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.
You may not have said precisely that in any given post, but in the aggregate, continued references to artificial constrants, and ILLEGAL forms of development, which are things that would originate from public policy, deliver that message.
No, they don't. As I just explained, in my view those are two different stages in the process of determining final outcomes, and therefore you are not entitled to put those words in my mouth.
Quote:
Unless you can demonstrate that developers develop without self interest, but with only the interest of incumbent residents in mind, I'd say that right there you suggested that developers themselves exert influence in favor of prospective residents--their prospective customers.
Well, in that passage was I describing how developers with a vested interest in a certain area might influence politicians to provide more public expenditures favoring that area. In the previous passage you were noting, I was not talking about public expenditures, but rather about land-use policies that render certain development forms illegal. So there is not actual contradiction.
That said, it is true that if developers with a vested interest in a certain area had their way, they would likely maximize the public expenditures favoring that area and minimize the restrictions on how they could develop their land in that area. But of course developers in other areas would be trying to do the same for their own areas of primary activity. This sort of self-interested lobbying for public expenditures among developers with different locational focuses does not necessarily bear much resemblance to something like a public referendum.
In the end, though, I actually do think it is fair to say prospective residents could in theory have more influence on the political process when it comes to public expenditures as opposed to land-use laws, but not so much because developers have more influence. Rather, that is because many of the relevant decisions are not made on such a hyperlocal basis, such that prospective residents might have an opportunity to vote for relevant officials. But as I pointed out before, in the real world, for a variety of reasons, the public hasn't really had much direct influence on those issues in recent decades.
Quote:
I know it's nuanced, and that technically "illegal" is a valid term, but I'm sensitive to shades of meaning in the words we use to communicate our ideas.
As you note, illegal conduct involves more than just criminal conduct. In this case, the relevant point is that the land-use policy-setting jurisdictions have the legal authority to stop any contrary land-use activity, and ultimately they will have the full resources of government at their disposable to enforce those laws. So if you try to develop your land in a way contrary to local land-use regulations, and you decide to try to defy court orders and such, eventually people with guns will show up to stop you.
That's the importance of it being illegal.
Quote:
To repeatedly and continually refer to zoning restrictions as illegal, PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU SCREAM IT IN CAPS, is hyperbole.
It is not hyperbole, it is plain truth. The reason I have to "scream it" is that a large number of people like yourself persist in refusing to grapple with that plain truth. Even now, you are trying to squirm around it, probably because you understand that once that plain truth is admitted, it is no longer possible to insist that outcomes in this market directly reflect underlying demand, and yet for whatever reason you don't want to give up that falsehood.
And incidentally, I personally think this is an important truth that more people should acknowledge and deal with, rather than trying to avoid it. So I make no apologies for "screaming it" (AKA emphasizing it) in these discussions.
We bought our house for $53,000 in Lawrenceville in 2007. While we might not make back all of the money we put into it (we haven't kept close track of most of our home improvements), we're certain to sell it for a great deal more than we bought it for.
That's true for your personal situation, but there's plenty of neighborhoods in Allegheny County where selling a house quickly wouldn't be nearly as quick of a process, and getting enough money wouldn't be as sure of a thing.
Brianth, you have a monster case of projection disorder.
You can't even see it when multiple people give you examples of it in your own writing.
I don't live in either the far suburbs or the city. I drive between 25 and 50 miles per week, usually closer to the former. I chose the place I'm living to minimize maintenance, taxes and commute time while still living in a safe area.
Like those in the distant suburbs, I don't proselytize others with ridiculous and inaccurate propaganda to subsidize the life I've chosen.
But keep pretending you know anything about life in Pittsburgh in the 50's, 60's and 70's.
We bought our house for $53,000 in Lawrenceville in 2007. While we might not make back all of the money we put into it (we haven't kept close track of most of our home improvements), we're certain to sell it for a great deal more than we bought it for.
