Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Many Cities Have No Money

strongtowns.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 424 posts

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#181

Post by richmarr »

hackuser wrote: post #164
davidw wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By enacting laws, you create a very rigid situation that's much more difficult to change than "there's not enough parking", which is something the neighborhood could adapt to without too much trouble. When I was born, Bend was still a wood products industry town based around logging and the local mills. These days, it's trying to develop a high tech industry, and doing reasonably well at it for a small-ish town. Plac…

I do think the market is a very useful tool and that some things are over-regulated and some are under-regulated. But I don't understand your point: All regulations are bad? Everything is too regulated? I know these ideas are trendy, but they don't really mean anything or inform us. As I asked before: In what ways are they too regulated, and in what ways not regulated enough? ... How much regulation is just right? Wi…

Thanks for making all these points so eloquently.

It does seem like an easy, and popular, refrain to claim over-regulation. It's a great way to sound contrarian and wise without actually having to do any analysis, after all, the market do the work so no planning is needed. In that noisy environment, asking for specifics of precisely what is over-regulated and why seems both fair and necessary.

> I thought Europe's regulated, universal GSM was better than the U.S.'s 'market' solution of competing technologies.

A similar example, the market has decided on competing standards for charging points for electric vehicles (in the UK at least, I expect most other places too). If a family of standards had been created to cover the various voltage/current requirements, rather than leaving it solely up to manufacturers then the time overhead for drivers of EVs could be dramatically improved, removing a significant obstacle to adoption.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#182

Post by rubber_duck »

jaggederest wrote: post #149
windlep wrote: post #137

I've seen the infrastructure thing come up for awhile now, and it's definitely true. In my area, as in others I've read of, they're smashing paved roads into gravel roads as the paved are too expensive. The thing that fascinates me is that it feels like a forgone conclusion that infrastructure costs cannot be made cheaper. Have we really hit the most cost effective, cheapest, most sustainable method of laying/replaci…

As the article says, there are plenty of solutions for these problems, individually. The predicament, as a whole, is that we cannot afford them. Infrastructure quality is, like so many things, directly proportionate to investment. You can trade off future maintenance by spending more initially, or vice versa, but you can't magically reduce both at the same time while providing the same level of service. This is preci…

>You can trade off future maintenance by spending more initially, or vice versa

Umm is that really true ? Maybe it is I just don't see why this would be - if anything I would guess spending more would lead to more expensive maintenance as well

> but you can't magically reduce both at the same time while providing the same level of service.

Not magic - innovation.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#183

Post by Dylan16807 »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #155
taneq wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason for the US public housing projects' failure is wealth inequality. When your population has a mix of well-off people and very poor people, and you provide super-cheap housing, the very poor people gravitate to it, among them those who are desperate, have nothing to lose, involved in drugs and crime, etc. Once this happens the crime rate goes up, the area feels unsafe to 'normal' people, and anyone who can d…

How would having fewer rich people prevent the poor from committing crimes against the middle class (or just publicly engaging in victimless crimes[1]) and engaging in other behaviors that make an area feel unsafe? As a counterpoint, consider India and most of Asia. Poor areas are dirty and have little infrastructure, but they don't feel unsafe. I occasionally shop in Dharavi and don't feel unsafe at all. [1] I belie…

The difference is that there wouldn't be such intense concentrations of poor people when people moving to the area are less driven by wealth inequality.

Also strung out drug addicts are likely to be driven to theft.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#184

Post by richmarr »

thinkloop wrote: post #174
hackuser wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do think the market is a very useful tool and that some things are over-regulated and some are under-regulated. But I don't understand your point: All regulations are bad? Everything is too regulated? I know these ideas are trendy, but they don't really mean anything or inform us. As I asked before: In what ways are they too regulated, and in what ways not regulated enough? ... How much regulation is just right? Wi…

Doesn't parking specifically seem like an easy thing for a market to fix: paid parking lots.

The word "fix" is important here. When you fix something it starts broken and ends up working how it should. Since space in cities is fiercely constrained any change is always a trade-off with repurcussions.

Cities plan transport infrastructure years or decades in advance, and spend vast sums of money, with very different incentives to the market. Leaving parts of that plan (like parking) up to the whims of the market might seem a bit irresponsible.

For example; if a city makes design trade-offs favouring heavy long-term road use, but the market decides in the shorter term that office blocks are more profitable, then you end up with mismatched capacity (headaches for drivers and ineffective public spending) and inadequate investment in infrastructure for cycling, walking, and public transport. Now you could argue that the market will step in and fix the parking problem, but that could easily take longer than an election cycle, and cost the local economy vast sums in wasted investment and lost opportunity.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#185

Post by cperciva »

sologoub wrote: post #132
vvpan wrote: post #18

I can't say much about mathematics of taxes described in the article, but I always thought that Soviet Union got a lot of it's city planning very much right. Even a small town is built as a relatively tight formation of high-rises, yet leaving plenty of public space and greenery in the middle. The quality of life in the town that I grew up in is super high, because everything one might need: school, hospital, store,…

Well, they got walkability mostly right, but living in those panel boxes was still not great. I'd never want to go back to that... Personally, I find the 5-8 story setups of cities like Paris, Barcelona or Rome much more appealing - enough density to make all the good things like walkability and local cafes happen, but no blocked out sun (Like in NYC) or need to climb to 20th floor when the elevator gives out for the…

Ick. In Vancouver we have some areas which are basically paved with 5-10 floor buildings -- there's no space between adjacent buildings, and only a narrow sidewalk separating buildings from vehicular traffic. We also have areas with 30-40 floor towers separated by parks and playgrounds, with plenty of trees and wide sidewalks.

