P
Patrick
Guest
Well, I guess my point was that it seems everyone would like a slice of suburbia. Open space. front and back yard. no noise from the city. relaxing. etc. this all sounds like the most sensible decision for individual family units to make. However, if everyone thinks about it similarly, the desirable traits of suburban lifestyle decrease as the city noise and traffic and smog are shifted outward, while walkable neighborhoods disappear, kids get fatter, pollution increases, etc. Whose going to be the only family that says, yeah, we're moving back to the city because it will benefit us all? It won't happen. their suburban house will be purchased by someone else looking for the american dream, even though if a collective decision could be made it might be (and often is) realized that more dense settlement patterns with sidewalks etc are better. Even if people realize this, though, they may very well fail to act on their understandings of what's best because of the problem of free ridership. everyone thinks, yeah, perhaps new urbanist type developments are best for communities to pursue. perhaps people should stop demanding suburban sprawl that leaves no opportunity for mobility other than the car. Perhaps office buildings should spend a bit more to invest in central rather than peripheral locations, or agree to exactions for sidewalk improvements more easily. etc. The standard answer would be: "you do it. We'll stay here in our less expensive suburban areas while everyone else marches to a new urbanist tune and we retrieve the natural scenery suburban settlement was sold to us as in the first place." Perhaps this is best summed up by the anonymous UP quote that "suburbs are a collection of private benefits resulting in a public nuisance." Its the same reason zoning developed in the first place (well one of them). because if everyone developed their property according to what worked best for them when viewed in a vacuum type setting (assuming no one else acted similarly) then eventually what would happen is that the community as a whole would be detrimentally impacted. I guess what I'm saying is that this problem still exists, but it shifted to the suburbs. unless zoning or some other forced version of official collective decision making takes place people will still feel that it is individually rational for them to move to suburban lands, while the fact that everyone thinks the same way makes this not so true in an overall sense. sure the suburbs seem nice if you're one of only a few families out there. but then when everyone else follows suit the very thing you moved there for becomes distorted. All of this stuff is tied together, sprawl, suburbs, pollution, environmentally unsound development patterns, and yes even health and wellbeing. Its difficult to walk to the store when its on the other side of an impenetrable interchange. That's sort of where I was going with my above comments. Its less of an obvious example than some text book examples, but I think the issue stems from and can be explained by the same sort of dilemma.
Think about it like this. If there are two supermarkets across the street from one another and each closes at 8, if one decides to stay open til 9 it will become known as the more convenient place to shop and people who visit it after 8 will probably start to shop there before 8, too, out of habit. Thus, the later open supermarket has a pretty good chance of capturing a significant amount of the market, which is bad for the other supermarket, which will then respond by also staying open until 9. eventually this process leads to a scenario where both stores become 24 hour locations, although their overall sales remain the same while their expenditures increase (light bills are longer, payrolls are too). This is sort of the same situation in the familiar concept of prisoner's dilemma in game theory (economics). In that theory, two hypothetical people are accused of a crime and arrested to be interrogated by an investigator. they both get offered a deal. if one rats on the other they'll get to go free. But, the one on whom they told will face a long prison sentence. They are both offered the same deal. If neither tells on the other, though, they'll both spend just a few days in prison because there won't be enough evidence to convict either. Both prisoners, wishing to get out immediately (analogous to everyone wanting the concept of a natural green suburb with a perfect scenic surrounding) decide to tattle on their coconspirator (or in the case of urban settlement, everyone packs up for the countryside and leaves the city). However, in this situation neither gets out because both told on each other (and once people arrive in the country they notice its actually a horizontal CITY only this time commutes are almost intolerable and kids are staying inside playing video games because they have nothing to do outside in their monotonous surroundings and so get fatter and fatter). the optimal outcome would be for neither prisoner to tell on the other. likewise, the optimal outcome in urban settlement would be for everyone to remain in cities and close inner ring suburbs and invest their time and efforts in making those places more sustainable and attractive. instead, everyone wants to free ride on the choice of others. let other people stay in these dusty inner ring burbs and city centers, we'll be off in the countryside enjoying things. but when you get to the countryside, guess who's there, all of your previous (and I guess current now as well) neighbors from the old hood. If we could decide what was in our collective best interests of society, it wouldn't be fat kids in suburbia. it sort of applies to fatty foods, too. let everyone else deplete market demand to such an extent that it becomes nonviable to sell twinkies, that'll be just great, but until then I'm going to occasionally buy a few twinkies and stop at McDonald's every now and then. Only thing is, if everyone acts this way, these businesses thrive. not only do some people really become addicted and pose public health concerns for us all, as well as increase economic expenditures on needless healthcare, but there is also the added bonus of getting to see these lovely fast food chains on our way back to our suburban couches.
Think about it like this. If there are two supermarkets across the street from one another and each closes at 8, if one decides to stay open til 9 it will become known as the more convenient place to shop and people who visit it after 8 will probably start to shop there before 8, too, out of habit. Thus, the later open supermarket has a pretty good chance of capturing a significant amount of the market, which is bad for the other supermarket, which will then respond by also staying open until 9. eventually this process leads to a scenario where both stores become 24 hour locations, although their overall sales remain the same while their expenditures increase (light bills are longer, payrolls are too). This is sort of the same situation in the familiar concept of prisoner's dilemma in game theory (economics). In that theory, two hypothetical people are accused of a crime and arrested to be interrogated by an investigator. they both get offered a deal. if one rats on the other they'll get to go free. But, the one on whom they told will face a long prison sentence. They are both offered the same deal. If neither tells on the other, though, they'll both spend just a few days in prison because there won't be enough evidence to convict either. Both prisoners, wishing to get out immediately (analogous to everyone wanting the concept of a natural green suburb with a perfect scenic surrounding) decide to tattle on their coconspirator (or in the case of urban settlement, everyone packs up for the countryside and leaves the city). However, in this situation neither gets out because both told on each other (and once people arrive in the country they notice its actually a horizontal CITY only this time commutes are almost intolerable and kids are staying inside playing video games because they have nothing to do outside in their monotonous surroundings and so get fatter and fatter). the optimal outcome would be for neither prisoner to tell on the other. likewise, the optimal outcome in urban settlement would be for everyone to remain in cities and close inner ring suburbs and invest their time and efforts in making those places more sustainable and attractive. instead, everyone wants to free ride on the choice of others. let other people stay in these dusty inner ring burbs and city centers, we'll be off in the countryside enjoying things. but when you get to the countryside, guess who's there, all of your previous (and I guess current now as well) neighbors from the old hood. If we could decide what was in our collective best interests of society, it wouldn't be fat kids in suburbia. it sort of applies to fatty foods, too. let everyone else deplete market demand to such an extent that it becomes nonviable to sell twinkies, that'll be just great, but until then I'm going to occasionally buy a few twinkies and stop at McDonald's every now and then. Only thing is, if everyone acts this way, these businesses thrive. not only do some people really become addicted and pose public health concerns for us all, as well as increase economic expenditures on needless healthcare, but there is also the added bonus of getting to see these lovely fast food chains on our way back to our suburban couches.