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 05-27-2015, 02:38 PM
 
Location: Florida
5,247 posts, read 3,016,686 times
Reputation: 9593

Advertisements

Never had a riot in any place in suburbia that I have lived.

Big cities are for those that are not competent to drive a car.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-27-2015, 02:49 PM
 
1,998 posts, read 2,933,119 times
Reputation: 2150
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineman View Post
Never had a riot in any place in suburbia that I have lived.

Big cities are for those that are not competent to drive a car.
Your comment makes absolutely no sense. In literally every city in the US with the exception of NYC, the majority of households have a car. Most people in big cities know how to drive. Even in NYC, over 40% of households have cars.

I know you are just trying to make a trollish dig at people who live in big cities who you seem to have some kind of problem with for some reason, but to troll successfully you should make sure you have at least some kind of factual basis. Otherwise you only expose your own ignorance, as you did here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2015, 12:43 AM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,057,675 times
Reputation: 8970
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineman View Post
Never had a riot in any place in suburbia that I have lived.

Big cities are for those that are not competent to drive a car.

Define competent to drive a car.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2015, 02:56 PM
 
Location: Poshawa, Ontario
2,986 posts, read 3,321,288 times
Reputation: 5622
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
What if everybody quit their jobs, how would we live? What if everyone demanded a living wage tomorrow, how would we afford it? What if everyone jumped in the air at the same time? Statements about "everybody" doing something at the same time are hyperbolic and nonsensical.
Nobody is complaining about everyone working nor demanding a living wage nor jumping in the air. However they are complaining about sprawl. As it stands right now, there are 2.5 million people living in the city of Toronto and 6 million people living in the "sprawl" of the GTA. It should also be pointed out that many more Canadians, whether they be newcomers or from rural areas, are continually moving into the GTA because thats where a great many of the highest paying jobs are. Rather than make silly statements about this being "nonsensical" or "hyperbole", perhaps you can explain exactly where you seem to think these people would live if we stopped building more sprawl tomorrow. Are you actually do foolish as to think that houses are magically going to appear in established neighborhoods like mushrooms overnight if we don't keep building houses to keep up with the demand? Furthermore, "darkeconomist" (ironic name, that) you do not seem to understand what would happen to the cost of established housing if we stopped building more to keep up with the growing population in these areas. I would have assumed you understood the basic economic principal of supply and demand, at least on the most rudimentary level...

Quote:
If there's demand for more urban living, as prices suggest there is, developers should be able to meet that demand with the ease they meet demand for exurban living.
Talk about nonsense... Anyone with half a brain can see that the suburbs are being built on undeveloped land that allows for such expansion. The downtown core? Not so much.

The reason the cost of housing is steadily increasing in Toronto is because there is no more room to build houses, not because "everyone" wants to live is some overpriced, roach-infested condo.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2015, 03:16 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
45,989 posts, read 41,967,271 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annuvin View Post
ather than make silly statements about this being "nonsensical" or "hyperbole", perhaps you can explain exactly where you seem to think these people would live if we stopped building more sprawl tomorrow. Are you actually do foolish as to think that houses are magically going to appear in established neighborhoods like mushrooms overnight if we don't keep building houses to keep up with the demand?
How about new un-sprawling developments? You seem to calling all development "sprawl" for some reason.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2015, 05:27 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,005,048 times
Reputation: 1348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annuvin View Post
Nobody is complaining about everyone working nor demanding a living wage nor jumping in the air. However they are complaining about sprawl. As it stands right now, there are 2.5 million people living in the city of Toronto and 6 million people living in the "sprawl" of the GTA. It should also be pointed out that many more Canadians, whether they be newcomers or from rural areas, are continually moving into the GTA because thats where a great many of the highest paying jobs are. Rather than make silly statements about this being "nonsensical" or "hyperbole", perhaps you can explain exactly where you seem to think these people would live if we stopped building more sprawl tomorrow. Are you actually do foolish as to think that houses are magically going to appear in established neighborhoods like mushrooms overnight if we don't keep building houses to keep up with the demand? Furthermore, "darkeconomist" (ironic name, that) you do not seem to understand what would happen to the cost of established housing if we stopped building more to keep up with the growing population in these areas. I would have assumed you understood the basic economic principal of supply and demand, at least on the most rudimentary level...
There you go again, suggesting that it is even worth discussing the case of if we stopped horizontal expansion tomorrow. Of course in that case things would go haywire. But that is a nonsense case to consider. It doesn't inform us of anything useful; it is not just extreme, but the most extreme case possible. What we need to be discussing is better expansion and if our government intrusions have produced long-term net positive results in the housing market.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Annuvin View Post
Talk about nonsense... Anyone with half a brain can see that the suburbs are being built on undeveloped land that allows for such expansion. The downtown core? Not so much.

