|
Runaktla posted:I suppose I am basically saying relocate the federal government, or parts of it. I don't know your industry but it is a case by case situation The options in that scenario are: This is already happening, but it's not enough. It becomes very difficult to do your job if half your department is in another building, much less a different state. It also would make my job/industry a nightmare since we could be at any one of the federal agencies any day. Right now it's just a matter of taking a different train or car ride. The logistics and cost become much, much higher if we need to hop on a plane and fly out to North Dakota to meet with Interior, grab another plane to Phoenix to talk with Energy, another plane to Texas to talk to the DEA, etc. Telecommuting is great, but it can't replace physical presence until we can accurately replicate an office virtually. And that's just not possible yet. axeil fucked around with this message at 07:05 on Jun 18, 2014 |
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 07:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 20:03 |
|
|
Yep it's lovely to be forced to live in the boonies but ideally if businesses and people relocate to the boonies it eventually no longer becomes the boonies. This is just a natural effect of overpopulation. In this scenario you get to pick your poison, which is either overcrowding locally, increased labor costs to match cost of housing, or businesses and entities learning to be flexible, change it's manner of doing business if necessary and decentralize. I imagine the latter is difficult at times but not impossible. In theory the bigger a business gets the greater it's resources and technology is becoming rather amazing.axeil posted:This is already happening, but it's not enough. It becomes very difficult to do your job if half your department is in another building, much less a different state.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 07:10
|
|
|
axeil posted:So your proposal to fix the housing problem in DC is to relocate the federal government? The urban side always wins. Man is a social creature. Any attempt to suppress that impulse will fail.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 07:50
|
|
|
mike- posted:San Francisco is a place you expect housing to work differently though. There are land constraints so land pricing is going to work differently than a place where you can just build outwards. I'm sure the house the hoarder lived in was basically worthless while the land accounted for most of the price. Modifying the restrictions on building height would help, but who knows how much. There are also geological concerns with SF that might limit how tall buildings can be (or require extra costs to EQ-proof them). Rap Record Hoarder posted:First off, thanks for that OP. I've kept up a little with the state of housing and rentals around the country, and while I knew that it was bad, I didn't have the specifics and the OP did a great job of filling in some blanks. Co-op houses sound nice (basically multi-roommate places, which are somewhat common already) but aren't nearly prevalent enough that I've seen, at least not by design. It'd be nice to have a whole district dedicated to them, to centralize the management, networking to find roommates, etc. got any sevens fucked around with this message at 08:40 on Jun 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 08:36
|
|
|
effectual posted:There are also geological concerns with SF that might limit how tall buildings can be (or require extra costs to EQ-proof them). This hasn't been a problem in Japan, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 08:43
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:This hasn't been a problem in Japan, though. In fact the height restrictions make the city more vulnerable to earthquakes because a 100 year old 2-story building is far more vulnerable than a modern skyscraper.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 08:58
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Seriously. We KNOW how to build earthquake proof buildings these days. But my quaint neighborhood!
