Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 70 of 70

Thread: Demolish inner cities.

  1. #61
    I.E. If a middle class person lives in central Manhattan. They don't actually say if there are people like that. Just that if a middle class person happened to live in a handful of super expensive neighborhoods, they wouldn't be in good shape. To say that this is extremely misleading is a massive understatement.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by agamemnus View Post
    My city has had societal problems for decades. I won't get too deep into what they are at the moment as I think I covered that over the years. Edit: I've seen a documentary on Detroit and some other cities. Oh boy... well, it's nothing like that, but it will get there if nothing is done.

    I don't think the buildings should just be demolished and rebuilt. I think that the roads should be completely redesigned in large sections of the city center. For the past 10 years we've had an increasing problem of overpopulation in the schools due to lax zoning laws. Too many poor and uneducated families with too many children concentrated in one place. A high density of, for lack of a better word, high density, creates problems.

    Regarding the zoning laws, we do of course have them. One family with 1-2 kids in a small apartment is not the same as one family with 3-5 kids in a small apartment. There's a vast difference, but to the zoning laws it is the same.

    It's all just a compounding effect. It's not just one thing. Poor access to Boston (where wages are higher), plus a heavy population density leads to crime and noise nuisance. This leads to a poor study environment for kids and exacerbates the problem. Etcetera.

    Let me be clear that I am not advocating for putting people in giant apartment buildings. We have that and it is just as bad. Plus, as I'm sure many of you know, that approach has been tried many times and failed.

    There is only one approach that truly works: demolish inner cities.

    Edit: note that I am not advocating for demolishing cities, just inner cities. High density is good when there is financial opportunity, and high levels of education and civility. Poor and culturally uneducated people in the US tend to get dumped into inner cities by sheer populist politics and economics. Baltimore.
    Ag, I don't have time to address this in detail, but a counterfactual to suggest that your city's problems aren't likely to be solved by your plan.

    I, also, live in the Boston area, but I live in a ridiculously expensive neighborhood just west of the city. Stupid zoning laws have restricted the supply of housing and kept most housing relatively low density given its desirability and location, meaning that prices have been driven up to absurd levels, houses are routinely subdivided into small apartments and rented for ludicrous amounts, and many more people cram into homes than they were originally designed for. Indeed, just like your own town, the schools are overflowing, even as property tax revenue (the city's main revenue generator) has not kept pace. Though it is almost certainly more accessible to Boston, our transport links are quite congested, and the absolutely awful train system (Green Line) is the oldest in America, and shows it - my commute is 45 minutes by train for ~3 miles, or about 15 minutes by bike (albeit at significant risk to my life).

    On the face of it, you'd think that my neighborhood should face the same challenges that yours does - overcrowding, inadequate space in schools, poor transportation infrastructure. Yet my neighborhood is home to some of the most desirable real estate in New England, fantastic schools (albeit currently a bit overcrowded, which is being addressed with a property tax rise that was just approved in a referendum), and a populace full of young, upwardly mobile, highly educated professionals (along with a number of rich oldsters who can afford to own homes).

    The differences are many, I have no doubt, but I don't think that overcrowding itself leads to poverty and crime. I personally think that my town's problems could be mitigated by higher population density driven by a dramatically expanded housing supply and improved transit infrastructure. I suspect that your town has other problems, which have a lot more do to with the demographics and possibly geography of your town rather than overpopulation per se. Density need not be a problem - it can be a symptom of desirability. What matters is who your town attracts, and that speaks to a much broader and complex array of issues.



    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade
    Funny, my car is 35 mpg and that's at the low end here. Plus in general small (ie cheap) cars here have a higher fuel efficiency than bigger cars, all other things equal. I got the 25mpg figure from a headline of that being the average for new cars in the USA. My fuel efficiency dropped when I got this car as despite being newer so more efficient, its a bigger car than my budget model I'd had before.

    I understand that those on a budget won't be driving new cars, but I'd have expected those on a budget in the USA would (like here) choose the (relatively) smaller and more fuel efficient cars. I don't imagine anyone choosing to buy a big beast of a gas guzzler if they're spending an implausible 90% of their income on transport and housing. If housing and transport were so expensive people would get the most economical and cheapest model they could - Especially since food isn't counted in that 90%.
    RB, be careful comparing these numbers. UK gallons are 20% bigger than US gallons.

