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

91–100 of 138 posts

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

#91

Post by davidandgoliath »

ryanjkirk wrote: post #85
davidandgoliath wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Certainly no disagreement that suburbanites commute. And once they arrive they spend bucketloads of money on a daily basis & tend to work for companies that spend bucketloads of money locally for office space & all the goods held therein.

Communters do tend to also help support public transportation systems that are made available, in effect subsidizing them. Afterwards they leave & cost the city absolutely nothing beyond some infrastructure.

I can name ten(s) of cities in the United States that absolutely die the moment 5-6pm strike, but were couriered money in by suburbanites during the day and would have zero infrastructure otherwise.

I too am generalizing, of course.. I couldn't imagine seeing suburbanites as vultures.

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

#92

Post by shabble »

alanh wrote: post #13
buss wrote: post #7

I like the sentiment of this article, but I don't like the wording of his survey. > Maps show that your neighborhood only has 1 entrance (through Radio Dr) creating a bottleneck and completely seperating [sic] you from your neighbors to the West, East, and South and adding extra miles to your commute. This is a really biased question, and will throw his survey results into question.

You are of course correct to point this out but maybe, just maybe, it is still a good proxy for gauging reaction to a positively-portrayed campaign along similar lines.

Might be interesting to run another quick campaign without that, and see what kind of A/B results you get.

Requires quite a lot more effort than the web to actually do, though.

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

#93

Post by specialist »

ryanjkirk wrote: post #85
davidandgoliath wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

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.

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

#94

Post by specialist »

davidandgoliath wrote: post #79
specialist wrote: post #78

Earlier 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.

By deadbeats, I mean people too damned selfish to carry their own weight. You think because suburbanites pay some taxes, they're paying their own way?

Suburbs would depopulate if we urbanites withheld our largess.

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

#95

Post by littlegiantcap »

I'm failing to see where some of these conclusions are coming from. I grew up in a cul de sac and it honestly made me closer to my neighbors because we could play in the street more often, and adults have block parties and stuff in cul de sacs. I also disagree with the whole miles and miles to see neighbors a few blocks over point. In almost every neighborhood in my town there's tons of bike/jogging trails everywhere that makes this a nonissue.

As an aside I was a little turned off by the overly hostile tone taken by the article.

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

#96

Post by shabble »

Prophasi wrote: post #53

To address a few of the myths: Myth 1: Who is he to say how people feel about their neighborhood is nonsense? There are plenty where the neighbors know each other, their kids play, they have block parties and BBQs, and there's a strong fabric of trust. To pitch them all as "nonsense" is to sweep away all pretense of objectivity. Myth 2: How much traffic someone gets varies widely with the street. In his red zone, I'd…

Mass residential here tends to spawn more and more speed-bumps over time as community action groups and similar demand "safer roads". Even considering that, they're very common routes for taxis and private vehicles that want to avoid blockages or traffic-lights. About the only thing they reduce is non-essential trucking.

To the other point, regardless of average traffic, it's perfectly possible there'll be a bit of a queue during peak commuting hour(s), and secondly, it seems quite odd that a whole neighbourhood could be disconnected by something like essential road-works or a fallen tree.

I'm with you on the somewhere-inbetween approach. Balancing accessibility, traffic density, noise, and fault resilience is tricky, but much moreso is the cost of alterations to existing neighbourhoods built on one style or the other.

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

#97

Post by tsotha »

dbfclark wrote: post #77
tsotha wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Not necessarily -- people may want to live there in spite of the density, since not everybody is like you in turning down a 30% salary bump to avoid the big city. But it's definitely true that dense expensive places are dense and expensive because people want to live there. The regulatory problem being pointed out is that it's borderline-illegal to increase densities almost everywhere, despite increasing prices. It i…

>But it's definitely true that dense expensive places are dense and expensive because people want to live there.

It's just as likely for every person who wants to live in a dense city there's someone else who lives there for career reasons but would rather live somewhere else. The second person drives up the cost of housing just as much as the first.

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

#98

Post by tsotha »

ryanjkirk wrote: post #85
davidandgoliath wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

>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 York is the only city that can actually get away with it over the long run, though.

>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.

They pay for the freeways with gas and income taxes. At least in my state cities don't maintain freeways, that's done at the state level. Their employers pay taxes to the city, they pay taxes on everything they buy on their lunch break. 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. Shouldn't the cities be returning some of that money to the suburbs?

In any event, it's not the suburbs that come out ahead tax-wise. It's the rural areas. Rural America is heavily subsidized at both the state and national level and most of those studies don't make any distinction.

One other point... the highway system, which city people always count as a "subsidy" of other areas is most heavily used to move goods from one population center to another. The rural areas would never have built the highway system because they don't need it.

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

#99

Post by ars »

kaiuhl wrote: post #41
HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #33

Earlier 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,…

You can do all that because you have no kids. Add kids and you'll see why people like to live in the suburbs.

Suburbs were born from families. Not industry.

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

#100

Post by tsotha »

michaelchisari wrote: post #52
rubashov wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If your kid goes to the public school he will be beat up by black or hispanic gang members That's a very alarmist statement that I'm afraid has no relationship with the experience of my friends who went to inner city schools with diverse populations (and yes, a number of gang members). It's true that many inner city schools were defunded by capital flight to the suburbs. But the notion that they're all active warzone…

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.
Post reply on HN