Almost a year ago today, I discussed how some area suburbs were trying to increase transit options in their municipalities that do not currently have service.
In March, Mesquite opened an express route from their downtown connecting to the Lawnview Station on the Green Line.
However, Allen and McKinney have seen nothing concrete from their efforts yet. Monday's Metro section in the Dallas Morning News contained a story about why there has been a delay for those northern suburbs.
The short version is one of my concerns about this piecemeal approach. DART has inhibitions about approving a program that pumps non-service-area riders into the first station of the Red Line, forcing others further in to stand on the Downtown-Dallas-bound trains. Those others are also more likely to reside in a DART service area city and therefore are also more likely to pay the sales tax. As it stands, DART will receive nothing from the two suburbs.
Sadly, in the current system (political, not infrastructural), the only solution I see is an increase in capacity. But again, that has costs associated and who pays what will be at the heart of this matter.
As I mentioned in the previous post, this is one of the many drawbacks with a transit system's service area being decided by individual cities and paid for with their sales tax allocations. Until a fundamental change totally re-designs the way we fund, operate and administer transit service in the region, this will be more common as the region grows outward. More and more outlying suburbs will try to find a way to keep their sales tax and still fund transit and the current payers will look out for their interests first.
In the end, it is the residents who will have the drawbacks.
Showing posts with label suburban. Show all posts
Showing posts with label suburban. Show all posts
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Finding the Grey in the Black and White
In my previous post, I mentioned the idea, long considered valid, that kids belong in the suburbs. Being car oriented, they are breeding grounds for accidents, more kids die from cars than anything else, and being in a car doesn't allow the kids to feel a connection to their area, which has a whole host of negative effects.
A loyal reader commented:
Hmmm, I don't think I quite agree with some of your "facts". You have tons more cars driving down the street in front of your house in the city than I do in the suburbs. Plus, I have a back yard for a child to play in. I'm not trying to convince you that the 'burbs are best, but the vast majority of people in this beautiful country prefer where I live to where you live.
I answered a bit, but there is a bit more I want to say. I responded with this:
I don't think I accurately relayed what I or the study is saying.
First, cars on the street are not the inherent problem. Street design can be. However, the big problem is kids being stuck in a car for everything. Every errand you run is with the car. Kids don't die from being hit by car nowhere near as often as being in the car.
As for the street, more cars can actually be safer. On conventional, modern suburbs, streets are wider. This design gives drivers a certain comfort level. That usually means faster speeds. Design considerations aside, more cars can actually be safer. Speeds on I-30 are slower at 5pm than at 9 pm, even though more cars use the 5pm time.
I think a common mistake is evidenced here in that the common thought is either low-density single family or high density towers. Single family neighborhoods can be quite urban. For local examples, see the Bishop Arts District, Lower Greenville or even leftover pieces of Uptown. The difference is design. Modern suburbia is car-only. Pre-WWII suburbia is quite dense and walkable. I think I have a topic for a new post.
I think I sufficiently answered the car vs. kid point. While the hit-by-a-car to death ratio is greater in the developing world, in our fair country, it is being inside the car that is the problem. Those that do survive a wreck can often have injuries that stay with them the rest of their lives. We all know someone who has been at least injured or worse in a wreck.
Allow me to move on then to the second point of the first comment. How do we know that the vast majority of people prefer auto-oriented suburbs? I am not convinced.
A few numbers to consider. The residential rents in walkable areas (rents in economic terms do not refer to lease payments, but land value) primarily located in city centers have eclipsed pre-recession levels. Meanwhile, residential properties in areas that rely solely on cars for transportation are still declining in value. Together, that tells me a bunch. It means that walkable areas are so scarce compared to demand, that even though the country itself hasn't achieved a full-scale recovery, urban area property managers use a little supply-and-demand theory and raise the prices to match the supply, forcing out the margins, which appear to be wide in this case.
Meanwhile, there was evidence before the housing crash that home builders had overbuilt the supply of single-family housing. After the banking crisis, it became severely evident. Single-family housing still hasn't recovered. Yet there needs to be an asterisk here.
