|
Koesj posted:Would semi-public housing cooperatives work in the US? there are already private coops and the like, but like all other american housing they tend to be exclusive based on income
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 16:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 09:36 |
|
|
Troy Queef posted:as someone who lives in a city with seemingly none of this problem, the whole "YIMBYs are loving white scum, PHIMBY is the real poo poo" attitude from the Left (the "YIMBY" ep of Chapo, District Sentinel, coastal DSA chapters etc) is, to put it lightly, confusing. can someone pls explain In addition to what others have said, there is a bit of a focus bias where a lot of what the yimby talk about are "in their backyards" aka in their communities and it can be a bit exclusionary to other communities are experiencing. Take for example, environmental regulations: a lot of yimbys oppose environmental regulations that can delay or increase housing costs because in affluent communities environmental reviews are often used by nimbys as a tool to block development. But in other neighborhoods just miles away it is those environmental regulations that are the only reason developers cant stick people on top of leaking hazardous waste landfills (but they're trying!). So it can be hard to bridge that gap. In some neighborhoods developers are dying to build and nimbys are stopping them, but in others there's still a housing shortage, but the profit margin too low for developers to be interested in taking the risk. It seems clear that one solution won't fix both.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 21:36
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:This is just my opinion as someone who’s pro-density, but many PHIMBY people also tend to put forward public housing as the only solution, and oppose any privately developed project at any size because it involves people making money. This is usually summarized (uncharitably, to be clear) as “we shouldn’t do X because it doesn’t decommodify housing.” California DSA chapters seem to be worst about this for some reason. YIMBY people often ignore the fact that their typical pro-density development ideas result in displacement of the people that actually use public transport, and result in a net increased greenhouse gas emissions due to displacing the poor who then have to commute by car. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-rosenthal-transit-gentrification-metro-ridership-20180220-story.html Instead they rely on the fact that mean rent drops when YIMBY policy is implemented. Look at Seattle which actually did implement YIMBY policy in full https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...m=.8cf12da0a05c Whoops, mean rent dropped but all those drops were felt at the luxury housing market and the lower income and medium income rents continued to rise. Then the global capital investing in real estate development moved on to other markets where luxury development was in demand. https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2018/08/03/additional-building-wont-make-city-housing-more-affordable-says-fed-study/#79de4c31218b https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2018035pap.pdf Housing needs to be decomodified. There does need to be massive public investment in building additional housing, including various private sector initiatives, but the private sector only cares about profit and reducing rent prices is an unprofitable act. YIMBY groups usually advocate the easiest path forward for additional density, which is to push dense luxury development in existing minority neighborhoods and do nothing for the existing residents who are going to be displaced. California YIMBY chapters seem to be the worst about this for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2018 08:00
|
|
|
fermun posted:YIMBY people often ignore the fact that their typical pro-density development ideas result in displacement of the people that actually use public transport, and result in a net increased greenhouse gas emissions due to displacing the poor who then have to commute by car. I image it is just an outgrowth of the more advanced concentration in particularly the bay area. But yeah, no one is talking about banning the construction of private housing or attached subsidized affordable housing, but as long as public housing is neglected, this issue is going to only get worse. It is simply a matter of supply, and it isn't feasible for the private housing market to provide the vast amount of low-cost housing coastal cities need. Also "YIMBY" policy usually predictably enough neglects infrastructure investment beyond low-capacity transit like streetcars. It isn't that streetcars are a bad thing (in a limited context), but they are not an actual replacement for genuine transit, not to mention schools and other elements needed to create a reliable social fabric. Honestly, the situation might be fine for a single upper-middle-class person who can afford ubers everywhere, but yeah that doesn't help everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2018 10:01
|
|
|
