Dreaded Commute to the City Is Keeping Offices Mostly Empty

[Velvet_Highground]

Originally Posted by 10023

Commuting is not freedom. I love renting cars on vacation, and take them for the day sometimes when I leave London (Virtuo, like Zipcar but with Teslas ). Road trips are great. But driving an hour and a half or two hours back and forth each day, on the same roads, in traffic? Fuck that.

Europeans have cars too. They’re usually nicer on average than American cars. They just didn’t destroy their cities to make them easier to drive around. Cars are for the countryside, or getting from town to town.

It would have been much better if the interstate highway system stopped at the urban edge (or what was the urban edge c.1950) with a ring road around the city, rather than having plowed right into downtown. The only city where this kind of happened is New York (minus the ring road).

Only the communist counties or faciest had the kind of city destroying power needed to demolish thousands of years of history and culture on the scale needed to even try but that’s not the point. I think public backlash would have prevented massive freeway development of inner cities if the government even wanted to.

American cities being newer and many had been rebuilt or built up to scale recently made the abject horror of what was happening harder to realize at the time for those not in the immediate way.

Racism and racist city planners played a part but was Europe really any better than America the way colonies were treated argues perhaps not. It’s not to say Europe didn’t and doesn’t have more progressive policies were and are worth emulating just that many of us myself included look(ed) at Europeans as somehow wiser than Americans just because.

Europe is wiser because it’s been making horrible mistakes like the rest of the world for longer than us not that it should be a cop out for American ignorance but when you wake up with 2000+ years of history staring you in the face it can help shine a light on the big picture.

America is unique in world history it’s rise it’s political foundation and it’s open embrace of immigration along with racial chattal slavery as an at home institution. Europe did better but I’m not so sure it’s anything unique to Europe they got lucky during this phase of development and had the guardrail of history to protect them from some of the most egregious mistakes. Our problem is feeling disconnected to the history of the old world to a bigger degree than we are.

Now to back to freeways the home my dad was born in on Monica st was torn down to build the lodge freeway I was looking at maps and found out that there was a Northwestern Hwy already going to near his front door (ending at Wyoming).

I very much agree that a less invasive form of mass auto movement would have made all the difference along with not throwing out the street cars. The issue also is a bit more nuanced than I thought busses were not popular compared to street cars there was willful and benign neglect of the system however right before the big push by GM and others to replace em with busses.

I’m understating the issue because I don’t want to write a novel right now but the combination of pressures in mid century America was very turbulent and I’m not so sure if we wouldn’t make big mistakes just as bad just differently.

The internet and flow of information not withstanding I don’t think we’ve gotten smarter as most here wouldn’t I’m sure just better or perhaps overloaded with information. Some make great use out of it and we’re doing amazing things that couldn’t be dreamt of but we’ve also seen and are seeing information being used as a weapon in a new way for the same old reasons it always has.

Give America a break maybe? Stops being too hard on ourselves? Idk I’m still digesting all the information .. If I do you’ll all know when I decide to cash in on it and completely disrupt how we all think of the 20th century

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Im not exactly sure how people expect the USA, which is still largely empty and with extremely low population density for a developed and even developing country, can simply give up on cars or all move to urban centers.

Why do we need to continue to expand into the "empty land"? If anything, we should conserve the natural beauty of this nation, which sets America apart from much of Europe.

And just because most Americans live in low density sprawl doesn't mean we have to put up with that or put up with high rents in the mass transit heavy metros. That means we all have to do something to change the culture, laws, zoning,regulations, etc that has brought us to this extreme, unsustainable way of living.

Cars aren't going away. They don't need to. We need to be less dependent on cars though.

[craigs]

I think the key is offering people who cannot (or do not want to) work from home a reliable, efficient public transportation system as an alternative to driving. Living in LA, I believe most people here right now will choose to continue to drive, but if the public transit system keeps improving, younger Angelenos and new arrivals may just prefer the train or bus for some--or even most--trips in the future.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by jd3189

And just because most Americans live in low density sprawl

that really is the crux of the matter.

transit doesn't work all that well when every individual family demands a minimum of a 1/4 acre of land (or more) for themselves and things get pulled so far apart that individual motorized transportation becomes the only real viable method to get around.

functional transit requires clustering, and a large portion of american's simply don't want to cluster. as of census 2020, there were about 273M americans living in "urban areas". if all of those people were willing to live at the density of my neighborhood (~25,000 ppsm), the entire "urban population" of the nation could be contained within ~11,000 sq. miles, or just a tad larger than the state of maryland (one of our mighty nation's smallest states).

and my neighborhood isn't really all that extremely dense, it's just full of 2-12 unit "missing middle" housing. it's not some hardcore urban concrete jungle of highrises, in fact nothing in my area exceeds 5 stories, and the side streets are all lined with lawns and trees and most buildings have small back yards/patios. but too many americans want "their space and privacy" and then transit becomes ever less efficient, and as it becomes less efficient, people don't use it, and thus they don't want to fund it, and the downward spiral continues until we end up in car-dependency hell for a gigantic swath of the nation.

oh well. glad i don't live there.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by jd3189

Why do we need to continue to expand into the "empty land"? If anything, we should conserve the natural beauty of this nation, which sets America apart from much of Europe.

