31–40 of 174 posts
This. I've struggled to phrase why most developments seem so terrible, or sterile, or what-have-you, while the areas that developed over time seem so much more... Alive? Valued? This is an amazing way to phrase that difference - it's possible to invest yourself in places that are not at peak value.
This seems tautological. Those areas are "profitable" because they are using fewer services. If you invest more there, they would no longer be "profitable" -- and increased investment may not increase future "profits." I think this essay falls down in part because it's nonsensical to use these private industry terms when discussing municipal governance. I want my city to concern itself with equity and quality of life…
This is certainly a factor with any investment, because they may only be able to effectively utilize a certain amount of assets. With that being said, I think that it is a reasonable expectation that investing into the area would inflate the values of the property in that area, which directly translates into increased tax revenue (profit). Obviously too much too quickly and you might run into the aforementioned limit…
The goal of a city shouldn't be to increase land values -- it should be to increase the affluence of residents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, because the gentrification move would be to buy up those $50,000 dollar houses, renovate them/replace with a condo block and drive out the local residents. Gentrification comes from developers, whereas what he's describing comes from the city itself. Key quotes: "It's wealth that is shared throughout the neighborhood." -- about as anti-gentrification as you can get. "American cities can make low risk, high return…
Either way if you make the neighborhood a nice place to live more people will want to move there. The more people who want to move there the higher prices will go. The higher prices go the higher taxes and rents go. After some time the original residents can no longer afford to live there. That's gentrification. The trick would be to apply the improvements to every poor neighborhood at the same time so you don't crea…
Typically with gentrification it isn't a series of small improvements that change the neighborhood its bigger urban planning changes or additional big projects.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really gotta move out of California... It's not a California thing. As part of my job, I spend a lot of time presenting at public meetings and in my spare time I do a fair amount of advocacy (for various causes) which also results in a lot of time in public meetings. I've been in public meetings in small rural villages and large cities across 30 states. And I've observed the same thing - the folks that attend those…
I think that's a cynical view that doesn't reflect reality. In my experience, people will be engaged if you engage them. Typically what happens in these scenarios is somebody gets a grant and decides to do something, and they put a public posting in the janitors closet in the women's room in the city hall basement. My city is doing a refining effort where they publicly over faux-communicate. There's lots of meetings…
How on earth is that the case? They recounted their experience, which took place in reality. That was their reality.
[This comment has been removed since it was off-topic]
i think you're underestimating just how little money "people without money" have. a widely quoted statistic [http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/05/my-secre... e.g.] is that half the country couldn't raise $400 in an emergency.
I would love to these analysis made for Europe. Here in Italy the oldest part of the city are usually the most popular and most expensive. We don't have THAT much land over here and regulation are pretty strict on what you can build and where...
I bet most cities in Italy were not built with cars in mind, especially the city centers / downtowns. If you look at US cities that share this trait, e.g. NYC or Boston or Chicago or even SF, the oldest parts of the city are very expensive and prestigious, and have been for several centuries. Also, "white flight" never happened in Italy, while many US cities were affected last century.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is certainly a factor with any investment, because they may only be able to effectively utilize a certain amount of assets. With that being said, I think that it is a reasonable expectation that investing into the area would inflate the values of the property in that area, which directly translates into increased tax revenue (profit). Obviously too much too quickly and you might run into the aforementioned limit…
Increasing the value of land without increasing the incomes of the people who live on that land leads to displacement and gentrification. The goal of a city shouldn't be to increase land values -- it should be to increase the affluence of residents.
Last thought, what do you think these municipalities should do instead of minor QoL improvements that might modestly increase average property value (as stated in the article)?
> These places are built all at once to a finished state. Today is peak wealth; it's all downhill from here, regardless of how much public investment is made. This . I've struggled to phrase why most developments seem so terrible, or sterile, or what-have-you, while the areas that developed over time seem so much more... Alive? Valued? This is an amazing way to phrase that difference - it's possible to invest yoursel…
When they went to see Levittown for it's 50th aniversary they were unable to find a single house that had not changed in a major way.
Even the worst architecture and urban planning will be reprocessed over time.
Alternate cynical title from the red/green map: Towns pump money from poor neighborhoods and dump it into affluent ones.