|
Badger of Basra posted:I guess this is true but I would be curious how this is a taking but downzoning isn't downzoning would certainly include a whole portfolio of grandfathered use cases to prevent people from showing up with lawyers in this case i'm assuming the city is passing this via ordinance for timeliness as well as the zoning designation as written being unclear on whether or not the city is allowed to impose any kind of density floor. pass the ordinance and see what kind of trouble it stirs up 
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2021 20:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 23:42 |
|
|
lots of places have minimum density and protect lower-price housing types from conversion like, everywhere I've ever worked
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2021 23:38
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/SecretaryPete/status/1358874001184030730?s=20 glad to see the mayo pete derangement syndrome is so strong that people are in the replies to this going yOu JuSt InVeNtEd SiDeWaLkS
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 17:28
|
|
|
double nine posted:my local city is planning to redesign one of the busier intersections and erm... how is this going to improve throughput? They still require red lights ON roundabout ? I can see several nightmare scenarios where a blockage grinds the whole section to a halt Haven't done any traffic engineering in 10 years but it's pretty easy to see that thing has no lane switching whatsoever. You pick your lane before the roundabout and stick to it, which in theory makes it fast and safe. It shouldn't block since the system can count vehicles/queue length and without lane switching or turning everything is nice and predictable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 20:01
|
|
|
Looks like the best you can do given the constraints, I imagine they’d have a flyover of some kind for one of the legs otherwise, but it’s impossible to fit it in the space.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 22:11
|
|
|
Segregation by Design is very good while we’re on the topic of books. It’s academic but accessible. It’s the book that radicalized me against SFZ.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 02:50
|
|
|
The Reluctant Metropolis. I cannot recommend this book enough for people who want a look behind the scenes at the growth machine that gave us sunbelt cities and the forces that shut it down in California. So many books talk about the history of city building starting with, like, The Law of the Indies and going through the industrial revolution and garden cities and stopping with 9/1 highway funding and Levittown. This one has a preface or introduction to get the reader up to 1970, and then dumps you right into the Santa Monica hippies who made "NIMBY" a the exhilarting battlecry of their generation, and who'd go on to make it the disgusting dirty word it is to ours. The author does have a touch of that boomer bias, but is good enough at telling the stories he tells that it only registers as little bit of a raised eyebrow, and--I think--adds to the flavor of the book, helping you understand why they thought they were doing the right thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 04:18
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:https://twitter.com/SecretaryPete/status/1358874001184030730?s=20 He's not wrong though? Our cities are designed entirely around the automobile, and changing this is really hard and people of all political spectrums get really defensive about it. The thing is, we absolutely have to move from a car-first to a pedestrian-first mindset in Urban planning.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 19:10
|
|
|
online discourse is so toxic that someone can just breezily say "i like good things and i support more good things" and you'll definitely collect comments like "he doesn't really like good things, he likes bad things. he is a liar" or "he claims to like directly related good thing X, but he doesn't say anything about completely tangential good thing Y, so can we really believe him? or "as someone who just wiki'd good thing for the first time, let me break down why this is nonsense (1/12)" and so on he's just saying the normal things a not-horrible secretary of transportation is supposed to say https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127137816 ray lahood, in 2010: quote:Sec. LaHOOD: I think what you see here in Washington, D.C., as you tool down Pennsylvania Avenue. They've put all-new bike lanes in there. Go up on 14th Street in D.C., where they've put bike lanes in. What it means is that communities decide that there are lots of people who want to bike on streets. In order to make it safe, you paint a lane down the street and make sure that it can be safe and - so that people then begin to pay attention to these bicyclists. and you can find PR shots of previous dem sec transpo riding bikes if you look hard enough ultimately though all the feds can do is offer grants for localities to explore options and alternatives to get away from automotive dependent transportation patterns. the idea of banning cars and suburbs is a wonderful power fantasy but it is very far from the nuts and bolts of how land use/transportation policy actually functions at the most local level any city paying attention is definitely aware that there is a viable path forward in making your locality more pedestrian and ped-adjacent, and get away from automobiles as much as you can. there's a small but robust movement in redeveloping suburban areas into pockets of ped-oriented, new urbanist design. but these things take years and are very boring, so not really satisfying for the people who want more immediate and radical action Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Feb 10, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 19:50
|
|
|
Solaris 2.0 posted:He's not wrong though? He is right, I'm just talking about the people who are giving him poo poo for it because they hate him for other reasons
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 20:04