fermun posted:YIMBY people often ignore the fact that their typical pro-density development ideas result in displacement of the people that actually use public transport, and result in a net increased greenhouse gas emissions due to displacing the poor who then have to commute by car. Which is why I said tenant protections and rent control are also important! I just think a massive public investment in housing is not going to happen at the local level - cities do not have enough resources to shoulder the burden on their own, and even if they did their voters wouldn't let them. I would be happy to vote for more public housing, and I'll be voting for the big housing bond we have coming up this year. But the homeowners who you team up with now to stop upzonings are going to be just as forcefully against any sort of public housing in their neighborhoods, no matter how big it is or how much they pretend to care about the people who need it. Austin has a $250 million housing bond coming up this year - that's 4% of the estimated need in terms of housing, just to meet existing demand. It still might not pass. Cities do have the power (depending on the state) do protect tenants and allow more housing to be built. Subsidizing housing is a part of that, but if that's all of it then it's never going to be enough. Ardennes posted:I image it is just an outgrowth of the more advanced concentration in particularly the bay area. But yeah, no one is talking about banning the construction of private housing or attached subsidized affordable housing, but as long as public housing is neglected, this issue is going to only get worse. It is simply a matter of supply, and it isn't feasible for the private housing market to provide the vast amount of low-cost housing coastal cities need. Where do you get the idea that YIMBY policy is just bad streetcars? A lot of those came about recently because of the USDOT TIGER grant program incentivizing stuff like that and boosterism from Chambers of Commerce etc. Everyone I know who's actually involved in this stuff thinks they're bad and wants actual transit investment - Seattle and LA have actually done this, and Seattle is one of the only cities in the country that has rising transit ridership. It's been falling pretty much everywhere else across the country since the end of the recession.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2018 14:08
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Where do you get the idea that YIMBY policy is just bad streetcars? A lot of those came about recently because of the USDOT TIGER grant program incentivizing stuff like that and boosterism from Chambers of Commerce etc. Everyone I know who's actually involved in this stuff thinks they're bad and wants actual transit investment - Seattle and LA have actually done this, and Seattle is one of the only cities in the country that has rising transit ridership. It's been falling pretty much everywhere else across the country since the end of the recession. In my experience in Portland, YIMBYs usually have a pretty Blaise attitude toward transit/taxes. They aren't supposed towards it theoretically but don't want to have it affect them personally. Also, in Portland itself, BID districts have essentially have become tax shelters to concentrate property taxes in order to fund streetcars/local improvements in wealthy "improvement" districts while the rest of the city suffers. It is pretty unclear exactly how many of them would actually support a direct property tax or income tax levy to support transit (the transit agency can't even recruit bus drivers its pay is so low).
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2018 14:28
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:But yeah, no one is talking about banning the construction of private housing or attached subsidized affordable housing, but as long as public housing is neglected, this issue is going to only get worse. The left-leaning NIMBY alliance with rich property owners is bizarre as the latter 100% isn't going to support affordable housing at the scale and density our cities need. I don't know where your characterization of YIMBYs as anti-transit comes from... today's YIMBYs are almost all solidly on the left and are fighting to make our cities work for all of us.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2018 14:35
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:Not explicitly, but that is the effective consequence of fighting upzoning, with the consequence of massive gentrification in lower-income neighborhoods. All those entry-level tech employees just starting in SF or wherever make bank, but anti-density housing policy and legal challenges from rich house owners ensure that they often have only two options: gentrify low-income areas or contribute to the environmentally-devastating sprawl America is so well-known for. I don't write that as a sob-story for poor upwardly-mobile tech bro, just to emphasize that the status quo left-leaning NIMBYs help preserve results in exactly what they assert they are fighting against. Admittedly, infill can be tricky, especially if the developer really cuts corners. Also, in all honesty, in that case, the NIMBY is making a rational choice since the infill really doesn't offer anything to them (fighting for street parking/lower property values/aesthetics etc). Obviously, some sort of infill needs to happen, NIMBYism isn't really a surprise. (Also, either way, housing is going to be market rate.) The solution is to actively increase the supply for low-income residents wherever possible (NIMBYs are still going to have an issue with it obviously). At the same time, Plenty of YIMBYs are libertarian-leaning, fine with development but solidly against further taxes that affect them. If taxes happen they want it going to their neighborhood, and although plenty of them are pro-development but also still weirdly car-reliant (transit is for the plebs). Granted, most left-NIMBYs seem to be in favor of protecting existing low-income neighborhoods because it is clear that community is going to be liquidated in favor for gentrifiers, and the low-income residents will be sent packing to where-ever they can find housing. It is hard to see a possible alliance with YIMBYs here because they are in implicitly in favor of paving over the existing neighborhood in the first place. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 15:27 on Aug 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2018 15:07
