281–290 of 429 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This book discusses why that's easier said than done: http://amzn.to/2BbEYoV There are 'network effects' at least in terms of jobs and that environment. You'd have to convince a bunch of VC's to move to wherever along with a bunch of tech workers.
I think the case of Boulder it was first a nice place that then attracted companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lots of DT areas of cities are walkable, but Boston is kind of unique in that it has miles and miles of walkable streets. Its urban core is just really big. Portions of Seattle are very walkable (From the International District going north, quite a few miles), and individual parts of Chicago are walkable. Heck there are 2 or 3 mile stretches of San Diego are walkable (there might be more than that, I only spent a wee…
I wouldn't call Chicago and San Diego walkable (I'm talking about like european cities walkable)
Some individual portions of Chicago are very walkable. Likewise with some small bits of San Diego, though you are right, not as good as European cities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More density allows more establishments and offices to exist, and of more different kinds. In a city with 10x the people, you can have 10x more shops, restaurants, etc, and you’ll as result also get 10x more variation.
...and a [shop, street, park, restaurant, school, etc] will have 10x as many people that are living within walking distance. This point is made well in this article: http://newworldeconomics.com/how-to-make-a-pile-of-dough-wit... >Our basic goal, in all this, is to deliver roughly triple the density as this “New Urbanist” model, while still preserving what looks very much like a “traditional Small Town America single…
I think the issue with this approach is it doesn't take away individualism. Everything is still too far away. Most people still have cars and look for parking for hours. The parks are few and something like 30 minute walk away. Your friends and gym are also going to be 30 minutes walk away. It's not dense enough for subways everywhere and buses stop on every block so it makes just as much sense to walk. Nobody walks anywhere besides their neighborhood and there is usually nothing in their neighborhood.
So it's really worse than suburbs and worse than city center that has buildings. Worse than city with buildings because you don't share common resources so everyone is still for themselves. You also don't get nice things like common public playgrounds and parks.
It's worse than the suburbs because you still get the same problems of it being difficult to get places but now it's even harder. You still get "what's mine is mine and I don't want public things" but now you have less of your own stuff and fewer public things because real estate is expensive. You also don't get the diversity of food or clothes that you would get in a city.
I think the ideal is 90k/sq mile in the places where people live with 4-6 story buildings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty much like a Normal Rockwell painting. A community near to you and all the advantages that come with it. - The ability to just stop by a neighbor for a drink or a chat - Somebody to give your house keys to while you're on vacation, without inconveniencing them since they live so close - Being able to call your doctor off hours in an emergency because you have a personal relation beyond your yearly visit - The g…
This seems to imply that most people in the US don't already have many neighbors within walking distance. I don't think that's the case at all, even in the sprawliest of suburbs. For most people, if you don't stop by your neighbor's house for a drink or a chat, or you don't have anyone nearby you can give your house keys to, it's because of lack of interest on one or both of your parts — not because you can't conveni…
Living close-by does strengthen informal ties, because you're more likely to run into eachother, literally. The alienation of the car-dependent suburb is admittedly a literary trope, but it is rooted in reality.
Different people, different strokes, suburbs have a different appeal. But it's a sliding scale. People that don't enjoy car-dependency have very little inexpensive options in this country. The market has spoken, and the demand for town-living is far greater than the supply. It's reflected in the house prices, virtually any metro, the walkable areas are more expensive than the car sprawl.
I mean it in a positive way. As analogy for the people that would dubt they have economic value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you been to a mall recently? One that isn't dying? Where is it?
The Galleria at Crystal Run in Middletown, NY, the Poughkeepsie Gallerie in Poughkeepsie, NY, the Newburgh Mall in Newburgh, NY, and the Palisades Mall in West Nyack, NY are all some that I've been to either within the past months or few years and they were all doing fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty sure progressives are strongly aligned on opposition to any housing construction unless it’s specifically set aside for low-income residents, and are okay with low density zoning as an anti-gentrification measure. YIMBYism is more center-left than progressive.
It's more complicated than that. The recent Minneapolis mayoral race had housing policy as a major issue, and Minneapolis is nothing if not progressive. Affordability and gentrification are interrelated, but so is quality. I live in a relatively low-density neighborhood of mostly 80-110 year old houses. Lately, we're getting new development in the form of cheap older rentals being torn down, and large-for-the-lots (t…
http://www.sightline.org/2018/01/18/every-month-portlands-in...
> Streetscape enhancements add value to an area and are associated with higher rents and the attraction of new businesses. In addition there is good evidence to show that improving walking and cycling environments raises private property values by significant amounts. Nobody doubts this. Actually everybody sees this as the problem. I love NYC, but i also hate it. There is a price for density: crime, trash, prices, ov…
> There is a price for density: crime, trash, prices, overcrowding, urban decay, poverty and homelessness, etc. One does not necessarily lead to the other. Urban life is far more complex than that. There are lots of places, even in New York with high density, but low crime, poverty, etc...
I didn't say they all occur everywhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's one of the Market Urbanism ( http://marketurbanism.com/ ) guys, so a bit more on the libertarian edge of things, but it's a good point in any event: cargo cult urbanism is probably better than "suburban experiment" urbanism, but flexibility and adaptability are even better. Edit - one of the really cool things about the growing movement that - broadly - includes YIMBY's, Market Urbanists, Strong Towns and so on…
Pretty sure progressives are strongly aligned on opposition to any housing construction unless it’s specifically set aside for low-income residents, and are okay with low density zoning as an anti-gentrification measure. YIMBYism is more center-left than progressive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I want to know what it's supposed to amount to. Talking to people randomly on the street or on the bus?
Pretty much like a Normal Rockwell painting. A community near to you and all the advantages that come with it. - The ability to just stop by a neighbor for a drink or a chat - Somebody to give your house keys to while you're on vacation, without inconveniencing them since they live so close - Being able to call your doctor off hours in an emergency because you have a personal relation beyond your yearly visit - The g…
In most towns there are school buses that have routes in the morning to bring kids to school from their houses. It's not a choice between only driving and walking.