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:He is right, I'm just talking about the people who are giving him poo poo for it because they hate him for other reasons Ohhh my bad. I know Pete gets a bad (and mostly deserved wrap) around here so I watched the clip and was like "actually...I agree with all of this". With that said, I try to ignore twitter comments for these exact reasons because nothing good ever comes from them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 20:52
|
|
|
you know who else was into frequent and punctual public transit? mussolini
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 19:08
|
|
|
Been a few months since this thread has seen any action, but the unveiling of the ~*~future of transportation~*~ merits revival. It sure is a hole. https://twitter.com/TheWarOnCars/status/1382869330497568773?s=19 Of course, since it's an expansion of car infrastructure, expect DoTs everywhere to adopt it ahead of public transit, bike lanes, or walkable urban areas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2021 05:08
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:Of course, since it's an expansion of car infrastructure, expect DoTs everywhere to adopt it ahead of public transit, bike lanes, or walkable urban areas. oh absolutely not, this thing will get no traction and very limited adoption because it is a deathtrap the big gimmick around the boring company and all their tunnel projects is that they can do it cheaper, somehow. there's been magical talk that they're going to bring innovation to a moribund industry, but in reality drilling and tunneling is one of those industries that sees constant competition and innovation. boring has not made any real innovations in this space, they're relying on the same flim flam appeals to "technology" and "disruption" that bolsters the idea that teslas are somehow groundbreaking the REAL thing that makes these tunnels cheaper is that they are narrow. very narrow, one lane tunnels. anyone could have dug very narrow tunnels. the reason nobody did this is because they are dangerous, and will kill people. if a fire happens in a tunnel, then everyone in that tunnel needs to escape or get to a safe room immediately, because fires in confined spaces kill people very quickly. in addition, as confined spaces tunnels require ventilation to prevent the buildup of exhaust or development of anoxic environments. any kind of tunnel you expect to put people in requires, at a minimum: -ventilation fans -safety egress -fire suppression and if the tunnel is long enough, safe refuge. none of the plans or documents released by the boring company show any of these features. the reason is because these tiny narrow tunnels do not have space for ventilation fans, emergency egress, etc. etc. all of musks claims that he will tunnel more than a mile or two at a stretch are absolute lies, because the approach they are taking to tunneling - tiny narrow tunnels - are absolute hazards to human life which will never be approved by any municipal authority the fact that the first (and possibly only) implementation of this idea is beneath a convention center is telling, i think. first, since the project is on private-ish (semi public) property you can avoid a few obstacles, like ADA compliance or having to meet stricter fire safety standards if the thing were truly 'public' infrastructure. second, the LVCC is the host venue for the consumer electronics show, or CES. the convention/expo market is a quiet thing but kind of a big deal for some cities to compete in - think of it like corporate tourism. a big show like CES draws well over a hundred thousand attendees, closer to two hundred thousand, in addition to corporations paying fees for floor space at the LVCC. getting a show like the CES on an annual basis is a huge contribution to the local economy - something like $300 million dollars by itself in business, directly and indirectly (convention attendees in vegas will, of course, gamble and party). having a flashy, futuristic, consumer electronics focused transportation system is just a compliment and commitment to CES and attractor for similar business. it's not useful infrastructure, it's a gimmick - technically no different than the utility tunnels beneath disney world, but LED lit and for display purposes the obvious thing to me is that this is not a useful demonstration of futuristic technology. there is nothing innovative here at all, people have been putting electric carts in tunnels for decades. even the automated guideway idea has been dropped, because the focus of the system has shifted. this thing is no longer about infrastructure demonstration - it is a glorified test drive for tesla cars. the purpose of the system is just to get people inside a tesla to show it off to boost sales, and anyone cooing about how this is future infrastructure is getting fooled by elon musks fabulous new invisible clothes by only using brand new, in good repair teslas under controlled conditions, the risk of breakdown or fire is lessened. these kind of tunnels will never be open to the public, for anyone to drive their vehicle through - anyone with bald tires or a bad engine could break down and block the system up entirely for hours, leaving people trapped in their vehicles because there is very obviously no way to bypass the blockage or escape the tunnel. ICE vehicles will never be able to use a tunnel which has no way of extracting exhaust fumes. but none of that matters if the thing is just a toy test track to get people boggling over how futuristic teslas are Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Apr 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2021 19:00
|
|
|
also the biden administration is taking aim at dismantling exclusionary zoning in the infrastructure bill. i dont think it will do much good but its a nice thing to pursue regardless as a political signal. i'd be cheesed if that was the only thing they were doing and not also providing more support for public housing - if it comes down to dropping one of the two from the bill, i'd rather exclusionary zoning reform be eliminated. but they're enforcing it through making grant distribution conditional on some level of reform, which is a fairly cheap gently caress you to localities who insist on keeping it