And just because most Americans live in low density sprawl doesn't mean we have to put up with that or put up with high rents in the mass transit heavy metros. That means we all have to do something to change the culture, laws, zoning,regulations, etc that has brought us to this extreme, unsustainable way of living.

Cars aren't going away. They don't need to. We need to be less dependent on cars though.

Please explain what legal restrictions should be put in place and enforced (and to what degree) to prevent people from doing what they naturally do (Strive to better their positions)

There is nothing you can do to stop people from seeking land to live a better life as they see it. Its not possible. If you set laws, they break them. If you crack down they'll fight you.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Please explain what legal restrictions should be put in place and enforced (and to what degree) to prevent people from doing what they naturally do (Strive to better their positions)

There is nothing you can do to stop people from seeking land to live a better life as they see it. Its not possible. If you set laws, they break them. If you crack down they'll fight you.

nope. just look at argentina, which afaik has the most strict land use laws in the americas. look on google maps, you don't see endless cluttered sprawl outside a huge city like buenos aires. there are even highly built up crowded urban edge streets with farmland right across from them.

it turns out there its just the opposite, it seems they have more issues with strict land regulation rules in regards to rural uses than they do for urban or suburban land uses.

the point is land should be more carefully managed by each state instead of taken for granted as being endless and even encouraged to be trashed by sprawl as it is in the usa.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Please explain what legal restrictions should be put in place and enforced (and to what degree) to prevent people from doing what they naturally do (Strive to better their positions)

There is nothing you can do to stop people from seeking land to live a better life as they see it. Its not possible. If you set laws, they break them. If you crack down they'll fight you.

So let me get this straight. It's impossible to have laws in a society because no one will follow them and it's impossible to enforce them? Or does that only apply to the laws that you don't like while other laws are still necessary.

Obviously it's just another example of the age-old ploy of arguing for one's preferred policy framework by pretending it's the only choice rather then on the basis of its merits. Not to mention pretending the one's preferred position is just the "natural state of things" (when it itself is the product of policy interventions) then using the naturalistic fallacy to argue that being "natural" means it's good.

But no as we already established earlier, while there are some laws that aren't very effective like the war on drugs, people can and do organise as societies to develop civilizations as they see fit and many laws do work even when some people break them. Besides, developing and advancing by necessity involves diverging from the natural.

Those fallacious arguments may work in some settings such as enclosed echo chambers, but here they're going to keep getting called out.

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Please explain what legal restrictions should be put in place and enforced (and to what degree) to prevent people from doing what they naturally do (Strive to better their positions)

There is nothing you can do to stop people from seeking land to live a better life as they see it. Its not possible. If you set laws, they break them. If you crack down they'll fight you.

Greenbelt boundaries for development, like what’s already done in Portland, Toronto, and Miami-Dade County

Setting land aside for state and national parks/reserves.

That’s two legal restrictions, which aren’t as much restrictions as they are simply ways to put a check and balance on those people you are referring to.

America is not only filled with those who really want to just live in the woods with total individual freedom and self-reliance. There are those of us who like to exercise our freedoms and ambitions in an actual community in a city, suburb, or small town. Both can coexist but now, more than ever, national policy should be directed at reducing the extreme effects of sprawl. It may not affect you negatively and you may actually like it, but you can’t say the same for the millions who would rather live a different way.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

nope. just look at argentina, which afaik has the most strict land use laws in the americas.

Sure just model it after Peronism.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

So let me get this straight. It's impossible to have laws in a society because no one will follow them and it's impossible to enforce them? Or does that only apply to the laws that you don't like while other laws are still necessary.

Obviously it's just another example of the age-old ploy of arguing for one's preferred policy framework by pretending it's the only choice rather then on the basis of its merits. Not to mention pretending the one's preferred position is just the "natural state of things" (when it itself is the product of policy interventions) then using the naturalistic fallacy to argue that being "natural" means it's good.

But no as we already established earlier, while there are some laws that aren't very effective like the war on drugs, people can and do organise as societies to develop civilizations as they see fit and many laws do work even when some people break them. Besides, developing and advancing by necessity involves diverging from the natural.

