Why, as a Responsible Adult, Simcity 2000 Hits Differently
Posted4 months agoActive3 months ago
arstechnica.comOtherstoryHigh profile
calmpositive
Debate
60/100
Simcity 2000NostalgiaUrban PlanningGaming
Key topics
Simcity 2000
Nostalgia
Urban Planning
Gaming
The article reflects on how SimCity 2000 is perceived differently as an adult, sparking a discussion on nostalgia, urban planning, and the changing perspectives on gaming.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
2h
Peak period
119
Day 4
Avg / period
32
Comment distribution160 data points
Loading chart...
Based on 160 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Sep 18, 2025 at 12:26 AM EDT
4 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Sep 18, 2025 at 2:02 AM EDT
2h after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
119 comments in Day 4
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Oct 3, 2025 at 2:04 AM EDT
3 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45285387Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 8:18:36 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
Each tile emits "journeys", which travel down transport routes connected to the tile, with a view to finding other types of tile (residential needs to find industrial and commercial, for example, but commercial IIRC needs to find only industrial). When a journey meets a junction, it randomly chooses one of the exits. The choice is not directed toward a suitable tile.
So if you make say a block of road tiles, in the shape of a square, say 4x4, any journey entering that tile usually times out (travels too far) before by chance managing to emerge from all the junctions.
As such, for example, hub-and-spoke subway systems basically do not work.
You basically need to design the transport network to specifically, and without junctions, go from a set of source tiles of a given type, to the necessary destination tiles, and that's not how real cities look, nor what you would naturally do.
I liked SC2K a lot, but in the end I had to give up on it, because of the transport system; the game couldn't be played realistically. I've not yet tried SC3K, and I don't know how transport is modeled there - hopefully better.
I think I found your problem..., trying to take a game too seriously.
I've played thousands of hours of SimCity 2000, 3000 and 4 and I treat them as what they are, incredibly fun city building sandboxes with illusory and believable but flawed simulations under the hood.
>Everyone notices the obvious built-in political bias, whatever that is. But everyone sees it from a different perspective, so nobody agrees what its real political agenda actually is. I don’t think it’s all that important, since SimCity’s political agenda pales in comparison to the political agenda in the eye of the beholder.
>Some muckety-muck architecture magazine was interviewing Will Wright about SimCity, and they asked him a question something like “which ontological urban paradigm most influenced your design of the simulator, the Exo-Hamiltonian Pattern Language Movement, or the Intra-Urban Deconstructionist Sub-Culture Hypothesis?” He replied, “I just kind of optimized for game play.”
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22062590
DonHopkins on Jan 16, 2020 | parent | context | favorite | on: Reverse engineering course
Will Wright defined the "Simulator Effect" as how game players imagine a simulation is vastly more detailed, deep, rich, and complex than it actually is: a magical misunderstanding that you shouldn’t talk them out of. He designs games to run on two computers at once: the electronic one on the player’s desk, running his shallow tame simulation, and the biological one in the player’s head, running their deep wild imagination.
"Reverse Over-Engineering" is a desirable outcome of the Simulator Effect: what game players (and game developers trying to clone the game) do when they use their imagination to extrapolate how a game works, and totally overestimate how much work and modeling the simulator is actually doing, because they filled in the gaps with their imagination and preconceptions and assumptions, instead of realizing how many simplifications and shortcuts and illusions it actually used.
https://www.masterclass.com/classes/will-wright-teaches-game...
>There's a name for what Wright calls "the simulator effect" in the video: apophenia. There's a good GDC video on YouTube where Tynan Sylvester (the creator of RimWorld) talks about using this effect in game design.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia
>Apophenia (/æpoʊˈfiːniə/) is the tendency to mistakenly perceive connections and meaning between unrelated things. The term (German: Apophänie) was coined by psychiatrist Klaus Conrad in his 1958 publication on the beginning stages of schizophrenia. He defined it as "unmotivated seeing of connections [accompanied by] a specific feeling of abnormal meaningfulness". He described the early stages of delusional thought as self-referential, over-interpretations of actual sensory perceptions, as opposed to hallucinations.
RimWorld: Contrarian, Ridiculous, and Impossible Game Design Methods
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdqhHKjepiE
5 game design tips from Sims creator Will Wright
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scS3f_YSYO0
>Tip 5: On world building. As you know by now, Will's approach to creating games is all about building a coherent and compelling player experience. His games are comprised of layered systems that engage players creatively, and lead to personalized, some times unexpected outcomes. In these types of games, players will often assume that the underlying system is smarter than it actually is. This happens because there's a strong mental model in place, guiding the game design, and enhancing the player's ability to imagine a coherent context that explains all the myriad details and dynamics happening within that game experience.
