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.
The classic urban vs. suburban debate...
One point I would like to bring up is the fact that the cost of living has not been discussed in this thread.
One of my main concerns of essentially abandoning expansion of the freeway system (As the met council has decided to do) is the fact that suburban living (Post WWII-today) has allowed for the average American to own a home and by owning a car have the independence to travel anywhere (not be restricted to the rails/bus lines). Consider the fact that if we're limited to a transit system, as in DC (although I agree DC's metro system is fantastic) real estate costs and cost of living are very high near the desirable metro stations(Desirable meaning there are some stations in areas I would not live in). The average home sale in the DC area ($340k) is over twice the cost in the Mpls/St.Paul metro area ($160k) according to the national realtors association(3rd qtr 2011). Suburbanization has drastically decreased the cost of housing for Americans as the higher the population density, the higher the costs of housing.
What makes the metro area stand out from many other cities in the country is the fact that the area is very affordable due to it's lower cost living attributed to suburbanization. In addition the metro area's historically low commute times (Pre-mid 90's) have helped as well. This is a benefit to both city dwellers and suburbanites. In a controlled manner, suburbanization is a good for people in the city too. Our infrastructure from schools, roads, transit, water, sewer, power and etc is very expensive to build and maintain in extremely high density settings (downtowns/uptown are the perfect example) and the same goes for extremely low density settings (see sparsely populated areas of rural MN). By allowing the metro area (which under met council projections is suppose to add up to a million new people in the next 30 years) to expand outwards to absorb these new residents allows for the area to remain affordable for the average income to live in the city or the suburbs.
There is definitely more to say about this but that is for another time...
The classic urban vs. suburban debate...
One point I would like to bring up is the fact that the cost of living has not been discussed in this thread.
One of my main concerns of essentially abandoning expansion of the freeway system (As the met council has decided to do) is the fact that suburban living (Post WWII-today) has allowed for the average American to own a home and by owning a car have the independence to travel anywhere (not be restricted to the rails/bus lines). Consider the fact that if we're limited to a transit system, as in DC (although I agree DC's metro system is fantastic) real estate costs and cost of living are very high near the desirable metro stations(Desirable meaning there are some stations in areas I would not live in). The average home sale in the DC area ($340k) is over twice the cost in the Mpls/St.Paul metro area ($160k) according to the national realtors association(3rd qtr 2011). Suburbanization has drastically decreased the cost of housing for Americans as the higher the population density, the higher the costs of housing.
What makes the metro area stand out from many other cities in the country is the fact that the area is very affordable due to it's lower cost living attributed to suburbanization. In addition the metro area's historically low commute times (Pre-mid 90's) have helped as well. This is a benefit to both city dwellers and suburbanites. In a controlled manner, suburbanization is a good for people in the city too. Our infrastructure from schools, roads, transit, water, sewer, power and etc is very expensive to build and maintain in extremely high density settings (downtowns/uptown are the perfect example) and the same goes for extremely low density settings (see sparsely populated areas of rural MN). By allowing the metro area (which under met council projections is suppose to add up to a million new people in the next 30 years) to expand outwards to absorb these new residents allows for the area to remain affordable for the average income to live in the city or the suburbs.
There is definitely more to say about this but that is for another time...
I think you are absolutely right that cost of living and housing is a big factor. I don't, however, think that increasing suburbanization is going to help on that front. Building duplicate infrastructure in new areas isn't cost-effective, and a car-dominated lifestyle plus such low density of residents means that we can't come close to covering those costs. And unless those new residents also have jobs in the far edges of the metro, their cheaper housing is going to be offset by higher transportation costs.
There's been a lot of national buzz in the past year about Minnesota's own Strong Towns organization and its report comparing our suburban movement to a ponzi scheme. (you can download the report on their website). It makes for interesting reading.
When thinking about housing, it's also worth noting that in many metro areas some of the suburbs have turned into slums; they have all the problems once associated with the "inner-city." We're starting to see that shift here in the Twin Cities, as more poor people now live in the suburbs, and suburban counties and cities are rushing to meet new demands and needs.
That said, I don't think everyone could or should live within city limits and believe there is room for a variety of housing types in this metro area, but our focus should be on growth within our existing boundaries rather than yet more expansion. If that means that the cost of a single family home may eventually go up (although there is still plenty of room), so be it. Our public policies should not be developed to guarantee a freestanding single family home for everyone who wants one. Access to affordable housing itself, though, definitely needs to be addressed, including through efforts to maintain and renovate as needed the existing current stock.
