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

The Great Cul-De-Sac Problem And How To Alleviate It.

chrisnorstrom.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 138 posts

Re: The Great Cul-De-Sac Problem And How To Alleviate It.

#121

Post by bgentry »

ChrisNorstrom wrote: post #120
bgentry wrote: post #11

He fails to understand the main reason that home developers want to build neighborhoods with lots of cul-de-sacs: Homes on cul-de-sacs sell for more money. The more of these you can squeeze into a given neighborhood, the more money you'll make off the development.

lol, you failed to read my first paragraph that specifically said "I get why people (myself even) like the suburbs and cul-de-sacs but they have been taken to an extreme" btw, sorry my whole shared hosting server crashed, and is still down since yesterday. I can now say, "hacker news crashed my server", so I consider it an achievement unlocked and am very happy about it.

No, I did not fail to read it. Just knowing that people like them doesn't mean you understand that people pay substantially more for them. Or that developers are able to squeeze more houses into a development by using lots of cul-de-sacs.

Re: The Great Cul-De-Sac Problem And How To Alleviate It.

#122

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

anamax wrote: post #63
jseliger wrote: post #61

Earlier 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 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. It's always the city fans who can't tolerate folks who want something else.

In a nutshell, this is what I find so frustrating about these discussions and really the only reason I got drawn in in the first place!

I live in the country on a small farm. I have a long, expensive drive into work. I can only get relatively slow broadband (lucky to get any at all) and it's expensive; I have no city services, so I'm responsible for maintaining my own water treatment and sewage equipment; everything takes a long time; if I run out of something critical, the closest grocery store is 8 miles away and charges an arm and a leg; more reasonably priced ones are about 13 miles away. And I consider myself lucky they are that close.

I don't bitch about this because I made the decision to incur these costs so my family can have the lifestyle we like.

If people want to live in a dense city, on top of each other (and I lived in NYC for 8 years), fine. That's their choice; I don't have to like it. The reality is that people will do what's in their own self interest regardless of what others want them to do. So work for cheaper, cleaner energy; work for lower-impact building processes and improved street layout; work for smaller, more energy efficient houses; work for more public transit (the bus 12 miles from my house can get me into the city in 1/3 the time it would take me to drive there).

But don't tell me where I can live!

Re: The Great Cul-De-Sac Problem And How To Alleviate It.

#123

Post by tsotha »

michaelchisari wrote: post #105
tsotha wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not all that way, to be sure, but there's enough truth in the stereotype that neighborhoods with known good schools have insane housing costs.

Bad schools have unmotivated teachers. They operate more on discipline than inspiration. They have poor infrastructure and outdated books. They're understaffed, poorly managed, and some even have lead paint in the walls. There are a good amount of schools that have these problems, and since school funding is tied to property values, then we have an idea why housing costs around the good schools are high. Bad schools…

I think I disagree with pretty much everything you've written here. For one thing, the problem isn't money. Some of the worst school districts have the highest per-pupil spending. The DC school district may be the worst in the entire country, and yet it's right up at the top of list in outlays per student.

And the problem isn't unmotivated teachers. Young, idealistic teachers are made prematurely cynical by the thousands in bad urban school districts every year.

The problem is too many of the students and (more importantly) their families don't care. That's why charter schools work. That's why private schools work. And that's why suburban schools work. Because the students in those schools belong to families that consider education important and have made sacrifices to get their kids in a good school.

All the things schools used to do to maintain order are either illegal or carry a big financial penalty for the district. When I was in school our district had a reform school, and everyone knew if you acted out too much that's where you would end up. Kids got suspended and eventually expelled for too much disruptive behavior. That just doesn't happen today to any meaningful degree.

It's all well and good to rail about the unfairness of it all, but when the future of your own kids is on the line you make the sacrifices you have to make in order to keep them out of bad schools. Even the president, who is under a lot of political pressure to put his kids in DC public schools decided to send them to a private school instead.

Re: The Great Cul-De-Sac Problem And How To Alleviate It.

#124

Post by shinratdr »

tsotha wrote: post #98
ryanjkirk wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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. Well, sure, and they provide services to residents with those taxes, just like the cities do. Cities don't have any claim on that money. If the cities really think they're getting a raw deal tax-wise, then they can institute a municipal income tax the way NYC does. I suspect New…

> Well, sure, and they provide services to residents with those taxes, just like the cities do.

