[cyberax]

> Tokyo metro is like, 30+ million people.

Yes, and this exactly is the problem. WHY is it a city of 30 million when the country's population is shrinking?

> That's because the demand for rail transit is so high that people will pay a premium to live next to it. When you say people really want to live in the suburbs, well, the market disagrees and that is reflected in housing prices.

No. There is NO demand for transit from people living in the city. None. The demand is from _companies_ that force people to work in/near dense city cores.

> Ok so you've found a city of a little under 40k that is opposed to growth? How so?

Moving goalposts?

> You're just cherry-picking random things to argue about. First it's Seattle, then it's NYC, who knows what city you'll pick next to create an arbitrary data point.

I'm sorry. I can't argue with you in good faith. You have zero understanding of the problem, and when confronted with facts or examples, you slink away from them. Because they are not to your liking.

For what city do you want me to give you the data? I can assure you that I'm not cherry-picking, and that NYC is actually one of the better-run transits.

> Well they do, otherwise they wouldn't be moving there. > If most people preferred to live in suburbs they wouldn't be moving to urban areas.

Spoken like a true privileged dude. Have you ever heard of doing what you hate because you _have_ to? That's exactly what is happening with cities.

> There is only one truly dense city in America and that's NYC and I guess you could argue Chicago. Other cities have some parts that are kind of dense, but even those are very car-centric (DC, Boston, for example).

The problem is that cities are getting _more_ dense. Not the absolute density.

[Timon3]

> No. There is NO demand for transit from people living in the city. None. The demand is from _companies_ that force people to work in/near dense city cores.

Am I missing an obvious joke here? Because I've lived in multiple cities with great public transit, and this quote couldn't be further from the truth - the people love their public transit options, and they keep voting to build it out further.

[ericmay]

The cost of housing further backs this claim. The market is usually right - and amenities like a tram or great public transit lead to higher prices particularly near the stops or in a certain proximity. With extra travelers you get shops and small business that spring up that corporations like Starbucks can't as readily compete against. That further drives interest and development and you create a positive economic feedback loop.

[ericmay]

> Yes, and this exactly is the problem. WHY is it a city of 30 million when the country's population is shrinking?

Because there are better opportunities and amenities in the city? I don't know. Can you elaborate on what your larger point is here? I still don't understand why Tokyo is relevant to this conversation, but happy to chat about it if you can help me better understand the point you are trying to make.

> No. There is NO demand for transit from people living in the city. None. The demand is from _companies_ that force people to work in/near dense city cores.

Or maybe companies are locating to where people want to live? I.e. California or San Francisco specifically.

> Moving goalposts?

You just named a random city, the least you can do is grab an article where an elected official is talking about how they're against growth or urban infill or something.

Then we can talk about why this is a bad example.

> I'm sorry. I can't argue with you in good faith. You have zero understanding of the problem, and when confronted with facts or examples, you slink away from them. Because they are not to your liking.

Or maybe you aren't doing a good enough job explaining the problem. What does filling some crappy surface parking lots and putting a tram through Downtown Columbus, Ohio (for example) have to do with Tokyo or New York City?

> For what city do you want me to give you the data? I can assure you that I'm not cherry-picking, and that NYC is actually one of the better-run transits.

Columbus, Ohio. Let's talk about that since you have the data and I live here and can confirm your data.

> Spoken like a true privileged dude.

Damn right, and I'm not apologizing for it. :)

> Have you ever heard of doing what you hate because you _have_ to? That's exactly what is happening with cities.

I've heard of it. I would categorize commuting as "doing what you hate".

> The problem is that cities are getting _more_ dense. Not the absolute density.

Doesn't seem to be a problem. The increase in density increases tax revenue, allows folks to live closer to where they work, enables entrepreneurs to start new businesses because they have a larger serviceable population, and more. And that can all happen while I still have a 2.5 car garage, car, and single family home.

If you want to talk about density in American cities, I'd suggest not talking about Tokyo or New York City, because those are extreme outliers and no American city is going to look like that anytime soon.