|
luxury handset posted:uhh dallas has the largest light rail system in the nation and is still expanding it? seattle's system clocks in just below charlotte, north carolina. if you're going to be costally smug at least be factual about it Dude, my point was only that we’re actually willing to invest in infrastructure.
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2018 06:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 17:50 |
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Dude, my point was only that we’re actually willing to invest in infrastructure. who is we? coastal cities? like i said, most major cities in america are investing in infrastructure. dallas, texas is wiping the floor with every other city in the us in terms of rail construction and has been for over a decade if you want gloat about coastal liberal bastions at least do some research first, trading in nonfactual stereotypes is... a bad look e: ah sorry i get it, you're saying "but we are expanding light rail". sure, but not to the degree that it will support widespread highrises. incremental expansion of the transit network, which is what is economically feasible for most metro areas, isn't enough to support that kind of build out. i'm just trying to piss on the wild idea that there are many areas in america where it is feasible to do large stretches of ultra dense housing or that you can just put down some trains and make it happen - really to get into ultra high tier density you need to rely mostly on pedestrian traffic serviced by underground heavy rail which is in this day and age, expensive as poo poo to build. something like new york with tunnels dug a hundred years ago, and still riding that legacy of mass exploitation. pacific coast cities, as young and geologically hostile as they are, will have a hard time approaching that kind of density. even tokyo only pulled it off because of unamerican levels of government/private coordination and subsidy, as well as the silver lining of the prior development being utterly annihilated in a war making it relatively cheap to rebuild Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 06:22 on Aug 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2018 06:13
|
|
|
KingFisher posted:Like in my example tallest thing allowed on the mall site is 6 stories. Nowhere in this loving state to build a residential building over ten stories so everyone gets to pay $1200+/mo for a lovely 1br in a 3 story apartment complex 70+ loving miles from, you know, where the jobs are. Even Amazon building a loving company town won't help. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2018 07:05
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:uhh dallas has the largest light rail system in the nation and is still expanding it? seattle's system clocks in just below charlotte, north carolina. if you're going to be costally smug at least be factual about it Seattle's is at 10% which ain't great, but still five times as high.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2018 10:47
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:first you were saying we should just massively upzone, now it's only around transit stations - or you're leading up to a large scale expansion of the light rail network. while you're rubbing that genie lamp can i get a winning lotto ticket pls? And then you can put high rises on top of/next to the train stations, maybe steal a page from Hong Kong's playbook to generate revenue while you're at it if that's feasible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2018 11:34
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Upzoning the whole city to at least missing middle type housing would be a massive upzone by US standards, as sad as it is. This type of upzone was recommended by the HALA committee, and was going to go in before the NIMBY backlash from people terrified of desegregation. Yep the city should be capturing all of the net new tax revenue from new residental construction and using it for funding a lane separated BRT system to be eventually enhanced with subway/light rail.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2018 12:21
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Dallas also has a transit mode share of a whopping 2% so if they have the biggest light rail system they must be loving up the implementation big time one way or another, probably zoning & car-oriented transportation policies elsewhere if I had to guess. this doesn't matter in the context of the dicussion that was had. when it comes to how willing a locality is and was to fund infrastructure growth, you can look at growth of infrastructure directly instead of ridership, or track width, or the quality of the graffiti in the bathrooms etc. "how much track are they willing to put down? well, let's look at how much track is on the ground and how much is budgeted for right now"
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2018 17:05
|
|
|
Even if you are talking about track length (which honestly doesn't tell you that much), the Portland Metro area has a larger system per capita. Arguably so does Salt Lake City and Denver as well. Of course, at least Dallas is putting in an effort.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2018 17:24
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Even if you are talking about track length (which honestly doesn't tell you that much), the Portland Metro area has a larger system per capita. Arguably so does Salt Lake City and Denver as well. yeah but the denver, salt lake, and portland metropolitan areas collectively have less population than dallas, the fourth largest metro in the nation, so