Walkable single family housing has done remarkably better than their auto-oriented peers. Some of the neighborhoods I named above are examples, like Bishop Arts and Lower Greenville, but the M Streets, Winnetka Heights and parts of Lakewood are further examples. Most people don't realize, but even posh Highland Park is a highly walkable suburban enclave. All of these places have either declined slightly or gained in value. Even now, once outside Loop 12 and particularly LBJ freeway, price declines in double digits are quite common.
There is one final point I wish to make on this topic. One critique that planners receive in trying offer the fruitcart variety is that people don't want to live in anything other than single-family homes. I really struggle with that idea. Go to the grocery store and see how many types of bread sit on the shelves. Dozens of brands offer dozens of varieties. Go to a movie store and see how many types and genres of movies there are. Go to an electronics store and see the huge variety of TV's. Walk on to a car dealership and count the many types of different cars. Yet, all we want is one type of housing? It doesn't add up. A person will prefer different housing at different stages in their life. A similar person will prefer different types at those same stages. Cities that don't reflect that will suffer. Some already are.
A loyal reader commented:
Hmmm, I don't think I quite agree with some of your "facts". You have tons more cars driving down the street in front of your house in the city than I do in the suburbs. Plus, I have a back yard for a child to play in. I'm not trying to convince you that the 'burbs are best, but the vast majority of people in this beautiful country prefer where I live to where you live.
I answered a bit, but there is a bit more I want to say. I responded with this:
I don't think I accurately relayed what I or the study is saying.
First, cars on the street are not the inherent problem. Street design can be. However, the big problem is kids being stuck in a car for everything. Every errand you run is with the car. Kids don't die from being hit by car nowhere near as often as being in the car.
As for the street, more cars can actually be safer. On conventional, modern suburbs, streets are wider. This design gives drivers a certain comfort level. That usually means faster speeds. Design considerations aside, more cars can actually be safer. Speeds on I-30 are slower at 5pm than at 9 pm, even though more cars use the 5pm time.
I think a common mistake is evidenced here in that the common thought is either low-density single family or high density towers. Single family neighborhoods can be quite urban. For local examples, see the Bishop Arts District, Lower Greenville or even leftover pieces of Uptown. The difference is design. Modern suburbia is car-only. Pre-WWII suburbia is quite dense and walkable. I think I have a topic for a new post.
I think I sufficiently answered the car vs. kid point. While the hit-by-a-car to death ratio is greater in the developing world, in our fair country, it is being inside the car that is the problem. Those that do survive a wreck can often have injuries that stay with them the rest of their lives. We all know someone who has been at least injured or worse in a wreck.
Allow me to move on then to the second point of the first comment. How do we know that the vast majority of people prefer auto-oriented suburbs? I am not convinced.
A few numbers to consider. The residential rents in walkable areas (rents in economic terms do not refer to lease payments, but land value) primarily located in city centers have eclipsed pre-recession levels. Meanwhile, residential properties in areas that rely solely on cars for transportation are still declining in value. Together, that tells me a bunch. It means that walkable areas are so scarce compared to demand, that even though the country itself hasn't achieved a full-scale recovery, urban area property managers use a little supply-and-demand theory and raise the prices to match the supply, forcing out the margins, which appear to be wide in this case.
Meanwhile, there was evidence before the housing crash that home builders had overbuilt the supply of single-family housing. After the banking crisis, it became severely evident. Single-family housing still hasn't recovered. Yet there needs to be an asterisk here.
Walkable single family housing has done remarkably better than their auto-oriented peers. Some of the neighborhoods I named above are examples, like Bishop Arts and Lower Greenville, but the M Streets, Winnetka Heights and parts of Lakewood are further examples. Most people don't realize, but even posh Highland Park is a highly walkable suburban enclave. All of these places have either declined slightly or gained in value. Even now, once outside Loop 12 and particularly LBJ freeway, price declines in double digits are quite common.
There is one final point I wish to make on this topic. One critique that planners receive in trying offer the fruitcart variety is that people don't want to live in anything other than single-family homes. I really struggle with that idea. Go to the grocery store and see how many types of bread sit on the shelves. Dozens of brands offer dozens of varieties. Go to a movie store and see how many types and genres of movies there are. Go to an electronics store and see the huge variety of TV's. Walk on to a car dealership and count the many types of different cars. Yet, all we want is one type of housing? It doesn't add up. A person will prefer different housing at different stages in their life. A similar person will prefer different types at those same stages. Cities that don't reflect that will suffer. Some already are.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
The Paradox that is the Suburbs: Kids, Death and other Deficiencies
As a parent with a kid in the urban core that is not a prototypical city (like New York or San Francisco), I am asked all the time when I am moving to the suburbs. In an area where that thinking has been entrenched for decades, city living is for those without kids and the 'burbs are where kids are raised, folks have a hard time understanding the severe trepidation my wife and I have towards moving to a conventional suburban setting.
