We don’t realize it, but the shape of our cities—from how big they are to what services they have—is mainly driven by one thing: transport technologies.
Old cities built their downtown over the centuries. Since ppl walked, everything evolved to be in walking distances, and humans have evolved to love that.
Most of America has grown in the 20th century, most of it after the car, and American urban designers decided to optimize for it instead of human design—a decision that made sense at the time, because ppl didn’t realize what they had inherited for free in older cities.
So Americans crave a walkable city center they don’t have, and the mall is just a very functional and artificial replacement for it.
The next 3 installments don’t quite answer the question you ask, but the articles after that should (those are the ones I’ve drafted already but haven’t written).
Well, I did check Madrid and Vegas. Both are sufficiently far off the city center to not bother people much.
You're right about LAX, though I'd wager that despite equally-widespread air conditioning the property values below the airplanes are lower than elsewhere in the city, thus "solving" the "low-income people need housing in the city too" problem.
In the case of LA, it helps that there isn’t a real center. Yes, there is a downtown LA, but, for instance, the most powerful financial companies in LA aren’t located there.
This is fascinating. I'm curious if you have thoughts specifically on how 'advanced air mobility' / eVTOLS / air taxis will extend / evolve the relationship between transportation and cities.
I do! I visited Kitty Hawk (the company) last year. I have an article pending on it.
In the meantime, the short is that it will still take some time for VTOLs to be everywhere, because
(1) our tolerance of failure is much lower for flying things than driving things (flying things have a bad tendency of catastrophic accidents if they break down)
(2) they're very noisy in takeoff and landing, and neighbors don't want this
So realistically I think we're still a few years / decades away from these to have an impact (vs remote work and rockets, which are here).
But what will be the impact once they're around? I still need to think about it. 2 ideas so far:
- Sound issues could be solved in high-rises (leave from the top), and are more beneficial there (traffic below), so they might start there
- However, they're probably even more useful in remote rural areas or suburbs. They could make commutes faster, which would further extend cities.
(1) Absolutely. Consumer / customer perception and sentiment will be a bigger factor in adoption than other new mobility typologies.
(2) From what I've read, many companies are solving for this and aiming for operating under 50 decibels. Joby and Archer specifically are getting close. And I agree infrastructure will be a part of the solution.
I also agree that we'll see rural and suburban adoption faster than urban adoption. I also think ambulatory use cases will give the air taxi use case a run for its money.
Looking forward to hearing more of your thoughts on this.
I think the oil, auto, and rubber industrialist had a hand in the demise of public transportation The defense establishment in building the interstate highway system
The monoculture rise in agriculture all result in some loss of self sufficiency or autonomy in the goal of maximizing production Hours on the freeway vs the 30 minute rule Eventual you find working from home via internet more satisfying maybe using extra time to garden
Politics with some choice as to winners can always play a role in development
I've heard about the establishment's role in the highway system indeed, although I don't know details.
Agriculture --> That was conventional wisdom. But it doesn't look like it was true. Agriculture was much more gradual than this, and didn't tend to monoculture
Remote work is for me the biggest of these future trends.
I think you’re right. Obviously the most expensive real estate is within 30m of the City, and also cities are not binary: they simply reduce their density as you get farther from the center, which means marchetti had an algorithm to define the borders of the cities that might not be the same as the one you have in your mind
As a rule of thumb I try to avoid politics outside of mechanisms that drive them. But you’re right that I might touch on it, for things like NIMBYism and the like. Not sure yet, let’s see where the series goes. I’ve only written the next 3 articles already, there’s 1-4 more to be written on the topic probably
Dec 21, 2022·edited Dec 21, 2022Liked by Tomas Pueyo
Dubai is an interesting case. Instead of anything resembling organic growth, the people in charge decided that the city shall have a wide-reaching network and become a large metropolis, no matter the up-front cost.
(Aside: Does any other city have an international airport that's basically next to the city center? This only works because nothing happens outdoors anyway, as there's no air conditioning out there, and closed windows block the noise.)
Of course, the fact that the existing network hub in its larger vicinity, Teheran, had some problems with economic sanctions helped its growth, but organically some other city in the area would have taken Dubai's role IMHO.
Indeed. I don’t know of any city quite like Dubai.
Las Vegas maybe.
