+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: 'Friendly' Political Ranting (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: This Experiment Undid Our Cities. How Do We Fix It? (/showthread.php?tid=286102)
Re: This Experiment Undid Our Cities. How Do We Fix It? - Acer - 04-02-2024
DeusxMac wrote:
(td)
Sorry, this guy’s ideological deck is so obviously stacked for his agenda.
Concepts and realities ignored. Euphemistically flattering, spun, phrasing.
What agendas, concepts and realities would those be?
One reality is NIMBY. It's already popped up in this thread.
Re: This Experiment Undid Our Cities. How Do We Fix It? - kj - 04-02-2024
Screw NIMBY. Ok, well it's kind of a thing, but in this case it's not good guys against bad guys. We live in a neighborhood we like, and have rich developers who want to build basically Walmart style housing in the middle of it. Why are we "bad guys" because we don't want that? They don't have adequate parking planned, access is a joke, which means we'll be choked out of getting to and from our house. And it will never result in affordable housing. Just more unaffordable housing and a ruined neighborhood. There are massive problems with affordable housing, but it all stems from people with loads more money than I have. I'm not giving up the small amount of comfort I have for them. Btw, the most vocal supporters of this re-zoning are liberal people in the liberal "north end" where they will not let anyone build anything. They use historical building protections etc. to block anything. That's NIMBY.
People of modest means have built nice communities. Rich people want to take advantage of those communities, which eventually drives everyone who built those communities out. Don't naively buy into exploitation. This is not the way.
Re: This Experiment Undid Our Cities. How Do We Fix It? - wurm - 04-02-2024
I happened to see this thread a day or so after I watched this one about How Urban Renewal Ruined Everything. I'm always surprised (and often more than a little embarrassed) about how much I wasn't aware of.
Re: This Experiment Undid Our Cities. How Do We Fix It? - mrbigstuff - 04-02-2024
these things are fine for a quick "primer" on subjects, but the matter at hand is a degree level discussion, taking at least two years of coursework and an internship. and a bunch of years of work and study beyond.
Re: This Experiment Undid Our Cities. How Do We Fix It? - mrbigstuff - 04-02-2024
Ted King wrote:
I don't have firm ideas on how to fix it, but I thought I'd share something that is happening in my neighborhood that seems to be almost organically addressing the problem. In Portland if you own a single family home with a large enough lot (which can be as small as 5000 ft2 I think), you can put down an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) with up to 800 ft2. They are popping up a fair bit in my neighborhood and being rented out. Empty lots are being built on with two story small single family dwellings that are packed together pretty tight but still have a little space for themselves.
These dwellings are still too expensive for someone making minimum wage but I think it is easing the competition for smaller, more compact dwellings so it may be helping a little bit.
these are solutions that will make a real impact. the problem, as the problem with all zoning, is that the purview often lay with multiple agencies or municipalities, making the regulations difficult to standardize, adding to complexity and cost from place to place. in my area, the allowances range from 900sf to 1200 or even 1500sf with certain special permits. but, again, once the permitting agencies begin adding regs on top of by-right allowances, it complicates things.
and yet, I do think it's a great solution to many "but my kids can't afford to live here" and "what do we do with grandma?" types of situations.
Re: This Experiment Undid Our Cities. How Do We Fix It? - Acer - 04-02-2024
kj wrote:
Screw NIMBY. Ok, well it's kind of a thing, but in this case it's not good guys against bad guys. We live in a neighborhood we like, and have rich developers who want to build basically Walmart style housing in the middle of it. Why are we "bad guys" because we don't want that? They don't have adequate parking planned, access is a joke, which means we'll be choked out of getting to and from our house. And it will never result in affordable housing. Just more unaffordable housing and a ruined neighborhood. There are massive problems with affordable housing, but it all stems from people with loads more money than I have. I'm not giving up the small amount of comfort I have for them. Btw, the most vocal supporters of this re-zoning are liberal people in the liberal "north end" where they will not let anyone build anything. They use historical building protections etc. to block anything. That's NIMBY.
People of modest means have built nice communities. Rich people want to take advantage of those communities, which eventually drives everyone who built those communities out. Don't naively buy into exploitation. This is not the way.
