|
Modnote: thread is more interesting than the OP would suggestBadger of Basra posted:This is a very fun blog if you want to get into suburban architecture: http://www.mcmansionhell.com/ _____________________ With US Pol closed I figure this is a good outlet with regard to how to deal with spiteful, racist, FYGM middle class white voters. This is a multi step plan that should be able to get through most red state gov, leave blue alone. 1) Legalize Raw Milk, the justification is simple, it'll allow local rather than wholesale sale of Milk and a step further would be to allow Whole Foods or other overpriced suburban re-sellers to sell it. This will help MAGA 2) Wait, make some cheese during this step as well as raw milk cheese is amazing and quite safe. 3) Some folk will die, others will get sick, regardless they'll not be able to afford medical bills and will fall from their suburban ivory towers clamoring for govt regulation. 4) Profit with the class redistribution in 2020.
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 22:39 |
|
|
you already got your accelerationist candidate you can stop now
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Learn to play guitar and convert them to liberalism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:you already got your accelerationist candidate you can stop now for a different demographic Shbobdb posted:Learn to play guitar and convert them to liberalism. alt-rock?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
Stalin and Mao had the right idea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
Aw man, I thought this thread was going to be about retrofitting the suburbs, which is actually a pretty interesting topic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
Gated communities fall under the umbrella.sitchensis posted:Aw man, I thought this thread was going to be about retrofitting the suburbs, which is actually a pretty interesting topic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
sitchensis posted:Aw man, I thought this thread was going to be about retrofitting the suburbs, which is actually a pretty interesting topic. I was also hoping for this -- D&D has plenty of places to get angry, but none to be ANGRY ABOUT CITIES.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
sitchensis posted:Aw man, I thought this thread was going to be about retrofitting the suburbs, which is actually a pretty interesting topic. Me too. If you are knowledgeable enough to make an OP about that topic, you should! I would read that thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
donoteat posted:I was also hoping for this -- D&D has plenty of places to get angry, but none to be ANGRY ABOUT CITIES. It usually devolves into pointless debates using anecdotal evidence about whether city living or suburban living is better. Personally I think it's a fascinating topic. I tend to think that the type of environments we inhabit and the places we create have significant sociological impacts on us. There are reasons why urban areas tend to be liberal and suburban areas tend to be more conservative and I do think the physical make up of the built environment makes up a non-trivial amount of those reasons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
Yea that is actually a sincerely interesting topic. I remember listening to an interview once where the urban planner was theorising that within a generation or two, suburbs would become lower and working class communities ("ghettos") and inner cities would be gentrified back to the middle class. His logic was that the suburbs are far away from amenities and places of employment and that the houses themselves are 1) larger, and thus more matched to the generally larger families of lower economic classes and 2) generally of fairly shoddy construction which might encourage current middle class families to move on instead of hitching their ride to an ever-deepening money pit. Part of his argument was that as cost of living continues to rise, those smaller houses closer to city cores would once again raise in attractiveness to young professionals etc. I mean there are obvious holes to this, but it makes a certain degree of sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
sitchensis posted:It usually devolves into pointless debates using anecdotal evidence about whether city living or suburban living is better. Stickarts posted:Yea that is actually a sincerely interesting topic. The blog Strong Towns also talks about how a lot of neighborhoods in America were built with an unsustainable growth pattern where the tax revenues generated can't cover the service/repair/replacement cost of the infrastructure (sprawl increases the amount of infrastructure per person without increasing the tax base): http://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/ Then when said infrastructure falls into disrepair, yeah affluent people move out and poorer people stay/move in. edit: Suburbs and the New American Poverty - http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/01/suburbs-and-the-new-american-poverty/384259/ CityLab has also had a bunch of short articles on suburban poverty Cicero fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:This would never work as they'll just white flight further into the country. there's actually a reverse white flight pattern happening as minorities are increasingly moving to suburbs due to urban gentrification
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
Yeah as fun as it is to talk about rendering republicans down into biofuels, urban design is pretty interesting. The book The Metropolitan Revolution is pretty interesting, pretty hopeful of the power of cities to transform the country in the long term as more and more of the population live in them. A little bit utopian but a good read.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
The Muppets On PCP posted:there's actually a reverse white flight pattern happening as minorities are increasingly moving to suburbs due to urban gentrification once the gentrificators have families they tend to flee back to the subs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:once the gentrificators have families they tend to flee back to the subs. What I'm saying is this population in the inner city would eventually become constant without raw milk.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:once the gentrificators have families they tend to flee back to the subs. With the rising tide of minorities and lower income people moving out into the suburbs, I don't see your average middle class WASP family moving next to "those people".
