No More Freeways PDX

[kalvado]

I feel like population should be much more evenly spread out, instead of having huge cities with absolute wilderness past the edge of their suburbs.

You need to leave room for arable land.

US is 2.4 billion acres. You need about 1 acre of arable to feed one person.
Of course, not all of that land is usable for agriculture - but 1 acre lot is HUGE for the home. We have 1.2 acre - and I walked to back property line.. once upon a time, just to make sure that place exists.
NYC is about 40 people per acre, PDX is 16.. going lower - 0.25 acre per person is 10 times lower than NYC and 3x Portland, still a small fraction of required agriculture area

A couple issues...1) not all 2.4 billion acres are arable, and 2) not all 2.4 billion acres are appropriate for home building. I have no idea what any other numbers might be, but when you consider the fact that you can't just chop down all trees and build homes on the land, plus the lack of utilities in rural areas, the amount of land appropriate for home-building *outside of metro areas* drops off dramatically.

Further, there are many people (myself, for example) who would much rather live in a dense area where walking was easier than driving. I would reckon that about 30-50% of the people in this country have the same preference (and that number is growing, judging by how many people now live in cities versus unincorporated areas). As long as this desire exists, dense cities will always exist. I have no interest in living 70 miles from work, because the government put a cap on density (something 1 would seem to like). I would like to live as close as I can.

And let's be honest here. A 40-storey skyscraper is a lot more environmentally friendly than sprawling suburbs. Less materials and less land-take.

Well, numbers are the easy part:
US agricultural land: 44.5% of area, of those: arable land 16.8%; permanent crops 0.3%; permanent pasture 27.4%
forest: 33.3%, other: 22.2% (2011 est.)
At 4 people per acre we're talking about 3% of land - noticeable, but hardly a showstopper.
People who don't want to live across the continent from work are a simple fact of life, no question here.
Question is more about why cities congregate, and if there is a logical limit to that - or 100 years from now 90% of US will live within 100 miles from statue of liberty. More city center office jobs, less production jobs are probably the biggest factor regardless of people desires.  And at some point density plays a dirty trick with commute - NYC commutes are longest in US. Hard to imagine 40 minutes trip in 100K area, city is plainly not big enough for that.

And lets face it - steel and concrete skyscraper probably takes 10x environmental resources compared to rural home with  wooden frame and drywall.

[kkt]

Steel and concrete buildings take more to build (don't know about 10x), but last a lot longer too.

[jakeroot]

And lets face it - steel and concrete skyscraper probably takes 10x environmental resources compared to rural home with  wooden frame and drywall.

A skyscraper with 40 stories, assuming 10 apartments per floor, comes to 400 apartments. 400 single-family homes requires a significant amount of resources. And then you have the decay factor, as mentioned by kkt. There's also the roads and public utilities required to connect those 400 homes to the rest of civilisation. Skyscrapers are usually built where roads already exist. Utilities need to be upgraded, but it's cheaper than laying brand new utilities.

[jakeroot]

And at some point density plays a dirty trick with commute - NYC commutes are longest in US. Hard to imagine 40 minutes trip in 100K area, city is plainly not big enough for that.

Let's go ahead and take the population of New York City, and plop them down in a suburban setting connected by freeways, like Los Angeles or Houston. Then we'll talk commute times.

[kalvado]

And at some point density plays a dirty trick with commute - NYC commutes are longest in US. Hard to imagine 40 minutes trip in 100K area, city is plainly not big enough for that.

Let's go ahead and take the population of New York City, and plop them down in a suburban setting connected by freeways, like Los Angeles or Houston. Then we'll talk commute times.

Unlike NYC, nether LA nor Houston make top 10 worst commute lists.
Here are 2 examples - they don't quite overlap, but NYC is consistently among worst:
http://fortune.com/2016/03/03/us-cities-average-commute-time/
http://wgntv.com/2017/11/01/these-are-the-10-worst-commutes-in-the-u-s-did-your-city-make-the-list/

[sparker]

I feel like population should be much more evenly spread out, instead of having huge cities with absolute wilderness past the edge of their suburbs.

