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

191–200 of 424 posts

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#191

Post by zeroer »

davidw wrote: post #106
hackuser wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As if, in a competitive market, those businesses couldn't figure out for themselves the optimal amount of parking to pay for to keep their customers happy. I don't know anything about Bend, but speaking generally ... There are many ways that markets are inefficient and flawed; I wouldn't assume they would yield a good result. For example, the barbershops may be incentivized to push the parking costs onto others. It…

"Externalities" is how economists describe those costs. Realistically speaking, the barber shop could only really push people to park: * On the street. And you know what? That's fine. If the street was built to have parking, and people are parking there, it's not a problem. It might be more of a PITA for the clients. If it's too much of a PITA, the business may suffer. But that's how markets work. * In some other bus…

Just have metered parking everywhere and have the cost per unit time reflect the local demand for parking. Now you've eliminated an externality.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#192

Post by ianai »

erikb wrote: post #111

Sorry if that hurts some American self-respect, but what's the difference between this and the Chinese housing bubble that American media always complain about? Sure some details are different, but the basic layout is the same from what I can see: Politicians had about 20 years long time of incentives to grow without really building self sustaining cities. Now the current generation is at a point were it nearly doesn…

The everything. In the US, those cities were built in the past for uses that are now outdated or outsourced. In China, the government appears to want "the city" to fulfill some sort of ego trip. They perceive cities as more valuable than rural towns despite their culture not really being at that point. Overtime US cities have become outdated while Chinese cities are a solution in search of a problem.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#193

Post by CalRobert »

gozur88 wrote: post #146
davidw wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, dense stuff is mostly cheaper until you start building way up. Tons of Italy is pretty dense and is not all that expensive in the grand scheme of things. It's also very livable and walkable. Same goes for many other places in Europe.

My little suburb is far from dense and we're not having any trouble paying the bills.

Is it possible your bills are partially being paid by the folks in that dense bit you're so far from?

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#194

Post by happosai »

porker wrote: post #176
cameldrv wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having lived in Berlin, which is mostly 5-6 story buildings, I think there's a real sweet spot at this height, perhaps a bit higher if people want larger apartments. This puts enough people in a small area that having good transit, including subways, makes economic sense, and all of the daily essentials are within a block or two. Going higher means you need bigger spacing between buildings in order for the lower floo…

How was the soundproofing in these 5-6 story buildings? I've lived in flats in the UK and had endless problems, from people vacuuming at 6am on wooden floors above my bedroom to sleepless nights from parties, to hearing TV and conversations. I like the idea of 5-6 story buildings and know we need higher density housing, but past experiences make we want to live in a 2-story (semi-)detached house with enough garden to…

Where I've lived, the flats made in 60s to 90s had rather varying soundproofing. Worst case you could hear neighbors chatting and their babies crying, best only bigger noise.

But apartments made since 2000 have had excellent sound-proofing. Absolutely silent from neighbors. Only reason not to live in a new flat with walking distance from services is if you really like gardening.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#195

Post by setrofim_ »

rubber_duck wrote: post #182
jaggederest wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

> Umm is that really true ?

Maybe not universally, but often, yes. E.g., you can build using more expensive materials that will last longer/are more resistant to environmental decay.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#196

Post by pja »

gozur88 wrote: post #40

I'm not sure they're drawing the right conclusions from that winning/losing graph. That area downtown is green because that's where all the toniest businesses are located, and you can't have a city that consists of only upscale businesses.

Sure, but the point is that your green had better outweigh your red overall or else you have a problem.

No one is arguing that there should only be green blocks - clearly some of the profits that make those blocks profitable come from the spending of people who live in areas that are red. So long as the net outcome is green then everything works out.

When you build endless sprawling suburbs that cost more to maintain than the tax base can raise from the businesses that serve them then you have a recipe for long term decline.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#197

Post by pja »

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?

It’s completely irrelevant to the topic at hand: Cities are not having problems maintaining their infrastructure because of politicians & building firms lining each others pockets - they are having problems maintaining their infrastructure because it is economically impossible for them to do so.

Self-serving hand-wringing about corruption in politics does nothing to solve this problem. It’s just an excuse to justify not doing anything.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#198

Post by guard-of-terra »

krzyk wrote: post #190
guard-of-terra wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/ )

Most of Russian cities are built on a plain (or even better - major river) and they don't have any problems with venting out polluted air. Regular pre-Brezhnev street gaps are more than enough for that.

However, most of Russian cities have half of year of virtually winter, with temperature near or below zero celsius.

This pretty much makes such apartment blocks torturous/unlivable due to chilling winds if you don't have a car. And if you do, keep in mind that they're not built for that, so lack of parking and congestion are your new friends.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#199

Post by cameldrv »

porker wrote: post #176
cameldrv wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having lived in Berlin, which is mostly 5-6 story buildings, I think there's a real sweet spot at this height, perhaps a bit higher if people want larger apartments. This puts enough people in a small area that having good transit, including subways, makes economic sense, and all of the daily essentials are within a block or two. Going higher means you need bigger spacing between buildings in order for the lower floo…

How was the soundproofing in these 5-6 story buildings? I've lived in flats in the UK and had endless problems, from people vacuuming at 6am on wooden floors above my bedroom to sleepless nights from parties, to hearing TV and conversations. I like the idea of 5-6 story buildings and know we need higher density housing, but past experiences make we want to live in a 2-story (semi-)detached house with enough garden to…

Well, Germans have a lot of rules about when you're allowed to make noise, and they have a reputation for involving the authorities more than in other places. Having lived in several apartments in different parts of the city, noise from neighbors was rarely a problem, but street noise sometimes was in the summer when the windows were open.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#200

Post by Xylakant »

true_religion wrote: post #170
ap22213 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are zoning and planning because, well, people actually live in those places, and it's natural for people to want some control over their environment. Is that really such a bad thing? It's like drugs, and prostitution, and all of the many things that seem so trendy to want to 'free' from government these days. On paper, the ideas look fantastic and efficient. That is, until a 24-hour strip club / pot dispensary…

In Canada towns have strip clubs in the main commercial area across from banks and grocery stores. It's not an issue. The windows are blacked out and the mere aura of a strip club doesn't somehow damn children. Heck in the D.C., liquor stores are precriously close to playgrounds yet it causes no trouble. People who buy liquor have children too, and if not are still part of the community and thus tend not to do whatev…

There's an SM club and a store for adult toys right across from the kindergarten and the school in my area. It's mostly windows with blinds, only the signs are a bit of a giveaway. Sometimes late in the evening you see folks dressed up according to their planned activities, but I have yet to observe any ill effect on me, any of the children or anybody else. I bet a lot of people still haven't noticed what kind of action happens there.
Post reply on HN