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 09:04
|
|
|
If Houston's urban area -- not metro so excluding all the lovely suburbs and exurbs -- were as dense as New York, it would hold more than 17 million people. If Houston was as dense as Manhattan, over 44 million people would live there, which, incidentally, is greater than the population of California. Granted there is almost no pressure to build up instead out but holy poo poo. (figures regarding area and population density taken from Wikipedia, all math errors are to be blamed on Windows Calculator)
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 09:39
|
|
|
mike- posted:San Francisco is a place you expect housing to work differently though. There are land constraints so land pricing is going to work differently than a place where you can just build outwards. I'm sure the house the hoarder lived in was basically worthless while the land accounted for most of the price. Modifying the restrictions on building height would help, but who knows how much. There are similar constraints in New York and in plenty of other cities, but San Francisco has got the highest rents in the country and it's just getting worse. In large part that's because San Francisco resolutely refuses to consider the sort of solutions that other cities have tried. What's truly infuriating is that the activist left in San Francisco, which seems like it should be a very strong voice for change, is more interested in chasing fantasies about evil landlords and speculators. I hold no love for rentier parasites, but the absolutely central reason for the exploding cost of living in San Francisco seems so obviously to be that lots of people want to live there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 10:02
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:This hasn't been a problem in Japan, though. Is Japan built on piles of trash too?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 14:14
|
|
|
effectual posted:Is Japan built on piles of trash too? A lot of pacific rim countries have a lovely foundation that is basically wet sand.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
Runaktla posted:(3) De-centralize the local industry. This is of course case by case depending on industry. As an attorney, the Courts could modify to allow videoconferencing for court hearings. Actually one of my court rooms I appear in regularly is doing a test run of that. The courts already have a court call system for attending via telephone which has been used regularly for at least a decade. Local businesses are moving from the downtown core to suburban areas with disasterous effects on traffic here in st. louis. While 10 years ago the majority of the peak traffic was headed from west to east, today nearly all the highways are chronically clogged everywhere from companies that have taken root in the suburbs. It's far easier to target transit to a CBD than it is to target transit to 100 corporate parks in the suburbs. Additionally moving the company out of downtown doesn't mean that its now being moved closer to where people live. As soon as my company went from downtown to the western edge of the county people started selling their suburban houses and buying them across the missouri river in st. charles. No matter what, a certain segment of the population has to live at least 20-30 miles drive from where they work in America. Hell, I know people who work on weekends to pay for their gas so they can work in st. louis county from the more rural areas of the state. At least one person commutes over 100 miles a day at my company from downstate illinois too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Local businesses are moving from the downtown core to suburban areas with disasterous effects on traffic here in st. louis. While 10 years ago the majority of the peak traffic was headed from west to east, today nearly all the highways are chronically clogged everywhere from companies that have taken root in the suburbs. It's far easier to target transit to a CBD than it is to target transit to 100 corporate parks in the suburbs. It also makes it impossible to build public transit. Its hard enough getting working bus lines/light rail/subways into major downtown areas, it'll never happen if business are scattered all over the place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 15:33
|
|
|
effectual posted:Co-op houses sound nice (basically multi-roommate places, which are somewhat common already) but aren't nearly prevalent enough that I've seen, at least not by design. It'd be nice to have a whole district dedicated to them, to centralize the management, networking to find roommates, etc. Sort of related to coop housing, in Boston there is a really interesting community organization called the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative. It is basically a very poor area of Boston that decided it had to take radical action to try and control and foster it's own development. They have done a lot of very impressive work to improve their community. Among other things they have tried to keep their neighborhood affordable through a trust system - basically, if you buy a property through the organization, you agree to conditions on its resale that restrict who you can sell it to and how much, in order to keep the property owned by residents and available at a reasonable price. It's prevents people buying up their homes to rent, and it stops people profiting from neighborhood works by selling up their house and driving residents out of the community. They do face a lot of challenges, though. For one thing, very few banks are interested in providing mortgages for property that is so tightly controlled. It's a pretty good sample of what people can accomplish, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
Runaktla posted:I suppose I am basically saying relocate the federal government, or parts of it. I don't know your industry but it is a case by case situation The options in that scenario are: 1) Economic activity causes congestion. An uncongested road is a cost/benefit analysis that someone hosed up. This is why we have multple modes and also higher efficiency modes than automobiles. 3) This already happened decades ago. American industry is already decentralized, with the exception of industries that have some serious geographic reason to be in cities. Teleconferencing has been pitched as a solution for decades if not more. The technology has existed for decades as well, but it's not very popular. As it gets cheaper it gets more popular but there are still sound economic reasons for hot white collar creative industries to be based in cities, mainly because that's where their workers want to live. Very few people want to live in rural Missouri staying in their tract home teleworking and recreating with a device for 12 hours a day. boner confessor fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Jun 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
Regardless, I do think we will see more and more attempts at actually making remote work a thing. I'm at a point in my life where I can happily live in either a very cheap suburb or a relatively nearby expensive city. This means a remote job could pay me significantly less but I'd still prefer it. Businesses, then, have a strong profit motive to figure out how to remotify what work they can. I know I'm not everyone, but there are surely some people like me. And there are surely some people who even prefer cheap suburbs to urban living regardless of the money.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:I know I'm not everyone, but there are surely some people like me. And there are surely some people who even prefer cheap suburbs to urban living regardless of the money.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Everblight posted:"[HOA NOTICE: RECORDING IN PROGRESS]" This is actually a thing?!
