What would it take for you to give up car ownership for ride sharing?

[Raza]

Aren't you in Japan right now?  From what you've said, it's pretty fuckin' anti-social there, despite being surrounded by thousands and thousands of people constantly.  Come to a small town where basically everybody kinda knows who everybody is, and if you don't know who somebody is, you probably know somebody who does...it's difficult to be truly anti-social.

1. You responded to that post twice.   
2. Yeah, Tokyo is super anti-social, at first.  Culturally, the Japanese tend not to talk to people they don't already know; you need to know someone to get to know someone.  It's a bit weird and it makes it almost impossible for gaijin to assimilate quickly.  But the bars are packed most every night with people out with their friends and coworkers, the malls are massive, gorgeous, multi-use vertical buildings that offer much more than just shopping, and have people in them all the time.  In one of the Hills buildings here (such as Roppongi Hills or Toranomon Hills), there's probably more to do than in the average suburb.  Roppongi Hills has shopping, several fine dining establishments, a multi-screen movie theater, and a modern art museum (that's really cool; 52 floors above the city, with one of the best views in Tokyo). 

[giant_mtb]

But there's no need to take it so personally, especially when half of my post was a clear tongue-in-cheek dig at giant_mtb, who actually does live across the street from a house that has no windows on the second floor. 

Comedic genius that you brought that into it.

But also, fuck you!

Also, that house is for sale right meow.

[Raza]

Comedic genius that you brought that into it.

But also, fuck you!

Also, that house is for sale right meow.

What it really all comes down to is that different people value different things.  I'd go nuts trying to live in a suburb again, but one of my best friends from high school would probably blow his brains out living in the city.  He loves space to work on his cars, he's a home body, et al.  Everyone's different, it's not a big deal. 

[giant_mtb]

I hear ya. We all like different things. 

[12,000 RPM]

But there's no need to take it so personally, especially when half of my post was a clear tongue-in-cheek dig at giant_mtb, who actually does live across the street from a house that has no windows on the second floor.

How is this not personal

Yeah, I forgot.  Most people on this forum are antisocial and view being around people and having easy access to art, culture, bars, and other amenities as a bad thing.  "I want my space and quiet and I want to live across the street from a house with a second floor that has no windows!"

I still think the talk of "all the things to do" in cities is overblown. Most people in those cities don't have the time or money to do them.

Plus I think Hamilton is coming here... and tickets will be a lot cheaper here than they would up there. City living is only as good as people make it out to be when you're really rich.... and even them there's shit you just can't buy

[Lebowski]

I know. 

We can argue back and forth about specific pockets where there are up to 8 good restaurants, but the fact of the matter is that, on average, there is much, much, much more to do in a city than in a suburb. 

That you define "things to do" as number of restaurants and bars is to automatically lose the argument. There's a hell of a lot more to life than restaurants and bars, and I'm saying that as someone who loves to eat and drink.  Something as simple as finding a swimming pool in a place like NYC is a giant pain in the ass. There are reasons that nearly everyone in NYC who can afford to gets out of the city on the weekends.

As for there being fewer things to do that aren't the nightlife, you let me know when Hamilton comes to some random Floridian suburb.   

http://www.clickorlando.com/entertainment/hamilton-coming-to-dr-phillips-center

Plus, a show is still sorta nightlife isn't it?  When I say not nightlife, I'm thinking more along the lines of swimming, paddleboarding, surfing, hiking, or whatever it is outside/active you like to do.  Even just walking out the back door to throw the football or kick around the soccer ball, something we do probably 5 times a week, unless you live right next to a park is a pita in the city.

Look, if you like the suburban life that's cool.  If city life isn't for you, that's cool too.  The suburbs have their advantages, sure.  But there's no need to take it so personally, especially when half of my post was a clear tongue-in-cheek dig at giant_mtb, who actually does live across the street from a house that has no windows on the second floor. 

