Minneapolis 2040, and the blowback ("There goes the neighborhood!")

[partgypsy]

I think the forcible relocation comments were being sarcastic...

[KBecks]

Another Reader is one of my favorite posters here.  Sometimes I get a hard dose of truth, and that is not always easy to come by.

I think that it's too easy for us to get divided. City people should not hate suburbs or small town people and vice versa. There is no one right way to live.

The thing about life is that everything changes over time and we all need to be prepared to adapt or roll with changes, whether adapting means accepting or adjusting.

[Another Reader]

Another Reader is one of my favorite posters here.  Sometimes I get a hard dose of truth, and that is not always easy to come by.

I think that it's too easy for us to get divided. City people should not hate suburbs or small town people and vice versa. There is no one right way to live.

The thing about life is that everything changes over time and we all need to be prepared to adapt or roll with changes, whether adapting means accepting or adjusting.

Exactly.

The one advantage of being old is perspective.  Things really were different 50 or 60 years ago.

[merula]

Regarding upzoning -

I live in St. Paul. A few blocks south of Grand ave, which is a busyish but quaint main drag full of restaurants and shops. The blocks between my house and grand are littered with 2,3,4, and 6 unit buildings alongside SFHs.

According to 2040 naysayers, this neighborhood I live shouldn't be very good.

Yet it's the most desirable neighborhood in all of St. Paul and home values and quality of living reflect that. My neighborhood proves this coexistence can and does work.

But what if all the existing SFHs were converted? I'll grant that would be a net negative for the neighborhood.

But it won't happen. We all understand the real estate investing principle "the 1% rule" which tells us that a $600,000 SFH that costs $200,000 to get converted into a triplex will be a lousy to middling investment. You can pull in 4-5k from the 3 units, which is nowhere near meeting the one percent rule for the $800,000 you've got invested. Plus property taxes are extremely high in these neighborhoods, and only get higher when you're not homesteading. They only get lower if you participate in affordable housing programs that limit your already inadequate revenue.


So it only starts to make sense in select situations such as:


- a truly dilapidated property that needs a fresh start, where building as a triplex isn't too much more expensive since converting costs won't be needed. This is a positive, not a negative for the neighborhood, and it's unlikely to occur in the more desirable neighborhoods.

- a property on a busy street or closer to bus routes or other mass transit (which renters prefer/don't mind but homeowners overall do not). This does not affect the more desirable neighborhoods.

- Multi-generational living. This is a positive, as it means these folks will be sticking around which makes for good neighborhoods.

*wave* My family has lived in your current neighborhood for several generations. The idea that the duplexes, 4-plexes, and apartment buildings that interweave with the SFHs is leading to urine soaked buses and strung out homeless people is positively bonkers.

I live in J Boogie’s neighborhood, too. We’re all neighbors.

Small world! I'll be visiting my folks there for the next week or so.

I can agree with AR about one thing, though. I think they should scrap the plans to forcibly relocate residents of San Jose to duplexes in Minneapolis.

Hey neighbors! I'm a bit south of you, I think, but Mac-Grove represent. We should have a neighborhood cookout at Mattock's and complain about Tolbert. :)

[Davnasty]

Is the preservation of the status quo somehow inherently more legitimate and less imposing than changing the status quo?

Nope. It’s inherently wrong for a majority to impose its will on an unwilling minority. It was wrong when the majority of white Virginians imposed their will on an unwilling minority of black Virginians with “massive resistance.” It was wrong when a majority of straight people imposed their views of sexual morality on an unwilling minority of homosexuals through antisodomy laws. It’s also wrong for a majority of so called hip and progressive individuals to impose their views on infill on an unwilling minority of residents who just want to be left alone.

The argument that “majority makes right” is remarkably similar to the argument that “might makes right.” It’s a popular point of view, especially amongst the chronically political.

The examples you're comparing this to are different in that the basis for those laws were discrimination based on race and sexuality. Democracy is based on majority rule, but we've made some exceptions for minorities that we've determined need protecting. That seems reasonable to me.

As for people "using political means to force their vision on an unwilling minority", are you referring to the removal of single family zoning laws? Zoning is a way of forcing your vision on others, removing zoning laws seems like the opposite to me.

[Davnasty]

Another Reader is one of my favorite posters here.  Sometimes I get a hard dose of truth, and that is not always easy to come by.

I think that it's too easy for us to get divided. City people should not hate suburbs or small town people and vice versa. There is no one right way to live.

The thing about life is that everything changes over time and we all need to be prepared to adapt or roll with changes, whether adapting means accepting or adjusting.

Exactly.

The one advantage of being old is perspective.  Things really were different 50 or 60 years ago.

Is this sarcasm? Throughout this thread you've been the only poster to consistently use hateful language towards other people's choices and you seem very resistant to change.

[FIPurpose]

Another Reader is one of my favorite posters here.  Sometimes I get a hard dose of truth, and that is not always easy to come by.

I think that it's too easy for us to get divided. City people should not hate suburbs or small town people and vice versa. There is no one right way to live.

The thing about life is that everything changes over time and we all need to be prepared to adapt or roll with changes, whether adapting means accepting or adjusting.