The reason the cost of housing is steadily increasing in Toronto is because there is no more room to build houses, not because "everyone" wants to live is some overpriced, roach-infested condo.
I'm not personally familiar with the intricacies of Toronto.

In many American cities, however, a great deal of the cost of infill is by government fiat--high min. parking requirements, rent-seeking permit pricing, labyrinthine and long development processes, expensive legal challenges to legitimate projects, etc--that are not inherent costs like land acquisition, land prep, or construction.

Meanwhile, the government makes it very, very easy to build exurban developments and supplies the major infrastructure--freeways, sewer, water--to make it feasible; if all developers of exurban developments had to pay the same impact fees and go through the same regulatory and legal hurdles as their urban counterparts, exurban development would be much smaller in scale.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2015, 07:18 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 20 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,006 posts, read 102,606,536 times
Reputation: 33064
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
There you go again, suggesting that it is even worth discussing the case of if we stopped horizontal expansion tomorrow. Of course in that case things would go haywire. But that is a nonsense case to consider. It doesn't inform us of anything useful; it is not just extreme, but the most extreme case possible. What we need to be discussing is better expansion and if our government intrusions have produced long-term net positive results in the housing market.



I'm not personally familiar with the intricacies of Toronto.

In many American cities, however, a great deal of the cost of infill is by government fiat--high min. parking requirements, rent-seeking permit pricing, labyrinthine and long development processes, expensive legal challenges to legitimate projects, etc--that are not inherent costs like land acquisition, land prep, or construction.

Meanwhile, the government makes it very, very easy to build exurban developments and supplies the major infrastructure--freeways, sewer, water--to make it feasible; if all developers of exurban developments had to pay the same impact fees and go through the same regulatory and legal hurdles as their urban counterparts, exurban development would be much smaller in scale.
I think you're off base in that last paragraph. Developers (not that I hold them in great regard) often have to put in the streets and pay impact fees. What makes you think they don't?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2015, 02:28 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,005,048 times
Reputation: 1348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
I think you're off base in that last paragraph. Developers (not that I hold them in great regard) often have to put in the streets and pay impact fees. What makes you think they don't?
I'm familiar with Mello-Roos and impact fees and what infrastructure developers commonly provide. Yes, a developer will build a park, a school, sidewalks, and roads within the development. What they don't do, generally, is supply the large-scale infrastructure to to reach the exurban developments I was talking about. Yes, the city and county get new taxpaying residents, but they also get the burden of building and maintaining a lot of new and expensive infrastructure out to the edge of the new development. Roads and sewers and water pipes and pumps aren't cheap, especially over the long-term.

My point in all of this was to contrast how much cheaper and easier it is, holding inherent costs fixed, for a developer to build out in the exurbs than to do infill.

Last edited by darkeconomist; 06-01-2015 at 02:43 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2015, 12:15 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,068 posts, read 16,081,530 times
Reputation: 12641
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
In many American cities, however, a great deal of the cost of infill is by government fiat--high min. parking requirements, rent-seeking permit pricing, labyrinthine and long development processes, expensive legal challenges to legitimate projects, etc--that are not inherent costs like land acquisition, land prep, or construction.

Meanwhile, the government makes it very, very easy to build exurban developments and supplies the major infrastructure--freeways, sewer, water--to make it feasible; if all developers of exurban developments had to pay the same impact fees and go through the same regulatory and legal hurdles as their urban counterparts, exurban development would be much smaller in scale.
Government isn't a monolithic entity. Your argument seems to boil down to the fact that you think exurban governments through a combination of basic economics and better governance and policy making are able to charge less for these "government fiat" fees like permit fees and offer streamlined and more efficient planning approval that avoids legal challenges compared to urban governments. Thus because exurban governments are better run and economically able to charge less this is unfair to some and they should be punished and artificially subjected to the same burdensome and costly processes as their neighbors because it's not fair that they're better governed and the basic economic reality is that building in a denser, more urban environment is more complicated and more costly than in a less developed one. Obviously I think that's stupid and counter-productive.

