Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Pennsylvania > Pittsburgh
 [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 07-14-2011, 10:58 AM
 
408 posts, read 989,216 times
Reputation: 146

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by airwave09 View Post
I think BrianTH summed up the architecture argument very well. As for the efficiency, you couldn't be more incorrect. The layout of the city is a grid wherever the topography will allow it, and then on slopes the roads usually take the easiest path that required the least amount of excavating to build. That is the definition of efficiency right there. I'm sorry it couldn't be all grid, but the topography only allows so much. The transit options are poor because urban transit funding is almost non-existent while suburban highways and roads are heavily subsidized.
If you look at each individual neighborhood, most of them are grids for at least their primary core blocks. But their entrance/exits/junction points with other neighborhoods typically not.

I'm also not sure that just because something is laid out in a grid makes it efficient. That assumes the same amount of people want to be traveling in each section of the grid at any given time.

It would probably help to define efficiency - time? gas consumption? birds-eye distance traveled? I can get somewhere way further in the same amount of time on a windy suburb road when compared to idling on a city block that is jammed with traffic.. which is more efficient?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-14-2011, 11:05 AM
 
20,273 posts, read 32,915,508 times
Reputation: 2910
Quote:
Originally Posted by tranceFusion View Post
I'm also interested in the position of many city-dwellers and their thoughts on personal choice and its indirect impact on others. For instance, clearly we would have a better public transit system if every individual was required to use it. But, I personally don't believe that overrides the right of an individual to choose not to use it. I wonder if discrepancies in these types of opinions are the source of the clash.
As an aside, I consider myself pro-City, but I actually live in a suburb. Nonetheless, I am going to give my answer to your question and hope you don't mind.

I don't think people should be coerced into riding public transit. But I also think it is important to recognize that none of these decisions that people make are made in the absence of public policies. In transportation, for example, lots of public money is spent on roads and related services. That's a good thing in the abstract, because people need transportation and for various reasons the public needs to be involved in providing it.

But such resources are not infinite. And once we are reaching the point where urban roads are regularly being congested (a point we reached and passed long ago in Pittsburgh), it is time to start investing in higher-capacity alternatives, such as public transit. And it is also time to start considering congestion charges.

Unfortunately, some people will interpret such suggestions as being anti-car, or anti-driver. In particular, some people will interpret congestion charges as being deliberately punitive. But it really isn't--it is about making the most efficient use of our public resources to provide the most transportation benefit that we can.

So I have no problem with individuals making choices. But I also think we have to understand that our public policies will inevitably influence the choices people make, and we should be OK with that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2011, 11:06 AM
 
408 posts, read 989,216 times
Reputation: 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH View Post
Under some circumstances it costs less money, and under many more circumstances it only costs a small premium.

The reason to care is that interesting architecture affects people. And this actually has straightforward economic implications: land values can be higher in proximity to better architecture, so not just the individual properties, but other properties nearby, will benefit.

Unfortunately this gives rise to a potential free-rider problem. Say if every structure in a locale spent 10% more on design, every structure would be worth 30% more. That's a good deal. But say if then just one structure didn't spend the 10% more, it would still be worth 25% more. That's an even better deal, for that property. The problem is if every builder thinks that way, none of them will spend the 10%, and no one will get the benefit.

That's the basic economic case for localities regulating these issues: to prevent free-riders and allow for greater overall land value. Of course there is no inherent reason that suburbs shouldn't think the same way.
The only reason that 10% higher costs bring 30% higher value is scarcity. If every house built had architectural interest, this scarcity would cease to exist. Then everyone would just be spending 10% for something with the exact same function. Of course, there are real resources tied to those architectural improvements, which eventually will deplete or their harvesting will cause some outrage or whatever, prices will rise, and the cheaters will step in as you suggest (wait, isn't that where we are right now?)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2011, 11:11 AM
 
408 posts, read 989,216 times
Reputation: 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH View Post
So I have no problem with individuals making choices. But I also think we have to understand that our public policies will inevitably influence the choices people make, and we should be OK with that.

Wait, so are you suggesting we look at all the facts from every angle, identify our problems, and make moderate, reasonable, realistically attainable changes to resolve them?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2011, 11:14 AM
 
20,273 posts, read 32,915,508 times
Reputation: 2910
Quote:
Originally Posted by tranceFusion View Post
If you look at each individual neighborhood, most of them are grids for at least their primary core blocks. But their entrance/exits/junction points with other neighborhoods typically not.
That is because neighborhood boundaries tend to fall along the topological breaks that made creating an overall grid impractical.

