Unpopular opinions involving cities

[ue]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

developers build what people want. you've got it the other way around. its not as if they are pulling as fast one on anybody. their product is a result of a desire to have it. from a policy standpoint, lots of cities favor single family zoning, yet their populations continue to grow and competition for the housing stock gets worse and worse. its that missing middle that im envious of. medium density, urban-ish housing. we have some, but its still hard to develop here. Portland zoning code, pre ww2 was far more urban minded than our existing code, 2017...its like that everywhere. laissez faire policy makes for a better city. or at least it did. this country was way more urban 100 years ago in than it is now.

The central idea of urban planning is that cities need to be regulated, there is market failure, and laypersons don't always know what's best for a city. I think it's a bit more nuanced than that, and there is a lot of merit to the stakeholder process. That being said, I highly doubt over half of Greater Toronto's new housing would be multifamily, if it weren't for the regulations created by Ontario's Greenbelts.

In a city like Portland, although it may be political suicide from the way you put it, the city could simply rezone lots to higher density so that when new infill is created, it must be denser or it won't get approved. Lack of zoning may have worked in the pre-automobile age, but because of the systematic nudging of governments and companies towards suburbs and automobiles, people have become reliant on it in North America to the point where non-zoned cities like Houston are extremely sprawling and car dependent. Portland's transit may be overhyped, but it seems far worse in Houston. The only way I see Houston changing is through massive incentivization and regulation of density, transit, and just planning in general. It's hard to undo all that has been done, and it can't be done passively with a lack of zoning, when there is a path dependence created towards car dependence.

With that said, I do believe that cities in general are over-regulated and over-zoned, such that they become museum cities or overpriced if they already have urban bones, or continue to sprawl to neverland elsewhere. Like planning in general, I believe there is nuance and somewhere in the middle is best.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by niwell

Sometimes extremely interesting independent stores and best "authentic" restaurants are in the suburbs.

Originally Posted by Centropolis

this. sometimes an entire cuisine is only available (done well/authentic) in the "suburbs."

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

Tyler Cowen actually wrote about this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/11/bo...ler-cowen.html

I find this to be true often. A lot of cities are just way too expensive for small restaurant owners to operate in the core. Many good spots just getting their starts can find available space in a strip mall plaza out in the burbs and owners of authentic ethnic food restaurants might have their places of business where they live.

Will have to read that Cowen article

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

But strict zoning has made it so that walkable cities are completely unaffordable for all but the rich, offsetting any transit savings.

bullshit. chicago has shitloads of EXTREMELY affordbable walkable neighborhoods well-served by rail transit.

it's just that violent crime levels are obscenely high in such areas, so they aren't on the radar of anyone other than poor african americans.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

Agreed. But strict zoning has made it so that walkable cities are completely unaffordable for all but the rich, offsetting any transit savings.

I think that's a generalization, probably best reserved for the NYCs, DCs, SFs, etcs. of the nation... and I've never read anything that supports the "offsetting transit savings" assertion. In most of the US, the price of housing is pretty close to the marginal, physical cost of new construction. There are walkable cities that are also very affordable.

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by ue

With that said, I do believe that cities in general are over-regulated and over-zoned, such that they become museum cities or overpriced if they already have urban bones, or continue to sprawl to neverland elsewhere. Like planning in general, I believe there is nuance and somewhere in the middle is best.

I agree. the liberal city is at a cross road. they are currently turning into enclaves for the rich, and have been rendered unaffordable for many. why? well, lots of reasons but id bargain too little construction, and especially too little multifamily construction. Portland is attempt to upzone some neighborhoods but its a slow process. I don't know the exact language but I think had something to do with blocks within 1/4 mile of transit stop. That would be a lot of area! Don't get me wrong, I really like this city a lot but its not the policy innovator everybody thinks it is. We just have a lot of smart and creative people, and a lot of high $$$ household incomes. We don't really have alot of strife to overcome so we are a policy test kitchen of sorts. But some of the challenges we're facing are the exact same challenges other popular cities are facing, especially affordability which I don't think you can regulate yourself out of. You just need to keep adding supply. Of course that comes with a price too, time, and congestion! If you lived downtown and are able to ride a bike to work, that's awesome. But our bike share is about 8% of all trips taken. 10 dollar a gallon oil, will be the greatest boon to urban development. Once it becomes cost prohibitive to drive you car, people will take urban develop more seriously.

[pdxtex]

in this thread, ron swansons versus leslie knopes!!

