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.
Maybe it's OK to talk about health on this thread, eh, nei? It's been shown in some studies that the walking one does in one's ADLs is not all that beneficial. I don't feel like digging this stuff up today, been on the computer all day, waiting for a furnace inspector to show up. (He's gone. It passed.) My personal feeling is that at least you're moving.
No, I"d want my kids to go to the park to do that! City or suburb.
How do you figure? All pay sales taxes, the Walmart probably more than a Safeway or Kroger's, as in some places food isn't taxed, or isn't taxed as much. Here in the Denver metro, ruban grocery stores generally have a parking lot. Also in St. Paul, MN.
There are studies from sociologists that suggest a lot of emotional health comes from spontaneous interactions, ie, unplanned interactions, either with people you know or don't. And these are more readily enabled by more compact patterns than by expansive ones. If you can easily walk or bike to your friend's house, you're more likely to do so spontaneously than if you have to hop in a car, even if the distance as the crow flies is the same. Look at senior mental health, for example, and how a big complaint is how isolated and alone single seniors can feel, especially if they can't drive. If they are, effectively, trapped by the built form of their neighborhood, they lose a lot of those spontaneous meaningful interactions.
Also, if a large geographic area is walkable, you're more likely to walk or bike rather than drive. I'm not saying people shouldn't or wouldn't drive, but that the number of VMTs drops and the proportion of people getting around without a car at least some of the time increases.
As to using streets for anything but driving, you've made it quite clear you're against the idea. Fine. We disagree there, but my fundamental point there is that neighborhood streets should be slow and calm. So while you may not want kids to play in the street, I think the mere ability to do so safely is a good barometer of the safety of the street.
As to retail, it comes down to the amount of land on a property that is revenue-generating. Freely provided parking doesn't, itself, generate revenue. It may allow it because, sure, we have to park our Siennas and F250s and Camrys somewhere when we shop, but there's no arguing that it doesn't generate revenue itself. More parking per parcel = less revenue-generating land per parcel. I'm not saying those businesses don't generate taxes, I'm instead referring to the efficiency at which the property that business occupies generates taxes. As such, when you look at the taxes generated per acre of various stores in different contexts, a Walmart Supercenter, Target, or the like in a suburban setting produces lower taxes per acre than an urban Safeway or Whole Foods or a historic shopping district.
At the same time, simply as a matter of the preferred transit mode, there is just more infrastructure--roads, sidewalks, street- and stoplights, sewers--to provide. But those costs are largely fixed per acre, so any built form that requires more acres of infrastructure is more expensive to support in absolute terms.
3 or 4. I really don't want to change my name, yet again. I may change custom title so people don't get so confused. I do like ice skating and watching ice skating. Maybe Tonya Harding, more my personality?
There are studies from sociologists that suggest a lot of emotional health comes from spontaneous interactions, ie, unplanned interactions, either with people you know or don't. And these are more readily enabled by more compact patterns than by expansive ones. If you can easily walk or bike to your friend's house, you're more likely to do so spontaneously than if you have to hop in a car, even if the distance as the crow flies is the same. Look at senior mental health, for example, and how a big complaint is how isolated and alone single seniors can feel, especially if they can't drive. If they are, effectively, trapped by the built form of their neighborhood, they lose a lot of those spontaneous meaningful interactions.
Also, if a large geographic area is walkable, you're more likely to walk or bike rather than drive. I'm not saying people shouldn't or wouldn't drive, but that the number of VMTs drops and the proportion of people getting around without a car at least some of the time increases.
As to using streets for anything but driving, you've made it quite clear you're against the idea. Fine. We disagree there, but my fundamental point there is that neighborhood streets should be slow and calm. So while you may not want kids to play in the street, I think the mere ability to do so safely is a good barometer of the safety of the street.