>Now let's apply this to your project: What mental model are you building, and what story are you causing to unfold between your player's ears? And how does the feature set in your game or product support that story? Once you start approaching your product design that way, you'll be set up to get your customers to buy into the microworld that you're building, and start to imagine that it's richer and more detailed than it actually is.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SimCity/comments/1euehye/how_simcit...
> The water system has one very significant direct effect: the land value of any given tile drastically increases when it is watered.
Industrial development only requires a single road connected residential tile to grow off the full city's industrial demand. The same goes for Commercial. Residential will fully develop with just a single commercial tile on its road network.
It is broken in a realistic sense definitely, but it's also why I'll always play it regardless of which realistic transportation city game i'm also playing. I could never abstractly brush-in a city like I can in SC2k.
Now I don't find that interesting and much more interested to sustain a leafy suburb like one I've chosen for my kids.
Second, it's not just games. In my NYC days I was a "transit and bike lanes" guy all the way. Now with kids, I understand why "Americans love their cars" - it switched form a derogatory statement to one of understanding. There's a reason that "ban the cars" posters never mention a partner or children in their bios.
There's less "objective good" or "objective bad" in these matters than I used to think. It's more about who you optimize for.
Just imagine getting into Tokyo subway with a stroller for 2 kids. There's a reason why Tokyo fertility rate is below 1.
LGR - SimTower - PC Game Review
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4ToEDrhxo0
Yoot Tower: The Sequel to SimTower
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqNECXCd9iU
On the other hand, with all the poking I've done at it over the years, I think I now have the most complete knowledge of the save file format for anyone who doesn't have access to the source code.
> Just imagine getting into Tokyo subway with a stroller for 2 kids. There's a reason why Tokyo fertility rate is below 1.
This is a glaring example of hunting for data that supports a preexisting belief, rather than basing beliefs on empirical data.
To point out how absurd this logic is, consider that it fails to consider the fertility rate of Japan as a whole outside urban areas, as well as failing to account for the many other extremely dense cities outside Japan that do have very high fertility rates.
That's not universally true; it depends on what housing policies exist.
> That is the real reason for low fertility rates in big cities. People who want children have to be either rich, or move further away.
This is not universally true either.
The correlation is undeniable for any developed country, especially the US. Developing countries are a bit different they are only now starting the second demographic transition.
> To point out how absurd this logic is, consider that it fails to consider the fertility rate of Japan as a whole outside urban areas, as well as failing to account for the many other extremely dense cities outside Japan that do have very high fertility rates.
LOL. No, they don't: https://www.nippon.com/en/japan-data/h01975/
That's a nice theory but all over the developped world, the countryside has lower fertility rate than the cities.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db297.htm
[2] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/digpub/demography_2021/b...
[3] https://www.mof.go.jp/english/pri/publication/pp_review/fy20...
Maddy Novich, https://www.instagram.com/cargobikemomma/, for one, may disagree with you. Interview:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PoKcQRlDGs
She has three kids IIRC.
> Just imagine getting into Tokyo subway with a stroller for 2 kids. There's a reason why Tokyo fertility rate is below 1.
Hong Kong has always been dense, and it used to have a fertility rate of ~5:
* https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINHKG
Further, all US states, regardless of how urban or rural they are, have fertility rates with basically the same slope:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...
In every industrialized, Western-ish society rates dropped during the 1970s, regardless of initial or final density.
I haven't seen this in the transcript?
> Hong Kong has always been dense, and it used to have a fertility rate of ~5
I'm going to save this quote. It goes next to: "Yes, Tokyo now is too expensive, but just 10 years ago you could dream about getting a house there".
> Further, all US states, regardless of how urban or rural they are, have fertility rates with basically the same slope:
Yes. Toxic urbanization has not spared the US. But it affected the US less than other countries because the suburbs put up a fight.
yeah, when comparing with other cities[1] it is way more affordable.
[1] https://www.timeout.com/hong-kong/news/hong-kong-has-once-ag...
While Tokyo has one of the worst fertility rates, it's not like the rest of Japan is doing particularly well. Also, I was staying in Azabujuban and I was surprised by the amount of kids I saw there.
