Post: #101

(07-14-2017 02:53 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(07-14-2017 01:57 PM)Naughty By Nature Wrote:  Another amazing perk about walkable cities is that you get to take the car out of the equation.

Cars are not only a massive rip-off ($6,000/year among the cost of the actual car, gas, insurance, and maintenance) but they're a huge liability (if you get into a crash or your car gets keyed...as matter of fact, my mediocre Hyundai got badly keyed twice within 8 months of living in phony ass Los Mangeles aka The LAnd of Snakes).

In a walkable city, you take public transit for a measly $1,000/year...or even $0 if you live in the heart of downtown.

Spoken like someone who has never commuted via public transit for a serious amount of time. Trust me, two years of the MBTA in Boston and you'll be crying for that crappy beater. It was always faster to commute via car in Boston and even Philly.

The money you save on a car is always eaten up by more expensive rents and more expensive groceries. Trust me, I lived in a sick "players pad" in Boston and ended up having nothing to show for it other than a few notches. Not worth it!

That's unfortunate, man. Boston can be a tough nut to crack. Never lived there but been there many times for Red Sox games and visiting my grandma. Pretty parochial place and now has the 3rd highest rent in America after NYC and San Francisco/San Jose.

By the way, you'd be surprised by the disparity in costs between a sprawling city and compact city.

I was living in Studio City, Los Angeles with a roommate. I was spending $920/month on rent and $500/month on my car/rent/insurance. That's $17,000/year. Let's say I had a studio apartment instead of splitting a 2 BR (it'll make sense in a second). That would've been $1,500/month on rent in that neighborhood (it's in the valley but it borders the Hollywood Hills). Now we're talking about $2,000/month on car + rent OR $24,000/year.

Let's pick the equivalent neighborhood in Chicago. We'll go with Lakeview. An unfurnished studio apartment there rents for about $850/month. Then the monthly CTA L train pass goes for $100/month. So now we're talking about $11,500/year on public transit + rent.

That's over $12,000 saved/year!!!!

Post: #102

(07-14-2017 11:37 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  You guys really don't get it do you? You've offered nothing to counter my points other than the same trite that's been mentioned and countered before.

This is how the world really works. If America wasn't around telling Europe what to do, European countries would be boot licking some other super power, most likely Russia, China, or if the muslims get their way Saudi Arabia or Turkey. They're weak, cucked, and blow easily in whatever direction the wind tells them to blow.

Strongmen are who rule the world. It's how it has always been and yes as much as I enjoy Russia and it's strong anti-globalist attitude, if push came to shove Russia would be the one telling Europe what to do and steam rolling their agenda all through out western Europe. Would the Europeans stand for it? Probably not, but what good is being mad about something if you don't have a fist to stand up for yourself?

I'll take globalist world police America over Russia, China, or some sand pit mongrels any day and the majority of Europeans if push came to shove would as well.

The only country in Europe able to sufficiently defend itself is the UK. If the migrant invasion thread and the past elections are of any note, there won't be a France and Germany in a decade nor do their citizens have any desire to right the course of their apathy.

Secondly, single payer healthcare is only feasible if you're telling device and drug companies how much to spend. I'm sorry, but the cost of developing these drugs isn't practical when some country demands you sell your product for a loss. What happens when those drug and device companies says, "No, we're not going to sell these drugs to you at that price" and walk away leaving said country's healthcare system without? How are those citizens going to feel when they can't get said drugs or procedures done or worse, the cost sky rockets and then has to be rationed out?

Or the flipside, America starts telling the same companies how much medicare is going to pay for those drugs and procedures. Watch how quickly those socialized services prices go up. It's already happening in the UK.

Between negative interests rates, welfare leaching rapefugees, and an aging childless population you guys seriously think these systems are capable of lasting?

The era of free lunches for socialized healthcare is quickly coming to an end and Europe is going to realize that it's fat cat freeloading socialized lifestyle is unsustainable. They bit the hand that fed them (America) and American citizens have had enough.

