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 05-13-2015, 06:07 PM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,347,681 times
Reputation: 3030

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
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.
Yet your solution doesn't indicate scaling of amenities and services with increased densities.
"Resilient" is the replacement for "sustainable". It's probably neither from the perspective of the individual. Everything you provided indicates "higher priced living" not necessarily higher quality of life. The arguments seem directed primarily at promoting higher taxes, higher costs of living, and consumerism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-13-2015, 09:02 PM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,816,131 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
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.
The Federal Reserve study appears to be here
http://www.ieb.ub.edu/aplicacio/fitxers/WS10Abel.pdf

It's talking about worker productivity by density of the entire metropolitan area. And it doesn't have a "sweet spot".

The only study I find about cyclists spending more per month included only restaurants, bars, convenience stores, and grocery stores. And in grocery stores, drivers spent lots more.

http://kellyjclifton.com/Research/Ec...es_Nov2012.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2015, 11:46 AM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,003,828 times
Reputation: 1348
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
"Resilient" is the replacement for "sustainable". It's probably neither from the perspective of the individual.
Except that, when more money is kept in the local economy, more people are better off. And, in the same places that we saw lower spending on transportation--suggesting less vehicle use--we saw lower foreclosure rates. Where we saw the highest spending on transportation, the suburbs, we saw the highest foreclosure rates. So it is very much more resilient from the individual's perspective.


Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Everything you provided indicates "higher priced living" not necessarily higher quality of life. The arguments seem directed primarily at promoting higher taxes, higher costs of living, and consumerism.
How, exactly, does promoting moderately higher densities and lower car dependency (and thus lower transportation costs) equal higher priced living? If anything, I'm promoting the opposite, cheaper living.

How does higher densities, given unchanged property and sales taxation rates, equal promoting higher taxes? I've not actually promoted higher taxes, just having more residents and consumers in a smaller area, thereby promoting, per acre, higher business sales, higher tax intakes, and lower cost per capita per acre of providing services.

And if the government is well funded by having better tax receipts per acre, and thus able to keep services operating at full instead of at reduced rates, how is that not promoting a high QoL? Aren't libraries open every day, infrastructure in good repair, and fully staffed police forces are good things for QoL?

Before I ask my next question, we have to establish that you used "consumerism" like it was a bad thing, like it isn't the basis for most of our economy. Now, how does promoting keeping more money in the local economy (by doing two things, shifting spending from transportation to retail consumption, and by sending less money out of the local area) a bad thing?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2015, 12:27 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,981 posts, read 102,540,351 times
Reputation: 33045
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
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.
From the link: "Given the cross-sectional nature of our study, proving causation is not feasible but should be examined in future research."

We have discussed this issue before on this forum. There is plenty of proof that their is no causation. I don't feel like going back right now and looking for all the cites. I didn't get the whole study when I clicked on the link, but I don't even see a statement such as the bold.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2015, 01:19 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,003,828 times
Reputation: 1348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
From the link: "Given the cross-sectional nature of our study, proving causation is not feasible but should be examined in future research."

We have discussed this issue before on this forum. There is plenty of proof that their is no causation. I don't feel like going back right now and looking for all the cites. I didn't get the whole study when I clicked on the link, but I don't even see a statement such as the bold.
From the other link on that same bullet point:

Quote:
A body of corroborating research

This brings me to Talen and Koschinsky’s work. The two University of Arizona researchers conducted an exhaustive review of literature examining the connections between land use factors – particularly those associated with compact, walkable and diverse neighborhoods – and outcomes related to health, social relations, and safety.

After reviewing over 200 articles, the authors focused their closest examination on 95 reports of empirical and scholarly research, published within the last decade in peer-reviewed publications. Sixty-four of those studies examined health effects and, of that subset, 50 were found to support the view that the effects of compact, walkable, and diverse neighborhoods are mostly positive on health outcomes. The remainder showed no clear positive or negative effect; none showed a negative effect.

After analyzing the particular studies in more detail, Talen and Koschinsky summarized their key finding regarding neighborhoods and health:

“[O]verall, the vast majority of studies show that built-environment effects are generally in one direction: People living in [compact, walkable, and diverse] neighborhoods, especially places defined by accessibility and gridded street networks, tend to have higher health ratings, with an important caveat being that these relationships may not hold where there is significantly high crime and high poverty. Most, although not all, meta-analyses summarizing these relationships have concluded that there are strong correlations overall.” (Citations omitted.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2015, 02:47 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,981 posts, read 102,540,351 times
Reputation: 33045
Arizona, eh? I posted a study done at the U of AZ one time that showed that people who lived in walkable neighborhoods in Phoenix got less exercise and had worse health stats than people who lived elsewhere in the city. (I forget exact details) I got ripped on this board for daring to post the inconvenient truth! Let me see if I can find it.

