Where should people be living?

[Cismontane]

Give me all of the above, and, then, you can study whether or not T.O.D. is effective at reducing V.M.T.

That's an awful lot of hardscape and hardware investment, PI, so to speak.

We've already established that with the changes that have occured in the financing requirement now and going forward, construction costs per square feet have to stay constant (with today's post-bust levels) while unit sizes have to fall by as much as another 30-40% on average. And that's ceteris paribus.

Now you want your trifecta.. who's paying for it? Does this mean the average unit size in those TODs fall to sub 800 square feet? Because doing the numbers in my head as a professional planning estimator, that's what it looks (or at least smells) like to me.

My point is, we have to look at more modest, less capital intensive alternatives too... there are high rent, high demand places where your model might work. But most of the country isn't like that. This stuff might've made sense based on 2006's financing envirnoment and property values.. but those values, relative to the economy as a whole, just aren't coming back. Ever.

[Pragmatic Idealist]

Incidentally, I think the almost single-minded focus on commutes from home to work is not valuable to the discussion of V.M.T. since the majority of trips people are making are related to errands and leisure.

Transit and T.O.D. need to be designed for more than just residences and employment.

[jsk1983]

Thank you again for your contributions to these discussions. It may benefit you to know that Enterprise has a car-sharing subsidiary, as does U-Haul and even a few car manufacturers. Evidently, they don't share your characteristic pessimism.

Car sharing is really car renting by the hour. Insurance is included in the rental. The only thing is you really don't have to use it all that much for owning your own car to be cheaper. The service I use is $78 a day ($7-9 an hour tops out at about 8 hours, with up to 150 miles included, $.40 a mile after that) so if you need a car more than a certain number of days a month it doesn't make economic sense to not own your own car.

[Howl]

The intent of the TOD movement is not to eliminate the suburb or low density development, but to address the current imbalance that exists. Right now, in most cities, people don’t have a choice about car ownership. If you don’t have a car, for philosophical, physical or economic reasons, you cannot live outside of the city centre. The development of transit lines and associated TODs will allow more people who choose to live without cars to have a broader choice of locations to live in. It will also allow people who currently live in suburban areas to remain in or near their current neighbourhood while not owning a car, or having just one car per family. This includes the elderly and physically handicapped who cannot drive, but who still want to be part of the community.

In many cases TOD projects will help protect existing stable residential areas by claiming a large part of the local housing market, meaning there is less pressure to re-develop low-density areas into slight higher-density, low density areas. Also, by locating adjacent to transit stations the modal split will be higher (more transit/walking, less cars) which keeps the volume of traffic on nearby highways lower compared to putting the same number of people in some other location.

Most importantly for a TOD to be truely effective it needs to be a "complete" community, where all the services and goods a community needs are located within walking distance. Only then can people choose to live without using their car on a daily basis.

[luckless pedestrian]

so why do you hate America?

[Pragmatic Idealist]

so why do you hate America?

N.E.V.'s, car sharing, and high-speed rail, along with that greatest of all evils, the bike lane, are a secular elitist Communist conspiracy conceived by an unholy alliance of the U.N., the gays, the Muslims, and the Mau Maus.

[Raf]

N.E.V.'s, car sharing, and high-speed rail, along with that greatest of all evils, the bike lane, are a secular elitist Communist conspiracy conceived by an unholy alliance of the U.N., the gays, the Muslims, and the Mau Maus.

You don't take sarcasm very well do you?

[mendelman]

You don't take sarcasm very well do you?

Do you?

[luckless pedestrian]

You know I need to get in the serious threads more, been in FAC too long...

[JusticeZero]

On this tangent - If the only mode of transportation you can afford is walking then you need to locate someplace where you can maximize the potential for getting money and/or food without a car which is why very poor people around the world tend to gravitate to urban centres

Then on the other hand you have people like me and my family; we "can't afford" a car because we spend our money on other luxuries instead. If we WANTED a more Spartan lifestyle, we could make room in the budget for a car.. but a car is just a different luxury, and one that we don't particularly care for. So we live close in, and we walk or ride a bicycle or a bus or occasionally a taxi.

