# The Second Death of the Great American Cities (and some others as well)



## lezgotolondon (Aug 31, 2010)

21st century.

After decades of suburbanism all the major american cities started to invest heavily in urban living and public transportation. 
The suburban was over, plenty of condos were in development, new tram and train lines were under construction.
City cores becoming alive again and more dense and your people were eager to live the city life.


Then this development started to show some cracks points, the most attractive cities were not building fast enough, prices skyrocketed and the young people willing to move there had issues paying rent.

Then 2020 happened.

The pandemic taught everyone that working from home could be a thing in many industries and jobs.

The riots and all the crazy talks about defunding the police taught everyone that living in the city centre could be dangerous even more so in cities with crime and homlessness out of control.

We enter the 2020s with this new development in a very bad state:

Most cities aren't developed enough to be self sufficient.
Housing prices are too high.
A new massive financial crisis is coming soon.
Crime is rising and is going to skyrocket.
Many people can work remotely from almost everywhere.
Who is going to move to the urban cores now?

These problems are common to other places in the world, it's not just about the US although I think this is the country where the problem is more widespread.

I have been a urbanites since forever but with high housing prices, violent crime rising, terrorism I am not sure I want to live in London when I can live safely in the suburbs with a garden, grilling every sunday in a bigger and cheaper house where I can work remotely most days or every day of the week.

My case is just an example but let's consider the US again, rent prices in the silicon valley are finally goin down as many people are moving elsewhere after years where they have skyrockted.
In the meanwhile a huge percentage of americans is having problems paying rent due to the coronavirus pandemic and the fact that they live paycheck to paycheck.

I don't think this is going to end well for people and for their cities.


----------



## Darryl (Jan 14, 2007)

Agreed. Not to mention that many of the reasons that urban living was attractive (entertainment, culture, restaurants, retail, etc...) has been slowed-down, closed, forever changed, or run out of business permanently due to COVID 19. Retail was already in trouble before COVID 19 due to online shopping, and now is even worse off. Also don't forget the George Floyd protests/riots destroyed a significant portion of retail in many American cities.

Why live in a city when you can work full time from home, do all your shopping online, and cities now offer less than they did prior to 2020 anyways? 

Europe already understands urban life and was doing it right, but the US was finally getting on board with improving city centers and encouraging urban living again and the events of 2020 have put a really bad strain on that progress. It's sad.


----------



## Darryl (Jan 14, 2007)

Oh and how could I forget? The talk of defunding if not outright disbanding urban police departments will certainly not help! God save us all.


----------



## lezgotolondon (Aug 31, 2010)

Darryl said:


> Agreed. Not to mention that many of the reasons that urban living was attractive (entertainment, culture, restaurants, retail, etc...) has been slowed-down, closed, forever changed, or run out of business permanently due to COVID 19. Retail was already in trouble before COVID 19 due to online shopping, and now is even worse off. Also don't forget the George Floyd protests/riots destroyed a significant portion of retail in many American cities.
> 
> Why live in a city when you can work full time from home, do all your shopping online, and cities now offer less than they did prior to 2020 anyways?
> 
> Europe already understands urban life and was doing it right, but the US was finally getting on board with improving city centers and encouraging urban living again and the events of 2020 have put a really bad strain on that progress. It's sad.


The closing of venues is supposedly temporary at least but as I see it the US cities were trying to push a massive boulder uphill, if they fall the boulder is going to roll downhill fast and ran over them.

Yes online shopping was killing some retail but not all of them and retail simply must update.

Retail can be replaced by services but with a financial crisis looming the debt ridden american families are going to cut on spending starting from what's not necessary: services.

City centres in most cities are not dense enough to have a safety net for business and their inhabitants, just like a small colony in an hostile territory they are at high risk of dying out.



Darryl said:


> Oh and how could I forget? The talk of defunding if not outright disbanding urban police departments will certainly not help! God save us all.


In my opinion the nail in the coffin will be crime: crime will be going up regardess of the riots because of the financial and the mental health crisis the US is going through, with armed violent rioters wanting to destroy their cities and country it's going to be bad in city centres where there is no community.

You already had crime and violence levels that are unheard of in Europe.
Literally visiting the US seeing that made me rethink a lot about living in one of your city centres.

I think that you are going towards the biggest threat to your country since WW2 and this time the enemy is within you.

You were slowly going towards the right direction but decades old issues exploited by few assholes are biting back.

If you survive you definitely need to rethink cities but not only: private debt must not be widespread, low income jobs must pay more, more social housing, improved healthcare for all and big emphasis on family. You can't have a sane sociaty without families.

Yes I know that it looks "socialist" but you have to accept that, your current system is too extreme and it leads to a very weak growth, like your wooden houses, it takes some bad storm to destroy them.
You need the strong mainland european houses, you don't need to have them exactly like ours, but use what we use to make them strong and durable, if you get my metaphor...


----------



## EightFive (Mar 24, 2020)

Total bs. 

