View Full Version : Why The Next Great Cities Aren't What You Think.



Pages : [1] 2

mkjeeves
04-10-2013, 07:59 AM
Great article! Here's some highlights:

The reality is that most urban growth in our most dynamic, fastest-growing regions has included strong expansion of the suburban and even exurban fringe, along with a limited resurgence in their historically small inner cores. Economic growth, it turns out, allows for young hipsters to find amenable places before they enter their 30s, and affordable, more suburban environments nearby to start families.

This urbanizing process is shaped, in many ways, by the late development of these regions. In most aspirational cities, close-in neighborhoods often are dominated by single-family houses; it’s a mere 10 or 15 minute drive from nice, leafy streets in Ft. Worth, Charlotte, or Austin to the urban core. In these cities, families or individuals who want to live near the center can do without being forced to live in a tiny apartment.

And in many of these places, the historic underdevelopment in the central district, coupled with job growth, presents developers with economically viable options for higher-density housing as well. Houston presents the strongest example of this trend. Although nearly 60 percent of Houston’s growth over the decade has been more than 20 miles outside the core, the inner ring area encompassed within the loop around Interstate 610 has also been growing steadily, albeit at a markedly slower rate. This contrasts with many urban regions, where close-in areas just beyond downtowns have been actually losing population.

<snip>

Finally, they will not become highly dense, apartment cities — as developers and planners insist they “should.” Instead the aspirational regions are likely to remain dominated by a suburbanized form characterized by car dependency, dispersion of job centers, and single-family homes. In 2011, for example, twice as many single-family homes sold in Raleigh as condos and townhouses combined. The ratio of new suburban to new urban housing, according to the American Community Survey, is 10 to 1 in Las Vegas and Orlando, 5 to 1 in Dallas, 4 to 1 in Houston and 3 to 1 in Phoenix.

Pressed by local developers and planners, some aspirational cities spend heavily on urban transit, including light rail. To my mind, these efforts are largely quixotic, with transit accounting for five percent or less of all commuters in most systems. The Charlotte Area Transit System represents less a viable means of commuting for most residents than what could be called Manhattan infrastructure envy. Even urban-planning model Portland, now with five radial light rail lines and a population now growing largely at its fringes, carries a smaller portion of commuters on transit than before opening its first line in 1986.

But such pretentions, however ill-suited, have always been commonplace for ambitious and ascending cities, and are hardly a reason to discount their prospects. Urbanistas need to wake up, start recognizing what the future is really looking like and search for ways to make it work better. Under almost any imaginable scenario, we are unlikely to see the creation of regions with anything like the dynamic inner cores of successful legacy cities such as New York, Boston, Chicago or San Francisco. For better or worse, demographic and economic trends suggest our urban destiny lies increasingly with the likes of Houston, Charlotte, Dallas-Ft. Worth, Raleigh and even Phoenix.

The critical reason for this is likely to be missed by those who worship at the altar of density and contemporary planning dogma. These cities grow primarily because they do what cities were designed to do in the first place: help their residents achieve their aspirations—and that’s why they keep getting bigger and more consequential, in spite of the planners who keep ignoring or deploring their ascendance.

Houston Rising?Why the Next Great American Cities Aren?t What You Think | Newgeography.com (http://www.newgeography.com/content/003629-houston-rising-why-next-great-american-cities-aren-t-what-you-think)

Just the facts
04-10-2013, 09:16 AM
We'll see but basing growth trends on what home builders do has proven to be a disaster. Population statistics say that current suburbia will be a ghost town in 30 years. My money is on the data and not the home builders.

soonerguru
04-10-2013, 09:20 AM
We aren't going to stop sprawl in OKC. But by adding better transit and more density in the urban core, we will offer an alternative. This guy seems to have an axe to grind against urban thinking. History proves him wrong.

mkjeeves
04-10-2013, 09:20 AM
We'll see but basing growth trends on what home builders do has proven to be a disaster. Population statistics say that current suburbia will be a ghost town in 30 years. My money is on the data and not the home builders.

You didn't read the article did you?

hoya
04-10-2013, 09:32 AM
This guy seems to have an axe to grind against urban thinking.

This. If you want to be taken seriously, don't call your opponents "something-istas".

All the guy has shown in this article, assuming we take all of his facts as true, is that cities that have historically had underdeveloped urban centers are now starting to develop them. As a result, they are experiencing high levels of growth. But it doesn't show what he thinks it shows.

Just the facts
04-10-2013, 09:46 AM
You didn't read the article did you?

Yes I did. He is using current/historic housing data to determine our future state. I am using what the data shows our populations will look like in 30 years to determine what kind of housing we will need then. I'll see if I can find it as I have posted it before, but we are going for a society with 50% of the housholds having children to a society where only 20% have children. That leaves 80% of population who don't need 4 bedroom houses on cul-de-sacs - which is what we have the most of today in the housing stock and is about 95% of what home builders are building currently.

mkjeeves
04-10-2013, 10:31 AM
All the guy has shown in this article, assuming we take all of his facts as true, is that cities that have historically had underdeveloped urban centers are now starting to develop them. As a result, they are experiencing high levels of growth. But it doesn't show what he thinks it shows.