You need to leave room for arable land.

US is 2.4 billion acres. You need about 1 acre of arable to feed one person.
Of course, not all of that land is usable for agriculture - but 1 acre lot is HUGE for the home. We have 1.2 acre - and I walked to back property line.. once upon a time, just to make sure that place exists.
NYC is about 40 people per acre, PDX is 16.. going lower - 0.25 acre per person is 10 times lower than NYC and 3x Portland, still a small fraction of required agriculture area

A couple issues...1) not all 2.4 billion acres are arable, and 2) not all 2.4 billion acres are appropriate for home building. I have no idea what any other numbers might be, but when you consider the fact that you can't just chop down all trees and build homes on the land, plus the lack of utilities in rural areas, the amount of land appropriate for home-building *outside of metro areas* drops off dramatically.

Further, there are many people (myself, for example) who would much rather live in a dense area where walking was easier than driving. I would reckon that about 30-50% of the people in this country have the same preference (and that number is growing, judging by how many people now live in cities versus unincorporated areas). As long as this desire exists, dense cities will always exist. I have no interest in living 70 miles from work, because the government put a cap on density (something 1 would seem to like). I would like to live as close as I can.

And let's be honest here. A 40-storey skyscraper is a lot more environmentally friendly than sprawling suburbs. Less materials and less land-take.

Many -- but certainly not all.  What seems to drive the choice to live in high-rise or other highly dense circumstances is (a) proximity to employment, (b) relative cost of such living choices vis-à-vis alternatives in outlying and likely less dense circumstances, (c) relatively early-life circumstances where one hasn't yet acquired a sizeable level of material possessions -- and can fit what one does have into a living space of mid-3-figures of square footage (conversely, late-in-life circumstances where both logistic and fiscal constraints dictate downsizing might mirror this as well), and (d) self-selection into such circumstances in order to be in proximity with others who share either broad social outlooks or recreational interests.  A change in one or two of those factors (the desire to start a family, job promotions that require expanding one's possession portfolio: clothing storage, space to entertain, etc.) can and often does (at least in these parts!) serve as a catalyst for satisfying those new requirements by seeking out larger quarters amenable to such activities.  Unfortunately, that's where urban economics come into play -- often such expansion is hardly affordable in the "ring" areas surrounding the densest spots, so venturing far afield becomes the norm -- in this area, that means shuffling off to Brentwood, Tracy, or other areas where $500K gets you 2000+sf -- enough to accommodate expanding needs.  Of course, one could always elect to remain childless, unattached, or otherwise adherent to a previously bounded rationality -- but expecting a large portion of a population to do so (or choose to raise kids in a relatively confined space) would not be a safe bet.  Although the concept of lessening one's "footprint" might be admirable in the abstract, real life tends to interfere with such a course in more instances than not -- adherence to a priori ideals and pursuits tends to dissipate as the progression of life unfolds.  Dense living may, for many, just be a "stopover" on the way to something else.

[kalvado]

Steel and concrete buildings take more to build (don't know about 10x), but last a lot longer too.

Hard to tell. Wood and drywall lasts 50 years quite often. Most concrete structures today are designed for 100 years - and, looking at bridges, many start falling apart before that. 

And lets face it - steel and concrete skyscraper probably takes 10x environmental resources compared to rural home with  wooden frame and drywall.

A skyscraper with 40 stories, assuming 10 apartments per floor, comes to 400 apartments. 400 single-family homes requires a significant amount of resources. And then you have the decay factor, as mentioned by kkt. There's also the roads and public utilities required to connect those 400 homes to the rest of civilisation. Skyscrapers are usually built where roads already exist. Utilities need to be upgraded, but it's cheaper than laying brand new utilities.