I posted before about the myth that kids and suburbs hold hands and skip in the wildflower fields. While my opinions since that post haven't changed, I want to add a supporting stance from articles discussing new academic research about this topic.
Sarah Goodyear penned this article in the Atlantic Cities that says much of the same that I did, and also adds other useful information. For example residential neighborhood design that still reflects an auto-favored design force kids away from the street. Without decent parks, and for some, with a nearby park, this encourages a sedentary childhood. This contributes to the lack of place that pervades our cities, since they don't really experience their city.
She also wrote this one, that gives numbers to the point. Bottom line, there is no greater killer of children than cars worldwide.
Aside from schools, lack of a backyard is the other big reason I hear for leaving my current living situation. However, there is no proof that a backyard equals physical activity. Manhattan kids, many of which have no backyard, are still less obese than the American average. The same exists everywhere, urban kids are less obese than suburban counterparts.
In the end, it comes down to design. An environment that encourages activity will have healthier people. We walk, bike and play in the park across the street as an everyday activity. The same can not be said in the modern suburban setting. Just by living day-to-day, my family burns more calories than if we had to drive everywhere.
Note, when I reference urban versus suburban, I am not referring to city boundaries, but urban design. Lake Highlands in Dallas is suburban, downtown Plano is more urban, even if small in area.
The last point I want to make is that it is not just kids who suffer. Continuing the citing of Atlantic Cities, Nate Berg points out that there has been a correlation established between the health of adults and time spent behind the wheel. Keeping it local, the study cited followed drivers in DFW and Austin and found the longer the commute the greater chance for decreased cardiorespiratory fitness, increased weight, high cholesterol and elevated blood pressure.
The scary part is that all these are simply direct results. These are easily quantifiable. But what happens to the indirect externalities? How do you quantify health impacts of particulate matter? Smog? The end of a car's life? Estimates vary widely, but even conservative ones show a huge societal problem.
If you see me next, ask about my family, job or thoughts on a certain topic. Please don't ask when I plan to move to the suburbs.
I posted before about the myth that kids and suburbs hold hands and skip in the wildflower fields. While my opinions since that post haven't changed, I want to add a supporting stance from articles discussing new academic research about this topic.
Sarah Goodyear penned this article in the Atlantic Cities that says much of the same that I did, and also adds other useful information. For example residential neighborhood design that still reflects an auto-favored design force kids away from the street. Without decent parks, and for some, with a nearby park, this encourages a sedentary childhood. This contributes to the lack of place that pervades our cities, since they don't really experience their city.
She also wrote this one, that gives numbers to the point. Bottom line, there is no greater killer of children than cars worldwide.
Aside from schools, lack of a backyard is the other big reason I hear for leaving my current living situation. However, there is no proof that a backyard equals physical activity. Manhattan kids, many of which have no backyard, are still less obese than the American average. The same exists everywhere, urban kids are less obese than suburban counterparts.
In the end, it comes down to design. An environment that encourages activity will have healthier people. We walk, bike and play in the park across the street as an everyday activity. The same can not be said in the modern suburban setting. Just by living day-to-day, my family burns more calories than if we had to drive everywhere.
Note, when I reference urban versus suburban, I am not referring to city boundaries, but urban design. Lake Highlands in Dallas is suburban, downtown Plano is more urban, even if small in area.
The last point I want to make is that it is not just kids who suffer. Continuing the citing of Atlantic Cities, Nate Berg points out that there has been a correlation established between the health of adults and time spent behind the wheel. Keeping it local, the study cited followed drivers in DFW and Austin and found the longer the commute the greater chance for decreased cardiorespiratory fitness, increased weight, high cholesterol and elevated blood pressure.
The scary part is that all these are simply direct results. These are easily quantifiable. But what happens to the indirect externalities? How do you quantify health impacts of particulate matter? Smog? The end of a car's life? Estimates vary widely, but even conservative ones show a huge societal problem.
