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 12-13-2016, 06:09 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,006,214 times
Reputation: 1348

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
The number of cops is more determined by crime rate, local politics and public worker rates. Transit costs are also partly determined by whether or no $60k/year salaries for transit workers are normal. Teacher costs and staffing rates have little to do with density. Pipes and roadway do; but how do they compare to other non-density related labor costs?
And underlying all this is the size of the city. San Jose is a very large city built at a lower average density. As a result, there's more of everything to pay for (not necessarily all paid for, in part or at all, by the city). Or, the other option is to choose to have things much further apart (or larger coverage areas, as the case may be with emergency services).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-13-2016, 06:15 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,006,214 times
Reputation: 1348
Form can make a place heavily burdened. Form also determines how one gets from place to place. Form determines mode share, but also how much people use other modes for pleasure. Form determines a lot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Of course the wealth of a place is exogenous to form; did anyone claim it was?
Suburban boosters claim that such and such place is successful or valuable because, see, the proof is that the residents are wealthy. That the homes are nice. That the businesses are successful. But this overlooks the reality that as many suburbs have aged, the wealthy residents have moved on, as have the high-end chain retailers, and the homes haven't aged well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2016, 07:15 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 22 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,014 posts, read 102,634,943 times
Reputation: 33082
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Form can make a place heavily burdened. Form also determines how one gets from place to place. Form determines mode share, but also how much people use other modes for pleasure. Form determines a lot.



Suburban boosters claim that such and such place is successful or valuable because, see, the proof is that the residents are wealthy. That the homes are nice. That the businesses are successful. But this overlooks the reality that as many suburbs have aged, the wealthy residents have moved on, as have the high-end chain retailers, and the homes haven't aged well.
And, just as there are areas in "the city" that have always been "nice", so there are suburbs that always have been and probably always will be "nice" as well. Fox Chapel in Pittsburgh is one that comes to mind. It's where the Heinz family has their farm.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2016, 11:47 PM
 
391 posts, read 207,425 times
Reputation: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
They, like London, Paris, Tokyo, are all very powerful. The sheer number of transactions that take place within and their centrality to the economies of their states/countries cannot be denied.

What I meant, then, was that high density places require large outlays on the part of a government to keep functioning. At high densities, places need very large scale, expensive infrastructure just to not implode. Shut down BART and SF is a mess. So we get projects like the Trans-Bay Terminal, the Central Subway, and the underground extension of Caltrain. And that's just transit.

There's a point where the marginal benefit of each new person within a totally built out city declines. But there's also a point where the marginal cost of supporting each new person with infrastructure climbs rapidly.

Or, another way, the Concorde was very, very fast. But it was very, very expensive. At some point, the marginal benefit of each additional MPH (err, knots per hour?) also comes with a sharp increase in the cost. The benefit may be there, but there's an argument that it's not the most optimal benefit, that flying more slowly might produce a greater benefit.
Density itself is not the problem. Density should be cheaper per person because it means less infrastructure is needed per person due to everything being closer together. If you're talking about construction costs in already built-out cities, then yes, those will be higher because of the cities being already built out and having lots of infrastructure already in place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2016, 03:57 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,072 posts, read 16,094,154 times
Reputation: 12647
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Form can make a place heavily burdened. Form also determines how one gets from place to place. Form determines mode share, but also how much people use other modes for pleasure. Form determines a lot.

Suburban boosters claim that such and such place is successful or valuable because, see, the proof is that the residents are wealthy. That the homes are nice. That the businesses are successful. But this overlooks the reality that as many suburbs have aged, the wealthy residents have moved on, as have the high-end chain retailers, and the homes haven't aged well.
Obviously. None of that has really anything to do with how much wealth a place generates though. Palo Alto generates a tremendous amount of wealth. Adjacent East Palo Alto does not. Downtown San Francisco generates a lot of wealth. So do the business parks in Palo Alto. E.P.A is beginning to gentrify but it's still largely malaise despite extensive corporate welfare (University Circle, Ravenswood shopping center -- Home Depot, Ikea, etc.) being funded by California.

E.P.A. is not self-sustaining. Hundreds of millions of dollars in development subsidies coming from the general state fund is one part of it but there's also the social costs. As the poorest city in San Mateo County, E.P.A. simply does not generate enough revenue to pay for things like schools. It doesn't have to, of course, as there's revenue sharing which is why Ravenswood (E.P.A.) has more money to spend per pupil than Cupertino Union does.

Nothing to do with built form. The least urban parts of Detroit at the edge have fared much better than the more urban parts just 2-3 miles outside of Detroit. Likewise, nothing to do with built form.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2017, 10:11 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
45,990 posts, read 41,998,698 times
Reputation: 14810
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
And underlying all this is the size of the city. San Jose is a very large city built at a lower average density. As a result, there's more of everything to pay for (not necessarily all paid for, in part or at all, by the city). Or, the other option is to choose to have things much further apart (or larger coverage areas, as the case may be with emergency services).
I looked at the breakdown of my parent's property bill, in a fairly low density NY suburb. The costs that seemed like they could have been tied to density (roads, etc.) looked to be a small portion of it. While ones that were labor-related (schools, most of police, etc.) were the bulk of the costs. I'm not saying the lower density = more infrastructure is necessarily wrong; but it seems like a minor issue cost-wise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2017, 10:51 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 22 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,014 posts, read 102,634,943 times
Reputation: 33082
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I looked at the breakdown of my parent's property bill, in a fairly low density NY suburb. The costs that seemed like they could have been tied to density (roads, etc.) looked to be a small portion of it. While ones that were labor-related (schools, most of police, etc.) were the bulk of the costs. I'm not saying the lower density = more infrastructure is necessarily wrong; but it seems like a minor issue cost-wise.
Exactly! My school district estimates something like 75% of its budget (ballpark figure) goes to salaries and benefits. I would presume it's similar for police and fire protection.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2017, 02:30 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,006,214 times
Reputation: 1348
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I looked at the breakdown of my parent's property bill, in a fairly low density NY suburb. The costs that seemed like they could have been tied to density (roads, etc.) looked to be a small portion of it. While ones that were labor-related (schools, most of police, etc.) were the bulk of the costs. I'm not saying the lower density = more infrastructure is necessarily wrong; but it seems like a minor issue cost-wise.
Fair response. Does it break it down to the various levels of government--city, county, state, federal? Also, does it break out how much is debt service?

Also, San Jose is probably close to 99.9% built out, but at a low overall density, so there are a lot of infrastructure costs, and a lot of that is deferred as much as possible. And not all are paid by the city. Our public transportation, for example, is at the county level, as are our expressways and a couple highways. Freeways are a state concern. Many of our bike lanes are funded by state or federal grants. Or, in the case of services, many are funded in part or in whole by grants from higher levels of government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2017, 02:36 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 22 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,014 posts, read 102,634,943 times
Reputation: 33082
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Fair response. Does it break it down to the various levels of government--city, county, state, federal? Also, does it break out how much is debt service?

Also, San Jose is probably close to 99.9% built out, but at a low overall density, so there are a lot of infrastructure costs, and a lot of that is deferred as much as possible. And not all are paid by the city. Our public transportation, for example, is at the county level, as are our expressways and a couple highways. Freeways are a state concern. Many of our bike lanes are funded by state or federal grants. Or, in the case of services, many are funded in part or in whole by grants from higher levels of government.
I don't know about NY state, or CA, but here in Colorado your property tax bill only includes local taxes, e.g. school, fire protection district, county taxes. We have no state property tax and there is no federal property tax.

How Property Taxes Are Calculated
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2017, 03:29 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
45,990 posts, read 41,998,698 times
Reputation: 14810
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Fair response. Does it break it down to the various levels of government--city, county, state, federal? Also, does it break out how much is debt service?

Also, San Jose is probably close to 99.9% built out, but at a low overall density, so there are a lot of infrastructure costs, and a lot of that is deferred as much as possible. And not all are paid by the city. Our public transportation, for example, is at the county level, as are our expressways and a couple highways. Freeways are a state concern. Many of our bike lanes are funded by state or federal grants. Or, in the case of services, many are funded in part or in whole by grants from higher levels of government.
It doesn't breakdown by government level, but like Katarina said for Colorado it broke it down for "service districts": fire, schools, etc. There was a line for police, roads, etc. Major highways are paid for by the state but local roads aren't. It did not break

My parent's area in particular is quite a bit lower density than San Jose; but much of Long Island is similar or only slightly lower. Since the region hasn't grown much nor added much infrastructure in 40 years, there's little new being deferred for late.
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