The burbs will die more. Cities exist for a reason. Burbs are artificial, created for tax breaks.


----------



## lezgotolondon (Aug 31, 2010)

EightFive said:


> Total bs.
> 
> The burbs will die more. Cities exist for a reason. Burbs are artificial, created for tax breaks.


wow you really convinced us with your eloquent argument, congrats.





Care to write something more interesting?


----------



## EightFive (Mar 24, 2020)

Cities have high land values for a reason. Suburbs have no land value for a reason.


----------



## lezgotolondon (Aug 31, 2010)

EightFive said:


> Cities have high land values for a reason. Suburbs have no land value for a reason.


let's talk about this in a few years 😅


----------



## EightFive (Mar 24, 2020)

Ok, how about this.

Cities make money. The rest of the country takes money.


----------



## Darryl (Jan 14, 2007)

Lezgotolondon - I agree with you on most of what you say and that US city centers are in danger, but not on your solution. 

Social programs will not fix it. The Democrats have run the US cities with the worst problems for decades and their social programs haven't resolved anything. It is time for a change in local leadership of these cities. The vast majority of people are law abiding, but it is the extreme minority of hardened criminals (repeat offenders) that plague our cities and terrorize them. Social programs will not fix that. Aggressive, zero tolerance, crime fighting with real consequences is what is needed to deal with these threats. 

Yes families and culture change will help lessen these type of people from being formed for the future and social programs may help with that, but that's a long term strategy and a very complicated and difficult one that has been attempted for decades now. We have to deal with the crime that is being perpetrated NOW, not just try to prevent crime happening 15 years from now. That's why we need more police officers, more training, more funding. Get rid of the bad apples, yes! The vast majority of police are good. 

Also, these violent criminals get off all the time and return to the streets to commit more violence and crime repeatedly. They don't receive appropriate punishment and get shortened sentences. This emboldens them and gives them no disincentive for committing more violence. They need to find ways to first of all convict these people (which is hard enough given the fact that witnesses are so afraid to speak up) and then keep them behind bars. Stop reducing sentences and giving plea deals. You kill someone, you belong in jail and need to STAY there. Many of them are not able to be turned-around. A message needs to be sent to these jerks that there will be real hell to pay if you commit violent crime.


----------



## Darryl (Jan 14, 2007)

With that said, I need to make clear that what I advocate being aggressive and "no tolerance" on is VIOLENCE. I disagree with the way the war on drugs has been handled in this country. I don't think our jails should be filled with people who use or possess drugs. Programs that help with substance abuse are good and needed and are helpful. People struggling with substance addictions can be turned-around.

Those who commit VIOLENT crime (especially murder or attempted murder) are the ones that need to be (and stay) in jail. Someone who coldly kills people repeatedly has lost their soul and they should also lose their freedom.


----------



## 009 (Nov 28, 2007)

Agree with Darryl

Society needs to be cleansed of scum


----------



## Dudders (Jul 20, 2020)

1. Stop the riots: Arrest the worst offenders and ensure that your DA actually prosecutes them
2. Stop indulging race hate. Stop kneeling, apologising and pandering to people who seek to divide the world into black (righteous) and white (bad)
3. Stop releasing dangerous prisoners due to fears about Covid in prisons
4. Reverse bail reforms, so that people arrested for violent crimes can't just walk free - and stop campaigning to raise money to bail out the rioters
5. Stop demoralising the police by hanging them out to dry and tying their hands behind their backs in response to Twitter outrage
6. Defend shops and businesses from being destroyed and burned. Don't treat them like they are acceptable casualties
7. Stop attacking Charter schools and other meritocratic models of social progress
8. Stop teaching race hate (critical race theory) and other intersectional conspiracy theory garbage in schools and university
9. Stop giving billions of dollars to Marxist campaign groups
10. Crack down on petty crime and anti-social behaviour. Bring back the "broken windows" approach to community policing.

Once you've done that, invest in the public realm, fix your critical infrastructure (especially electricity) and public transport.

It's not that complicated. NYC managed it in the 90s. You just need to vote the Democrats out.

Businesses are pandering to BLM, Extinction Rebellion, Antifa, etc right now, but they will soon work out that these people will never be satisfied, their solutions don't work and that their ultimate aim is the destruction of capitalism.


----------



## browntown (Jul 28, 2015)

EightFive said:


> Cities have high land values for a reason. Suburbs have no land value for a reason.


Funny, I see this as the whole argument in favor of the suburbs. Cities are expensive. As a building gets taller the price per square foot to build it increases exponentially. The tallest buildings are just incredibly inefficient and exist entirely as status symbols for the ultra-wealthy individuals and corporations. Transportation in cities also is incredibly expensive. Trying to build a new highway or train line costs billions. The very concept of moving hundreds of thousands (even millions) of people into and out of the city every day is just a huge waste of resources.


----------



## EightFive (Mar 24, 2020)

Cities are expensive. Yet people choose to live in them.


Also, suburbs are the reason for moving people in and out of the city. Stop living there, and that problem is solved.