[nrschmid]

Honestly, when I see an thread titled like this I feel embarrassed to be a Cyburbian.

I agree. It's not for us to decide. BUT maybe we need to create a separate post on which communities should be removed/destroyed/or completely rebuilt from the ground up.

[Linda_D]

I agree. It's not for us to decide. BUT maybe we need to create a separate post on which communities should be removed/destroyed/or completely rebuilt from the ground up.

I thought the general consensus was that Cairo, Ill was likely first on that list.

[docwatson]

I think the main proponents stating that families "should" live in high-rise apartments are either modernist architects living in big city cores, or people who want to provide fodder for why urbanism can't work. Most of the advocacy around providing urban housing choice I see focusses on the approx. 67% of households who don't have children, and specifically the ones who would like to live in an urban environment.

I think sometimes, though, urbanism focusses too much on the under-30 demographic, the DINK's, and the empty-nesters who will suddenly want a condo. I think to make urban areas more sustainable, we also need to look at options offered to the majority of buyers who want something single-family.

So what options should we allow more of in cities and metro areas? For me, I think traditional-style rowhomes and small lot homes (on 2,500 - 3,500 sq. ft. lots) that people can afford, because this typology can meet densities of 10-15 du/ac - easily walkable, transit-friendly, supportive of neighborhood retail, and land-efficient - while providing yard space and a ground-orientation that many people find attractive. (A traditional craftsman bungalow, for example, can fit on a 30' x 100' lot and provide 1,100 sq. ft. of living space on 1.5 floors; newer models could up the floor area to serve today's families). Ideas I find interesting in this regard include "skinny houses" in Portland, Avi Friedman's Grow Home and Next Home, etc. Not for everyone, I agree, but I do believe all the trends are showing demand for entry-level homes. I think many New Urban projects are still coming in at 7-8 du/ac which doesn't support very good transit ...

[ColoGI]

I think the main proponents stating that families "should" live in high-rise apartments are either modernist architects living in big city cores, or people who want to provide fodder for why urbanism can't work. .

Or the young who prefer cities and think that everyone else will too if just given a choice. I'm in the minority in my grad school cohort, for example, in that I want some yard to garden and landscape and putter and do a project. Why, density will solve so many problems!!!

Surely there will be some who will learn to deal when energy prices finally reach realistic prices. Others in the USA will die before moving to 7 DU/ac. We are not homogenous.

[Pragmatic Idealist]

Or the young who prefer cities and think that everyone else will too if just given a choice. I'm in the minority in my grad school cohort, for example, in that I want some yard to garden and landscape and putter and do a project. Why, density will solve so many problems!!!

Surely there will be some who will learn to deal when energy prices finally reach realistic prices. Others in the USA will die before moving to 7 DU/ac. We are not homogenous.

Hence, the need for Transect regulation..... Homogenous suburban sprawl is not something everyone wants, but it is all people have available.

[PennPlanner]

We already have a lot of these types of housing in most American cities, especially in the East and mid-west.

But they aren't the most popular form of housing.

The market for the older inner neighborhoods of single-family rowhouses and bungalows would certainly be more robust and bigger if the cities could solve the major issue preventing new residents: urban schools.

But urban schools aren't a planner's jurisdiction, no?

I think the main proponents stating that families "should" live in high-rise apartments are either modernist architects living in big city cores, or people who want to provide fodder for why urbanism can't work. Most of the advocacy around providing urban housing choice I see focusses on the approx. 67% of households who don't have children, and specifically the ones who would like to live in an urban environment.

I think sometimes, though, urbanism focusses too much on the under-30 demographic, the DINK's, and the empty-nesters who will suddenly want a condo. I think to make urban areas more sustainable, we also need to look at options offered to the majority of buyers who want something single-family.

