would move out of the cities would be economic reasons.

Of course, we could generously concede that some increased portion of the population would also live outside of the city just because they like it and are able to move easily between suburban and urban environments.

There is no reason to think that the car would "reverse history." In fact, based on the economic advantages of cities, it seems more likely that the car would aid in making cities bigger by allowing more people to flow freely and easily in and out of them.

I think -- as I believe you realize by your qualified statements on the matter -- that wholesale equations between suburbs and freedom and cities to tyranny is a bit laughable. My one concession on this point is further down.

I'm boiling this down to dollars and cents here.

I don't disagree that the car has been a powerful tool for progress in our nation and the world. I don't disagree that it has allowed people to move out of cities as they may desire to do for any number of reasons.

I think we all agree that one's decision to live in a city or a suburb is entirely up to the individual so, I don't think we have to say that any more. I also don't think you need to reiterate your utter distaste for city life. The reasons I haven't been snarking on suburban life with backhanded exaggerations about "doldrums" and "mundane" and "slow death by spiritual starvation" is because I don't think those things add to this discussion -- in addition to not being true in all contexts.

And while I'm on that point, life in the city is most not a "cesspool." The political environment may be aptly described so, but life -- for those with the proper sense thereof -- here remains exiciting, vibrant, and sublime.

The closest to agreeing with you overall is that I do think city-dwellers are more susceptible to the siren song of collectivism, but I think a case can be made that the reason statists target cities is largely related to the reason why people might value city life: lots of people and money all in one place.

While I think you have some good points, there is far too much hyperbole and not enough facts to persuade me here.

"First, let me apologize for agreeing with you on the widespread economic devastation wrought by statism. Although, I do hold that to be a valid point to which I an reasonably assured that you agree."

Well yeah, but it was the second part of that statement which I took issue with.

"It is not cheating. That is precisely what I mean. I can't think of any other way to rationally define the economic robustness of a geographic area."

By framing it in terms of concentration as robustness, you make it sound like non-urban areas are impoverished. I've seen Urbanists use it to puff up cities, but it misses the point. Suburbs spread out. You can access wide areas through motor transport, so it's largely a wash. You can't simply take $$$/land area if the way that land is used is completely different. In essence, you can't rationally define economic robustness as a function of geographic area across unalike configurations.

I don't dispute that once you reach the density of, say, NYC, you have a higher degree of accessibility than you would in a properly set up suburban environment. My point was merely that you weren't fully considering the mobility of the suburbs. Yes, you still "win" accessibility; but not by nearly as wide a margin as you had previously implied.

"Some people may move out of cities just because they don't like it, but the vast majority of people moved and do move out of the city for economic reasons, namely the cost of housing."

Well, that is speculation. And my educated guess says otherwise, as evidenced by the fact that scores of people in LA will pay half a million dollars for a 2000 square foot house, and commute for 6 hours a day. LA is a dystopian nightmare example of what happens to suburbs when New Urbanists strangle them for decades, and people are still beating down the door to move there, out of the urban center. I think this is clear evidence that it's about more than just money.

"I think ... the reason statists target cities is ... lots of people and money all in one place."

And I think the reason is that the whole thing lends itself to the collectivist milieu. Or at the very least it isn't as automatically against collectivism by its very nature in the way that the suburbs are. It's much easier to convince people of collectivism, the less they existentially must own and operate individualistically. Like I said, the statists know and say as much openly. Suburban life and the car are specifically attacked because they are - in their very words - selfish, capitalistic, antisocial, private, etc.

And yes, I meant political cesspool. Not that a place's politics are ever confined to its politics, if you know what I mean. That's a cause-and-effect thing right there: meaning that a place must be culturally corrupt before it can become politically so. I mean, culturally speaking, is it not accurate to say that "slow death by spiritual starvation" is the fate of us all, no matter where we live?

I don't know where you think I'm being backhanded or exaggerating, but your examples of the same make me think: what exactly are you picturing? That I'm talking about rural Georgia or something? Yeeesh, no! I'm saying: take the same number of people as in a city, spread them out over more square footage, and make enough roads to get 'em all around. You have the same exact amount of economy, culture, etc, only just a different layout and wider area. And it's all still just about as accessible.

If you've never been to Phoenix, you might not even have a proper concretization for what I'm talking about. It's the fifth largest city in the USA, and when you consider the entire metro area, has a population of over 4 million people. And growing fast. It's living proof that, in the post-car world, when you lift the regulations, people will spread out and not cluster up.

I just hope the encroachments of the Marxist New Urbanists don't kill it like they did LA.

I have never claimed that suburbs are impoverished and I have taken care to point out that suburbs fulfill a valid demand that does exist in the market.