Those fallacious arguments may work in some settings such as enclosed echo chambers, but here they're going to keep getting called out.

No, I don't think strict land use laws will work in The USA. You would not be able to get them to pass in most cases, and even if you did they would be A) Unenforceable and ignored b) quickly shot down by Courts/political opposition

"Hey remember all these traditional rich families that made money on getting land in the 1800's and 1900's. yea you cant because those people and their political ally's think you should live in apartments instead."

Lmao good luck.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by jd3189

Greenbelt boundaries for development, like what’s already done in Portland, Toronto, and Miami-Dade County

Setting land aside for state and national parks/reserves.

That’s two legal restrictions, which aren’t as much restrictions as they are simply ways to put a check and balance on those people you are referring to.

America is not only filled with those who really want to just live in the woods with total individual freedom and self-reliance. There are those of us who like to exercise our freedoms and ambitions in an actual community in a city, suburb, or small town. Both can coexist but now, more than ever, national policy should be directed at reducing the extreme effects of sprawl. It may not affect you negatively and you may actually like it, but you can’t say the same for the millions who would rather live a different way.

The only place you'll ever be able to get significant land use controls are already urban areas.

[TexasPlaya]

Originally Posted by Obadno

No, I don't think strict land use laws will work in The USA. You would not be able to get them to pass in most cases, and even if you did they would be A) Unenforceable and ignored b) quickly shot down by Courts/political opposition

"Hey remember all these traditional rich families that made money on getting land in the 1800's and 1900's. yea you cant because those people and their political ally's think you should live in apartments instead."

Lmao good luck.

But that wasn't the point of that response.

The major issue is that we don't have a mechanism to have consumers pay the full price of low density development as we subsidize it. As long as we continue to subsidize or hand wave away the effects, low density development will continue.

[10023]

Originally Posted by TexasPlaya

But that wasn't the point of that response.

The major issue is that we don't have a mechanism to have consumers pay the full price of low density development as we subsidize it. As long as we continue to subsidize or hand wave away the effects, low density development will continue.

Why is it that I can build a bunch of houses basically anywhere in exurbia and just expect the government to build roads, electricity, water and sewage connections to it? Start with that.

[mhays]

Sprawl controls actually do work in the US. For example...the entire West Coast.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by mhays

Sprawl controls actually do work in the US. For example...the entire West Coast.

And it's easier to implement such things when a given metro area is:

A. Contained entirely within a single state.

B. Has lots of natural barriers to urban development (large bodies of water, rugged topography, land without adequate ground water, etc.)

C. Already is surrounded by large tracts of government owned and protected land (US forest service, bureau of land management, giant military bases, etc)


In a typical flat Midwestern metro area straddling a river split between two states and surrounded by nothing but privately-owned cornfields for hundreds of miles in all directions, it becomes much more politically difficult to get such things accomplished. First, if one state starts squeezing new sprawl development with a green belt, the other state might very well just encourage it to "steal" that economic growth. and second, try convincing farmer Dave to relinquish "my god-given right to sell my land to anyone I damn well please. Now get the hell off my property, this is 'Murica, baby!!!"

[bossabreezes]

People who are pro-office are anti-environment.

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by bossabreezes

People who are pro-office are anti-environment.

Nonsense

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

And it's easier to implement such things when a given metro area is:

A. Contained entirely within a single state.

B. Has lots of natural barriers to urban development (large bodies of water, rugged topography, land without adequate ground water, etc.)

C. Already is surrounded by large tracts of government owned and protected land (US forest service, bureau of land management, giant military bases, etc)


In a typical flat Midwestern metro area straddling a river split between two states and surrounded by nothing but privately-owned cornfields for hundreds of miles in all directions, it becomes much more politically difficult to get such things accomplished. First, if one state starts squeezing new sprawl development with a green belt, the other state might very well just encourage it to "steal" that economic growth. and second, try convincing farmer Dave to relinquish "my god-given right to sell my land to anyone I damn well please. Now get the hell off my property, this is 'Murica, baby!!!"

Easier but still possible regardless.

The West Coast is also full of farming valleys and privately-owned forests. That's the real focus. Oregon protected these in the 70s and Washington in the 90s. It's been very effective, including a lot of voter support. Of course part of the secret sauce has been allowing high volumes of infill (though not enough unfortunately, hence our high prices).

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by mhays

The West Coast is also full of farming valleys.

There are no west coast cities that are literally surrounded by oceans of privately owned farmland in all directions measured in the hundreds of thousands of square miles.

The psychology of land, the seeming infinity of it, and hence the almost throw-away valuelessness of it, is quite different out here in the prairies and plaines.

[mhays]

I agree with that.