Oh, no offense taken, I'm just pointing out this "there's more to do living in a city" line is mostly fantasy to justify a living arrangement that 90%+ of the time is ultimately career driven. And fwiw not everything that's not a city is a suburb. 

Thing is, not living in a city does not mean you lose access to what cities offer even ignoring this snobbish assumption that art only exists in cities. How many times a year do you partake in these "cultural" type activities?  I'd wager I travel to cities at least as often, and thus effectively have the same access. If I really want to see Hamilton sooner, I can be in NY in time for dinner on any given Friday and be home sun night - 2-3 days is about as much as I can stand of the place in any given stretch.

[Lebowski]

City living is only as good as people make it out to be when you're really rich.... and even them there's shit you just can't buy

And the really rich all have weekend homes outside the city.

[Rich]

I'm gonna have to decide a similar situation. Live in Sumter with an 18 minute drive to work or 42 minute drive to work from Columbia. And do I rent an apartment or buy a house at either location. Columbia has more to do and see but am I really going to do any of it during the week. But if I'm dating I could see the girl during the week and not have to go as far to do things on the weekend. Sumter doesn't have much besides some diners, chain restaurants and a few dealers

[BimmerM3]

Oh, no offense taken, I'm just pointing out this "there's more to do living in a city line" is fantasy to justify a living arrangement that 95% of the time is career driven. And fwiw I don't define everything that's not a city as a suburb. 

Thing is, not living in a city does not mean you lose access to what cities offer - again, how many times a year do you partake in these "cultural" type activities?  I'd wager I travel to cities at least as often, and thus effectively have the same access. If I really want to see Hamilton sooner, I can get to NY in time for dinner on any given Friday and be home sun night - 2-3 days is about as much as I can stand of the place in any given stretch.

One thing to keep in mind is that each of us is basing our perspective of "cities" off of different cities. NYC is different than SF is different than Chicago is different than Minneapolis is different than Atlanta is different than Philadelphia is different from Denver is different than Dallas is different than Seattle... 

That said, I know a lot of people in Atlanta and Denver who live in the city and commute to the suburbs, including myself when I lived in Atlanta. It's obviously not a career-oriented decision. But those are cities with significantly lower COLs than some of the other major cities, though both are currently growing a lot and they're getting the COL spikes that comes with growth, so it'll be interesting to see how they evolve over time.

[Lebowski]

One thing to keep in mind is that each of us is basing our perspective of "cities" off of different cities. NYC is different than SF is different than Chicago is different than Minneapolis is different than Atlanta is different than Philadelphia is different from Denver is different than Dallas is different than Seattle... 

That said, I know a lot of people in Atlanta and Denver who live in the city and commute to the suburbs, including myself when I lived in Atlanta. It's obviously not a career-oriented decision. But those are cities with significantly lower COLs than some of the other major cities, though both are currently growing a lot and they're getting the COL spikes that comes with growth, so it'll be interesting to see how they evolve over time.

Yeah, I generally use NYC as the model "city" in my head.

Some of those cities you listed are places I could see myself living, esp Denver or Atlanta. But those also have access to lots of non-city outdoors type activities, and in the context of this thread, are places where IMO you need a car (I really can't see not owning a car in say Atlanta, in pretty sharp contrast to NY). I don't really consider Orlando much of a city in this context, either.

[BimmerM3]

Yeah, I generally use NYC as the model "city" in my head.

Some of those cities you listed are places I could see myself living, esp Denver or Atlanta. But those also have access to lots of non-city outdoors type activities, and in the context of this thread, are places where IMO you need a car (I really can't see not owning a car in say Atlanta, in pretty sharp contrast to NY).

True - I only know a couple of people in Atlanta who don't own a car. Public transit is pretty crap, but it is becoming more and more bike friendly. Atlanta gets some pretty heavy rain storms though (more annual rainfall than Seattle), so cyclists need to turn to Uber/Lyft a lot depending on the time of year. 

