|
surprised we made it imho they will "save" the suburbs. "two car families" will become one car families. baby boomers will stay in their homes longer (losing the ability to drive is a big inflection point for "move to a home or in with kids"). its still dumb as gently caress to heat/cool, maintain, and travel to and from them, but if its one car servicing 20 people at <50g of CO2/km vs the modern one car serving 1.5 people at 100 - 250g...
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 17:19 |
|
|
Self driving cars can't deliver milk.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:Self driving cars can't deliver milk. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
Odobenidae posted:Hate suburbs? Want to throw up? Look up Phoenix, Arizona on google maps. Oh god, i was doing a roadtrip of the southwest and remember it taking THREE HOURS to drive through Phoenix at full freeway speed. Its massive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
Fargo Fukes posted:I hope this doesn't really need to be said but these are terrible ideas. This is like anti-vax but for real estate. "Why do we use these dumb umbrellas?? I never get wet"
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:This is like anti-vax but for real estate. "Why do we use these dumb umbrellas?? I never get wet" The Obama White House agrees with him: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images/Housing_Development_Toolkit%20f.2.pdf
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:The Obama White House agrees with him: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images/Housing_Development_Toolkit%20f.2.pdf Oh Well In That Case.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:This is like anti-vax but for real estate. "Why do we use these dumb umbrellas?? I never get wet" I believe Japanese zoning works with the idea of a zone having a sort of maximum nuisance level (based on noise, traffic, pollution, etc.) and so instead of explicitly allowing/disallowing specific uses per zone, each potential use has a nuisance level associated with it, and so you're good to go as long as a proposed use is under the max for that zone. Cicero fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Dec 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Completely getting rid of zoning is a bad idea but radically loosening the restrictions is a good idea. Specifically, generally allowing for higher density, and for mixed uses in a zone would both be really good. A guy who thinks "endless lovely tract housing in desert scrubland" is a model for how the real estate industry should work is not a supporter of higher density, mixed-use zoning, and "radically loosening the restrictions" would not get you higher density, mixed-use zoning, it would get you whatever developers see the biggest dollar signs in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:A guy who thinks "endless lovely tract housing in desert scrubland" is a model for how the real estate industry should work is not a supporter of higher density, mixed-use zoning, and "radically loosening the restrictions" would not get you higher density, mixed-use zoning, it would get you whatever developers see the biggest dollar signs in. High density mixed use areas are just rich enclaves, theme parks where rich people can pretend to play community.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:A guy who thinks "endless lovely tract housing in desert scrubland" is a model for how the real estate industry should work is not a supporter of higher density, mixed-use zoning, and "radically loosening the restrictions" would not get you higher density, mixed-use zoning, it would get you whatever developers see the biggest dollar signs in. He didn't say it was a model. He said it's happens because that's what is easiest to build. If you made it easier to build other things (like mixed use, high density) then those things would happen more often.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:He didn't say it was a model. He said it's happens because that's what is easiest to build. If you made it easier to build other things (like mixed use, high density) then those things would happen more often. No, then they would just build the easy thing in more places.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:No, then they would just build the easy thing in more places. There are ways to make it easier to build desired developments while keeping them from building suburban tract homes in the middle of downtown. e: Here's an example: https://www.kcet.org/departures-columns/how-downtown-la-became-a-place-to-live-without-parking LA's code required high parking minimums for downtown and so there were a bunch of vacant buildings that no one wanted to renovate because they didn't want to pay for the parking. The Adaptive Reuse Ordinance reduced the parking minimums and LA got a bunch of downtown housing units in renovated historic buildings. Badger of Basra fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Dec 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:There are ways to make it easier to build desired developments while keeping them from building suburban tract homes in the middle of downtown. I agree! Those ways are called "the power of local governments." Welcome to the conversation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:I agree! Those ways are called "the power of local governments." Welcome to the conversation. But local government is bad so [return to start]. Not gonna lie, the problem with my real estate is directly tied to local government. However, it's more tied to local government having two realtors on the zoning board, so again the problem is more about crooked pieces of poo poo that are maximizing their profits versus "GUBBERMINT MEAN!".
