From: CurtAdams@aol.com
Date: Sun Sep 10 2000 - 11:21:35 MDT
In a message dated 9/10/00 10:09:25 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
emlyn@one.net.au writes:
> I guess so. But then, the workers have to put up with crappy conditions
> (commuting, parking, or expensive living). I guess it's desirable; a city
> gives you lots of job opportunity in a confined area. In turn, a city gives
> you lots of potential employees in a confined area.
These kinds of things are relevant. A couple years ago, a few of the Silicon
Valley firms tried to move out of the very hottest areas into relatively
outlying
areas (still part of the same contiguous metropolitan area). They couldn't
get
enough of the best engineers because the best people were in the Palo Alto
-area core and so they had to move back after a few years.
> Funny thing is, if you spread it all out a bit, commutes would probably
take
> just as long in the worst cases (longer distances, but faster travel
because
> of emptier roads, so less agravation), no parking hassles (and costs),
> cheaper housing near work (which cancels out the commute quite often). I
> just can't really grasp the sense of the mega high density city as a place
> to put a knowledge-based business. But then, I haven't worked in the city
> for a long time now; can't remember what those elusive benefits are.
In America, it's not the megadensity cities like Manhattan which are winning
but high density suburbs. I think the dominant factor is that in a
high-density
suburb you get the most people in a convenient travel time. It's not an
advantage
during rush hour, but most of the time the roads are basically open. The
concentration of people allows a remarkable degree of specialization, so
you can do and find more in your life - personal or professional. (I.e. you
maximize the number of companies you can sneak off to an interview with
or the specialization of your social clubs.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:30:53 MST