If we judge European culture by the fruits it has borne, we get childless adults, atheism, rampant sexual degeneracy, and a desire to submit to a foreign religion. There is nothing redeeming about western European culture (except maybe the UK, God Bless the Queen and Brexit) and none of it should be emulated. At best, it's a cautionary tale about what NOT to do if you wish to survive.

Healthcare spending per capita^^^^

European countries have healthcare down. People in France, Japan or Norway don't have to worry about losing their house if they get gravely ill, or going bankrupt just from an ambulance ride, which the majority of Americans cannot afford.

Quote: If America wasn't around telling Europe what to do, European countries would be boot licking some other super power, most likely Russia, China, or if the muslims get their way Saudi Arabia or Turkey.

Russia has the GDP of Spain. China's GDP is smaller than the EU's. Neither country is as degenerate as the US or Western Europe. There are no parades with rainbow flags and naked degenerates in Moscow or Beijing, no room for baizuo there. Saudi Arabia is a puny US/UK colony that can't even manage to invade puny Yemen next door. The idea that Europe is "freeloading" on defense is baseless.

It's the US that is overspending on defense because its people are duped into useless foreign wars that destabilize the world for the sake of Israel and the MIC. Mideastern wars have cost the average American taxpayer $45,000 and counting. The majority of US taxes go towards the military-industrial-security complex, and that's a more toxic form of socialism.

Ask yourself why Detroit is a shithole, while its German counterpart Stuttgart, is a rich clean city with an unemployment rate of 3.9% and hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs for men who put together some of the greatest cars in the world, including the one on my av, .

Post: #103

(07-14-2017 03:19 PM)911 Wrote:  

(07-14-2017 11:37 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  You guys really don't get it do you? You've offered nothing to counter my points other than the same trite that's been mentioned and countered before.

This is how the world really works. If America wasn't around telling Europe what to do, European countries would be boot licking some other super power, most likely Russia, China, or if the muslims get their way Saudi Arabia or Turkey. They're weak, cucked, and blow easily in whatever direction the wind tells them to blow.

Strongmen are who rule the world. It's how it has always been and yes as much as I enjoy Russia and it's strong anti-globalist attitude, if push came to shove Russia would be the one telling Europe what to do and steam rolling their agenda all through out western Europe. Would the Europeans stand for it? Probably not, but what good is being mad about something if you don't have a fist to stand up for yourself?

I'll take globalist world police America over Russia, China, or some sand pit mongrels any day and the majority of Europeans if push came to shove would as well.

The only country in Europe able to sufficiently defend itself is the UK. If the migrant invasion thread and the past elections are of any note, there won't be a France and Germany in a decade nor do their citizens have any desire to right the course of their apathy.

Secondly, single payer healthcare is only feasible if you're telling device and drug companies how much to spend. I'm sorry, but the cost of developing these drugs isn't practical when some country demands you sell your product for a loss. What happens when those drug and device companies says, "No, we're not going to sell these drugs to you at that price" and walk away leaving said country's healthcare system without? How are those citizens going to feel when they can't get said drugs or procedures done or worse, the cost sky rockets and then has to be rationed out?

Or the flipside, America starts telling the same companies how much medicare is going to pay for those drugs and procedures. Watch how quickly those socialized services prices go up. It's already happening in the UK.

Between negative interests rates, welfare leaching rapefugees, and an aging childless population you guys seriously think these systems are capable of lasting?

The era of free lunches for socialized healthcare is quickly coming to an end and Europe is going to realize that it's fat cat freeloading socialized lifestyle is unsustainable. They bit the hand that fed them (America) and American citizens have had enough.

If we judge European culture by the fruits it has borne, we get childless adults, atheism, rampant sexual degeneracy, and a desire to submit to a foreign religion. There is nothing redeeming about western European culture (except maybe the UK, God Bless the Queen and Brexit) and none of it should be emulated. At best, it's a cautionary tale about what NOT to do if you wish to survive.