[Raza]

How is this not personal

I still think the talk of "all the things to do" in cities is overblown. Most people in those cities don't have the time or money to do them.

Plus I think Hamilton is coming here... and tickets will be a lot cheaper here than they would up there. City living is only as good as people make it out to be when you're really rich.... and even them there's shit you just can't buy

That was personal, sure.  If you're giant_mtb, who that was aimed at. 

[Raza]

That you define "things to do" as number of restaurants and bars is to automatically lose the argument. There's a hell of a lot more to life than restaurants and bars, and I'm saying that as someone who loves to eat and drink.  Something as simple as finding a swimming pool in a place like NYC is a giant pain in the ass. There are reasons that nearly everyone in NYC who can afford to gets out of the city on the weekends.


http://www.clickorlando.com/entertainment/hamilton-coming-to-dr-phillips-center

Plus, a show is still sorta nightlife isn't it?  When I say not nightlife, I'm thinking more along the lines of swimming, paddleboarding, surfing, hiking, or whatever it is outside/active you like to do.  Even just walking out the back door to throw the football or kick around the soccer ball, something we do probably 5 times a week, unless you live right next to a park is a pita in the city.

Oh, no offense taken, I'm just pointing out this "there's more to do living in a city" line is mostly fantasy to justify a living arrangement that 90%+ of the time is ultimately career driven. And fwiw not everything that's not a city is a suburb. 

Thing is, not living in a city does not mean you lose access to what cities offer even ignoring this snobbish assumption that art only exists in cities. How many times a year do you partake in these "cultural" type activities?  I'd wager I travel to cities at least as often, and thus effectively have the same access. If I really want to see Hamilton sooner, I can be in NY in time for dinner on any given Friday and be home sun night - 2-3 days is about as much as I can stand of the place in any given stretch.

It's not fantasy, it's fact.  And despite the fact that you can go to a city and do the things that are already there, if you spend the time to do so doesn't give you equal access.  Or the average person equal access.  I grew up in the suburbs.  I know what it's like to go to the city.  Getting the kids ready, packing up the car, driving to the city, finding parking, then the exhausted drive home when it's all done.  It's not at all the same thing as being able to order an Uber on your phone and go wherever you want in under 10 minutes.  You can prefer the suburbs and that's fine, but it's dishonest to say that the suburbs are the same as the city when it comes to things to do because you can go to a city.  I can just as easily take the 30 minute drive out to the suburbs and do all the suburban stuff you're talking about.  I can go Paris any time I want, but that doesn't mean I have equal access to the best French food in the world as Parisians.  You value what you value, and that's fine, but don't pretend that fact is fantasy because you don't value the facts. 

You can do most of those activities in a city.  There's a pool near me.  There's a park near me.  There's even a baseball diamond.  There's a river near me.  I can take a 5-10 minute drive and go canoeing if I wanted to.  And unless you live on a beach, shit like surfing isn't really a thing that's convenient for the average suburb.  And I can't say that I have the same access to the beach as people who live there do because I can just drive there.  Depending on what you consider hiking, that's probably not right there either.  There certainly wasn't an ocean and a mountain within 30 minutes of the suburb where I grew up.  Most of the outdoor activities you're talking about are still travel activities for most people. 

This is a little further from me than it used to be before I moved, but it's still quite convenient:


I've seen swimmers, paddleboarders, canoes, kayaks, and all sorts of people doing stuff right there.  No surfing, sure, because it's not an ocean.  There's a nice trail for biking and walking, too, grassy areas to throw a ball around, and it's adjacent to a pretty nice driving road, one that claims a few lives every year (cars tend to go over and the water takes them).  It's not the Dragon, sure, but it'll do in a pinch.  I've had many a spirited drive up and down that road.  Actually, that picture was taken after one of them.

It is cool that Hamilton is coming to Orlando.  You should go see it.  I mean, it's not the same as seeing it with the original cast, but it is an awesome show. 