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2018 17:55
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:yeah but the denver, salt lake, and portland metropolitan areas collectively have less population than dallas, the fourth largest metro in the nation, so More or less my point, that said at least Dallas isn't doing zero. Denver's system especially has gone through a growth spurt, and if anything shows that surge of capital investment can work (I am less sure of their PPPs). Btw, I think ridership in all of these systems will be depressed until oil prices rise or a recession hits. Car culture is still way too dominant in most American cities. Portland, for example, arguably may be better served by trying out more BRT. The Division BRT corridor is probably the best you are going to be able to accomplish to serve areas with no ROWs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2018 18:04
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:More or less my point, that said at least Dallas isn't doing zero. Denver's system especially has gone through a growth spurt, and if anything shows that surge of capital investment can work (I am less sure of their PPPs). Snohomish County (just north of Seattle) is taking the BRT route. Their first line account for 20% of all ridership. I believe they have two more lines planned, with the first coming online by the end of the year.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2018 20:04
|
|
|
fermun posted:As originally written, SB 827 was nothing but a gentrification engine which immediately upzoned all areas with decent public transit and would have displaced the poor in areas with low property values but decent transit. It also allowed for outlying areas to continue to be NIMBYs by just cutting back on bus line service. Wiener never claimed that the first draft of it was meant to be final. quote:It was later amended to be better and include some amendments to help with displacement and gentrification, but from the start it was written without any consulting with any advocacy groups. Who gives a gently caress. That's like the carbon tax bill in Washington state that the far left defeated because it wasn't perfect. Well it's years later, and there's still no carbon tax. Policy is either good or bad in a vacuum, and the idea that you have to do endless stakeholdering is both silly and a massive waste of time given that this is usually a trojan horse for groups that will never support you. Why should we care that a bunch of rich NIMBYs are pissed that it'll destroy their property values? Those are precisely the people we should be trying to run roughshod over. The bill was defeated for now, which means that the rich win and the poor and homeless lose. quote:YIMBYism as I've seen it expressed, is a fundamentally libertarian capitalist ideology, it starts from a compromised position of doing what the large developers and landlords would like to have changed and doesn't have an answer for what happens when the developers build enough high end that they see a luxury housing demand decline so move on to where it's more profitable to build in another city, another state, another country, or hell, their investors just move on to another non-construction investment. You're ignoring local YIMBY groups are largely poor and minority, and again display your complete ignorance of the topic. To use the example I'm most familiar with, the YIMBY ideal is Fred Trump pumping out massive housing complexes for the middle class, which is currently illegal in New York due to zoning laws. The zoning code since the 60s forbids tall buildings outside of Midtown and the Upper East Side. Developers build for the super rich when that's the only possible way for them to make a profit. We saw what happened in the 40s and 50s before zoning codes expanded. The only way to actually stop displacement is to build enough housing in rich neighborhoods that the displacement never happens. No one cared about Mission until everywhere else was filled up, and it just happened to be because of zoning, Mission and SOMA were the only places left where you could build at all. Spacewolf posted:Does anyone have anything on planning/housing *outside* of SF/the Bay Area/California....? I'm in NJ and posted about metro NY a few pages back.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2018 01:38
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:the YIMBY ideal is Fred Trump pumping out massive housing complexes for the middle class lol that you claim a racist landlord as the YIMBY ideal as if it is a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2018 08:45
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:lol that you claim a racist landlord as the YIMBY ideal as if it is a good thing. Massive housing complexes for the middle class would be cool and good. It would solve 60% of the housing problem and stop the economic displacement of the poor since the middle class would not be forced to kick the poor our and take thier units.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2018 16:52