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2021 19:13
|
|
|
klobs also has a bill about the same thing, but giving localities money to make the changes rather than giving them the money after the changes are made https://twitter.com/JerusalemDemsas/status/1383045450148761605?s=20 who knows if it will get anywhere but good to see people are paying attention. i would be very very interested to see how this plays out in blue cities, considering a lot of the people in fancy neighborhoods saying they want to preserve the single family character are also passionate democrat voters, and idk if they've ever been presented explicitly with the contradiction before. make the homevoters choose between biden and tucker
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2021 19:28
|
|
|
i dunno, the klobs thing sounds like business as usual? like HOPE VI was issuing planning grants around TOD/New Urbanism back in the 90s? from this tweet i can't see where this is any kind of new thing
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2021 19:35
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:klobs also has a bill about the same thing, but giving localities money to make the changes rather than giving them the money after the changes are made So, why would money be needed to change laws in a state / city? Where does the money go?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2021 20:43
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:i dunno, the klobs thing sounds like business as usual? like HOPE VI was issuing planning grants around TOD/New Urbanism back in the 90s? from this tweet i can't see where this is any kind of new thing I mean ultimately you need to force the issue if you are a higher level of government right? Incentivized funding for housing density only works if the community intends to build it. 40B in Massachusetts or the New Jersey law force the issue by having developers saying they can go around the local zoning laws if a community becomes intransigent and that forces a lot of cooperation. Ultimately you want both carrot and stick.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2021 22:27
|
|
|
wooger posted:So, why would money be needed to change laws in a state / city? spent on consultants, studies, field research, things of that nature. a significant obstacle to the planning process is just being able to pay salaries to get people to look over plans, run public meetings, and go out and count cars on the road. especially for small or medium sized towns, the planning department may just be a couple people to check code compliance and process permits, so any kind of overhaul or update to the zoning code may be more effectively done by just hiring a consultancy. or if you want to redevelop a stretch of downtown, there are architecture firms that specialize in planning i mean you can just change the laws for free but you're kind of groping in the dark sometimes, not knowing if the law you're changing to actually does any good. like i can pass a law directing the DOT to take away travel lanes from a road but if i haven't done any study on the road and the traffic it carries, how well do i know if i'm making the problem better or worse? Mooseontheloose posted:I mean ultimately you need to force the issue if you are a higher level of government right? Incentivized funding for housing density only works if the community intends to build it. 40B in Massachusetts or the New Jersey law force the issue by having developers saying they can go around the local zoning laws if a community becomes intransigent and that forces a lot of cooperation. Ultimately you want both carrot and stick. right, part of the biden infrastructure thing is the witholding of grant money if conditions aren't met, like a review of local zoning. the klobs planning grant thing isn't new, but it is a pretty generous amount of funding as planning grants go. this would be the carrot and biden's thing the stick Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Apr 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2021 22:27
|
|
|
Does anyone have good, introductory sources to why rent stabilization doesn't lead to affordable cities (/overall housing) in the long run? It's being talked about heavily in Minneapolis now and I want quick, easy to understand sources I can give to people to help them understand the impact of it. Especially with it maybe being a ballot question and also dividing mayoral/city council candidates. I usually give a few basic points and point them to a few of the Brookings Institution articles for further reading, which I think does a good job of concrete examples along with a simple explanation of the reasons why. However, I was wondering if there were other good sources that people reference. Kalit fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Apr 30, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 18:55
|
|
|
Source: Dimly remembered history book  the people who invented rent control didn't think it would make cities affordable. it is intended to protect tenants--hopefully why while other things happen to bring down rent and sales prices.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 22:39