Giant developments are not the solution suggested in the OP.
Re: This Experiment Undid Our Cities. How Do We Fix It? - DeusxMac - 04-02-2024
Acer wrote:
[quote=DeusxMac]
(td)
Sorry, this guy’s ideological deck is so obviously stacked for his agenda.
Concepts and realities ignored. Euphemistically flattering, spun, phrasing.
What agendas, concepts and realities would those be?
1. Assumes issues, options and dynamics of smaller 1800s city growth are the same those of much larger 21st cities. Some are, but many are most definitely not.
2. Part of Chicago's population increase over the years was the result of inclusion of already populated surrounding areas: "The city grew significantly in size and population by incorporating many neighboring townships between 1851 and 1920, with the largest annexation happening in 1889, with five townships joining the city...which now comprises most of the South Side...the far southeast...and...most of Chicago's Northwest Side."
3. He claims that Chicago "despite its issues, worked at its most basic level". What does that even mean?
4. He claims despite rapid population increase, Chicago was "somehow able to meet its housing needs". Was it? Were there none without adequate housing in 1910; no homeless in 1920?
Note; later he uses the term "overcrowded tenements", which apparently he considers acceptable for meeting those "housing needs".
5. He claims "none of these (housing) options were meant to be permanent", immediately after an expert has described the building of bungalows; many of which are still in use 100 years later.
6. His rainforest cornfield analogy is specious; simplistic.
7. He claims cities stopped his preferred "evolving" because of "money and restrictions", then characterizes those with the back-handed compliment of being "well meaning".
8. He implies that the citizens of the city did not themselves want the enacted zoning restrictions; that they were unilaterally enacted despite public disapproval.
9. He cherry picks certain subjective valuation words in the zoning ordinances, ignoring those that would be widely, if not universally supported by the citizens.
Example: From "To promote and protect the public health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience, and general welfare of the people", he flags the subjective "moral", but he also casts "comfort" and "convenience" as being unworthy of inclusion.
10. He critcizes zoning regulation of density and height, assuming no citizens would would desire such.
11. He uses the phrase "many forms of gentle density"; an excellent example of his euphemistically flattering, spin.
12. This is the major point - He either ignores, or doesn't comprehend the reality that people will aspire to, and work towards living in the setting that appeals to them.
If that setting is "changed", especially by outside forces, then it ceases to be where they want to live.
Some people WANT to live in the country. Some people WANT to live in the suburbs. Some people WANT to live in the city.
Some people WANT to live in free-standing houses. Some people WANT to live in row houses. Some people WANT to live in high-rises.
Acer wrote: One reality is NIMBY. It's already popped up in this thread.
See #12 above.
p.s. Chicago's population peaked in the 1950s, and has declined fairly steadily since then (3,620,962 in 1950, 2,696,555 in 2021 - down 26%)
Re: This Experiment Undid Our Cities. How Do We Fix It? - $tevie - 04-02-2024
wurm wrote:
I happened to see this thread a day or so after I watched this one about How Urban Renewal Ruined Everything. I'm always surprised (and often more than a little embarrassed) about how much I wasn't aware of.
Same story in Baltimore, too. There's been talk for years about tearing down the part of the JFX that is within city limits and creating an on-the-ground boulevard to replace it. https://danrodricks.com/2021/04/26/knocking-down-the-jfx-and-making-a-new-city-boulevard/ I wish it was happening already.
Re: This Experiment Undid Our Cities. How Do We Fix It? - Acer - 04-02-2024
No one is telling anyone where they should live. The OP is advocating for reducing the top-down forcing of certain development patterns that make housing more expensive and resource-intensive. How is that bad?
Re: This Experiment Undid Our Cities. How Do We Fix It? - DeusxMac - 04-02-2024
Acer wrote:
No one is telling anyone where they should live. The OP is advocating for reducing the top-down forcing of certain development patterns that make housing more expensive and resource-intensive. How is that bad?
1. It assumes zoning restrictions are unilaterally "top down", and that they have no support from the affected homeowners.
2. If I live in medium-density, single-family row housing, and that's the setting I want to live in, replacing the adjoining row houses with high-density, 5-story apartment complexes on either side means, in fact, I no longer live where I want to.