Exactly.

The one advantage of being old is perspective.  Things really were different 50 or 60 years ago.

Is this sarcasm? Throughout this thread you've been the only poster to consistently use hateful language towards other people's choices and you seem very resistant to change.

No no no. You see, AR feels that they are wiser than everyone else in this thread because they experienced more change. Therefor they know better on what changes are good or bad.

[KBecks]

Grandma's lesson is:  Different people like different things.  That's diversity and it's OK!

[EvenSteven]

Regarding upzoning -

I live in St. Paul. A few blocks south of Grand ave, which is a busyish but quaint main drag full of restaurants and shops. The blocks between my house and grand are littered with 2,3,4, and 6 unit buildings alongside SFHs.

According to 2040 naysayers, this neighborhood I live shouldn't be very good.

Yet it's the most desirable neighborhood in all of St. Paul and home values and quality of living reflect that. My neighborhood proves this coexistence can and does work.

But what if all the existing SFHs were converted? I'll grant that would be a net negative for the neighborhood.

But it won't happen. We all understand the real estate investing principle "the 1% rule" which tells us that a $600,000 SFH that costs $200,000 to get converted into a triplex will be a lousy to middling investment. You can pull in 4-5k from the 3 units, which is nowhere near meeting the one percent rule for the $800,000 you've got invested. Plus property taxes are extremely high in these neighborhoods, and only get higher when you're not homesteading. They only get lower if you participate in affordable housing programs that limit your already inadequate revenue.


So it only starts to make sense in select situations such as:


- a truly dilapidated property that needs a fresh start, where building as a triplex isn't too much more expensive since converting costs won't be needed. This is a positive, not a negative for the neighborhood, and it's unlikely to occur in the more desirable neighborhoods.

- a property on a busy street or closer to bus routes or other mass transit (which renters prefer/don't mind but homeowners overall do not). This does not affect the more desirable neighborhoods.

- Multi-generational living. This is a positive, as it means these folks will be sticking around which makes for good neighborhoods.

*wave* My family has lived in your current neighborhood for several generations. The idea that the duplexes, 4-plexes, and apartment buildings that interweave with the SFHs is leading to urine soaked buses and strung out homeless people is positively bonkers.

I live in J Boogie’s neighborhood, too. We’re all neighbors.

Small world! I'll be visiting my folks there for the next week or so.

I can agree with AR about one thing, though. I think they should scrap the plans to forcibly relocate residents of San Jose to duplexes in Minneapolis.

Hey neighbors! I'm a bit south of you, I think, but Mac-Grove represent. We should have a neighborhood cookout at Mattock's and complain about Tolbert. :)

Ha. I bet I could get him to show up so we could complain in person!

[Davnasty]

I thought it was broadly understood that our policies in the US encourage and subsidize the suburbs. Seems like not everyone is familiar with this concept.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/urbs/we-have-always-subsidized-suburbia/

https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2017/02/10/the-happy-city/

Skip down to

The book goes on to explain the history of suburbia, which I had never quite learned before:"

[Kris]

I thought it was broadly understood that our policies in the US encourage and subsidize the suburbs. Seems like not everyone is familiar with this concept.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/urbs/we-have-always-subsidized-suburbia/

https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2017/02/10/the-happy-city/

Skip down to

The book goes on to explain the history of suburbia, which I had never quite learned before:"

Sssshhhh.... Don’t let those pesky facts get in the way of the discussion! ;)

[A mom]

I am in my sixties and agree with all the supporters of the 2040 plan. Not everyone with lots of “experience “ comes to the same conclusions as AR.

[J Boogie]

Hey neighbors! I'm a bit south of you, I think, but Mac-Grove represent. We should have a neighborhood cookout at Mattock's and complain about Tolbert. :)

Ha. I bet I could get him to show up so we could complain in person!

You're actually a bit west of me - Rebecca Noecker is my councilmember as I'm in Ward 2. Should I just list my social and DOB now???

[SwordGuy]

Public transit is cleaner than my car.   By several orders of magnitude.

Really?  Did someone urinate or defecate in it?  Do they routinely spit on the floor?  Are there used drug needles buried in the seats?  Because that's what you routinely find on BART or the bus system here.

When was the last time you actually took public transit in your city?  My guess is not recently and that you are not a regular user of your transit system.

Took public transit for 5 days a week for 5 years up in DC.   Never saw anything like that.

Served on my own city's mass transit advisory committee for 2 years.  Those weren't problems either.

Also used London mass transit for six weeks and Rotterdam mass transit systems for a week or two multiple years in a row.  Never saw anything like that either.

[Another Reader]

Public transit is cleaner than my car.   By several orders of magnitude.

Really?  Did someone urinate or defecate in it?  Do they routinely spit on the floor?  Are there used drug needles buried in the seats?  Because that's what you routinely find on BART or the bus system here.

When was the last time you actually took public transit in your city?  My guess is not recently and that you are not a regular user of your transit system.

Took public transit for 5 days a week for 5 years up in DC.   Never saw anything like that.

Served on my own city's mass transit advisory committee for 2 years.  Those weren't problems either.