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Does anyone have good, introductory sources to why rent stabilization doesn't lead to affordable cities (/overall housing) in the long run? Edit: link https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/09/19/rent-control-will-make-housing-shortages-worse The same things have happened everywhere it’s in place: * It creates inertia in the market, as no one wants to give up their cheap flat. They’ve effectively won a lottery, and get to save money forever, increasing to thousands a month over time as the market rate increases around them. * Thus rent controlled property isn’t available to any young people starting out, or to those new to the area, regardless of need - as no one ever moves out. * It creates a black market of illegal sublets (including Airbnb), or enables gatekeeping middlemen who bribe tenants to give up their flats and ensure they go to specific people. * Depending on the rules in place, tenants in a rent controlled flat may also make effort to keep the property ‘in the family’ by passing on tenancies to their children by various means. * If it applies to new properties, it stifles new development or else distorts development to only properties where they can make profit. e.g. if the rules apply only to 1 bed apartments, none will be built. * Likewise, if it only applies to older properties; there’s no incentive to maintain old properties as they’re not profitable to operate. Landlords have an incentive to let them degrade until they can be torn down, or otherwise modified to escape the rent control. Ultimately it only works when the government builds and operates the properties for the public good, and keeps building new ones in line with demand - all subsidised by the tax payer. Probably also needs to be some kind of income qualifier requirement, but a wide range of incomes makes for better communities. See Vienna. wooger fucked around with this message at 10:13 on May 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 10:07
|
|
|
Great, I have not seen this story before (probably because I was too lazy to sign up for an account before). A lot of similar information as the Brookings articles I've read, but I'm glad to build up a variety of sources. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 14:54
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Does anyone have good, introductory sources to why rent stabilization doesn't lead to affordable cities (/overall housing) in the long run? Keep in mind there is no single policy fix to unaffordable housing. There are multiple policies that need to work in concert. Rent control is just one policy aimed at decommodification of housing. If you have a half hour to spare, watch this video. It's about gentrification but the solution just happens to be the same policies that create affordable housing.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 21:31
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:Keep in mind there is no single policy fix to unaffordable housing. There are multiple policies that need to work in concert. Always true. It’s not even just local policy, national policy is as important. In my country (UK) the underrated one is “giving business investment, transport infrastructure, cultural/arts grants or adequate council funding to any region outside London / its commuter belt”. We have one city that is essentially Washington, LA, San Francisco, New York & Seattle combined in terms of wealth, arts & culture, government, tech & finance careers. And the only city in the UK with decent mass transit. Oddly lots of people want to live there, housing demand is massive, prices are frightening. N The most populous regions outside London are the West Midlands, North West and North East. All of which get at least 10% less funding per person from central government than the average, despite having high levels of poverty and being unable to run basic services. Think rust belt. Meanwhile ultra wealthy London gets 12% above average, plus tens of billions in transport infrastructure per year (new tube line) and the lions share of arts funding. Giving other cities a chance to compete with London for jobs & people is an obvious win for everyone. They’d rapidly take pressure off London, spread demand and create 5x the number of places you can live and get paid well in the UK.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 19:58
|
|
|
wooger posted:Always true. On the other hand, the UK has a bad track record with regional redistribution policies. The Distribution of Industry Act of 1945 and Control of Office Employment Act of 1965 pretty much killed off Birmingham as a rival to London, but did little to help the Midlands and the North, so government intervention just made a bad situation worse. I think the best national policy is a hands-off one. If redistribution is necessary, a stable revenue-sharing scheme is better than earmarked project grants, because the former encourages continuous improvement and efficient use of funds, while the latter encourages silver bullet-style megaprojects that usually end up underperforming.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2021 09:20
|
|
|
Jasper Tin Neck posted:On the other hand, the UK has a bad track record with regional redistribution policies. The Distribution of Industry Act of 1945 and Control of Office Employment Act of 1965 pretty much killed off Birmingham as a rival to London, but did little to help the Midlands and the North, so government intervention just made a bad situation worse. Well, most of the country has had neither consistent adequate funding OR megaproject grants for a long time. Even just giving each region the same exact national spend per head would be a massive improvement. But we’ve been doing the opposite for a long time (except Scotland and London which get far more money for no obvious reason). A slow starving of certain regions for decades is just as interfering as any other policy. We have to do something quickly to unfuck the lack of public transport in a lot of our cities, and there won’t be enough money to do it without national funding anytime soon. A tram network takes big money to build out, and Birmingham has managed to extend its single line by ~3 miles in the last 13 years with the existing system. wooger fucked around with this message at 10:16 on May 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2021 10:07
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/aidan_smx/status/1406380826867245058?s=20
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 01:15