If you see me next, ask about my family, job or thoughts on a certain topic. Please don't ask when I plan to move to the suburbs.
Monday, April 30, 2012
Transit in the DFW Burbs
The Dallas Morning News ran two articles last week pertaining to transit service in some local suburban cities, both of which underscore the difficulty of providing that service in an area not built for it.
On April 23, the headline read "Mesquite's DART deal irks Garland." Ray Leszcynski outlines how the City of Garland has poured millions into DART over the past few decades with its one-cent sales tax, while Mesquite is paying $300,000 a year for one DART express bus route. John Willis, a Garland council member expresses his frustration that Garland can't use its sales tax since it goes to transit and Mesquite can, even though a fraction goes to transit. Just a note, Willis was a person who I sparred with on a message board prior to office and remember he was critical of DART no matter what they did, see here, here, here, here and here just for some quick examples (if you can figure out who I was, I want to apologize as that version of me was quite a bit more idealistic and naive).
The thinking of some DART suburbs is that they could have stronger local economies if they could use their sales tax for economic development. I don't agree because there is a strong correlation between local cities with transit and their employment numbers, while those that use their sales tax for economic development have higher resident populations than employment numbers, indicating a lower performing local economy.
I guess part of the issue for Willis is that Mesquite is paying for transit with that sales tax while also using it for other purposes, but Garland is certainly the winner in terms of transportation. They have two rail stations, 20 bus routes and paratransit service to show for the money. Mesquite gets one express route with limited service and has to pay for paratransit elsewhere. Garland carries over 10,000 trips on an average weekday, while the Mesquite service tops out near 100.
But as I warned in this post, this type of reaction was eventually going to happen. It is only natural because we leave transit up to every city to determine if they want it or not and how do they want to pay it. There will always be folks who are against the funding mechanism as we know. I even am. I don't see the state legislature authorizing the city residents to vote on if they want sewers or not, trash pickup or not, roads and highways or not. They deem that a valuable public service the state needs to allocate. However, they don't see the same for transit. It's the same 1960's thinking that has doomed much of our cities to mediocrity. How we fund and operate this system is borne out of this detrimental period.
The second bit of news came from the headline "A-train's weekend lag studied" from Friday's edition. The Denton County Transit Authority is struggling with how to schedule or even have Friday night and Saturday service on its commuter train. The agency has a goal to achieve 50% weekend ridership when compared to its weekday service. It hasn't met them consistently.
The main reason I want to bring this up is a quote in the DMN from board member Tom Spencer.
"I remind you of the statement that 'nobody ever built a successful commuter rails system catering to discretionary ridership,'" he wrote.
He's right. That's the problem. We know beforehand that by building a commuter rail system, its design has long headways, high capacity and low-density surroundings. It is no-doubt a commuter focus. But because it is cheaper than any other form of rail, it gets preference. When most of the area is suburban, it doesn't make sense to build more urban forms of rail.
This really gives ammo to the transit detractors. It is too expensive. No one will ride it. Yes, there is some increase in riders from express bus to the rail line, but is it enough to justify the added expense of rebuilding the rail line? As a voter, does the increase in cost have an effect on future ballot decisions?
In the end, any transit investment will be muted if there aren't any land use changes to accompany it. That is the struggle for the DCTA's A-Train. There would be plenty of discretionary riders if the stations and surrounding areas they served were denser. But then, they would be a more urban rail system.
Commuter rail works best when it connects to large employment centers, even if it still carries less riders than the urban forms that run in the large employment centers. This line doesn't even do that. It connects to an outlying light rail station and requires a transfer, and remembering that transfers suppress ridership, maybe the DCTA has bigger problems than weekend scheduling.
On April 23, the headline read "Mesquite's DART deal irks Garland." Ray Leszcynski outlines how the City of Garland has poured millions into DART over the past few decades with its one-cent sales tax, while Mesquite is paying $300,000 a year for one DART express bus route. John Willis, a Garland council member expresses his frustration that Garland can't use its sales tax since it goes to transit and Mesquite can, even though a fraction goes to transit. Just a note, Willis was a person who I sparred with on a message board prior to office and remember he was critical of DART no matter what they did, see here, here, here, here and here just for some quick examples (if you can figure out who I was, I want to apologize as that version of me was quite a bit more idealistic and naive).
