Why Many Cities Have No Money • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#421

Post by panglott » Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 7:18 PM UTC

pif wrote: post #307

panglott wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The auto is at the center of what's unique about American towns. The chart in the article essentially says that the urban core generates surplus revenue that is used to subsidize low-productivity outlying areas. The car is at the heart of why the outlying areas are so large and thus need so many direct and indirect subsidies, and a direct source of the subsidies and costs. See something like "The High Cost of Free Pa…

> the urban core generates surplus revenue that is used to subsidize low-productivity outlying areas What's so surprising about it? You work (and produce) in the overcrowded center and then go back to a nice suburb for the evening.

No one said it was surprising, but the article's argument is that the subsidies to the outlying suburbs are so large that they are overwhelming the tax revenue generated by the core.

People find different things pleasing, and some people enjoy commuting so they can live quite far from their job, friends, and basic services. Others prefer to live closer to these things, close enough to walk, cycle, or take transit. Based on prices, it's clear that in many metro areas, there's a great demand for urban-style living that is going unfulfilled, mostly do to zoning restrictions.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#422

Post by sixdisk » Sat, Jan 21, 2017, 1:12 PM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #389

rwallace wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the factors driving insane real estate prices is low density, partly to accommodate cars. Another factor is bad zoning laws, tolerated on the assumption that cars will be used. And if the bus service in your neighborhood is bad, that's likely because the rich and powerful drive cars, so they have no incentive to improve the buses. Remember, the proposed new state of the world is not just like the current one e…

>the rich and powerful drive cars, so they have no incentive to improve the buses. The urban rich and powerful can afford to live within short walks of their offices, or right next to stations on the best parts of (small) existing transit corridors. They are most assuredly not sitting in rush-hour traffic. >low density, partly to accommodate cars Figure 1000 people work downtown, half of them park in 200sqft spaces,…

I am not convinced by your example about converting parking to living spaces because it assumes it's not possible to achieve a one to one replacement. Building vertically like you suggest seems like the clear answer to this problem.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#423

Post by closeparen » Sat, Jan 21, 2017, 7:54 PM UTC

sixdisk wrote: post #422

closeparen wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the rich and powerful drive cars, so they have no incentive to improve the buses. The urban rich and powerful can afford to live within short walks of their offices, or right next to stations on the best parts of (small) existing transit corridors. They are most assuredly not sitting in rush-hour traffic. >low density, partly to accommodate cars Figure 1000 people work downtown, half of them park in 200sqft spaces,…

I am not convinced by your example about converting parking to living spaces because it assumes it's not possible to achieve a one to one replacement. Building vertically like you suggest seems like the clear answer to this problem.

In the cities I'I familiar with, the vast majority of urban parking is in tall structures (and often underground). Although there is a decent argument that multilevel parking structures are less financially sustainable than multilevel apartments.

I'm much more interested in blanketing the suburbs in fast, cheap transportation with low wait times and minimal to zero parking requirements on the urban side. Probably a combination of e-bikes, electric motorcycles and scooters, and UberPool. Then personal car ownership (and demand for urban parking) can fade because it is actually less compelling than the alternative, instead of by fiat.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#424

Post by yourapostasy » Tue, Jan 24, 2017, 7:32 AM UTC

throwaway12393 wrote: post #329

yourapostasy wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because market-economy developers expropriate planning properties that lead to higher quality of life, externalizing the resultant downstream costs upon their customers, who in this instance of a market with highly asymmetrical information between parties (out of many in market economies) are not aware of the longer-term, cross-functional factors decided against their interests when they make their housing pur…

Emailed you recently. Can you check if I understood your address correctly? :)

Yep, you reached me.