This is interesting and is a generalization of course

The issue comes though in the tech sector. Most of the tech jobs are not in the city, but in what is referred to as the suburbs where the City is a suburb of a larger city in the same county.

Take for example Seattle.
Amazons largest Growth is Bellevue (a suburb of Seattle), Google is located in Kirkland (also a Suburb of Seattle).
Microsoft is based out of Redmond (again a suburb of Seattle).

If you build everything central then areas like this would need to build 4 centralized cities which would be quite difficult.

Due to this there are build outs at the core. Eg Bellevue has a large concentrated downtown with little suburbs around it.
Kirkland has not built out so much but is working on it, and Redmond is really building out its core even though the workplace is a ways away.

While I agree with many of these points (as i do live in a suburb in the hills where the nearest service of any kind (grocery, gas, etc) is 1-2 miles away down about 500-600 feet in altitude.
That is of course inefficient in its own right but the only way to reliably have such a large family (family of 8) housed as apartments/central development does not support a family of our size in general.

“Walkability” though has its major downside as well. Everyone is crammed in ever shrinking smaller spaces. There are severe limits on trying to build a home business and other aspects that make it difficult.

While “Strong city” is a great concept it is a huge shift that is hard to do in a country already sprawled, and with Downtowns starting to collapse (Downtown Seattle is a mess right now) it makes it even harder. Many were actually moving into the core of the city, but are now fleeing due to these issues. It is hard to compare Europe as an example because of how different they are (most of the time was due to space limitations to begin with).

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.