[Raza]

Yeah, I generally use NYC as the model "city" in my head.

Some of those cities you listed are places I could see myself living, esp Denver or Atlanta. But those also have access to lots of non-city outdoors type activities, and in the context of this thread, are places where IMO you need a car (I really can't see not owning a car in say Atlanta, in pretty sharp contrast to NY). I don't really consider Orlando much of a city in this context, either.

I think we can all agree that NYC kind of sucks for anything more than a couple of days.

[12,000 RPM]

Any city where a normal person can afford a car or commute in from the suburbs into the city isn't a city IMO

And I still don't buy the whole "city cultural access" argument, unless you are really going to Broadway shoes and museums and fine dining all the time. Most people in a city can't afford to go to something like a Broadway play or a "band that matters" concert regularly, so the idea that them living closer to shit they can't afford makes it more accessible is BS. Then on top of that when they come home they have very little space/privacy. I'd argue access to the outdoors is more legit.... my yard is right outside, I'm 5 minutes from a pool, 10 minutes from a park, and I don't have to pay for any of it Plus a case could be made for the health and psychological benefits of being outdoors, not so much for indulgent foods, alcohol and indoor events

[Lebowski]

It's not fantasy, it's fact. 

This entire discussion is a matter of opinion.  I acknowledge for some people living in a big city makes sense but I think for most it's career driven and I think the "there's more to do in a city" line is generally not very well thought out.

And despite the fact that you can go to a city and do the things that are already there, if you spend the time to do so doesn't give you equal access.  Or the average person equal access.  And again, this ignores the absurdity of your premise that art and culture only exist in big cities.

In practice, access beyond what you actually utilize has no value.

If you have access 365 days a year, but only go to a broadway show or an art museum 3-4 times a year, how does that have more value than having access a half dozen or a dozen times a year?  That's still more than you're using it.

I grew up in the suburbs.  I know what it's like to go to the city.  Getting the kids ready, packing up the car, driving to the city, finding parking, then the exhausted drive home when it's all done.  It's not at all the same thing as being able to order an Uber on your phone and go wherever you want in under 10 minutes.

Eh, it's really not all that difficult.  And if things like parking are such a hassle, you can uber into a city too you know.

You can prefer the suburbs and that's fine, but it's dishonest to say that the suburbs are the same as the city when it comes to things to do because you can go to a city. 

I'm actually saying living outside the city is BETTER as far as things to do than living in it.  Again, I don't define "things to do" purely as the number of restaurants and bars around me (which BTW is not an issue of the difference between 5 and 8 ... there are dozens of good restaurants and bars near me and probably over a hundred if you expand the radius to say within a 30-45 minute uber ride from my house).

I can just as easily take the 30 minute drive out to the suburbs and do all the suburban stuff you're talking about.  I can go Paris any time I want, but that doesn't mean I have equal access to the best French food in the world as Parisians.  You value what you value, and that's fine, but don't pretend that fact is fantasy because you don't value the facts. 

Again, you are the one confusing fact and opinion here.  And fwiw, it's my opinion the food in Paris isn't all that great.

Thing is if, as you say, we take the assumption that the only thing separating a suburb and a city is a 30 minute drive/uber, that to me supports living not in the city.  The things I want to do in a city - a show, a nice dinner etc. - are things I need only occasionally.  The things I want that I can't get in a city - a garage, more than 800 sq ft of living space, separation from neighbors, and some personal outdoor space, are things I want and utilize just about every day.  It makes a hell of a lot more sense to uber 30 minutes for a nice dinner and a show than it does every time I want to throw the ball for my dogs, having a garage 30 minutes away is useless etc. 

