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 02-09-2014, 05:35 PM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,955,202 times
Reputation: 1953

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pwumavs View Post
Not denying that the metro area shrunk every census from 1970 to 2010...just refuting the tired old notion that Pittsburgh isn't growing. The statement to be refuted was made by a poster who's a Philly booster and either has disdain for Pittsburgh or otherwise just hasn't been here in a long time.
You took that whole thing completely out of context. I'm not a Philly booster. Philly is a real city with real problems. Just like PGH and every other city. FTR - the last time I was there was 14 months ago. My brother lived in Lawrenceville for a few years and I visited often . . . because I like it there.

Quote:
Philly's metro area population grew 0.90% in the period between April 2010 and July 2012. Pittsburgh's grew 0.19% in that same period. Not a big difference. But the growth is there, unlike metro areas like Cleveland, Detroit, and Buffalo, which, with continued population losses, would have been better examples for the poster drive carephilly.
The discussion in this thread is about LVT. Cleveland, Detroit and Buffalo don't use LVT. Pittsburgh does. The city and metro both lost population for an extended period. That's why I used it as an example.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-09-2014, 10:46 PM
 
Location: Somewhere in America
12,304 posts, read 10,766,103 times
Reputation: 20540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
Tax land, not buildings, to help cities thrive - Opinion - The Boston Globe

"Property taxes today generally consider both land and the buildings on them. But George understood something important: that taxing buildings to some degree discourages new building. Under a land tax, in contrast, a developer pays the same amount if the land is used for a parking lot, a single-family house, or a soaring skyscraper."

If taxing buildings discouraged new construction, then NYC would not be stuffed to the gills with lots of construction currently going on. The Northeast would be empty and it's hardly empty. We have high taxes and keep on building!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2014, 07:55 AM
 
Location: DFW
6,800 posts, read 11,772,651 times
Reputation: 5149
Why don't we reduce/eliminate property taxes all across the board? Reduce the taxes on buildings even to a larger degree than land.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2014, 05:21 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
91 posts, read 147,111 times
Reputation: 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by ragnarkar View Post
Why don't we reduce/eliminate property taxes all across the board? Reduce the taxes on buildings even to a larger degree than land.
Property taxes are basically the lifeblood of public schools.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2014, 10:48 AM
 
2,923 posts, read 3,118,048 times
Reputation: 1498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
Tax land, not buildings, to help cities thrive - Opinion - The Boston Globe

"Property taxes today generally consider both land and the buildings on them. But George understood something important: that taxing buildings to some degree discourages new building. Under a land tax, in contrast, a developer pays the same amount if the land is used for a parking lot, a single-family house, or a soaring skyscraper."
One basic question that has not been rendered is what should we be building? The office, retail and lodging sectors are overbuilt and plagued by high vacancies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2014, 04:16 PM
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
33,889 posts, read 42,123,479 times
Reputation: 43295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilton2ParkAve View Post
One basic question that has not been rendered is what should we be building? The office, retail and lodging sectors are overbuilt and plagued by high vacancies.
Which goes back to what I posted earlier, nothing gets built without demand for it. We've been waiting here for 10 years for a guy to build a hotel/meeting center. He brings in beautiful renderings about once a year, with new amenities.

He has yet to turn a shovel full of dirt, hasn't even done borings (in fact the Town rents the property from him to use as parking). Why? There's not a market for another hotel/meeting center in the area.

The original plans for the property were for a condo development of 120 $900K and up condos. There wasn't a market for that, either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2014, 04:29 PM
 
4,064 posts, read 3,097,353 times
Reputation: 5608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilton2ParkAve View Post
One basic question that has not been rendered is what should we be building? The office, retail and lodging sectors are overbuilt and plagued by high vacancies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
...The original plans for the property were for a condo development of 120 $900K and up condos. There wasn't a market for that, either.
All good points, highrises are not good options for residential development. I'll list some quick negatives of highrise residential.

(1) Where do children play? Do families have to trek to a park for outdoor recreation?
(2) The upper floors of highrises are inconvenient for access and egress.
(3) Sound transmission between units, soundproofing is expensive to install.
(4) Tall buildings sway in the wind and that may bother some people.
(5) Water pressure decreases as a function of height and systems to overcome this are expensive to install and maintain.
(6) Tall buildings are easy terrorism targets.

Other than having a nice view, are there any benefits of living on an upper floor of a highrise? Hollywood glamorizes penthouses but Hollywood isn't real.

Last edited by AtkinsonDan; 02-11-2014 at 05:51 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2014, 05:29 PM
 
2,941 posts, read 3,859,209 times
Reputation: 1439
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtkinsonDan View Post
All good points, highrises are not good options for residential development. I'll list some quick negatives of highrise residential.

(1) Where do children play? Do families have to trek to a park for outdoor recreation?
(2) The upper floors of highrises are inconvenient for access and egress.
(3) Sound transmission between units, soundproofing is expensive to install.
(4) Tall buildings sway in the wind and that may bother some people.
(5) Water pressure decreases as a function of height and systems to overcome this are expensive to install and maintain.
(6) Tall buildings are easy terrorism targets.

Other than having a nice view, are their any benefits of living on an upper floor of a highrise? Hollywood glamorizes penthouses but Hollywood isn't real.
I think the first point and the 3rd point is whey even dense cities have Single family housing. Not everyone wants to be in an apartment building.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2014, 05:33 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
45,988 posts, read 41,967,271 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post
I think the first point and the 3rd point is whey even dense cities have Single family housing. Not everyone wants to be in an apartment building.
Though, outside North America some dense cities are nearly devoid of single family houses. In the developed world, East Asia (Seoul, Taipei met someone from Taiwan who found not living in a tall apartment building novel) and maybe some southern European cities. Then there are places where the housing stocks is more in between rowhouses, lowrise apartment building with shared courtyard or "garden apartments".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2014, 05:35 PM
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
33,889 posts, read 42,123,479 times
Reputation: 43295
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Though, outside North America some dense cities are nearly devoid of single family houses. In the developed world, East Asia (Seoul, Taipei met someone from Taiwan who found not living in a tall apartment building novel) and maybe some southern European cities. Then there are places where the housing stocks is more in between rowhouses, lowrise apartment building with shared courtyard or "garden apartments".
Different cultures, different history.
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
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