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

Poor Neighborhoods Make the Best Investments

strongtowns.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 174 posts

Re: Poor Neighborhoods Make the Best Investments

#41

Post by jonlucc »

PaulHoule wrote: post #39
RangerScience wrote: post #31

> 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…

Go to the poor neighborhoods and look closely and you often find that they built a bunch of row houses that are maybe two to four stories high. Some of them got knocked down, some of them are still there but they've been altered or decorated. When the trees get taller the monotonous aspects are less visible. Some of them are now vacant lots or rebuilt houses, stores, parking lots, etc. When they went to see Levittown…

You might be interested in the episode of 99 Percent Invisible [1] that talks about how an architect was tasked with designing a bunch of housing for very poor residents in Chile after a disaster.

He chose to build half-houses that are literally unfinished roofs on one side. Over time, people were encouraged to build the other half as they saw fit.

[1] Episode 231 - Half a House - http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/half-a-house/

Re: Poor Neighborhoods Make the Best Investments

#42

Post by 1_2__3 »

RangerScience wrote: post #31

> 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…

My opinion is because modern development is all about squeezing every single last dollar out of that development. That involves things like the illusion of open spaces while still using every last square meter of ground without wasting anything.

The result is extremely jarring in ways that people can't easily articulate. Something in your brain is noticing the architecture is trying to hide what is basically a big empty box of steel and glass, with areas in between that kinda sorta seem like nice open space but doesn't seem to ever actually be used for that. It's just there to look at and think it's usable.

Re: Poor Neighborhoods Make the Best Investments

#43

Post by nine_k »

siscia wrote: post #37
nine_k wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would say all cities (also in the north) but just few exceptions were build before cars where even an idea...

An old city could be bombed into a complete ruin and rebuilt from scratch; this happened in Russia, Poland, Germany, UK during WWII. Fortunately, Italian cities were mostly left intact.

Re: Poor Neighborhoods Make the Best Investments

#44

Post by ryandrake »

Anechoic wrote: post #6
epistasis wrote: post #2

That's quite an interesting take! The differences in older and newer city planning regarding street widths, densities, mixing of zoning, etc. are quite drastic. However, I believe it will be at least 20 years before my local municipality will be able to learn from any of these lessons. The planning meetings for any type of development are dominated by those with the time to go to them mid-day: retired people that set…

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…

This is exactly why national US voting is held mid-day on a Tuesday. Sure you have mail-in ballots now, but the default in-person voting time/date is surely deliberately designed to favor a particular demographic.

Re: Poor Neighborhoods Make the Best Investments

#45

Post by adolph »

I don't understand the author's argument. Is it "spiff up the 'poor' neighborhoods so the inhabitants will pay more property taxes?"

When I look at the map, it looks like most of the city is lightly in the red and it has several extremely red areas which may drive most of the losses. What is driving those? Are they stadiums or large government facilities that aren't taxable? Or maybe middle-aged neighborhoods with severe drainage problems that can't withstand a hurricane?

What’s driving the difference between the lightly red and the green areas? Some of the comments here propose that people in those neighborhoods aren't asking for improvements or the infrastructure is naturally cheaper. It could also be a city-favorable tax to liability balance since the larger portion of the green area is rented and thus doesn't get a homestead property tax exemption or growth cap.

"Putting in street trees, painting crosswalks, patching sidewalks, and making changes to zoning regulations" might put a city in better financial position if they think gentrification makes sense and is possible. But that by definition is not a social justice argument.

Re: Poor Neighborhoods Make the Best Investments

#46

Post by grok2 »

Spooky23 wrote: post #11
Anechoic wrote: post #6

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…

Not sure why you think it's a "cynical view that doesn't reflect reality" -- the OP indicated it was their direct experience which appears to be vastly more than an armchair commentator's....

Re: Poor Neighborhoods Make the Best Investments

#47

Post by icebraining »

Vraxx wrote: post #30
jandrese wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't think that's how the typical gentrification process goes though. I think it usually starts with developers increasing surrounding property values which attracts more affluent residents, who demand improvements from the municipality. The difference I see here is that the developers and new residents are the ones who reap the benefits of the increased property values from gentrification, whereas if the city mak…

the current residents reap the increased value

No, the current homeowners reap that value. Many residents are renters, particularly in low-income areas, while the owner often doesn't live anywhere near the place.

Re: Poor Neighborhoods Make the Best Investments

#48

Post by [deleted] »

hguant wrote: post #13
aglavine wrote: post #9

Isn't the article describing the classic Gentrification move?

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…

[deleted]

Re: Poor Neighborhoods Make the Best Investments

#49

Post by jonwachob91 »

gohrt wrote: post #27
godzillabrennus wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Welfare systems will keep them in a home.

why didn't welfare systems keep them in a home last time?

They never said anything about their target audience being homeless. The target audience is low income.

Re: Poor Neighborhoods Make the Best Investments

#50

Post by sqeaky »

Vraxx wrote: post #38
nostromo wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think that displacement alone is a reason to avoid an action necessarily. I say this because while it may not be increasing their income, even if they were displaced they would get more money for being displaced (when selling the property). I'd also argue that the status quo of letting the area languish is hardly a better alternative for your stated goal (increasing the affluence of it's residents). It seems…

> they would get more money for being displaced (when selling the property)

and for displaced renters?

Post reply on HN