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.
If you want to make personal comments about me, feel free to PM me so we can discuss it offline -- or more likely, so I can ignore them offline.
Here's the difference between me and armchair autocrats: I don't presume to have an "ideal" model of urban development. No one model can possibly accommodate the wide variety of needs and preferences -- one man's "ideal" development model is another man's soul-crushing Hell. Additionally, no one person possesses or can possess sufficient knowledge to allocate resources efficiently on such a massive scale. The more government influences or dictates development -- be it with subsidized mass transit, subsidized expressways, zoning laws, minimum lot size requirements, government-imposed building design standards, you name it -- the more interference there is with market signals that would tend toward an efficient allocation of resources. And finally, what is "ideal" can change with new developments in technology, changes in supply and demand for current resources, changes in competing uses for current resources, and the development and discovery of new resources.
So what is an "ideal" model of urban development? The best answer I can give is I don't know, and neither do you. What was ideal yesterday may not be ideal today. What is ideal today may not be ideal tomorrow.
How do you know what I know? I have a Masters in Urban Planning and I've worked in real estate development for years.
Government interference with the wrong policies is what caused sprawl in the first place. What's needed for starters are zoning ordinances that allow for enough density to reduce energy consumption and keep living costs low for residents--as well as allow for a mix of uses so that residents don't have to hop in a car for every need. Density doesn't mean Manhattan, as you can have a single family neighborhood that is within walking distance or has sufficient access to public transport in order to jobs and services. Aside from the transit aspect, Downtown Madison is a great example of this.
It's not about being autocratic, but rather to ensure that people have choices to live in the types of communities that they desire. Can't get more free market than that.
How do you know what I know? I have a Masters in Urban Planning and I've worked in real estate development for years.
Government interference with the wrong policies is what caused sprawl in the first place. What's needed for starters are zoning ordinances that allow for enough density to reduce energy consumption and keep living costs low for residents--as well as allow for a mix of uses so that residents don't have to hop in a car for every need. Density doesn't mean Manhattan, as you can have a single family neighborhood that is within walking distance or has sufficient access to public transport in order to jobs and services. Aside from the transit aspect, Downtown Madison is a great example of this.
It's not about being autocratic, but rather to ensure that people have choices to live in the types of communities that they desire. Can't get more free market than that.
Notwithstanding your credentials, I stand by what I said earlier: no one person has enough knowledge to efficiently allocate resources on a scale necessary to say what is "ideal" urban development, unless you mean "ideal" in terms of personal aesthetic preference. That knowledge is decentralized and market signals are the most efficient way to "centralize" that knowledge and allocate resources accordingly.
Just to be clear, government interference is inevitable; I'm not advocating anarchy here. But you say government interference in "the wrong places" caused sprawl, as if "wrong" is a given and sprawl is objectively bad. I don't necessarily concur. Sprawl is not just a reaction to government interference, but to legitimate price signals re: real estate prices versus transportation and time costs. Convenient access to amenities, employment hubs and public transportation typically commands a price premium. That premium prices some people out of the market and makes developing outward where land is cheaper a more economically viable option.
Meanwhile, people have choices now, don't they? Anywhere from straight-up rural areas, to the fringes of the dreaded sprawl, to built-out inner suburbia, to dense urban cores? As far as I can tell, people have more options about where to live and work than ever before.
Notwithstanding your credentials, I stand by what I said earlier: no one person has enough knowledge to efficiently allocate resources on a scale necessary to say what is "ideal" urban development, unless you mean "ideal" in terms of personal aesthetic preference. That knowledge is decentralized and market signals are the most efficient way to "centralize" that knowledge and allocate resources accordingly.
Just to be clear, government interference is inevitable; I'm not advocating anarchy here. But you say government interference in "the wrong places" caused sprawl, as if "wrong" is a given and sprawl is objectively bad. I don't necessarily concur. Sprawl is not just a reaction to government interference, but to legitimate price signals re: real estate prices versus transportation and time costs. Convenient access to amenities, employment hubs and public transportation typically commands a price premium. That premium prices some people out of the market and makes developing outward where land is cheaper a more economically viable option.