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, I had no idea there was an urban planning thread. I'm a lawyer working in public administration in Norway. A big part of my job is advising our city planners in different municipalities as well as negotiating development deals for urban districts. It's gets... complicated. Striking a balance between the viability of development and the need for public infrastructure is hard, and we have a number of very special tools to do it, among others a special kind of land court with special eminent domain type powers. One of the main factors we deal with are actually environmental, requirements for low emissions building and carbon compensated materials, as well as local green drainage solutions and flood safety construction as we wait for the impacts of climate change. Demographics are also a huge issue. While we used to have (and still have) issues with rural brain drain as the young folks moved into cities, the rising costs of housing in the city centers is slowly pushing youth out of the cities while high-realestate equity old pensioners buy a retirement apartment in the city at obscene pricesa while young childless people are being pushed out to suburbs and rural districts normally populated by old folks and families with kids. The biggest cities aren't as impacted by this yet, but the trend is clear and so is the rising level of traffic on the commute as all these young workers need to get into the city for work. Meanwhile, green city development deals are attempting to reduce traffic by raising tolls and eliminating parking in cities, and have huge funds available to city managers who can reduce traffic with biking roads - but you're fighting the tide. People can't not work, are increasingly living too far away from biking and bus/train options, and various political entities aren't doing enough to incentivize collective transport. The system is holding, but it won't anymore if collective transport is further privatized and costs go up and the incentives turn. All in all it's a glorious clusterfuck of omnidirectional politics and corruption and greedand holy gently caress private practice is looking less bad than it used to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 07:42
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Interesting Norway perspective Similarly, I'm loving what I'm seeing out of Paris about a drastic shift away from car traffic, but am very curious whether the city is doing anything to actually make living in the city more affordable. I've seen the former rightly lauded, but dead silence on the latter. The height limits presumably make it near impossible to build homes in the quantity needed to not force additional sprawl and shunting of the poor into the outskirts. Less of a problem given Paris's transportation network, but segregating neighborhoods by income (and thus, often, race) is hugely damaging to the social fabric.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 08:35
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:Does Norway have similar causes to the US for young folk being priced out of urban areas (lower purchasing power than their parents at the same age and failure by cities to allow more homes in the places people most want to live)? generally, places with the kind of robust government control over local land use decisions Nice piece of fish describes have less lasseiz-faire scattering of houses across the hinterland, leading to lower housing supply and higher prices overall. if anything, this is a higher degree of failure by cities to 'allow' houses to be constructed. generally housing sizes are permanently smaller than in sprawly countries, and houses permanently more expensive. like remember the upside to unchecked suburbia strewn about the landscape is - its great for home buyers! this tight government control exists for this specific reason: quote:One of the main factors we deal with are actually environmental, requirements for low emissions building and carbon compensated materials, as well as local green drainage solutions and flood safety construction as we wait for the impacts of climate change. turns out pro-environmental regulations place restrictions on the housing supply. its also more difficult in 'older' countries with longer established land ownership patterns to get the kind of freewheeling land speculation and trading (based on land theft) that leads to the development of widespread suburbia - not that suburbs are impossible in european nations, but they are going to be more compact and orderly by simple land use patterns alone Cugel the Clever posted:Similarly, I'm loving what I'm seeing out of Paris about a drastic shift away from car traffic, but am very curious whether the city is doing anything to actually make living in the city more affordable. I've seen the former rightly lauded, but dead silence on the latter. The height limits presumably make it near impossible to build homes in the quantity needed to not force additional sprawl and shunting of the poor into the outskirts. really the tradeoff here is that you are never, ever going to make paris affordable without eroding the planned, uniform aesthetic of the city which makes it such a draw to international tourism. it would be like putting condos in disneyworld. its like the final boss of NIMBY. its also an idea directly a century old or more
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 13:57
|
|
|
Paris proper (the area the mayor controls) is massively dense at over 20,000 ppl/km2. I’m not sure there’s a good argument for labelling it’s density as an issue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 17:19
|
|
|
well the idea is that you can get more people = more dense = more affordable, but this would destroy the unique properties of paris which make it so attractive in the first place. not so bad if you're an early 20th century futurist though good point though that paris is already super dense, and part of what makes it unaffordable is that it is an incredibly attractive place to live. we would be better off trying to replicate some of the amenities and density of paris elsewhere rather than trying to pile paris deeper. the same is true of manhattan, london, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 17:32