You can do most of those activities in a city.  There's a pool near me.  There's a park near me.  There's even a baseball diamond.  There's a river near me.  I can take a 5-10 minute drive and go canoeing if I wanted to.  And unless you live on a beach, shit like surfing isn't really a thing that's convenient for the average suburb.  And I can't say that I have the same access to the beach as people who live there do because I can just drive there.  Depending on what you consider hiking, that's probably not right there either.  There certainly wasn't an ocean and a mountain within 30 minutes of the suburb where I grew up.  Most of the outdoor activities you're talking about are still travel activities for most people. 

Well sure, if someone who lives near a beach only uses it once a year then yeah you can get the same value by driving there.  If they use it every day, you can't.  My guess is the vast majority of city dwellers don't go to broadway shows and art museums on a daily basis, for those that do sure they should live near them.

I think we can all agree that NYC kind of sucks for anything more than a couple of days.

Wait, what?

Dude, New York is THE quintessential American city.  I don't think you can credibly argue for 2 pages that cities are the cat's meow and then say yeah we can all agree NYC sucks for more than a couple of days.  Take away NYC and most of the 'pros' of your argument like art and culture and fine dining get seriously watered down, as does access to jobs etc.  It sounds like what you've described is much smaller city or almost suburban-ish (and fwiw as I said, I don't really consider Orlando to be much of a city either).  Again to me the context of the thread and what brought up cities was having a car vs. not having a car, so in that context I think of cities as in it's impractical to own a car such as NY.  A smaller city that can offer a reasonable cost of living, some personal space, and access to outdoors stuff like you describe I could survive.  At the same time I don't really consider the town I live in to be a "suburb", I guess it technically is one but has a lot more character than the stereotypical suburb consisting of subdivisions and chain restaurants and I don't think I could stand that, either.

[shp4man]

After reading this thread, it's apparent that if Hamilton comes to your location, you're a privileged mofo?  Hmmm. Guess I'm shit out a luck. Oh well.

[Raza]

Lebowski, I'm a Philadelphian. I've got to bag New York whenever I get a chance. Of course, it's an amazing city, but it's the New Yorkers that are the problem.

[12,000 RPM]

NYers and NYC is the best, period.

[MX793]

Any city where a normal person can afford a car or commute in from the suburbs into the city isn't a city IMO

The car-friendliness, or unfriendliness, of a city has more to do with the city's age, geographical location, and origins than whether or not it's a "real city".  Major cities (million+ people in the urban center) that aren't car friendly typically fall into at least one, usually 2, of the following buckets:

-Older cities that were already large/populous before the proliferation of the automobile (well over 100K people by the start of WWI), or even railroads.
-Built around industries like trade/commerce, and therefore often dependent upon a geographical feature like a natural bay or harbor, rather than agriculture/manufacturing
-Are situated where geography drives/limits the size or shape of the city and available buildable land

The more car-friendly jumbo cities all saw their populations boom after the automobile and so the designs of the cities accounted for the fact that the average person could afford a motor vehicle.

Examples of car unfriendly cities:
NYC
-Settled in the 17th century.  Population in 1910:  4.7 million
-Historical main industry:  Port/harbor city.  Shipping, fishing, trade
-Geography:  Restricted by ocean and rivers.  And, being a port city built around trade and shipping, businesses and homes of people who worked those businesses needed to be close to the harbor, preventing the city proper from sprawling too far inland.

Boston
-Settled in the 17th century.  Population in 1910:  670K
-Historical main industry:  Port/harbor city.  Shipping, fishing, and trade
-Geography:  No geological restrictions preventing inland growth, but being a harbor town, the water-related industries force the population to live near the water.

San Francisco:
-Settled in the 18th century.  Population in 1910:  417K
-Historical main industry:  Port/harbor city.  Shipping and trade
-Geography:  Situated on a hilly peninsula, buildable land is at a premium.  No easy way to grow inland and being a harbor/port city, people supporting the main city industry were forced to live near the water anyway.