|
|
|
i did another video if anyone is interested, though it's more about historical urban water systems than any modern urban planning problems... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MrkfLP25Rg
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 16:48
|
|
|
Btw, that highway episode was really quite good, the mods you were using really brought out that particular period of history.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
I'm a planner. Have this: https://www.newham.gov.uk/Documents/Environment%20and%20planning/UrbanDesignCompendium.pdf This was published by a bunch of planners in the UK who recognized we were headed in a bad direction and decided to compile some rules of thumb in regards to planning communities. Some current broad trends in urbanism: The South will Rise: Forget your New Yorks, Hong Kongs, Londons, and Paris'. The majority of urban development will take place in the Global South in cities like Lahore, Jakarta, Lagos, and this includes population growth. Growth in the North has not stopped but is slowing down. This is due mostly to the shrinking, aging populations of the North. Without immigration, for example, Canada would be barely breaking 20 million citizens and stabilizing at about 15 million instead of its current population of approx. 35 million. Shift from Suburbs to Core: Cities sucked. They were dirty, dangerous, polluted, places that your parents were glad to get away from. People are still moving to the Suburbs and it is still seen as the best option by the majority of people to raise their families, but now we are seeing the pendulum shift back towards the City Core. Why? Because we have you in all your millenial glory, childless, deracinated, atomized, wandering the world from one city to the next chasing after work. You don't want kids. You don't want to compromise your materialist bugman lifestyle of consumption so you have no incentive in buying a nice big house to have 2.5 kids and a dog. Much better that you get yourself a pied-à-terre, a small 1 room flat in some major city as you do contractual work until you hit your mid-life crisis, become overwhelmed with existential dread and try to find a partner to start a family. Now we add to the recipe your aging parents who are looking to downsize, cheap housing stock in dilapidated urban cores of major Northern cities compared to ever high demand for suburban land (think Detroit, Baltimore, Montreal), and humanity being crammed on top of each other like sardines. The Big Debate about Laissez-Faire or Centralized Planning: You will find in your Anglosphere countries the primary adherents of Laissez-Faire planning. Canada, for example, has absolutely no national policy on urban development. It is left entirely to its provinces who delegate it in turn to its smallest actors, the municipalities themselves. The other side of the coin are heavily centralized countries like Japan, Germany, and France who enact national policies on development and guide economic activity. Since the majority of humanity now lives in an urban environment (as of 2005 approx), Cities such as Sao Paolo or London, with millions of residents, must have some form of centralized governance to make sure we don't degenerate into anarchy. It basically boils to "How much power must we give to a central governing authority?" which leads to interesting things like the Mayor of London having, in some ways, more power and clout than the Prime Minister of the UK. "Dad, Get out of your loving car": We're well aware cars are literally killing us. They take up too much space, cost billions in infrastructure, wreck your physical health and are boiling cities alive. Have a video: https://www.nfb.ca/film/saga_city/ Long and the short of it is that we are going to tax the ever living poo poo out of you and make life miserable if you insist on using a POMV for your daily travels. the Day of the Compactor is coming. Modern Infrastructure sucks dick from behind: Cheap, flimsy, extremely polluting glass towers that need to be redone every twenty years? buildings that rely on tensile strength which collapse after 5 years? Most of us want to strangle modern "architects", but one of the big problems is that the schools pumping out these designers and architects have forgotten/do not want to teach tried, tested and true building techniques. Worse still, in my opinion, is that the public loving hates modern forms of architecture but no one wants to compromise their "artistic expression". Bottom line is that old architecture is greener, cheaper, more durable, and (most importantly) more popular with the people who actually have to live in those buildings, and if we're lucky, we'll rein in the politicians who enable them. Like I said, these are just broad trends. I dunno. I gotta go yell at people over a collapsing freeway interchange that was approved 40 years ago without a proper review because of JOBS JOBS JOBS MY LEGACY JOBS JOBS JOBS. Go read about the Burgess City Model and the Chicago School or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 19:07
