U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-13-2017, 07:45 PM
 
Location: Tempe, AZ
4,614 posts, read 3,724,368 times
Reputation: 3709

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay F View Post
It's ironic that Democrats say they are for working families yet liberal cities are (mostly) very expensive.
Cities are in high demand, so they have high costs. Cities have a lot of amenities, like more roads and parks, that have higher costs. Urban areas and rural areas will NEVER be the same price.

There are only two ways an urban area can be a close price to rural areas:

A) Have density high enough that supply meets demand, while more people per capita share resources (water piping, electric wiring, road infrastructure, bus stations, proximity to parks, etc). The less area jurisdictions have to pay to cover for for its citizens, the lower costs will be. Certain amenities, like public transportation and parks, will have a better cost to benefit ratio.

B) Sprawl so much that demand will never surpass the supply because supply is so high. Certain conservative cities tend to go this way (my city of Phoenix does this). Houston and Jacksonville are other well known areas for this.

Option A is difficult to reach because of NIMBYs, which is a topic for another time. In other words, if the city cannot adopt relaxed zoning regulations and proactive high density building, because a small yet somehow loud enough amount of people want small town USA with high quality city amenities which is theoretically impossible unless you are insanely wealthy and willing to pay higher taxes for it (because of a lower tax base for the area), the city will never be "affordable".

Option B is more easily doable for most places, or so it seems, but has worse long term growth. For example in Phoenix a very sprawled city I am familiar with, pollution and dust has now spread over 500 square miles creating things we know as haboobs that used to NEVER be a thing really in the past. It has created some of the highest rates of childhood asthma. Large construction zones spreading miles upon miles of squares have started to create more dust storms and created an urban heat island raising our local temperatures by almost 20 degrees during the summer days and more than 30 degrees on a summer night in comparison to untouched desert. This is because of large surface area being dedicated to roads and sidewalks, parking lots, which are dark surfaces. Heavy usage of electricity (air conditioning) spread over 500 square miles with large amounts of wiring to reach individual homes, raises the cost of electricity, and being compounded by the urban heat island. All of these individual things lower the quality of life, and thus, lower costs at face value. This makes it hard for the city to collect enough taxes, assuming property tax is based on land value, to cover the amount of maintenance for roads on other things, and the revenue will have to be spread more thinly, giving up certain luxuries (like less asphalt and more potholes) or less for public schools. So it seems you are getting a better bang for the buck, but you are forgoing better quality amenities. That is unless of course, you are very high income, and so are your neighbors.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-14-2017, 02:38 AM
 
11,456 posts, read 6,730,245 times
Reputation: 6096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prickly Pear View Post
Cities are in high demand, so they have high costs. Cities have a lot of amenities, like more roads and parks, that have higher costs. Urban areas and rural areas will NEVER be the same price.

There are only two ways an urban area can be a close price to rural areas:

A) Have density high enough that supply meets demand, while more people per capita share resources (water piping, electric wiring, road infrastructure, bus stations, proximity to parks, etc). The less area jurisdictions have to pay to cover for for its citizens, the lower costs will be. Certain amenities, like public transportation and parks, will have a better cost to benefit ratio.

B) Sprawl so much that demand will never surpass the supply because supply is so high. Certain conservative cities tend to go this way (my city of Phoenix does this). Houston and Jacksonville are other well known areas for this.

Option A is difficult to reach because of NIMBYs, which is a topic for another time. In other words, if the city cannot adopt relaxed zoning regulations and proactive high density building, because a small yet somehow loud enough amount of people want small town USA with high quality city amenities which is theoretically impossible unless you are insanely wealthy and willing to pay higher taxes for it (because of a lower tax base for the area), the city will never be "affordable".