I think you are absolutely right that cost of living and housing is a big factor. I don't, however, think that increasing suburbanization is going to help on that front. Building duplicate infrastructure in new areas isn't cost-effective, and a car-dominated lifestyle plus such low density of residents means that we can't come close to covering those costs. And unless those new residents also have jobs in the far edges of the metro, their cheaper housing is going to be offset by higher transportation costs.
There's been a lot of national buzz in the past year about Minnesota's own Strong Towns organization and its report comparing our suburban movement to a ponzi scheme. (you can download the report on their website). It makes for interesting reading.
When thinking about housing, it's also worth noting that in many metro areas some of the suburbs have turned into slums; they have all the problems once associated with the "inner-city." We're starting to see that shift here in the Twin Cities, as more poor people now live in the suburbs, and suburban counties and cities are rushing to meet new demands and needs.
That said, I don't think everyone could or should live within city limits and believe there is room for a variety of housing types in this metro area, but our focus should be on growth within our existing boundaries rather than yet more expansion. If that means that the cost of a single family home may eventually go up (although there is still plenty of room), so be it. Our public policies should not be developed to guarantee a freestanding single family home for everyone who wants one. Access to affordable housing itself, though, definitely needs to be addressed, including through efforts to maintain and renovate as needed the existing current stock.
This line of thinking is what stagnates growth in an area and eventually forces a decline--that is not a good thing, ever. Not only will people not be able to afford to live here, companies won't locate here because they can't find a sustainable work force at a reasonable wage. We are seeing this happen on a national level with companies outsourcing low wage jobs out of the country already, do you want this to happen on a local or regional level as well? I sure do not. The problem is you want everyone to adopt to YOUR way of life and like it has been pointed out to you many times over, most people do NOT want that kind of life. If they did, the suburban/urban numbers would be fip-flopped everywhere and they just are not. You claim you are paying for this lifestyle of others but guess what, we are paying for your lifestyle as well....ridership certainly doesn't even come close to paying for the bus/rail system...it only covers about 20% of the cost.
What you don't get is that YOUR choice has been heavily subsidized through several generations of government policies, and it costs our society a great deal. We can't afford to do so anymore. We can't afford to do so financially, we can't afford to do so environmentally. Not to mention the issue of our nation's oil dependence and its impact on our foreign policy decisions.
I'm not against giving people choice -- but our current policies have not provided a fair playing field. If people want to live in the exurbs and drive everywhere then they need to pay their fair share of that choice, not freeload off the system and pass on their costs to everyone else.
While we're on the topic of affordable housing, it doesn't help when NIMBY communities flip out about affordable housing being built in their communities. I seem to recall that you, Golfgal, were one of the people railing against one of the local projects near you. Or is it that you want working-class people to be able to afford housing, just not anywhere near your neighborhood? We definitely need affordable housing, but it's not going to be a solution to our problems to make people drive way out into the boonies just to get it. And as far as housing market in general goes, while I think making sure housing is accessible and affordable is important, I also think it's fairly clear that depending on housing to expand our economy is not the way to go.
What you don't get is that YOUR choice has been heavily subsidized through several generations of government policies, and it costs our society a great deal. We can't afford to do so anymore. We can't afford to do so financially, we can't afford to do so environmentally. Not to mention the issue of our nation's oil dependence and its impact on our foreign policy decisions.
I'm not against giving people choice -- but our current policies have not provided a fair playing field. If people want to live in the exurbs and drive everywhere then they need to pay their fair share of that choice, not freeload off the system and pass on their costs to everyone else.
Give me a break, Minneapolis gets an overwhelming share per capita of tax dollars for everything from corporate tax breaks to suburban schools having to supplement the Minneapolis Public School budget. The vast majority of suburban counties and cities are self-sustaining through property, income and business taxes.
Let's level the playing field and lets stop having the suburbs support Minneapolis through paying for transit that we don't get, paying for corporate benefits we don't get, etc. Then let's talk about who is paying for whom....
This line of thinking is what stagnates growth in an area and eventually forces a decline--that is not a good thing, ever. Not only will people not be able to afford to live here, companies won't locate here because they can't find a sustainable work force at a reasonable wage. We are seeing this happen on a national level with companies outsourcing low wage jobs out of the country already, do you want this to happen on a local or regional level as well? I sure do not. The problem is you want everyone to adopt to YOUR way of life and like it has been pointed out to you many times over, most people do NOT want that kind of life. If they did, the suburban/urban numbers would be fip-flopped everywhere and they just are not. You claim you are paying for this lifestyle of others but guess what, we are paying for your lifestyle as well....ridership certainly doesn't even come close to paying for the bus/rail system...it only covers about 20% of the cost.