The population density is basically identical between these areas, but I can't imagine why anyone would want to live in a low-rise area.

(Incidentally, the reason we have low-rise areas is because the city has an absurdly long list of "sight cones" to protect views of the local mountains.)

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#186

Post by Dylan16807 »

battlebot wrote: post #29
jakewins wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you expand on this? I don't follow how fiat currency pertains to city budgets and the net cost/benefit of public infrastructure.

Simple: It creates misguided incentives in all kinds of directions. The simple idea that money is limitless has led to municipalities over-promising on pension benefits for just one example. Who got these developments approved? The developers who made millions and extracted the wealth in partnership with the taxpayers. Same as it ever was.

These are local governments we're talking about. To them, the money supply might as well be fixed. Everyone could be using gold and it wouldn't change the problem of building a street without budgeting for upkeep.

They treat money as limitless because they get tax income every year and they are thinking short-term. Not because of anything the federal government does. Not because of debt.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#187

Post by aurizon »

tomcam wrote: post #94
aurizon wrote: post #23

City governments are parasitised by three groups. One is the body professional politicians that manage to get elected.The second is the construction companies they use to build/repair their infrastructure The other is the work force they employ. All three arrange matters so they get twice as much money on average as the voters that pay their wages/ The politicians do it by simple theft by vote. They vote themselves l…

Can someone explain the downvotes?

union slaveys...

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#188

Post by krzyk »

davidw wrote: post #75
vvpan wrote: post #18

I can't say much about mathematics of taxes described in the article, but I always thought that Soviet Union got a lot of it's city planning very much right. Even a small town is built as a relatively tight formation of high-rises, yet leaving plenty of public space and greenery in the middle. The quality of life in the town that I grew up in is super high, because everything one might need: school, hospital, store,…

Part of the problem in the US is too much planning, alongside too many subsidies for cars. Look at a zoning map of any city: there's an incredible level of detail about what's permitted where. The local zoning code here in Bend, until recently, had a section on how many parking spots per customer for barber shops. As if, in a competitive market, those businesses couldn't figure out for themselves the optimal amount o…

Actually in the eastern part of the Europe (former soviet influence zone) smaller cities are planned, and they are planned really well. As the parent posters have said, it is very similar to the former USSR - you have a lot of green, shops, schools, kindegardens, parks within a walking distance from where you live.

After we ditched the planning and switched to market economy, suddenly developers (the ones that make buildings, not code) started building a lot of buildings without leaving a space for either green or parking spots. As a result in the newer parts of the cities we have a very crowded leaving space, cars are parking everywhere, there are few shops, schools are far away etc.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#189

Post by ianai »

jaggederest wrote: post #149
windlep wrote: post #137

I've seen the infrastructure thing come up for awhile now, and it's definitely true. In my area, as in others I've read of, they're smashing paved roads into gravel roads as the paved are too expensive. The thing that fascinates me is that it feels like a forgone conclusion that infrastructure costs cannot be made cheaper. Have we really hit the most cost effective, cheapest, most sustainable method of laying/replaci…

As the article says, there are plenty of solutions for these problems, individually. The predicament, as a whole, is that we cannot afford them. Infrastructure quality is, like so many things, directly proportionate to investment. You can trade off future maintenance by spending more initially, or vice versa, but you can't magically reduce both at the same time while providing the same level of service. This is preci…

So the land could be used better. That's my takeaway from the article, too. If the zone can't afford the infrastructure then it should be repurposed/zoned. Bonus points if it makes cities more walkable/less designed by car.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#190

Post by krzyk »

guard-of-terra wrote: post #147
vvpan wrote: post #18

I can't say much about mathematics of taxes described in the article, but I always thought that Soviet Union got a lot of it's city planning very much right. Even a small town is built as a relatively tight formation of high-rises, yet leaving plenty of public space and greenery in the middle. The quality of life in the town that I grew up in is super high, because everything one might need: school, hospital, store,…

Soviet union planned cities are mostly awful. They mandate helluva lot of open space between high-rises which doesn't get any care. It also creates corridors for fierce cold winds to blow. Most of buildings don't have space for commerce making area either as dead as suburbia or blistered with shackles selling stuff. Transit stops are far between and you have to get there thru ice and hail. Roads are few and congested…

A lot of open space is great because the wind can blow. When you block the wind you get poor air quality. In Cracow, Poland we have that trouble, there are buildings that block natural wind and the polluted air sits and makes people sick (PM2.5 and PM10 are > 300% their safe levels, see https://map.airly.eu/)
Post reply on HN