Why The Next Great Cities Aren't What You Think.

[Mississippi Blues]

Who's flinging the dogma here?

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

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

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

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

Good grief.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[zookeeper]

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

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

[Mississippi Blues]

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

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

[mkjeeves]

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

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

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

[mkjeeves]

All these rich OU students in Deep Deuce, musicians at ACM, etc...

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

[mkjeeves]

I never said there wont be rich people here. You said it will be gentrified with elite.

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

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

Gentrification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[mkjeeves]

Again, I'll ask you. Do you think poor people don't live in urban places?

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

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

[zookeeper]

Sorry, It looked like I was setting a trap.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[mkjeeves]

Agreed.

[betts]

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

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

[mkjeeves]

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

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

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

[Buffalo Bill]

The original article lost me at "Houston".

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

[mkjeeves]

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

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

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

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

[mkjeeves]

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

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

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

[BoulderSooner]

"quality of schools" has a direct correlation to parents involvement with their children's education

[mkjeeves]

Here's another way to look at the distribution of poor folk in the burbs in OKC, clipped from rich block poor block . com

[mkjeeves]

Basically anything inside the interstate loop to me, makes sense to focus on preserving and enhancing. That's where those mini-town centers come into play.

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

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

[adaniel]

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

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

[mkjeeves]

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

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

[mkjeeves]

I was wrong. It was 52K. But either way, 52k or 250K, what are you going to do about the vast majority of OKC residents?

http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic...tml#post624691

[mkjeeves]

We need about a dozen vibrant neighborhoods that provide plenty of opportunity for all types of people.

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

[zookeeper]

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

[tillyato]

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

[Mel]

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

[Just the facts]

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

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