[puckerman]

(08-04-2017 01:20 AM)Naughty By Nature Wrote:  

BTW, using population growth to judge a city is, well, dumb.

There are 6 true compact/logistically sound (strong walkability and strong public transit) cities in America: NYC, Chicago, SF, DC, Boston, and Philly.

Of those 6, 4 have experienced a decline in population since 1960 (DC, Boston, Philly, and Chicago). That leaves you with NYC and SF. Compact cities are not designed for population growth.

So, by using that bizarre and arbitrary metric, technically you're right. Haha. Between NYC and SF, neither is affordable.

Why is it a "bizarre and arbitrary metric"? It is a metric that is based solely on fact. It can be objectively measured.

I live in Austin, Texas. This is a growing city which is trying to make itself into a compact city. Traffic is horrible, and the city has become outrageously expensive.

Austin is also not particularly walkable. Austin doesn't have a lot of grids. Where grids do exist, they are often different from other ones. The city is a mess. Grids are the only thing that can make a city walkable. They also make cities easy for cars and pedestrians. It's unfortunate that so many people bought into this ridiculous bullshit that pedestrian-friendly means auto-hostile and vice versa.

[Naughty By Nature]

(08-05-2017 09:20 AM)puckerman Wrote:  

(08-04-2017 01:20 AM)Naughty By Nature Wrote:  

BTW, using population growth to judge a city is, well, dumb.

There are 6 true compact/logistically sound (strong walkability and strong public transit) cities in America: NYC, Chicago, SF, DC, Boston, and Philly.

Of those 6, 4 have experienced a decline in population since 1960 (DC, Boston, Philly, and Chicago). That leaves you with NYC and SF. Compact cities are not designed for population growth.

So, by using that bizarre and arbitrary metric, technically you're right. Haha. Between NYC and SF, neither is affordable.

Why is it a "bizarre and arbitrary metric"? It is a metric that is based solely on fact. It can be objectively measured.

I live in Austin, Texas. This is a growing city which is trying to make itself into a compact city. Traffic is horrible, and the city has become outrageously expensive.

Austin is also not particularly walkable. Austin doesn't have a lot of grids. Where grids do exist, they are often different from other ones. The city is a mess. Grids are the only thing that can make a city walkable. They also make cities easy for cars and pedestrians. It's unfortunate that so many people bought into this ridiculous bullshit that pedestrian-friendly means auto-hostile and vice versa.

It's bizarre and arbitrary because it has nothing to do with the value of traditionally compact cities. If 4 of the 6 purest cities in America are being eliminated using a metric and you're left with the 2 most expensive cities, then it isn't particularly useful. Additionally, I've been to all 4 of those cities that have experienced population decline; they all range from decent to excellent, with Chicago being the best.

Regarding Austin, that's unfortunate. I think extreme population growth or extreme population decline are something to keep an eye on. However, population growth doesn't necessarily indicate a city is good and population decline doesn't necessarily indicate a city is bad.

Stillwater, Oklahoma and Dothan, Alabama have experienced population growth since 1960. Pretty sure Chicago, Boston, DC, and Philly are more desirable cities to live in.

[doc holliday]

Chicago certainly has its problems and the state of Illinois is a disgustingly horribly run state but as far as densely populated areas in the US goes, in mind its probably the best one comparing it to places like Boston, NYC, SF etc. (you couldn't pay me enough to live in those other places). You can still find relatively reasonably priced housing in decent neighborhoods with tree lined streets and nice older single family homes, often times which have been converted into 2-3 apartment units. For me at this time in my life, I'd only live in the city (and Chicago is the only city I would do this in) or I'd live rural with a nice patch of land that wasn't way far from a major city. Ideally when I retire, I'd love a nice patch of land in the Southwestern US with mountain views and desert terrain with abundant sunshine, being not to far from Vegas or Phoenix to satisfy my big city urges when they arise. I've lived in the burbs for too long now for the purpose of raising a family and I think the suburbs are soul sucking. The homes are all the same, the people are all the same, doing the same things and you have to drive everywhere, nothing is walkable. As others have mentioned about Chicago, the people in the city are friendly and it truly is Midwestern in that respect. Many American cities really do have poor urban planning though.

[puckerman]

(08-05-2017 12:39 PM)Naughty By Nature Wrote:  

It's bizarre and arbitrary because it has nothing to do with the value of traditionally compact cities. If 4 of the 6 purest cities in America are being eliminated using a metric and you're left with the 2 most expensive cities, then it isn't particularly useful. Additionally, I've been to all 4 of those cities that have experienced population decline; they all range from decent to excellent, with Chicago being the best.