Healthcare spending per capita^^^^

European countries have healthcare down. People in France, Japan or Norway don't have to worry about losing their house if they get gravely ill, or going bankrupt just from an ambulance ride, which the majority of Americans cannot afford.

Your graph proves my point. American spend more to support the rest of the world's healthcare. The proof is here.

Again, America leads the world in medical research. Read: http://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php?area=2700

This Quora discussion also covers the question in larger depth with proper citations:
https://www.quora.com/What-countries-hav...rs?share=1

(07-14-2017 03:19 PM)911 Wrote:  

Quote: If America wasn't around telling Europe what to do, European countries would be boot licking some other super power, most likely Russia, China, or if the muslims get their way Saudi Arabia or Turkey.

Russia has the GDP of Spain. China's GDP is smaller than the EU's. Neither country is as degenerate as the US or Western Europe. There are no parades with rainbow flags and naked degenerates in Moscow or Beijing, no room for baizuo there. Saudi Arabia is a puny US/UK colony that can't even manage to invade puny Yemen next door. The idea that Europe is "freeloading" on defense is baseless.

It's the US that is overspending on defense because its people are duped into useless foreign wars that destabilize the world for the sake of Israel and the MIC. Mideastern wars have cost the average American taxpayer $45,000 and counting. The majority of US taxes go towards the military-industrial-security complex, and that's a more toxic form of socialism.

GDP means absolutely nothing, especially when the majority of that "value" comes from service industries which will provide absolutely nothing towards a war effort. You want a better metric? Look at factory output.

I'm surprised you're trying to make this point. This was spoken about in massive depth during the campaign. It's common knowledge that NATO countries freeload their defense off of the US. The truth is in the numbers which are available all over the place. And while European leaders whine and complain about those very same wars and MIC, they certainly don't seem to mind the spoils of those wars. Hell, even Obama had the audacity to call out other NATO countries for being defense freeloaders.

That's fine, because our fine President will prove my point for me in due time.

Post: #104

(07-14-2017 03:40 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  Your graph proves my point. American spend more to support the rest of the world's healthcare. The proof is here.

Again, America leads the world in medical research. Read: http://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php?area=2700

This Quora discussion also covers the question in larger depth with proper citations:
https://www.quora.com/What-countries-hav...rs?share=1

Drug costs make up only 10% of total US healthcare costs. The reason Americans spend more on drugs is because they tend to be overprescribed, especially with newer more expensive drugs, because big pharma bribes doctors and runs the regulatory process.

Quote:

(07-14-2017 03:19 PM)911 Wrote:  

Quote: If America wasn't around telling Europe what to do, European countries would be boot licking some other super power, most likely Russia, China, or if the muslims get their way Saudi Arabia or Turkey.

Russia has the GDP of Spain. China's GDP is smaller than the EU's. Neither country is as degenerate as the US or Western Europe. There are no parades with rainbow flags and naked degenerates in Moscow or Beijing, no room for baizuo there. Saudi Arabia is a puny US/UK colony that can't even manage to invade puny Yemen next door. The idea that Europe is "freeloading" on defense is baseless.

It's the US that is overspending on defense because its people are duped into useless foreign wars that destabilize the world for the sake of Israel and the MIC. Mideastern wars have cost the average American taxpayer $45,000 and counting. The majority of US taxes go towards the military-industrial-security complex, and that's a more toxic form of socialism.

GDP means absolutely nothing, especially when the majority of that "value" comes from service industries which will provide absolutely nothing towards a war effort. You want a better metric? Look at factory output.

I'm surprised you're trying to make this point. This was spoken about in massive depth during the campaign. It's common knowledge that NATO countries freeload their defense off of the US. The truth is in the numbers which are available all over the place. And while European leaders whine and complain about those very same wars and MIC, they certainly don't seem to mind the spoils of those wars. Hell, even Obama had the audacity to call out other NATO countries for being defense freeloaders.

That's fine, because our fine President will prove my point for me in due time.