Meanwhile, people have choices now, don't they? Anywhere from straight-up rural areas, to the fringes of the dreaded sprawl, to built-out inner suburbia, to dense urban cores? As far as I can tell, people have more options about where to live and work than ever before.
I agree that people now have more choices due in part to more and more municipalities allowing for mixed-use development. I don't think government "interference" is always an adequate term for discussing the effect that local governments have on development, rather it's the inducement that is produced by government policy.
Many local governments have zoning ordinances that require minimum lot size, minimum parking, and a complete separation of uses, thus encouraging auto-oriented development. This in itself induces people to have to purchase homes in auto-oriented communities that are located further away from jobs and services. Obviously one zoning ordinance in one place doesn't necessarily mean that it would work in another place. I also believe that some communities should maintain large minimum lot sizes in order to preserve a certain aesthetic they may desire, but enacting a rigid zoning policy that restricts the choices that homebuyers or renters have within a community is indeed unsustainable.
I strongly believe that suburbs aren't inherently unsustainable, nor are they always in a sprawling, low density configuration (i.e. Oak Park, IL). My opinion is that it's possible to offer single-family housing with backyards in a denser manner like the old streetcar suburbs, just as it's possible to offer multifamily housing in a manner that isn't solely restricted to highrise development. Zoning policy should be enacted primarily to reduce infrastructure costs, energy consumption, and household costs to residents. Rampant cul du sac sprawl fails to meet any of these objectives.
Just to clarify, when I say "interference" I mean with market signals, not necessarily with private/voluntary action. Sometimes market interference also means interference with action; sometimes it means inducement..
I'm sorry, Drover, as I've agreed with you on many prior occasions in other discussions, but I'm siding with jwhalun08 on this one. He (or she) and I share the same sentiments in regards to sustainable living and long-term urban planning. The decades-long model of development patterns in much of our nation---build further and further out from urban centers with as low-density zoning as possible and design these new faux-communities around the automobile---is NOT sustainable in the long-term. Why, pray tell? Do you recall Summer 2008 when all of the SUV owners from the exurbs/outer-ring suburbs were on their knees wailing and whining about the spike in gasoline prices? Do you remember how those who lived in areas that were more intelligently designed to intentionally minimize one's need to use a car on a day-to-day basis really weren't affected very much, and, consequently, really didn't care about the plight of their far-flung counterparts?
Our nation has had a love affair with the automobile, sprawl, and emptying out our once-vibrant urban centers since the end of World War II, and I'm in the camp hoping for continued rising fuel prices in the coming years to force people to realize that the way most Americans have been living for the past 60 years---basing their ability to survive and access their needs upon the market price of a nonrenewable fossil fuel---is very....well....stupid, at best. Here's an interesting thought to consider. What will everyone who lives on far-flung cul-de-sacs in prestigious gated communities miles from all other conveniences do if the supply of gasoline in our nation were to suddenly vanish? How would they get to the grocery store? How would they get to work? How would they get to the hospital? Hasn't this ever crossed the mind of any exurbanites/outer-ring suburbanites before, or are most people foolishly living for today without thinking for a second about what tomorrow might have in store?
Congratulations, America. You've given rise to a nation where people drive alone in large SUVs between their sparsely-furnished ostentatious McMansions on cul-de-sacs and their jobs at sterile office parks across town. They drive their children to school, to the grocery store, to church, etc. If and when their car breaks down, life stops completely. You'll actually never see an effective nationwide mass transit system implemented now because too much damage has already been done and far too few people live within a reasonable commute of proposed light rail transit lines. Back in the "good 'ole days" people thought it was convenient to live near a cable car/trolley/bus line. Now a new generation of suburbanites becomes aggressively NIMBY towards proposed mass transit initiatives in their area because of the threat of "decreased property values" (i.e. suburban code for "too many brown people in my neighborhood"---as a languishing suburbanite myself who can't wait to move into the city I know that "true" meaning behind that euphemism) Our nation is very segregated in terms of socioeconomic background and race, and we all have the rise of Levittown to thank for it.