Well, I'm nothing if not tenacious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post

City structure, obesity, and environmental justice: an integrated analysis of physical and social barriers to walkable streets and park access. - PubMed - NCBI
***We find that, counter to predictions, subpopulations generally considered vulnerable to obesity (and environmental injustices more generally) are more likely to live in walkable neighborhoods and have better walking access to neighborhood parks than other groups in Phoenix. However, crime is highest in walkable neighborhoods with large Latino/a and African-American populations and parks are smaller in areas populated by Latino/as. Given the higher prevalence of obesity and related diseases in lower income and minority populations in Phoenix, the results suggest that benefits of built environments may be offset by social characteristics. Our most consistent finding indicates a strong negative relationship between the percentage of the population under 18 years of age living in an area and the likelihood that the structure of the built environment supports physical activity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2015, 03:42 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,003,828 times
Reputation: 1348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
Arizona, eh? I posted a study done at the U of AZ one time that showed that people who lived in walkable neighborhoods in Phoenix got less exercise and had worse health stats than people who lived elsewhere in the city. (I forget exact details) I got ripped on this board for daring to post the inconvenient truth! Let me see if I can find it.

Well, I'm nothing if not tenacious.
Thanks for posting that.

I don't know why people would rip you for that.

But I also see some caveats from your excerpt from the abstract.

For one, it specifically pertains to Phoenix. Nothing against Phoenix, just pointing out that there may be other factors at play which are somehow specific to Phoenix.

I also find this very interesting:
Quote:
Given the higher prevalence of obesity and related diseases in lower income and minority populations in Phoenix, the results suggest that benefits of built environments may be offset by social characteristics
Which isn't saying the built environment isn't beneficial, but is saying that any benefits that may or may not exist may, in Phoenix, be offset by the social status of the population in that neighborhood.

And I'd wager that many of these residents still have to drive to work and generally contend with the results of Phoenix being auto-centric as a whole, even as the studied neighborhoods may be individually walkable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2015, 04:53 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,981 posts, read 102,540,351 times
Reputation: 33045
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Thanks for posting that.

I don't know why people would rip you for that.

But I also see some caveats from your excerpt from the abstract.

For one, it specifically pertains to Phoenix. Nothing against Phoenix, just pointing out that there may be other factors at play which are somehow specific to Phoenix.

I also find this very interesting:


Which isn't saying the built environment isn't beneficial, but is saying that any benefits that may or may not exist may, in Phoenix, be offset by the social status of the population in that neighborhood.

And I'd wager that many of these residents still have to drive to work and generally contend with the results of Phoenix being auto-centric as a whole, even as the studied neighborhoods may be individually walkable.
Like those other posters from "way back", you don't seem to get it. Real research, as opposed to some of the junk that passes for research on this forum, IS very specific. They don't study "Walkability in the world", they study in it in one city. The body of research gets put together bit by bit. I've read a lot of these studies. They tend to put in caveats like "this applies only to Phoenix and cannot be generalized". People on this forum don't like that. They want something that applies everywhere.

I will point out the researchers didn't study the social characteristics. That was just their assumption. It might be these people don't walk places b/c that's just not their lifestyle, or a million other reasons.

Last edited by Katarina Witt; 05-14-2015 at 05:05 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2015, 07:32 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
45,983 posts, read 41,929,314 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
Arizona, eh? I posted a study done at the U of AZ one time that showed that people who lived in walkable neighborhoods in Phoenix got less exercise and had worse health stats than people who lived elsewhere in the city. (I forget exact details) I got ripped on this board for daring to post the inconvenient truth! Let me see if I can find it.
If you're going to bring up that old discussion on the forum, at least don't portray other criticisms as dishonest. People on the forum, including yourself, complain about studies all the time. This was rehashed in detail, I in particular gave a number of criticisms on its usefulness. I'm not particularly interested in the topic nor in Phoenix. While it is a study with a specific focus, it was brought up in a context of walkability in general.

1) There are cities that are far more walkable than Phoenix and far more walkable neighborhoods. My reaction: ok, so what?
2) If you want to isolate a variable, you control for other factors usually with regression analysis. Just because a variable is offset does not mean it has no effect, in fact your quote doesn't claim it has no effect.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2015, 07:43 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,981 posts, read 102,540,351 times
Reputation: 33045
I really don't want to discuss this again. I was intrigued when darkeconomist brought up Arizona.

Mostly what I've complained about is "fluff" pieces about Ashlee and Biff in their downtown condos, along with their parents, Linda and Ken, the Baby Boomers and the like. Peer-reviewed research, not so much.

Last edited by Katarina Witt; 05-14-2015 at 07:53 PM..
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