Live data from Hacker News

The Suburbs Will Die: One Man's Fight to Fix the American Dream

time.com

151–160 of 195 posts

Re: The Suburbs Will Die: One Man's Fight to Fix the American Dream

#151

The only ones who truly profit from urban sprawl are land developers. They wipe out forests and wildlife to make a quick buck on cheap low-density housing. The taxpayer foots the bill to have the grid and city services extended for these suburbs. So the taxpayer loses, nature loses, and the losers who bought these ugly disposable houses are losers. Only the land developers profit.

> The taxpayer foots the bill to have the grid and city services extended for these suburbs.

The taxpayer is who gets the services.

Re: The Suburbs Will Die: One Man's Fight to Fix the American Dream

#152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can badmouth any living conditions. I like my suburban "not-gated but has just one entrance" for safety, a good-sized easy-maintained lawn for the kids to play in, no ugly/noisy commercial buildings, and a quick EV drive to a vast array of options that I don't want to actually live right next to. Pedestrian infrastructure is pointless as it's faster to drive to what you actually want to go to than to walk to what…

Its perfectly fine to like that, just as it is perfectly fine to like private jets and caviar. The discussion, at least in this article, is how sustainable it is from a cost perspective. You are talking about liking something that has tax revenues that cover mere fractions of the costs incurred. How much would you like it if your property taxes were 50% higher? 2000% higher?

The post I responded to wasn't addressing sustainability. But to run with yours...

The article covers sweeping statements & accusations, ignoring local realities. If a particular town made a bad deal with a developer, that's not the same category as those that made a good deal; a big screwup can skew the average when lumped in among several successes. Ranting about sewer maintenance doesn't apply to a neighborhood that doesn't have sewers (mine has backyard septic systems/fields; your offal is your problem), and likewise for public water vs private wells. It's a solvable problem: should taxes be higher? if so, raise them accordingly and look for alternate solutions like encouraging domestic self-sufficiency.

It's a paperwork problem. Much of what the article describes involves carefully negotiated & balanced deals, followed later with absurd & overbearing demands for "improvements" - no surprise the latter are "unsustainable". Build a community with suitable roads and lawns designed to balance them ... then demand a >50% increase in road width, destroying lawns and vastly altering traffic dynamics? Build a suitable sewer system, then vastly raise & over-engineer requirements, then have to accommodate normal repairs to the absurd new requirements? Yeah, that's not going to work. The problem isn't suburbs, it's overbearing overpowered know-it-alls who don't have to deal with consequences of their unilateral declarations.

Re: The Suburbs Will Die: One Man's Fight to Fix the American Dream

#153
post #11

Unfortunately if you don't want to live in an environment like the one this person helped build, it seems necessary to be either extremely rich or comfortable with high crime rates, or willing to leave the country entirely.

That's not really accurate. Suburbs have a lower overall amount of crime, but you need to think about relative rates of crime based on the number of people living in an area. Here's a simple study that discusses a lot of that: http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc00/professi... Personally, I found it pretty easy to live in two different college towns (less than 100k pop), not own a car, and enjoy relative…

My experience was with Oakland, which probably skewed my data, to be fair. I also have only lived in CA (or outside the US entirely) so perhaps that has biased me towards thinking walkable areas like Berkeley, SF, and Santa Monica are incredibly expensive.

Re: The Suburbs Will Die: One Man's Fight to Fix the American Dream

#154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're taking the sentence out of context. Here's the entire paragraph you quoted: "Here’s what he means. The way suburban development usually works is that a town lays the pipes, plumbing, and infrastructure for housing development—often getting big loans from the government to do so—and soon after a developer appears and offers to build homes on it. Developers usually fund most of the cost of the infrastructure bec…

Also, if you go to the Strong Towns[1] website that Charles Marohn helped start and read the Mission Statement and their Quantification of a Strong Town, nowhere does it talk about population density or converting suburbs/towns into cities. You mean like these? http://www.strongtowns.org/the-cost-of-auto-orientation/ http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2012/1/4/the-lost-opportu... http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/20…

The first three articles you linked to refer to commercial space, not residential space. I'd argue that they don't support your argument since I believe we're talking about residential spaces. Moreover, densely packed commercial centers aren't unique to cities. However, I suppose we can talk about those articles as well. They all refer to one specific case, the building of a Taco John's. The argument against it isn't that it takes up too much space, it's that it provides less value (in terms of tax revenue and how much money is being funneled back into the town through jobs) to the town than another comparable area. However, it's not just about the density of businesses. If we were to imagine a X-story high-rise containing X different businesses was built in place of the Taco John's, would that necessarily be better than the Taco John's? Not necessarily. You would need to take into consideration many other factors: the extra strain on the utilities, the generated tax revenue, whether or not it fits in with the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood.

As for the last article, that one does talk about residential housing. I will agree that the article does talk about urbanization as the natural progression of town maturation. However, note that the article talks about progressions/increments (i.e. going from a house to a duplex, from a duplex, to a row of houses, from a row of houses to an apartment building) and not skipping those progressions (going straight from a house to an apartment building). In fact, the article specifically outlines that the changes must be natural, be compatible with the neighborhood, and must fit in. Overall, Marohn's more concerned with adding value to properties than increasing population density. He even goes as far as to specifically address our topic of discussion. I quote:

"I am going to pause now before going on to the next step and reiterate something important. I know there are those of you reading this right now, sitting at the kitchen table of your nice single family home, saying, "There is no way on God's green earth that I'm going to allow a set of row houses across the street from me. Who does this Strong Towns guy think he is?" Fair point, and the reality is that most neighborhoods will not grow beyond the single family stage. That's okay too, at least as long as the public infrastructure and services stay scaled to that investment level." Emphasis mine.