So their taxes go to pay for services only they use, and my taxes go to services that we all use. How is that fair?

> They pay for the freeways with gas and income taxes.

That's just an example. They spend half of their day in the city every weekday, they are going to end up utilizing some services that are paid for by municipal taxes sooner or later. It's simply ludicrous to suggest otherwise. Unless of course suburbanites aren't allowed to walk on the sidewalk or visit city parks where you live.

> On Friday night they come into the city and drop more money in bars and restaurants, and part of that money makes its way into city coffers.

Ahh, the old boost the economy/trickle down theory. I would rather they just pay taxes to the city, frankly. The money that possibly makes its way into city coffers is much less than it would be if they just paid taxes directly to the city.

> In any event, it's not the suburbs that come out ahead tax-wise. It's the rural areas.

This simply serves to demonstrate our point. Nobody is arguing otherwise, rural areas are definitely subsidized more than urban or suburban areas.

However, the same issues that cause rural areas to be so unequally subsidized apply to urban areas vs suburban areas too. It's just exacerbated in the case of rural areas.

Re: The Great Cul-De-Sac Problem And How To Alleviate It.

#125

Post by anamax »

philwelch wrote: post #71
anamax wrote: post #63

Earlier 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.

Since the gas taxes are often diverted to non-road purposes....

I'll make you a deal. Let the cities pay for the mass transit systems (capital and running costs) and let the urbs pay for their highways. Both pay for their streets.

Re: The Great Cul-De-Sac Problem And How To Alleviate It.

#126

Post by anamax »

Retric wrote: post #68
anamax wrote: post #63

Earlier 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…

All things are not created equal. The single most environmentally friendly place to live in the US is downtown New York City. Yet we still feel the need to subsidize single family dwellings though a wide range of tax breaks and subsidies.

> The single most environmentally friendly place to live in the US is downtown New York City.

Not even close.

Also, the vast majority of city dwellers go out of their way/pay extra to not live as environmentally efficiently as possible, so it's absurd to claim that environmental efficiency is the most important criteria.

Suburbs provide some things far more efficiently than cities do. And, cities provide other things more efficiently. The fact that you value one set of things more than the other does not imply that your choice is correct.

Re: The Great Cul-De-Sac Problem And How To Alleviate It.

#127

Post by anamax »

specialist wrote: post #78
anamax wrote: post #63

Earlier 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…

> 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.

> That giant sucking sound you hear are the burbs bleeding the urban tax base dry.

No, that's folks moving away because US cities are a disaster.

Suburb dwellers don't have an obligation to fix or pay for cities.

I get that you like cities. Good for you, but they're your problem. If you can't make them work....

Re: The Great Cul-De-Sac Problem And How To Alleviate It.

#128

Post by anamax »

specialist wrote: post #78
anamax wrote: post #63

Earlier 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…

> 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.

> That giant sucking sound you hear are the burbs bleeding the urban tax base dry.

No, that's folks moving away because US cities are a disaster.

Suburb dwellers don't have an obligation to fix or pay for cities.

I get that you like cities. Good for you, but they're your problem. If you can't make them work....

Re: The Great Cul-De-Sac Problem And How To Alleviate It.

#129

Post by anamax »

specialist wrote: post #93
ryanjkirk wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hi Ryan. Yup. Making a generalized statement about a widespread, general phenomenon: Urban centers subsidize everyone else, suburbs are freeloaders. This is really basic, uncontroversial information. Example county level: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/welfare-state/Content?oid... State level: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923084.html Same thing happens at the local level.

The vast majority of the so-called subsidy is welfare, which has been pushed by urban politicians.

If you don't like the costs of the programs that you push, look in the mirror.

I've no objection to making welfare a county-level thing, so cities can pay what they want (and are willing to fund) and suburbs can pay what they want (and are willing to fund).

Deal?

Re: The Great Cul-De-Sac Problem And How To Alleviate It.

#130

Post by philwelch »

anamax wrote: post #125
philwelch wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Since the gas taxes are often diverted to non-road purposes.... I'll make you a deal. Let the cities pay for the mass transit systems (capital and running costs) and let the urbs pay for their highways. Both pay for their streets.

If you implemented that completely, I think you'd see a pretty massive correction and living in the suburbs would become much more expensive. State and even federal taxes fundamentally redistribute wealth out of cities and into sparsely populated regions--correcting for that alone is probably more than the realistic urbanist can ever hope for.
Post reply on HN