|
fermun posted:In my experience, the most important tenant of YIMBYism in practice, has been fighting against the rights of tenants and enshrining the exclusionary practices of wealthy property owners and developers to build more housing for those like them, the wealthy urbanist. Why not work together toward the better future instead of getting in fights that result in the perpetuation of the current unsustainable status quo? Get out there and talk with left-wing YIMBYs and see how you can move forward?
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 13:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 20:19 |
|
|
There is going to be always a divide over space, YIMBY by promoting developers essentially want a specific type of housing to be built ("luxury" studio/1br condos) which doesn't work for everyone. That said, I will throw in that rent control and other efforts to de-commodify housing have a clear drawback: effecting the supply of further housing units. In that sense, they are short-term measures at best, maybe enough to slow increases for a while but not truely fixing the underlining issue which is an increasing amount of people want to live in a space with a finite amount of housing. It is also, why I think either mixed-income public housing or heavily subsidized affordable housing is the only way to cut the Gordian knot. It probably isn't going to be viable to keep out high-income earners forever, but the solution is simply to increase the cost of entry and use that to "spread the wealth" to the rest of the neighborhood. That said, I wanted to mention also, that there are cities (Portland) that are sitting on stockpiles of property taxes through BIDs (probably worth a video itself, the entire history of TIF (Tax Incremental Financing) is pretty fascinating). Even in a supposedly "left-wing" city, the municipal government actually has some of the resources it needs...but it simply refuses to do so. The Portland Development commission (PDC) is well on its way to already paying off its debt from the investments its made...and now is desperately trying to invent new improvement districts in areas that in no way need them (random working/lower-middle class residential neighborhoods). Ardennes fucked around with this message at 14:09 on Aug 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 13:50
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It is also, why I think either mixed-income public housing or heavily subsidized affordable housing is the only way to cut the Gordian knot. It probably isn't going to be viable to keep out high-income earners forever, but the solution is simply to increase the cost of entry and use that to "spread the wealth" to the rest of the neighbor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 14:08
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:This. Cities need to take up the burden rather than only leaving it to private developers and mandating carve outs to address affordability. The reason I also fight for the latter is because it's still miles better than the status quo of Boomer NIMBYs fighting to keep their single-family housing in the middle of the city. they need to, but funding is the crucial problem. some kind of consolidated metro regional agency would have more resources available, but lol at the political screaming of causing tax dollars to flow across city jurisdictions to pay for housing for poor people. and the us federal government has spent the last thirty years trying to wiggle out of matching funding for public housing a small city near me that's pretty much just wealthy white liberals has a robust housing authority that is renovating and expanding existing public housing. the idea is to provide a mix of incomes as well as enhance socioeconomic diversity in the city school system. it's a great initiative but the problem is that the amount of housing the city can provide, while a decent chunk of housing units within city limits, doesn't even move the needle on the regional housing shortage
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 14:22
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:This. Cities need to take up the burden rather than only leaving it to private developers and mandating carve outs to address affordability. The reason I also fight for the latter is because it's still miles better than the status quo of Boomer NIMBYs fighting to keep their single-family housing in the middle of the city. One issue with mandating affordability is that simply too few affordable units are created in each project, not enough to meet demand. I wouldn't necessarily get rid of them, but recongize at least they are working around the edges. You need hundreds if not thousands of new affordable units, not dozens. (Btw the PDC now .... "Prosper Portland...yeah" has a bunch of around 300-200 million a year largely funded by debt taken out from future property taxes. It isn't like resources aren't there in Portland at least, the local government just does everything possible to avoid making an effort.) It may not be possible in every city, but coastal cities particular have large asset bases that would theoretically support such a project, especially if the federal government was actually willing to do anything. Most of the issue isn't that there aren't answers but our political culture is just toxic. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 14:36 on Aug 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 14:25
|
|
|
