U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [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)
 
Old 01-17-2014, 09:01 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,989 posts, read 41,979,923 times
Reputation: 14805

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post

And what is wrong with "everyone" owning or at least being able to own land?
Isn't that more egalitarian? I can't help but see in a lot of the NU literature a desire for land and property owning to be returned to a few, with the rest of us renting for life. You can check my posts for examples. Maybe there's something more sinister going on with these people that want all of us to rent. You can acquire great wealth by amassing land and property.
He never said there was anything wrong with everyone being able to own land.

While no one owning a home is silly, it's arguable for many people renting makes more sense. The housing bubble was a negative consequence, and sometimes investing most of your assets into a property may not be the best choice. The renting for life is the case for many New Yorkers, 80% of the city rents not owns, so it doesn't seem that odd to me.

Last edited by nei; 01-17-2014 at 09:34 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-17-2014, 09:31 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 20 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,006 posts, read 102,606,536 times
Reputation: 33064
I'm getting weary of these "armchair philosophers". Everything American is bad, we should "do it" like the Brits, the Germans, the French, the whoever. If we do similar, our reasons are more sinister. What does this have to do with urban planning? This stuff about fortresses and defense and whatnot is simply ridiculous!

I have detected a bias against home owning in many urbanist writings. While I would be the first to say "don't buy a home until you can afford it", and other cautions about home-buying, a home is the largest investment most people can have! There is no reason to DIS-courage it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2014, 09:48 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,421 posts, read 11,929,235 times
Reputation: 10539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
I'm getting weary of these "armchair philosophers". Everything American is bad, we should "do it" like the Brits, the Germans, the French, the whoever. If we do similar, our reasons are more sinister. What does this have to do with urban planning? This stuff about fortresses and defense and whatnot is simply ridiculous!

I have detected a bias against home owning in many urbanist writings. While I would be the first to say "don't buy a home until you can afford it", and other cautions about home-buying, a home is the largest investment most people can have! There is no reason to DIS-courage it.
High levels of homeownership do seem to correlate with higher unemployment. You can find numerous academic papers discussing this, and they all come to essentially identical conclusions. It's actually not too surprising, when you consider homeowners are less geographically mobile, and hence cannot simply relocate to a different metro if a new job opportunity arises.

Regardless, I agree there is no reason to discourage home ownership. But we should stop encouraging it as well. The mortgage tax deduction should be phased out. Perhaps it could be done slowly, so that it only goes into effect when people buy a new residence. But it's both bad tax policy and apparently bad economic policy, however well it plays for the voters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2014, 10:02 AM
 
Location: Melbourne, Australia
9,781 posts, read 16,248,336 times
Reputation: 2833
Honestly, some of these question. Some basic reading and common sense would answer your question...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2014, 10:19 AM
Status: "Gaining Stability." (set 12 days ago)
 
5,684 posts, read 5,936,216 times
Reputation: 4432
Quote:
Originally Posted by iNviNciBL3 View Post
It seems like people care more about density and walkability than things like cost of living, wages, median household income, unemployment rate, etc...

So what makes Density and Walkability so important?
It all boils down to convenience and I hate driving. It is nice to be able to walk to the grocery store, cleaners, shops and entertainment. The pedestrian life style rocks. If I could only get a job around here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2014, 10:48 AM
 
Location: The analog world
17,086 posts, read 9,870,032 times
Reputation: 22744
Quote:
Originally Posted by iNviNciBL3 View Post
There is a pretty wide selection of affordable eco friendly cars now days
Traffic is worse in cities that are more dense compared to spread out cities
Building roads and freeways is much cheaper than building rail lines and train cars
Clearly, you've never been trapped on I-25 in the Front Range. This place is the definition of urban sprawl, but it certainly hasn't improved our traffic situation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2014, 10:55 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,113,739 times
Reputation: 3982
I prefer walkable areas because I don't like to drive all that much, parking in Los Angeles ranges from tight to unavailable to expensive, and it is really difficult to get my car out of our underground parking lot (no joke it plays a role in whether or not I drive to a location).

Also, I like to walk and I like that I can get a little bit of exercise on days that I don't go to the gym. Also, walkable areas tend to have a lot of people walking around so it is nice to see lots of people on the street (and in Pas they say hello, not like Hollywood!). I also like to take transit because I find it less stressful than navigating traffic and parking, plus with the elevated LRT line I live near I get to see unique views of the city and unique view of the citizenry!

Also the weather in Southern California is very good, so I would prefer to spend most of my time outside enjoying it instead of in the car. I don't hate driving and I am very glad that my wife and I own one car, but we have no plans to get another (and my dad keeps offering to give us one of his extra cars - it's just too much of a hassle to own a second car in Pasadena).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2014, 12:23 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 20 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,006 posts, read 102,606,536 times
Reputation: 33064
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
High levels of homeownership do seem to correlate with higher unemployment. You can find numerous academic papers discussing this, and they all come to essentially identical conclusions. It's actually not too surprising, when you consider homeowners are less geographically mobile, and hence cannot simply relocate to a different metro if a new job opportunity arises.

Regardless, I agree there is no reason to discourage home ownership. But we should stop encouraging it as well. The mortgage tax deduction should be phased out. Perhaps it could be done slowly, so that it only goes into effect when people buy a new residence. But it's both bad tax policy and apparently bad economic policy, however well it plays for the voters.
I had decided that for a change I wasn't going to argue with you (!) but that article is too much! First of all, Atlantic Cities is hardly an unbiased source. They seem to be advocating against home ownership a lot. Secondly, it doesn't discuss a research paper, it discusses a "working paper" (their term), which I read. The phrase NIMBY does not belong in any serious research paper.

The conclusion "In doing so, we have found evidence that high
home-ownership in a US state is associated with
lower labor mobility,
longer commutes, and
fewer new firms and establishments."

is doubtful IMO. I can understand#1 to a point. However, having known many people who moved out of town, usually out of state, who were homeowners, I'm not so sure it's a major issue. I do know people in their 50s and 60s who say they won't move again, but that's a slightly different issue. I don't see how home ownership is "associated" with longer commutes, and I cannot fathom how high home ownership contributes to fewer new firms and establishments. What they mean by that last is fewer new businesses in residential neighborhoods of high home ownership which makes some sense; some of these places are zoned against offices, factories and the like, but they didn't look into whether high home ownership deters businesses from locating in specific cities. From my experience in the Denver area, I'd say "no". They even say "It is important to emphasize that our study does not claim that homeowners are unemployed more than renters (very probably they are not). Nor is it an attempt to build on the idea that homeowners are less mobile than renters (though they probably are)."

I don't know about getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction. I think it's better than some of these "charitable" deductions out there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2014, 12:31 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,989 posts, read 41,979,923 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
I don't see how home ownership is "associated" with longer commutes, and I cannot fathom how high home ownership contributes to fewer new firms and establishments.
For longer commutes, if home ownership makes one less likely to move and you change jobs within the metro, the home owner will likely have a longer commute. Also, in older metros there could be a geography difference in where home owners live vs renters. Or the type of jobs each have.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2014, 12:44 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 20 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,006 posts, read 102,606,536 times
Reputation: 33064
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
For longer commutes, if home ownership makes one less likely to move and you change jobs within the metro, the home owner will likely have a longer commute. Also, in older metros there could be a geography difference in where home owners live vs renters. Or the type of jobs each have.
Yes, but they didn't really show that. Moving is a pain. Most people don't like to move, whether they are renting or owning, especially as they get into their later 20s/30s.
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:

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 > General Forums > Urban Planning
Similar Threads
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