That's not what was shown at all. He showed cities have grown by their ability to have jobs, particularly not tech jobs but jobs like energy; to have decentralized jobs; to have cheap housing, mostly still in the burbs; AND to have gained a more rounded approach at attracting the brains by having redeveloped downtowns. That's not at all the same thing as building downtown will result in high growth.

Most notable is that the inner cores will not replicate the legacy cities in density by replacing the close-in burbs with higher density apartments and ending suburban development. It's not going to happen.

The good news is OKC has all of the above, or is getting there.


This. If you want to be taken seriously, don't call your opponents "something-istas".


As if his side were the first to call names and thrown stones.

mkjeeves
04-10-2013, 10:34 AM
Yes I did. He is using current/historic housing data to determine our future state. I am using what the data shows our populations will look like in 30 years to determine what kind of housing we will need then. I'll see if I can find it as I have posted it before, but we are going for a society with 50% of the housholds having children to a society where only 20% have children. That leaves 80% of population who don't need 4 bedroom houses on cul-de-sacs - which is what we have the most of today in the housing stock and is about 95% of what home builders are building currently.

...current data. Unless you have a crystal ball.

He spoke to population, family size increase and decrease in the burbs and in the core and linked to another article that did more of the same, all in contrast to your idea there will not be people who have families and only people who want to live in apartments.

LakeEffect
04-10-2013, 10:54 AM
Great article! Here's some highlights:

Finally, they will not become highly dense, apartment cities — as developers and planners insist they “should.”

Kotkin frustrates me. I don't know a single planner that advocates for this. He loves to misquote or re-interpret what leading planners and urban thinkers have to say.

Just the facts
04-10-2013, 11:29 AM
Well, like I said, we will know for sure in 30 years. I have time.

Dubya61
04-10-2013, 01:26 PM
It is interesting, mkjeeves, thanks. I have a couple of comments, though. Maybe I'm just starting to drink JTF's Kool-Aid, but we need very desperately to get away from thinking that we need cars, or at the very least for cars to be the focus. mkjeeves: in your article highlights (which I've abbreviated even more and bolded a couple of things):

This urbanizing process is shaped, in many ways, by the late development of these regions. In most aspirational cities, close-in neighborhoods often are dominated by single-family houses; it’s a mere 10 or 15 minute drive from nice, leafy streets in Ft. Worth, Charlotte, or Austin to the urban core. In these cities, families or individuals who want to live near the center can do without being forced to live in a tiny apartment.
<snip>
Instead the aspirational regions are likely to remain dominated by a suburbanized form characterized by car dependency, dispersion of job centers, and single-family homes.
you can't help but see that we can't seem to imagine cities without cars. I wonder if there were to be a civilization that came back to look at earth after the 2012 doomsday and saw all the surface parking lots, driveways, streets, parking garages, car dealers (odd, isn't it? that the purveyors of automobiles are given the same appellation as the purveyors of illicit drugs?), and even preferential parking spaces, what would they conclude to be the dominant species on earth? The internal combustion robots? or the carbon-based parasites that infested them? Who's that guy JTF likes that used to be mayor of a major city in ... what? Venezuela? who more or less outlawed cars in downtown? No knee-jerk reactionary response, PluPan: No one wants to do that, but, maybe he had it right. Maybe we should have an intervention and ditch the car. With the way that our building codes exist, we virtually mandate cars, based on mandated free parking, but take away the focus on the cars and instead focus on making every square foot of city land taxable at the highest possible rate and suddenly, a city can afford to do lots of great things for its occupants. Donald Shoup, a UCLA professor who is described by Stephen J. Dubner (Freakonomics co-creator and host) as "a transportation scholar who is one of the worlds leading authorities on parking," says

I did use data to estimate that parking subsidies in the United States are somewhere between 1 and 4 percent of the total GNP, which is about in the range of what we spend for Medicare or national defense. So that’s the cost of parking not paid for by drivers.
Look, it takes all kinds to make the world go around and not everybody's gonna be happy in a high-rise apartment downtown, but (if JTF's right), the federal government is basically long-term bankrupting the cities by the mortgage deduction and other seemingly heinous acts. I'm not making fun of JTF -- I happen to think he's right, but look at the old post card photos of OKC posted on another thread, and then take a look at OKC now. There's a big difference in what we want to call a normal (suburban) lifestyle and what I think a majority of any city's occupants would have called normal before WWII. Even in Shoup's Freakonomics interview, the host says, "how much of [urban and suburban sprawl] do you think of as caused by the ancient practice of offering free parking everywhere you go?"
Shoup: "Well it isn't ancient."
Dubner: "Ancient I mean 1950s or 1960s. You know ..."
I can't imagine living without my car, but when did I learn that? and how can I get back to not needing it?
No. I'm not JTF's foil for him to come in and finish out the info-mercial and set us all straight. I just think that the author's premise (and he even almost says it himself) is based on a blind acceptance of car dependency.
Maybe the next great cities aren't JTF McWorld, but maybe they really should be -- if only we could give up the car cold turkey.