YIMBY's tend to be skeptical/critical of rent control because it can easily turn people into FYGM NIMBYs: once a subset of people are immune to the whims of the market, they often don't care of the housing supply problem, because they don't need to. It's similar (albeit not as strong) to the effect prop 13 has on boomers that way. American-style rent control is also bad in how it strongly privileges people based on when they arrived in their current home, which is terrible for both transplants and immigrants. It's really strange to see people who claim to be progressive fight for a system that benefits incumbents and fucks over newcomers, rather than striving for something that at least attempts to be egalitarian. German-style rent control at least puts people on a relatively even playing field. Cugel the Clever posted:This. Cities need to take up the burden rather than only leaving it to private developers and mandating carve outs to address affordability. The reason I also fight for the latter is because it's still miles better than the status quo of Boomer NIMBYs fighting to keep their single-family housing in the middle of the city. Cicero fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Aug 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 15:19
|
|
|
effects_of_gentrification.png https://twitter.com/whstancil/status/1032840368667209729
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 15:56
|
|
|
Any thoughts on this? https://twitter.com/tonykellyford10/status/1032349469461770240?s=21
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 16:09
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:effects_of_gentrification.png That seems like a weird metric. Like a neighborhood that was 33% white, 33% black and 33% hispanic would be a segregated neighborhood and a neighborhood that was 100% white wouldn't be? Like "stuff is becoming more segregated" seems true, but this seems like a crazy way to measure it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 16:23
|
|
|
Troy Queef posted:Any thoughts on this? he's pretty right on about the problems and potential solutions, the issue is how do you implement this stuff. like i dont see the city of san francisco being able to set up a public bank large enough to handle the task
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 16:44
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:he's pretty right on about the problems and potential solutions, the issue is how do you implement this stuff. like i dont see the city of san francisco being able to set up a public bank large enough to handle the task For example, community input: sounds great in theory, in practice it means the old boomers with tons of free time on their hand, or the politically connected, get their way. Community input means homeless shelters or halfway houses or other "undesirable" type buildings will never make their way into affluent neighborhoods. It also means that in addition to the published, transparent, democratically created regulations governing new developments, you have a second set that exist only in the minds of a subset of people that live near each development. That's bad. I'm not saying that all forms of community input are bad, but it's extremely common to wield it in the service of obstructionism, to preserve the surbuban trappings that current residents like at all costs, and to hell with what anyone else wants or needs. Capitalism is serving the top end in SF because: a) the top end's desires for housing haven't been met and they're obviously more profitable, b) they can only make so much housing anyway due to the glacial development process and zoning requirements, and c) developing tall buildings in particular is inherently expensive to a certain degree (especially when you go beyond 5 or 6 stories and have to stop using as much wood). If SF got almost completely rezoned like Scott Wiener wanted, you'd see at least somewhat cheaper housing around the city, too, because while there are a lot of techies there, there aren't that many. But it's true that at least in SF proper you wouldn't see much affordable for the working class. quote:a narrative that the only way to solve our housing crisis is to increase supply at the top end of the market, instead of building housing that is immediately affordable to working-class San Franciscans and passing strong tenant protections to keep them from being displaced in the first place. Cicero fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Aug 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 17:14
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:effects_of_gentrification.png He also says there's a bit of good news: quote:The flipside of this process is that WHITE segregation is rapidly declining - a much, much higher share of the white population is exposed to racial diversity than in earlier years, primarily Asian and Hispanic people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 17:17
|
|
|
Cicero posted:For example, community input: sounds great in theory, in practice it means the old boomers with tons of free time on their hand, or the politically connected, get their way. Community input means homeless shelters or halfway houses or other "undesirable" type buildings will never make their way into affluent neighborhoods. It also means that in addition to the published, transparent, democratically created regulations governing new developments, you have a second set that exist only in the minds of a subset of people that live near each development. That's bad. as annoying as charettes are to run they are way more accessible than other forms of community input like local organizing and lobbying groups. the thing you're flipped on here is "should we accept community input or no" which is different from what this guy is saying, "community input should be equalized so that everyone has it and not just the people with time/money to lawyer up" Cicero posted:See, this is a mix of true and false. Developers will target the top end as much as they can, yes, but developers ALWAYS target the top end, because that is where the money is. there's