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
Forceholy posted:With the rising tide of minorities and lower income people moving out into the suburbs, I don't see your average middle class WASP family moving next to "those people". It's already happening. I can't find any good non-paywalled articles, but the trend of millennials moving out of cities more slowly than previous generations is already starting to reverse. It's looking like what people were interpreting as a cultural shift was more of an economic trend, and now wealthier (or at least more credit-worthy) millennials are starting to head back into the suburbs. Wealthy people are still flocking to cities, but that's not new.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
i like the suburbs. whats wrong with the suburbs all of socal is suburbs though
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:i like the suburbs. whats wrong with the suburbs Well, the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles has been called "America's first suburb".
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:i like the suburbs. whats wrong with the suburbs I live in the borough of Monroeville PA which is a pretty old town that exploded in the 50s and I live in the neighborhood that has become the "bad part of town" because turns after over 50 years of aging, you get poorer people moving in and people just assume its crime ridden despite the fact I can walk to my grandma's house 2 miles down the other side of the neighborhood without trouble. Anyway I don't mind the suburbs when you can integrate them better with the nearby cities. Too bad the Pittsburgh Metropolitan area doesn't have a mass transit subway system because people in this city love to drive through lovely traffic 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
Stickarts posted:Yea that is actually a sincerely interesting topic. this is exactly how suburbs work in europe, asia, and places which never developed a strong use of automobiles for commutes. america, canada, australia, etc. somewhat inverted that pattern by using cars to allow the wealthy to flee the city rather than pushing the poor out to the fringes FCKGW posted:i like the suburbs. whats wrong with the suburbs socal has transcended suburbs to become what is called a polycentric metropolis. los angeles is actually the densest metropolis in america, since it's more penned in by geography - la is half the size of the ginormous nyc metro but the far flung suburbs of nyc mean that la actually has 2/3 the population on 1/2 the land. socal operates a lot like a network of suburbs, in that there's no real center of the la metro but a bunch of competing centers and people move between them, rather than the nyc example where you have manhattan, then the boroughs, then the suburbs in a descending hub hierarchy most of america's major 20th century cities are polycentric - dallas, houston, atlanta, etc. denver is a weird exception because there's not much outside of denver to compete with denver boner confessor fucked around with this message at 03:02 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
our town hall is between a gamestop and a nestle toll house cookie store
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
as for what's wrong with suburbs, from a purely objective standpoint they're a lot more expensive to live in - a lot of the costs of suburbs are either hidden (auto deprecation, mortgage interest deductions) or deferred (crumbling infrastructure that keeps getting put off for reparing next year, ever increasing traffic that can't be fixed, mono-use land development patters which choke off growth, etc). you may pay higher rent for equivalent square footage of living space in a city, but other costs can be lower if you like living in suburbs, that's great! they're way less efficient than urban areas and even less efficient than rural areas from a resource use per capita standpoint, which is the problem with them. also, if you're poor in a suburb you're barely better off than being poor in the middle of nowhere Forceholy posted:With the rising tide of minorities and lower income people moving out into the suburbs, I don't see your average middle class WASP family moving next to "those people". suburbs become a patchwork of wealthy and poor jurisdictions. just ban the construction of apartments (refuse to zone multifamily dwellings) and problem solved. this is the single biggest reason for minimum lot requirements in residential zoning, it becomes a defacto poor tax to live in an area. well gee it's not our fault you can't afford a house and property taxes on a half acre lot Submarine Sandpaper posted:once the gentrificators have families they tend to flee back to the subs. this is because a lot of millenials would like to live in cities but until cities start building more housing it's difficult to afford the hipster urban lifestyle once you have kids boner confessor fucked around with this message at 03:09 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