The thinking of some DART suburbs is that they could have stronger local economies if they could use their sales tax for economic development. I don't agree because there is a strong correlation between local cities with transit and their employment numbers, while those that use their sales tax for economic development have higher resident populations than employment numbers, indicating a lower performing local economy.
I guess part of the issue for Willis is that Mesquite is paying for transit with that sales tax while also using it for other purposes, but Garland is certainly the winner in terms of transportation. They have two rail stations, 20 bus routes and paratransit service to show for the money. Mesquite gets one express route with limited service and has to pay for paratransit elsewhere. Garland carries over 10,000 trips on an average weekday, while the Mesquite service tops out near 100.
But as I warned in this post, this type of reaction was eventually going to happen. It is only natural because we leave transit up to every city to determine if they want it or not and how do they want to pay it. There will always be folks who are against the funding mechanism as we know. I even am. I don't see the state legislature authorizing the city residents to vote on if they want sewers or not, trash pickup or not, roads and highways or not. They deem that a valuable public service the state needs to allocate. However, they don't see the same for transit. It's the same 1960's thinking that has doomed much of our cities to mediocrity. How we fund and operate this system is borne out of this detrimental period.
The second bit of news came from the headline "A-train's weekend lag studied" from Friday's edition. The Denton County Transit Authority is struggling with how to schedule or even have Friday night and Saturday service on its commuter train. The agency has a goal to achieve 50% weekend ridership when compared to its weekday service. It hasn't met them consistently.
The main reason I want to bring this up is a quote in the DMN from board member Tom Spencer.
"I remind you of the statement that 'nobody ever built a successful commuter rails system catering to discretionary ridership,'" he wrote.
He's right. That's the problem. We know beforehand that by building a commuter rail system, its design has long headways, high capacity and low-density surroundings. It is no-doubt a commuter focus. But because it is cheaper than any other form of rail, it gets preference. When most of the area is suburban, it doesn't make sense to build more urban forms of rail.
This really gives ammo to the transit detractors. It is too expensive. No one will ride it. Yes, there is some increase in riders from express bus to the rail line, but is it enough to justify the added expense of rebuilding the rail line? As a voter, does the increase in cost have an effect on future ballot decisions?
In the end, any transit investment will be muted if there aren't any land use changes to accompany it. That is the struggle for the DCTA's A-Train. There would be plenty of discretionary riders if the stations and surrounding areas they served were denser. But then, they would be a more urban rail system.
Commuter rail works best when it connects to large employment centers, even if it still carries less riders than the urban forms that run in the large employment centers. This line doesn't even do that. It connects to an outlying light rail station and requires a transfer, and remembering that transfers suppress ridership, maybe the DCTA has bigger problems than weekend scheduling.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
The Importance of Place from an Unlikely Source
I was perusing one of my common stops on the internet that deals with planning when I clicked on a link of a link. In it, a Michigan businessman details why his company may have to move out of Michigan. It isn't common political talking points like taxes or education (at least not that one directly).
To him, the lack of true urban place, the lack of variety in the fruit cart, is causing talent to leave, is failing to attract new talent and will be a death spiral for the state if they don't do something to offer a balance within the built environment. It is a great read, simply because it comes from the private sector.
http://rustwire.com/2011/03/11/michigan-business-owner-soul-crushing-sprawl-driving-us-away/
To him, the lack of true urban place, the lack of variety in the fruit cart, is causing talent to leave, is failing to attract new talent and will be a death spiral for the state if they don't do something to offer a balance within the built environment. It is a great read, simply because it comes from the private sector.
http://rustwire.com/2011/03/11/michigan-business-owner-soul-crushing-sprawl-driving-us-away/
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Why a Fruit Cart Needs a Variety
Taking a break from a 360 review, I direct your attention to the St. Louis area where the Saint Louis Post-Dispatch had an interesting story with big planning implications.
Essentially, young people are moving out and older people are staying put in the western suburbs. The areas that are experiencing decline are the equivalent of DFW's Plano or Lewisville. There's a lot of relevant points here that will effect planners in a profound way.