Also used London mass transit for six weeks and Rotterdam mass transit systems for a week or two multiple years in a row.  Never saw anything like that either.

Time for a road trip to the Bay Area!

[roomtempmayo]

Public transit is cleaner than my car.   By several orders of magnitude.

Really?  Did someone urinate or defecate in it?  Do they routinely spit on the floor?  Are there used drug needles buried in the seats?  Because that's what you routinely find on BART or the bus system here.

When was the last time you actually took public transit in your city?  My guess is not recently and that you are not a regular user of your transit system.

Took public transit for 5 days a week for 5 years up in DC.   Never saw anything like that.

Served on my own city's mass transit advisory committee for 2 years.  Those weren't problems either.

Also used London mass transit for six weeks and Rotterdam mass transit systems for a week or two multiple years in a row.  Never saw anything like that either.

Even though I totally support mass transit, the light rail lines in Minneapolis have gotten pretty bad.  I think there's a consensus that it's a product of homelessness, addiction, and untreated mental health issues.  Which, in the case of Minneapolis, have a lot to do with the legacy of settler colonialism and the forced relocation and dispossession of Native peoples.  Our issues on public transit aren't going to be fixed with a pressure washer.  They're way bigger/deeper/darker than what people used to call "public hygiene."

[Davnasty]

Public transit is cleaner than my car.   By several orders of magnitude.

Really?  Did someone urinate or defecate in it?  Do they routinely spit on the floor?  Are there used drug needles buried in the seats?  Because that's what you routinely find on BART or the bus system here.

When was the last time you actually took public transit in your city?  My guess is not recently and that you are not a regular user of your transit system.

Took public transit for 5 days a week for 5 years up in DC.   Never saw anything like that.

Served on my own city's mass transit advisory committee for 2 years.  Those weren't problems either.

Also used London mass transit for six weeks and Rotterdam mass transit systems for a week or two multiple years in a row.  Never saw anything like that either.

Time for a road trip to the Bay Area!

Because your anecdotal evidence > than someone else's?

I think the takeaway from this should be that population density and public transit are not the problem. If they were, all heavily populated areas with public transit would have the problems you describe. But they don't. So maybe you're assuming correlation is causation when really there's some other issue in your area.

[TheContinentalOp]

This guy makes the case that high-density housing is more expensive then single family housing.

https://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=16159

[EvenSteven]

Public transit is cleaner than my car.   By several orders of magnitude.

Really?  Did someone urinate or defecate in it?  Do they routinely spit on the floor?  Are there used drug needles buried in the seats?  Because that's what you routinely find on BART or the bus system here.

When was the last time you actually took public transit in your city?  My guess is not recently and that you are not a regular user of your transit system.

Took public transit for 5 days a week for 5 years up in DC.   Never saw anything like that.

Served on my own city's mass transit advisory committee for 2 years.  Those weren't problems either.

Also used London mass transit for six weeks and Rotterdam mass transit systems for a week or two multiple years in a row.  Never saw anything like that either.

Time for a road trip to the Bay Area!

I've got a professional conference in down town San Jose in early August. This will be my first time in San Jose, should I be expecting an unlivable bombed out hellscape? Are there mass vacancies in all the housing because nobody wants to live there?

[Kris]

Public transit is cleaner than my car.   By several orders of magnitude.

Really?  Did someone urinate or defecate in it?  Do they routinely spit on the floor?  Are there used drug needles buried in the seats?  Because that's what you routinely find on BART or the bus system here.

When was the last time you actually took public transit in your city?  My guess is not recently and that you are not a regular user of your transit system.

Took public transit for 5 days a week for 5 years up in DC.   Never saw anything like that.

Served on my own city's mass transit advisory committee for 2 years.  Those weren't problems either.

Also used London mass transit for six weeks and Rotterdam mass transit systems for a week or two multiple years in a row.  Never saw anything like that either.

Time for a road trip to the Bay Area!

I've got a professional conference in down town San Jose in early August. This will be my first time in San Jose, should I be expecting an unlivable bombed out hellscape? Are there mass vacancies in all the housing because nobody wants to live there?

Jesus. You poor guy. Why the hell would they schedule a professional conference in such a horrible, disgusting place? Don't forget to bring your hazmat suit.

[J Boogie]

Another Reader is one of my favorite posters here.  Sometimes I get a hard dose of truth, and that is not always easy to come by.

I think that it's too easy for us to get divided. City people should not hate suburbs or small town people and vice versa. There is no one right way to live.

The thing about life is that everything changes over time and we all need to be prepared to adapt or roll with changes, whether adapting means accepting or adjusting.

Exactly.

The one advantage of being old is perspective.  Things really were different 50 or 60 years ago.

I think that's a big part of the issue. I think many of those who came of age in the US during the postwar years developed a false sense of abundance.

Every other major industrialized nation was reeling after WWII and our economy was hitting on all cylinders. Factories couldn't hire fast enough. Men (mostly white) without college degrees had no problem supporting stay at home wives with plenty of children. Adults were raised by depression era parents who taught them how to avoid squandering money, but they didn't really need those values anymore. Everything was cheap and abundant - gas, land, you name it. So the US was increasingly developed accordingly.