As to retail, it comes down to the amount of land on a property that is revenue-generating. Freely provided parking doesn't, itself, generate revenue. It may allow it because, sure, we have to park our Siennas and F250s and Camrys somewhere when we shop, but there's no arguing that it doesn't generate revenue itself. More parking per parcel = less revenue-generating land per parcel. I'm not saying those businesses don't generate taxes, I'm instead referring to the efficiency at which the property that business occupies generates taxes. As such, when you look at the taxes generated per acre of various stores in different contexts, a Walmart Supercenter, Target, or the like in a suburban setting produces lower taxes per acre than an urban Safeway or Whole Foods or a historic shopping district.
At the same time, simply as a matter of the preferred transit mode, there is just more infrastructure--roads, sidewalks, street- and stoplights, sewers--to provide. But those costs are largely fixed per acre, so any built form that requires more acres of infrastructure is more expensive to support in absolute terms.
My MIL lives in a senior apartment building, they have one communal meal a day, and lots of activities including out to lunch at local restaurants in the van, and she still complains of loneliness. It's a state of mind as much as anything else, I think.
My neighborhood streets are pretty slow and calm. The speed limit is 25 mph, and while not everyone observes that to the mile, rarely is anyone zooming down the road. When it happens, it's mostly teen guys that either live there or are going to visit a girlfriend. I live in a small subdivision, usually there's no one driving on my street except the residents, their guests, and a few service vehicles. When we lived in another neighborhood in this town, we also lived in a residential neighborhood, but it is larger, more connected to the rest of the town grid, we were on a main road of the subdivision and there was a lot more traffic on our street. There is also a school in that 'hood, so there was/is lots of traffic to/from the school. So for safety, these non-connected streets and cul-de-sacs are safer for such activities as playing street hockey. In fact, kids do play on the street in the cul-de-sacs in my 'hood.
If Walmart, Target, etc didn't make money on their properties with big parking lots, they wouldn't build them.
As to retail, it comes down to the amount of land on a property that is revenue-generating. Freely provided parking doesn't, itself, generate revenue. It may allow it because, sure, we have to park our Siennas and F250s and Camrys somewhere when we shop, but there's no arguing that it doesn't generate revenue itself.
It depends on who is providing the parking and who the revenue is being generated for. Property taxes are collected on non-municipal streets, parking lots, etc.
If Walmart, Target, etc didn't make money on their properties with big parking lots, they wouldn't build them.
I invite you to re-read my post. I didn't say they don't make money, nor did I mention their ability to generate revenue. I instead said that retail with a lot of parking generates, apples-to-apples, fewer taxes/acre than retail with fewer parking spaces. From a land perspective, a big Walmart consumes a lot of land, more of which is parking than actual store, so the tax revenue/acre is poor. Meanwhile, the cost to the city of that Walmart Supercenter is high because that built form requires a lot of infrastructure.
It depends on who is providing the parking and who the revenue is being generated for. Property taxes are collected on non-municipal streets, parking lots, etc.
I'm unclear what your ultimate point is. I didn't say taxes weren't collected on internal roads and parking lots. I also said that freely provided ($0, as is the case in almost every suburban retail center) parking doesn't itself generate revenue. I was talking about the efficiency of the parcel as an engine for municipal prosperity because we've mentally separated what our cities can provide to us from how the built form defines a city's revenue stream.
Here's the first post in this branch:
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist
We mentally disconnect the prosperity of our city--it's ability to provide services to us, like parks, police, and street sweeping--from the fundamental reality of how much taxes per acre different built forms produce; that Walmart Supercenter surrounded by parking has a pretty low tax/acre and high service cost/acre compared to an urban Safeway or Kroger's.
I have noticed many threads about walkability. However according to walkscore https://www.walkscore.com/
Very few cities that people are moving to are actually walkable. So here is the question, is walkability out of step with the needs of the average person?
Walkability implies public transportation and amenities that are close. However as many of you know; in order to have walkability you need to have density. Density is correlated with higher rents and lower availability of home ownership. (Including condos) Both are factors in people's desire to move since higher prices are the main reason that people are complaining in places like NY. The lack of home ownership is one of the main things that people seek especially those who want families. We also have a growing society that needs additional housing since we have enough homelessness already and we don't want to add to it by making it more expensive to live.
There is also a political factor in walkability in that you need to have a changing society as buildings need to get taller and taller. The character of the city needs to change in order to accommodate a growing population. However many cities resist this through zoning (I'm looking at you SF!)