So what exactly is your argument? Seems like nothing at all.


----------



## lezgotolondon (Aug 31, 2010)

Darryl said:


> Lezgotolondon - I agree with you on most of what you say and that US city centers are in danger, but not on your solution.
> 
> Social programs will not fix it. The Democrats have run the US cities with the worst problems for decades and their social programs haven't resolved anything. It is time for a change in local leadership of these cities. The vast majority of people are law abiding, but it is the extreme minority of hardened criminals (repeat offenders) that plague our cities and terrorize them. Social programs will not fix that. Aggressive, zero tolerance, crime fighting with real consequences is what is needed to deal with these threats.
> 
> ...


I know that social programs will not fix it, because the old social programs are most likely poorly implemented or even wrong.
Scientist need to be the ones designing social programs not activists and political zealots.

Most social science is based on lies that have no scientific basis and this is the result.
It's true though that the US has social issues that are much lower or almost nonexistant in Europe and they need to be addressed.

I absolutely agree that NOW you need stronger police, bigger prisons and maybe a better way to keep the dangerous people in and let non dangerous people out.
If you do a severe crime, you must stay in jail for a long time, no excuses.

Good luck though, the next few months are going to decide the future of the U.S.
I wish I could help you but I can't.



browntown said:


> Funny, I see this as the whole argument in favor of the suburbs. Cities are expensive. As a building gets taller the price per square foot to build it increases exponentially. The tallest buildings are just incredibly inefficient and exist entirely as status symbols for the ultra-wealthy individuals and corporations. Transportation in cities also is incredibly expensive. Trying to build a new highway or train line costs billions. The very concept of moving hundreds of thousands (even millions) of people into and out of the city every day is just a huge waste of resources.


Cities are expensive because many people want to live there and the housing supply is vastly inferior compared to the demand.

Public transport is cheaper than private cars, it may seem expensive if it's poorly implemented but it's not.


----------



## EightFive (Mar 24, 2020)

Bigger prisons? Stronger police? 

Do some research. 

The us has massive prisons, and the police are given military equipment.


----------



## browntown (Jul 28, 2015)

lezgotolondon said:


> Cities are expensive because many people want to live there and the housing supply is vastly inferior compared to the demand.


Well no, It's much more complicated than that. Sure, demand is high, but he other side of the equation is equally important. Supply is low because building housing units in cities is vastly more expensive than building them in the suburbs. You simply *can't *make a city cheap because of the inefficiencies associated with high density.

And even when it comes to demand that's a bit of a misnomer I feel. Lots of people live in cities because they have no choice because that's where the jobs are located. I sure as hell don't want to live here in New Jersey and pay all these obscene taxes, but I have no choice if I want to make this much money. Even though my job could literally be done anywere.

Also


lezgotolondon said:


> Public transport is cheaper than private cars, it may seem expensive if it's poorly implemented but it's not.


Maybe if you compare driving along one specific corridor to taking the train, but of course that is an apples to oranges comparison. A train can only take you along that one corridor where a car can take you anywhere in the entire country. I live in New Jersey which has be far the most transit access and yet taking the train is still a vastly inferior alternative to driving. Virtually all the transit is aimed at one place (NYC). If you want to go anywhere else you're going to have to go to Newark and then transfer to another train and then go back in the opposite direction. When I most recently moved I had 2 cars and only myself so I had to move the first car and then use the train to get to the second to move it. It took 6 hours to make the same trip that took 1 hour in a car.


----------



## lezgotolondon (Aug 31, 2010)

browntown said:


> Well no, It's much more complicated than that. Sure, demand is high, but he other side of the equation is equally important. Supply is low because building housing units in cities is vastly more expensive than building them in the suburbs. You simply *can't *make a city cheap because of the inefficiencies associated with high density.
> 
> And even when it comes to demand that's a bit of a misnomer I feel. Lots of people live in cities because they have no choice because that's where the jobs are located. I sure as hell don't want to live here in New Jersey and pay all these obscene taxes, but I have no choice if I want to make this much money. Even though my job could literally be done anywere.
> 
> ...


it's more expensive but you build at higher density, all the other countries of the world have built housing in city cores at reasonable prices in the past, I don't see why it can't work in the US.

You live in New Jersey, it's not even proper NYC, NYC may have an extensive subway but it's a 19 million people city using a LOT of land, transport could not be great even if they did it in the best possible way: too many suburbs.

US cities have to change and the first years during the change won't be perfect.


----------



## binhai (Dec 22, 2006)

The cost per unit is generally cheaper in cities than suburbs (due to ability to cram more units in the same space/higher density). This is elementary school stuff but my bad for interrupting this alt-right circle jerk. I’m not trying to live in some isolated single-family suburban house, sounds like hell. Tokyo is cheap, Baltimore is cheap, density doesn’t really have much correlation with housing costs, it’s mostly how liberal the zoning is. Japan allows enough construction to meet demand, Baltimore does too, NYC did not (but maybe their rents will fall anyway).


----------