1. Pass off an opinion as fact
2. Posit a straw man
3. Tether an unrelated fact as correlation.
I bet one could wire an llm instructed to such a formula to obsfucate otherwise fruitful public discourse.
I do wish the subway had more elevators. But once you move beyond those early days with a stroller… I have six playground within a twenty minute walk, a giant park a few minutes away. There’s a zoo nearby, the beach (and aquarium) is less than 45 mins on the subway, there are countless museums in the city… all in all its rich in child friendly activities and child-friendly methods of reaching them.
(I’m not there with my kids yet but from talking to older parents: an understated benefit of the city is that kids are able to exercise independence much more easily. They’ll be taking the subway to and from high school, if they want to meet a friend they can just… go. Rather than rely on a parent driving them everywhere)
I love to drive therefor I buy a car I love to drive.
America is largely rural. Comparisons to Europe aren't appropriate outside of the proper metros.
Bicycling with little kids is just not practical for a lot of it, and the nearest bus stop is a four hour walk (12 miles).
Do large cities and suburban neighborhoods deserve public transportation? Sure. Is that a universal answer? No. Not even close. There are farm fields out here larger than many towns. Roads, vehicles, and fast on demand transportation are a necessity for the geographic super majority of the US.
My "city" of 5K is considered "urban" according to the 2020 census. There are nearly zero services in this "city", only a couple of restaurants, the largest employer is the school district, and it's surrounded by farms and mountain forests. It takes 15 minutes by car to get to the next town over on a two lane highway.
If you want to get to any real city, you're looking at a 30-45 minute drive at highway/freeway speeds.
So yes, there may be more individuals in "urban" areas, but not all "urban" areas are functionally urban. My "urban city" per the 2020 census is no LA, Austin, or Portland.
https://simcity.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_SimCity_2000_buildin...
Obviously that doesn't get to your point, which is accurate.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/05/the-p...
> I was blown away by how much more space was parking lot rather than actual store. That was kind of a problem, because we were originally just going to model real cities, but we quickly realized there were way too many parking lots in the real world and that our game was going to be really boring if it was proportional in terms of parking lots.
True for all infrastructure choices
> the physical space required for that alone is an unbelievable double-digit percentage of the city area
True, and I do miss big city life, but all the major cities have been captured by anti-development fanatics of a particular political bent vehemently opposed to me, people like me, and our priorities.
Conclusion: double-garage areas work best for my mix of requirements.
Being trapped in your suburban neighborhood without access to a car is a special kind of hell. During the week mom and dad were too tired to drive me anywhere after work, unless it was urgent. Long commutes. Weekends were fun - sometimes.
There were SOME really awesome things about suburbia though. Snow days were the best.
I get that density and banning cars are hostile to driving an SUV everywhere, but bike infrastructure and public transport aren't. If anything they take traffic off the road and speed up the morning commute of drivers, so they enable a better experience for drivers too.
I was deep into NY's drug and party scene from about the time I turned 12. Pedos used to follow me walking home from the public library.
Lotta my friends growing up did not make it and I no longer live in NYC.
Next caller.
My opinion is that parenting is supposed to play a major role here. Educating your child on the dangers of _why_ we avoid certain neighborhoods, _why_ we don’t do drugs, and surrounding them with good role models early is so so important.
I guess what i’m saying is, if you parents locked you up in a safe cage (like I grew up - in a “safe” suburb without access to much), you might have grown up to be a naive 18 year old. And then you’d maybe go off to college and end up with the wrong crowd doing drugs and other stuff anyway. Completely isolating a teenager from the world doesn’t teach them how to navigate it.
The pedo’s following you home is creepy as hell though. No comment on that. Damn.
Again, just my opinion. We can agree to disagree. Have a great day. :)
Go play SimCity again. The concept of mixed-use doesn't exist because it's built by an American.
Commercial zones that have groceries, restaurants, shops, and entertainment are almost always several kilometers away. You could technically bike there, but there are rarely bike lanes. And due to serving the needs of a large, low-density area, you’d have to bike on multi-lane high-speed thoroughfares which is far less safe than being able to use small local streets. Where there are sidewalks, they often end abruptly and don’t actually connect to anywhere or anything.
It is truly hell.
My (American) definition of suburbia primarily involves a lack of sidewalks.
When I finally got access to grocery delivery to my door, I could see how it all will work. Carrying things for one person is fine. It's carrying groceries for a household for a week where things break down. Even putting all that on an elevator would be really unwieldy compared to unloading from the garage.
Self-driving and the evolution of early-life education will play a big role in simplifying life without the parents needing to ferry the kids around five days a week.