Cicero posted:The blog Strong Towns also talks about how a lot of neighborhoods in America were built with an unsustainable growth pattern where the tax revenues generated can't cover the service/repair/replacement cost of the infrastructure (sprawl increases the amount of infrastructure per person without increasing the tax base): http://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/ This is what got talked about a lot in my city management and urban planning classes. Kyle, TX is a good example - they were having big problems funding their government because residential development doesn't pay for itself. So they starting zoning huge blocks of greenfield as commercial to attract big box retailers for the sales tax revenue. It's interesting in a way because although they're diversifying their development, I would say that having massive big box stores (Cabela's, HEB, etc.) and strip malls right on the side of the highway somehow made them seem even more suburban. boner confessor posted:suburbs become a patchwork of wealthy and poor jurisdictions. just ban the construction of apartments (refuse to zone multifamily dwellings) and problem solved. this is the single biggest reason for minimum lot requirements in residential zoning, it becomes a defacto poor tax to live in an area. well gee it's not our fault you can't afford a house and property taxes on a half acre lot This is something we might have seen progress on if Hillary had won. Obama's HUD has been pushing a progressive angle on relaxation of zoning rules as fair housing (see here). Probably all hosed now though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
i can verify myself, badger of basra, and stichensis as bona fide urban planning thing knowers to field any questions about how it works please though these threads always become dumb slapfights about how living in cities/suburbs is good/bad and you're cool/stupid for living there/not living there so please none of that idiocy thanks
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:i can verify myself, badger of basra, and stichensis as bona fide urban planning thing knowers to field any questions about how it works Plz, I am just a city bureaucrat. I did take a bunch of planning classes during my MPA through and might try to move into planning.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:i can verify myself, badger of basra, and stichensis as bona fide urban planning thing knowers to field any questions about how it works I have a question for you: will we (North America) ever come around on the Missing Middle argument? Or is it too late and suburban sprawl is here to stay?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:socal has transcended suburbs to become what is called a polycentric metropolis. los angeles is actually the densest metropolis in america, since it's more penned in by geography - la is half the size of the ginormous nyc metro but the far flung suburbs of nyc mean that la actually has 2/3 the population on 1/2 the land. socal operates a lot like a network of suburbs, in that there's no real center of the la metro but a bunch of competing centers and people move between them, rather than the nyc example where you have manhattan, then the boroughs, then the suburbs in a descending hub hierarchy Maybe it's just that my perception is screwed. I've lived in orange county most my life, which is just one big suburb. There's no "city core" to speak of. I moved out to the Inland Empire about 5 years ago and maybe that whole region could be considered a suburb of LA or OC. Something like 75% of the residents of the IE drive to LA or OC for work every day, myself included.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
Furnaceface posted:I have a question for you: will we (North America) ever come around on the Missing Middle argument? can you elaborate? a quick google just turns up logical fallacies and argumentation style definitions Furnaceface posted:Or is it too late and suburban sprawl is here to stay? by and large it's here to stay. there's this thing called urban morpholgy, sometimes called the fabric or framework of a city. basically this is just the collection of relationships that buildings and land uses have to each other, to the street, to how people navigate the landscape, etc. for a very brief example let's look at london vs. los angeles. london is an old, old city, a lot like most major european (and asian, and to a degree african) cities. like, hundreds if not thousands of years old. the predominant way people navigated these cities was on foot. therefore the streets tend to be narrower, the lots (an individual parcel of land on which a building sits) are smaller, etc. these things are really really hard to change. london completely burned to the ground in 1666 and it was mostly rebuilt as it was before the carnage because after you scrape away all the ash and wreckage, people still own the land underneath with legally defined, surveyable boundaries. by and large, once a pattern of land use is established - a morphology - it stays that way more or less over the long term. so now even though people drive cars in london, oftentimes it's easier to walk los angeles is a very young city. it was kinda sorta settled by spaniards in the late 1500s, it wasn't officialy founded until after or during the revolutionary war, and it was a backwater until the late 1800s when americans started showing up there in droves. it really started booming in the mid 20th century, when the predominant mode of transportation was automobiles. so the streets are wide and straight, the lots are somewhat large, and it's a city more or less designed to be navigated by car. the morphology of los angeles is oriented towards an automotive mode (a mode is a method of travel). the traditional american suburb is even more fixed around the automotive mode, often to the point that an automobile is the only practical way to navigate a mid century automotive suburb, which has a morphology oriented towards that mode. so yeah, suburbs are pretty much here to stay that said, there's a nascent and growing field of suburban retrofitting, and there's a lot that can be shift the morphology of automotive suburbs towards being more friendly to the pedestrian mode. but it's expensive and complicated, and takes decades to fix