|
|
|
The best short term solution to this problem is that unless you work in a super specialized field, there’s plenty of lower cost cities to move to where gentrification has been minimal. St. Louis, Birmingham, Dallas, Kansas City, Charlotte, and other areas are full of cheap housing and plenty of decent white collar jobs if you’re just looking for generic cubicle-dwelling office type work. Everywhere has brewpubs and dive bars and cafes with four dollar toast, so you won’t be culturally deprived, either. You might have to actually talk to a Republican now and then, but I think it’s a fair trade off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 20:02
|
|
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:The best short term solution to this problem is that unless you work in a super specialized field, there’s plenty of lower cost cities to move to where gentrification has been minimal. St. Louis, Birmingham, Dallas, Kansas City, Charlotte, and other areas are full of cheap housing and plenty of decent white collar jobs if you’re just looking for generic cubicle-dwelling office type work. Everywhere has brewpubs and dive bars and cafes with four dollar toast, so you won’t be culturally deprived, either. You might have to actually talk to a Republican now and then, but I think it’s a fair trade off. gentrification is a closely linked but distinct problem from rising urban home prices in general. but otherwise yeah, it sucks hard trying to get a home in seattle, san francisco, los angeles, new york, etc. on a middle class salary. one viable solution is to move to a cheaper metro. this is a huge reason why sunbelt cities are growing, they strike a balance between job growth, cultural/entertainment options, and cost of living the rust belt will swing back this way soon enough (within a few decades)
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 20:06
|
|
|
quote:Modern Infrastructure sucks dick from behind: Cheap, flimsy, extremely polluting glass towers that need to be redone every twenty years? buildings that rely on tensile strength which collapse after 5 years? Most of us want to strangle modern "architects", but one of the big problems is that the schools pumping out these designers and architects have forgotten/do not want to teach tried, tested and true building techniques. Worse still, in my opinion, is that the public loving hates modern forms of architecture but no one wants to compromise their "artistic expression". Bottom line is that old architecture is greener, cheaper, more durable, and (most importantly) more popular with the people who actually have to live in those buildings, and if we're lucky, we'll rein in the politicians who enable them. Could you elaborate on "tensile strength collapse"? That sounds pretty... uh, alarming. I would love nothing more than to see new construction revert to more traditional, older style architecture. If it is greener as well, fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 21:56
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:Could you elaborate on "tensile strength collapse"? That sounds pretty... uh, alarming. A frequent rallying cry from NIMBYs is “we don’t want more ugly glass cube condos going up”, so a switch to more aesthetically pleasing architecture would cut that argument off at the knees.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 22:19
|
|
|
Hating the architecture of new buildings is a thing that has happened since Grog got pissed off about Grag's new cave.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 22:27
|
|
|
Whenever someone mentions gentrification, to me, it just means this
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 22:35
|
|
|
withak posted:Hating the architecture of new buildings is a thing that has happened since Grog got pissed off about Grag's new cave. Genetic fallacy. Just because new buildings were hated in the past doesn't mean that hate wasn't justified. What matters less is not the hate of particular architectural styles but rather the reasoning behind criticism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 22:57
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:the reasoning behind criticism. i don't like (new_thing) it is not like the thing i am used to, (old_thing). this new thing represents change, which i do not like, as it reminds me of the passage of time and my own mortality
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 23:01
|
|
|
There was a funny thread a couple months ago in the NUMTOT Facebook group where someone posted a picture of a new apartment building complaining about how all this new luxury housing is ugly etc. and it turned out to be a 100% affordable development.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 23:31