So what options should we allow more of in cities and metro areas? For me, I think traditional-style rowhomes and small lot homes (on 2,500 - 3,500 sq. ft. lots) that people can afford, because this typology can meet densities of 10-15 du/ac - easily walkable, transit-friendly, supportive of neighborhood retail, and land-efficient - while providing yard space and a ground-orientation that many people find attractive. (A traditional craftsman bungalow, for example, can fit on a 30' x 100' lot and provide 1,100 sq. ft. of living space on 1.5 floors; newer models could up the floor area to serve today's families). Ideas I find interesting in this regard include "skinny houses" in Portland, Avi Friedman's Grow Home and Next Home, etc. Not for everyone, I agree, but I do believe all the trends are showing demand for entry-level homes. I think many New Urban projects are still coming in at 7-8 du/ac which doesn't support very good transit ...

[Linda_D]

We already have a lot of these types of housing in most American cities, especially in the East and mid-west.

But they aren't the most popular form of housing.

The market for the older inner neighborhoods of single-family rowhouses and bungalows would certainly be more robust and bigger if the cities could solve the major issue preventing new residents: urban schools.

But urban schools aren't a planner's jurisdiction, no?

BINGO!!!!!

The city of Buffalo is the poster child for how rotten schools push young families out of cities and into the suburbs. Housing for families in Buffalo is dirt cheap compared to similar housing in the suburbs except for the high end housing where families tend to send their kids to private schools whether they live in the city or suburbs. The same young couples who have lived in the city since they graduated from college either buy in suburbs from the get-go or head outward bound as soon as they contemplate their oldest going to school.

Americans don't really want private schools or charter schools or "lotteries" to get into "good" public schools and similar BS. They want to know what public school(s) their kids will attend and to feel confident that those schools will provide a decent education before they sign on the dotted line. The Buffalo public schools are in such chaos that there is some serious talk about the state taking over them over. Parent groups are up in arms and are threatening a boycott.

[ColoGI]

BINGO!!!!!

The city of Buffalo is the poster child for how rotten schools push young families out of cities and into the suburbs. Housing for families in Buffalo is dirt cheap compared to similar housing in the suburbs except for the high end housing where families tend to send their kids to private schools whether they live in the city or suburbs. The same young couples who have lived in the city since they graduated from college either buy in suburbs from the get-go or head outward bound as soon as they contemplate their oldest going to school.

Americans don't really want private schools or charter schools or "lotteries" to get into "good" public schools and similar BS. They want to know what public school(s) their kids will attend and to feel confident that those schools will provide a decent education before they sign on the dotted line. The Buffalo public schools are in such chaos that there is some serious talk about the state taking over them over. Parent groups are up in arms and are threatening a boycott.

I'm not sure everyone will be reproducing in the future, so some of this is problematic, but overall I agree. We are out in a McSuburb because the school is fantastic. Do we want to be closer in, not in the midst of a sea of residential roofs? Sure. But not at the expense of a cr--py school. So we are stuck out here, driving. Plantinga and Bernell wrote a paper about it, describing the other tradeoffs people make who drive to qualify and educate.

Aside, but related: did a nature program last week at a charter school south of here. No buses, all the Taxi Moms drove up in nice, large SUVs, perfectly accessorized, and charming Johnny or Janie got out wearing new clothes and perfectly clean backpacks. Not that there's anything wrong with that, mind you, but the VMT and TPD around that place were amazing, each Taxi Mom driving back and forth, wasting gas, sitting waiting with the engine running...amazing.

[Cismontane]

I guess I'm saying something different. Our housing preferences only matter if we can afford what we prefer.. at least without relying on handouts from Uncle Sam. If not, then it is irrelevant what we prefer. For the most part, my job is to deal with hard numbers, and those don't look good for the top of product some seem to be saying they want. Maybe we should all be living in prefab boxes (next gen mobile homes). hehe.

[Linda_D]

I guess I'm saying something different. Our housing preferences only matter if we can afford what we prefer.. at least without relying on handouts from Uncle Sam. If not, then it is irrelevant what we prefer. For the most part, my job is to deal with hard numbers, and those don't look good for the top of product some seem to be saying they want. Maybe we should all be living in prefab boxes (next gen mobile homes). hehe.