Seattle
-Settled in the mid-19th century.  Population in 1910:  237K
-Historical main industries:  Initially, lumber as well as trade via the port/harbor
-Geography:  The city-proper is a relatively thin strip of land sandwiched between the bay and Lake Washington.

Then the more car-friendly cities.

Phoenix
-Settled in the mid 19th century.  Population in 1910:  11K
-Historical main industry:  Agriculture
-Geography:  No major geographical limitations on buildable land.

Atlanta
-Settled in the early-mid 19th century, destroyed in the Civil War and rebuilt in the late 19th century.  Population in 1910:  150K
-Historical industry:  Railroad hub and manufacturing
-Geography:  No major limitations on buildable land

Dallas
-Settled in the mid 19th century.  Population in 1910:  92K
-Historical industry:  Agriculture and Railroad
-Geography:  A few small lakes at the outskirts of the current city, but no major limitations on buildable land.

And so on, and so forth...

[BimmerM3]

Any city where a normal person can afford a car or commute in from the suburbs into the city isn't a city IMO

lol that's completely asinine. You don't get to just arbitrarily redefine words so that your argument makes sense.

[12,000 RPM]

Just my opinion man. CLT is not a real city to me either. That's a good thing

[Tave]

LOL, I guess the millions of people who commute NJ-NY-NJ every day do it because Manhatten isn't exclusive enough for them.

[93JC]

lol that's completely asinine. You don't get to just arbitrarily redefine words so that your argument makes sense.

Indeed, by that asinine definition perhaps the only "city" in North America is New York. Knowing who this hypothesis is coming from it's not surprising...

NYers and NYC is the best, period.

[MX793]

Just my opinion man. CLT is not a real city to me either. That's a good thing

CLT is another city that didn't grow into a large city until after WWI and the automobile.  It also doesn't really have any geographical limitations.

[FoMoJo]

What is CLT, Chicken, Lettuce and Tomato?

[MX793]

What is CLT, Chicken, Lettuce and Tomato?

It's the airport code for Charlotte.

[93JC]

To what benefit? I get no joy from being in a city constantly. It's much nicer to live in a suburbs, work in the suburbs, and only go to the city for fun stuff. All the benefits without the drawbacks (parking, crime, COL, etc)

The benefits of having a dense central business district are principally logistical, from both the businesses' point of view and the municipality's.

If a business builds an office park in the 'burbs they risk alienating themselves from potential employees who live on the opposite side of the metropolitan area, and they risk isolating themselves from the rest of their industry. Isolating your operations in its own little area far away from everyone else can irreparably harm your business.

The municipality has a huge incentive to have a densely occupied central business district. Property values skyrocket, thus so too do property tax revenues.

My city's CBD has preposterously expensive parking for a city of its size because it's densely populated and has a comparatively limited supply of parking. Limiting parking was a deliberate choice on the municipal government's part in order to prevent having to spend a hell of a lot of money on building freeways and other roads into the CBD. In the 1950s, '60s and '70s many other North American cities built freeways into their central business districts and spent a lot of money doing it, and ultimately a lot of them ended up creating traffic hell. Calgary considered building a downtown freeway in the late 1960s, but decided to scrap it and built an LRT line instead. Now about half of all the people who work downtown take public transit, about 40% still drive or carpool, and the rest walk or bike.


What benefit do I get out of it? Eh, I suppose my dining options for lunch are much better, but generally I hate working downtown. I'd probably hate if I worked in the 'burbs even more.

[Lebowski]

Indeed, by that asinine definition perhaps the only "city" in North America is New York. Knowing who this hypothesis is coming from it's not surprising...

It's not the only city but again NY is THE American city. It's hard to argue city life is great while admitting living in NYC would suck.  Many of the other cities discussed Atlanta etc are a lot more like living in a big sprawling suburb.

[Tave]

Again, many people who work in New York don't live there because they can't afford it, want to stretch their money further, want a quieter neighborhood, etc...

There's 12 million people in the metro area outside of the burroughs. It has suburbs.