Just the facts
04-10-2013, 01:51 PM
Pretty good Dubya61, but let me add this. Urbansim does not mean just highrise apartments all stacked next to each other in their own little pocket of open space. That is what Le Corbusier and IM Pei proposed. The New Urbanist want the complete rural to urban transect built. However, the driving force behind all of it is cost. We simply cannot afford to keep building all the infrastructure needed to support low density sprawl. If people hate taxes now why do they support a development style that is going to require even a higher level of taxation to keep it going? It boggles the mind.

Also, the former mayor is Enrique Peñalosa from Bogota, CO.

KLFf8_3I_U0

BoulderSooner
04-10-2013, 01:52 PM
Yes I did. He is using current/historic housing data to determine our future state. I am using what the data shows our populations will look like in 30 years to determine what kind of housing we will need then. I'll see if I can find it as I have posted it before, but we are going for a society with 50% of the housholds having children to a society where only 20% have children. That leaves 80% of population who don't need 4 bedroom houses on cul-de-sacs - which is what we have the most of today in the housing stock and is about 95% of what home builders are building currently.

need as very little to do with it ...

lots of couples with no children WANT a 4 bedroom home on a cul-de-sac

mkjeeves
04-10-2013, 01:56 PM
need as very little to do with it ...

lots of couples with no children WANT a 4 bedroom home on a cul-de-sac

and that brings us right back to the final conclusion of why these cities are growing in spite of the should have could have mights:


The critical reason for this is likely to be missed by those who worship at the altar of density and contemporary planning dogma. These cities grow primarily because they do what cities were designed to do in the first place: help their residents achieve their aspirations—and that’s why they keep getting bigger and more consequential, in spite of the planners who keep ignoring or deploring their ascendance.

BoulderSooner
04-10-2013, 02:04 PM
yep

Just the facts
04-10-2013, 02:09 PM
need as very little to do with it ...

lots of couples with no children WANT a 4 bedroom home on a cul-de-sac

Wrong - studies show that 50% want to live within walking distance of daily needs but many builders are still only building subdivisions because that is all banks will finance. Watch the videos I posted on the New Urbanism Library thread - the data, studies, and stats are all there.

BoulderSooner
04-10-2013, 02:11 PM
Wrong - studies show that 50% want to live within walking distance of daily needs but many builders are still only building subdivisions because that is all banks will finance. Watch the videos I posted on the New Urbanism Library thread - the data, studies, and stats are all there.

but wait you said 80% don't need 4 bed houses and cul-de-sacs so which is it??

Just the facts
04-10-2013, 02:12 PM
but wait you said 80% don't need 4 bed houses and cul-de-sacs so which is it??

50% today - right now - of all people want to live within 5 minutes of daily needs. 30 years from now 80% of all households will not have children.

You know, I post all the videos because they contain the data you are trying to dispute or pretend doesn't exist. I can lead a horse to water but I can't make him drink. Watch the videos. Get a VGA monitor cable and hook it up to to your TV and pop some popcorn (that's how I do it).

Just the facts
04-10-2013, 02:24 PM
50% today - right now - of all people want to live within 5 minutes of daily needs. 30 years from now 80% of all households will not have children.

Sorry I was off on my numbers. In 20 years 88% of US hosehold won't have children.

Feel free to skip forward to the 34 minute mark

FuHLzcg3Cjs

bchris02
04-10-2013, 02:42 PM
Hipsterism is a fad. Suburbia won't die as long as energy is cheap enough to support it. Those who think the preferences of today's early-twenties hipster will define urban development for the next several decades are mistaking. However we are probably moving into an era where urbanism isn't completely ignored in favor of suburbia and maybe eventually we'll reach a good balance in terms of urban and suburban development. One thing that isn't talked about that needs to be if we want today's twentysomethings to stay in the urban core long term is address issues with inner city public schools. This isn't just an OKC problem, just about every city has poor public schools in the inner city.

zookeeper
04-10-2013, 02:50 PM
Unfortunately, at the present, this is another left versus right issue, at least economically. Enrique Peñalosa is a great man and has a great story as Mayor of Bogata and after. He was elected as a centrist candidate and what he saw during his term moved him to the left economically. The bottom line for him was that the big banks, the wealthy elite who pay for elections, have too much power. They effectively destroyed any political career that Peñalosa had after his term as mayor. He was considered center-right and he didn't play along as mayor and became a center-left mayor and now believes that big money in so few hands control too much and decide too much. Decisions which should be made by communities as a whole are made in back rooms by the wealthy elites, or development is done strictly for personal financial gain rather than what is correct planning, sustainable and ethical. The right has an agenda that goes against that of New Urbanist thinking. As a power bloc, the right wants to do what's best for them, not what's best for the community. Peñalosa's time as mayor saw that up close. He's actually quite conservative on some social issues, but he's adamantly opposed to too much wealth in too few hands, and supports government investment in infrastructure, taking a more democratic approach to planning as opposed to private development, though he's opposed to welfare programs. Welcome to the idea of the "new economy" as preached in this country by Gar Alperovitz and others. Even a huge conservative star like Bruce Bartlett is now a confirmed "new economist" and has rejected the kind of conservatism he once believed in with all he had. You can read him here Revenge of the Reality-Based Community | The American Conservative (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/revenge-of-the-reality-based-community)

This all fits together. One has to take the time to really think about priorities and throw off old political labels to truly "get" it. Too many quickly shout it's Socialism!!