The size of the American household has been on a constant decrease. The Census numbers are not complete yet, but there is no reason to believe that trend has reversed itself. For the suburbs, that is bad news if they are built out. If no new housing stock is built, and the average size decreases, then obviously there is a decrease of population, but that really isn't the big negative.
The fact that seniors are one of the biggest expenses in a municipal budget is the big tale. Seniors have a greater dependency for social services, like transportation, medical help and other general assistance. In the past, that hasn't been much of an issue on a large scale because family supports were there and seniors were generally a lower porportion of the overall citizen base. However, that is beginning to be less and less, leading to a greater strain on limited government resources.
This is were I am going to borrow an analogy from a guest speaker that appeared while I was in school. As a planner, he likes to compare housing choices to a fruit cart. In these suburbs represented in the story, and repeated all over the country, the houses are all apples. Now apples are nice at times, but so is a variety. As the children age and move out, they would like a pear. The parents who are left behind, would like to trade their apple for a banana. A young couple, who is currently having a peach, would like to have the apple of the older couple if they got their banana. But sadly, for Fruit Cart City, all they have is apples. So, the kids seek their pear somewhere else, some parents leave and get their banana elsewhere too, while most usually stay with their apple. This cause the other couple to look further out for their apple.
This is part of the reasons central cities have been having a renaissance these past couple of decades. As single-family homes were built by successive generations, some planners and cities finally see the importance of a more balanced housing stock. For example, in downtown Dallas a buyer can purchase a high-rise condo or a townhouse, they could rent a reconverted loft unit in a high- or mid-rise, a more familiar garden-style apartment or a hybrid. All across the city are more choices, not just single family house built in the 70's through '90's. The M Streets or North Oak Cliff offer houses from different time periods even, so you can get a Granny Smith, Red or Golden apple in those areas.
These types of areas will appeal to a broader market and constantly replenish itself, keeping its vibrancy in equilibrium. It will also be a bit more sustainable for the municipality. I already mentioned the increased need for services, but on the other end of the spectrum, the older generation is also tax-adverse. Somebody has to pay for their increased services. Typically that is the younger residents. If there are no younger residents, then what?
Now what hapens to the schools in these aging places? Can they ever recover to their pre-aged place? Some can I am sure, but others wouldn't be able to accomplish that. This is part of the equation for why suburbs are unsustainable. In the sixty plus years the modern suburb has existed, none have revitalized themselves on a large scale. Targeted areas have succeeded, but nothing on a municipal level. The coming two decades will be a trial for the inner ring suburbs.
I think at some point, some area will pioneer something to regenerate themselves, or perhaps changing demographic trends will do it for them, but there is too much land area and population for them all to decline. I think at the end of the day, I believe the cities that revitalize will have made a trip to the farmers market and stocked up on different fruits.
Essentially, young people are moving out and older people are staying put in the western suburbs. The areas that are experiencing decline are the equivalent of DFW's Plano or Lewisville. There's a lot of relevant points here that will effect planners in a profound way.
The size of the American household has been on a constant decrease. The Census numbers are not complete yet, but there is no reason to believe that trend has reversed itself. For the suburbs, that is bad news if they are built out. If no new housing stock is built, and the average size decreases, then obviously there is a decrease of population, but that really isn't the big negative.
The fact that seniors are one of the biggest expenses in a municipal budget is the big tale. Seniors have a greater dependency for social services, like transportation, medical help and other general assistance. In the past, that hasn't been much of an issue on a large scale because family supports were there and seniors were generally a lower porportion of the overall citizen base. However, that is beginning to be less and less, leading to a greater strain on limited government resources.
This is were I am going to borrow an analogy from a guest speaker that appeared while I was in school. As a planner, he likes to compare housing choices to a fruit cart. In these suburbs represented in the story, and repeated all over the country, the houses are all apples. Now apples are nice at times, but so is a variety. As the children age and move out, they would like a pear. The parents who are left behind, would like to trade their apple for a banana. A young couple, who is currently having a peach, would like to have the apple of the older couple if they got their banana. But sadly, for Fruit Cart City, all they have is apples. So, the kids seek their pear somewhere else, some parents leave and get their banana elsewhere too, while most usually stay with their apple. This cause the other couple to look further out for their apple.