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:dallas, texas is wiping the floor with every other city in the us in terms of rail construction and has been for over a decade Its good to hear that Dallas is investing in infrastructure, but the fundamental limitation of transit in any city is almost entirely an issue of density. Dallas covers a massive area, but its going to take a century before it achieves higher density than most suburban counties. It really is only a handful of coastal cities that have the density required for functional trunk lines for transit, largely due to predating car-centric development.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 02:13
|
|
|
Sneakster posted:Its good to hear that Dallas is investing in infrastructure, but the fundamental limitation of transit in any city is almost entirely an issue of density. Dallas covers a massive area, but its going to take a century before it achieves higher density than most suburban counties. what if i told you... transit stimulates denser development 
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 03:05
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:what if i told you... transit stimulates denser development
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 03:51
|
|
|
Sneakster posted:....what if I told you.... almost nobody would opt to use transit in a city that's nearly 400 miles of car oriented and mostly dependent sprawl that's at least a century out from urbanizing? you could tell me that i guess but it would be a bad and wrong thing to say "urbanization" as you seem to be using it here doesn't happen all over all at once. it happens in pockets, such as, along a transit line
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 04:19
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:you could tell me that i guess but it would be a bad and wrong thing to say Its bad, and it sucks, but its true. Dallas is a county, not a city. The infrastructure of the US is appallingly terrible everywhere outside a few dense coastal cities because much of it developed with cars in mind. Transit doesn't create anything, it helps whats already there. Cities develop overtime building on top of themselves, transit is viable because it provides function that loses value with sparsity. Consider that transit wise, New York City is #1, DC is #2 Baltimore is like #11. Baltimore and DC have similar sizes, density, ages, area and population. but DC has far better infrastructure than Baltimore. Baltimore, despite being similar to DC, has abysmal public transit that is only used as begrudging last resort since a few miles can take hours due to sparsity and its notoriously unreliable. Dallas won't catch up to Baltimore's density with even 100 years of constant population growth at higher than current rates. Its delusional to think Dallas, covering 4x the area and having a fraction of the density of a city will have a transit system that isn't a novelty last resort of people who can't afford a car within the century. Urbanization doesn't happen in pockets, it happens over time.Transit helps development, yeah, but you still need to build transit in a way thats useful, which is a fools errand when your city starts as 400 miles of spread out over sized single family homes feeding into freeways to office parking lots. Its going to be a very long time before Dallas becomes something that isn't a garish parody of sprawl run amok.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 08:36
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:this doesn't matter in the context of the dicussion that was had. when it comes to how willing a locality is and was to fund infrastructure growth, you can look at growth of infrastructure directly instead of ridership, or track width, or the quality of the graffiti in the bathrooms etc. quote:"how much track are they willing to put down? well, let's look at how much track is on the ground and how much is budgeted for right now" If you want a simple metric and you're looking at how seriously an area is about funding transit, look at dollars, if you want to see how effective transit actually is, look at ridership. Going "well gee this system is really long" is ridiculous, who gives a poo poo? Sneakster posted:Dallas won't catch up to Baltimore's density with even 100 years of constant population growth at higher than current rates. Its delusional to think Dallas, covering 4x the area and having a fraction of the density of a city will have a transit system that isn't a novelty last resort of people who can't afford a car within the century. Cicero fucked around with this message at 10:35 on Sep 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 10:32
|
|
|
Cicero posted:If you want a simple metric and you're looking at how seriously an area is about funding transit, look at dollars, if you want to see how effective transit actually is, look at ridership. Going "well gee this system is really long" is ridiculous, who gives a poo poo? maybe if you're trying to make your argument by looking at specific points in time and not overall recent behavior, like here Cicero posted:Well poo poo if you're going by how willing it is to fund infrastructure growth, Seattle beats Dallas by a country mile. For example, Dallas' light rail expansion plan in 2006 cost $2.5 billion, Sound Transit 2 in 2008 cost $17.8 billion, why would you cherry pick two specific examples from 2006 and 2008? is this the best way to support your argument? do you have an argument or are you just being stubborn? meanwhile, if we want to look at who is most willing to fund light rail, well, one thing that is important to this picture is who has built the most light rail, and...
