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.
Sure, I don't disagree. It's common to have densities around 10k in much of the Bay Area but it's certainly not the majority outside of San Francisco. There's a pretty diverse offering out low and moderate density offering all over the Bay Area but little in the way of very high density, say, 50,000+. Predominantly the Peninsula/South Bay are moderately high density suburban (4-8k), but that's not all there is by any means. Since they've run out of land to build out, it now builds up and urbanizes greater. Remember, Santa Clara which has little in the way of greenfield left to develop is one of the fastest growing counties in California. Most of the new housing being built is at higher density levels. The mix is shifting by necessity.
7-22k/sq mile density is actually the most common in the San Francisco area, though I assume most of it is near the lower end of that range
Ahem. Instead of worrying about curbing suburban growth, maybe you and your fellow urbanists should worry about fixing the problems in cities that drive the people who want to live there out.
Yep; in many cities crumbling around them except for some Commerce areas. Its kind of now are you going to keep them down in the city after they have experienced the peaceful life outside them. I hope they succeed but I fear not in this life time and until they financially more responsible and peaceful.
I didn't argue that A always leads to B, only that a certain density or above engenders B. Obviously, historical and current socio-economic contexts play a huge role, as does a host of other factors. And, also obviously, some areas are going to be more popular than others.
You made a claim that such densities engender "resilient neighborhoods, stable businesses, and well-funded governments". I'd like to know if there's any empirical evidence to that, because at least locally, a large percentage municipalities with those densities range from struggling to impoverished. Jersey City (which, aside from the much denser downtown and waterfront, is poor) is just above 16K, Camden (worse than Detroit) is under 9K only because it's largely abandoned. Newark and Elizabeth, both poor NJ cities, fall squarely into the range at 10k-11k. So does poor Perth Amboy. And again, these are all places with solidly urban forms.
Quote:
You bring up New Jersey as a statistical counterpoint, but, in all fairness, it has a lot of poverty, regardless of density. It sits at, what, an 11% poverty rate? And some of the counties sit well above the national average. I think it has a few at 20%.
It also has some of the wealthiest municipalities of the nation, but they aren't the ones in your range.
I'd like to just add what happens when you have limited residential growth and a concentration of jobs in an urban center. You get 300 sq. ft. condo units going for $415,000.
It's ironic CA is in a drought and yet we live near the largest body of water-the ocean. Desalination anyone? European and middle eastern nations are way ahead of us!
In my local community, there are battles to buy surplus water from communities who limited growth and had extra water. Limiting growth, aka limiting sprawl residential development and business development, leads to lack of revenue for aging infrastructure. As is the case for Oceano, CA.
The affect of the Bay Area 70s and 80s constraint on growth drove up housing prices (and continues to go up) and has created an ex-urban affect. People living out in Stockton area to commute into the East Bay and San Jose.
Also, not sure if this is true, but I'm sure golf courses and hotels and take up and waste much more water than a new urban sprawl development.
As long as people need jobs and need affordable housing in safe communities and as long as population grows, sprawl will continue.
Anyways, to sum, it's higher home prices and lack of urban cores outside major cities that continues to create affordable sprawled out developments passed major cities.
How does that well-founded argument stand up to empirical testing? That density range covers much of blighted urban NJ. And it's definitely urban form, not suburban form, through most of that range. No one is going to think Bayonne, NJ (10k) or East Orange, NJ (16k) are suburban living. Housing stock is mostly multi-family on small lots.
Within America at least, outside of America I'm sure plenty would.
Anyways, there are other factors besides density, including growth rates and income levels.
You made a claim that such densities engender "resilient neighborhoods, stable businesses, and well-funded governments". I'd like to know if there's any empirical evidence to that....
In New York City, the city’s Department of Transportation found the following:
a series of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure projects translated into significant returns on investment, with protected bike lanes tied to a 49 percent increase in retail sales, compared with 3 percent boroughwide;
small expansions of pedestrian rights-of-way were tied to a 49 percent reduction in commercial vacancies, compared with 5 percent citywide;
transformation of an underused parking area translated into a 172 percent increase in retail sales at local businesses over three years; and
conversion of a curb lane into outdoor seating increasing pedestrian numbers by more than 75 percent and increased sales at bordering businesses by 14 percent.
Nationally, mixed-use downtown development generates ten times the tax revenue per acre than does sprawl development, saves 38 percent on upfront infrastructure costs per unit, and saves 10 percent on ongoing delivery of services.
The advantages of walkable neighborhoods are so wide-ranging that you might think I am exaggerating them. If anything, I understate them. The following are highlights of recent place-based research:
• Health. Historic street grids are associated with lower obesity, blood pressure, and heart disease, researchers found in 2014. A meta-study last year found health, safety, and social benefits in walkable neighborhoods compared to CSD.
• Traffic fatalities. Researchers Norman Garrick and Wesley Marshall found in 2008 that the historic grids produce one-third of the traffic deaths per capita compared to sprawling suburbs.
• Social mobility. The higher the Walk Score, the more people are able to climb the economic ladder from poor to wealthy, according to this 2013 study.
• Housing values and foreclosures. Walkable neighborhoods increase housing values and reduce foreclosures, according to this 2014 study in Louisville, Kentucky.
• Crime. Higher Walk Scores are “associated with decreased property crime, murders, and violent crime in neighborhoods where minorities made up less than half of all residents. The same held for neighborhoods that were 75 percent white,” notes Richard Florida.
• Tax revenues and government costs. Mixed-use downtown development generates 10 times the tax revenue per acre, saves 38 percent on upfront infrastructure costs per unit, and saves 10 percent on ongoing delivery of services compared to sprawl, according to Smart Growth America’s 2013 report Building Better Budgets.
You made a claim that such densities engender "resilient neighborhoods, stable businesses, and well-funded governments".
Going on, I've also seen two studies, one by economists at the NY Fed and one by some academics, separated by ~10 years, the former saying that for every doubling of density there was a 2-6% acceleration of the local economy, the latter saying that doubling of job density meant a 6% acceleration.
Furthermore, the consumer dollars of drivers tend to leave the local economy--the vast majority of dollars spent buying, maintaining, and fueling a car, and the bulk of dollars spent at big box and national chain stores go to non-local corporations. And this is especially interesting, as I've read research on six cities (a small sample, I admit) that showed that, while drivers spend more consumer dollars per trip, cyclists spend more per month. Assuming that research to be true, built forms that engender cycling instead of driving keep vastly more dollars in the local economy.
One should not be surprised that it is not the primary goal of people to increase tax revenues to a local government. Public employees might seek more such revenue hoping to be the beneficiaries. However, higher tax revenues for local government is just not a meritorious objective from the perspective of the taxpayer.
One should not be surprised that it is not the primary goal of people to increase tax revenues to a local government. Public employees might seek more such revenue hoping to be the beneficiaries. However, higher tax revenues for local government is just not a meritorious objective from the perspective of the taxpayer.
Yet, people like having open libraries and museums, clean parks, well-staffed police forces, streets in good repair (local streets are often a local government concern), and benefit from well-funded transit authorities. It may not be a primary objective of citizens, but people sure get loud about it when the city is in disrepair or local services (at least, the ones they use!) are cut back.
Anyway, my premise was more than just well-funded governments, but also included resilient neighborhoods and stable businesses.
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.