You surely would be able to make a profit if you sold it at a fair market price, but beggars can't be choosy, and if you're looking to unload a house in a hurry, you're likely to fall short of that potential, even in a "hot" real estate market like Lawrenceville. Of course, I hope everything works out for your family school-wise so it won't have to come to that.
Brianth, you have a monster case of projection disorder. You can't even see it when multiple people give you examples of it in your own writing.
Right back at you. I have not proposed a single government policy in this thread that would seek to deny people the ability to choose their preferred form of development. In contrast, I have criticized policies which have that effect, precisely BECAUSE they have that effect.
But you keep spouting your favorite talking points and slurs even though they are 180 degrees off base. That's just pathetic.
You've been arguing for pages and pages that people would select the politically correct high-density development if only the evil long-standing density regulations could be changed in the exurbs. You pretend that people don't WANT low density developments. They just magically came into existence, contrained developers to build houses on big lots and then Americans have been forced to buy those homes since the 50's.
It's a ridiculous argument. People WANTED to live on big lots and continue to want that. At anytime, they could move into, say, Dormont, tear down the old houses and build a big new home on the postage stamp sized lots there. They don't do it. They don't want to do it. End of story.
Location: About 10 miles north of Pittsburgh International
2,458 posts, read 4,202,032 times
Reputation: 2374
Quote:
No, they don't. As I just explained, in my view those are two different stages in the process of determining final outcomes, and therefore you are not entitled to put those words in my mouth.
Quote:
But I wouldn't try to weigh "public policy" versus "market forces" in determining outcomes, because those are really two different sorts of things. Public policy can (and in this case very much does) distort the market in all sorts of ways. "Market forces" then operate in the market as they find it. So you are really talking about two different steps in the process of determining the final outcome.
Ditchdigger: Let's have a ballgame to settle this.
BrianTH: Ok. I was a pretty good shortstop back in high school.
Ditchdigger: Uh, I was thinking of football.
The winner is going to be determined by who scores the most, but beyond that the rules of the game bear very little resemblance to each other. I don't think you can logically divorce the way the game unfolds from the rules it's being played under. Hence, my take on your message.
Quote:
It is not hyperbole, it is plain truth. The reason I have to "scream it" is that a large number of people like yourself persist in refusing to grapple with that plain truth. Even now, you are trying to squirm around it, probably because you understand that once that plain truth is admitted, it is no longer possible to insist that outcomes in this market directly reflect underlying demand, and yet for whatever reason you don't want to give up that falsehood.
Hey, I granted you that going forward autocentric sprawly suburbs may have to become a thing of the past, and I emphasized that I was in disagreement with your view of history.
My problem in the nuance of the word you've chosen lies in the fact that land use policy is not rooted in some universal notion of right and wrong, but is simply a matter of regulating how business is to be conducted. As such, it's a whole lot easier to change, if the political will exists to change it.
Eschaton, it's the statist desire to impose that lifestyle on those who don't want it that people object to, not the fact that you or Brianth have chosen to embrace it.
All I've seen Brian arguing is that there are artificial constraints on the construction of "urban-like" housing. And I think it's pretty clear that's true. There's a reason why houses in Shadyside, Squirrel Hill, Sewickley, Mount Lebanon, etc sell for a lot more than houses of similar square footage in similar school districts. There's a large subset of people willing to pay top dollar for walkable, mixed-use, and safe - enough that it's pretty clear the market isn't addressing the full demand right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferrarisnowday
That's true for your personal situation, but there's plenty of neighborhoods in Allegheny County where selling a house quickly wouldn't be nearly as quick of a process, and getting enough money wouldn't be as sure of a thing.
We're one of the few metros which didn't see a housing bust. Outside of a few neighborhoods which are on the decline within the city, most places if you bought a house five years ago, you're going to walk away with a good deal of money when you leave. It seems like there's only a handful of neighborhoods (Brighton Heights, Marshall-Shadeland, Sheraden, Carrick, and Lincoln Place especially) where houses stay on the market forever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavenWood
You surely would be able to make a profit if you sold it at a fair market price, but beggars can't be choosy, and if you're looking to unload a house in a hurry, you're likely to fall short of that potential, even in a "hot" real estate market like Lawrenceville. Of course, I hope everything works out for your family school-wise so it won't have to come to that.