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:A guy who thinks "endless lovely tract housing in desert scrubland" is a model for how the real estate industry should work He's clearly saying that the reason they do that kind of housing in the middle of nowhere is specifically because zoning makes it harder to build significant housing in areas that are already at least somewhat urbanized. Tiny Brontosaurus posted:No, then they would just build the easy thing in more places.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
Cicero posted:That said I don't think anyone is suggesting getting rid of basic building codes that mandate a minimum quality of construction. Here is a direct quote from the idiot I was originally responding to: Fargo Fukes posted:The smarter thing to do would be to rein in power of local governments and tear up zoning laws across the board. I don't know who you think would be mandating minimum construction quality if not local governments. See what happened here is Fargo Fukes said a dumb insane thing, and I said "yo that's dumb and insane" and everyone started piling on me going "Why don't you like smart sane things? It's not like anyone suggested something dumb and insane" and hi, everyone, please meet Fargo Fukes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
quote:See what happened here is Fargo Fukes said a dumb insane thing, and I said "yo that's dumb and insane" and everyone started piling on me going "Why don't you like smart sane things? It's not like anyone suggested something dumb and insane" and hi, everyone, please meet Fargo Fukes. When people are talking about zoning regulations they're almost always talking about what uses are allowed for an area, not fundamental building standards. Those are different things. The latter is mostly about safety, the former is more about neighborhood character. See: quote:There are instances when some local jurisdictions choose to develop their own building codes. At some point in time all major cities in the United States had their own building codes. However, due to ever increasing complexity and cost of developing building regulations, virtually all municipalities in the country have chosen to adopt model codes instead. For example, in 2008 New York City abandoned its proprietary 1968 New York City Building Code in favor of a customized version of the International Building Code.[7] The City of Chicago remains the only municipality in America that continues to use a building code the city developed on its own as part of the Municipal Code of Chicago. Obviously most cities in the US still have zoning regulations. Cicero fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Dec 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
Cicero posted:When people are talking about zoning regulations they're almost always talking about what uses are allowed for an area, not fundamental building standards. Those are different things. The latter is mostly about safety, the former is more about neighborhood character. Thanks for the wikipedia link, cool argument guy. Now who will be enforcing building codes if not for local governments? You keep pretending I'm opposing sane things, when I'm actually criticizing something we both think is insane. If you thing governments and zoning regulations should still exist, you are on my side, not idiot libertarian Fargo Fukes' side. This really isn't that complicated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Thanks for the wikipedia link, cool argument guy. Now who will be enforcing building codes if not for local governments? You keep pretending I'm opposing sane things, when I'm actually criticizing something we both think is insane. If you thing governments and zoning regulations should still exist, you are on my side, not idiot libertarian Fargo Fukes' side. This really isn't that complicated. quote:Festa also rattles off a list of other policies that bolster his case that Houston effectively has zoning. Cicero fucked around with this message at 01:26 on Dec 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
This is actually in interesting discussion, but I feel like we're completely glossing over the whole aspect of kids. While that may not be a concern of your average single early 20's D&D poster, the simple fact is, in America, most people with the money to buy a house (aka the target of developers) are aged 30-50 with kids, so naturally trends are going to follow that group. Anyway, from firsthand experience, I can say I prefer to live in the city because there's more to do. At least, I did when I was younger. But now I've got 2 kids. Most schools in the city suck. The parks in urban areas are nice green spaces, but there needs to be kid poo poo around so the little bastards can wear themselves out instead of bothering the poo poo out of me at home and destroying the house. Also, a kid somehow manages to turn everything in sight into a deadly weapon. In a suburban house with a lot of space, it's less likely they'll get bored and build a set of stairs so that they can take a leap and plummet to their death from the 5th floor of your mid-rise urban condo. Or run out into a 4-lane one way street and get hit by a massive truck. Yes, these things can and do happen in suburbia, but it's easier to protect against. So, I'm not saying cities need to change from catering to hipsters, yuppies, and DINKs, but there's a reason why suburbs will never die. Most urban cores are basically expensive death traps that are actively hostile in almost every conceivable way to having young people there. Having said all that, I've lived for years in Japan and they manage to have a good mix of urbanization and family-centric areas. As discussed before, zoning has a lot to do with