Spoken like somebody who doesn't have children or who has the wherewithall to send his kids to private schools without caring about the tuition. People make amazing sacrifices for their kids. In Buffalo -- and I don't think it's a unique situation -- there's an increasing number of African American families moving into rentals in the poorest parts of suburban communities so that they can get their kids into the suburban school districts. Economically, it's a tremendous sacrifice because these same people could buy houses in the city for a lot less than they can rent in the 'burbs, but it's still less than the cost of private schools. I don't know what the cost of parochial elementary schools in Buffalo are today, but when I taught in the Buffalo Catholic Schools more than 25 years ago, it was already around $1000 a child for parishioners and more for non-parishioners. The diocesan high schools are the $5-6k range per year now, but most if not all of the independent private schools in the Buffalo area are over $10k a year.

Cities that allow their schools to deteriorate end up being filled with predominantly poor people with a relatively small percentage of singles/childless couples and very wealthy families. If cars and suburban houses are going to be too expensive for the average American family, what do you think five figure tuition per child starting in pre-school is going to be? Suburbia is a bargain compared to that, and it's a big reason why many first ring suburbs that have maintained decent school systems are NOT dying as predicted.

[Cismontane]

I don't disagree with anything you wrote. But you're talking about preferences and sacrifice for your own family, I'm talking about real estate economics. Those suburban homes are only viable if people can afford to buy them.

We do need to fix our educational system, but children in cities deserve great schools every bit as much as suburban kids do. If we can't deliver that, I frankly can care less that suburban schools are great. That just emphasizes an unacceptable inequality and injustice that I hope you abhor as much as I do. I hope that's not what you're arguing.. that is it somehow acceptable that schools in the 'burbs are better than those in the cities. If it is, we have a much bigger disagreement about the type of country we care to live in.

Frankly, at this point, fixing city schools so that they're as good as the suburban ones would be easier - and cheaper - than fixing our national housing mess. I bet one or maybe two hundred billion dollars of investment and strong leadership would be sufficient to transform the schools of this country to just about any standard we would care to have them at. or have the political will to deliver. Fixing the housing system so that suburban homes are affordable again would cost trillions of dollars, and even that may not be sufficient. As urban planners, cost-benefit assessment is a tool that we all have to consider. If you're arguing that we need to spend trillions to prop up the next generation of suburban sprawl just to avoid paying billions to improve our urban schools, then I have a basic problem with that argument. That would be the tail wagging the dog on a thermo-nuclear scale.

Cities that allow their schools to deteriorate end up being filled with predominantly poor people with a relatively small percentage of singles/childless couples and very wealthy families. If cars and suburban houses are going to be too expensive for the average American family, what do you think five figure tuition per child starting in pre-school is going to be? Suburbia is a bargain compared to that, and it's a big reason why many first ring suburbs that have maintained decent school systems are NOT dying as predicted.

[Pragmatic Idealist]

I don't disagree with anything you wrote. But you're talking about preferences and sacrifice for your own family, I'm talking about real estate economics. Those suburban homes are only viable if people can afford to buy them.

We do need to fix our educational system, but children in cities deserve great schools every bit as much as suburban kids do. If we can't deliver that, I frankly can care less that suburban schools are great. That just emphasizes an unacceptable inequality and injustice that I hope you abhor as much as I do. I hope that's not what you're arguing.. that is it somehow acceptable that schools in the 'burbs are better than those in the cities. If it is, we have a much bigger disagreement about the type of country we care to live in.

Frankly, at this point, fixing city schools so that they're as good as the suburban ones would be easier - and cheaper - than fixing our national housing mess. I bet one or maybe two hundred billion dollars of investment and strong leadership would be sufficient to transform the schools of this country to just about any standard we would care to have them at. or have the political will to deliver. Fixing the housing system so that suburban homes are affordable again would cost trillions of dollars, and even that may not be sufficient. As urban planners, cost-benefit assessment is a tool that we all have to consider. If you're arguing that we need to spend trillions to prop up the next generation of suburban sprawl just to avoid paying billions to improve our urban schools, then I have a basic problem with that argument. That would be the tail wagging the dog on a thermo-nuclear scale.

