Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm all in favor of what happens when technology comes along and takes apart old things and makes them all efficient and shiny and newfangled. But I really don't think cities will cripple the reasons why cities are cities. The opposite is true.
|
As we're in agreement on the first and last points, I'll deal with the middle one. Why do you see cities remaining necessary hubs when offices are based at home?
Ports? That's a big reason a lot of cities will always remain, on some level, population hubs. Lots of industry around that.
Factories? Not many of those in cities anymore.
Office towers? With higher energy costs, higher taxes, and lack of need, who needs those?
Stadiums? Halls? Museums? Okay. Those will always be draws for cities.
Housing? Taxes are going to skyrocket. The burbs can always kill the cities in that area.
Education? To stay in most cities, you have to send the kids to super-expensive private schools. I see this as a prime reason for suburban growth.
Cities have draws, no doubt, but I don't see any way the majority of them create adequate economic activity to remain anything but hollowed out shadows of what they once were. They grew up largely around blue collar manufacturing jobs, professional services, and retail business that grew around them. Blue collar jobs are disappearing, retail's shrinking radically, and professional services can be done from elsewhere, at a fraction of the tax burden. I wouldn't buy in one other than the exceptions I mentioned.