it. But then again, the Japanese are generally more group-conscientious about that sort of thing. Americans have a bad habit of "gently caress you got mine", where families look out for themselves and gently caress over young single people, and vice versa. I don't think we'll ever have a decent solution in this country. Also the white flight thing can be a red herring. I'm black, and I (plus literally every black person I know that has come into money) will pack up and move the hell away, too. I don't think it's nearly as much of a factor as it was 50 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Again, zoning regulations and building codes are not the same thing (although there are probably some bits where they overlap). Just about any discussion about zoning will not be talking about building standards. For example, see this discussion about whether Houston has zoning or not: https://urbanedge.blogs.rice.edu/2015/09/08/forget-what-youve-heard-houston-really-does-have-zoning-sort-of/#.WE3tYPkrJaQ Hey moron: I know what a loving zoning law is. Are you also an idiot libertarian? Is that why this is such a struggle for you? I'd love to talk city planning with anyone who can tell the difference between "improve" and "abolish," but apparently that's not you, so why don't you and the other guy go suck each other's cocks while watching Atlas Shrugged. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:surprised we made it  autonomous driving will change car ownership, but it does nothing to reduce the amount of cars on the road. you still have 2 people driving to work or running errands and burning the same amount of fuel to do it, just in someone else's car (or your own while you jack off behind the wheel).
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
Rekinom posted:
Japan has very lax zoning that is all controlled by their central government. Almost all of their city land area is zoned for multi-use and there is gently caress-all that the local government can do about it since the zones are prescribed centrally.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:
They could ameliorate some of the today's social issues in suburbia though, like increasing the mobility of the elderly and disabled that are currently stranded in rural or suburban homes. It's a bandaid solution but I can think of a lot of people who'd be better off with safe reliable transport
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 07:36
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:autonomous driving will change car ownership, but it does nothing to reduce the amount of cars on the road. you still have 2 people driving to work or running errands and burning the same amount of fuel to do it, just in someone else's car (or your own while you jack off behind the wheel).
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 08:39
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:Something like uberPOOL could help with that though. That's probably the best hope for reducing suburban traffic congestion in general, just increase vehicle occupancy. Or, perhaps, buses
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
merry exmarx posted:Or, perhaps, buses
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 08:46
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:Automated carpooling is probably a more practical solution for suburbs where things are very scattered. The safe assumption to make is that while some people would use automated ridesharing, most of them would use their own cars because there is no detriment to doing so beyond today. If anything automated cars might make urban sprawl just a little bit worse. Also, getting rid of zoning laws without an massive increased infrastructure spending is nuts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 09:29
|
|
|
w/automated cars you can basically work while you're commuting, for some jobs anyway, so enjoy all that extra productivity citizen. i guess thats true for public transit but like, much less so? i dunno. anyway its not a bad thing neccesarily im just thinking about worst case scenarios
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 09:43
|
|
|
blamegame posted:w/automated cars you can basically work while you're commuting, for some jobs anyway, so enjoy all that extra productivity citizen. i guess thats true for public transit but like, much less so? i dunno. anyway its not a bad thing neccesarily im just thinking about worst case scenarios The type of work you would be doing would probably be in the same in both cases, checking/writing emails on your phone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 09:48
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:Automated carpooling is probably a more practical solution for suburbs where things are very scattered. practical, yes, but unsatisfactory. on the one hand, dispersed automotive centric development patterns should (where they can) be densified for the benifit of people who can't drive like children, the elderly, the disabled, etc. on the other hand, to do so would require dismantling the regulatory enshrinement of local government control and automotive cetric modal transportation across america. currently american cities are slowly pushing out and densifying to be more useful but not fast enough to keep up with demand, meaning as american urban density grows in the suburbs it's snapped up by the youngish middle class etc. just moving the needy further out into forgotten burbs merry exmarx posted:Or, perhaps, buses unfortunately much of american (and other nations) metropolitan development patterns is locked into this dumb suburban bullshit that makes buses largely impractical in a short term timeframe boner confessor fucked around with this message at 10:10 on Dec 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 10:08