Regarding Austin, that's unfortunate. I think extreme population growth or extreme population decline are something to keep an eye on. However, population growth doesn't necessarily indicate a city is good and population decline doesn't necessarily indicate a city is bad.

Stillwater, Oklahoma and Dothan, Alabama have experienced population growth since 1960. Pretty sure Chicago, Boston, DC, and Philly are more desirable cities to live in.

I don't know how you determine value. Some things can be measured, and some can not. I don't even know if there is a good way to measure how good or bad traffic is.

I lived in Columbus, Ohio, for six years. That is an example of a growing city which has handled its growth very well. They did it by staying away from this "compact city" horseshit and embracing urban sprawl. They anticipated the need for highways and built them often before they were needed. They don't have much of an anti-car lobby there, and they built highways without any fucking toll booths. It is also affordable.

[Naughty By Nature]

(08-05-2017 05:21 PM)puckerman Wrote:  

(08-05-2017 12:39 PM)Naughty By Nature Wrote:  

It's bizarre and arbitrary because it has nothing to do with the value of traditionally compact cities. If 4 of the 6 purest cities in America are being eliminated using a metric and you're left with the 2 most expensive cities, then it isn't particularly useful. Additionally, I've been to all 4 of those cities that have experienced population decline; they all range from decent to excellent, with Chicago being the best.

Regarding Austin, that's unfortunate. I think extreme population growth or extreme population decline are something to keep an eye on. However, population growth doesn't necessarily indicate a city is good and population decline doesn't necessarily indicate a city is bad.

Stillwater, Oklahoma and Dothan, Alabama have experienced population growth since 1960. Pretty sure Chicago, Boston, DC, and Philly are more desirable cities to live in.

I don't know how you determine value. Some things can be measured, and some can not. I don't even know if there is a good way to measure how good or bad traffic is.

I lived in Columbus, Ohio, for six years. That is an example of a growing city which has handled its growth very well. They did it by staying away from this "compact city" horseshit and embracing urban sprawl. They anticipated the need for highways and built them often before they were needed. They don't have much of an anti-car lobby there, and they built highways without any fucking toll booths. It is also affordable.

Value is subjective but IMO it's logistics + culture + amenities. You called Chicago "shitty" because the population has dropped since 1950, lol. But if you actually visited it, you'd be blown away by the things you get within a 1.5 mile radius, not to mention there are women walking all over the damn place for you to talk to. The only city in North America with more foot traffic is NYC.

For the single player, urban sprawl is nothing to be embraced, lol. Bad logistically, you need a car which costs about $5,000 more a year than public transit, and virtually no foot traffic.

That being said, if I did have to move to a sprawling city, Columbus would be on my short list. Pleasant Midwest values, affordable, and a large Big Ten university in Ohio State.

[puckerman]

(08-05-2017 11:19 PM)Naughty By Nature Wrote:  

Value is subjective but IMO it's logistics + culture + amenities. You called Chicago "shitty" because the population has dropped since 1950, lol. But if you actually visited it, you'd be blown away by the things you get within a 1.5 mile radius, not to mention there are women walking all over the damn place for you to talk to. The only city in North America with more foot traffic is NYC.

For the single player, urban sprawl is nothing to be embraced, lol. Bad logistically, you need a car which costs about $5,000 more a year than public transit, and virtually no foot traffic.

That being said, if I did have to move to a sprawling city, Columbus would be on my short list. Pleasant Midwest values, affordable, and a large Big Ten university in Ohio State.

Chicago does have culture that lots of cities don't have. When I think of Chicago, one of the first things that comes to my mind is Second City.

But the population loss is the primary reason why it is still affordable.

I generally found Columbus to be a lousy place to be single in. That is one big reason why I left.

But compact cities have other issues that can impact your game. In Columbus, I had a nicer apartment than I have ever had here. In Austin, many people in their 30's and even 40's still live like college students--they have roommates or housemates. How does that impact your game when you have to worry about living with other people?

Ultimately, my main issue with Chicago is that the weather totally sucks there. Plus, it's been controlled by the same political gang for basically 60 years.

[911]

Given the huge influx of Mexicans into Chicago, the fact that the city has been losing population overall tells you that there is a pretty important white flight ongoing. Turns out Blacks have been leaving in large numbers too, I guess going back South, where their parents or grandparents came from?



and more recent changes through 2014 here:

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160516...entury-map

At this rate, Houston will pass Chicago to become the 3rd largest city in the US by 2030. The Bay Area will probably take 4th place.