Meaningless math. Resource per capita is what matters. Skyscraper would have about same length of wall per room - but it is going to be much stronger wall..
As  for utilities.. Greenfield development is known to be cheaper than brownfield. And when I think about rebuilt of Manhattan infrastructure - when pipes start breaking and subway tunnels collapsing - it really seems abandoning the area is going to be the only option.
If you will, 1 mile of subway costs as 10-15 miles of light rail and 100 miles of highway. Lets face it, surface road is cheaper than city center infrastructure even if there are more miles.

[Bruce]

*cough* Skyscrapers don't have to be all steel *cough*

Portland is building a 12-story wood-framed tower, the first of its kind in the USA. It could open up a huge market, especially in the Northwest where sustainable wood is able to be harvested for such purposes.

There's plenty of reasons that show suburban development is a really bad idea, especially in the 21st century: the urban heat island effect, which forces more people to use air conditioning; the loss of natural water features, which worsens flooding and pushes stormwater pollution into the ocean; making the production of agricultural products more expensive, since they have to compete with developers for land; and urban geometry, which means more cars can't physically fit in the same amount of space (unless we start demolishing buildings).

[jakeroot]

And at some point density plays a dirty trick with commute - NYC commutes are longest in US. Hard to imagine 40 minutes trip in 100K area, city is plainly not big enough for that.

Let's go ahead and take the population of New York City, and plop them down in a suburban setting connected by freeways, like Los Angeles or Houston. Then we'll talk commute times.

Unlike NYC, nether LA nor Houston make top 10 worst commute lists.
Here are 2 examples - they don't quite overlap, but NYC is consistently among worst:
http://fortune.com/2016/03/03/us-cities-average-commute-time/
http://wgntv.com/2017/11/01/these-are-the-10-worst-commutes-in-the-u-s-did-your-city-make-the-list/

Much to my surprise, the LA metro area actually has a higher population density than the New York City metro area. I suspect the average commute in LA or Houston is lower because there are some days where you can get to work quickly, and some where it takes a while. But in New York City, where something like 50% of the population rides the subway to get to work, your commute time is limited by the speed of the trains, the amount of time it takes to make a connection, etc.

I think a more important metric than commute times is how well a city can accomodate new residents. I suspect LA and Houston will eventually crack the top ten, and at some point overtake NYC. New York's growth pattern allows it to accomodate a lot of people without cars. LA and Houston are less impressive in this regard. Both largely require to own a car to get anywhere. I don't have any reason to believe New York's commute time would improve, but I expect LA and Houston's to increase at a faster rate.

[sparker]

*cough* Skyscrapers don't have to be all steel *cough*

Indeed.  Carbon fiber can readily be extracted from all that coal that won't be burned; structurally, it's strong as steel -- and without all that nasty RF interference, oxidation, etc.  One of the more appropriate materials for constructing large structures.  And it can be bonded together to function as a single unit per building -- considerably more earthquake-resistant than most other building methods.  And the raw material is readily available....what more could you ask of a building block? 

[kalvado]

*cough* Skyscrapers don't have to be all steel *cough*

Portland is building a 12-story wood-framed tower, the first of its kind in the USA. It could open up a huge market, especially in the Northwest where sustainable wood is able to be harvested for such purposes.

There's plenty of reasons that show suburban development is a really bad idea, especially in the 21st century: the urban heat island effect, which forces more people to use air conditioning; the loss of natural water features, which worsens flooding and pushes stormwater pollution into the ocean; making the production of agricultural products more expensive, since they have to compete with developers for land; and urban geometry, which means more cars can't physically fit in the same amount of space (unless we start demolishing buildings).

Yes, wooden skyscraper is the way to go!
I know someone who finished their basement - so they live in a 3-floor skyscraper today!

[kalvado]

*cough* Skyscrapers don't have to be all steel *cough*

Indeed.  Carbon fiber can readily be extracted from all that coal that won't be burned;

What??

[kalvado]

There's plenty of reasons that show suburban development is a really bad idea, especially in the 21st century: the urban heat island effect, which forces more people to use air conditioning; the loss of natural water features, which worsens flooding and pushes stormwater pollution into the ocean; making the production of agricultural products more expensive, since they have to compete with developers for land; and urban geometry, which means more cars can't physically fit in the same amount of space (unless we start demolishing buildings).