Well, Detroit has very affordable housing. People and businesses are just flocking there.....
Manhattan, San Francisco, Seattle, not so affordable, but seem to be holding their own.
Give me a break, Minneapolis gets an overwhelming share per capita of tax dollars for everything from corporate tax breaks to suburban schools having to supplement the Minneapolis Public School budget. The vast majority of suburban counties and cities are self-sustaining through property, income and business taxes.
Let's level the playing field and lets stop having the suburbs support Minneapolis through paying for transit that we don't get, paying for corporate benefits we don't get, etc. Then let's talk about who is paying for whom....
Here's the thing you don't get: The cost to supply infrastructure for the spread out suburbs is much more per person than in the city. Roads don't even pay themselves off with gas taxes. In fact, taxes cover only about half of the expense of roads and the rest of us are subsidizing your choice.
The trains, however, may pay for less of themselves, but they're also:
Cheap
Stimulate development which INCREASES property tax revenue.
One bus line in Cleveland has stimulated over $5 billion in private investment.
What are the suburbs doing again?
Right, spending on roads that don't pay for themselves AT ALL and are covered through property taxes of people who don't drive. Why don't you make US stop subsidizing you? Well, I don't really mind it. Let me have my choice (which costs infrastructure) and you can have yours (which costs infrastructure).
The government subsidizes oil. The government subsidizes expansive freeway systems which serve your suburbs. The government subsidizes home ownership (FHA and VA loans could primarily only be used in new growth, auto centric areas). Nowhere in the world can the average joe buy a house with such ease, and that's not necessarily a good thing... Well... it's a good thing, but when everyone has that good thing it can be at serious cost in maintaining it once the conditions that allow it go away. We're paying lower taxes than every to provide more infrastructure than ever, ESPECIALLY in the suburbs. While we may ask for a single rail line, we're not only subsidizing Anoka County but also Dakota County, Scott, Carver, etc. and the expense of those is far greater and the efficiency is far less than a measly train.
Suburbs are FAR from paying themselves off, no matter how they "appear" to. It's just less of a state issue and more of a federal.
http://www.amazon.com/Death-Life-Gre.../dp/067974195X
I'd recommend having a read of this. It explains all of the benefits and efficiencies of urban life as well as the deficiencies to society and state that occur when urban life plays second hand to suburban.
Also, those corporate benefits you don't get? WHO DO YOU THINK WORKS DOWNTOWN? It's not the yuppies in uptown or the hipsters of Seward.
Here's the thing you don't get: The cost to supply infrastructure for the spread out suburbs is much more per person than in the city. Roads don't even pay themselves off with gas taxes. In fact, taxes cover only about half of the expense of roads and the rest of us are subsidizing your choice.
The trains, however, may pay for less of themselves, but they're also:
Cheap
Stimulate development which INCREASES property tax revenue.
One bus line in Cleveland has stimulated over $5 billion in private investment.
What are the suburbs doing again?
Right, spending on roads that don't pay for themselves AT ALL and are covered through property taxes of people who don't drive. Why don't you make US stop subsidizing you? Well, I don't really mind it. Let me have my choice (which costs infrastructure) and you can have yours (which costs infrastructure).
The government subsidizes oil. The government subsidizes expansive freeway systems which serve your suburbs. The government subsidizes home ownership (FHA and VA loans could primarily only be used in new growth, auto centric areas). Nowhere in the world can the average joe buy a house with such ease, and that's not necessarily a good thing... Well... it's a good thing, but when everyone has that good thing it can be at serious cost in maintaining it once the conditions that allow it go away. We're paying lower taxes than every to provide more infrastructure than ever, ESPECIALLY in the suburbs. While we may ask for a single rail line, we're not only subsidizing Anoka County but also Dakota County, Scott, Carver, etc. and the expense of those is far greater and the efficiency is far less than a measly train.
Suburbs are FAR from paying themselves off, no matter how they "appear" to. It's just less of a state issue and more of a federal.
True, hence rapid suburbanization did not really begin until post WWII with the large federal investments in the freeway system and the housing incentives for returing vets and their families.
True, hence rapid suburbanization did not really begin until post WWII with the large federal investments in the freeway system and the housing incentives for returing vets and their families.
And we're STILL paying for those mistakes.
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.
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.