Fast forward a few decades and other nations have caught up to and surpassed our production capacity. Things aren't so cheap and abundant anymore. People have to get a college degree to have the same quality of life, and those are getting more and more expensive. Even with college degrees it's often necessary for both spouses to work, and childcare is expensive. Rent is expensive. Healthcare is expensive. And yeah, the suburbs are far worse on the environment. Kentucky bluegrass, often with water-wasting irrigation shoehorned into every ecosystem, tons and tons of asphalt and concrete covering whatever isn't covered in bluegrass, empty rooms being heated and cooled, cars burning fuel to pick up and drop kids off at practice, etc etc.

It's a no brainer that we need to provide more ways for people to live more efficiently, using less resources to create more productivity.

You're right - things are different than they were 50-60 years ago.

[merula]

Hey neighbors! I'm a bit south of you, I think, but Mac-Grove represent. We should have a neighborhood cookout at Mattock's and complain about Tolbert. :)

Ha. I bet I could get him to show up so we could complain in person!

You're actually a bit west of me - Rebecca Noecker is my councilmember as I'm in Ward 2. Should I just list my social and DOB now???

Any Mitra constituents in this thread??

I really like Noecker. I like Tolbert, too, he's a good guy. I just think that he overly panders to the NIMBY crowd (see his amendment to the Ford Plan for reference).

Funny story: my block was having a rash of garage thefts, because people leave their stuff unlocked and garage doors wide open. There was an email going around the neighborhood listserv about this "crisis" and how we should have Tolbert have a front-step conference. I'm not as big on the neighborhood/district/ward stuff as my husband, so I asked him "What is talking about this with Tolbert possibly going to change here?"

His response: "I don't know. Maybe they think he'll stop stealing from garages."

I don't know, maybe you had to be there.

[humbleMouse]

Another reader is a douche bag and at this point is just trolling everyone.  Mods should lock this dumpster fire thread

MOD NOTE: Warning issued. Please read forum rule #1.

[Kris]

I mean... since he doesn't live in the area and is basically just arguing nonsense at this point, it would be kinda nice if he wouldn't keep derailing.

[bacchi]

I've got a professional conference in down town San Jose in early August. This will be my first time in San Jose, should I be expecting an unlivable bombed out hellscape? Are there mass vacancies in all the housing because nobody wants to live there?

At the conference center? It's not quite "downtown" but it's close.

San Jose downtown/university area is not exactly a bustling metropolis. There's some activity at night, and it's completely safe, but there aren't massive hordes of people on the streets even at 7pm. During the day, there are a lot of office workers going to lunch.

[Cassie]

I used to love to go to the Bay Area because it is beautiful and so much to do. The last time we went it was just disgusting. Garbage everywhere, people shooting up, etc.  I am not unsympathetic to the homeless and mentally ill population. I think we need to redirect some military funding to housing and services for this group of people.

[Another Reader]

Another reader is a douche bag and at this point is just trolling everyone.  Mods should lock this dumpster fire thread

Douche bag?  Oh, my, how politically incorrect your name calling is...

[Another Reader]

You will only detect the urine aroma in some of the doorways in downtown San Jose, which is 50 miles south of San Francisco.  You might want to avoid the homeless shelter locations in the morning when the residents exit.

[Kris]

Another reader is a douche bag and at this point is just trolling everyone.  Mods should lock this dumpster fire thread

Douche bag?  Oh, my, how politically incorrect your name calling is...

Hmmm... but when you were calling me/us names, that was okay?

[bacchi]

This guy makes the case that high-density housing is more expensive then single family housing.

https://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=16159

It's interesting that, in comparing Houston to Dallas and San Antonio, the author leaves out Austin, which does have SFH zoning and is a lot more expensive than Houston per square foot.

If single-family zoning made housing expensive, then Dallas and San Antonio, which have single-family zoning, would be significantly more expensive than Houston, which does not.

The following is also laughable. It may be true but, c'mon, my SO's dad, who is a carpenter, says that SFH is more expensive. I also met this other guy who agreed with me.

According to California developer Nicolas Arenson

[mm1970]

It is wild, isn’t it? I was reading earlier and shaking my head. Americans have such a unique view on things like cities because of this overwhelming car-dominant culture. So many countries around the world have much denser cities which are way more livable with higher quality of life than American “cities” like San Jose (I believe San Jose is just one massive suburban sprawl, not a real city). How many people rant that places like Paris are too crowded and not friendly enough to cars and whatnot?

I don’t know much about zoning or city planning, but I suspect that much of the pushback comes from the fact that zoning is done so poorly in the US. I don’t really care for all of the add-ons and accessory units in my own neighborhood, but that is because it wasn’t designed for that. But if you were to instead increase density intelligently with medium-rise buildings with underground parking and better transit and bike lanes, well, that would be an improvement over what we have now.

This was very well written.  I've lived in some cities that were better designed.  We've traveled to Europe where cities are better designed, and where owning a "home" is typically a flat or a duplex, not a SFH.  It's quite lovely.

Originally, I HATED the California ADU law.  Hated it.  I see a bunch of them going up, including right next door.  There goes parking (though our city requires owner occupancy, so that should help.)  We also have a local "AUD" law -where we allow an increased average unit density for urban infill, with slightly less parking.