The fact that countries like Germany or France spend a smaller % on their military than the US does not mean they are "freeloading". They spend what they need to spend to defend themselves from foreign invasion, and not more. No one is a threat to invade Germany or France today or in the foreseeable future (militarily speaking).

In France's case, military spending has gone up for operations like Libya, which was against its interests and those of the rest of Europe, destabilizing Saharian Africa and opening up the floodgates to massive immigration. All for the benefit of the oligarchs and zionists who pushed for that war.

Japan would have been a better choice here, but I'm not sure if they really should spend trillions on their military to get the upper hand in the Senkaku Islands dispute with China, maybe they can come to an agreement instead.

And what spoils of war Beast? Wars run up debt and make economies weaker. Contractors make up like bandits off the taxpayers backs. The military procurement and production process is the most corrupt and economically inefficient sector of the world economy, especially in America. The F35 is going to end up costing 10x as much as the Swedish Grippen.

Trump was right, NATO is obsolete in the post-Soviet world. And which army is threatening to invade Europe, do you really buy the Russian invasion narrative? If anything, it is NATO that is massing up at their border.

Post: #105

(07-14-2017 05:40 PM)911 Wrote:  The fact that countries like Germany or France spend a smaller % on their military than the US does not mean they are "freeloading". They spend what they need to spend to defend themselves from foreign invasion, and not more. No one is a threat to invade Germany or France today or in the foreseeable future (militarily speaking).

In France's case, military spending has gone up for operations like Libya, which was against its interests and those of the rest of Europe, destabilizing Saharian Africa and opening up the floodgates to massive immigration. All for the benefit of the oligarchs and zionists who pushed for that war.

Honestly, it doesn't matter. They signed treaties that quite bluntly said they were to commit to an X amount of defense spending towards GDP. They aren't fulfilling their side of the equation.

Until they renegotiate their treaties, they're freeloading plain and simple.

Finally, my experience using the NHS was shit. For me to get a specialist for my eye issues, I had to wait on a 7 month list. The same specialist in the US? I was in in the next week.

It's crap plain and simple. When I want access to a doctor, I want it now. Not 7 months later. This went on and on for both myself and my wife. Getting any sort of medical care in England was a miserable experience. That's all the proof I need that their system is crap.

I'll concede the point that hospital spending is the greatest cost for US healthcare and that's directly related to treating hospitals like hotels with private rooms.

Post: #106

^ You sound mad bitter against Europe. You got burned by a French chick or something?

Post: #107

(07-14-2017 06:05 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  Finally, my experience using the NHS was shit. For me to get a specialist for my eye issues, I had to wait on a 7 month list. The same specialist in the US? I was in in the next week.

It's crap plain and simple. When I want access to a doctor, I want it now. Not 7 months later. This went on and on for both myself and my wife. Getting any sort of medical care in England was a miserable experience. That's all the proof I need that their system is crap.

No it's not crap, if you wanted to see doctor now instead of in 7 months from now you could simply have paid for private insurance or went straight to a private doctor, as you would do in the US, you're comparing two different things. Having experienced both the American and the European health system (not the UK one) it baffles me that anyone thinks the American one is better.

Post: #108

(07-12-2017 03:50 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  Sorry Kosko, but trying to emulate European lifestyles and city planning is a massive mistake. Europe is in terminal decline as it has been run by childless leaders who view children as a pox to be made immensely more expensive. Between negative interest rates and massive importation of 3rd world trash, there's a reason America is an empire and Europe is her vassal states.

What does any of that have to do with preferring either sprawl or compact?

Post: #109

Fuck alllllll of that.



I'll take door number 3 please.

Post: #110

Hey Leonard, is that a Tasmanian Tiger there behind the tall grass?

http://www.tasmanian-tiger.com/sightings.htm

Post: #111

(07-14-2017 02:53 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(07-14-2017 01:57 PM)Naughty By Nature Wrote:  Another amazing perk about walkable cities is that you get to take the car out of the equation.