HangryHippo
04-10-2013, 03:00 PM
That's not what was shown at all. He showed cities have grown by their ability to have jobs, particularly not tech jobs but jobs like energy; to have decentralized jobs; to have cheap housing, mostly still in the burbs; AND to have gained a more rounded approach at attracting the brains by having redeveloped downtowns. That's not at all the same thing as building downtown will result in high growth.

Most notable is that the inner cores will not replicate the legacy cities in density by replacing the close-in burbs with higher density apartments and ending suburban development. It's not going to happen.

The good news is OKC has all of the above, or is getting there.



As if his side were the first to call names and thrown stones.

While the article was interesting, you seem to have an axe to grind against urbanism as well.

Mississippi Blues
04-10-2013, 03:51 PM
While the article was interesting, you seem to have an axe to grind against urbanism as well.

Yep.

Mississippi Blues
04-10-2013, 04:09 PM
Hipsterism is a fad. Suburbia won't die as long as energy is cheap enough to support it. Those who think the preferences of today's early-twenties hipster will define urban development for the next several decades are mistaking. However we are probably moving into an era where urbanism isn't completely ignored in favor of suburbia and maybe eventually we'll reach a good balance in terms of urban and suburban development. One thing that isn't talked about that needs to be if we want today's twentysomethings to stay in the urban core long term is address issues with inner city public schools. This isn't just an OKC problem, just about every city has poor public schools in the inner city.

This is the post of the day for this thread & is probably the most relevant, meaningful post that will come of this thread. JTF will post his facts, mkjeeves will argue with anything & everything -- but mainly JTF -- that disagrees with the article, BoulderSooner will come in & make his comments just to be argumentative, & someone (usually zookeeper or metro) will start posting about political stances & how one side is better than the other, then this thread goes BOOM! Just like every other thread that has anything posted that is a passionate subject to someone on here.

Mississippi Blues
04-10-2013, 04:11 PM
Feeling a little left out of your OKCTalk Circle of Life post.... ;-)

Is it that easy to tell? ;)

Mississippi Blues
04-10-2013, 04:16 PM
Who's flinging the dogma here?

I don't care if you want to live in a house with 50 rooms. Just don't ask me to pay for the interest you are paying to the bank to finance it. Let's start there.

Suburbia would nearly vanish if there was no subsidy for home ownership and if utilities were priced based on their cost of delivery. We've spent the last 50 years pandering to voters to help taxpayers create a cozy way of life that they want. Regardless of costs.

This notion that cities are for people's dreams therefore BAM, suburbia is laughable. Come on guys. Any child can see right through that logic.

Cities have been around how much longer than suburbia? And what, for centuries people were just deprived of their wants and forced to live by what planners wanted?

Good grief.

No, cities have looked the same for all this time for one simple reason -- economics. Any comparison of the last 50 years to any 50 year period before it clearly shows how we've rigged the system to favor euclidean zoning and segregated development patters -- to include single use, family dwellings on large lots.

Look, I don't like grandstanding by New Urbanists as much as anyone else. Seriously, I don't even like the term "new urbanism". It's just urbanism. It's a result of transactions. Tons of them. It isn't some grand scheme or ploy. But that article and some of the comments here only prove a point by them. Far too many American's are perfectly oblivious to the mechanics (and costs) that have shaped our country. I'm not only tired of paying for it but I'm tired of pushing the costs onto our kids.

Cities, with zero help of any government, would look quite traditional and if you don't believe that, you are indeed living a dream. Heck, most cities were not platted by any government body. They were laid out by entrepreneurs. The urban form and function was just too obvious an advantage to not use it. As cities grew in America, it was the know-it-all planners who thought they'd reinvent the city and elected officials who were happy to buy the votes.

My solution is simple. Stop providing any subsidies or tax incentives for any land use. Charge utilities based on actual cost (just like we do for any other product you buy. The farther the way it is from the point of origin + the fewer they sell, the more expensive it is). This is one of the reasons I could be sold on private utilities. They always raise prices closer to actual lifecycle costs and charge more appropriately for taps in the middle of nowhere. Oh, and stop trying to engineer the perfect city. :)

Planning is a tool for guiding common sense into reasonable actions. Like stormwater management and public saftey.

Sorry for the vent. We went so deep in la-la-land on this thread it triggered a more passionate response.

If people want to live in suburbia, that's fine. Just please let cities get back to being cities. I know, I'm dreaming again. :)

I take what I said back. What Sid said has me yelling "AMEN" & "HALLELUJAH" at my computer screen.

zookeeper
04-10-2013, 04:29 PM
This is the post of the day for this thread & is probably the most relevant, meaningful post that will come of this thread. JTF will post his facts, mkjeeves will argue with anything & everything -- but mainly JTF -- that disagrees with the article, BoulderSooner will come in & make his comments just to be argumentative, & someone (usually zookeeper or metro) will start posting about political stances & how one side is better than the other, then this thread goes BOOM! Just like every other thread that has anything posted that is a passionate subject to someone on here.