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 16:10
|
|
|
"lets argue stridently for pages over a highly pedantic side argument, except you're not allowed to use any of your metrics - only my metrics are acceptable"
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 16:15
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:why would you cherry pick two specific examples from 2006 and 2008? is this the best way to support your argument? do you have an argument or are you just being stubborn? quote:meanwhile, if we want to look at who is most willing to fund light rail, well, one thing that is important to this picture is who has built the most light rail, and... You're just desperately clinging to "well Dallas has more physical miles of track laid down" as if that means anything significant. Yeah, they have 4x the number of lines and stations as Seattle, and yet Seattle manages to have ~75% of their ridership with a single line that isn't even close to complete yet, it currently awkwardly terminates just south of UW. Almost like Seattle took the harder, more expensive path that will pay off in the long run because it's higher-quality transit to begin with. And their overall transit program is obviously superior because way more people actually use it. luxury handset posted:"lets argue stridently for pages over a highly pedantic side argument, except you're not allowed to use any of your metrics - only my metrics are acceptable"
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 16:22
|
|
|
Cicero posted:No, like I already pointed out, just going by total light rail miles is a stupid dick-measuring contest. "the existence of thing cannot be used as a proxy for willingness to create thing" ok guy
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 16:49
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:"the existence of thing cannot be used as a proxy for willingness to create thing" Makes total sense, great job, definitely a better metric than money invested or how many people actually use it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 16:54
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:"lets argue stridently for pages over a highly pedantic side argument, except you're not allowed to use any of your metrics - only my metrics are acceptable" For the most part, transit in Bawlmer is considered a welfare service nobody who can afford a car would use. A transit commute in Baltimore for 10 miles, in a denser place mind you, can take over 3 hours on a good day. In comparison, in DC, even snooty upper crust people would pay a premium to live near the metro. Hell, the DC property bubble is going to pop for areas that aren't on the metro. You are vastly under estimating the issue of density. Not just people and population to area, but the physical design of everything in Dallas isn't just sparse, its a sea of over sized land parcels built far apart from each other, its not even just that more things need to be built, its that most of whats there needs to be remade. It will be well over a century before that happens. This is a bad thing and why people complain about Sprawl. Los Angeles is pretty poo poo too, don't feel bad. Yeah, lets take the bus that only stops 4 miles away through 3 transfers to get to the Advance Auto Parts zone down the street. As a side note: you can actually see the interplay of transit design through the time of a cities birth and development. The older the city, the denser and more walkable it tends to be. Hence east coast cities are better developed that way. As you go west, Chicago for example came about after transit started developing, so its more spread out, but the city is structured around main trunk lines. Newer cities were designed to be for cars, they're fundamentally at the most basic level intended for cars and are the physical antithesis of the principles important for transit. I actually have a theory about density/crime/poverty. Philadelphia has less pockets of extreme wealth than Chicago, but also less poverty and crime, and is more walkable. It seems like once areas start spreading out, pockets of the city become abandoned and quality of life is allowed to plummet lower than would be tolerated in a city where you're not so disconnected from the worse off. Walkable is never going to be a word people associate with Dallas.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 18:01
|
|
|
Sneakster posted:Here's a better metric: there's no way to make useful transit in a place that spread out. yeah there is. it takes time but cities change, you can definitely create walkability in areas in a sprawling metro. what an odd thing to claim. you've got a super high level view of this that misses a lot of detail. spreadsheet planning again
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 18:32
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:lol that you claim a racist landlord as the YIMBY ideal as if it is a good thing. Thanks for ignoring the substance of the point. But overturning zoning laws and building lots of housing would be a great thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 02:53
|
|
|
KingFisher posted:Yep the city should be capturing all of the net new tax revenue from new residental construction and using it for funding a lane separated BRT system to be eventually enhanced with subway/light rail. This is hair splitting, but you tax the increased *land* value and let the construction go free. Kills the land speculators, makes land cheaper to acquire for redevelopment, and more units get built. Give em the ol Henry George.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2018 02:23
|
|
|
Eskaton posted:This is hair splitting, but you tax the increased *land* value and let the construction go free. Kills the land speculators, makes land cheaper to acquire for redevelopment, and more units get built. Agree 100% I'm a Purestrain Georgist, land value tax or bust.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2018 10:25
|
|
|