Cars are not only a massive rip-off ($6,000/year among the cost of the actual car, gas, insurance, and maintenance) but they're a huge liability (if you get into a crash or your car gets keyed...as matter of fact, my mediocre Hyundai got badly keyed twice within 8 months of living in phony ass Los Mangeles aka The LAnd of Snakes).

In a walkable city, you take public transit for a measly $1,000/year...or even $0 if you live in the heart of downtown.

Spoken like someone who has never commuted via public transit for a serious amount of time. Trust me, two years of the MBTA in Boston and you'll be crying for that crappy beater. It was always faster to commute via car in Boston and even Philly.

The money you save on a car is always eaten up by more expensive rents and more expensive groceries. Trust me, I lived in a sick "players pad" in Boston and ended up having nothing to show for it other than a few notches. Not worth it!

Beast, I'll counter your anecdote with my anecdote.

I lived in Boston about 2 years. I had a car. Most of the time my car served as a parking ticket magnet, depreciation victim, and occasional bang delivery mechanism. The only time I put down miles was when I was driving it to visit friends well outside of the city. And I could just as easily take Lyft or Uber to go see my rotation if it was too late to take the metro.

Driving to work involved about the same amount of time as taking bus to metro and walking five minutes to the office, and not having to deal with the stress of Boston's shitty drivers and roads made it all the more worth it. The metro saved me $20/day or $250+ per month in parking. I drove to work one time in a snowstorm - three hours to go ten miles - and swore off from doing it again. In short, not worth it to maintain full attention on the road when I could doze off, read, or what have you on public transit.

MBTA was largely reliable during this time. And should I want more cheap groceries than I could carry, I could Uber pool to the grocery store and back.

I could just as easily make the claim that much the money you save by having a car gets eaten up by cost of ownership - insurance, parking, depreciation, and the such - even if you don't have a recent model vehicle.

Much of this boils down to lifestyle. As a single guy living in a central, small pad and saving up money, it makes no sense to get a car when Lyft and Uber make the costs more transparent and up front on a use-as-you-go model.

Post: #112

Boston/NYC vs LA - totally different layouts. You need a car in LA. Even in SF, you need a car if only for the weekend trips.

Post: #113

(07-14-2017 02:53 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(07-14-2017 01:57 PM)Naughty By Nature Wrote:  Another amazing perk about walkable cities is that you get to take the car out of the equation.

Cars are not only a massive rip-off ($6,000/year among the cost of the actual car, gas, insurance, and maintenance) but they're a huge liability (if you get into a crash or your car gets keyed...as matter of fact, my mediocre Hyundai got badly keyed twice within 8 months of living in phony ass Los Mangeles aka The LAnd of Snakes).

In a walkable city, you take public transit for a measly $1,000/year...or even $0 if you live in the heart of downtown.

Spoken like someone who has never commuted via public transit for a serious amount of time. Trust me, two years of the MBTA in Boston and you'll be crying for that crappy beater. It was always faster to commute via car in Boston and even Philly.

The money you save on a car is always eaten up by more expensive rents and more expensive groceries. Trust me, I lived in a sick "players pad" in Boston and ended up having nothing to show for it other than a few notches. Not worth it!

Ha nope. I've pretty much always lived car free. Owning a car would be torture. Maybe it's different in Boston and Philly though, but even in those cities I wouldn't consider driving.

Post: #114

(07-14-2017 02:00 PM)Naughty By Nature Wrote:  

(07-10-2017 12:14 AM)Darkwing Buck Wrote:  I've seriously got to move to a city by 2019. Like no joke. A real city with a downtown, dense urban center, walkability, and public transportation.

Looks like Chicago and Philadelphia are the only affordable options. NY being an option but pricey. Boston also could be an option but is full of white liberal feminists and SJWs from what I understand.

Hate urban sprawl and suburbs and really don't understand the people who like em. Especially for game and a player lifestyle.

Bro, you've gotta move within the next year, lol. Get the krap out of the LAnd of Snakes!