Hey Blues, Sorry, I honestly didn't mean to post political stances or whatever for no reason. I really and truly believe in Enrique Peñalosa that JTF posted about. I really was telling of HIS experiences as to how all this comes back to politics. Unfortunately, that's just the truth. Instead of politics, maybe the correct term would be "world view". It really wasn't a derail at all, if you followed the story line, and learned more about the huge changes Peñalosa made to the Bogata city core and the fights he had to make it happen, it really is very relevant. I'm not at all like Metro posting silly anti-Obama one-liners that come out of nowhere. Sorry if it appeared that way though.

Mississippi Blues
04-10-2013, 04:35 PM
Hey Blues, Sorry, I honestly didn't mean to post political stances or whatever for no reason. I really and truly believe in Enrique Peñalosa that JTF posted about. I really was telling of HIS experiences as to how all this comes back to politics. Unfortunately, that's just the truth. Instead of politics, maybe the correct term would be "world view". It really wasn't a derail at all, if you followed the story line, and learned more about the huge changes Peñalosa made to the Bogata city core, it really is very relevant. I'm not at all like Metro posting silly anti-Obama one-liners that come from nowhere. Sorry if it appeared that way though.

No worries zookeeper, I didn't think your goal was to derail the thread. I read what you posted & it was an interesting post & quite relevant to this thread, nor did I feel your post was to take an unwarranted cheap shot. My post is just to tease you guys & I got my teasing in return (see Sid's post, #27). Threads like this are always fun to read & gather opinions from both sides.

mkjeeves
04-10-2013, 05:03 PM
Unfortunately, at the present, this is another left versus right issue, at least economically. Enrique Peñalosa is a great man and has a great story as Mayor of Bogata and after. He was elected as a centrist candidate and what he saw during his term moved him to the left economically. The bottom line for him was that the big banks, the wealthy elite who pay for elections, have too much power. They effectively destroyed any political career that Peñalosa had after his term as mayor. He was considered center-right and he didn't play along as mayor and became a center-left mayor and now believes that big money in so few hands control too much and decide too much. Decisions which should be made by communities as a whole are made in back rooms by the wealthy elites, or development is done strictly for personal financial gain rather than what is correct planning, sustainable and ethical. The right has an agenda that goes against that of New Urbanist thinking. As a power bloc, the right wants to do what's best for them, not what's best for the community. Peñalosa's time as mayor saw that up close. He's actually quite conservative on some social issues, but he's adamantly opposed to too much wealth in too few hands, and supports government investment in infrastructure, taking a more democratic approach to planning as opposed to private development, though he's opposed to welfare programs. Welcome to the idea of the "new economy" as preached in this country by Gar Alperovitz and others. Even a huge conservative star like Bruce Bartlett is now a confirmed "new economist" and has rejected the kind of conservatism he once believed in with all he had. You can read him here Revenge of the Reality-Based Community | The American Conservative (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/revenge-of-the-reality-based-community)

This all fits together. One has to take the time to really think about priorities and throw off old political labels to truly "get" it. Too many quickly shout it's Socialism!!

The NU party line and utter BS. What we all know will happen and is happening in OKC right now, the urban core will become gentrified with the elite. The poor and the regular people will be shoved out and marginalized in the process. Hardly what the left stand for anywhere.

mkjeeves
04-10-2013, 05:16 PM
All these rich OU students in Deep Deuce, musicians at ACM, etc...

Lets pretend that represents who lives there now and ignore everyone else who own or live in condos and highrise apartments. Compare just those people to who lived there before. End of proof. And we are just getting started.

mkjeeves
04-10-2013, 05:42 PM
I never said there wont be rich people here. You said it will be gentrified with elite.

There are plenty of regular people here and always will be. Do you really believe that poor people don't live in urban neighborhoods? I guess I can start listing them but I'm not sure you are being serious.

Likewise. I can't tell if you are joking, don't know what gentrification is and the causes and really don't believe that's happening in OKC. What laws do we have on the books or do you think we will enact to prevent that from continuing? I'm pretty sure I can answer those questions. None and none.

Gentrification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentrification)

mkjeeves
04-10-2013, 06:08 PM
Again, I'll ask you. Do you think poor people don't live in urban places?

I said the urban core is and will become gentrified. You took issue with that and want to focus apparently not on the larger issue I was responding to but on anecdotes of some poor people you know in downtown.

I'm pretty sure that's a logical fallacy you want to argue but rather than name it or play along and not talk about the issue, I'll just pass.

zookeeper
04-10-2013, 06:52 PM
Sorry, It looked like I was setting a trap.

What I wanted to do was figure out some common ground we can discuss from. The point I'd like to make is that most of the worlds poor people don't live in suburbia. Quite the opposite. And that's true not because of laws.

It's because urban areas provide the most opportunity for the least amount of money. In America, we have a Disney Land view of it right now. Which is my beef with New Urbanists. They can't shut up about their Seaside [resort], master-planned communities and just focus on helping cities and developers build healthy, urban fabric that promotes prosperity for all classes of people. That's what cities used to do. You went to the city poor and fled it rich. Lol.

There isn't one want to fix it but just for an example -- our zoning laws protect social class too much. For example, if a developer wants to build small apartments (we call them micro-apartments because we like to put fancy labels on age-old stuff and pretend we invented it) it is incredibly hard to do. SF is trying really hard to get the ordinances changed to allow for that.