Option B is more easily doable for most places, or so it seems, but has worse long term growth. For example in Phoenix a very sprawled city I am familiar with, pollution and dust has now spread over 500 square miles creating things we know as haboobs that used to NEVER be a thing really in the past. It has created some of the highest rates of childhood asthma. Large construction zones spreading miles upon miles of squares have started to create more dust storms and created an urban heat island raising our local temperatures by almost 20 degrees during the summer days and more than 30 degrees on a summer night in comparison to untouched desert. This is because of large surface area being dedicated to roads and sidewalks, parking lots, which are dark surfaces. Heavy usage of electricity (air conditioning) spread over 500 square miles with large amounts of wiring to reach individual homes, raises the cost of electricity, and being compounded by the urban heat island. All of these individual things lower the quality of life, and thus, lower costs at face value. This makes it hard for the city to collect enough taxes, assuming property tax is based on land value, to cover the amount of maintenance for roads on other things, and the revenue will have to be spread more thinly, giving up certain luxuries (like less asphalt and more potholes) or less for public schools. So it seems you are getting a better bang for the buck, but you are forgoing better quality amenities. That is unless of course, you are very high income, and so are your neighbors.
NYC is extremely dense (makes LA look blatantly suburban in comparison) and it one of the most expensive cities in the country.

And there are a lot of relatively urban cities in the Midwest which aren't too expensive.

I agree with your post overall, though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-15-2017, 01:16 AM
 
Location: Tempe, AZ
4,614 posts, read 3,724,368 times
Reputation: 3709
Quote:
Originally Posted by l1995 View Post
NYC is extremely dense (makes LA look blatantly suburban in comparison) and it one of the most expensive cities in the country.

And there are a lot of relatively urban cities in the Midwest which aren't too expensive.

I agree with your post overall, though.
NYC is dense and still desirable because they still can't keep up supply because they fall under Option A with the same issues as zoning and NIMBYs. Look at zoning laws in NYC. I believe most buildings violate the code because they were grandfathered in.

There are dense cities that don't have the issue with zoning and constant upbuilding and NIMBYs. Tokyo for example.

Cities in California--which tend to have mild weather--could easily be this way if they didn't have to fight NIMBYS. We could have Tokyo-esque cities here (in terms of friendliness to housing supply), but it's very difficult here to upzone. Vertical sprawl is more ideal than horizontal sprawl for many reasons, if you can't upzone horizontal sprawl, it's impossible to achieve.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-15-2017, 04:16 AM
 
Location: Downtown Phoenix, AZ
18,923 posts, read 7,039,987 times
Reputation: 5868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prickly Pear View Post
NYC is dense and still desirable because they still can't keep up supply because they fall under Option A with the same issues as zoning and NIMBYs. Look at zoning laws in NYC. I believe most buildings violate the code because they were grandfathered in.

There are dense cities that don't have the issue with zoning and constant upbuilding and NIMBYs. Tokyo for example.

Cities in California--which tend to have mild weather--could easily be this way if they didn't have to fight NIMBYS. We could have Tokyo-esque cities here (in terms of friendliness to housing supply), but it's very difficult here to upzone. Vertical sprawl is more ideal than horizontal sprawl for many reasons, if you can't upzone horizontal sprawl, it's impossible to achieve.
NYC also has the largest concentration of wealthy people in the US, thanks to the financial sector and the 88 fortune 500 he's in the city and metro

More rich people drive up prices, since sellers then know that there are more available dollars
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2019, 05:56 PM
 
Location: Pacific NW
303 posts, read 662,528 times
Reputation: 207
You said no PNW or I would have suggested Corvallis Oregon
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 05:05 PM
 
Location: New Mexico
6,880 posts, read 3,806,893 times
Reputation: 12969
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post
You want a place that is "progressive", has a mild climate, is sufficiently "trendy", and inexpensive:

You can have three out of four; make your choice!
Certainly Albuquerque comes close to all four.
New Mexico is blue and trending bluer with state government pretty solid as is Albuquerque after the last election. Senators and the three Reps are Dems now.

The climate is high desert wonderful: Four seasons with a mild winter and reasonable summer. Humidity is always low, sometimes single digits. Most people use swamp coolers instead of air conditioning, considerably cheaper.

There are several engines that drive "trendy". ABQ has a large state university and an even larger community college system so there is a fairly vibrant student life. The film industry has discovered Albuquerque and is relocation studios here. The city is one of the centers for craft brewing with a huge number to choose from. The music scene is pretty impressive and some older rock or jazz musicians/singers have retired here and often are seen in local jam sessions. The diversity of the place brings a broad calendar of events and the cultures blend very nicely. Santa Fe is less than an hour away and it has its own vibe as does Taos, about another hour to the north.

The cost of living is average or slightly below for most things. Some housing/rental costs go a bit higher in high demand neighborhoods. The state population is about 2 million and Albuquerque metro is reaching for 1 million but isn't quite there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top