I've been in Philly for a couple weeks. Good city. Not Chicago or NYC, though. Still a clear upgrade over Los Mangeles.

Boston is decent but it's similar to Philadelphia in terms of the people being a bit on the cold, unfriendly side. People in Chicago, however, tend to be very friendly.

Word. Urban sprawl and suburban-style cities are garbage for the single player, unless you live in a logistical hotspot, MAYBE (like Santa Monica for LA or Midtown/Buckhead for Atlanta).

Seriously! He sounds really miserable in LA. Hope he gets out.

Post: #115

Post: #116

American, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand style urban sprawl is a social life killer! It also leads people into gaining weight and depressed, as you're always dependent on a car to move around.

Give me Compact!

Post: #117

I guess for me the debate isn't urban sprawl vs. compact cities. It's more affordable vs. less affordable. I have no evidence that it's possible to have a compact city that is affordable.

Post: #118

(07-30-2017 03:33 PM)The Catalyst Wrote:  [What you think riding a subway will be like.]

The reality:

And more fun facts about who else rides the subway:

(07-14-2017 11:57 PM)Teutatis Wrote:  No it's not crap, if you wanted to see doctor now instead of in 7 months from now you could simply have paid for private insurance or went straight to a private doctor, as you would do in the US, you're comparing two different things. Having experienced both the American and the European health system (not the UK one) it baffles me that anyone thinks the American one is better.

You've refuted me and then essentially proved my point that socialized healthcare is crap when compared against a private system.
So I should be forced to pay into a system that I don't want to and is crappier but if I want better service I should double play for the privilege?

How about I don't pay into a crappy system and just pay into the one I want?

If the average American had an NHS style system hoisted onto them, they'd be royally pissed.

@Polar are you sure you lived in Boston? I lived in Boston for 4 years and the MBTA is the primary reason for my hate against public transit. It consistently took me longer to ride the B line into Copley Square than it would have been to drive and yes, I did time both multiple times to confirm it. 1 hour via the B line for Washington Sq to Copley versus 20 minutes by car along Comm Ave and this is during rush hour.

No offense, but if you're not able to park legally or find one of the many multitudes of parking garages in downtown (of which there are many) that's your own fault. Driving, even in Boston, was always faster and more reliable than the T.

(07-14-2017 10:33 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  ^ You sound mad bitter against Europe. You got burned by a French chick or something?

Not Europe's fault, more the other americans around me who fawn endlessly about how great Europe is and then act surprised
and to a lesser extent offended when I go, "meh" and explain why. I'm tired of the "grass is greener' syndrome.

Post: #119

(08-01-2017 06:56 PM)puckerman Wrote:  I guess for me the debate isn't urban sprawl vs. compact cities. It's more affordable vs. less affordable. I have no evidence that it's possible to have a compact city that is affordable.

They exist: Chicago and Philadelphia.

Post: #120

(08-03-2017 12:33 PM)Naughty By Nature Wrote:  

(08-01-2017 06:56 PM)puckerman Wrote:  I guess for me the debate isn't urban sprawl vs. compact cities. It's more affordable vs. less affordable. I have no evidence that it's possible to have a compact city that is affordable.

They exist: Chicago and Philadelphia.

You are correct. Another fact is that both cities peaked in population in the 1950 census. They are affordable because they are losing people. They are losing people because they are shitty places to live otherwise.

We can also add Detroit to this list.

I will correct my statement. I have no evidence that it's possible to have a compact city with a growing population that is affordable.

Post: #121

The cities of our generation are not going to be the cities of the mid 20th century. Every one of those cities is a crumbling mess. Its the cities that came into their own in a surprising way in the last 20 that will be the interesting ones.

Post: #122

(08-01-2017 07:03 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(07-30-2017 03:33 PM)The Catalyst Wrote:  [What you think riding a subway will be like.]

