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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-02-2014, 11:12 AM
 
3,836 posts, read 4,714,031 times
Reputation: 2538

Advertisements

For Canada - even higher costs are applicable to the States.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-02-2014, 12:32 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,061 posts, read 16,070,870 times
Reputation: 12635
It's a cute graphic, but it's meaningless without data to back any of it up. Picture books might be easy to understand, but it doesn't mean they're right. San Francisco, for example, has the highest per capita city budget in the nation. The fact is it costs tax payers less to live anywhere else, which includes many suburbs. Really, that has more to do with affluence. Affluent places usually spend more than poor ones. But not always. Detroit, for example, is hopelessly poor but it still collects about twice as much in tax revenue per capita as its suburbs. And it's going bankrupt.

That's just single data points. But it does call into question the accuracy of your picture book.

Analysis: Detroit enjoys highest per-capita revenue in state thanks to high, diversified tax rates | MLive.com

Seattle has done one of the most comprehensive studies on obesity.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2709073/

It doesn't look directly at density, the data isn't geospecific enough to do that. But you can see based on area that there's no greater obesity in the East Side than in Downtown seattle. Central Seattle (south of downtown, fairly high density) had a very high rate of obesity. Income and poverty was weakly correlated (r2 of .05), but home values had a r2 of .46. Those of Hispanic origin were moderately more likely to be obese, blacks weren't really at all more likely. Again, limited study in one area but at least in Seattle there's no correlation between sprawl and obesity. The correlation is between home prices and obesity. High home prices in Queen Anne or Capitol Hill = less obesity; high home prices in Redmond or Issaquah = low obesity. Maybe it's vanity.

Last edited by Malloric; 02-02-2014 at 12:46 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2014, 12:59 PM
 
6,433 posts, read 9,951,901 times
Reputation: 7974
Rail against sprawl all you want. It's not going anywhere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2014, 01:04 PM
 
3,836 posts, read 4,714,031 times
Reputation: 2538
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenk893 View Post
Rail against sprawl all you want. It's not going anywhere.
er, congrats?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2014, 01:17 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 16 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,988 posts, read 102,554,590 times
Reputation: 33051
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
It's a cute graphic, but it's meaningless without data to back any of it up. Picture books might be easy to understand, but it doesn't mean they're right. San Francisco, for example, has the highest per capita city budget in the nation. The fact is it costs tax payers less to live anywhere else, which includes many suburbs. Really, that has more to do with affluence. Affluent places usually spend more than poor ones. But not always. Detroit, for example, is hopelessly poor but it still collects about twice as much in tax revenue per capita as its suburbs. And it's going bankrupt.

That's just single data points. But it does call into question the accuracy of your picture book.

Analysis: Detroit enjoys highest per-capita revenue in state thanks to high, diversified tax rates | MLive.com

Seattle has done one of the most comprehensive studies on obesity.
Disparities in obesity rates: Analysis by ZIP code area

It doesn't look directly at density, the data isn't geospecific enough to do that. But you can see based on area that there's no greater obesity in the East Side than in Downtown seattle. Central Seattle (south of downtown, fairly high density) had a very high rate of obesity. Income and poverty was weakly correlated (r2 of .05), but home values had a r2 of .46. Those of Hispanic origin were moderately more likely to be obese, blacks weren't really at all more likely. Again, limited study in one area but at least in Seattle there's no correlation between sprawl and obesity. The correlation is between home prices and obesity. High home prices in Queen Anne or Capitol Hill = less obesity; high home prices in Redmond or Issaquah = low obesity. Maybe it's vanity.
Actually, the many studies on obesity show the same. In fact, suburbanites tend to be healthier, overall. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...34442652581806
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2014, 01:35 PM
 
4,023 posts, read 3,265,101 times
Reputation: 2924
When you're building endless super-sized roads, parking lots and highways everywhere then naturally the costs of infrastructure, maintenance and energy consumption are going to be much greater in autosprawl suburbia than in more compact denser cities that rely less on private automobiles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2014, 07:05 PM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,610 posts, read 3,760,401 times
Reputation: 1616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
It's a cute graphic, but it's meaningless without data to back any of it up. Picture books might be easy to understand, but it doesn't mean they're right. San Francisco, for example, has the highest per capita city budget in the nation. The fact is it costs tax payers less to live anywhere else, which includes many suburbs. Really, that has more to do with affluence. Affluent places usually spend more than poor ones. But not always. Detroit, for example, is hopelessly poor but it still collects about twice as much in tax revenue per capita as its suburbs. And it's going bankrupt.