Well AUD was a disaster, because the developers are effing crooks.  The point was to make more AFFORDABLE housing, and it's not affordable.  Not in the least.  And it's 25% empty in a city where we have <1% vacancy rate overall.  Plus, they drastically under-build parking.

On the flip side, the ADU law seems to have been more of a success.  By requiring owner occupancy, the city has basically ensured that the smaller home owners actually give a shit about what happens in their neighborhood.  Yes, parking is gonna suck more - but most of the problems in my hood stem more from 2 drivers owning 4 cars than ADUs.

When I hear things like "we are in the majority", it seems like it not actually true.  Among HOMEOWNERS, the opinion that you want things to stay the same - yes, you are in the majority.  Among RENTERS, I suspect that it's actually the opposite.  Renters who see astronomical rents and low vacancies want more available housing, anyway they can get it.

[bacchi]

One problem with Another Reader's perspective on change is that it doesn't go back far enough.

Seattle expanded massively in the first half of the 20th century.  Why?  Streetcars.  Mass transit development made areas that had been remote very accessible.  Neighborhoods tended to develop in clusters around streetcar stops, with a mix of retail and residential (including multifamily residential -- often the classic mix of a few apartment over ground floor retail that you see in most desirable urban core environments).

What f-ed this model up was the shift to a car-based culture and development model in the post WW2 era. 

What most of these zoning changes are proposing is a return to earlier, successful models of development that can house more people with more amenities in walking or biking distance.

Another Reader's suburban car-oriented "paradise" is the anomaly here.

So...the anti-density people aren't conservative enough? If they were MORE conservative, or maybe older, than they would want the streetcar/light rail transit hub model back?

[Just Joe]

One problem with Another Reader's perspective on change is that it doesn't go back far enough.

Seattle expanded massively in the first half of the 20th century.  Why?  Streetcars.  Mass transit development made areas that had been remote very accessible.  Neighborhoods tended to develop in clusters around streetcar stops, with a mix of retail and residential (including multifamily residential -- often the classic mix of a few apartment over ground floor retail that you see in most desirable urban core environments).

I love my car but I think the way forward for high density living is to do it without cars. Bring out the streetcars and the two wheeler personal transport. Not sure how that works in the winter though.

I like to visit these large cities occasionally but still can't imagine me and mine living like that. Too many compromises. Get rid of the cars and the need for a car and we can talk. ;)

[Another Reader]

One problem with Another Reader's perspective on change is that it doesn't go back far enough.

Seattle expanded massively in the first half of the 20th century.  Why?  Streetcars.  Mass transit development made areas that had been remote very accessible.  Neighborhoods tended to develop in clusters around streetcar stops, with a mix of retail and residential (including multifamily residential -- often the classic mix of a few apartment over ground floor retail that you see in most desirable urban core environments).

What f-ed this model up was the shift to a car-based culture and development model in the post WW2 era. 

What most of these zoning changes are proposing is a return to earlier, successful models of development that can house more people with more amenities in walking or biking distance.

Another Reader's suburban car-oriented "paradise" is the anomaly here.

People didn't have choices back then.  When the suburbs were created, people voted with their feet and their wallets.  More out of the rather grim East Coast cities than the cleaner, newer cities out west.  Think Levittown.  If you don't read Granola Shotgun, you should.  His recent articles about his family's experiences seem fairly typical.

I have not been to Seattle since 1981.  You could buy a nice Victorian house in a neighborhood full of them for $85,000 back then. It was a quiet, pleasant place back then.  1981 Seattle would probably have been a nice place to live.

Until you can solve the problems of drugs, alcohol,and mental illness for people living on the streets and make the city safe and clean, I will pass.  And so will a lot of other people.

[bacchi]

On the flip side, the ADU law seems to have been more of a success.  By requiring owner occupancy, the city has basically ensured that the smaller home owners actually give a shit about what happens in their neighborhood.  Yes, parking is gonna suck more - but most of the problems in my hood stem more from 2 drivers owning 4 cars than ADUs.

An owner-occupancy requirement sounds like a great addition to any ADU zoning change.

[partgypsy]

I think the problem of mentally ill, drug using, homeless people is not directly related to sfh zoning laws. So I don't know why you keep bringing them up in the same sentence?

After the development of antipsychotic drugs, there was a sea change from institutionalizing people, to mass emptying out and closing of institutions. Often the de-institionalized after being stabilized with meds, were given a bus ticket to California or somewhere warm, so at least they wouldn't freeze to death. Many homeless end up in warm cities because a) the climate is nice and b) there is enough population density they can successfully panhandle. So those cities are basically left holding the bag for a national problem. As far as I know we don't have a comprehensive national policy for the homeless. So like the immigration issue, some cities are bearing a higher burden in costs and quality of life, when really it is something as a nation we need to figure out or at least distribute the burden. 
 

[robartsd]

People didn't have choices back then.  When the suburbs were created, people voted with their feet and their wallets.

I agree, before WWII the options were city, streetcar suburb, or rural. The automobile and sprawl we see today was not an option.