I still maintain that deep urban development is more economically robust that suburbs because no matter how you slice it, that is the case. Further, I still maintain that my previous statement: 100's vs. 1,000's is not hyperbolic in the least.

In citing LA, you're citing a housing market that is not in line with the rest of the nation. You're also citing a city where statism has produced a low-density metropolitan area. You would be better off citing a city like Atlanta or New York or pretty much anywhere else, because it is far more common to see housing prices decrease the further you get from the urban center. What about Phoenix? This isn't speculation, it's the fact of things.

"I think ... the reason statists target cities is ... lots of people and money all in one place."

Don't let's edit each other's sentences like this out of context.

I said: "The closest to agreeing with you overall is that I do think city-dwellers are more susceptible to the siren song of collectivism, but I think a case can be made that the reason statists target cities is largely related to the reason why people might value city life: lots of people and money all in one place."

My statement does not in any way exclude your argument that city-dwellers are more susceptible to collectivism.

The part that I like most about your argument is this: "Suburban life and the car are specifically attacked because they are - in their very words - selfish, capitalistic, antisocial, private, etc."

Based on this, I'll grant that argument and agree that cities are more attractive to collectivists for the reasons you gave. More people is really just the physical factor that leads to the reasons you gave and more money is probably just a perk and a result of there being more people.

You say, "I'm saying: take the same number of people as in a city, spread them out over more square footage, and make enough roads to get 'em all around. You have the same exact amount of economy, culture, etc, only just a different layout and wider area. And it's all still just about as accessible."

And I'm saying, take six times that number of people, put them in the same area as a suburb, make enough roads and whatever other modes of transportation the market will support (cabs, trains, pedicabs, etc.) and you get a much more robust economic area.

I don't think people should just pave over suburbs and erect giant multi-use cubes in their place. Suburbs provide a great value to those who choose to live in them. I think that if we had an ideal political environment, suburban land values would skyrocket as demand for that sort of life increases. Kind of like if you built a couple of houses in the middle of Central Park.

I've lived in rural Georgia, small city Georgia, Suburban Georgia, urban Florida, and deep urban NYC. I can see why people like living in the places they live, but those things don't appeal to me in the current context of my life. Maybe when I get kids or if I take up my life as a reclusive blogger, I'll move away from the city, but right now, the city life is the life for me! (Until then, I have to stifle a yawn when I think about living in a suburb.)

I hope the baddies don't ruin Phoenix, either. I hope that Global Warming makes it a winter wonderland so that when New York crumbles into the sea, I will have a really cool place to go. ;o)

Sorry if I got the edit wrong, Flib. That's what I honestly thought you meant.

Re: LA's statism, that's precisely why I cite it. Because, even with that statism running rampant and doing its best to murder the suburbs, people are still going for that lifestyle in droves. That has "demand" written all over it.

"And I'm saying, take six times that number of people, put them in the same area as a suburb, make enough roads and whatever other modes of transportation the market will support (cabs, trains, pedicabs, etc.) and you get a much more robust economic area."

LOL, but my point is simply that you can have the same economic robustness of deep urban environment by using a suburb. A really, really big suburb. Like Phoenix. So it's not fair to say they're less robust. Take the same number of people, and they will generally make the same amount of $$$, all other things being equal. It doesn't matter if they occupy a tiny land area or a large one. The same number of people making the same amount of money don't become more economically robust if they cluster into a small area, or less so if they spread out over a large one. That's why the measurement you're using ($$$/area) is an unfair one that doesn't tell the whole story.

Ditto with the whole "doldrums," thing. I mean, do "things" become more boring when spread over a larger land area? Why assume that, for a given number of people, there would be less art, music, museums, or whatever it is you think a suburb must lack? Wouldn't the same number of people give rise to the same amount of "culture" or whatever?

LA isn't a good example, though.

The LA metropolitan area subsumes many little cities and towns. The question of whether or not people are moving out of LA is one with very poorly defined goalposts. When you refer to the LA suburbs, are you talking about Agoura Hills, Thousand Oaks, Orange County, etc? Because I put all those under the heading of "LA."

My last company had headquarters in one of those little towns (Calabasas) and all but a minority (upper management) who made that decision chose for the sake of lower cost housing.

We also have the problem of the state of California over all, which is notoriously collectivist. I heard a year or so ago that California actually had a negative population growth as people moved away from there.

The LA example isn't a good one for your argument because of its big size which I do agree is due to the statist policies there. But that begs the question: is the sprawl due to statism forcing people out with things like zoning restrictions, open space laws, height limitations or is the sprawl due to people escaping statism out of sheer hatred for tyranny and a desire to express their independence? My contention is that the statists are creating economic factors that are driving the sprawl, which runs counter to the notion that they're trying to keep people in the hives.

I think it would be dangerous to assume that the statists are incompetent, although the temptation is there.