  3. #63
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Really? Not using the metric system wasn't confusing enough, so you don't even use the same imperial system?

    or about 15 minutes by bike (albeit at significant risk to my life).
    Significant risk? Really that bad?
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    Really? Not using the metric system wasn't confusing enough, so you don't even use the same imperial system?
    Indeed, it's one of the most egregious problems with the imperial system. The US at least doesn't have unambiguous claim to being the worst offender here - the UK officially adopted a modified 'ale gallon' at roughly the same time the US adopted the 'wine gallon'. I think.


    Significant risk? Really that bad?
    Streets here are badly designed for bikes and cars to coexist peacefully, and drivers are awful in general and specifically in terms of being careful of bikes. Injuries are common and deaths are not uncommon - just a year or two ago a postdoc in my institution was killed going through an intersection I frequent. Lots of blind corners, poorly situated or nonexistent bike lanes, and double parked cars abound. I'd say my biggest danger daily is crossing the Charles - there's a too-small bridge that has major roads on either side of it and is always ridiculously congested. Bikes are often an afterthought.

  5. #65
    To make it more confusing we buy our fuel in litres at the pump, but cars are marketed by their MPG figure. My dashboard display shows my real MPG usage as an average and current figure too. Considering that we pump fuel in litres it'd make more sense to have an MPL figure but we don't.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  6. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    Ag, I don't have time to address this in detail, but a counterfactual to suggest that your city's problems aren't likely to be solved by your plan.

    I, also, live in the Boston area, but I live in a ridiculously expensive neighborhood just west of the city. Stupid zoning laws have restricted the supply of housing and kept most housing relatively low density given its desirability and location, meaning that prices have been driven up to absurd levels, houses are routinely subdivided into small apartments and rented for ludicrous amounts, and many more people cram into homes than they were originally designed for. Indeed, just like your own town, the schools are overflowing, even as property tax revenue (the city's main revenue generator) has not kept pace. Though it is almost certainly more accessible to Boston, our transport links are quite congested, and the absolutely awful train system (Green Line) is the oldest in America, and shows it - my commute is 45 minutes by train for ~3 miles, or about 15 minutes by bike (albeit at significant risk to my life).

    On the face of it, you'd think that my neighborhood should face the same challenges that yours does - overcrowding, inadequate space in schools, poor transportation infrastructure. Yet my neighborhood is home to some of the most desirable real estate in New England, fantastic schools (albeit currently a bit overcrowded, which is being addressed with a property tax rise that was just approved in a referendum), and a populace full of young, upwardly mobile, highly educated professionals (along with a number of rich oldsters who can afford to own homes).
    Your post covered things pretty well, even without the "proper citations" expected of my posts. One important thing you didn't (directly) address is that a generation (or two) of Bostonians have been priced-out of their neighborhood due to (a) vanishing blue collar jobs, and (b) real estate/property gentrification.

    The differences are many, I have no doubt, but I don't think that overcrowding itself leads to poverty and crime. I personally think that my town's problems could be mitigated by higher population density driven by a dramatically expanded housing supply and improved transit infrastructure. I suspect that your town has other problems, which have a lot more do to with the demographics and possibly geography of your town rather than overpopulation per se. Density need not be a problem - it can be a symptom of desirability.
    Agreed, but too often politicians use "density" as a negative (because it will drive up taxes to pay for public transportation), or they'll frame it as a negative for public schools (because the CEO's kids will attend the same schools as shop-owners or domestic workers kids do).

    Rand, that's why suburban sprawl isn't working in the US. We don't have the same type of "universal" public education, healthcare, or transportation that you do in the UK. Apples to oranges.

  7. #67
    I'm back to this thread after last week's interview of Bill de Blasio by Jon Stewart.

    wiggin: density isn't a problem by itself, sure, I agree. If you leave such problems as you described to fester long enough, people who are wealthy are going to tire of such conditions and move out. Those who aren't will stay. It will eventually turn bad.

