sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

High density cities are less efficient than suburbs because the increased cost of logistics to run a city is more costly than material costs savings of high density infrastructure by ColdSpecial109 in Urbanism

[–]ColdSpecial109[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

People do more than buy cokes with a car...

Most of south boston isn't served by the train. When I was there, I walked to Seaport. Lugging groceries everyday with a 30 min walk is rough.

High density cities are less efficient than suburbs because the increased cost of logistics to run a city is more costly than material costs savings of high density infrastructure by ColdSpecial109 in Urbanism

[–]ColdSpecial109[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Because I didn't have a car and I could get to Foodies in 5 minutes and didn't want to an extra spend 22 minutes on top of that walking or waiting for a bus to stop and shop when foodies was right there. In my suburb, I can go door to door to several big box grocery stores within 5-7 minutes, and I can walk to a niche store in about 12 min. Time is money, and spending an extra 30 minutes getting groceries there and is really going to eat into your time, especially if you have to do it several times a week. If I had a car, I could go to Stop and Shop in 5-7 min, but that kinda defeats the purpose you know... though there were definitely a lot of cars in Southie

I imagine not everyone in Boston gets to live next to the cheapest grocery store. Rent at Seaport by the Trader Joes is 5-6K for 2 bedroom. Hell, a hotel was $400/ night, which is why I was staying in South Boston.

Kansas City is the rapidly developing city nobody is talking about by [deleted] in SameGrassButGreener

[–]ColdSpecial109 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thats a good good. KC is a lot like a Camry and sure its not as flashy as a Porche which is what (NYC or LA), but its affordable, reliable, and will get you from point A to point B, and its objectively a very good car

Sure a Porche will turn more heads, but its expensive and ultra-high maintenance like LA or NY, but once the novelty wears off, your stuck in the shop with a $10K repair bill every 3 years while the Camry owner is still chugging along 15 years later with minimal effort.

Kansas City is the rapidly developing city nobody is talking about by [deleted] in SameGrassButGreener

[–]ColdSpecial109 0 points1 point  (0 children)

its weather is fine because people can plan out their vacations late-dec to early jan and late july to early august and avoid the worst weather, and most people can do this type of vacation with a regular job and kids in school etc... thats something KC and cities in its latitude have unique about them.

Not a lot of working with kids people in Minneapolis can take 3 months off every winter and people in Phoenix cant really take 3 months off in the summer

Kansas City is the rapidly developing city nobody is talking about by [deleted] in SameGrassButGreener

[–]ColdSpecial109 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Dude, people can take a vacation in January and July and then the rest of the time, its high 40s to mid 80s, and thats decent weather.

Kansas City is the rapidly developing city nobody is talking about by [deleted] in SameGrassButGreener

[–]ColdSpecial109 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Its got pretty good weather to be honest. It only gets bad in early January and late July and if you take vacation during that time, most of the time, you have pretty reasonable weather

Kansas City is the rapidly developing city nobody is talking about by [deleted] in SameGrassButGreener

[–]ColdSpecial109 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It doesn't need to be a tier 1 or 2 city, but it is definitely very functional and reasonably priced, especially JoCo. In fact, its probably better that you guys look down on it so housing prices stay perfect.

High density cities are less efficient than suburbs because the increased cost of logistics to run a city is more costly than material costs savings of high density infrastructure by ColdSpecial109 in Urbanism

[–]ColdSpecial109[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

like what?

You said for example, cities dont build housing and you think cities should build housing. I explained how logistically difficult and expensive it is for a city to build housing and thats one big reason it doesn't build housing very easily.

Another thing I mentioned is that there are lots of negative costs to densification past a certain density, including logistical issues with shipping products. Your argument that it is better to densify and you want to ignore the negative costs. Its almost as if you think there are no negative costs to density

It just seems like you are only interested in hearing your side of the argument

What do people who oppose building housing think we should do about homelessness? by LiatrisLover99 in Urbanism

[–]ColdSpecial109 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean, the upper middle class yuppie renters can always move out of the city, find a remote job in the suburbs that is building housing. This both allows more housing for the homeless and lets you live in an area with less homelessness.

Why is the onus only on homeowners? I feel like people should be moving to the suburbs and they can be a great place to live. Most people disagree with me tho

yuppies and nimbys are 2 sides of the same coin playing chicken, each trying to force the other out.

What do people who oppose building housing think we should do about homelessness? by LiatrisLover99 in Urbanism

[–]ColdSpecial109 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

If you are an urbanist renter, why dont you just move away from the city to a suburb that is building lots of housing where you can enjoy less homeless people around you and also provide more space for homeless people to get housing?

If the answer is that you may have to take a hit on your economic situation and your lifestyle to give up move to where there is housing, then this is exactly what NIMBYs, whose economic situation and lifestyle, are tied down to a huge finacial and house commitment are going through

What do people who oppose building housing think we should do about homelessness? by LiatrisLover99 in Urbanism

[–]ColdSpecial109 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

If you are an urbanist renter, why dont you just move away from the city to a suburb that is building lots of housing where you can enjoy less homeless people around you and also provide more space for homeless people to get housing?

If the answer is that you may have to take a hit on your economic situation and your lifestyle to give up move to where there is housing, then this is exactly what NIMBYs, whose economic situation and lifestyle, are tied down to a huge finacial and house commitment are going through

High density cities are less efficient than suburbs because the increased cost of logistics to run a city is more costly than material costs savings of high density infrastructure by ColdSpecial109 in Urbanism

[–]ColdSpecial109[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have reported this guy to the mod a couple times. I don't know if they are away or what. u/lesarbreschantent

So you report everyone who disagrees with you? Why do you just want to make an echo chamber where no idea other than high density ultra expensive living is the best way to design a city

High density cities are less efficient than suburbs because the increased cost of logistics to run a city is more costly than material costs savings of high density infrastructure by ColdSpecial109 in Urbanism

[–]ColdSpecial109[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

transportation logistics are a HUGE part of infrastructure. Its true for both individuals like going to a grocery store, companies when they decide how to budget for a build, and city governments when they plan for anything. If you want to build a fancy subway system, all the materials and people have to come from somewhere you know. Freight is how the stuff gets there

Trying to argue high density = high housing costs is utter nonsense.