The ants discovered hundreds of millions of years before even the chimps got social, that parents are not required for functioning society.
We will get there soon with artificial wombs on the near horizon.
In general, it makes a huge amount of sense for a specialized employee with specialized tooling to pick up groceries for many people and deliver them; the net result is less total person-hours spent shopping, less vehicle miles driven, and less overall labor.
Large cities are OK if you have one kid. They completely break down once you have 2-3 kids.
But it may not be much “better” long term because you’ll be buying mini van(s), paying for gas, car insurance, higher property taxes, etc. All that extra cost adds up and could easily be put toward upgrading to a larger apartment instead.
And remember, 3+ kids is FAR from the norm in 2025. It’s not 1970s…so this is a really pointless argument.
Maddy Novich, https://www.instagram.com/cargobikemomma/, for one, may disagree with you. She has three kids IIRC. Interview:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PoKcQRlDGs
I live in Berlin with my wife and 2 kids (who were born lived their whole lives in Berlin). We all bike and take transit. Neither me nor my wife even have a driver's license. We're doing fine. We know plenty of other families with multiple kids in the same situation.
The subsidy per passenger mile in the US is :
0.019 for road transport, 0.021 for air transport, 0.710 for Amtrak and 2.300 for transit.
From : https://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=22592
Just also as a note, you can create suburbs pretty easily where bikes use paths or whatever. I live in a suburb where I can ride 15 kms to work without riding on roads. The subsidy for bikes would actually be really low.
Bicycle infrastructure is often destroyed by those other investments and that is usually not counted as a con. But it is just too cheap to build bicycle infrastructure to be interesting.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09218...
To the extent that "ban cars" even exists as a real political archetype rather than a meme, this is just patently not true. At least one of the two co-hosts of The War on Cars (again, a title which is intentionally tongue-in-cheek) has a preteen son.
But more importantly: car-dependent suburbs are an absolutely miserable place to grow up as a child if you're not wealthy enough to have one non-working parent and/or a nanny (or both). Being dependent on someone else to enable your entire social life until you turn 16 is a torturous enough experience that I'm not surprised that the first generation to have universal access to social media as teenagers has become the first generation to use social media to organize a teenage-driven movement for public transit.
I easily could, but I have no interest in chasing ever-moving goalposts.
And sure, humans are extremely diverse and adaptable, so you'll be able to find examples of any physically and logistically possible behavior. Eventually.
But statistically? We both know that I'm right. The Netherlands (the bike heaven) has the total fertility rate of around 1.5 And even within the country itself, Amsterdam (North Holland province) is at the second-to-last place from the bottom: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Netherland... And the highest fertility rates are in Flevoland and Zeeland that are about 3-4 times less dense.
It is THE difference that makes living great or terrible. Everything else simply pales in comparison, in the developed world.
But my friend that has four children brings her kids to the school that's in front of my apartment, that promotes bike riding to school, and they even have a morning bike route that kids alone or with parents can join.
(Yeah, they both work)
Similar for the YouTube channel NotJustBikes, who has gone into great detail about the advantages of raising kids in a city planned around pedestrian and cyclist usage, and not in a suburban sprawl.
Buy a bakfiet cargo bike, there's models that can fit five kids under 7. Mine fits three.
Kids like them better and you get exercise. For the first time in my life I have a BMI of around 20 without having to waste time at the gym, the drop off, pick up, shopping, and work commute add up to an hour and a half of medium intensity cardio.
Every other parent my age in the neighborhood looks five years away from a heart attack. I'm fitter than I was in my 20s.
>There's less "objective good" or "objective bad" in these matters than I used to think. It's more about who you optimize for.
There are over 1,000 children killed in the US annually by cars. This is after we restrain them like Hannibal Lecter while in cars and don't let them out of our houses so they don't get run over.
That's before we talk about the child obesity epidemic, social media abuse, and on and on.
If given the choice between keeping cars or letting polio loose on the land you'd be hard pressed to figure out which will kill and disable more kids.
Off topic, but my brain did a double take there. Didn't know that the Dutch word "bakfiets" (bike with a box) was anglicized to "bakfiet". Cool. Usually it's us who borrow foreign words from all over
Even further off topic, I had an aha moment with "bakfiets" connecting to how "back" is a word for storage box in Swedish...
The fit parents and delighted kids I frequently see riding bakfeitsen in Amsterdam are always so happy and healthy and safe that I am envious I wasn't born here myself.