Was that meant to be "urban development is a bad idea"?
Heat island is a dense urban feature - you may confuse that with corn sweat, which is a completely different story. And pushing development into flood plane is definitely a feature of density and land value.

[silverback1065]

And at some point density plays a dirty trick with commute - NYC commutes are longest in US. Hard to imagine 40 minutes trip in 100K area, city is plainly not big enough for that.

Let's go ahead and take the population of New York City, and plop them down in a suburban setting connected by freeways, like Los Angeles or Houston. Then we'll talk commute times.

Unlike NYC, nether LA nor Houston make top 10 worst commute lists.
Here are 2 examples - they don't quite overlap, but NYC is consistently among worst:
http://fortune.com/2016/03/03/us-cities-average-commute-time/
http://wgntv.com/2017/11/01/these-are-the-10-worst-commutes-in-the-u-s-did-your-city-make-the-list/

I must say in my opinion, after visiting LA this year for the first time, that city is a mess.  It sprawls out for miles in each direction, the highways are a clusterfuck, and even if they built all the highways that were proposed, it wouldn't be any different.  I think LA is the most poorly designed city I've ever been to.  Denver and SF are among the best.  I've yet to go to NYC yet, hope to change that next year though!

[cpzilliacus]

*cough* Skyscrapers don't have to be all steel *cough*

Portland is building a 12-story wood-framed tower, the first of its kind in the USA. It could open up a huge market, especially in the Northwest where sustainable wood is able to be harvested for such purposes.

Wonder how well that building will do when the Cascadia Subduction Zone fault ruptures again (and the resulting earthquake could be a 9.2 or better).

There's plenty of reasons that show suburban development is a really bad idea, especially in the 21st century: the urban heat island effect, which forces more people to use air conditioning; the loss of natural water features, which worsens flooding and pushes stormwater pollution into the ocean; making the production of agricultural products more expensive, since they have to compete with developers for land; and urban geometry, which means more cars can't physically fit in the same amount of space (unless we start demolishing buildings).

In many  places south  of the Mason-Dixon Line, air conditioning is considered a requirement. 

The heat island effect seems to be at its worst in the middle of dense urban areas.  Imagine that!

The United States has plenty of land for agricultural  production, even  if some of that land is lost to suburban sprawl.

[jakeroot]

The United States has plenty of land for agricultural  production, even  if some of that land is lost to suburban sprawl.

We really should be thinking years ahead of where we are. How big will Houston, Dallas, Chicago, etc be in a thousand years, if things keep sprawling? Even if traffic is great, who wants to drive 3 hours to work?

Myself, and other urbanists, would simply prefer that we built up more often than we build out.

[hotdogPi]

Even if traffic is great, who wants to drive 3 hours to work?

Why can't most people work in the suburbs?

[compdude787]

And at some point density plays a dirty trick with commute - NYC commutes are longest in US. Hard to imagine 40 minutes trip in 100K area, city is plainly not big enough for that.

Let's go ahead and take the population of New York City, and plop them down in a suburban setting connected by freeways, like Los Angeles or Houston. Then we'll talk commute times.

Unlike NYC, nether LA nor Houston make top 10 worst commute lists.
Here are 2 examples - they don't quite overlap, but NYC is consistently among worst:
http://fortune.com/2016/03/03/us-cities-average-commute-time/
http://wgntv.com/2017/11/01/these-are-the-10-worst-commutes-in-the-u-s-did-your-city-make-the-list/

Much to my surprise, the LA metro area actually has a higher population density than the New York City metro area.

Hm. That might be why LA has the worst traffic. It seems to be quite common sense that higher density means higher traffic.

[compdude787]

Even if traffic is great, who wants to drive 3 hours to work?

Why can't most people work in the suburbs?

That is increasingly becoming the case. Less and less jobs are located in downtown areas these days.