And then some political capitals, like Brasilia and Naypyidaw—but these haven’t been as successful.
The airport is less uncommon. Cities like Madrid, Sao Paolo, Las Vegas or Los Angeles (LAX) have airports within the city or on its borders.
Interesting point about Tehran. Counterpoint though: many more cities could have become that platform. Istanbul did become one. Riyadh, Kuwait, Baghdad, Qatar, Abu Dhabi, Djibouti... Dubai was an unlikely one. Kudos to them!
You say "People in cities are also healthier." under the last graph, but are they happier ?
Moreover, i think that there is a confusion between correlation and causality here in the links you give.
People are healthier because thay have better food, better indoor air, better sanitation in cities that in rural poor areas. But beeing in a city is not the cause for those improvements, only a correlation. Investment is the cause. If we decide to invest in rural areas, they will improve as fast as cities.
Cities improved faster than rural areas on those health statistics, but health improved everywhere with time and investment. In both developing countriesand developed countries everybody gets better health regardless of where they are living... So this argument for more urbanisation and bigger cities doesn't hold in my view.
Well in fact in my country, France, people living in the countryside have a better health than the stressed out & pollution breathing city dweller !
Bigger is not always better... And health is not quality of life !
I’m not sure. My hypothesis is the rivers. The Seine in Paris has today twice the average discharge as the Tiber in Rome, which means the Seine was probably broader, and hence harder to pass. Also Paris was based originally on and around an island (the Île de la Cité), which means there were 2 sides to cross through bridges, which would lengthen the average commute quite a lot.
Great series. Would love to see you link this series with your demographics series. What are the consequences of labor shortages to cities (and rural areas)? How does it impact the relationship between the two?
Nice article. In the wired suburbs we now see dead malls returning to become villages for the over 50 crowd and the home IT worker
Will empty city high rises revert to vertical villages for millennials ? Have to wait for your next installment.
The American mall is quite interesting, right?
Old cities built their downtown over the centuries. Since ppl walked, everything evolved to be in walking distances, and humans have evolved to love that.
Most of America has grown in the 20th century, most of it after the car, and American urban designers decided to optimize for it instead of human design—a decision that made sense at the time, because ppl didn’t realize what they had inherited for free in older cities.
So Americans crave a walkable city center they don’t have, and the mall is just a very functional and artificial replacement for it.
The next 3 installments don’t quite answer the question you ask, but the articles after that should (those are the ones I’ve drafted already but haven’t written).
Hi Tomas. What a fascinating read. Thank you! you may find this story interesting that I wrote on e-mobility: https://chriskrafft.substack.com/p/how-e-bikes-make-life-better
Well, I did check Madrid and Vegas. Both are sufficiently far off the city center to not bother people much.
You're right about LAX, though I'd wager that despite equally-widespread air conditioning the property values below the airplanes are lower than elsewhere in the city, thus "solving" the "low-income people need housing in the city too" problem.
In the case of LA, it helps that there isn’t a real center. Yes, there is a downtown LA, but, for instance, the most powerful financial companies in LA aren’t located there.
This is fascinating. I'm curious if you have thoughts specifically on how 'advanced air mobility' / eVTOLS / air taxis will extend / evolve the relationship between transportation and cities.
I do! I visited Kitty Hawk (the company) last year. I have an article pending on it.
In the meantime, the short is that it will still take some time for VTOLs to be everywhere, because
(1) our tolerance of failure is much lower for flying things than driving things (flying things have a bad tendency of catastrophic accidents if they break down)
(2) they're very noisy in takeoff and landing, and neighbors don't want this
So realistically I think we're still a few years / decades away from these to have an impact (vs remote work and rockets, which are here).
But what will be the impact once they're around? I still need to think about it. 2 ideas so far:
- Sound issues could be solved in high-rises (leave from the top), and are more beneficial there (traffic below), so they might start there
- However, they're probably even more useful in remote rural areas or suburbs. They could make commutes faster, which would further extend cities.
WDYT?
(1) Absolutely. Consumer / customer perception and sentiment will be a bigger factor in adoption than other new mobility typologies.
(2) From what I've read, many companies are solving for this and aiming for operating under 50 decibels. Joby and Archer specifically are getting close. And I agree infrastructure will be a part of the solution.