They effortlessly ride through busy city streets, wander through parks, and trek across the countryside, all with well maintained bike paths, and gather together to have picnics and play, which you can't do with an SUV. Also dogs love riding in them, and they're great for shopping and hauling too.
An electric bakfiets with an Enviolo continuous stepless automatic shifting hub is ideal and safe for kids, because you don't have to worry about shifting gears or even preemptively shift down before you stop at an intersection or unexpected obstacle.
It can shift when you're stopped and even while you're accelerating, and it automatically and smoothly shifts up as you accelerate. You just dial in your preferred cadence and it does the rest. So you can concentrate on the traffic and kids and scenery instead of your gears, even in stop-and-go city traffic.
I love the one on my normal eBike, it's a joy to ride, and I'll never go back. I have no affiliation, it's just a fantastic piece of technology. They're a Dutch company, so many Dutch brands of bike, bakfiets, and delivery bikes use them, but they're available worldwide.
https://www.koga.com/nl/elektrische-fietsen/e-nova-evo-pt-au...
They have special heavy duty bakfiets motors and hubs, and smooth quiet indestructible carbon fiber belt drives instead of clackety chains and derailleurs. Silent, reliable, maintenance free, and greaseless!
Enviolo fully automatic stepless transmission for e-bikes:
https://enviolo.com/products/#tab_automatic
>No distractions: Liberate your attention
>Enviolo Automatic is a “set and forget” system that adjusts to you – set your preferred pace and you’re ready to go. Focus your journey in bustling cities, relaxed countryside rides, or when travelling with kids.
Cargo L Cargo Line:
https://www.urbanebikes.nl/cargo-l-enviolo-automatic
Rave reviews on reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/CargoBike/comments/1f0rsu9/enviolo_...
Enviolo Automatic - Never Shift Again (check out the beautiful scenery and bike paths and parks of Amsterdam: it's really like that, on purpose!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQrgKBQrkag
Carqon Classic Enviolo | Elektrische bakfiets met stijl
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2gWJvolBjg
Is enviolo the best internally geared hub for eBikes? (This is a nerdy technically detailed deep dive!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vob5Rb4IKsw
I Tested The Boujiest Cargo Bike You Can Buy (Monster Bakfiets!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7w57U3ijHY
I would be worried about collision safety though, I am not going to persuade everyone in my neighborhood to stop using cars in a hurry and there are not bike routes between me and school, library, shops, ...
People use cars because they are (rightly) concerned about safety. People avoid using bikes because there are so many cars. It’s very hard to ban cars or restrict car usage because it seems like no one wants to use bikes, but it’s a self-reinforcing system.
Then the cars are safer both for the occupants and pedestrians/cyclists, so paradoxically people might be more inclined to walk or cycle.
Aggressively limit speed and enforce it until you're onto the fast roads.
If cars could only roll on at 10mph I'd feel a lot safer and I'd probably be able to use my bike and make better time for the local stuff.
Making adjustments to roads requires some upfront capital and scales to every car on those roads.
Check out this great resource of traffic calming measures from the Institute of Transportation Engineers[1].
Chicanes, Chokers, and Corner Extensions are just three examples of measures that can be taken temporarily and cheaply.
1: https://www.ite.org/technical-resources/traffic-calming/traf...
Stockholm January average: 25°F / –4°C (low) to 32°F / 0°C (high) — closer to Chicago than Minneapolis.
Having been splashed by busses in winter you have to be a special kind of crazy to ride a bike or motorcycle in Minneapolis or Chicago.
There is usually a week in January in Minneapolis where the high temperature for the day does not break -10F. Air temperature, not wind chill.
Minneapolis at least has a skyway for pedestrians in winter. Chicago loop, not so much.
One unexpected benefit is that the muddy/wet boots don’t muss up the bike like they would if I was loading them into a car. Just drips out the bottom grate.
Lots of other small benefits but not so related to winter.
To each their own, right?
I can think of multiple European towns which offer a great quality of life together with (thanks to safe cycling and great public transport) the ability to live largely or entirely car-free, if that’s your choice.
Europe is nice. But I would never want to live in European cities unless I was a gazillionaire and could afford a large, modern property with a garage for a good car (which wouldn't be used as often but still used sometimes).
With that much money, anyone could be fine anywhere. The European lifestyle wouldn't be bad during retirement, but still not ideal because I would want the peace of a smaller town anyway.
It's quiet. No matter how you spin a 100-200K sized city, it will never be this quiet.