We have around $40,000 in savings now, so we could technically own two houses for a short while and then refinance after selling our house, although we'd almost certainly want to avoid that if possible.
Prior to today, I had only read the first few posts in this thread. I took the time just now to read the whole thing through to this point. I multiquoted a number of posts, then found that some of those had been responded to the way I would have responded, so I'm left with a few to comment on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarlicBreath
I never considered Pittsburgh as a city with an urban sprawl problem.
The houses in suburban Pittsburgh are mostly "big lot" burbs, e.g. at least 1/4 acre and in many cases much larger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SPSGuy
Is this changing with generation Y? Or will we end up like the boomers?
You will end up just like us! We said some of these same things back in our day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tirade
I don't know anyone under 30 who has a positive opinion of the suburbs, and I don't think this will change after they have kids either. A lot of us grew up in soulless suburban developments and don't want that for our own children.
Additionally, and I don't think this gets enough recognition, our generation's attitude towards driving is drastically different than the previous. Car ownership among us is gradually declining. Commutes that are walkable, bikeable, or include easy access to public transportation are main priorities. When those options aren't available, commutes that are short are much preferred.
I'm fully expecting a suburban McMansion housing bust in the next decade or so when the Boomers start dying off. Good luck trying to sell those monstrosities to a generation who largely hates everything about them.
Having kids in their 20s, who have plenty of friends, I don't know of any who do not own a car. Most commute to their work by car. Of course short commutes are preferred, at any age.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tirade
I agree, but those aren't your typical American suburbs, i.e. "McMansion developments that branch off a main road full of strip malls and chain stores." You'd be hardpressed to find equivalents in other American cities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavenWood
Not really. Just to name a few...
Philadelphia's Main Line + Collingswood/Moorestown/the Haddons in South Jersey
Chicago's North Shore
The North Jersey "streetcar towns," plus parts of Western Long Island and Southwestern Connecticut (e.g., Greenwich) outside NYC
Bethesda/Chevy Chase outside of DC
Newton/Brookline outside Boston
And the list goes on and on...
Really, you can find suburbs like that outside any older Northeastern or Midwestern City. Only the newer Sunbelt cities really lack those communities. But of course, like the trendy city neighborhoods, these also come at a high cost premium.
Actually, these suburbs can be found outside of many western and southwestern cities. Scottsdale, AZ (very pricey); Pasadena, CA (ditto); lots of town-like burbs around Denver, e.g. Littleton, Louisville, Lafayette, Golden, Arvada, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garvdog
I disagree completely. The choice of where you send your kid to school matters a lot, and it has nothing to do with racism or classism. I agree that the deterioration of city schools were due in part to racism and paranoia that caused people to flee city schools in favor of private schools or suburban schools. However, its naive to think that funding, class size, teacher quality, and the amount of crime and poverty in the neighborhoods that feed the schools have no effect on the quality of the education your child will get. Are you really going to tell me that a crumbling school building with out-of date textbooks, underpaid teachers, 50 kids in a classroom and metal detectors at the entrance provides a good educational experience? Sure, that is an extreme example but that is the state of many urban schools around the country.
And your "swap the entire population" example doesn't reflect reality, becuase in real life, improving a city school requires "urban poineer" parents to slowly trickle their kids into the existing school with all of its issues. Many people are willing to take a chance on living in a city neighborhood with a bad rep if they see a chance of improvement; not so many parents are willing to gamble with their kids.
Don't know the situation in Pittsburgh per se, but in many areas, the city schools have higher per-pupil spending that many suburban schools. I definitely agree with the bold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OniNoKen
I am stuck firmly between Generation X and Y with a birthdate in 1977. It is entirely possible that my great grand parents were the original urban sprawlers, having been in the Oklahoma land rush. My great-great grand parents are unknown quantities to me, unfortunately.