Well ScranBarre, it's real simple: if that's not the lifestyle for you, don't live it. If you think it's "unsustainable," then you are under no obligation to try to sustain it. Like I said upthread, people have more choices than ever about where to live and work. If someone wants to live out in cul-de-sac Hell, that's their business. I've got no call to hope for circumstances to change to make their lifestyle harder to live. If that happens just through the normal course of events, well so be it; but I have no interest in actively hoping for it. I don't have to do that because I don't have to live that lifestyle if I don't want to. And I don't want to, so I don't.
Well ScranBarre, it's real simple: if that's not the lifestyle for you, don't live it. If you think it's "unsustainable," then you are under no obligation to try to sustain it. Like I said upthread, people have more choices than ever about where to live and work. If someone wants to live out in cul-de-sac Hell, that's their business. I've got no call to hope for circumstances to change to make their lifestyle harder to live. If that happens just through the normal course of events, well so be it; but I have no interest in actively hoping for it. I don't have to do that because I don't have to live that lifestyle if I don't want to. And I don't want to, so I don't.
The problem is that it is all of our business because gasoline isn't a renewable resource, which means the higher demand goes, the higher the price at the pump goes for everyone, regardless of how much (or how little) gas they tend to consume. I'm sure you've taken an economics course or two at some point during your undergraduate career. When you are depleting a resource at the same time as demand is rising, prices will rise accordingly. It's called price elasticity. Last summer I was really miffed being forced to pay $4/gallon at the pump in part because so many people were choosing to drive Hummers and live on far-flung cul-de-sacs, which meant that the rest of us who drove fuel-efficient cars and lived relatively near to town had to pay more to help offset their wastefulness.
Both of you grow up!! What the hell are you guys even talking about?
Either get up to speed or am-scray.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScranBarre
The problem is that it is all of our business because gasoline isn't a renewable resource, which means the higher demand goes, the higher the price at the pump goes for everyone, regardless of how much (or how little) gas they tend to consume. I'm sure you've taken an economics course or two at some point during your undergraduate career. When you are depleting a resource at the same time as demand is rising, prices will rise accordingly. It's called price elasticity. Last summer I was really miffed being forced to pay $4/gallon at the pump in part because so many people were choosing to drive Hummers and live on far-flung cul-de-sacs, which meant that the rest of us who drove fuel-efficient cars and lived relatively near to town had to pay more to help offset their wastefulness.
Come on ScranBarre, you're smarter than this. You know very well that oil is traded on a global market. Gasoline prices spiked worldwide, and it had nothing to do with "so many people choosing to drive Hummers" (as if Hummers make up even a measurable portion of the U.S. automotive fleet) as it did with huge increases in energy consumption in developing nations as well as investors hedging against inflation. Are you trying to tell me gasoline came back down under $3 a gallon because people moved out of all the cul-de-sac suburbs and stopped driving Hummers?
You know what else is not a renewable resource? Land. Just as demand drives up the supply of gasoline, it also drives up the price of real estate. Trying to pack more people on the same amount of real estate makes that real estate more expensive. People who can't afford to live in "hip" or "hot" neighborhoods need a place to live too. The natural response and consequence is for people to seek out less expensive land elsewhere.
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.
Here's an interesting thought to consider. What will everyone who lives on far-flung cul-de-sacs in prestigious gated communities miles from all other conveniences do if the supply of gasoline in our nation were to suddenly vanish? How would they get to the grocery store? How would they get to work? How would they get to the hospital? Hasn't this ever crossed the mind of any exurbanites/outer-ring suburbanites before, or are most people foolishly living for today without thinking for a second about what tomorrow might have in store? 
Our nation is very segregated in terms of socioeconomic background and race, and we all have the rise of Levittown to thank for it.