This is part of the reasons central cities have been having a renaissance these past couple of decades. As single-family homes were built by successive generations, some planners and cities finally see the importance of a more balanced housing stock. For example, in downtown Dallas a buyer can purchase a high-rise condo or a townhouse, they could rent a reconverted loft unit in a high- or mid-rise, a more familiar garden-style apartment or a hybrid. All across the city are more choices, not just single family house built in the 70's through '90's. The M Streets or North Oak Cliff offer houses from different time periods even, so you can get a Granny Smith, Red or Golden apple in those areas.
These types of areas will appeal to a broader market and constantly replenish itself, keeping its vibrancy in equilibrium. It will also be a bit more sustainable for the municipality. I already mentioned the increased need for services, but on the other end of the spectrum, the older generation is also tax-adverse. Somebody has to pay for their increased services. Typically that is the younger residents. If there are no younger residents, then what?
Now what hapens to the schools in these aging places? Can they ever recover to their pre-aged place? Some can I am sure, but others wouldn't be able to accomplish that. This is part of the equation for why suburbs are unsustainable. In the sixty plus years the modern suburb has existed, none have revitalized themselves on a large scale. Targeted areas have succeeded, but nothing on a municipal level. The coming two decades will be a trial for the inner ring suburbs.
I think at some point, some area will pioneer something to regenerate themselves, or perhaps changing demographic trends will do it for them, but there is too much land area and population for them all to decline. I think at the end of the day, I believe the cities that revitalize will have made a trip to the farmers market and stocked up on different fruits.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Capitaism, Transportation and the Tea Party
I have been thinking about doing this one for a while, but I want to tread very carefully because despite my massive amount of misgivings about this movement and its beliefs, I also want to avoid the all too common trait of minimizing others in political discourse.
Yet, I would like to point out the inherent contradictions in their political belief. I've kept this post from Streetsblog bookmarked because this isn't some academic or philosophical person saying roads don't pay for themselves, it is a chairman of the Texas House Transportation Committee, Mike Krusee. Texas is the king of highway transportation and Krusee is a suburban rep.
But for this post, here's the relevant information.
The expense to build roads and utilities further and further from the urban cores not only drove costs to unsustainable levels, it created an imbalance in who paid for growth. Over the past 50 years, Krusee argued, the federal government used tax money that came by and large from cities to subsidize roads to areas without access otherwise.
"City dwellers have subsidized the land purchases and the development costs out in the suburbs," said Krusee. What's more, the gas tax, which city dwellers pay when driving on city roads, but which goes to freeways largely outside of urban cores, is "a huge transfer of wealth from the cities to the suburbs to build these rings."
That doesn't sound like what the Tea Party stands for does it? But why is this relevant to Tea Party types. Since they are predominantly suburban residents, it has plenty. The most subsidized existence is the American suburb. From transportation, to parking codes, to mortgage deductions, to gas subsidies and so on, there really isn't much about suburban life that is left to the true workings of the free market, despite their proclivity for it.
I am sure they are all for government spending money on highways, or tax deductions for their houses, so then the statement that government needs to get out of our lives turns into what level of government intervention is needed to keep the free market moving efficiently. However, I doubt they would ever admit such a thing, or even acknowledge it.
Yet, I would like to point out the inherent contradictions in their political belief. I've kept this post from Streetsblog bookmarked because this isn't some academic or philosophical person saying roads don't pay for themselves, it is a chairman of the Texas House Transportation Committee, Mike Krusee. Texas is the king of highway transportation and Krusee is a suburban rep.
But for this post, here's the relevant information.
The expense to build roads and utilities further and further from the urban cores not only drove costs to unsustainable levels, it created an imbalance in who paid for growth. Over the past 50 years, Krusee argued, the federal government used tax money that came by and large from cities to subsidize roads to areas without access otherwise.
"City dwellers have subsidized the land purchases and the development costs out in the suburbs," said Krusee. What's more, the gas tax, which city dwellers pay when driving on city roads, but which goes to freeways largely outside of urban cores, is "a huge transfer of wealth from the cities to the suburbs to build these rings."
That doesn't sound like what the Tea Party stands for does it? But why is this relevant to Tea Party types. Since they are predominantly suburban residents, it has plenty. The most subsidized existence is the American suburb. From transportation, to parking codes, to mortgage deductions, to gas subsidies and so on, there really isn't much about suburban life that is left to the true workings of the free market, despite their proclivity for it.
