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.
^^Apparently you didn't notice I said my comments about the city lines were a joke!
whoops
Quote:
Now, seriously, do you really think there is less maintenance on utility lines to say, 100 apts in a highrise apt. building on say, a couple of acres than there is on two single family houses on those same two acres?
Well no. But that's a bad comparison, one has far fewer people. A better comparison would be 100 units on a couple acres to 100 single family on a much larger area. The amount of utility lines and maintenance would be a quite a bit less for the apartment instance. Of course there are other infrastructure which don't go down with density, and some actually go up with density. The somewhat silly example I gave earlier in a thread was sewers. One acre homes don't need sewers, they can use cesspools. Apartment complexes must have a sewer system, at least with modern sanitation standards.
* Just as an aside, 100 apartments on 2 acres do not require high rises. Four story buildings with a very small backyard in between them can have nearly the same amount of apartments per area. For example, this block has about 175 people on 2 acres. I don't know how many people per apartment the area has, guessing it'd be a third lower than 100 apartments / 2 acres, though there are denser non-high rise neighborhoods. The houses in the view I linked to were not originally built with sewers, they had outhouses in the backyard, which I imagine was a health hazard.
Well no. But that's a bad comparison, one has far fewer people. A better comparison would be 100 units on a couple acres to 100 single family on a much larger area. The amount of utility lines and maintenance would be a quite a bit less for the apartment instance. Of course there are other infrastructure which don't go down with density, and some actually go up with density. The somewhat silly example I gave earlier in a thread was sewers. One acre homes don't need sewers, they can use cesspools. Apartment complexes must have a sewer system, at least with modern sanitation standards.
* Just as an aside, 100 apartments on 2 acres do not require high rises. Four story buildings with a very small backyard in between them can have nearly the same amount of apartments per area. For example, this block has about 175 people on 2 acres. I don't know how many people per apartment the area has, guessing it'd be a third lower than 100 apartments / 2 acres, though there are denser non-high rise neighborhoods. The houses in the view I linked to were not originally built with sewers, they had outhouses in the backyard, which I imagine was a health hazard.
Ya think??
Anyway, the money for maintenance doesn't come from growth realted fees, it comes from the rate-payers.
Demand for land and good schools are high along with giant malls where they can buy anything. IN a low density area taxes are low and you can have land thats the demand. Low density suburban living will always be a demand. Even with urban living making a comeback its only hipsters not everyone. People will continue to equate suburbs as good moderate polictical culture with excellent schools and easy living.
Demand for land and good schools are high along with giant malls where they can buy anything. IN a low density area taxes are low and you can have land thats the demand. Low density suburban living will always be a demand. Even with urban living making a comeback its only hipsters not everyone. People will continue to equate suburbs as good moderate polictical culture with excellent schools and easy living.
That's not necessarily true; depends on where.
Low density suburban living isn't for everyone either.
The increase in infrastructure costs in suburban counties is probably far less expensive than the cost of the social ills of your average post-industrial city. It's a trade that makes sense. Out of sight, out of mind, right?
The increase in infrastructure costs in suburban counties is probably far less expensive than the cost of the social ills of your average post-industrial city. It's a trade that makes sense. Out of sight, out of mind, right?
Which social ills are you talking about? We are constantly being reminded (and it's true) that there is plenty of poverty and other social ills in the burbs as well. Child abuse, alchololism, and the like have never known any city lines.
Agree. And these days the suburbs have really seen a spike in poverty; not across the board, of course, but in some areas there are suburbs with more problems than more traditional "inner-city" neighborhoods. The Twin Cities seems to be heading in that direction, with some suburbs having high poverty and all the accompanying issues like high crime, struggling schools, etc. They're hit doubly hard because they don't have a big tax base of their own (i.e. big downtown businesses, etc.) to help meet the increased demand for services. As Katiana put it, "social ills" don't know city lines. When it comes to today's social ills, these days things don't fall neatly along suburban versus urban categories. Some things are everywhere (like the alcoholism, etc.), while other issues are more clustered into specific areas (gang activity, struggling schools, etc.), but those clusters can be found in both urban and suburban areas within a metro area.
Which social ills are you talking about? We are constantly being reminded (and it's true) that there is plenty of poverty and other social ills in the burbs as well. Child abuse, alchololism, and the like have never known any city lines.
Sure, bad things happen everywhere, but are more likely to happen in places with concentrated poverty.
Population below poverty line-
Baltimore City: 21%
Baltimore County: 8%
That sort of baseline will yield high stats for any number of social problems. Take your pick.
ETA I agree that suburban poverty is a real thing that is happening. But that doesn't mean that it's yet on a level even comparable to that of cities like Balimore, Cleveland, etc.
Agree. And these days the suburbs have really seen a spike in poverty; not across the board, of course, but in some areas there are suburbs with more problems than more traditional "inner-city" neighborhoods. The Twin Cities seems to be heading in that direction, with some suburbs having high poverty and all the accompanying issues like high crime, struggling schools, etc. They're hit doubly hard because they don't have a big tax base of their own (i.e. big downtown businesses, etc.) to help meet the increased demand for services. As Katiana put it, "social ills" don't know city lines. When it comes to today's social ills, these days things don't fall neatly along suburban versus urban categories. Some things are everywhere (like the alcoholism, etc.), while other issues are more clustered into specific areas (gang activity, struggling schools, etc.), but those clusters can be found in both urban and suburban areas within a metro area.
Aren't you a Chicagoan? Surely you must recognize the difference between the south side and even Lower income suburban areas (would Cicero be a good example?). Both have poverty and it's attendant problems, but which has more per capita?
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.