[hotdogPi]

I live in the Northeast. As long as I don't go far enough north into New Hampshire, there are cities of all sizes between 10k and 100k, and very few far outside this range. (The obvious exception is Boston.) Most people work in one of these cities/towns, compared to the alternative which doesn't happen, which is almost everyone working in Boston.

Also, there are no areas without any people, unless they are water (obviously) or protected areas.

[jakeroot]

Businesses are often located downtown because it's a central location for all employees. If a Seattle-based company suddenly up-and-moved to Tacoma, you'd have quite a few irate employees who previously lived in Everett, Bothell, etc. So to prevent employees from having to drive an extra hour, or even move, companies set up shop in the middle of the metro (usually downtown), so employees have the maximum amount of area to search for a home.

Small businesses, such as those based in small towns, usually only employ a handful of people. Those are not the type of companies that would ever relocate to downtown.

[sparker]

*cough* Skyscrapers don't have to be all steel *cough*

Indeed.  Carbon fiber can readily be extracted from all that coal that won't be burned;

What??

Coal is about 97% pure carbon and 3% trace materials (depending upon density; anthracite from PA and upstate NY is the densest and most carbon-heavy of the lot); it's one of the prime sources for structural carbon fiber.  One of the businesses I'm involved with is loudspeaker manufacturing; one of my main suppliers, based in Minneapolis, has been using carbon fiber for both speaker cone material and for the "baskets" , or structural frames of the units -- and they get their sheets and billets from a supplier near Harrisburg, PA -- which uses granulated coal as their raw material from which to form carbon fibers.  The finished product exhibits exceptional rigidity when machined from billets or vacuum-formed from sheeting (I'm working on a new product with multiple smaller CF units for low frequencies).  And, as it turns out, the costs are not out of line with that of other materials.  Carbon fiber has been utilized elsewhere within the audio industry in places where both rigidity and freedom from spurious resonance is vital (which means in almost any mechanical device like tonearms, turntable plinths, CD drives, etc.).  The stuff is pretty amazing -- and finding more and more uses in various fields that need such structural characteristics.  Right now it is a bit more costly than standard molded resins and other structural methods (maybe by a factor of 10-15%, which tends to worry corporate bean-counters) -- but compared to what the difference was 10-15 years ago, that difference is miniscule -- and will probably diminish to the point of being marginal within a few years.     

[kalvado]

supplier near Harrisburg, PA -- which uses granulated coal as their raw material from which to form carbon fibers. 

And this is an extremely strange statement. In my world, carbon fibers are produced by controlled oxidation of polymers, and I don't see any way to use coal - other than through coke processing and  using tar as raw material for polymer synthesys. That may be the case, but that is a long technological chain. Saying coal is used for fibers is like saying rust and clay are used to make cars. Which is true, and probably involves a shorter chain of technological transformations

[kalvado]

Businesses are often located downtown because it's a central location for all employees. If a Seattle-based company suddenly up-and-moved to Tacoma, you'd have quite a few irate employees who previously lived in Everett, Bothell, etc. So to prevent employees from having to drive an extra hour, or even move, companies set up shop in the middle of the metro (usually downtown), so employees have the maximum amount of area to search for a home.

Small businesses, such as those based in small towns, usually only employ a handful of people. Those are not the type of companies that would ever relocate to downtown.

That may be true for finance and similar business; it is not uncommon to start manufacturing at the outskirt of a city - and find it in the city center 50 years later. Mocving is difficult, yes - but starting in the center is often too costly to begin with

[kalvado]

The United States has plenty of land for agricultural  production, even  if some of that land is lost to suburban sprawl.

We really should be thinking years ahead of where we are. How big will Houston, Dallas, Chicago, etc be in a thousand years, if things keep sprawling? Even if traffic is great, who wants to drive 3 hours to work?

Myself, and other urbanists, would simply prefer that we built up more often than we build out.

And a serious question - is it a bad idea to build elsewhere? Do yopu prefer a 1M area to grow in 10M area, or into five 2M areas?
There are some reasons to cluster, but how many of those reasons are essential, and if 1 mile vertical commute is actually better than 1 mile horizontal commute in a different city?