I personally favor walkability and I live in an area that is pretty walkable. However, very few places have overcome the economics and politics necessary to become walkable for the average man. So is it realistic?
Of course it is realistic to some extent. Look at a London, UK suburb; nothing higher than four stories, a high street as they call it with a lot of stuff people need from bars to groceries.
Of course the further from the high streets, the less the rent but more the inconvenience if walkability is the factor. The high streets are also located on the Tube stops. Bus service is also an important factor.
You will never have the perfect, utopia version of a walkable area. When you make a place desirable, more people will want to go there, and the prices will increase, that is just a fact. Also, businesses are less likely to invest in areas that are not desirable. That all so evil term "gentrifing" is just making a place more desirable for business to invest in, which in turn attracts more people to the area causing an increase in the cost of housing.
This walkbale thing is almost impossible for SFH. The area is just too large for the number of people for businesses to have this kind of service. Some neighborhoods are huge and would take a considerable amount of time just to walk to the closest business. Add that to the fact of the number of customers in the neighborhood, having a walkable area for each neighborhood would be difficult.
I invite you to re-read my post. I didn't say they don't make money, nor did I mention their ability to generate revenue. I instead said that retail with a lot of parking generates, apples-to-apples, fewer taxes/acre than retail with fewer parking spaces. From a land perspective, a big Walmart consumes a lot of land, more of which is parking than actual store, so the tax revenue/acre is poor. Meanwhile, the cost to the city of that Walmart Supercenter is high because that built form requires a lot of infrastructure.
I think the point was that the city would not be collecting anything if they did not build the super center there. An empty lot is an empty lot, is someone builds a super center, that is more than what was offered by anyone before.
There was likely no demand for the type of development you are comparing the super center to.
Also, if tax efficiency is so great in density areas, then why are my taxes always so much damn higher when living in a dense, urban area versus a rural area? My dense, DC area neighborhood was and still is always aiming for the need for more money, not enough for schools, county programs, fire fighters, etc. Yet my rural area never had any issue with over crowding in school, fire fighting services, etc. Seems the more the density, the higher the taxes, the more social problems there are that need yet more money. If density means better tax collecting efficiency, I have not ever seen it.
I invite you to re-read my post. I didn't say they don't make money, nor did I mention their ability to generate revenue. I instead said that retail with a lot of parking generates, apples-to-apples, fewer taxes/acre than retail with fewer parking spaces.From a land perspective, a big Walmart consumes a lot of land, more of which is parking than actual store, so the tax revenue/acre is poor. Meanwhile, the cost to the city of that Walmart Supercenter is high because that built form requires a lot of infrastructure.
As JR_C says, the property owner pays tax on the parking lot. That generates money for the city. Parking lots don't need much in the way of infrastructure from the city; they're private land.
I'd like to see some numbers for the bold. Each little boutique building needs its own meters and other infrastructure as well.
As JR_C says, the property owner pays tax on the parking lot. That generates money for the city. Parking lots don't need much in the way of infrastructure from the city; they're private land.
I'd like to see some numbers for the bold. Each little boutique building needs its own meters and other infrastructure as well.
I've posted numbers on several occasions, and they're freely available online.
As property tax isn't the only tax, and as many cities rely heavily and sales tax, then the more intense the use of a parcel, the higher the revenue. People sometimes don't realize how large a Walmart Supercenter parcel truly is, and how much stuff can fit within that parcel, so they overlook the opportunity cost of using those parcels in that way.
Places like Walmarts, Home Depots, Targets are fundamentally autocentric and require a lot of infrastructure from the city. People have to be able to get to these places, after all, and they're not likely to do it without a car. So you're paving four or six wide lanes, plus gutter, installing sidewalks, streetlights, and stoplights, and installing a lot more of these things.
As to your other point, in highly walkable areas at least two things can happen: less parking is required overall (like in traffic, there's such a thing as "induced parking demand"); parking can be shared between businesses, so that less parking is needed for every business to accommodate their particular peak hours.
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.