Developers built private streetcar lines to serve the subdivisions they built. The streetcars were privately owned and profitably operated in most cases until purchased by the motor vehicle companies who promptly replaced streetcars with buses. The buses were not as cost effective and the lines were shut down. The maintenance of the surface infrastructure was turned over to the municipalities, while the motor vehicle companies overall profits boomed selling automobiles to the suburbanites. We need to bring back the option of inner suburbs were density is high enough to make transit profitable.

I wonder if Prop 13 is part of the problem in CA. Perhaps if it weren't for Prop 13, Silly Valley cities wouldn't be so resistant to building more housing. We should at least change Prop 13, so that it only applies to owner occupied properties - then families holding residential properties in cities they no longer choose to live in would at least have less incentive hold on to property and resist change in those cities.

[asiljoy]

I don't know about you, but I am not standing at a bus stop in Minneapolis when it's 20 below zero in a 20 mph wind and then walking to and from my destination.  Nor would I do that in 118 degree heat in Phoenix.  The private car wins in both those scenarios.

I did that -20 commute in Minneapolis for a decade. It wasn't pleasant. But it built something like character and I've never needed to go to the gym or track steps, it's built into my lifestyle. Now I live in one of the world's densest cities where a car is more of a liability than benefit. Our lives are incredibly efficient space-wise and transport is affordable. We can take a bus or subway to a ferry and be on a remote subtropical island within an hour.

Minneapolitans tend to be relatively (for the US) liberal and I'm happy to see this progressive legislation. Many friends there grew up in duplexes and triplexes, they're an affordable alternative to SFHs and don't have the unpredictable hikes of HOA fees.

I still do it. The covered bus stops with the heaters are the bees knees and Metro Transits predictions are pretty good for when the bus is gonna get there, so I really don't wait much at all for buses.

[Here4theGB]

What is saddening about this is that we have a bunch of people deciding that their utopia is the best and using political means to force their vision on an unwilling minority. But I guess that’s ok because the majority vision here is the “correct” one.

Is the preservation of the status quo somehow inherently more legitimate and less imposing than changing the status quo?

For about 100 years, the majority has forced their housing vision of society on an unwilling minority.  Now the tables have turned and the old majority is going to cry foul?

There isn't some neutral way of carrying on together in society, even if the current winners usually want to say that their way is devoid of value and somehow natural.  Deciding what we're going to value in our public policy is an inherent part of how we live together.

I'm pretty sure you aren't the majority in most places.  We will see how things play out in Minneapolis and a few other rarefied cities with a strong political left techie presence. Once you start annoying the rest of the residents in meaningful ways in places like San Jose, LA and San Diego, my guess is you will stop making progress with your plans. It ain't going to fly at all in Phoenix, Dallas, Houston and similar places.

Dude, you need to get out more.  When is the last time you've been to Dallas?  The vast majority of the city (within city limits) has been transformed.  The crane that collapsed the other week was right outside of downtown, building a huge urban apartment complex that you hate.  Dallas (not really Dallas) has huge suburban sprawl, but both Dallas and Fort Worth have been heavily investing in all these things you hate and people have been flocking to the areas. 

I'm actually a Gen X'er who's lived in suburban hell most of my life (there were no options other than until recently due to careers) and just sold my suburban home and bought half of a new duplex downtown.  It's been awesome and makes living in the armpit that is TX much more palatable.  Love being able to walk to dinner and not pull my car out of the garage for days at a time.

We get it, you like suburbia.  The good news for you is that nobody is going to force you out.

[J Boogie]

What is saddening about this is that we have a bunch of people deciding that their utopia is the best and using political means to force their vision on an unwilling minority. But I guess that’s ok because the majority vision here is the “correct” one.

Is the preservation of the status quo somehow inherently more legitimate and less imposing than changing the status quo?

For about 100 years, the majority has forced their housing vision of society on an unwilling minority.  Now the tables have turned and the old majority is going to cry foul?

There isn't some neutral way of carrying on together in society, even if the current winners usually want to say that their way is devoid of value and somehow natural.  Deciding what we're going to value in our public policy is an inherent part of how we live together.

I'm pretty sure you aren't the majority in most places.  We will see how things play out in Minneapolis and a few other rarefied cities with a strong political left techie presence. Once you start annoying the rest of the residents in meaningful ways in places like San Jose, LA and San Diego, my guess is you will stop making progress with your plans. It ain't going to fly at all in Phoenix, Dallas, Houston and similar places.

Dude, you need to get out more.  When is the last time you've been to Dallas?  The vast majority of the city (within city limits) has been transformed.  The crane that collapsed the other week was right outside of downtown, building a huge urban apartment complex that you hate.  Dallas (not really Dallas) has huge suburban sprawl, but both Dallas and Fort Worth have been heavily investing in all these things you hate and people have been flocking to the areas. 

I'm actually a Gen X'er who's lived in suburban hell most of my life (there were no options other than until recently due to careers) and just sold my suburban home and bought half of a new duplex downtown.  It's been awesome and makes living in the armpit that is TX much more palatable.  Love being able to walk to dinner and not pull my car out of the garage for days at a time.