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:we would be better off trying to replicate some of the amenities and density of paris elsewhere rather than trying to pile paris deeper. the same is true of manhattan, london, etc. I think capitalism creates a problem there. Even if you give Cincinnati all the same amenities as Manhattan, that doesn't mean JPMorgan is gonna move their headquarters there. Amenities aren't enough, you also need opportunities. In the age of regulation and antitrust, and government policy to spread jobs, you did have broader opportunities and cheaper housing as folks spread out more.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 19:52
|
|
|
there are plenty of opportunities in cincinnati or other midsized cities. the unemployment rate in cincy is about half of what it is in NYC, and cost of living is lower too sure, if you want to work for a massive financial firm you move to manhattan, or if you want to work for facegoog you move to silicon valley. the tremendous majority of people do not aim that high in their careers, evidenced by the number of people who live in midsized cities. we can turn our noses up at people who live in flyover country, i'm not sure they care too much - it's not like everything outside of an international alpha+ city is literally a pig farm
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 20:00
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:Does Norway have similar causes to the US for young folk being priced out of urban areas (lower purchasing power than their parents at the same age and failure by cities to allow more homes in the places people most want to live)? Not really. It's somewhat of a factor, but in relation to the US Norway hasn't had the same wage freeze at all as collective bargaining is a huge thing here. No, it's just that the realestate market is that insane, particularly in the major cities. There's an informal measure of the realestate market called "the nursing index" which is basically what percentage of housing in the entire city could a nurse with a normal salary (nurses are averagely-ish compensated) afford to buy. At last count the number stood at 3% for Oslo. That's real bad. Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:generally, places with the kind of robust government control over local land use decisions Nice piece of fish describes have less lasseiz-faire scattering of houses across the hinterland, leading to lower housing supply and higher prices overall. if anything, this is a higher degree of failure by cities to 'allow' houses to be constructed. generally housing sizes are permanently smaller than in sprawly countries, and houses permanently more expensive. like remember the upside to unchecked suburbia strewn about the landscape is - its great for home buyers! Yeah. Mind you, scattering of houses is still a thing, because Norway has a vast preference for homeownership and a vast preference for villa type housing, trending towards combined or row housing these days for small developments and big modern city blocks for the big developers. Tall buildings are generally controversial and discouraged. This is your typical coastal city:  Housing trends smaller towards the city center, but development is slow and housing prices are soaring. Norway has A LOT of technical requirements for housing and planning is a multi-year affair conducted by state or municipal authorities. Actually implementing a plan or god forbid, tearing down old developments to build new stuff is agonizing despite all our tools because nobody has the backbone to just eminent domain that poo poo and be done with it, and developers don't want to eat any cost if they can help it. Some of the TEK17 requirements (universal building code) drat near requires you to build plus housing, as in the net producer of energy. They are as airtight as a thermos and about as good at holding heat in, to the point that they need special ventilation so they don't hurt the people living in them. Safety standards for water pipes require, for instance DK-Vand or FI certification (special EU certifications on minute miniscule amounts of trace elements released from materials into the water supply) as of pretty soon, and robust local green nature-based drainage is a requirement - you can't pipe a creek. Ever. gently caress off. Oh yeah and you have to use renewable electrics while building whenever you can and your materials have to be carbon compensated. Part of my job is to make developers pay for all that poo poo, which they don't want to do obviously, but by the norwegian system developers are responsible for all plan requirement be it a park, a loving skiing trail, bike lanes, roads, water and sewage mains etc. all done and all delivered to the local municipality for free. It's not super easy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 20:04
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:good point though that paris is already super dense, and part of what makes it unaffordable is that it is an incredibly attractive place to live. we would be better off trying to replicate some of the amenities and density of paris elsewhere rather than trying to pile paris deeper. the same is true of manhattan, london, etc. Sanity. In the case of London especially, it’s really the mass transit infrastructure that is the big difference that makes it so popular and successful compared to other UK cities. And despite already having a tube system, it also gets more new infrastructure investment than the rest of the UK combined. Add real mass transit anywhere else and jobs, businesses and everything else will follow.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 07:12
|
|
|
Most of Greater London is not very dense at all. I don’t know the situation with the Parisian suburbs that perform the same function.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 07:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 23:42 |
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:
When I was writing my capstone on affordable housing, this was seen as a barrier to affordable housing in wealthier communities because it forced developers to build more amenities, driving up project costs, therefor making the housing more expensive. It's not an easy balance for sure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 12:58
|
|