IT sounds like the main case for uniting cities and suburbs by force is that the cities ran out of money, despite being richer, and so it’s the social duty of the suburbs to keep the party going.
That implies that you thought it through the first time. 
Why do we need districts? That’s just another wasteful and inefficient level of bureaucracy. Everything needs to be run from Washington DC - they know best (obviously).
Regards,
Shodan
What services and amenities are in the suburbs that are commonly of benefit to city dwellers? I’m really curious as to what you mean. Unless you just thought you’d reverse it without really thinking that through.
I’ve seen comments like this a few times and I really think it’s a distraction from the main point. I have observed suburbia up close mainly in the east side of Seattle, where my ex in-laws live. There, it has rapidly metastasised along I-70 over recent decades. When there was an old, established town in its path, it would preserve a few downtown buildings* for quaintness, as in Issaquah. Elsewhere, where previously there were just forests and wilderness, that was bulldozed to make way for subdivisions and shopping centers.
But even in Issaquah, the vast majority of the homes that were there previously were torn down and replaced with subdivisions. So this fact, that in some cases there was a town there before the sprawl reached it, is not germane except in the most excruciatingly technical sense. The people who lived there and voted for and formed local governments 30 years ago are by and large not in charge of any of that any more.
*ETA: Even then, the businesses that are found in those quaint old buildings are generally not the ones that would have been there before it became suburbia. And you can see a few grungy holdouts here and there, but they just look so besieged and you know there is only so long they will be able to keep up with the rising property taxes before they give in and sell out.
Yes, I am living my dream, which for the most part doesn’t include the city. I’m not sure if the OP was making the case for tax equality an efficiency of consolidated government or passing a value judgement on suburban style living, but the OP’s later posts and bringing in the editorial make me think both.
What pisses me off is that I can see why people might want to live in the city. I visited my friend’s loft a while ago an thought “this isn’t something I’d buy, but it’s cool if you like this style of living.” But when city people look at the suburbs, the reaction is one of the following:
- Poor you, you just have a McDonalds and a Walmart.
- Real estate developers have lied to you and made you think you want something you don’t. You don’t really want that house and yard and SUV, that’s just a line they’ve fed you.
- Even if you really do like that, it’s morally wrong to live like that.
[quote=“SlackerInc, post:124, topic:665395”]
What services and amenities are in the suburbs that are commonly of benefit to city dwellers? I’m really curious as to what you mean. Unless you just thought you’d reverse it without really thinking that through.
- Being able to buy a house in the suburbs keeps demand (and thus prices) of inner city housing down.
- In my area, to name a few: any number of regional parks, Canterbury Downs, Valleyfair,
Parks, shopping centers, stadiums, restaurants - same kinds of things as in the city. I would have thought that was obvious - if the suburbs didn’t offer anything, nobody would live there.
Regards,
Shodan
What precisely do you have in mind? If suburban residents are coming to the city for their employment, their employer is paying taxes to the city. As are the related service businesses, like restaurants. Some cities even impose commuter taxes on non-resident employee incomes.
As far as benefits to the cities from having people live in nearby suburbs, the biggest one may be that the cities can collect employment-related taxes but don’t have to build additional schools for the children of those employees.
But I mean amenities that citydwellers come out to the suburbs and use, not amenities that suburbanites use.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Parks, shopping centers, stadiums, restaurants - same kinds of things as in the city
[/QUOTE]
Which word didn’t you understand?
Regards,
Shodan
Let’s not forget airports. Most airports are out in the suburbs these days.
In the greater Boston area the majority of the workplaces are in the suburbs. All the major big box stores are in the suburbs. The football stadium is way out in the suburbs. We have massive parks outside the city, ski areas, restaurants, shopping districts, private schools, colleges, historic sites, music venues, festivals, beaches - all things that are in great demand by city dwellers. Some have analogs in the city but the variety and quality outside the city are equal or greater.
Sure, but those people are the ones who authorized it, and in most cases, encouraged it. Houses and developments don’t grow like mushrooms on a cow patty, they’re more like something that’s cultivated and encouraged.
In pretty much every case, the towns around here invited suburban development because it jacked their tax revenues way up, not because the sprawl forced them to approve it.