We get it, you like suburbia.  The good news for you is that nobody is going to force you out.

Interesting that Houston is mentioned. There's no upzoning to do there - they don't have zoning! (They do have some rules though).

But in addition to the lack of strict SFH zoning to make us urbanists happy, Greater Houston has a sprawl problem. The pesky rules regarding wetlands were unenforced and all that spongy land got paved over. And as we've seen, the Houston area would be about a million times better equipped to manage flooding today if they wouldn't have paved over their wetlands.

Not every city would have this problem of course, but as long as Houston was mentioned, it's a great example of the importance of thoughtful land use planning.

[Here4theGB]

What is saddening about this is that we have a bunch of people deciding that their utopia is the best and using political means to force their vision on an unwilling minority. But I guess that’s ok because the majority vision here is the “correct” one.

Is the preservation of the status quo somehow inherently more legitimate and less imposing than changing the status quo?

For about 100 years, the majority has forced their housing vision of society on an unwilling minority.  Now the tables have turned and the old majority is going to cry foul?

There isn't some neutral way of carrying on together in society, even if the current winners usually want to say that their way is devoid of value and somehow natural.  Deciding what we're going to value in our public policy is an inherent part of how we live together.

I'm pretty sure you aren't the majority in most places.  We will see how things play out in Minneapolis and a few other rarefied cities with a strong political left techie presence. Once you start annoying the rest of the residents in meaningful ways in places like San Jose, LA and San Diego, my guess is you will stop making progress with your plans. It ain't going to fly at all in Phoenix, Dallas, Houston and similar places.

Dude, you need to get out more.  When is the last time you've been to Dallas?  The vast majority of the city (within city limits) has been transformed.  The crane that collapsed the other week was right outside of downtown, building a huge urban apartment complex that you hate.  Dallas (not really Dallas) has huge suburban sprawl, but both Dallas and Fort Worth have been heavily investing in all these things you hate and people have been flocking to the areas. 

I'm actually a Gen X'er who's lived in suburban hell most of my life (there were no options other than until recently due to careers) and just sold my suburban home and bought half of a new duplex downtown.  It's been awesome and makes living in the armpit that is TX much more palatable.  Love being able to walk to dinner and not pull my car out of the garage for days at a time.

We get it, you like suburbia.  The good news for you is that nobody is going to force you out.

Interesting that Houston is mentioned. There's no upzoning to do there - they don't have zoning! (They do have some rules though).

But in addition to the lack of strict SFH zoning to make us urbanists happy, Greater Houston has a sprawl problem. The pesky rules regarding wetlands were unenforced and all that spongy land got paved over. And as we've seen, the Houston area would be about a million times better equipped to manage flooding today if they wouldn't have paved over their wetlands.

Not every city would have this problem of course, but as long as Houston was mentioned, it's a great example of the importance of thoughtful land use planning.

Yeah I didn't want to mention Houston thinking that he might have just thrown it in there w/o knowing that Houston has NO zoning.  Houston being a dump is because of the no zoning which would actually help him in his argument, but he threw it in there in the opposite vein.  Strange indeed.

[Davnasty]

This guy makes the case that high-density housing is more expensive then single family housing.

https://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=16159

He argues that high density urban housing is more expensive on a square foot basis, which, obviously it is. The land is more expensive and typically the construction materials are too. The cost savings come from shared amenities (smaller homes), less infrastructure needed, less spent on commuting, lower energy consumption...

I only skimmed, but he's all over the place picking and choosing little bits of information to support his narrative. If our government is waging a war on suburban sprawl as he claims, they must be losing badly. As much more credible sources have indicated, government policy has encouraged and subsidized suburban growth.

[Another Reader]

This guy makes the case that high-density housing is more expensive then single family housing.

https://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=16159

He argues that high density urban housing is more expensive on a square foot basis, which, obviously it is. The land is more expensive and typically the construction materials are too. The cost savings come from shared amenities (smaller homes), less infrastructure needed, less spent on commuting, lower energy consumption...

I only skimmed, but he's all over the place picking and choosing little bits of information to support his narrative. If our government is waging a war on suburban sprawl as he claims, they must be losing badly. As much more credible sources have indicated, government policy has encouraged and subsidized suburban growth.

That is what local governments used to do.  Now they mostly evade externally imposed requirements to build any housing in their city and hope the neighbors are foolish enough to do it.  As I said residents are net revenue negative while commercial and industrial development are generally net revenue positive.  That way of thinking often leads to overbuilding.  How many car dealerships and shopping centers can you build before they start to cannibalize sales and someone goes dark?

[LG89]

Another reader is a douche bag and at this point is just trolling everyone.  Mods should lock this dumpster fire thread

MOD NOTE: Warning issued. Please read forum rule #1.

Dont be a jerk? I must have missed AR's mod warning.

If anyone doesn't like living in a city - guess what? Dont live there. I grew up in DC in the 90s and 00s and now I really don't like DC all that much anymore. I live in the suburbs now. Talk about complaineypants.