Certain politicians like to talk about how much the United States spends on schools, but, in reality, we all know that this is money is not shared equally. There are rich school districts and poor school districts, which only furthers the class divisions and eviscerates the middle class. Meanwhile, one group of politicians is talking about abolishing the federal Department of Education entirely so that this process can be accelerated and so the U.S. can be transformed into a third-world country more quickly.

[DetroitPlanner]

I don't disagree with anything you wrote. But you're talking about preferences and sacrifice for your own family, I'm talking about real estate economics. Those suburban homes are only viable if people can afford to buy them.

We do need to fix our educational system, but children in cities deserve great schools every bit as much as suburban kids do. If we can't deliver that, I frankly can care less that suburban schools are great. That just emphasizes an unacceptable inequality and injustice that I hope you abhor as much as I do. I hope that's not what you're arguing.. that is it somehow acceptable that schools in the 'burbs are better than those in the cities. If it is, we have a much bigger disagreement about the type of country we care to live in.

Frankly, at this point, fixing city schools so that they're as good as the suburban ones would be easier - and cheaper - than fixing our national housing mess. I bet one or maybe two hundred billion dollars of investment and strong leadership would be sufficient to transform the schools of this country to just about any standard we would care to have them at. or have the political will to deliver. Fixing the housing system so that suburban homes are affordable again would cost trillions of dollars, and even that may not be sufficient. As urban planners, cost-benefit assessment is a tool that we all have to consider. If you're arguing that we need to spend trillions to prop up the next generation of suburban sprawl just to avoid paying billions to improve our urban schools, then I have a basic problem with that argument. That would be the tail wagging the dog on a thermo-nuclear scale.

I can understand her point. I grew up in the Central City but was fortunate enough to have parents that sent me to a catholic school even though it meant driving old crappy cars and going without a lot of comforts. Now even that option is not found in central cities because the cost of providing private education is so out of whack with what people can afford to pay. Even back in the 1980s my high school tuition exceeded my college tuition. I was happy to go to college because it meant my parents could begin saving for thier retirement.

I also agree with you that it is ashame that in most large cities there is a problem with the education system. I don't however see it as an issue that throwing more money at the schools can fix. I see it as an issue as having a larger than average underclass with no expectations for the future. How do you solve such an issue as the culture of poverty simply?

[JNA]

Not in the floodplain.
if so up on pilings/stilts.

[Linda_D]

I also agree with you that it is ashame that in most large cities there is a problem with the education system. I don't however see it as an issue that throwing more money at the schools can fix. I see it as an issue as having a larger than average underclass with no expectations for the future. How do you solve such an issue as the culture of poverty simply?

This is the biggest problem. The poverty in much of urban America today is very different from the poverty of 1900 when millions of European immigrants and/or migrants from the South or local rural areas crowded into the cities. These people were poor but ambitious. They were not just willing to work, but there were plenty of jobs for them.

The poverty in urban America today is also not the kind of poverty that accompanied the Great Depression when people from all economic ranks fell into poverty because of economic disaster. These people were poor but they had skills and education. They just needed opportunities to repair their fortunes.

Most poor families in America today are from generations of people who have not had education/learning/training and not held regular long-term employment. They come from multiple generations of dysfunctional family situations usually plagued by substance abuse, criminal activity, and mental health issues. While the underclass is mostly associated with large cities, it's not just an urban problem. There's a significant rural underclass in many parts of the country. It's just frequently not very visible.

It's a very frustrating situation because the main institution for upward mobility in the US has always been public education, but children from the underclass are too often not "wired" to take advantage of it, sometimes because of learning disabilities, but more often because of the attitudes of the adults around them. This has a devastating effect on school districts with a high percentage of children from the underclass, which is primarily urban school districts.