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
I've seen/visited several 'communities' which have sternly-worded signs upon entry to their lovely, confusing, non-grid-layout corner of 'Locust Ave and Cherry Ln' to the effect of "NOTICE: ALL CAR LICENSE PLATES ARE RECORDED." You can't imagine until you actually see some of these busybodies out there with a ruler held up measuring someone's grass how much suburbanites make living around them so insufferable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
effectual posted:Is Japan built on piles of trash too? Yes. Or at least, Tokyo is. About 20% of it is build on "reclaimed land". And there are plenty of large modern cities with larger percentages. Replacing old short buildings in San Francisco with tall modern buildings is going to make it more resistant to earthquake damage, not less.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Everblight posted:No one prefers Applebee's and "Westland Heights, A Family Community [HOA NOTICE: RECORDING IN PROGRESS]" No, but plenty of people feel like things are too crowded living in a low-density suburb, let alone an inner-city high rise. Like Peven Stan brought up, moving office jobs out to the suburbs just makes some people move out 20-30 miles into the country. Long commutes are not just caused by poor service workers who are unable to afford living in an expensive city like SF or NYC. Some people really do prefer living out in the boonies, they're just forced to endure long rear end commutes to get to their jobs. The people who post in this forum are disproportionately young and educated. It's easy to lose sight of the fact that not everyone in America wants to live in a hip urban area full of creatives. There's just enough to push up rents.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
axeil posted:It also makes it impossible to build public transit. Its hard enough getting working bus lines/light rail/subways into major downtown areas, it'll never happen if business are scattered all over the place. Not only that, but tax dollars that could've gone to funding transit are now being diverted to rebuild our western edged north south belt I-270 (I-170 was supposed to be the inner north south belt but NIMBYs shut down the southern half so its just one half of a belt) because its chronically congested with people transiting from one part of suburban st. louis county to the next. During peak hours it will take you literally an hour and a half to drive from the western edge of the city to the concentrated suburbs in western st. louis county. This is an area of missouri that contains 1.3 million people and yet I've experienced traffic that's far more manageable at rush hour in much larger european cities due to density and access to transit. gently caress, forget Europe, I remember taking the orange line from midway to a downtown chicago hotel and that taking far less time than making the same trip in a taxi during rush hour.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
ChipNDip posted:No, but plenty of people feel like things are too crowded living in a low-density suburb, let alone an inner-city high rise. Like Peven Stan brought up, moving office jobs out to the suburbs just makes some people move out 20-30 miles into the country. Long commutes are not just caused by poor service workers who are unable to afford living in an expensive city like SF or NYC. Some people really do prefer living out in the boonies, they're just forced to endure long rear end commutes to get to their jobs. The people who post in this forum are disproportionately young and educated. It's easy to lose sight of the fact that not everyone in America wants to live in a hip urban area full of creatives. There's just enough to push up rents. I don't have a major dog in this fight, but youth is by no means the only indicator of an urban preference. Retirees dig it too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Everblight posted:No one prefers Applebee's and "Westland Heights, A Family Community [HOA NOTICE: RECORDING IN PROGRESS]" Nice generalization 
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:Nice generalization I'm sure redlining is still a major issue, but I would wager urban dwellers are, on the whole, less racist than suburban rear end in a top hat white-flighters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
You know minorities live in suburbs too, right? And there are ethnic businesses too?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:You know minorities live in suburbs too, right? And there are ethnic businesses too? You know about what the phrase "on the whole" means as a qualifier, right? And what "statistically significant" means?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
I'm kind of curious, what are you getting at with statistically significant?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
Bread Dragon posted:I don't have a major dog in this fight, but youth is by no means the only indicator of an urban preference. Retirees dig it too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