[katscratch]

Even though I totally support mass transit, the light rail lines in Minneapolis have gotten pretty bad.  I think there's a consensus that it's a product of homelessness, addiction, and untreated mental health issues.  Which, in the case of Minneapolis, have a lot to do with the legacy of settler colonialism and the forced relocation and dispossession of Native peoples.  Our issues on public transit aren't going to be fixed with a pressure washer.  They're way bigger/deeper/darker than what people used to call "public hygiene."

Agreed, especially to the bolded bit. The green line before 6am in winter is not fun. I feel like there was a distinct shift after the SuperBowl when many established sleeping and congegrating spots along that corridor were eliminated.

[HBFIRE]

Took public transit for 5 days a week for 5 years up in DC.   Never saw anything like that.

Served on my own city's mass transit advisory committee for 2 years.  Those weren't problems either.

Also used London mass transit for six weeks and Rotterdam mass transit systems for a week or two multiple years in a row.  Never saw anything like that either.

Maybe there are exceptions, but my experience with mass transit (in both CA and OR primarily, but also in Baltimore/DC) is as AR describes.  I had to use it for a couple years when I was pretty broke and right out of college and it still makes me shudder to remember those times (due to some very scary situations, and extreme unhygienic situations that would make you sick).  In fact, I still have nightmares about it.  Never again.  In Europe, on the other hand, things are much more pleasant and clean with mass transit.  I would support higher taxes if we could have transit like Europe.  I'm surprised you never had issue in the DC area, that was one of the scariest I experienced (close second to Baltimore where I was mugged  -- Baltimore is a hell hole but that's another story).

[HBFIRE]

I have not been to Seattle since 1981.  You could buy a nice Victorian house in a neighborhood full of them for $85,000 back then. It was a quiet, pleasant place back then.  1981 Seattle would probably have been a nice place to live.

Unfortunately the city Seattle once was is long gone.  I used to travel there frequently growing up in Anchorage.  Today, it's turned into a really bad city full of a lot of problems -- it's even worse than the bay area now.  Sad because I used to enjoy traveling there.

[ysette9]

In my somewhat limited experience, public transit in the Bay Area sucks. I did really like taking BART back when I was in undergrad, but unfortunately it doesn’t go enough places. Caltrain is a disgrace, but I hope that electrifying it in a couple of years will be a big improvement. VTA light rail when I took it was clean and went places, but was damn slow.

I lived in France for a year and would happily pay higher taxes to have the infrastructure they have. It is amazingly freeing to be able to rely on a kick-ass awesome train system to take you anywhere you want to go, whenever you want to go. I could do things like go from the center of Paris to a dairy farm in the middle of the country all on mass transit, train all the way except for the last little leg by bus. Out train system is about a hundred years behind places like France and Japan. ~sigh~

[FIPurpose]

There's this problem though. Owning a car is just too cheap. Gas is too cheap.

If more people took public transport, there would be more routes and greater frequencies.

If more cities had better local public transport, people would be more inclined to take the train.

Unfortunately, except for the New England area, taking the Amtrak rarely makes sense. And even then, it only makes sense if you drive with 1-2 people. Add 2-3 kids and public transport makes 0 sense.

All you have to do is look at how many people are driving and do the math. Public transport could take over places like San Fran, but people are still willing to pay 3-4x more just to drive their car. If people took public transit, there would be enough demand to have buses every fifteen minutes driving in from every major exit.

Part of it is that driving needs to become more painful. Give public transport it's own lane, car pooling of 4 minimum, stop giving electric vehicles HOV status. Add higher tolls that buses don't have to pay.

Make demand go up, make it more available, make it to where even the rich people have to take it.

[partgypsy]

There's this problem though. Owning a car is just too cheap. Gas is too cheap.

If more people took public transport, there would be more routes and greater frequencies.

If more cities had better local public transport, people would be more inclined to take the train.

Unfortunately, except for the New England area, taking the Amtrak rarely makes sense. And even then, it only makes sense if you drive with 1-2 people. Add 2-3 kids and public transport makes 0 sense.

All you have to do is look at how many people are driving and do the math. Public transport could take over places like San Fran, but people are still willing to pay 3-4x more just to drive their car. If people took public transit, there would be enough demand to have buses every fifteen minutes driving in from every major exit.

Part of it is that driving needs to become more painful. Give public transport it's own lane, car pooling of 4 minimum, stop giving electric vehicles HOV status. Add higher tolls that buses don't have to pay.

Make demand go up, make it more available, make it to where even the rich people have to take it.

Yeah. And a big part of the problem, is that many parts of the US were developed when cars and gas was cheap. Public transit makes sense when you have a city that is compact and designed with public transport in mind. For example in Chicago in the actual city, public transportation makes sense. In most situations it's stupid to drive your car downtown because parking is so expensive. However if you live in the suburbs of chicago it's the opposite; public transportation does not make sense because it is too spread out and some places only accessible with car. We do have the Metra which stops at western suburbs so people can commute into Chicago and back, but other than a few buses not really any public solution for traveling within the 'burbs. My mother who lives in the burbs recently decided to give up her car (wasn't really safe for her to drive). Other than taking an (expensive) uber or taxi, for most things she is either stuck at home or someone is going to have to drive her. If she lived in Chicago proper she could use public transportation and retain independence longer.