no market for brand new intown cheap homes, none, which is why the government or private charities like habitat for humanity must intervene in the first place if developers can't make money building housing for wealthier people intown, they're not going to try to cater to lower incomes in the same area. they're going to try to develop housing for wealthier people, or less wealthy people, in places where land is cheaper. the only time you're going to see market rate housing for less wealthy people being built intown is in weird scenarios like the price of intown land falling or something, which isn't likely to happen again with current trends Cicero posted:I dunno if he's right or not, but the person you're quoting here says it's not gentrification in the very next twee gentrification is not the sole explanation of housing segregation, but the effect of gentrification is segregation. draw a big circle and label it segregation, draw a smaller circle inside of that and label it gentrification e: draw a big circle around them both and label it "local control of school district borders and funding" Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Aug 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 17:21
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:as annoying as charettes are to run they are way more accessible than other forms of community input like local organizing and lobbying groups. the thing you're flipped on here is "should we accept community input or no" which is different from what this guy is saying, "community input should be equalized so that everyone has it and not just the people with time/money to lawyer up" quote:developers ALWAYS target the top end, because that is where the money is. there's no market for brand new intown cheap homes, none, which is why the government must intervene in the first place quote:if developers can't make money building housing for wealthier people intown, they're not going to try to cater to lower incomes in the same area. they're going to try to develop housing for wealthier people, or less wealthy people, in places where land is cheaper. the only time you're going to see market rate housing for less wealthy people being built intown is in weird scenarios like the price of intown land falling or something, which isn't likely to happen again with current trends
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 17:28
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Developers will always target the top end to the extent that they can, because they like money. If demand at the top is sufficiently satisfied and there's still money to make elsewhere, sure they'll do that. Toyota doesn't make middle-class cars out of generosity, they do it because Lexuses are only going to be bought by so many people. to extend the car analogy, there's a minimum level of profit to be made on a vehicle before it's not worth producing. toyota isn't going to crank out bare minimum cheap cars if it projects it might clear a hundred dollars in net revenue on each car, because of the risk involved. likewise, developers aren't going to invest $99k to build a $100k home because any market swing could end up costing you money. and housing has some volatile inputs, especially if you're building larger projects, think materials and labor cost here Cicero posted:Like I said, you're probably not going to see new market-rate housing in SF for the working class even with huge rezoning, that's true. Right now it's too desirable and booming for that. But you probably could get new housing for the middle class (middle class by SF/bay area standards, anyway). Not disputing that public housing is something we should have a lot of, but it mostly doesn't conflict with what urbanists/YIMBYs want anyway, so framing it as either/or is dumb. the bay area is a particularly bad example in terms of the american housing market because it has unique challenges, but as a mental exercise, consider that if the developers of luxury condos in SF proper suddenly see their market opportunities collapse, they're not going to scale down their projects in the city, they're going to go further out to oakland, richmond etc. to do scaled down projects. the price of infill and redevelopable land in the city of SF is not going to drop appreciably
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 17:37
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:to extend the car analogy, there's a minimum level of profit to be made on a vehicle before it's not worth producing. toyota isn't going to crank out bare minimum cheap cars if it projects it might clear a hundred dollars in net revenue on each car, because of the risk involved. likewise, developers aren't going to invest $99k to build a $100k home because any market swing could end up costing you money. and housing has some volatile inputs, especially if you're building larger projects, think materials and labor cost here Basically even if the market only serves the affluent for brand new projects, it can still serve lower-income people indirectly, as it does with cars. quote:the bay area is a particularly bad example in terms of the american housing market because it has unique challenges, but as a mental exercise, consider that if the developers of luxury condos in SF proper suddenly see their market opportunities collapse, they're not going to scale down their projects in the city, they're going to go further out to oakland, richmond etc. to do scaled down projects. the price of infill and redevelopable land in the city of SF is not going to drop appreciably Having the cheaper private housing be out in Oakland or wherever isn't even necessarily that big of a problem, if transit is good enough. But yes for poor people in somewhere like SF proper (highly desirable, great economy) you're going to mostly need to rely on public housing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 17:44