The reality:

And more fun facts about who else rides the subway:

In German, but good subtitles.

http://www.whale.to/a/infectious_scares.html

Quote:THE VIRAL (INFECTIOUS DISEASE AND EPIDEMIC) FEAR RACKET

What is only bad is the overuse of antibiotics and I will agree on that. Also every vaccinated person - including a flu shot vaccinated one sheds viruses up to 3-4 weeks.

Either way - when public transport is too crowded then it becomes a pain in the ass and torture. It is all fine and well if you have plenty of room and it is comfortable.

Post: #123

(08-03-2017 11:38 PM)puckerman Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 12:33 PM)Naughty By Nature Wrote:  

(08-01-2017 06:56 PM)puckerman Wrote:  I guess for me the debate isn't urban sprawl vs. compact cities. It's more affordable vs. less affordable. I have no evidence that it's possible to have a compact city that is affordable.

They exist: Chicago and Philadelphia.

You are correct. Another fact is that both cities peaked in population in the 1950 census. They are affordable because they are losing people. They are losing people because they are shitty places to live otherwise.

We can also add Detroit to this list.

I will correct my statement. I have no evidence that it's possible to have a compact city with a growing population that is affordable.

LOL

Not sure if serious.

Detroit is a ghetto dump, but Philly is fairly nice and Chicago is awesome.

Chicago has the best blend of natural beauty, logistics, culture, and amenities of any city in America. Is it perfect? No. Does it have a history of political corruption and a high violent crime rate in the impoverished ghetto parts? Yes.

But all things considered, it's an amazing city. And this is coming from someone who has lived in several major cities (Chicago, NYC, LA, and Philly) throughout America and visited several more (SF, DC, and Boston, and Houston).

If this is a "shitty" city then I'd love to see a non-shitty city:

Post: #124

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.

Post: #125

A few aspects historically that influence if cities are sprawled or compact are taxes and planning laws.

All things being equal loose/easy planning and development/zoning laws will lead to more sprawl as people buy up and develop/build on land on the fringes of the city.

High property taxes (high land taxes, high council rates, high stamp duty, etc) also encourage sprawl because speculators don't generally land bank as the holding and transaction costs are too high. This means that there is more available (and cheaper) fringe land to be built on by those that genuinely have use for it rather than idle speculators hoarding/banking fringe land. This article though a few years old encapsulates the point perfectly.
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2014/12...land-bank/

New Zealand from memory (not 100% sure but I believe its the case) has no land tax and no stamp duty. Also if you own a property for more than 2 years no capital gains tax either. Its a land bankers/speculators paradise. No coincidence that house prices have gone through the roof.

I have been to Auckland. Even though the city feels sprawled out because the fringe suburbs are a long driving distance from the centre, in the inner city areas there are huge numbers of apartment blocks and small townhouses for a city of its size so the actual population density is still surprisingly high. There is an article that is 7 years old discussing the population density of Auckland but despite the age of the article I believe the main point I believe is still valid.
https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2010/...the-myths/


From what I have heard is that Houston is a good example of this (I have some relatives living in Houston) the city is quite sprawled out and has high state property taxes of various sorts and liberal planning/building/zoning laws.

A good article (somewhat dated but the argument is still valid) discussing this is here https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2011/01...y-houston/

Also restrictive land use policies lead to higher house prices all other things being equal.
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2015/09...ill-crash/

If you want to learn more about how laws and the tax and political system shape not just land prices but the overall structure and vibe of a city do some deep reading into Henry George and his followers (Georgeists). Henry George was a brilliant land economist with profound insights. The property market is all about who gets to collect the "economic rent", if you want to understand property you need to understand the economic rent going all the way back to David Ricardo's works. In fact so central is the role of economic rent that some land economists have gone so far as to suggest government was historically/originally created to protect the rights of land owners to collect the economic rent.

Fred Harrison and Fred Folvary along with Phillip J. Anderson have also done a lot of great research on Land prices and economic rent.

The whole history about the car manufacturers and oil companies influencing government in the U.S.A. (in the early days of cars becoming widespread) to encourage greater car use through specific urban planning and tax policies has also been written about in books and is worth further investigation.