I think one reason that people sometimes feel that urban advocates are 'holier-than-thou' or 'elitist' is because there is quite a bit of built in derision to the terminology of the discussion. While not all posters use them, the terms 'McMansion', 'soulless', 'sterile', and others commonly used to describe suburbs lends quite an air of disdain to comment. For example, the subject of this forum topic implies that wanting to live in a suburb is shameful. When that is done, it puts people who want to live outside of urban areas on the defensive.
I have a friend who moved from the same city I grew up in first to Boston, then to San Francisco. He loves the urban life style. Hates the idea of a car, etc. I'm a bit different. I don't particularly enjoy coffee shops (even though I love coffee), I'm not someone to go to bars, and eating out is just too expensive to be done more than occasionally. Urban neighborhoods make me feel claustrophobic. I lived in an urban area during college, and I could not wait to get out and into a rented house as soon as I could. Different strokes for different folks. I'd love better vehicles, electrical and what not.
Ultimately, I think the market will respond to where people want to live. My age demographic is so fractured on what they want, they're driving vendors crazy. Some of us are like SteelCityRising, some us are like me, and others want as much as they can get for their money. Ultimately, if people are willing to pay for track housing, they'll build track housing. If they're willing to pay for urban lofts and row houses, they'll invest there. The city can try to create incentives for companies to come in, and for people to build to attract people with those particular interests, but planning can only do so much. I feel like I'm stating the obvious here, but this issue is tainted with so much cognitive bias, I'm not sure we can get a concrete discussion on the topic. Certainly, nothing said here will ever make me want a house with a yard any less.
I definitely agree with the bold. A little less hyperbole would be quite helpful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clint.
This sounds insightful to me and captures the heart of the issue (along with the point eschaton has made about education). Cities enjoy a much better reputation these days than they have in several decades. At least, they enjoy a better reputation with more people than they used to - there will always be people who prefer suburbs and have a strong disinclination for "city living", but there are proportionately fewer of them today than there were even just 10 years ago. There's also the rural/farm category (and certain folks who have country houses while maintaining primary city apartments, and those who wants to live somewhere else, etc.), but that seems to be a different issue.
It can be amusing (and sad), actually, how entrenched some fears and prejudices can be. Just this afternoon I was able to witness an instance: I drove someone (female, mid 60s) from West View to Oakland for a medical appointment, and afterward, late in the afternoon, I decided to take advantage of the HOV lane to return to West View. I just popped over the hill from the hospitals and onto Bedford to hook up with the HOV to Perry Highway (so nice to avoid the back up on 579!). After a few minutes she said, "Is this the Hill District?". I said it was, and she practically white knuckled the door handle and said how glad she was to live out away from the city. Granted, The Hill isn't as safe as West View (or most other City neighborhoods, for that matter), but my point is that the near terror she displayed just driving through there was almost pathological, and reflected a deeper, almost visceral emotional reaction that just isn't as readily found among as many people these days.
Really?
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton
I've lived in Pittsburgh for eight years now. I don't know how many miles I put on my car, but it's nearly ten years old, and has only 44,000 miles on it - the vast majority of which were put on before I moved to Pittsburgh. Mind you, since getting married, we use my wife's car for the vast majority of driving. Still, I never drive to work (bus in the winter, and bike in the summer, more or less). The only reason we don't have only one car is because we both had two when we got together, they were both paid off, and we decided it wasn't worth the hassle to sell mine - so it's mainly a street ornament.
We do need drive for most errands on the weekend. That said, we seldom drive far, as we can get just about everything we need done within the East End, or occasionally the Waterfront. We went to Robinson Town Center to go to IKEA the other week, and I realized it was the first time I had been out that far since going to the airport in May.
As to your last question about knowing someone who doesn't own a vehicle, this is largely a class/age issue. In Pittsburgh, around 25% of households don't have a car. Yes, the majority are probably either elderly, poor, or students, but they do exist.
Most people in the suburbs aren't driving far to run errands, either. This stereotype of some suburbanite driving 10 miles in their SUV to buy a quart of milk is simply untrue.
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.