Oh look: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-07/rental-glut-sends-chill-through-the-hottest-u-s-housing-marketsquote:Seattle-area median rents didn’t budge in July, after a 5 percent annual increase a year earlier and 10 percent the year before, according to Zillow data on apartments, houses and condos. While that’s the biggest decline among the top 50 largest metropolitan areas, it’s part of a national trend. Rents in Nashville and Portland, Oregon, have actually started falling. In the U.S., rents were up just 0.5 percent in July, the smallest gain for any month since 2012. Of course, things are still pretty horrible overall and we could still use public housing etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2018 10:57
|
|
|
My general proposal is to use upzones etc to pull as much private residential development as possible into a city and capture 10% of that as low income housing. Then once the banks won't finance any more new multi-family housing developments the city should come in and keep building mixed use / mixed income high rise towers and hand them over to non-profits to manage. Then have the city just keep building units to drive down rent to whatever your desired value is. This poo poo isn't really difficult, making rent affordable is a solves problem. Politicians just refuse to stand up to the Rich White NIMBY Liberals who dominate big city politics. Another example of democracy being a bad thing. HAIL SINGAPORE! KingFisher fucked around with this message at 11:15 on Sep 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2018 11:11
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:what if i told you... transit stimulates denser development The only way that you get people to use transit is by getting employers to move workplaces near transit lines. Population density in your neighborhood is irrelevant if all of your employment options are in far flung suburbs anyway. Look at Boston, Chicago, and Philly for examples. How many people want to live a car-free life in those cities where it should be possible, but can't because they have to drive to their job?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2018 13:56
|
|
|
I wrote about affordable housing for my master's thesis, especially in regards to my homestate and the regulations they have to force towns to build affordable housing, happy to see this thread/contribute if people have questions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2018 14:22
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Oh look: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-07/rental-glut-sends-chill-through-the-hottest-u-s-housing-markets There's similar stuff going on here. The only stuff being built is high end apartments asking downright stupid rent for the area. Surprise surprise, most people can't afford to live there so they're desperate to get occupants. They advertise heavily and simultaneously price most people out. Meanwhile businesses either next door or even in litetally the same building advertise jobs that pay less than the rent on those places. Meanwhile anything that doesn't have a belligerent price tag is packed. Good loving luck getting your hands on an affordable one bedroom anywhere you would actually want to live with less than a few months notice. But hey, we have all these empty $1,500 a month studios here!
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2018 22:01
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:There's similar stuff going on here. The only stuff being built is high end apartments asking downright stupid rent for the area. Surprise surprise, most people can't afford to live there so they're desperate to get occupants. They advertise heavily and simultaneously price most people out. Meanwhile businesses either next door or even in litetally the same building advertise jobs that pay less than the rent on those places. Sounds like you need an upzoning or three. We need to make it more profitable to build giant complexes then a handful of ultraluxury housing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2018 00:04
|
|
|
ChipNDip posted:The only way that you get people to use transit is by getting employers to move workplaces near transit lines. Population density in your neighborhood is irrelevant if all of your employment options are in far flung suburbs anyway. Look at Boston, Chicago, and Philly for examples. How many people want to live a car-free life in those cities where it should be possible, but can't because they have to drive to their job? It's me. I'm the Philly resident who wants nothing more than to be able to live that life. It is, however, loving not possible here. All of the jobs are *outside* of the city because of Philly's city taxes. And the major artery out of the city to the North is so old they can't expand it because it would violate modern safety regulations. SEPTA isn't great, but it also doesn't matter because my job is in the burbs anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2018 17:29
|
|
|
Btw, the data has shown in Portland at least, that falling rents are only for specific categories of apartments (studios/micros/1brs) while 2br and 3br apartments are still rising. Also, it has a secondary effect, it seems there are less new projects on the horizon because they overbuilt one specific type of housing, and I wouldn't be surprised if the market for that specific apartment crashes as the rest of the current projects are completed. This is what you get when you just let the "market" take its course. (Also, the new construction is some of the ugliest buildings in the city. They are just terrible.) If you upzone...the result is going to just be bigger monolithic skyscrapers .... filled with "luxury studios."
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2018 17:43
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:If you upzone...the result is going to just be bigger monolithic skyscrapers .... filled with "luxury studios." Plus what's really needed is upzoning the all super low density areas for missing middle type housing, not skyscrapers. Leftists really need to stop defending economic segregation like this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2018 19:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 17:50 |
|
|
Cicero posted:Demand for luxury studios isn't infinite, this is another example of yeah, the market will take the lowest-hanging, most profitable fruit first. Too true for the 2nd point in this sense, smaller suburbs could build apartment style housing and help alleviate some of these problems.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2018 21:10
|
|