Medium towns in the US can be great too...
When I had kids, the suburbs suddenly made a lot of sense. Better schools, tons of neighborhood sports, lots of kids around, very dog friendly, etc…
Now that I’m an empty nester, I’d love to move further out of the city. Get more space around me, have a smaller home but a bigger workshop, sauna, and garden.
I can imagine that when I hit my 70’s or 80’s, I might want to be back in the city again closer to other people, healthcare, and other services that will be a bigger part of my life.
There really isn’t one ideal setup for me in all parts of my life.
This seems very different from the large anti-car movement in the Netherlands in the 1970s (which eventually led to massive investments in bike infrastructure and car restrictions in the cities).
There was significant parent involvement, touting the memorable slogan "Stop de Kindermoord" ("Stop the Child Murder").
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_transport_in_the_Netherla...
She came to visit for one month. After the first week she was already comfortably going around with the Ubahn to pick up the kids at school. I have 4 supermarkets less than 150m away from me, so we would walk to do groceries every other day. I spend ~80€/month with taxi rides (for the occasional trip to meet someone in a less convenient place), which is less than what she pays in car insurance alone, not even counting the cost of gas.
At the end of the trip, she got it. Having a car is not a necessity. It should be seen (and taxed) as a luxury.
Seems like empathy should work both ways?
The whole series of videos from Strong Towns are good, you should take a look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_SXXTBypIg
For example, I know Oakland, CA has severe financial issues (looks like the school district might go bankrupt) but I wouldn’t generalize from that to all cities.
The first minute is nothing but conjecture and personal opinion full of misinformation, and it just continues from there.
Strong Towns is a good source, but they don't make or support most of the claims in this video because they have no basis in fact.
My hostility is towards people who claim to prefer to live in the suburbs, but do not want to pay for the privilege.
Show me people that say "Yeah, I won't mind having higher property taxes, extra fees to keep my many cars in the garage and have to pay full price for the extended infrastructure (sewer, roads, water, electricity lines, etc) just so that I don't have to live among those poor city-dwellers" and I'll be totally fine with their choices.
I suspect that even people with strong opinions have little understanding about infrastructure costs and who is subsidizing what. I’m unwilling to take this on faith - it seems like there need to be financial deep dives.
The math has certainly not been done. There are no cities without suburbs. For food and water.
Berlin does things to people.
The argument is intra-municipalities, not intra-country. The argument is that people that live in the suburbs of a city end up costing more and paying less than the city-center counterparts. The richer people in the city do not pay proportionally to the cost they incur in the city's expenses, but when push comes to shove it's the poor people who are left with poor infrastructure, unmaintained roads, etc.
(As for the discussion regarding Berlin getting subsidies from the south: I can not argue there, but I am pretty sure that what I am paying in taxes is vastly more than what I am getting in benefits and public services. Just like I am pretty sure that the 1000€/month I am sending to TK is to cover the cost of others. There isn't much more than I am supposed to do, is there?)
Property tax eh? kind of depends on cost of the things that are paid for by property tax. Sometimes that'll be higher in urban and sometimes higher in rural.
I don't know why I should pay extra fees to keep my many cars on my property... that's why I have my property. I don't mind license fees, and I grumble but don't mind that they're higher for my PHEV even though I don't drive it much or plug it in. If I was parking on public right of way, it might make sense to charge me per car, but my cars don't use shared resources when they sit at home, and I can only drive one at a time.
Where can I live where I don't have to pay full price for extended infrastructure? That'd be great. Where I am, I have to pay my own way for my well and septic; if I wanted municipal of either, I'd have to pay for the build out to get it to my house, just like I did for muni fiber. The owners before me that had electricity hooked up must have paid the utility to extend it, and enhancements would be at my cost.
Places that grew before cars, were built with walking distance separations. It wasn't possible to profit as a grocery by building miles away from the people.
What the discussion should instead highlight is that with just moderate increases in population density you can escape the need for a car and it ends up being better for everyone. That mostly only applies to new development.
Heck, even if you just made cars second class in new suburbs you could see cheaper housing with equivalent land. Put in a shared parking garage for a suburb instead of putting a garage on everyone's home and all the sudden the amount of sqft needed just to get cars in and out gets massively reduced meaning more room for more homes and an easier argument to make for bus service.
But, being humans, the "I put away" is always a bit aspirational. And part of being older and wiser (or at least aspiring to the latter) is more maturely reflecting upon your own younger years.
185 more comments available on Hacker News