That's just single data points. But it does call into question the accuracy of your picture book.

Analysis: Detroit enjoys highest per-capita revenue in state thanks to high, diversified tax rates | MLive.com
There's a few factors that influence how high taxes have to be in order to balance the books. In most cities, a square mile of land near the centre will have higher property values than a square mile in the center. In Detroit, it's the opposite. Maybe around $250k/acre for privately owned land (including vacant lots)? In typical suburbs of large American cities it's probably around $1-3mil/acre, in Canadian and California suburbs it's probably more like $3-10mil/acre, and in city cores of the desirable urban cities it might be $20mil/acre or more for privately owned land.

If a suburb's tax base is growing fast, it can avoid high taxes because the increase in infrastructure that needs to be replaced is less than the increase in tax base. It can also avoid high taxes if it has an unusually large employment base. Generally in the US, the suburbs with less employment are on the fringe and growing fast, so, for now, a lot of suburbs are able to avoid revenue issues.

Here in Canada I'd be worried about Brampton. The city has a lot more workers than jobs, and although it's growing explosively now (fastest growing suburb in US/Can ever in net growth) with virtually no infill and it will probably start running low on greenfields in less than a decade and run out in maybe 30 years. Property values are on the low side compared to other suburbs. Mississauga is starting to have issues balancing its budget now, and it's denser, wealthier and has substantially more jobs than workers compared to Brampton, and it hasn't even stopped growing, it's just slowing down as most of its growth now is infill. Mississauga seems more capable of support infill than Brampton since it is better located by jobs and transportation (including highways).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2014, 07:16 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
45,985 posts, read 41,937,844 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
There's a few factors that influence how high taxes have to be in order to balance the books. In most cities, a square mile of land near the centre will have higher property values than a square mile in the center. In Detroit, it's the opposite. Maybe around $250k/acre for privately owned land (including vacant lots)? In typical suburbs of large American cities it's probably around $1-3mil/acre, in Canadian and California suburbs it's probably more like $3-10mil/acre, and in city cores of the desirable urban cities it might be $20mil/acre or more for privately owned land.

If a suburb's tax base is growing fast, it can avoid high taxes because the increase in infrastructure that needs to be replaced is less than the increase in tax base. It can also avoid high taxes if it has an unusually large employment base. Generally in the US, the suburbs with less employment are on the fringe and growing fast, so, for now, a lot of suburbs are able to avoid revenue issues.
Many Northeast suburbs have had little growth in the last several decades and much of their infrastructure is 40-50+ years old, so they don't have any advantage of tax base is growing faster than maintenance costs.

For Detroit, likely part of the issue is a smaller tax base while the costs haven't shrunk relative to the population.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2014, 07:24 PM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,610 posts, read 3,760,401 times
Reputation: 1616
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Many Northeast suburbs have had little growth in the last several decades and much of their infrastructure is 40-50+ years old, so they don't have any advantage of tax base is growing faster than maintenance costs.
Are there any for which none of these apply?

A) More jobs than workers
B) Considerably above average incomes
C) High taxes
D) Difficulty affording maintenance of infrastructure
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2014, 07:26 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
45,985 posts, read 41,937,844 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
Are there any for which none of these apply?

A) More jobs than workers
B) Considerably above average incomes
C) High taxes
D) Difficulty affording maintenance of infrastructure
for Long Island: Yes to both B and C. No for A, not sure for D.
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