I also agree that we'll see rural and suburban adoption faster than urban adoption. I also think ambulatory use cases will give the air taxi use case a run for its money.
Looking forward to hearing more of your thoughts on this.
I think the oil, auto, and rubber industrialist had a hand in the demise of public transportation The defense establishment in building the interstate highway system
The monoculture rise in agriculture all result in some loss of self sufficiency or autonomy in the goal of maximizing production Hours on the freeway vs the 30 minute rule Eventual you find working from home via internet more satisfying maybe using extra time to garden
Politics with some choice as to winners can always play a role in development
I've heard about the establishment's role in the highway system indeed, although I don't know details.
Agriculture --> That was conventional wisdom. But it doesn't look like it was true. Agriculture was much more gradual than this, and didn't tend to monoculture
Remote work is for me the biggest of these future trends.
Interesting stuff as always! However, I'd like to have a chat with Marchetti because most people who work in London live further than 30 mins away.
I think you’re right. Obviously the most expensive real estate is within 30m of the City, and also cities are not binary: they simply reduce their density as you get farther from the center, which means marchetti had an algorithm to define the borders of the cities that might not be the same as the one you have in your mind
I’m happy to learn marchetti constraint from this
Thanks for writing
There are other such forces at play in cities. You’ll see in the upcoming articles!
Looking 👀 forward
You have not commented on the political drives that promote specific technologies and undercut others in development trends
Will that be covered ??
As a rule of thumb I try to avoid politics outside of mechanisms that drive them. But you’re right that I might touch on it, for things like NIMBYism and the like. Not sure yet, let’s see where the series goes. I’ve only written the next 3 articles already, there’s 1-4 more to be written on the topic probably
Dubai is an interesting case. Instead of anything resembling organic growth, the people in charge decided that the city shall have a wide-reaching network and become a large metropolis, no matter the up-front cost.
(Aside: Does any other city have an international airport that's basically next to the city center? This only works because nothing happens outdoors anyway, as there's no air conditioning out there, and closed windows block the noise.)
Of course, the fact that the existing network hub in its larger vicinity, Teheran, had some problems with economic sanctions helped its growth, but organically some other city in the area would have taken Dubai's role IMHO.
Indeed. I don’t know of any city quite like Dubai.
Las Vegas maybe.
And then some political capitals, like Brasilia and Naypyidaw—but these haven’t been as successful.
The airport is less uncommon. Cities like Madrid, Sao Paolo, Las Vegas or Los Angeles (LAX) have airports within the city or on its borders.
Interesting point about Tehran. Counterpoint though: many more cities could have become that platform. Istanbul did become one. Riyadh, Kuwait, Baghdad, Qatar, Abu Dhabi, Djibouti... Dubai was an unlikely one. Kudos to them!
"here's a map of streetcars"
(shows map of elevated rail)
Here's what Chicago's streetcar map actually was: https://chicagoinmaps.com/chicagostreetcars.html
Oh, thanks! Corrected
You say "People in cities are also healthier." under the last graph, but are they happier ?
Moreover, i think that there is a confusion between correlation and causality here in the links you give.
People are healthier because thay have better food, better indoor air, better sanitation in cities that in rural poor areas. But beeing in a city is not the cause for those improvements, only a correlation. Investment is the cause. If we decide to invest in rural areas, they will improve as fast as cities.
Cities improved faster than rural areas on those health statistics, but health improved everywhere with time and investment. In both developing countriesand developed countries everybody gets better health regardless of where they are living... So this argument for more urbanisation and bigger cities doesn't hold in my view.
Well in fact in my country, France, people living in the countryside have a better health than the stressed out & pollution breathing city dweller !
Bigger is not always better... And health is not quality of life !
Beware of the KPI you choose ;)
I did not really get why ancient Rome was bigger than medieval Paris. Better roads? Fitter people?
I’m not sure. My hypothesis is the rivers. The Seine in Paris has today twice the average discharge as the Tiber in Rome, which means the Seine was probably broader, and hence harder to pass. Also Paris was based originally on and around an island (the Île de la Cité), which means there were 2 sides to cross through bridges, which would lengthen the average commute quite a lot.
Great series. Would love to see you link this series with your demographics series. What are the consequences of labor shortages to cities (and rural areas)? How does it impact the relationship between the two?