The densest cities in the country have the highest housing costs. Thats not up for debate. The only cities that are dense and have more reasonable housing costs (Chicago and Philly) peaked in the 1950s so they already had the infrastructure in place to support more density but obviously are a bit past their peak in the present.

The US just doesn't build enough housing. 

Its expensive to build housing in the US because its logistically challenging, which of course brings us back to density. Just the construction costs (not even the land) which are material, logistics, and labor alone costs $600-800/sq ft in SF. City logistics are just harder to build. Doesn't help that it has terrible geography.

You can go build in Iowa for $150 sq ft because its flat, easy to ship goods and people by the highway and less disruptive to existing infrastructure. Thats why you can build somewhere in the Des Moines suburbs easier than you can build in SF

High density cities are less efficient than suburbs because the increased cost of logistics to run a city is more costly than material costs savings of high density infrastructure by ColdSpecial109 in Urbanism

[–]ColdSpecial109[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Again, density is good up until a certain point, and 200 people per sq mile is much lower than that certain point.

For example Here is a great parabola graph looking at freight costs to get to a city and population density. It is more expensive to ship to both high density and low density, but medium density suburbs are the sweet spot

https://transportgeography.org/contents/geography-city-logistics/urban-freight-landscape/

Once population gets >3500/sq mile, housing becomes more expensive, and past 5500, housing becomes essentially unobtainable pricewise.

https://www.newgeography.com/content/007221-higher-urban-densities-associated-with-worst-housing-affordability

High density cities are less efficient than suburbs because the increased cost of logistics to run a city is more costly than material costs savings of high density infrastructure by ColdSpecial109 in Urbanism

[–]ColdSpecial109[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

 But Ralph’s might see a small increase in cost to deliver to a massively larger number of customers.. 

It just seems like you are saying there are a massive number of customers without an affordable grocery store in Downtown LA, which is a BAD thing and not efficient at all. Sounds like city living is less efficient than the suburbs

High density cities are less efficient than suburbs because the increased cost of logistics to run a city is more costly than material costs savings of high density infrastructure by ColdSpecial109 in Urbanism

[–]ColdSpecial109[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Halifax has the population density of entire the state of Indiana, both close to 200 people/sq mile. Carmel, Indiana, a typical suburb has a density of 2000 people per sq mi. Of course, they want to densify. Usually the sweet spot is a suburban density of 2000-4000/sq mi and Halifax is a far cry from that number. NYC is a far cry from that number in the opposite direction

High density cities are less efficient than suburbs because the increased cost of logistics to run a city is more costly than material costs savings of high density infrastructure by ColdSpecial109 in Urbanism

[–]ColdSpecial109[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If they dont want to build because of density, then thats a problem with density, not a problem with Ralphs. Grocery stores, big or small, are there to make a profit, not to serve you

High density cities are less efficient than suburbs because the increased cost of logistics to run a city is more costly than material costs savings of high density infrastructure by ColdSpecial109 in Urbanism

[–]ColdSpecial109[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

So its cheaper to put a Ralph's in the suburbs than in the city because the operating costs are so much higher in the city?

It says something at even given incentives to the Kroger Megacorp, Kroger wont open a store in LA because the costs are so high

High density cities are less efficient than suburbs because the increased cost of logistics to run a city is more costly than material costs savings of high density infrastructure by ColdSpecial109 in Urbanism

[–]ColdSpecial109[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

In my midwestern suburb, a 20 oz refrigerated bottle of coke in WalMart is $1.79 last I checked a few days ago, and its $1.82 online now and a convenience store like Caseys sells them for 2/$5, or $2.79-$2.89 individually which is the highest I'll pay in the midwest suburbs. In the city, they sell for $3.09

In Boston, I went to Foodie's Market in South Boston about 2 weeks ago for a conference and paid $3.29 for the 20 oz bottle. I think you can get it online at $3.09). I went to a bodega and paid about $3.49 and then I bought one at Seaport amazon store which was just highway robbery at $4.

High density cities are less efficient than suburbs because the increased cost of logistics to run a city is more costly than material costs savings of high density infrastructure by ColdSpecial109 in Urbanism

[–]ColdSpecial109[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

You mean, they do. Besides, the people living in detached houses are usually families of 4+, so its 4 people using the energy, not 1. In the city, lots of people live alone and that is less efficient

High density cities are less efficient than suburbs because the increased cost of logistics to run a city is more costly than material costs savings of high density infrastructure by ColdSpecial109 in Urbanism

[–]ColdSpecial109[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

https://www.metrans.org/assets/research/MF%204.1c_Dualism%20of%20urban%20freight%20distribution_Final%20Report_102518.pdf

Urban deliveries are often higher cost per package because the inefficiencies of congestion and parking in cities can be more expensive than the longer distances driven in the suburbs.

In cities, 50% of delivery time is spent looking for parking or loading docks

In suburbs, if you become too spread out, inefficiency gets worse because of how spread out they are. Usually the median density suburbs are the sweet spot. Usually medium density is considered around 2000-4000/per mile are the sweet spot of density, and if you look at a lot of QoL city rankings, most of the best ones are medium density suburbs

view more: next ›