|
|
|
Cicero posted:If housing is inherently expensive in an area, having housing for middle-class/poor people just be "used" housing isn't automatically bad. this is exactly how housing is provided for lower income persons, except that this mechanism entirely breaks down in areas with intense competition for housing. trickle down doesn't work when even shacks are being bid on with same day 100% cash offers Cicero posted:Honestly I feel like the bay area's "unique challenges" are largely self-inflicted. some are and some aren't you've got prop 13, a terribly stupid law, but that's a state law the bay area is also home to an extremely lucrative industry right now that throws wages out of whack this is in addition to decades of san francisco punching way above its weight culturally, so it has a tremendous amount of cool factor - seattle and new york have the same problems, and portland, dear god. compare this to like, chicago, or new orleans which is very cool but also has a lot of Problems to whittle away that desirablility also geography, both local (peninsula, coastal, somewhat rocky) and global (pacific coast, climate is nice and big access to immigrant populations from south and west) and then on top of that all the dumb zoning and nimbys
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 17:50
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:this is exactly how housing is provided for lower income persons, except that this mechanism entirely breaks down in areas with intense competition for housing. trickle down doesn't work when even shacks are being bid on with same day 100% cash offers quote:you've got prop 13, a terribly stupid law, but that's a state law quote:the bay area is also home to an extremely lucrative industry right now that throws wages out of whack Sans dumb regulations, housing prices would still be going up, yes, but they wouldn't be rapidly outpacing what people would be able to earn. quote:this is in addition to decades of san francisco punching way above its weight culturally, so it has a tremendous amount of cool factor - seattle and new york have the same problems, and portland, dear god. compare this to like, chicago, or new orleans which is very cool but also has a lot of Problems to whittle away that desirablility I agree about the desirability. Although comparing it to Chicago and New Orleans feels like a low bar, like all you have to do is be liberal, but also functional.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 18:06
|
|
|
Cicero posted:I mean, the high wages is a good thing. If housing prices weren't crazy, it'd be a good thing even for workers in non-tech industries. Like, my sister was able to take photographs of kids for overworked career moms and charge an arm and a leg, because of how much money there is floating around. i'm not saying it's a good or bad thing, just that higher wages leads to (and also, is a consequence of) higher cost of living for everyone, which prices some people out of the area entirely Cicero posted:Eh, I don't feel like the geography is that big of an issue. The total bay area population density isn't very high at all, building taller would be easy, it's not Hong Kong there or whatever. the geography is a factor. land is scarcer in the bay area because of water and mountains. right across from the city of san francisco are the marin headlands and golden gate rec area, which are almost entirely undeveloped because it's just rugged hills that would be terrible to build on. it's not the biggest factor but i'm just listing factors here. compare it to like dallas, which is nothing but rolling hills and no geographic restrictions on development other than distance Cicero posted:I agree about the desirability. Although comparing it to Chicago and New Orleans feels like a low bar, like all you have to do is be liberal, but also functional. chicago just isn't cool anymore. nobody's excited to move to chicago, or milwaukee, though they are perfectly fine places to live new orleans is cool, but this cool factor is hampered by other factors, top on my mind being job market, regional location, and climate - dear god, the climate Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Aug 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 18:12
|
|
|
The reason I don't think the geography is that much of an issue is that even where geography permits, liberal areas tend to enforce urban growth boundaries explicitly to reduce sprawl. Which is good, it's just that you can't block building outward AND upward. To me I was thinking more that I associate Chicago and New Orleans with just being really poorly managed in general. Particularly Chicago gets a rep of being a hotbed of violent crime and corruption.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 18:25
|
|
|
Speaking of Hong Kong, I was just looking around cost vs height comparisons and this is what came up: (from this study: http://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB12189.pdf) Despite their fitted curve rising from around 60 meters, the actual data seems to be going down up to about 100m, or around 30 floors. This is waaay taller than the new constructions I see anywhere else. Here it's like 4-6 floors max with very few exceptions. Of course then everyone would have to live in this concrete paradise:  I don't know if that's actually desirable outside of extreme cases like HK or Singapore but encouraging building stuff like that could help. Cicero posted:The reason I don't think the geography is that much of an issue is that even where geography permits, liberal areas tend to enforce urban growth boundaries explicitly to reduce sprawl. Which is good, it's just that you can't block building outward AND upward. My pet peeve is definitely singe use zoning or whatever it's called. I live in a fairly newly built up area slightly out of the downtown with the aforementioned 4-6 story residential buildings and a few office buildings across the road, but not a single retail business within 10-15 minute walking. Not a grocery, barber, or a pub. Really weird, this is usually not the case in some of the older districts where the ground floor are often all kind of retail. At that point rather than walking to the nearest lovely establishment, I might as well drive to a good one. mobby_6kl fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Aug 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 18:27