Quote:
I'm also not sure that just because something is laid out in a grid makes it efficient. That assumes the same amount of people want to be traveling in each section of the grid at any given time
Grids are actually very good at moving people around in dense areas precisely because they don't have preferred paths. If there is a clear preferred path, everyone crowds on it and it gets congested, and mobility is lost. On a grid, people are more naturally spread out to begin with, and they can also rapidly adapt--if you hit unexpected congestion on your street, you can try switching to the next street over, which is a quick process and generally doesn't require much thinking about alternative routing.

In that sense it is unfortunate we can't have an overall grid in Pittsburgh, but again, topography dictates otherwise.

Quote:
It would probably help to define efficiency - time? gas consumption? birds-eye distance traveled? I can get somewhere way further in the same amount of time on a windy suburb road when compared to idling on a city block that is jammed with traffic.. which is more efficient?
Ultimately a lot of things would have to go into an overall transportation efficiency calculation--including the cost of that windy road, how many people actually use it, and so on.

Again, though, it is true that once even a robust city grid is experiencing regular congestion, it is time to start investing in alternatives (and considering congestion charges).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2011, 11:26 AM
 
20,273 posts, read 32,915,508 times
Reputation: 2910
Quote:
Originally Posted by tranceFusion View Post
The only reason that 10% higher costs bring 30% higher value is scarcity. If every house built had architectural interest, this scarcity would cease to exist.
I don't think that is quite right as you stated it. Better design ultimately has higher value because it affects people in beneficial manners, and it is perfectly possible for every person to benefit in those manners. It is true that a world of economically optimal design would be one in which we had invested enough in design such that the marginal benefits to any additional investment in design would be too small to merit that investment. But unless you are assuming we are already in such a world, then it is possible we could invest more in the design of many structures, or indeed every structure, and still achieve enough marginal benefits to make those investments worthwhile. In other words, there has to be some limit, but that doesn't mean we are anywhere near that limit.

All this is very abstract, of course. The important points are that design does matter to people, but the monetizable benefits of better design often take the form of externalities, which creates a potential free-rider problem worth solving if possible.

Quote:
Of course, there are real resources tied to those architectural improvements, which eventually will deplete or their harvesting will cause some outrage or whatever, prices will rise, and the cheaters will step in as you suggest (wait, isn't that where we are right now?)
I actually didn't quite follow this. But you seem to be assuming away any underlying benefit to that utilization of resources, which I think is an erroneous assumption. Assuming there is a benefit, the optimal equilibrium state would be the one I described above, and the issue is how to get there (or the closest approximation we can manage) from here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2011, 11:29 AM
 
20,273 posts, read 32,915,508 times
Reputation: 2910
Quote:
Originally Posted by tranceFusion View Post
Wait, so are you suggesting we look at all the facts from every angle, identify our problems, and make moderate, reasonable, realistically attainable changes to resolve them?
Yes. I expect the villagers with torches will be showing up at my door any minute to burn me for my heresies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2011, 11:37 AM
 
1,781 posts, read 2,077,263 times
Reputation: 1361
Quote:
Originally Posted by tranceFusion View Post
The only reason that 10% higher costs bring 30% higher value is scarcity. If every house built had architectural interest, this scarcity would cease to exist. Then everyone would just be spending 10% for something with the exact same function. Of course, there are real resources tied to those architectural improvements, which eventually will deplete or their harvesting will cause some outrage or whatever, prices will rise, and the cheaters will step in as you suggest (wait, isn't that where we are right now?)

I agree, I don't think every house should like be either. I also, don't think that every house should be the same looking little vinyl-sided box with the exact same floor plan either. Having a interesting mix of different designs floor plans, sizes, and pricing is ideal, and leads to the most vibrant of neighborhoods.

Just look at the neighborhoods that do this the best in the metro area: Shadyside, Squirrel hill, Southside, Oakland, probably the 4 most active and desirable neighborhoods in the city. Then there is Mt. Lebanon, Sewickley boro, Aspinwall, and Dormont which are probably the Suburbs that combine these factors as well as having viable street grids and they are some of the most desirable, walkable, and vibrant suburbs in the metro area. These are not coincidences.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2011, 11:43 AM
 
20,273 posts, read 32,915,508 times
Reputation: 2910
Incidentally, it is tough to provide a lot of variety all at once. One of the reasons some older neighborhoods come across as more interesting is they were developed over periods of time that would seem extremely long by modern standards.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2011, 12:13 PM
 
4,684 posts, read 4,558,917 times
Reputation: 1588
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH View Post
Yes. I expect the villagers with torches will be showing up at my door any minute to burn me for my heresies.
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: What a filthy job.
Igor: Could be worse.
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: How?
Igor: Could be raining.
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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


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 > Pennsylvania > Pittsburgh
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top