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:i don't like (new_thing) it is not like the thing i am used to, (old_thing). this new thing represents change, which i do not like, as it reminds me of the passage of time and my own mortality Actually, I think you'll find that the architecture of late stage capitalism reflects the values and quality of late stage capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 23:34
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:Actually, I think you'll find that the architecture of late stage capitalism reflects the values and quality of late stage capitalism. i dont really want to continue this conversation because it seems very silly and and bickering over personal aesthetic preferences, i just want to point out that "the architecture of late stage capitalism" could refer to any one of many styles of architecture prevalent in the western world over the last two centuries starting with like neo-gothic like, are you going to go full on i-dont-like-postmodernism-whatever-that-means-at-this-moment or are you gonna throw me a curveball and start talking about googie or streamline moderne or something
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 23:36
|
|
|
just talking about "the architecture of late stage capitalism" itself as if we are at the end of history and on the verge of the revolution is why postmodernism even has to be a term
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 23:43
|
|
|
 "drat this new-fangled late-stage capitalist architecture... excuse me while I masturbate furiously to enormous old Victorian houses originally built for the most well-off in our society!" —my neighborhood NIMBYsJust because you don't like the aesthetic of something doesn't mean it's any less a home. If architects can offer more, better units at a lower cost by ditching the ornate superficials of the past, I'm all for it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 00:34
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:
They tell you they're going to lower costs by ditching the ornate superficials, then they ditch the ornations and pocket the difference themselves. Welcome to capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 01:35
|
|
|
Meanwhile, the guys who used to do the ornamentation job are out of work, and too old to retrain. They now work as walmart greeters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 01:37
|
|
|
i too long for the days of socialist rococo putting the chinoiserie in PRC
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 01:51
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:Could you elaborate on "tensile strength collapse"? That sounds pretty... uh, alarming. pre-stressed and/or post-tensioned concrete pre-stressed concrete: essentially you take a piece (or several pieces) of rebar, stretch it out 2-3 inches, then cast concrete around it, and when the concrete cures, you let go of the ends. now the concrete is in compression from the rebar trying to snap back into place, allowing it to span much longer distances since the tension forces acting along its lower surface are much lower (concrete is very strong in compression but fails almost immediately in tension) post-tensioned concrete: you get a cable with a big washer at each end, hold it taut, and cast concrete around it (or, sometimes, the concrete is pre-cast and you thread the cable through a hole.) then, once the concrete has hardened, you stretch out the cable and clip it so that the tension presses the washers against the concrete, holding it in compression and allowing it to span longer distances. both of these have the issue that if the rebar or cable fails, the entire concrete plank or whatever structural member fails. post-tensioning is more common today since you can go back and re-tighten the cables occasionally (up to a point - eventually they snap), as opposed to pre-stressing where you basically have to jackhammer out the whole thing to replace the rebar (now ask me about engineered lumber and oriented strand board)
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 02:23
|
|
|
donoteat posted:(now ask me about engineered lumber and oriented strand board) What are your thoughts on engineered lumber and OSB?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 02:29
|
|
|
donoteat posted:pre-stressed and/or post-tensioned concrete also i am an expert on post-tensioning systems and managed a lot of PT projects as well as drafting a lot more PT stuff including the FIU bridge that went down in Florida let me know if you have any questions about it
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 02:37
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:also i am an expert on post-tensioning systems and managed a lot of PT projects as well as drafting a lot more PT stuff including the FIU bridge that went down in Florida  You...drafted...that....bridge?What the hell happened there?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 02:58
|
|
|
Spacewolf posted:
Probably not the thread to go into detail, but yeah i drew the shop drawings for it. It's a different kind of PT system from the way buildings are done. I can't really speak to anything about the design, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 03:20
|
|
|