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
Furnaceface posted:I have a question for you: will we (North America) ever come around on the Missing Middle argument? Or is it too late and suburban sprawl is here to stay?  This shot is from Back to the Future which was filmed in 1985. 30 years later, aside from some minor cosmetic changes and some trees, literally nothing about the built environment in that shot has changed. So yes, suburban sprawl is here to stay. The problem is, it doesn't go away, it doesn't pay for itself, and it will be enormously expensive to maintain. So, how does it get fixed? That's a big thorny question.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:Maybe it's just that my perception is screwed. I've lived in orange county most my life, which is just one big suburb. There's no "city core" to speak of. everyone has their own perspectives, and every place is different. orange county is very much a polycentric metropolis that was more suburban 40-60 years ago than it is now, and it's still pretty suburban, but i'd argue that orange county is more or less urban now, just a weird sort of low density urban that you need to drive around it. there's a number of centers in orange county - anaheim, huntington beach, irvine, etc - which are small cities in their own right FCKGW posted:I moved out to the Inland Empire about 5 years ago and maybe that whole region could be considered a suburb of LA or OC. Something like 75% of the residents of the IE drive to LA or OC for work every day, myself included. these areas are possibly in the commuter shed of the los angeles metro, as in most people who live there commute to places in the la metro to work, but it could also function as a metropolitan place in itself. i haven't looked at the numbers, but iirc the lower parts of the inland valley are part of the la metro the important term here is metropolitan area, which means basically "a shitload of cities which all act in economic unison". the la metro is huge, way bigger than the city of los angeles itself. the new york metro includes like most of jersey, nearly all of connecticut, probably parts of massachussets even. the city of atlanta is only 400k people, the atlanta-marietta-sandy springs metropolis covers a third of georgia and contains over half of georgia's population, about 5 out of 9 million people. when talking about a city it's pretty easy to mix up the actual jurisdiction of the city of wherever versus the much larger and more important metropolitan area boner confessor fucked around with this message at 03:38 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
sitchensis posted:
I'm going to print this out and show it to everyone at work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
 Its more about the type of housing we build and density as far as I can tell? Its a huge part of the burbs since, as you pointed out, it relies heavily on owning a vehicle. Can we add whats missing to existing areas or is that something that has to be done from the start?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
Furnaceface posted:
It can be added if your city council is willing. Most aren't. Obama's HUD might have eventually found a way to force them using the Fair Housing Act but rip.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
Furnaceface posted:
oh, no, this is one of the easiest things to fix in suburbs because you can fix it one building at a time. it's actually pretty organic to take a big old house that nobody can afford to live in and split it into three different units. or knock down some houses and put up duplexes/triplexes/condos/whatever. the big problem here is jurisdictional fragmentation and single use zoning or monozoning jurisdictional fragmentation is a particularly american problem. basically, the police power and the ability to determine land use is only a hundred some odd years old. before then you could build anything wherever unless some local ordinance said you couldn't. around the beginning of the 20th century governments in the western world started realizing it was a cool and useful thing to have a formal process to determine who could build what, where. in the united states this was confirmed in the supreme court decision euclid vs. ambler realty co. which basically said that local governments had a legal right to establish land use zoning. i'm not familiar with the legal history in european nations but it's probably both older and similar. anyway the idea, which the germans came up with, is that you chop up all the land into zones and then you define what can happen in those zones. zoning authority ultimately rests with the local jurisdiction, in the united states either the city or the county. in the united states, the states have the ability to incorporate cities (more or less, there are 50 different ways to do it) as well as the power to establish regional or metropolitan planning bodies. most states have weak or nonexistent regional planning bodies (special exception: oregon, because