For some reason this link is forwarding to http://127.0.0.1/2011/10/the-great-cul-de-sac-problem-and-ho... . Any clue why, or how to fix it?
Cached by ViewText: http://viewtext.org/article?url=http://www.chrisnorstrom.com...
The Great Cul-De-Sac Problem And How To Alleviate It.
81–90 of 138 posts
Re: The Great Cul-De-Sac Problem And How To Alleviate It.
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it obvious? Do the majority of the public understand the value of a well planned community or have the option to participate in one? Being walking distance to a grocery store is not the same thing as living in a transit-oriented region and living your entire life without dependence on a car. Suburbs were born from industry, not out of the realization of American's idealized community. I live in downtown Portland,…
And the thing is, Portland isn't even that dense of a city . As far as urban environments go, it's hardly Blade Runner. Plenty of detached homes with yards, parks, etc. The idea that people have that we have to live like sardines in some anime-inspired megalopolis is simply inaccurate. If everyone lived in cities as dense as portland, the current human population would only be living on about 2.7% of the world's land…
> If everyone lived in cities as dense as portland, the current human population would only be living on about 2.7% of the world's land mass.
What is the human population's current footprint? Wikipedia says humans' average population density worldwide (excluding Antarctica and oceans) is about 50 people/km^2.
Re: The Great Cul-De-Sac Problem And How To Alleviate It.
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
I will never understand the attraction of suburbs Low taxes. Lower cost of living. Privacy of a detached house. The lack of 'city' noise. Letting my kids play in the yard, on sidewalks. Letting my kids tear around the cul-de-sac. I've lived in the country, I've lived in the city, I've lived in the 'burbs. I prefer the latter, now. Maybe it's just me. I live in a smaller town, my commute is a five minute drive. YMMV.
Are taxes lower in the suburbs of most American cities? I thought they'd be higher due to lower densities (more roads, sewer pipes, etc per capita to maintain). At least that's the case here in the Greater Toronto area ...
Yes, much lower.
Property taxes in my suburb are around three quarters compared to the nearby city (Atlanta, GA - millage rate 44.435; Gwinnett, GA - millage rate 32.10). Couple that with the fact that houses are much much cheaper, and in practice I pay ~$2000/year property taxes on my house while my friend pays over $5000/year in property taxes for his condo in the city. Then my mortgage and insurance are also cheaper, and it works out to be much cheaper. But I have to drive more.
Part of the reason is more government - cities will tack on their own taxes to pay for the city government. I have no idea what benefit this extra level of government actually provides, though.
Re: The Great Cul-De-Sac Problem And How To Alleviate It.
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair. I have never lived outside of a city/town (>=200k). But living in suburbs "for the kids" (a big point of yours too) does not convince me. As a kid, I had a great time. With plenty of time outdoors too.
Do you live in North America? In most American metros to live in the city with kids you have to make enough money to easily afford expensive private school tuition. If your kid goes to the public school he will be beat up by black or hispanic gang members. This is probably 80% of the reason families rarely choose cities in America.
This is completely ridiculous. I went to a 60% black city public school in the midst of a ghetto. So did most of my friends. None of us ever had any issue. I'm glad I was exposed to a diverse group of people early on in life, so that there isn't any risk of embarrassing myself by making a comment as ignorant as yours.
On top of that, my friends who went to the expensive private schools (whether in the city or suburbs) had easy access to cocaine, which was not a feature of the public schools.
Re: The Great Cul-De-Sac Problem And How To Alleviate It.
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but folks living in suburbs don't stop folks who like density from having it. Yes. They do. That giant sucking sound you hear are the burbs bleeding the urban tax base dry. Further, in my area, the burb leaders cock block anything that smells like it might help the urbans. My city would be sparkling and new if we didn't have to subsidize the standard of living of all the deadbeats in the burbs.
"My city would be sparkling and new if we didn't have to subsidize the standard of living of all the deadbeats in the burbs." That is a silly notion. Are you assuming those out in the burbs don't pay property tax, vehicle related taxes, tax on purchases and every other tax in existence? I'm positive we'd all learn quite a bit if we actually dug into the numbers.
He's generalizing, of course, but it's because in the US, the suburbs incorporate into their own cities, and keep the taxes for themselves. Meanwhile, they commute into a city on a freeway paid for by the urbanites and enjoy all the benefits of city infrastructure, without paying for it.
Not sure how cities incorporate in Canada but that's how it usually is here.
Re: The Great Cul-De-Sac Problem And How To Alleviate It.
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are you/we trying to force density when it's so obvious that most people want the exact opposite? [edit] I had in a house in a great neighborhood in the city within walking distance of grocery, restaurants, buses, etc., and I still moved to the suburbs. Obviously density's not the only thing people want.
Is it obvious? Do the majority of the public understand the value of a well planned community or have the option to participate in one? Being walking distance to a grocery store is not the same thing as living in a transit-oriented region and living your entire life without dependence on a car. Suburbs were born from industry, not out of the realization of American's idealized community. I live in downtown Portland,…
Portland is a poor example. I love Portland, by the way, but we're essentially talking about economics here, and Portland is skewed. In Portland, you have people that want to live this lifestyle. They don't want the burden of the car, they are environmentally conscious, they work in the city, and they don't have kids. Sure, for them, it's doable (and you sound like one of them). This isn't usually the case. Industrial areas, where many people work, aren't dense enough to support frequent bus stops, and most families would have a hard time getting kids places without being able to drive them hither and thither.