SpaceCadetBob posted:What are your thoughts on engineered lumber and OSB? thanks for asking! so most older buildings tended to be built with old-growth lumber -- giant oak beams and the like (fun fact: most large-diameter oak beams are more fire-resistant than the equivalent steel section) but this proved uneconomical to build with en-masse, so balloon framing was developed where stud walls that we're all familiar with today bear most of the load. these are made of fast-growing trees like douglas fir. eventually this too proved to be uneconomical, so engineered lumber was developed to take advantage of the incredible technology of glue. a lot of great stuff came out of this like laminated veneer lumber (where thin sheets of wood are glued together to act as one larger board, nearly equivalent in strength to a huge old-growth timber but much cheaper) and dimensional wooden truss joists and a whole bunch of other fancy things which use less wood than simple dimensional lumber but have equivalent strength. oriented strand board is a form of engineered lumber which is effectively a plywood board made of woodchips glued together and compressed. it is a great way to practically use waste and is about as strong as plywood, and is frequently used as a substitute. all these products seem to show up again and again in these articles in the past two decades or so about wooden skyscrapers that are gonna arrive in 5 years, and a few truly fantastic buildings have been built which would otherwise have been impossible without engineered lumber. the issue arises when they are used cheaply, in cheap buildings. while you can use waterproof or water-resistant glue in engineered lumber, it is more expensive than the cheap non-waterproof glue. if the structural member will never get wet, this isn't a problem! and that's what engineers and especially developers expect for concealed structural members. the thing is, buildings leak, especially cheap buildings. so these fancy new engineered lumber joists and walls and beams quickly turn into so much papier mache once they're exposed to water for a few months, and the whole thing needs to be taken down and replaced. i've seen entire vertical sections of facades replaced because one tenant on the top floor decided to use the wrong kind of tile on their porch, and water was trapped underneath and seeped into the LVLs over 2 months and ruined the whole structure. so uh, engineered lumber is good if you use it right, but no one does, so effectively it's usually bad, especially in combination with cheap roofing and cladding systems. donoteat fucked around with this message at 03:47 on Aug 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 03:39
|
|
|
It sounds like it could be an effective tool in low-humidity environments.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 18:03
|
|
|
donoteat posted:thanks for asking! Most of the small to midsize residential construction we've done lately (15 to 30 unit buildings) is pushing pretty hard to go all steel and wood truss to get away from TJIs and laminated LVLs all together. At least the wood trusses are all dimensional wood so it takes the water a bit better than particle board. They have their own issues, but for the most part seem to work ok. My big pet peeve is loving massive useless peaked roofs that are just giant dead spaces waiting to catch fire.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 21:20
|
|
|
Troy Queef posted:as someone who lives in a city with seemingly none of this problem, the whole "YIMBYs are loving white scum, PHIMBY is the real poo poo" attitude from the Left (the "YIMBY" ep of Chapo, District Sentinel, coastal DSA chapters etc) is, to put it lightly, confusing. can someone pls explain Trabisnikof posted:In addition to what others have said, there is a bit of a focus bias where a lot of what the yimby talk about are "in their backyards" aka in their communities and it can be a bit exclusionary to other communities are experiencing. I don't think YIMBY's want to get rid of environmental regulations wholesale, they'd just like to see reform that would get rid of affluent old people concern trolling high density housing into oblivion. fermun posted:YIMBY people often ignore the fact that their typical pro-density development ideas result in displacement of the people that actually use public transport, and result in a net increased greenhouse gas emissions due to displacing the poor who then have to commute by car. quote:This story has repeated itself across the city. In those same years, rent and home prices spiked in Koreatown and Hollywood as dense new developments were built near busy transit lines. But the population in these areas fell, especially among people of color. quote:The Vermont, a 464-unit building constructed in Koreatown in 2013, is a stark example. It sits at the junction of the Metro's Purple line subway, the No. 720 bus and the Red line subway (which lost around 3 million riders between 2013 and 2016). The Vermont's cheapest apartment now costs $2,550, more than double what the average L.A. renter can afford; two bedrooms run to $4,500. It has three floors of parking — enough spaces for every apartment to have at least one car. quote:How much does parking cost in Los Angeles? For one project just blocks away from Union Station, it could be as much as $28 million. With such backwards parking policies, that's not really transit-oriented development. Combine that with a total population decrease (so either that new housing wasn't that dense, or there wasn't that much of it), and falling ridership seems less surprising.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 12:13
|
|
|