I am sure they are all for government spending money on highways, or tax deductions for their houses, so then the statement that government needs to get out of our lives turns into what level of government intervention is needed to keep the free market moving efficiently. However, I doubt they would ever admit such a thing, or even acknowledge it.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Kids and Cities
Touching on an earlier post about re-energized cities, I ran across this piece from Grist which is the idea that kids are safer (a subjective term if there is one) in cities than the exurbs. Before I go on, I want to point out that I do not know the methodology of this study, but it does mirror other things I have read elsewhere.
In essence, because parents and kids are so tied to cars in the far-flung areas, these kids are in far more danger of perishing in a car accident than any other stereotypical city danger. Motor Vehicles (MV) present the greatest likelihood of death to our children than anything else. But don't take my word for it. In infants, MV deaths were the cause of less than 1% of all deaths, but that may be due to the great number of natural dangers facing a child so early in life. In toddlers, MV's are number one at 11 percent of all deaths. In kids, it is still number one, but the percentage is higher at 20 percent. In pre- and early teens, still number one and a bit higher percentage of 21 percent. And finally, older teens see the number cause of death from the same category, but a whooping 40 percent of all teen deaths are at the hands of the car.
In both teen cases, suicide is a greater cause of death than homicide, which might be another factor in the case against the car. Since teens are experiencing a greater independent streak at that age, not having easy mobility is the same as being under house arrest. Some researchers have found higher rates in rural versus urban, and higher in suburban than urban, but others have found no such link. However, the number one factor in teen suicide is depression. My opinion, based a little on research, a little reasoning and a little instinct, is that suburbs, not just because of the car, offer little to stimulate the growing senses of teens. If everything looks the same and you have to have a car to pass through it, which means dependence on parents, that does nothing for the independent-minded teen. This helps set in a depression, which in turn increases the chance of a suicide.
Now this study does nothing to assuage the other concerns of the parent who chooses the suburb over the city, such as better schools, bigger yards or more space. Just as the rational person can make the claim that cities are safer, you can also make the claim that parents do more for kids than schools can, for example.
But the underlying theme may be, just as with the downtown business post, that the generations following the baby boomers, and specifically, Gen X, Gen Y and the Millennial's, are fundamentally changing how America lives. Cities and their planners may find that an increasing amount of families will be heading back to the city. Those that prepare now will be better off than those who don't.
In essence, because parents and kids are so tied to cars in the far-flung areas, these kids are in far more danger of perishing in a car accident than any other stereotypical city danger. Motor Vehicles (MV) present the greatest likelihood of death to our children than anything else. But don't take my word for it. In infants, MV deaths were the cause of less than 1% of all deaths, but that may be due to the great number of natural dangers facing a child so early in life. In toddlers, MV's are number one at 11 percent of all deaths. In kids, it is still number one, but the percentage is higher at 20 percent. In pre- and early teens, still number one and a bit higher percentage of 21 percent. And finally, older teens see the number cause of death from the same category, but a whooping 40 percent of all teen deaths are at the hands of the car.
In both teen cases, suicide is a greater cause of death than homicide, which might be another factor in the case against the car. Since teens are experiencing a greater independent streak at that age, not having easy mobility is the same as being under house arrest. Some researchers have found higher rates in rural versus urban, and higher in suburban than urban, but others have found no such link. However, the number one factor in teen suicide is depression. My opinion, based a little on research, a little reasoning and a little instinct, is that suburbs, not just because of the car, offer little to stimulate the growing senses of teens. If everything looks the same and you have to have a car to pass through it, which means dependence on parents, that does nothing for the independent-minded teen. This helps set in a depression, which in turn increases the chance of a suicide.
Now this study does nothing to assuage the other concerns of the parent who chooses the suburb over the city, such as better schools, bigger yards or more space. Just as the rational person can make the claim that cities are safer, you can also make the claim that parents do more for kids than schools can, for example.
But the underlying theme may be, just as with the downtown business post, that the generations following the baby boomers, and specifically, Gen X, Gen Y and the Millennial's, are fundamentally changing how America lives. Cities and their planners may find that an increasing amount of families will be heading back to the city. Those that prepare now will be better off than those who don't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)