"my point is simply that you can have the same economic robustness of deep urban environment by using a suburb."

I know. And I agree with your argument that roads and all means of transportation should be privately controlled. Therefore, I would agree that a properly maintained (market-based) suburb could be as economically robust as an improperly maintained deep urban environment. But I'm arguing that all things being equal a city is a more economically robust (dollars per square unit of area) than a suburb.

Even if we toss out the question of area and simply measure the relative economic advantages of a populations of equal size, we still have the problem of our constricted three-dimensional existence. While the people of the ideal suburb are spending time and resources purchasing cars and paying for fuel and maintenance, the people of the ideal city are simply strolling down the street or taking an elevator or taking a train. In all cases, they're spending less time because they have to go less far and they don't have to pay for a whole car or the associated costs. There is an economic disadvantage to those living in the suburb in the form of the expense of having to cover larger distances.

I'm not saying that the wealth generated by those maintaining the automotive and related markets would just disappear into the ether. They would certainly have to be calculated along with market as whole when you figure the overall wealth of the population, but that wealth represents an opportunity cost.

"Wouldn't the same number of people give rise to the same amount of "culture" or whatever?"

The philosopher in me shrugs at this question and says that it may if the market demands it. The economist/businessman in me, however, is skeptical of this because as far as I know, I've never seen a profitable museum/orchestra in my life and the only theaters I know of that are profitable do musicals and I hate those. Of course, I do also blame the statists for that (especially the musicals!) as well, so it's kind of hard to say.

Bear in mind: my opinion of suburbs is based on my experience with actual suburbs. If you offered me the option to live in a suburb governed by laissez-faire capitalism or any other city in the country, I would opt for the ideal suburb. I'm sure it would be a delight and economically advantageous. (Provided the climate is nice.)

On LA:

I agree with a few of your points that make it less than ideal as an example, what with all of the confusion. But I will point out that "open space" laws are anti-suburb. Yeah, I know, that sounds counter-intuitive but by forcing people not to build in certain areas, they have to build more vertically in the areas that remain.

"Even if we toss out the question of area"

Well, yeah, I pretty much insist...

"While the people of the ideal suburb are spending time and resources purchasing cars and paying for fuel and maintenance, the people of the ideal city are simply strolling down the street"

I dunno. Traveling just a handful of blocks from the north loop of Chicago to a Cubs game on the South Side took me well over an hour. About the same as driving from one end of Phoenix to another, when it's not rush hour. I really think that one's a wash.

"There is an economic disadvantage to those living in the suburb in the form of the expense of having to cover larger distances."

And I think that's also a wash, since the money the city guys don't spend on cars just ends up getting spent on the rent it takes to run those high-maintenance buildings. Chicago isn't rent-controlled and it's still way more expensive there than its suburbs. My friend's 400 sq ft urban apartment was as expensive as my 1100 sq ft. suburban one. And mine had a two car garage attached.

Honestly, I don't know which one comes out on top if you're talking economic expense. It's a close call. I don't think you can call that one a win for the urban.

"The economist/businessman in me, however, is skeptical of this because as far as I know, I've never seen a profitable museum/orchestra in my life and the only theaters I know of that are profitable do musicals and I hate those. Of course, I do also blame the statists for that (especially the musicals!) as well, so it's kind of hard to say."

Right, so... how does that make culture the exclusive province of the urban? Such that the non-urban is the doldrums that will atrophy your spirit? Or were you agreeing with me?

I mean, we're close here. I see the consensus coming over the horizon.

LA also regulates how high people can build in addition to all sorts of interfering zoning regulations, etc. I think if you look at all of the laws they have that restrict people from doing with their property as they will it would be hard to tell whether or not they want people to stay or go. They're a mess!

As for the economic question, what we return to is the realization that the operative variable in the discussion is population density. The housing cost argument is a good point because that would undoubtedly remain in place even in a fully capitalist system. I don't know if the differential would be as great as we see today between cities and suburbs, but I suspect that there is probably some kind of gradient of economic advantage between suburbs and cities where there may also be considered a threshold point where it doesn't make sense for an individual to choose a light-urban environment over the suburban. It is hard to tell, but it is nigh unfathomable for me to think of a broadly distributed population of millions having the same economic advantage of the same population in a big city. It just doesn't make sense. Cities typically carry higher wages along with higher costs of living with the accumulation of wealth being markedly easier.

I was talking about ACTUAL suburbs when I said that I think they're boring. I mentioned this in my last comment and that in an ideal political environment I might find suburbs more appealing, but I would also hasten to point out also that it isn't "culture" that I find lacking in suburbs, it's people. I like the hustle and bustle. I love sidewalks and buildings and cars all crowded into one space. I can sleep through pretty much anything, so the noise doesn't bother me at night and during the day I find it a comfort. That's just a personal preference of mine at the moment, though.