Btw, the US has seen a general drop in public transit ridership the last few years, probably a combination of lower fuel prices and a moderate economic recovery. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if those condos owners fought tooth and nail for those spots considering the class divide over public transit in LA. Also, PHIMY's probably oppose rezoning for market-rate housing because they want that land for public housing in the first place. Also, it has been clear that high-end high-density housing really doesn't help affordability to a significant degree. I could see it work if just they tax the hell out of new developments.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 14:01
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Btw, the US has seen a general drop in public transit ridership the last few years, probably a combination of lower fuel prices and a moderate economic recovery. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if those condos owners fought tooth and nail for those spots considering the class divide over public transit in LA. quote:Also, PHIMY's probably oppose rezoning for market-rate housing because they want that land for public housing in the first place. quote:Also, it has been clear that high-end high-density housing really doesn't help affordability to a significant degree. Although even in Portland, like most US cities, the new housing density is mostly concentrated in a few areas where significant new amounts of housing supply are legally allowed. You'd probably see more impact if more of the city was open to new housing. I partially agree in the sense that, like, bigass towers are inherently expensive to build, so if most new housing supply is coming in that form, you're not going to see the needle move as much as compared to an equivalent number of units in low-rise/missing middle housing. quote:I could see it work if just they tax the hell out of new developments.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 15:12
|
|
|
Obstructing market rate development on the basis you want that development to be publicly owned is nonsense in most areas. Like the Seattle city council recently blocked/delayed a new 442 unit building, and the council definitely didn't follow up with "Also here's our new tax to fund the city building its own 100 million dollar tower". (If they did that would be awesome, but let's not pretend that objecting to market rate development generally leads to public development)
twodot fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Aug 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 15:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 09:36 |
|
|
Cicero posted:Hmm, maybe. For apartments though, I imagine most developers would love to have fewer parking spots. In LA, the car is still king, because well in honesty, it is probably 30-40 years before the transit system is comparable to other international cities. The post-war growth of LA was a disaster. quote:That's dumb, since there's no shortage of low density areas in basically every American city that could be easily redeveloped into higher density public or private housing. There's no need to compete here, if anything these cases complement each other. The question is where those areas are, and also plenty of city centers and neighborhoods around those city centers have become increasingly saturated. This matters because public transit in the US is very limited. quote:That's debatable: http://cityobservatory.org/more_evidence_of_portland_rent_declines/ It could also be explained by an unsustainable local housing market, and housing prices are either stagnating/starting to dip around the same timeframe. Portland is a bit of an oddity also since prices literally went up 20-30% in the space of a single year. Also, Portland doesn't have the wage base of Seattle. Also, I would like to see the numbers for different income group, it is possible housing for poor Portlanders is only becoming more unaffordable. Edit: https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market-trends/us/or/portland/ According to them, prices are more stabilizing than anything, and if anything studio rental prices are a bit of an outlier in their declines. quote:How exactly do you expect higher taxes on a thing to make that particular thing cheaper? Like I'm all for higher general taxes to fund public housing, but why would you want the tax to come specifically from new housing, when new housing is what you want more of? The issue is the type of housing. If they want to build luxury condos on prime real-estate there should be compensation for that social cost. I am fine with them building a larger portion of affordable housing in exchange. twodot posted:Obstructing market rate development on the basis you want that development to be publicly owned is nonsense in most areas. Like the Seattle city council recently blocked/delayed a new 442 unit building, and the council definitely didn't follow up with "Also here's our new tax to fund the city building its own 100 million dollar tower". (If they did that would be awesome, but let's not pretend that objecting to market rate development generally leads to public development) The city council should have followed up with "okay so you want to build your tower, here is some conditions for this and future projects." Ardennes fucked around with this message at 16:34 on Aug 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 15:52
|
|