He states that what's tantamount is responsible spending.

Re: The Suburbs Will Die: One Man's Fight to Fix the American Dream

#155

1. Require higher standards. Infrastructure needs to last decades, not years. We used to build things that well. There is no reason we can't again. Then the big bucks we pay up front would be worth it. Unfortunately we have been moving in the opposite direction, to fill the coffers of cheap fat cats. 2. Zoning laws must change. It is ridiculous the a suburban family has to drive to the Super Walmart for a gallon of m…

All of you are approaching this the wrong way. Suburbia was born out of government policies, not because a bunch of towns decided to plan their cities differently.

Here is what you do: Keep government away from the mortgage market. Bring back the historic minimum of ~20% downpayments at ~6% interest. End mortgage interest deduction. Basically scrap every stupid law that has been passed in the last 50 years that has the keywords "home ownership", "american dream" blah blah blah in them because it has done nothing but the opposite. Raise the gas tax so we don't have to bail out our highways using general funds and to pay off our accumulated infrastructure debt which is estimated to be at a trillion dollars.

The result: No more free mortgages to every peon on the street to further inflate housing costs. Real home-ownership. Gas goes up to $7 a gallon and suddenly you'll start seeing buses and sidewalks everywhere... places like this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Cincinnat...

become worthless overnight. Cities and neighborhoods will naturally start organizing themselves towards a more traditional and sustainable pattern. Problem solved.

Re: The Suburbs Will Die: One Man's Fight to Fix the American Dream

#156

Unfortunately if you don't want to live in an environment like the one this person helped build, it seems necessary to be either extremely rich or comfortable with high crime rates, or willing to leave the country entirely.

I don't think that's true at all. I can think if several areas in the cities I've lived in that have densely packed houses, condos, or apartments within walking distance of some stores and public transportation. There is a huge swath of possibilities that lie between downtown and the suburbs. You may have to give up that one acre property, though.

And they were affordable? I am genuinely interested. I think when I wrote that I was unfairly thinking of SF, LA (well, Santa Monica and Venice), NYC, DC, etc.

Re: The Suburbs Will Die: One Man's Fight to Fix the American Dream

#157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're taking the sentence out of context. Here's the entire paragraph you quoted: "Here’s what he means. The way suburban development usually works is that a town lays the pipes, plumbing, and infrastructure for housing development—often getting big loans from the government to do so—and soon after a developer appears and offers to build homes on it. Developers usually fund most of the cost of the infrastructure bec…

Also, if you go to the Strong Towns[1] website that Charles Marohn helped start and read the Mission Statement and their Quantification of a Strong Town, nowhere does it talk about population density or converting suburbs/towns into cities. You mean like these? http://www.strongtowns.org/the-cost-of-auto-orientation/ http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2012/1/4/the-lost-opportu... http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/20…

That's not a Ponzi scheme, it's just poor planning.

Re: The Suburbs Will Die: One Man's Fight to Fix the American Dream

#158
post #61
post #24

I don't like suburbs. Why? - I don't like the constant driving to get anywhere. - I don't like the malls, the big box stores, the "clone" button that seems applied across the landscape. - I don't like the giant roads carving their way around, splitting communities. - I don't like the squandering of resources on lawns! individual houses! low-density housing! I can say, with confidence, I'd like to live in a place wher…

I live in NYC, and recently I spent two weeks in Simi Valley, a city north of Los Angeles, and was shocked that it's basically impossible to get around without a car. Even in LA, it seems as if the public transport system is nearly non-existent.

You were in an especially horrible part of LA. For what it's worth, Venice Beach, Hollywood, Santa Monica, etc. are better (but still atrocious).

Re: The Suburbs Will Die: One Man's Fight to Fix the American Dream

#159
I am an environmental studies major who wanted to be an urban planner. I gave up my car a few years ago. At the time, I was living in The Deep South. There was a bus stop a ten minute walk from my apartment and another one in front of my office building. No bus went directly from one to the other.

By car, it was a 7 minute drive. On foot, it was a one hour walk. By bus, I think it would have taken about 2 hours. I walked and caught rides and was usually at work in about 15 or 20 minutes.

Our modern concept of suburbs was born just after WW2. We had 4 years of dual income, no kids families saving up to half their income and unable to have kids due to the men being at war overseas. WW2 was immediately preceded by The Great Depression. As their reward for defeating evil, Americans just wanted a house of their own. There wasn't enough housing to meet the demand and the nation came together as a whole to create policies and financing mechanisms whole-clothe and we began throwing up Levittowns all over the place.

Decades later, our demographic has changed and we remain prisoners of policies born overnight to service the preponderance of nuclear families. We have a lot fewer nuclear families with SAHMs and small kids yet our entire world, so to speak, is aimed at creating a dream for a generation that is dying out. (My father fought in WW2 and he died last fall. He was just short of his 89th birthday.)

I now live in San Diego county. Transit and density here make it almost like a little slice of Europe, but with better weather. I think I will eventually be able to get the life I want, without a car.

I wish this man all the best in the world. He has quite the uphill battle ahead of him.

Re: The Suburbs Will Die: One Man's Fight to Fix the American Dream

#160
post #12
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quit subsidizing sprawl?

Right, I got that part.. but then what? Small towns die out, and everyone moves to the big city?

No... we don't all have to live in 500 sqft apartments. It's just that instead of building our towns like this: http://i.imgur.com/5donv8c.jpg?1

we build it like this: http://i.imgur.com/9MpfuwP.jpg?1

Post reply on HN