Oh! And like I said earlier: "I don't think people should just pave over suburbs and erect giant multi-use cubes in their place. Suburbs provide a great value to those who choose to live in them. I think that if we had an ideal political environment, suburban land values would skyrocket as demand for that sort of life increases. Kind of like if you built a couple of houses in the middle of Central Park."

In an ideal system, there would be an economic advantage to moving further away, but at some point you get so far away that you're no longer near enough to make a reasonable commute and as things continue to spread, the value of properties in the now-deep suburbs would continue to rise and would mitigate some of the economic advantage created by lower housing costs. Basically, you'd get really nice, expensive suburbs but still have to drive for stuff.

Although, we have to admit that in this ideal world, zoning wouldn't interfere with the proper distribution of commercial and industrial enterprises following market demand. Once enough people move away from the Jiffy Mart, another Jiffy Mart opens so that those people don't have to drive so far. As do office buildings, factories, etc.

I could imagine a situation in which instead of a city with a suburban hub, you have just a large expanse of nearly homogeneous commercial, residential, and industrial use, which would alleviate some of the transportation costs for suburban dwellers.

The only problem with this imaginary suburban development is that we must then compare it to a similarly balanced development with a denser population and I come back to the point that in place of hundreds of people and businesses very readily available to the average person or business, you'd have thousands such as is already the case in NYC.

Walking in parts of Chicago sounds terrible, by the way. When I visited, it wasn't that bad, but I spent my time around the Art Institute.

I also found Boston to be rather pedestrian unfriendly. Ironically, Boston also seems unfriendly to drivers. That's a city where moving is just a pain in the ass! Thanks, Kennedys!

In NYC, movement is very easy to me except in the most congested place: Times Square. With the exception of that one little bit, if you need to walk, it's not bad. They also have cross town "express" streets that make it easier for cabs to get people across town quickly. Frankly, NYC is a pedestrian paradise, I think.

I always imagine the ideal city as having all the cars zooming around underground or through protected tunnels like in that movie iRobot. And pedestrians are just completely separate from the roadways, which allows pedestrians to be safe and the cars to move at really high speeds.

See, I knew it. Consensus. I agree, Flib.

Just some clarifications, then:

"I was talking about ACTUAL suburbs when I said that I think they're boring."

Yeah, I know there are some pretty boring places out there. I was referring to, not "suburbs" as such, but merely a sprawling landscape such as what we have here in Phoenix. Does that even count as a "suburb" any more? Hard to say.

"I could imagine a situation in which instead of a city with a suburban hub, you have just a large expanse of nearly homogeneous commercial, residential, and industrial use, which would alleviate some of the transportation costs for suburban dwellers."

That's precisely what I was referring to; and actually that kind of describes Phoenix. Of course, a totally unregulated environment would be even more so.

"but at some point you get so far away that you're no longer near enough to make a reasonable commute and as things continue to spread"

Yes, I agree... eventually, it would be possible for that to happen. But not before all the suburbs sprawled out much further than they do today. And even then, in many areas, people would still just build up another jiffy mart a few miles out and so forth.

"it isn't "culture" that I find lacking in suburbs, it's people. I like the hustle and bustle."

And I just want my private space, to be left alone. I don't like people; at least not the kind we have running around these days. I don't like them near me, able to confront me directly as I travel about. Several tons of steel between me and them allows me some breathing room. The non-urban, to me, is an escape from the stifling, spirit-killing prospect of being in with them.

So when I have whole movements (New Urbanists) dedicated to eliminating what little privacy I enjoy, I sit up and take notice.

In an ideal society, I think I would be a LOT more comfortable in an urban environment; a lot more on your wavelength.

I mean, hell, most cities in the USA ban guns altogether, as if I wasn't uncomfortable enough walking around in them. To do it unarmed is just over the top.

But I still love my car, and wouldn't want to live in a city full time. That comes down to personal preference.

But, I think I must again reiterate, that's simply where the cost-benefit falls for me. I'm not criticizing your position with the above, Flib, just sharing my perspective.

Agreed.

I can't really diss on the suburbs or even rural living too much. I could wax poetic about life almost everywhere I've been. The city is the place for me right now.

As for having people around, it's hard to explain, I guess. I have a generally high opinion of people. I've run into obnoxious people and I will generalize about types of people that annoy me. But my general assumption about people is that they're well-intended and striving to be as rational as possible. I let them disappointment on an individual basis. So, when I see a sidewalk full of people hustling to work, I can't help be impressed.

The New Urbanists are a bother in the extreme as are their cousins in all their varying breeds. It's like political whack-a-mole with these collectivists.

So, in conclusion, you're just a... fool for the city?

/love that tune