    Back to the interview.... so many liberal policies. At least it is not as bad as that Bernie Sanders (who wants to socialize universities so that every professor earns a wage set by a bureaucratic committee), but still, Jon gave the guy a totally free pass owing to Jon's own bias.

    De Blasio was suggesting thousands of new subsidized housing units, for example, to make New York City affordable. But, again as discussed, Section 8 housing tends to group together and depress neighborhood values. The guy's ideas all revolve around "whacking the mole" from one place to the other... good in theory, almost certainly bad in practice. For example, why is New York City not affordable? Is it because of a conspiracy of private enterprise? That question needs to be asked before we decide that "regular people" like teachers and nurses, who cannot afford NYC living and therefore must face a long commute, need "affordable" (code for cheap) housing.

    If the commute is long and these teachers and nurses are taking it, why are they taking the commute instead of teaching somewhere else? Is the argument to be made that without housing price controls, the people cede an entire city to the wealthy and only those who can afford private teachers? Ok, then make the argument that major city centers should not be monopolized and gated by the wealthy. Let's just be forthcoming about what exactly we don't like about this and what are all the hypothetical options. Let's not be building affordable housing that would very possibly turn into dilapidated rat holes without exquisite oversight.

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by agamemnus View Post
    ...
    For example, why is New York City not affordable? Is it because of a conspiracy of private enterprise? That question needs to be asked before we decide that "regular people" like teachers and nurses, who cannot afford NYC living and therefore must face a long commute, need "affordable" (code for cheap) housing.
    NYC is unaffordable because it's valuable real estate with space limitations. Rent is high because the property owner (landlord) has to meet his loan obligations -- multi-million dollar loans only super wealthy or corporate partnerships can get in the first place -- and the costs trickle down to tenants.

    *High income folks can get a mortgage to "buy" an apartment. But they're basically paying rent to the building owner (plus an HOA board), so it's more like having a condo or townhouse instead of owning a detached house outside the city.

    *Low income folks can get HUD vouchers toward rent, but property owners aren't required to accept them (asfaik, but legislation depends on location).

    *It's the middle income (or "regular people") who have the most trouble affording NYC housing. Unless they lucked into a rent-controlled place years ago, or illegally sub-let, they're priced out of the market.

    No, there's no conspiracy....just poor planning and/or lack of coordination between the entities that make policies. But that's true practically everywhere in the US, not just NYC or major cities.


    If the commute is long and these teachers and nurses are taking it, why are they taking the commute instead of teaching somewhere else? Is the argument to be made that without housing price controls, the people cede an entire city to the wealthy and only those who can afford private teachers? Ok, then make the argument that major city centers should not be monopolized and gated by the wealthy. Let's just be forthcoming about what exactly we don't like about this and what are all the hypothetical options. Let's not be building affordable housing that would very possibly turn into dilapidated rat holes without exquisite oversight.
    People will make long commutes to work when it's easier to find less expensive housing and modes of transportation, than a higher paying job. Highway congestion and high gas prices impacts every commuter driving a car to work, but it's doubly hard for people living paycheck-to-paycheck when there's no bus or train option from their 'affordable' rural or exurban home.

    Let's be honest here --- since there will always be an elite, wealthy class....there will always be exclusive and/or gated communities to meet their demands. Likewise, since there will always be a segment of society that's poor or struggling to get out of poverty....there will always be public subsidies or programs to assist their needs. The trick is figuring out how to grow the middle (the people in-between, that make up the majority) or at least keep them from falling backward.

    IMO, the recent global financial meltdown and Great Recession exposed so many institutional and systemic flaws, those complexities only made it too easy to turn everything into simplistic parts (Right/Left, Liberal/Conservative, Democrat/Republican, Employer/Employee, Landlord/Tenant, etc.) that doesn't solve anything.

  9. #69
    My basic problem with so many liberal policies is that they don't fix the problem, they just push it somewhere else. Cities that are rich can afford liberal policies -- for a time, anyway. Did I mention the crazy old guy in the hospital bed next to me a few years back...?

  10. #70
    Which 'conservative' policies fixes the problems, and doesn't push them somewhere else, too?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •