best way to build a city-don't try! (class, environment, urbanism)
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.
I read it too. It's obviously an entertainment piece, not a serious policy piece. It uses all sorts of hyperbole, e.g. "a city which must not be named except to be derided as a sprawling, suburban hellscape." Houston is also, per the article, very car-centric, and they do have parking requirements!
I read it too. It's obviously an entertainment piece, not a serious policy piece. It uses all sorts of hyperbole, e.g. "a city which must not be named except to be derided as a sprawling, suburban hellscape." Houston is also, per the article, very car-centric, and they do have parking requirements!
And, it's likely that, if they treated their parking and street width requirements like their zoning requirements, the market would likely push parts of the city to be less car-centric.
As usual your points can only be guessed at but I'll take a shot.
Regarding general contracting, affordable housing isn't the sort of work we do. But yet I still support it. Newsflash...it's possible to care about things outside your own self interest. While also having some idea of their economics.
In the last post, your first response makes no sense. People move for a lot of reasons (is this news?) and when they move they make decisions based on factors like what apartment fits their needs/wants.
because they leased an apartment doesn't mean it met their needs. Maybe that's why they moved - because they last one they rented wasn't able to fulfill needs beyond housing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays25
Second paragraph: Sprawl isn't mine to control, but it's ours.
No it is not "yours" and it is not some collective ownership issue either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays25
My region has pretty decent leglislation that's been supported by the voters repeatedly at the state and local level. And I didn't say unrestricted free market. This isn't anarchy. Every city in the US has laws and zoning (even Houston, of a different type).
It's not a free market at all.
You're trying to impose zoning outside the city you are trying to force everyone to live in. The people that own the property outside the city don't share your view and why should you, the non-owner, non-taxpayer, etc., have any standing to prohibit the owners outside the city from doing nearly anything they want with their property? You can "save" the property by paying for it - if they had any interest in selling it to you in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays25
Third paragraph: You're guessing from a couch again. Yes buildings compete with each other, and while the relationship between cost and rents isn't direct, the market tends to push them together due to competition.
Buildings are inanimate objects. Landlords might compete with each other, buildings don't. The market might push rents towards each other for properties in the same limited geographic area with similar features. The market does not push costs together.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays25
As for "unfair competition," what a wierd comment! Now businesses can't compete with each other, and people can't have affordable housing because you think they all need to be equal?! You forgot what country this is komrade.
The only one promoting eliminating standards here is you and yes imposing different restrictions on different businesses is both an equal protection and an unfair competition issue. You don't get to offer reduced rent in return for no running water, no electricity, or no wastewater services either, slumlord.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays25
On your last point we'll just have to disagree...and thankfully my city doesn't do things your way! Actually the best cities all do things more like I'm talking about.
Who owns who? Sounds like "your" city is a cesspool or headed that way. Who would appreciate a city that promotes high density slum housing without plumbing, electricity, running water, etc.? Slumlords and that's about it.
Last edited by IC_deLight; 06-30-2016 at 09:15 AM..
I read it too. It's obviously an entertainment piece, not a serious policy piece. It uses all sorts of hyperbole, e.g. "a city which must not be named except to be derided as a sprawling, suburban hellscape." Houston is also, per the article, very car-centric, and they do have parking requirements!
I think you missed the author's point. The author is praising Houston, he's using hyperbole to mock urbanists that deride Houston. Most of the rest of the article seems serious. Do you have specific points you disagree with rather than the style?
I think you missed the author's point. The author is praising Houston, he's using hyperbole to mock urbanists that deride Houston. Most of the rest of the article seems serious. Do you have specific points you disagree with rather than the style?
It's not a serious piece. The author is presenting his POV. The comments were very interesting. The author does not live in Houston; it's a superficial look at it.
IC, you haven't said anything new, and everything is purely your guesses, so not much point in rehashing the same responses. Except to clarify that the suburban and statewide voters are included in those growth management votes that have repeatedly won.
And except your last claim...my city is going to be a cesspool? In fact it's booming, off the charts. And one very specific reason is that while it's not cheap, it's still more affordable than some of the other booming cities. (You must think Manhattan is a cesspool too...parking is rare there! How you must hate their freedom!)
IC, you haven't said anything new, and everything is purely your guesses, so not much point in rehashing the same responses. Except to clarify that the suburban and statewide voters are included in those growth management votes that have repeatedly won.
Identify what you believe is a guess. I see you weren't able to support your economic arguments.
There are idiots near here that vote for every "save the earth" (i.e., anti-people/anti-property rights) item on the ballot too. The local paper interviewed a few of those folks who didn't realize the connection between their vote, taxes, and the cost of living. The interview concluded with the idiots crying because they were forced to move by the tax increases needed to support the ballot items they voted for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays25
And except your last claim...my city is going to be a cesspool?
Yep. If you think it's okay to eliminate plumbing, electricity, and wastewater services to provide for lower rent then you are promoting a cesspool. The city that isn't "yours" undoubtedly does not support your position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays25
In fact it's booming, off the charts. And one very specific reason is that while it's not cheap, it's still more affordable than some of the other booming cities. (You must think Manhattan is a cesspool too...parking is rare there! How you must hate their freedom!)
Manhattan is choking on its own failing infrastructure. There was a story on it this evening and about how many billions the "city" has cost the citizens and workers there. The density that you promote makes repair even more problematic and congested. Who wants to live where the water mains, gas lines, bridges, streets, tunnels, and sewer lines are in such bad shape? Who in their right mind wants to import that into where they live? I know it can't be that great where your city is. By the looks of the license plates around here, many of the residents voted with their feet to leave where you are to come here.
Last edited by IC_deLight; 06-30-2016 at 09:49 PM..
I read it too. It's obviously an entertainment piece, not a serious policy piece. It uses all sorts of hyperbole, e.g. "a city which must not be named except to be derided as a sprawling, suburban hellscape." Houston is also, per the article, very car-centric, and they do have parking requirements!
Actually in urban planning circles, that is how they treat Houston. That's pretty factual!
That Houston succeeds is an affront to their existence.
Houston is a terrible city. No place should be wanting to emulate it.
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.