I've struggled with housing myself. With three small kids most places force me to have a minimum of 2 full bedrooms. I grew up in a one bedroom house with three kids. 450 sq. feet. I don't need a lot of space. But you simply can't find that.

However, we haven't gone far enough as a city to allow for more diverse developments. Euclidean zoning (born in suburbia) has trained everyone involved to think about big, monolithic projects. So the financing is geared that way too. Cities need to lead by removing zoning restrictions for land use and focus on form.

So how do we fix it? Well, more people need to do the math. Transportation and all the externalities (healthcare, etc) just aren't computed anymore. Auto ownership is considered an automatic. We're a society of surplus that hates to discipline ourselves into frugal lifestyles. That coupled with more housing opportunities as a result of more inventory will go a long way. (I'm waaaay oversimplifying this, I know)

The next big hurdle is for us to figure out how to get more mixed uses back in our cities. This was a no-brainer for our great-grandparents but we need to relearn this critical pillar of successful cities. Again, in most places, it is illegal first.

Lastly, I'd like to say that I don't actually think the downtown is the only thing cities should focus on. I don't feel I should have to say that but since you don't know me and all...

We have really great neighborhoods that can service all classes of people that should be invested in. Each of these need their own town centers and amenities. Old cities that have vibrant neighborhoods have fairly orderly yet organic accommodations for all classes of people.

Lastly 2.0, we need good public transit to expand choices. I use our buses all the time and they are adequate for a lot of trips, but we need more investment and frankly, just more people willing to take them because it makes financial sense to do so.

I'm scratching at a little issue that could be an entire thread by itself. In a society where there is so much abundance, it is pretty easy to see people who are labeled poor but have two cars and live 2 blocks from the bus stop. It is really hard to fix that kind of poor. People have to figure that out on their own.

Drive till you qualify has and always will drain the bank accounts of those who are stuck in cities where they simply can't live without driving.

There is so much good stuff in this post. No purpose in going one by one just to agree with each point so I'll just say thanks Sid, so many great thoughts.

mkjeeves
04-10-2013, 07:13 PM
Agreed.

betts
04-11-2013, 08:54 AM
It also depends on what your definition of urban core is. All bigger cities have a very small urban core that is only affordable to the elite. But, if you use a two mile radius as your definition, most cities have housing for all income levels. As I've said, in OKC, the only place you have to be elite to live is City Place. That's a pretty narrow definition of urban core. Of course areas immediately adjacent to the urban core will gradually gentrify. That's because people with money will start to figure out how nice it is to live close to all the downtown work and entertainment options. But, if you include SoSA, the Plaza District, Jefferson Park, JFK neighborhood, neighborhoods around the Health Sciences Center, there are a lot of affordable housing options.

If we create a smarter bus system we make living in any of those areas "urban" or "core" living.

mkjeeves
04-11-2013, 09:23 AM
While I continue down the path of talking about gentrification, please keep in mind I brought that up and how it affects the poor in response to the idea New Urbanism is touchy feelly all inclusive Left, and everything else is Right we're-only-in-it-for- ourselves claims. (I take offense to that for several reasons. Number one. It's wrong. Number two. I'm probably farther left than most of the people on this board.)

All those improvements have impacted the cost of housing. That's not a bad thing, if you own property there, only want to live in a place above a certain standard and can afford it. It's not a bad thing if you want to buy property and have it increase in value over time. It's not a bad thing for OKC, in the big economic picture.

But it is a real thing that impacts the poor especially while improving the condition of the more advantaged over time. That's true for downtown. That's true for SOSA, that's true for the Plaza district.

Buffalo Bill
04-11-2013, 09:29 AM
The original article lost me at "Houston".

Holding Houston up as a paragon of anything that any city should aspire to be is deeply flawed.

mkjeeves
04-11-2013, 11:28 AM
I wanted to come back and touch on part of this again too, as it relates to OKC...(and also how un-Left it is to be NU) I realize you said the poor of the world:


What I wanted to do was figure out some common ground we can discuss from. The point I'd like to make is that most of the worlds poor people don't live in suburbia. Quite the opposite. And that's true not because of laws.

It's because urban areas provide the most opportunity for the least amount of money. In America, we have a Disney Land view of it right now. Which is my beef with New Urbanists. They can't shut up about their Seaside [resort], master-planned communities and just focus on helping cities and developers build healthy, urban fabric that promotes prosperity for all classes of people. That's what cities used to do. You went to the city poor and fled it rich. Lol.

As I have said before, I live in the burbs a couple of blocks from PC West. The school report card from 2010 says 72% of the kids in the school are eligible for free or reduced lunch. (Compared to 59% of the state as a whole.) But I think Western Heights south of me can top that and can top any of the OKC schools. The article talked about that somewhat, speaking about the cities making it have cheap housing at the fringes. They aren't going to have it at the cores, because the cores are being rebuilt, complete with higher property values, ie effects of gentrification.

mkjeeves
04-11-2013, 11:38 AM
True. Our schools are now a product of our planning system. The best schools are no longer located where the most people can benefit. They are usually neatly tucked away in a homogeneous neighborhood and resources are pooled and allocated to equal out the built-in imbalances.

So you are right. Schools will cause this issue to stick around for a long time.

