Yes, this is just the beginning of the end. I would even say this is the beginning of the end for cities as we know them. I think 80-90% of all white collar jobs will leave cities and suburbia. This will really change the dynamics.
Alternate POV: this could save cities as we know them. All top American cities have been struggling for about 20 years now to handle urban growth, as cost of living goes through the roof and small businesses disappear when their renewed lease comes at twice the rent. As always, the survivors are those who can afford the change: homeowners and the wealthy on the residential side (keep in mind cities like Boston are majority renter), and large corporate renters on the business side (think Starbucks instead of Local Coffee Co)
Pre-war growth patterns (ie, densification and transit) have been generally outlawed, and big companies seem to have endless pockets to raise salaries to attract more highly paid workers to compete on rent; so there’s been no counterbalance on this trend. Until remote work.
Right now cities are still expensive, but the next few years as we transition out of the pandemic will determine whether remote work is here to stay; if so, you will likely see another suburban migration of ‘former reluctant office workers’ (we already had one wave at the start of the pandemic), and city real estate might finally cool off for the first time in decades
Suburbia is Subsidized: Here's the Math -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI
Essentially urban sprawl/suburbia/single family homes cost more for the city (road upkeep, water/gas pipes, etc.) than what they contribute in taxes, so many cities are in a positive feedback loop of building more houses to get quick money to do maintenance on the previous rounds of growth.
Same with highway/Interstate maintenance. Raise the Federal gas tax (which hasn't tracked inflation for ages).
But modern cities have had two phases: first industrial growth, and more recently white collar/information worker city cores. Industry will still exist, but has already moved further out from city centers and cores. Currently, the life blood of large cities is closely tied up with the mega corps having their ego towers there and thus attracting innumerable highly paid workers which then spend their money in those city cores. With that going away and/or substantially changing, cities will change drastically too.
Chicago does this well. From my front door I have the follow options:
* The El (train, local stops)
* Metra (train, commuter that gets out to the burbs)
* Bus
* Taxi
* Divvy (e-bike rentals)
* Personal bike
* Walking
As a resident, is the danger true?
Chicago is no different than any other large city in that being aware of your surroundings and not doing dumb things is expected.
One of the reasons I never consider living in the midwest again (Toledo) is because my bike was stolen so many times as a kid. Crime doesn't make for nice living.
This is actually a super interesting subject I haven't considered. What is the tenability of cities without fossil fuels? I think we do know, it's really the cities that collapse.
Farmers might emit lots of CO2 and carbon taxes directly attack them, but ultimately they cant go anywhere. The cities need to eat. So those carbon taxes don't harm them at all.
How does public transit work? Generally speaking they are all diesel. Do we have a plan to spend a trillion $ converting this all to electric?
What's even the point of giant office buildings anymore? Downtown cores are dying if not dead as it is. When people stay home, the sharwarma spot downtown wont be able to afford to stay.
It's obvious what will eventually happen. These office buildings convert to high density residential. However, what happens after that?
If I am 100% remote, why even be in the expensive high tax city? I could go buy 10 acres and pay $100/year in nonsense taxes. Do my own utilities. never again worry about nuclear war because nobody will be nuking rural areas.
I really dont think we have quite thought out the consequences of our actions.
I walk everywhere. It's suburbs that collapse without fossil fuels.
> How does public transit work? Generally speaking they are all diesel. Do we have a plan to spend a trillion $ converting this all to electric?
Our subways have always been electric. Our street cars are electric, and have been for a century, before that they were horse driven. All new buses are electric.
> What's even the point of giant office buildings anymore? Downtown cores are dying if not dead as it is.
This is probably true.
> I really dont think we have quite thought out the consequences of our actions.
The consequences of NOT following these actions will horrific.
I think shooting from the hip the suburbs hurt without fossil fuels for a short time. However, who are the people buying teslas it's rich folks in the suburbs. Who in 10 years will be driving the gasoline toyota econobox. It's the poor in the cities.
>Our subways have always been electric.
That doesnt cover everything. Not all cities have a subway. Not all subways are electric, the danger of frying people made a number of subways diesel. My understanding is that much of NYC subway is still diesel for various reasons.
> Our street cars are electric, and have been for a century, before that they were horse driven. All new buses are electric.
I'm not sure I follow. This is certainly not true in the general sense. Perhaps true where you are? Where are you?
>The consequences of NOT following these actions will horrific.
That's the big debate there. Climate change isn't even important to the discussion.
If we fast forward ~75 years. We know without question that we are going to run out of fossil fuels. If we do nothing to switch now, it's a certain collapse of society.
Clearly we must do something. The sooner we begin, the less painful it is in the long run.
However, we cannot ignore the consequences. We must address these issues.
NYC subway still uses cloth bathed in oil to insulate some electrical circuits.
I'm disputing YOUR generalization, that [all] cities are doomed, not creating a new generalization that they are all fine.
True but cities required domestication of the horse. There were literally horse shit all over the roads and the occasional dead horse that was abandoned.
The answer isn't subways or monorails neither.
The answer may be robotaxis. I am very optimistic that this could solve a large degree of the issues.
Cars are very useful to go wherever you want, but are literally the worst for volume.
Similarly to how trucks are necessary to move stuff around but they cannot replace train freight/air planes/container ships.
dont take me as attacking nyc and/or their subway. I'm certain at some grand time in the future all cities have a subway with rapid transport.
> The answer may be robotaxis. I am very optimistic that this could solve a large degree of the issues.
What I was trying to say is that cars (autonomous or not) are to mass transportation what copper wire is to the internet: better to keep the bulk of it out of it.
Also car infrastructure is extremely expensive, both in and of itself and as a collateral, parking lot requirements have a huge maintenance and spatial cost.
I also wouldn’t say cities are particularly less capable of electrification than anywhere else. Bus systems can be electric. Subway systems are already electric. There are some diesel train systems that would be expensive to electrify (eg Boston regional commuter rail), but even this isn’t impossible (frankly it should have been done years ago, and a study in the 2010s had recommended it because it gives other benefits like improving reliability and reducing maintenance)
As you’ve noted, there’s a big question mark on how cities will adapt central business districts around a non-office world. It’s also worth noting cities have handled such a transition before: during the industrial revolution, cities were full of factories, and over time these shuttered and were replaced or turned into housing.
Not everyone wants 10 acres or cares about the threat of nuclear war. Cities will be for those people.
Down on my imaginary future ranch, I have a 10kw solar array charging my cybertruck and it drives me to the concerts, friends/family, and all that for free.
Children playing at the park? Is that even a thing anymore? Xbox/PS# seems to be replacing that entirely. We could discuss if this is a good thing or not but that same cybertruck can self-drive the kids to wherever they are meeting up.
>Another big problem is rural broadband. I know the countryside is nice, I may well retire there, but it's not where I am now and it's only a very small number of people who like the isolation.
That's what just broke. Why suddenly this became a thing. Starlink or 5g with long range 5ghz wireless backhaul. Rural suddenly has good relatively reliable fast internet access.
Have you been to a park in a child-raising area lately? They are absolutely packed all the time with kids. Sure, you don't see them downtown, but you head out to the suburbs and you absolutely do.
Oh for sure. If the kid is not quite old enough for the xbox/ps# age. They are totally out at the park. You never see kids out above whatever that age is.
I did see some older kids out tobaganning this winter. maybe in the age 8 range, which is unusually old compared to the playground soccer field age kids.
My comment stands for sure.
wouldn't that be the opposite? Where I live right now, the nearest grocery store is in the next town over and there is zero public infrastructure to get there. There is no uber or taxi or bus. You just don't live here without a car, period.