|
|
|
Cicero posted:The reason I don't think the geography is that much of an issue just look at aerial shots of the bay area on google maps and then scroll around till you find midwestern cities, specifically st louis and dallas Cicero posted:even where geography permits, liberal areas tend to enforce urban growth boundaries explicitly to reduce sprawl ...no? urban growth boundaries are definitely the exception in the us, not the norm. off the top of my head there's portland or, honolulu, minneapolis, miami, and probably a handful of other cities, with varying levels of enforcement mobby_6kl posted:I don't know if that's actually desirable outside of extreme cases like HK or Singapore but encouraging building stuff like that could help. hong kong and singapore are extreme cases because they have/had, like extremely restricted geography. the worst kind - politically restricted
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 18:30
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:...no? urban growth boundaries are definitely the exception in the us, not the norm. off the top of my head there's portland or, honolulu, minneapolis, miami, and probably a handful of other cities, with varying levels of enforcement
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 18:45
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Hmm, I should probably do more research on that then. For cities like Salinas or Watsonville, there's definitely some kind of regulation stopping them from expanding out further, isn't there? I'd find it hard to believe that the development stops because of developers not being interested. i dont know a drat thing about salinas or watsonville and i wouldn't call them cities either. both from the smug perspective and also they won't have the same kind of scaled up economic behaviors broadly descriptive of national trends from a quick google, smaller cities with strong control of the planning/zoning entity can effectively curb growth simply through direct land use means, especially if there is some higher productive use competing for that land such as some relatively more valuable agricultural product. you tend to see growth boundaries coordinated across multiple local jurisdictions by some metro area trying to herd cats and prevent them from sprawling out (sprawl being the process of converting relatively invaluable land into short term profit)
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 18:54
|
|
|
Yeah upzoning on its own isn’t going to really change the situation, you’re only going to get more of what is going on. The obvious issue with growth boundaries is it puts more pressure on low income residents, less sprawl means less supply (I think they are still preferable.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 19:39
|
|
|
A pretty good overview on making transit free at the point of use. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccxVYborUcU
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 20:04
|
|
|
Cicero posted:No, he's dead wrong about at least some of the things. So the majority of that section is talking about polluted land. It sounds very much like you are 100% ignorant of the fact that there is radioactive waste on these parcels of land which hasn't been tested and that the people living here are having symptoms that are consistent with radiation poisoning. They really would like some real radiation testing, and even the Trump EPA agrees with them. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/EPA-blasts-Navy-for-plan-to-retest-soil-at-former-13164851.php
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2018 10:38
|
|
|
fermun posted:So the majority of that section is talking about polluted land. It sounds very much like you are 100% ignorant of the fact that there is radioactive waste on these parcels of land which hasn't been tested and that the people living here are having symptoms that are consistent with radiation poisoning. They really would like some real radiation testing, and even the Trump EPA agrees with them. Yeah for those unaware, we're talking about a parcel of land where a hazardous waste dump was on fire for 4 weeks before they put it out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2018 19:30
|
|
|
Hey, how do I do research on whether it makes sense to build a sidewalk/bike path? Like, before I write to my rep and/or the local downtown revitalization program, I should probably be able to say "Oh, I expect this to serve X amount of demand/traffic, and this is why." I've got a mile of road between my residential area and downtown with like, restaurants and bars and stuff. I've walked it before, but mostly off the side of the road, which is really lovely if it hasn't been mowed recently.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 12:11
|
|
|
fermun posted:So the majority of that section is talking about polluted land. quote:Community Input, Community Input, Community Input quote:It sounds very much like you are 100% ignorant of the fact that there is radioactive waste on these parcels of land which hasn't been tested and that the people living here are having symptoms that are consistent with radiation poisoning. They really would like some real radiation testing, and even the Trump EPA agrees with them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 13:11