This is not about "best schools." Has nothing to do with the schools' ability to teach or kids' abilities to learn. It has to do with the wealth of the kids who attend those suburban schools. Those kids are poor and they live in the burbs. They are eligible for free or reduced lunches because they have no money.

BoulderSooner
04-11-2013, 12:23 PM
"quality of schools" has a direct correlation to parents involvement with their children's education

mkjeeves
04-11-2013, 12:43 PM
Here's another way to look at the distribution of poor folk in the burbs in OKC, clipped from rich block poor block . com


http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/4729/richblock.jpg

mkjeeves
04-11-2013, 02:38 PM
Basically anything inside the interstate loop to me, makes sense to focus on preserving and enhancing. That's where those mini-town centers come into play.

Um. You mean for the 25,000 people who live inside the loop. And what about the vast majority of OKC residents who don't? You gonna de-annex us?

and when you enhance those neighborhoods while ignoring the rest of the city, property values will go up and you'll shove the poor further out...

adaniel
04-11-2013, 02:43 PM
Um. You mean for the 25,000 people who live inside the loop. And what about the vast majority of OKC residents who don't? You gonna de-annex us?

Hate to hop in, but if you include everything inside 44, 35 and 240, its probably closer to 215-230K.

mkjeeves
04-11-2013, 02:44 PM
Hate to hop in, but if you include everything inside 44, 35 and 240, its probably closer to 215-230K.

Pete looked that up in another thread the other day. That's where the 25K came from.

mkjeeves
04-11-2013, 02:50 PM
I was wrong. It was 52K. But either way, 52k or 250K, what are you going to do about the vast majority of OKC residents?

http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic-issues/33437-how-many-people-live-urban-core.html#post624691

mkjeeves
04-11-2013, 03:05 PM
We need about a dozen vibrant neighborhoods that provide plenty of opportunity for all types of people.

You are totally on the right track with that thinking. But until you either decide it has to be one mini center per each and every X-miles of the entire city now and for future growth; or come up with a plan on how you are going to cut the center out of OKC, throw away the donut (let it rot as someone here has said) and/or relocate the majority of citizens on top of each other, you aren't really addressing the problem. Again, we're talking about the majority of citizens that we have now, not even accounting for new growth.

zookeeper
04-11-2013, 04:59 PM
Before we discuss prioritizing city spending in certain parts of the city, with such distinct boundaries, we still must remember where that money is coming from. Arguably, I would suggest most of it comes from outside those very interstate boundaries, outside the loop. North, South and West there's a ton of property taxes and sales tax generated versus the inner core. Look at where the money is and where it's spent. Just something to chew on because I AM a big supporter of the inner core of our city. But it's a tough argument to counter.

tillyato
04-11-2013, 06:18 PM
There are tons of property taxes collected for the downtown area alone, just the Devon tower by itself will generate enough in the coming years to pay for all of the Project 180 improvements by itself. Plus, neighborhoods like Heritage Hills, Mesta Park, Edgemere, and Crown Heights all are above, some incredibly so, of the average home value and therefore property tax generation. I'd bet the most expensive land per acre in the city is in the inner core.

Mel
04-11-2013, 09:04 PM
I like having the choice. If we had remained childless a urban existence would have been nice. raising two sons and working on five grandsons I need for space. Having a field or woods nearby has always been nice. Not as people dense either.

Just the facts
04-11-2013, 10:39 PM
Holy cow - so much work still to be done. Let's start with this basic fact. Property taxes don't collect enough money to buiild and maintain the infrastrucutre needed to support low densisty suburbia. If it did OKC wouldn't have nearly a billion dollars in bonds to be paid by people in the future fund maintenance and expansion or just the roads needed today. 4 miles of I-40 cost $600 million dollars. If not for a cash infusion from an increasingly bankrupt federal government we could never afford to fix 4 miles of I-40. OKC has how many thousands of miles of streets whose first life-cycle was paid for with cash, and whose second life-cycle was paid for with bonds going 10 to 20 years out. How do we pay for the third life-cycle?

The hard part of funding growth through debt is that at some point you max out the debt. Then what?

mkjeeves
04-12-2013, 07:43 AM
Holy cow - so much work still to be done. Let's start with this basic fact. Property taxes don't collect enough money to buiild and maintain the infrastrucutre needed to support low densisty suburbia. If it did OKC wouldn't have nearly a billion dollars in bonds to be paid by people in the future fund maintenance and expansion or just the roads needed today. 4 miles of I-40 cost $600 million dollars. If not for a cash infusion from an increasingly bankrupt federal government we could never afford to fix 4 miles of I-40. OKC has how many thousands of miles of streets whose first life-cycle was paid for with cash, and whose second life-cycle was paid for with bonds going 10 to 20 years out. How do we pay for the third life-cycle?

The hard part of funding growth through debt is that at some point you max out the debt. Then what?

Someone needs to fish or cut bait. Define the core of OKC, the (52K people and their property I presume) and deannex the rest of us, along with our taxes/costs (the other 650,000 of us.) Or move on. What's it going to be?

betts
04-12-2013, 10:17 AM
This is an argument without a simple solution. I really don't know who can argue for sprawl, except developers. But sprawl we've got and no one is de annexing 650,000 people. We would actually do quite well financially by doing so, but it's beyond silly to imply that it could happen. What we should try to do, though, is limit future sprawl, by not annexing anything else, unless its on the inside of existing city limits.