The State pays a lot for a lot of these projects regardless of where they occur. For example, for the Bay Bridge, the State coughed up $510 in 2005 to cover the $3 billion overage. For the T-Third light rail in San Francisco, the feds are $1.1 trillon (49% of the cost), the state $632, local funding is the smallest component at $488 million. Now what about a big exurban construction project like the Highway 4 corridor, including the BART expansion? State is chipping in $244 million and the feds $33.5 million. The funding is almost all local. Contra Costa through various sources (CCTA, various cities) $562.8 million with another $456 from the MTC which is Bay Area wide transit commission.

So interesting comparison. For Highway 4, the fed is paying nearly nothing and the state relatively little. It's mostly being paid for locally. For light trail in San Francisco, the fed and state are paying nearly 80% of the cost. So I don't know what that really means to you. Either way the rather vague "the government" is paying for the entirety of both projects. It's just a question of whether it's the local part of "the government" or the state and federal parts. For the exurban project, it's mostly local. For the urban it's mostly state and federal. Specifically if we're talking about the federal "the government" making things artificially cheaper, it's just simply not true. Contra Costa county has a greater population than San Francisco so if "the government" is making it cheaper they must be getting more funding. Now, that's just two examples. I have no idea how much money "the government" has subsidized in Contra Costa but just to me it seems like less than they've subsidized San Francisco. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.

Last edited by Malloric; 06-02-2015 at 12:26 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2015, 07:18 AM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,351,264 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
I'm familiar with Mello-Roos and impact fees and what infrastructure developers commonly provide. Yes, a developer will build a park, a school, sidewalks, and roads within the development.
So in other words, local government taxes and imposes restrictions while avoiding the obligations traditionally handled by local government.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
What they don't do, generally, is supply the large-scale infrastructure to to reach the exurban developments I was talking about. Yes, the city and county get new taxpaying residents, but they also get the burden of building and maintaining a lot of new and expensive infrastructure out to the edge of the new development. Roads and sewers and water pipes and pumps aren't cheap, especially over the long-term.
Building infrastructure is fundamentally one of the functions of government. However, developers don't build in the middle of nowhere - speculating that local government will timely create infrastructure to the development. Some of this infrastructure planning is accomplished by agreement with local government. In other cases, the development is built where there is existing infrastructure and the existing infrastructure is upgraded over time to accommodate the new load. Why shouldn't government bear the costs of this infrastructure?

This location of development certainly seems more flexible than building tall tower condos in areas where the infrastructure such as road infrastructure has no room to expand or where due to density the cost of tearing out some infrastructure (e.g., roads) in order to upgrade others (e.g., water/sewer) is extremely costly. Plus the housing is often less expensive and often the government less restrictive in the areas you call "exurbs" - so the property owner can spend less on housing and have less interference on their use of the property.

Your arguments seem to be the same argument used by NIMBYs - a "protect the people that are here now" argument. But the owners of the properties under the same governmental tax and regulate jurisdiction were paying for infrastructure where the NIMBYs are. If the local government doesn't like it then maybe it needs to cede territory to avoid the obligation that comes with territory.

The cost of "development" and growth in southern California required water from northern California. Is Los Angeles an exurb of Sacramento?

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
My point in all of this was to contrast how much cheaper and easier it is, holding inherent costs fixed, for a developer to build out in the exurbs than to do infill.
Building new schools, roads, and other infrastructure increases costs in the "exurbs" in ways that aren't experienced with "infill" development but you usually can't "infill" on the same or even a comparable scale either due to independent ownership of the underlying property. What are you going to "infill" with - a condo building on a few adjacent lots? A tower shopping mall in the middle of a residential subdivision?

This isn't a gross "cost" issue but rather whether development can be profitable in one area vs. another even if possible. Your dense housing and "urban" environment creates hurdles like fractured ownership, a regulatory environment, etc. that make development more risky, less possible, and less likely to be successful - for the developer.
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