I thought I understood all of them and expected them to make sense as a syntactic unit. If the suburban amenities in question are the “same kinds of things as in the city”, why are these city dwellers going all the way to the suburbs to enjoy them? (There are certainly many amenities in the city which are not found in the suburbs.)
I find many people in this debate have very narrow definitions of what “forced” means. I’m guessing the same people would like to abolish many protections for workers and consumers under the logic that people are not “forced” to work someplace or to buy products.
Are there many places where the small town said no to the encroaching sprawl? Just said, “no: look elsewhere please”. How would that even work? Could they really stop the super wide freeways from going through, for instance? Is it a quiet Main Street USA anymore when thousands of cars are streaming past during rush hour to get to the subdivisions that were built further out because your town wouldn’t develop them?
Maybe where you live, but not around here. The taxpayer-funded amenities in the suburbs around here are only open to residents of the entity that funds them- county parks are open to county residents ,town libraries are only open to town residents, etc. Libraries in my city are open to anyone who works or lives in the state and public parks and beaches are open to anyone. Zoos and museums etc that receive city funding have a single admission price , not separate resident and non-resident prices.It wouldn’t bother me nearly as much if there was reciprocity, but there isn’t.
Apparently not.
For the same reasons suburbanites are going into the city for the city’s amenities. But for some reason you object to the one, but not the other.
There are no shops, restaurants, parks, stadiums, or theaters in the suburbs? That surprises me very much. I live in a suburb, and I could have sworn there were dozens of restaurants, two multi-plex theaters, a library, and many miles of nature trails where I walk the dog, all within five miles of my house. My wife and I are going to see a play this weekend at our local theater group. That’s not in the city either.
You seem to think that all the visiting goes only one way, from suburb to city, and that this is somehow to the detriment of the city. Do you have any basis for either belief?
Regards,
Shodan
I’d like to add that David Rusk is a socialist and is full of horse manure.
Cities without Suburbs, first published in 1993, has influenced analysis of America’s cities by city planners, scholars, and citizens alike. David Rusk, the former mayor of Albuquerque, argues that America must end the isolation of the central city from the suburbs if it is to solve its urban problems.
“Urban” problems aren’t the fault of the suburbs. They’re the responsibility of the decades of Big City government that helped create a Big City environment that many people did not want to live in. Big City problems aren’t going to go away by absorbing the people who left and the people who never wanted to lilve in Big City. People will just move farther from Big City.
Maybe Rusk thinks that giving Big City more money will magically make Big City government more financially astute or honest. Not likely. The same incompetent crooks will just have more money to pssst away.
Big City will just have to create an environment where employers will want to create products and hire employees to create those products. People will chose to work close to their place of employment. The Big City population will grow. The increased population will mean more tax dollars for Big City. And then Big City government will pssst away that money helping their political friends and their family members. Oh look, they’re back to square one. Who should Big City annex next?
There’s some idea that people have houses in the suburbs, where they sleep and get gas and send their kids to school. Then they go to The City to work, or when they want to see a movie, or a show, or the aquarium, or a museum.
But that’s simply silly. You think the people who live in Issaquah are headed into downtown Seattle to work? No, they’re going to Redmond, not Seattle. I commute to work from Vashon Island to Redmond, and the traffic on 520 or I-90 is just as heavy going east as it is west, both morning and evening commutes.
Have you looked at the Bellevue skyline in the last 20 years? There’s, like, really tall buildings there. Annexing Bellevue doesn’t make any more sense than annexing Tacoma or Everett.
But what problem, exactly, is a giant Puget Sound megalopolis supposed to solve? OK, it’s a fuzzy-boundaried metropolitan area. So what?
It would make more sense to saw off the eastern half of the state and call everything west of the mountains one state, and the state government would be responsible for issues that happen outside the city of Seattle. Except that’s practically what we have now, the population of Eastern Washington is pretty small compared to Western Washington. So the State government already fulfills the functions you think you want, with the added bonus of controlling the hinterlands east of the mountains.
This doesn’t make any sense what-so-ever. Do all of these places have bouncers checking IDs at the door like some of hot nightspot?
Actually, it sounds like you need my suburban money to keep your urban dream alive.
Well, you can’t have my tax dollars to fix your urban problems. I don’t use your Big City. I don’t need your Big City. I don’t want your Big City.
I suggest that you elect a better city government that knows how to attract employers. Taxpaying employees will follow the job opportunities.
Good Luck.