|
|
|
merry exmarx posted:Or, perhaps, buses Automated pools that get you to bus/train hubs, then go back for more people. Small buses that go to big buses. IMO the larger benefit is reduction in parking needs. Vehicle count on the road may not change much but being able to dismiss my car into a garage should reduce parking needs and behavior (it helps that all the smart car designs are small). In fantasy autopia the garage would be solely for self-driving cars and they could self-valet into a much more dense arrangement. Eventually a hivemind will form but I should be old and gone by then.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 10:20
|
|
|
Rekinom posted:This is actually in interesting discussion, but I feel like we're completely glossing over the whole aspect of kids. While that may not be a concern of your average single early 20's D&D poster, the simple fact is, in America, most people with the money to buy a house (aka the target of developers) are aged 30-50 with kids, so naturally trends are going to follow that group. Anyway, from firsthand experience, I can say I prefer to live in the city because there's more to do. At least, I did when I was younger. But now I've got 2 kids. Most schools in the city suck. The parks in urban areas are nice green spaces, but there needs to be kid poo poo around so the little bastards can wear themselves out instead of bothering the poo poo out of me at home and destroying the house. By contrast, if you look at suburbs around, say, Munich, you'll find that most are still somewhat dense (by American standards anyway), highly walkable, with a commuter rail line that goes to and from the city center every twenty minutes: https://www.google.com/maps/@48.1328987,11.5889884,10z/data=!5m1!1e2 quote:Having said all that, I've lived for years in Japan and they manage to have a good mix of urbanization and family-centric areas. As discussed before, zoning has a lot to do with it. But then again, the Japanese are generally more group-conscientious about that sort of thing. Americans have a bad habit of "gently caress you got mine", where families look out for themselves and gently caress over young single people, and vice versa. I don't think we'll ever have a decent solution in this country. Cicero fucked around with this message at 12:15 on Dec 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 11:41
|
|
|
It's not just kids. http://www.globalanimal.org/2010/11/03/king-penguin-chills-at-local-fish-market/
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 12:14
|
|
|
The suburban solution is 1/1,000,000 parts suburbs dissolved into water. It makes us very resistant to suburbia.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 12:41
|
|
|
Well, even despite the convo on urban design and zoning... school quality is still the elephant in the room that people ignore. Sure there are private schools in city cores, but now that means paying a premium to educate your kids on top of a premium to live downtown. Far easier/cheaper to just suck it up and commute absurdly long distances.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
Rekinom posted:Well, even despite the convo on urban design and zoning... school quality is still the elephant in the room that people ignore. It's just so much easier with kids in the suburbs and that is a huge deal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
Rekinom posted:Well, even despite the convo on urban design and zoning... school quality is still the elephant in the room that people ignore. It's a fair point, and I don't think many would argue with you on this. For most middle class Americans buying a house in the suburbs is clearly a good decision, and there are lots of incentives for them to do so. However I think a lot of people here are trying to say that there's nothing inherent about suburbs that makes their schools better, but that that outcome is cause specifically by various planning choices implemented in the United States. There are however a number of drawbacks that definitely are inherent to American suburbs, and changing policy such that we create denser neighborhoods could produce better outcomes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 17:19 |
|
|
Squalid posted:However I think a lot of people here are trying to say that there's nothing inherent about suburbs that makes their schools better, exclusionary zoning which forbids people of a low SES from living in a certain district and driving up the amount of funding per student Rekinom posted:Sure there are private schools in city cores, but now that means paying a premium to educate your kids on top of a premium to live downtown. Far easier/cheaper to just suck it up and commute absurdly long distances. a good number of american cities still have good public schools, or at least good districts. the problem is that these districts may be highly sought after for housing and thus too expensive if you have more than one kid and aren't upper middle class. i live just outside of decatur, ga, heaven on earth for white liberal yuppies, which has an incredible independent city run public school system. as soon as you cross the city line headed south into atlanta housing prices sink rapidly as you pass into the not so good southern atlanta public school districts. headed north and east out of decatur you end up in the dekalb county school districts which are better in the northern part of the county. west of decatur is the best atlanta public school district, with housing prices that range from high to absurdly high boner confessor fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Dec 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 17:31
|
|