I've lived in some of the densest cities in Europe, and families still had a hard time getting around without a car. At one point, I did get a car, and not having to deal with the scheduling hassles of public transportation made my life instantly easier.
You have to have an enormous population density for public transportation to be a break-even affair. Your Portland public transportation isn't self-sufficient, it's a net loss, and it's subsidized by taxes. Sure, it's more efficient than cars, but it still doesn't solve all the problems that cars do, as noted above (primarily for families). By the time you get the density required for public transportation to be self-sustaining, you're looking at a cost of living that is unacceptable for most families (eg, NYC).
Sure, public transportation is great for young single people. Try going to the grocery store with young kids on the bus. It's virtually impossible.
Re: The Great Cul-De-Sac Problem And How To Alleviate It.
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are you/we trying to force density when it's so obvious that most people want the exact opposite? The problem is that the playing field isn't level: as Edward Glaeser points out in his book, The Triumph of the City (highly recommended; http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-City-Greatest-Invention-Health... ), there are numerous institutional barriers to urban living, including, in no particular order: 1) Mortgage interes…
>It's pretty obvious that a lot of people want density—if they didn't, housing prices in NYC, DC, Seattle, San Francisco, and others wouldn't be so high. You're making the assumption people want to live there because of the density and not because there are certain types of jobs that pay more in big cities. I could make twenty or thirty percent more if I moved to NYC, but that's something I'll never do.
You're making the assumption people want to live there because of the density and not because there are certain types of jobs that pay more in big cities.
Glaeser's book and a lot of the other work on economic geography make it clear that the two are inherently related and evolve together; density promotes knowledge spillover effects, dense markets, and various other Good Things. See also some of Richard Florida's work (though it can be frothy at times).
Re: The Great Cul-De-Sac Problem And How To Alleviate It.
#88I've lived on a dead-end street (but not a cul-de-sac), and I've lived on a regular traffic street. I definitely preferred the dead-end with the lack of traffic and noise, and ability for kids to play in the street without fear of a car going 50 down it. And people did socialize with neighbors on the dead-end street (although maybe not as much as the regular street).
I've never lived in a cul-de-sac (which btw is french for a dead-end street), but spent my childhood playing outside all the same. Narrow, one-way streets, with plenty of speed bumps. I walked to school. Currently I reside downtown, overlooking rails (the trains go quite slowly and make a noise far more agreeable than that of cars). There's a market under the rails, fruit vegtables and other foodstuffs at daytime, sm…
It's easy. I love the city, but I currently live in suburban hell because:
- My kids can go to a better school. A much, much better school.
- I can't fit my family in the size apartment I could afford if we lived downtown.
- Letting my kids play in the backyard is infinitely easier than packing up and heading to the park (admit it, there's not a ton of parks downtown), especially when you have a baby.
And that's not even including the benefits of the cul-de-sac, which means they can ride their bikes safely without traffic, lack of noise (and our noise won't bother neighbors), etc.
I can't tell you how much we want to get out of the burbs, but I'll be damned if I'm going to shortchange my kids' future, or make us all miserable by going three to a room. My boys are already sharing a room as it is.
Re: The Great Cul-De-Sac Problem And How To Alleviate It.
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the thing is, Portland isn't even that dense of a city . As far as urban environments go, it's hardly Blade Runner. Plenty of detached homes with yards, parks, etc. The idea that people have that we have to live like sardines in some anime-inspired megalopolis is simply inaccurate. If everyone lived in cities as dense as portland, the current human population would only be living on about 2.7% of the world's land…
> If everyone lived in cities as dense as portland, the current human population would only be living on about 2.7% of the world's land mass. What is the human population's current footprint? Wikipedia says humans' average population density worldwide (excluding Antarctica and oceans) is about 50 people/km^2.
If we're averaging 50 people/km^2, that puts our footprint at around 91.6%
Re: The Great Cul-De-Sac Problem And How To Alleviate It.
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's pretty obvious that a lot of people want density Yes, but folks living in suburbs don't stop folks who like density from having it. It's interesting that suburb dwellers never complain about other people's living choices. It's always the city fans who can't tolerate folks who want something else. BTW - If you want high-density housing, you're going to have shared walls. It's unclear why you blame suburbs for t…
It's interesting that suburb dwellers never complain about other people's living choices. No, they just vote against spending any public money on things like public transit, or against raising car and gas taxes. If suburbians paid their own way I wouldn't mind them either.
Why would anyone want to vote to spend money on anything that will be a net loss?
Subsidizing public transportation is an economic drain on society. The correct answer is to have self-sustaining, profitable public transportation. This can only happen in cities with sufficient population density, such as NYC.
Car and gas taxes? Tax the hell out of them, since the costs right now are so over-externalized. Eventually, that will start to force more population density, and then we can talk about sustainable public transportation.