wow a deliberately contrarian piece from forbes with studies from academic group Better Homes and Gardens
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
ChipNDip posted:Not really. And just like previous generations, milennials are leaving the city as soon as they have kids.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
quote:Similarly millennials have not, as some hope, given up on home ownership, something closely associated with suburbia. Wow, this article is poo poo. I don't think you actually read it, either. Your argument makes more sense if I assume you just read the title. Haha it's the first google hit for "millenials move to suburbs" boner confessor fucked around with this message at 01:33 on Jun 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
mike- posted:I'm kind of curious, what are you getting at with statistically significant? I asserted that lovely bland white people fled the cities for the suburbs in droves. FCKGW countered with "minorities moved to the suburbs too," which I guess is sort of a reverse #notallwhites I re-asserted that the number (and percentage) of minorities living in communities that were built specifically to avoid minorities is probably less than that in an urban center. Put another way, there's a lot more Chinese-Americans in San Francisco than in Sausalito. I don't see what's controversial about that statement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
To be completely fair every time we have this discussion in the forums there's at least a few goons who spring out of the woodwork to comment that they like the suburbs. I don't understand it, but respect it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
Everblight posted:I asserted that lovely bland white people fled the cities for the suburbs in droves. No, ShadowHawk commented that he, like perhaps some other posters here, might enjoy some aspects of suburb life over urban life to which you replied. Everblight posted:No one prefers Applebee's and "Westland Heights, A Family Community [HOA NOTICE: RECORDING IN PROGRESS]" Asserting that 1) no one really wants to live in the suburbs and that 2) every suburb is a bland HOA/Applebees wasteland. I'm just saying that not all suburbs are your narrow view of what you think a suburb is. ShadowHawk posted:To be completely fair every time we have this discussion in the forums there's at least a few goons who spring out of the woodwork to comment that they like the suburbs. I don't understand it, but respect it. And there's always the goons who say i should be strung from a tree because I have the audacity to want to live somewhere with a yard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
Everblight posted:I asserted that lovely bland white people fled the cities for the suburbs in droves. This doesn't have anything to do with statistical significance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
One of the Iron Rules of Something Awful is that every thread about cities inevitably devolves into bickering about how cities/not cities are awful places to live and the residents should be ashamed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:One of the Iron Rules of Something Awful is that every thread about cities inevitably devolves into bickering about how cities/not cities are awful places to live and the residents should be ashamed. And another thing, how do you pronounce .gif anyways?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
Everblight posted:I asserted that lovely bland white people fled the cities for the suburbs in droves. Speaking of white flight and San Francisco: total population, 1950: 775,357 non-hispanic white population: 693,888 (89.5%) total population, 2010: 805,235 non-hispanic white population: 337,451 (41.9%) And for Oakland: total population, 1950: 384,575 non-hispanic white population: 328,797 (85.0%) total population, 2010: 390,724 non-hispanic white population: 101,308 (25.9%) edit: for the entire Bay Area: total population, 1950: 2,681,322 non-hispanic white population: 2,457,727 (91.5%) total population, 2010: 7,150,739 non-hispanic white population: 3,032,903 (42.4%) Step up your birth rate game and/or stop moving to the Central Valley/Nevada/Oregon/Texas, whities 
Rah! fucked around with this message at 02:29 on Jun 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 20:03 |
|
|
Everblight posted:You know about what the phrase "on the whole" means as a qualifier, right? And what "statistically significant" means? It depends on where you live. St. Louis county is around 20% black and that number has increased over time. The hilarious thing is that as black people have moved out to the burbs white people around here are taking off and moving even further west past the Missouri river. Of course, while st charles county is 90% white today I totally expect that figure to shrink considerably as the area becomes more and more populated, forcing a white exodus again further west along I-70.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 04:44
|
|