of a wave of environmentalism in the 1970's). because of the 10th amendment to the us constitution, basically the "keep your nose out of the state's business" clause, the federal government is actually pretty powerless to handle local land use policy, so they don't really matter. the basic chain of land use control in the united states is: states, who can legally create cities and define what cities can do regional/metro planning organizations, if they exist, which can override local control counties, which take over in non-incorporated areas aka. places outside of any city cities, which generally have the bulk of land use control in the usa so one of the basic functions of american cities is to control land use zoning. problem is that it's often fairly easy to incorporate to become a city, and there's a couple good reasons to do so - namely, to gain local control of property tax collection/expenditure and land use zoning. it's a fairly common thing for american metropolitan areas to be split up among dozens if not hundreds of cities, each with its own little fiefdom of land use authority (in the absence of a larger planning organization). you don't see as much of this in european nations because the sensible thing to do is to establish regional planning bodies to coordinate all of these little decision makers. some european nations are so geographically small that it actually makes sense to nationalize planning - england for example has a single national planning authority, with the exception of the london region. but in the usa, you have a thousand thousand little jurisdictions - so we say the jurisdictions are fragmented, and uncoordinated, and largely up to the whims of what kinds of development the local government wants to have this intersects with single-use zoning. a sort of natural, organic way to build cities is to have multiple uses. shops on the ground floor, housing above. housing and shops and businessess and offices all mixed together side by side. you see a lot of this in europe, this is also part of the urban morphology of a city oriented around the pedestrian mode. in america, for various reasons, you tend to see single use zoning - large areas which are just housing, or just offices, or just industry, etc. this is more automotive mode morphology. and one of the things you can do with single use zoning is establish more granular and draconian restrictions on the kinds of things which can be built in that zone. for example, we may define a whole zone as R-1 which means "only single story, single family freestanding structures on lots of no less than .5 acres which cover no more than half the lot" which produces large, relatively expensive, spread out neighborhoods - perfect for keeping out poors. so if you legally bar apartments from being built, you can create that sort of "missing middle" thing you describe. but this is absolutely a legal problem, not a practical or physical problem (to a certain extent - once you start greatly increasing the density of old single family neighborhoods you start running into nasty traffic problems requiring more transportation infrastructure, etc.) i keep saying america but the same is kind of true in canada - canada has one foot on both sides, both there's a ton of land in canada and it's a young country which largely developed in an automotive mode context, but also canadian government has less of a hardon for local autonomy thus there's more weight in regional planning and control, which is an unequivocal good thing when it comes to sane metropolitan areas tldr: Badger of Basra posted:It can be added if your city council is willing. Most aren't. Obama's HUD might have eventually found a way to force them using the Fair Housing Act but rip. this kind of behavior is obviously blatant discrimination, but it hasn't really been hashed out in the courts yet - see the mt. laurel decision for more info boner confessor fucked around with this message at 04:05 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
Check out Jim Kunstler for a pretty entertaining TED talk where he lays out how he feels about the type of non-spaces we've been making in the suburbs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1ZeXnmDZMQ sitchensis fucked around with this message at 06:35 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
hey i bought my car from the dealer on #2
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 22:39 |
|
|
kunstler is a crazy, crotchety rear end in a top hat but he's completely on point when it comes to the banal soullessness of suburban development his main thesis is that it doesn't have to be this way! we can make suburban areas worth caring about! suburbs aren't inherently bad, they're specifically made that way through low effort laziness this is important because one of the ways of looking at cities is through the psychogeography, or basically the experience of living in a place. everyone has these experiences, even if instead of the piazza del adolescence you and yours hung out in the lot behind the 7/11. the problem here is that if your lived environment sucks and is bland and boring, you start to become decoupled from the very environment you live in and that's not a good thing. like tons of youth rock and roll music is about exactly this concept, how growing up in suburbs is awful and makes you want to smoke weed and break bottles boner confessor fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 04:08
|
|