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

bullshit. chicago has shitloads of EXTREMELY affordbable walkable neighborhoods well-served by rail transit.

it's just that violent crime levels are obscenely high in such areas, so they aren't on the radar of anyone other than poor african americans.

Other than Chicago?

And yeah, strict zoning in Chicago HAS made it unaffordable for people who would like to live in the safe and walkable North Side which is actually LOSING population now. See Daniel Kay Hertz on this.

But if your argument is that strict zoning isn't a problem because people can just move to extremely dangerous neighborhoods where they run a high risk of being victimized by violent crime...thats not very convincing...

[Razor]

Hamilton will never get an NHL team.

Because if they did, Toronto would want one too.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Razor

Hamilton will never get an NHL team.

Because if they did, Toronto would want one too.

The NHL has talked about giving Toronto one.

Also, Toronto could learn a few things from other Canadian cities, it's not the best at everything.

[SLO]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

For all of Houston's faults at least poor people can afford to live there.

Walkability doesn't mean shit to the people who are forced to drive long distances because they've been priced out of the city.

True, Houston is pretty damn dynamic in real life. Often times owning a modest vehicle is less expensive than transit.

[jigglysquishy]

Originally Posted by SLO

True, Houston is pretty damn dynamic in real life. Often times owning a modest vehicle is less expensive than transit.

I'd be curious on the math on that once you factor in depreciation/ maintenance/ insurance/gas

[Parkway]

Gentrification is an unstoppable force. Saying you can do something about it as arrogant as pledging that you can stop continental drift or change the weather. The best you can really do is mitigate the negative consequences i.e. displacement.

[photoLith]

Originally Posted by niwell

Sometimes extremely interesting independent stores and best "authentic" restaurants are in the suburbs.

Traitor

[niwell]

Originally Posted by photoLith

Traitor

I bike for 45 minutes on my single speed to get there so I can still claim my inner-city hipster cred

[SpawnOfVulcan]

Originally Posted by Parkway

Gentrification is an unstoppable force. Saying you can do something about it as arrogant as pledging that you can stop continental drift or change the weather. The best you can really do is mitigate the negative consequences i.e. displacement.

You read my mind...

[Chef]

I would never want to live in a high density city. I think 15,000 to 25,000 ppsm is the ideal density for a neighborhood. It is dense enough to be walkable, but not so dense that using a car is a pain.

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

I'd be curious on the math on that once you factor in depreciation/ maintenance/ insurance/gas

a car is an appliance. you should never consider it from a depreciation stand point. if you are worried about how much money you will get back when you sell it, you spent too much money in the first place or should should either get a used one or lease something cheap. a transit pass in portland is 1100. i hybrid commute. either by bicycle or car, bus as last resort. ive never done a yearly cost of it all but my insurance is about 800, parking is free on the street, and i usually spend about 300 in maintenance. the rest is gas which might be 600 bucks a year so ill just say it costs twice as much for me to own a car than take the bus. but the intangible benefits are worth it. if i get sick from the bus, well i might be out of work for a few days. my time is worth alot to me in terms of satisfaction value. if im sitting at shitty, rainy bus stop at 7:30 in the morning, im pissed off and will possibly be less productive at work. plus i cant put a kayak on top of the bus on the weekends and go for a paddle. i dont absolutely rely on it, but i do appreciate it. if i had a job that was 30 minutes away id move closer to it. but by driving, i also avoid neer do wells, long wait time at rainy bus stops and sneezing old ladies so ive chosen my battle and will deal with some traffic. ill take my sweet 2002 ford taurus over the bus any day, but my preference is a bicycle. to avoid all of the other things i mentioned, id pay even more so it equals out.

[Tosin007]

Seattle Traffic is excellent.
Portland has never been weird.
New York City is too small.
Los Angeles is too cold.
Chicago is the safest on the Southside.
Houston sprawl is very well controlled.
Atlanta doesn't have that many Nigerians.
Miami doesn't have enough beaches.

[chris08876]

I'll take a stab at it...

1) Los Angeles is like Phoenix
2) Chicago pizza is bland compared to NY pizza
3) London is just a bunch of small villages combined
4) San Francisco's citizens are all flower power children
5) NY Giants are a superior football team compared to the Philly Eagles
6) Baltimore is like Detroit



Although #2 and #5 are just scientific facts.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

Affordability is another topic. Lack of zoning laws does not translate to poor people being able to afford to live there.

Well, the opposite is certainly true. Too much zoning makes prices go sky high. Just look at San Francisco. They desperately need to tear down all those crappy row houses but somehow they're considered hallowed ground and now you have to pay a million bucks just to live in the city as a result.