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:Hey, how do I do research on whether it makes sense to build a sidewalk/bike path? Like, before I write to my rep and/or the local downtown revitalization program, I should probably be able to say "Oh, I expect this to serve X amount of demand/traffic, and this is why." is there a path worn in the grass/dirt? if so, this is called "implied demand" and definitely take a picture of the trail. it sounds like this isn't the case since you can be slowed up by tall grass otherwise your best bet would be to look up roadway standards as defined by your state dot to see if a sidewalk is appropriate. if you're asking for a sidewalk along a limited access roadway then you're probably out of luck since pedestrians are not "supposed" to be there
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 13:59
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:is there a path worn in the grass/dirt? if so, this is called "implied demand" and definitely take a picture of the trail. it sounds like this isn't the case since you can be slowed up by tall grass On top of this, you might also have some luck if you can point to a large population that would be served by this. Is your residential area particularly large or dense? If so, you could argue that a fairly large group of people are likely to use the sidewalk to walk or bike to downtown. Does downtown also house a lot of places of business like offices, as well as restaurants/bars/other commercial locations? Studies suggest that people will walk farther to get to work than to get to shopping or a social event, though a mile is on the upper end of what people will walk regularly. The weather of your area also matters: does it get cold and snowy in the winter, meaning the sidewalk will only see use half the year? Are there other commercial locations along the road where you would want a sidewalk? If so, you could argue that the sidewalk will drive increased business to them from pedestrians walking past, and that the sidewalk will provide for shorter walking trips to these businesses from your neighbourhood, not just walking the full mile to downtown. Do people from your neighbourhood drink and drive home from downtown? If so, you could argue that the sidewalk is a public safety measure to try and get people to walk home from downtown bars instead of driving their cars. Other, more involved things you could do: talk to your neighbours or go knock on some doors in your neighbourhood, ask people if they currently walk/bike to downtown and if they would do so more frequently if there was a sidewalk. Record your data so you can present it. If you're not the only person who walks/bikes there on the side of the road at present, you could also try and do a count of how many people make this journey by doing something boring like sitting out there for an hour or two and counting how many people walk past you. If you live in a sprawling subdivision and downtown is a mile away along an empty highway, you're probably out of luck though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 14:33
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:If you live in a sprawling subdivision and downtown is a mile away along an empty highway, you're probably out of luck though. As an example of that, look at Dutch standards for separation of bike paths from roads: quote:The higher the speed of the traffic, the greater the separation should be between the tracks and the main carriageway although for safety, bikes should still be visible to car drivers. In built-up areas, the minimum width of the buffer between a cycle track and the road should be at least 0.35m for a one-way cycle path and 1m for a two-way one but usually the width will be greater depending on the barrier type.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 15:09
|
|
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:The best short term solution to this problem is that unless you work in a super specialized field, there’s plenty of lower cost cities to move to where gentrification has been minimal. St. Louis, Birmingham, Dallas, Kansas City, Charlotte, and other areas are full of cheap housing and plenty of decent white collar jobs if you’re just looking for generic cubicle-dwelling office type work. Everywhere has brewpubs and dive bars and cafes with four dollar toast, so you won’t be culturally deprived, either. You might have to actually talk to a Republican now and then, but I think it’s a fair trade off. Older post, but the last time I saw a post like this, it was someone talking about how great North Carolina was. Then two weeks later they started to pass anti-trans bathroom bills. I know that the midwest and the south get bad reputations, but sometimes those reputations are deserved. If you're working in Washington State, you're not going to be fired from your job if you're gay. Other states allow that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 19:00