It's quite clear that more people in the upcoming generation have different values and we will see more people valuing living closer to the core. We can encourage that by improving mass transit in areas within a reasonable radius.

Just the facts
04-12-2013, 10:18 AM
It is really pretty simple, the economy of scale comes in the density. A stretch of road 500' long cost X number of dollars to build and maintain. That cost can be shared by 5 homesowners or by 15 homeowners. Which do you think makes better financial sense? If 5 people choose to live along the road shouldn't their property taxes equal the same amount of money as the 15 people who choose to live a higher density road to cover the cost of the road? If the fire station that serves the first group only has 10,000 homes in it and the second fire station serves 20,000 homes shouldn't residents in the first group pay twice as much taxes for fire protection?

But we don't pay property taxes based on the cost of providing the service, we base it on the value of the house, and that is when we start running into the problem as the densities decline and home values go down, the further out people get the cost to provide the service goes up, and the revenue generated goes down. How long can that model last?

CaptDave
04-12-2013, 10:44 AM
Someone needs to fish or cut bait. Define the core of OKC, the (52K people and their property I presume) and deannex the rest of us, along with our taxes/costs (the other 650,000 of us.) Or move on. What's it going to be?

I think the most practical solution is to deincentivize greenfield development and provide incentives for developers to rehabilitate the numerous brownfield areas roughly bounded by the Kilpatrick, I-35, and I-240. Maybe develop a hierarchy of incentives based on proximity to the city core - higher/better incentives closer in, and some sort of sliding scale as you move farther away. Take into consideration existing utility and street infrastructure and the ability of emergency services to provide adequate coverage for the site under consideration. The Core to Shore area should be given higher priority for development before another subdivision in a former pasture. Consider a moratorium on extending city utility coverage past existing limits of service until a certain benchmark for redevelopment within those boundaries is met. Just a couple quick ideas.....

Just the facts
04-12-2013, 11:15 AM
I think the most practical solution is to deincentivize greenfield development and provide incentives for developers to rehabilitate the numerous brownfield areas roughly bounded by the Kilpatrick, I-35, and I-240. Maybe develop a hierarchy of incentives based on proximity to the city core - higher/better incentives closer in, and some sort of sliding scale as you move farther away. Take into consideration existing utility and street infrastructure and the ability of emergency services to provide adequate coverage for the site under consideration. The Core to Shore area should be given higher priority for development before another subdivision in a former pasture. Consider a moratorium on extending city utility coverage past existing limits of service until a certain benchmark for redevelopment within those boundaries is met. Just a couple quick ideas.....

I suspect this is where Sid takes issue with the 'New Urbanist' vs the old urbanist. Half of all 'New Urbanism' developments are in greenfields, and if you look at a lot of those all they did was relocate the sprawling surface parking lots from the front of the buildings to the back of the buildings. Nothing else changed. To combat this the Congress for the New Urbansim help create the LEED Neighborhood certification. Not only do builders need to have an energy efficient building, but they now have to put in on an energy efficient piece of land.

Neighborhood Development | U.S. Green Building Council (http://www.usgbc.org/neighborhoods)

BoulderSooner
04-12-2013, 11:26 AM
Holy cow - so much work still to be done. Let's start with this basic fact. Property taxes don't collect enough money to buiild and maintain the infrastrucutre needed to support low densisty suburbia. If it did OKC wouldn't have nearly a billion dollars in bonds to be paid by people in the future fund maintenance and expansion or just the roads needed today. 4 miles of I-40 cost $600 million dollars. If not for a cash infusion from an increasingly bankrupt federal government we could never afford to fix 4 miles of I-40. OKC has how many thousands of miles of streets whose first life-cycle was paid for with cash, and whose second life-cycle was paid for with bonds going 10 to 20 years out. How do we pay for the third life-cycle?

The hard part of funding growth through debt is that at some point you max out the debt. Then what?

OKC can afford its current spending and future needs pretty much forever ... if we keep the very conservative way that we run the city budget ..

Just the facts
04-12-2013, 11:30 AM
OKC can afford its current spending and future needs pretty much forever ... if we keep the very conservative way that we run the city budget ..

You mean we can make the debt payment.

Just the facts
04-12-2013, 11:32 AM
Before we discuss prioritizing city spending in certain parts of the city, with such distinct boundaries, we still must remember where that money is coming from. Arguably, I would suggest most of it comes from outside those very interstate boundaries, outside the loop. North, South and West there's a ton of property taxes and sales tax generated versus the inner core. Look at where the money is and where it's spent. Just something to chew on because I AM a big supporter of the inner core of our city. But it's a tough argument to counter.

Outside the interstate boundaries are also where the biggest expense is. It's not about revenue, it is about 'profit margin' (for lack of a better word). If you lose money on every transaction you can't make up for it in volume.

BoulderSooner
04-12-2013, 11:42 AM
You mean we can make the debt payment.

debt is not inherently bad ... especially when money is cheap

Just the facts
04-12-2013, 11:45 AM
Meanwhile - this just aired on CNBC.

Boomers a Boon to Urban Home Builders (http://www.cnbc.com/id/100637694)