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Older post, but the last time I saw a post like this, it was someone talking about how great North Carolina was. Then two weeks later they started to pass anti-trans bathroom bills. Honestly Philly, Chicago, and Minneapolis are probably the best millennial locations right now. Actual affordable housing, both for rent (under 1k/mth) and for purchase (decent places for under 200k) decent job markets, good protections for protected classes, and unlikely to ban stuff like abortion/same sex marriage, if a new Supreme Court overturns a bunch of stuff with Trump's new appointment. All are good biking cites, Minneapolis probably has the best biking system in the country. Mass transit goes Chicago -> Philly -> Minneapolis Here's the Bike League's ratings for all 3 cities. Minneapolis: https://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/bfareportcards/BFC_Fall_2015_ReportCard_Minneapolis_MN.pdf Philly: https://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/bfareportcards/BFC_Fall_2016_ReportCard_Philadelphia_PA.pdf Chicago: https://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/bfareportcards/BFC_Spring_2015_ReportCard_Chicago_IL.pdf Bonus points for Minneapolis for being a state that might soon legalize marijuana, and Philly for being next to a state that might legalize weed in the next year or two. Nitrousoxide fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Aug 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
Hey, thanks for the replies. It's really helpful to get an idea of what I should be looking at.luxury handset posted:is there a path worn in the grass/dirt? if so, this is called "implied demand" and definitely take a picture of the trail. it sounds like this isn't the case since you can be slowed up by tall grass vyelkin posted:On top of this, you might also have some luck if you can point to a large population that would be served by this. Is your residential area particularly large or dense? If so, you could argue that a fairly large group of people are likely to use the sidewalk to walk or bike to downtown. Does downtown also house a lot of places of business like offices, as well as restaurants/bars/other commercial locations? Studies suggest that people will walk farther to get to work than to get to shopping or a social event, though a mile is on the upper end of what people will walk regularly. The weather of your area also matters: does it get cold and snowy in the winter, meaning the sidewalk will only see use half the year? There's a couple sidewalks next to the local hospital and convenience shops. Then it's two highway overpasses, separated by grass, which have sidewalks on the actual overpass. Then like, half a mile of light commercial industrial that doesn't do foot traffic - equipment dealers, mainly. At least they have nicely trimmed lawns. Then it's the downtown area and waterfront that's the focus of a lot of renovation efforts. I've got some more stuff to look up. Going to see if I can find police reports on DUIs. And at a last resort, I may be forced to talk to people. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 00:09
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:For example, I didn't even think of that. I'll want to double-check, but I think there is a little one, but it's narrow enough that tall grass is a worry (tick country). any kind of a trail means that enough people walk that route for it to possibly be worth putting a sidewalk down. until now i forgot the technical term for it but it is "desire path" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire_path Rockopolis posted:Hm. I guess if it were obvious they'd have done it already. It's kind of half yes and half no. so, the sidewalk just cuts off? that's even better news for you, it means they're probably going to put a sidewalk in eventually and just haven't done so yet. being a squeaky wheel here may move this process along
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 00:25
|
|
|
So the state government of Victoria just announced a proposal for an orbital metro line to connect with all 11 major train lines, several universities and a bunch of activity centres and shopping centres around Melbourne (Australia). Bear in mind there is a state election in 90 days, although this is a longterm vision with (if they are re-elected) major work to begin in 2022 (the next election year) and last 30 years for all phases, although the first two segments of stage 1 would be open by ~2030. https://twitter.com/DanielAndrewsMP/status/1034221992944197632 Strategic assessment for the Melbourne Suburban Rail Loop: https://bigbuild.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/325572/Suburban-Rail-Loop-Strategic-Assessment.pdf There is already a 'metro tunnel' being built in the city to connect two suburban lines with 5 new underground stations (3 totally new, 2 underground interchanges for existing stations) which will open by 2025 with its own high capacity rolling stock (that hits the network from next year) while they've committed to an airport rail line to start major works in 2022 as well, which would then link into this brand new suburban loop proposal. Of course, with a pricetag as possibly as high as $50bn it is divisive and due to the fact it was announced now a bunch of media types are just calling it an empty promise despite the fact this government has delivered on public transport infrastructure, such as a promise before the last election to remove 50 level crossings around the suburban rail network (they've removed 29 so far) which has included numerous new stations. But as the cities population hit 5 million this week, some long term vision is needed, especially since the city is now projected to house 8 million by 2050 when the last portion of this would be complete (or around 2045) Here is a rough googlemap someone made showing the planned route, although the western portion has no real detail in the media releases and would be decided later on it seems. https://twitter.com/tayser82/status/1034726174730022912 quote:Purple stations: ones the gov released through strategic assessment. Green (2) my suggestions to add. Blue line: Airport-Wez section as part of 4 track RRL, Green line direct route (who knows how the west 'will be won'). It is as yet uncosted, although if the incumbent party wins the election they've committed $300m to begin design and engineering works as well as geotech to decide the exact route before the year is over. Exciting times, if it happens and even if I have to wait 12 years for stage 1 to open. This was a press release from today though: https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/new-rail-loop-to-slash-travel-time-and-connect-our-suburbs/ [quote]The Suburban Rail Loop will be the biggest rail project in Australian history – connecting every major train line in Melbourne and providing a direct rail link to Melbourne Airport for the first time. Trains will travel up to 130km/h through dedicated tunnels with no level crossings, no interaction with the existing network, and a dedicated fleet of rollingstock allowing trains to travel faster than ever before. [aka driverless trains] Expert modelling undertaken as part of planning for the project shows the trip from Cheltenham to Melbourne Airport will take 45 minutes – less time than it takes in the car. A trip from Box Hill to the airport through the tunnels could take just 25 minutes – saving people time, money and hassle when they fly. The landmark project will connect Monash Clayton, Deakin Burwood and La Trobe Bundoora, [all universities] with travel between Monash Clayton and La Trobe Bundoora taking just 25 minutes./quote] drunkill fucked around with this message at 15:35 on Aug 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 15:24
|
|
|
Fifty billion Australian (Google says it's about 36.5 American) doesn't seem quite so bad if you consider this: (http://greenlineextension.eot.state.ma.us/documents/about/ProposedMap/projectMap.pdf) worth of light rail is estimated at 2.3 billion USD after all the facilities got cut down to the bare minimum... OddObserver fucked around with this message at 15:39 on Aug 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 15:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 20:19 |
|
|
Yeah, I think 50 was mentioned as an upper limit, it'll depend on how long the project goes for and how many additional stations are added, this is supposed to be a high speed metro connector line with a running speed of 130kph (which is only hit in one location of the existing surface suburban railway) Melbourne already has the worlds largest tram network, but it is pretty slow because most of it is in road and sharing space with cars. with only a few area being true light rail (former train lines) or tramway areas. So tram investment is pretty low currently, just a few hundred million for new trams and also refurbishing older ones, no real network extensions proposed for the immediate future other than a new bridge across the river in the city for trams. There are worries that an this metro loop line would eat up a lot of future budget for public transport, but given it could be spread out over 30 years, that is only $1.5bn per year in the budget for works if it does have a total cost of $45bn, which is not unreasonable at all. And of course, many of these locations are hub or future hubs for commercial and residential growth with a lot of medium/high density buildings going up. Box Hill for example will have the largest skyline outside of the CBD in about 5 years, so funding can be from value capture of land or developer contributions or even asking these universities and shopping centres to help chip in with the cost of their future stations. A few articles (by news corp who support the opposition conservative party) threw out $100bn in headlines, which it obviously won't cost that much, but I could see it costing closer to 60 or so billion in 2018 dollars by the time it completely finishes in 2050 due to inflation. And the fact so much is going on right now, like, a shitload of projects just related to rail, plus a few tollroads. Melbourne Metro Rail Tunnel (not a true metro, but metro-lite, platform screen doors, express services, higher frequency) with 5 new underground stations and high capacity signalling for two existing suburban lines + 65 new trains to start being delivered from next year: https://twitter.com/DanielAndrewsMP/status/725461016994177024 These levels 9 crossings just got removed via 'skyrail' and the 5 new stations are open and getting finishing touches now on the busiest trainline: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYT5F-gcr40 Massive earthwork projects for level crossing removals with trenching of the railway: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49TjGxa80Iw A 3 station extension to a suburban line opened this week (Sunday) in a growth area/outer suburbs: https://twitter.com/levelcrossings/status/1021242059611516928 With proposals for airport rail (which will be part of the western section of this new actual metro line) which will also re-route some regional lines via the airport to begin in 2022 also: https://twitter.com/TransportforVIC/status/1022623741786738688 And no doubt an announcement for Metro 2 tunnel before the election at the end of November which the Greens party have already made a promise for (but they won't form government at the election but could sway policies) https://twitter.com/Sam_Hibbins/status/1028846246469881856 So poo poo is getting done and people are seeing it happen, stuff which should have been done 70 years ago is finally happening and most people are pleased. Plus two huge fuckoff toll roads as well: Westgate tunnel which is started this year and TBMs are arriving on site now: https://twitter.com/WestGateTunnel/status/917634902387957760 and a bloody huge $16bn toll road to complete a ring road around the city to existing freeway: https://twitter.com/DanielAndrewsMP/status/933865389678718976 Basically three or four decades worth of projects underway or in the pipeline playing catchup.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 16:40
|
|