5 ms·

Lots of people want to live in an urban setting. Build more urban neighborhoods, everywhere.

by 100k 11y ago

Apocryphon 11y ago
There's a lot of urban neighborhoods, even. Fund and found more startups in preexisting cities, all you VCs and entrepreneurs.
davidw 11y ago
This is the answer. Deregulate housing/small businesse spaces/offices and let the market do its work. It's crazy the amount of regulation there is that pretty much dictates single family detached homes for large swaths of the country. Here in Bend, for instance, you must have a driveway with not one, but two parking spots. Land of the free indeed... http://marketurbanism.com/ http://marketurbanism.com/ Also, this book, although it's pretty high level: http://amzn.to/1qsn2RD http://amzn.to/1qsn2RD I think this is one of the most important issues in this day and age. It's happening everywhere, and things need to change. Edit: downvoters, care to actually state your opinions? I'm hardly a libertarian, and neither is Matt Yglesias, author of the aforementioned book. I don't think 'free markets' are the answer to all the world's problems. But I do think a more liberalized market would help housing a lot. These areas need more supply, and if you don't want LA style sprawl, the best way to do that is via density. And the best way to accomplish that is probably by letting the market work, within reason: I don't suppose I'd be in favor of allowing an outdoor thrash metal venue in the midst of an otherwise quiet neighborhood, but there are a lot of things you could add to make places more livable and walkable without cars.
- moheeb 11y ago
  "Here in Bend, for instance, you must have a driveway with not one, but two parking spots. Land of the free indeed..." Where I live people don't leave any room for parking on their own property and all of the streets are completely jammed with cars, every inch. You don't hardly dare move your car if you've been able to find a spot. Is that freer?
  - davidw 11y ago
    If you want more parking on your own property, feel free to build it. If you don't need it, you shouldn't have to.
  - 100k 11y ago
    Forcing everyone to build parking makes building more expensive (http://www.thestranger.com/news/feature/2015/07/29/22612207/the-hidden-reason-behind-seattles-skyrocketing-housing-costs http://www.thestranger.com/news/feature/2015/07/29/22612207/...) and spread out (google "parking crater" for examples, e.g., http://www.gcpvd.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/parking-crisis-illustrated-834px.jpg http://www.gcpvd.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/parking-cris...) which makes it harder to walk, bike, and take public transportation, which causes more people to drive, which causes more need for parking. Parking your car costs money. People should pay to use it if they need it, but the rest of us shouldn't have to. Right now, drivers are subsidized.
  - akgerber 11y ago
    I'm sorry someone is forcing you to own a car, and forcing you not to pay a garage owner for somewhere to park it.
  - savanaly 11y ago
    I don't know what point you're trying to make here. Everyone who lives there was free to put a driveway on their property, presumably, but just chose to deal with the hassle of tight street parking in exchange for more room for yard or house on their property. Allowing them this tradeoff is very much freer!
- Tiktaalik 11y ago
  I'm not sure deregulation is actually the answer here. It's more that our municipalities have bought into car oriented design and have adopted a terrible philosophy and awful set of regulations. We need to regulate good design that leads to compact and efficient communities instead. My fear with less regulations is that while you could see taller, and denser buildings in some areas, you'd also open up the potential for an increase in sprawl, as lazy developers chasing profits would equally be allowed to build low density sprawl if there was an incentive to. The local example of this is that in Metro Vancouver it is basically now impossible to build a typical suburban mall. No city will allow it because it's a terrible idea from an urban design and planning point of view. However, two malls have recently been built nonetheless! This happened because the developers found land near the airport and on First Nations land that was outside the jurisdiction of local government, and they could build whatever they wanted with little to no oversight.
  - davidw 11y ago
    > increase in sprawl Deregulation within an urban growth boundary. I don't like sprawl either. Houston or LA are not my ideas of "the answer", although Houston does - apparently - get some deregulation right within the city as well.
  - acomjean 11y ago
    I think you need deregulation of housing stock and increased public transit. One of the reasons rents are getting up there is fewer people driving and not a ton of options on where to live if you don't. I'm in Boston and simple little stuff like an extension of the subway can't get off the ground due to mismanagement and lack of funding.

Lots of people want to live in an urban setting. Build more urban neighborhoods, everywhere.

by 100k 11y ago

Lots of people want to live in an urban setting. Build more urban neighborhoods, everywhere.

There's a lot of urban neighborhoods, even. Fund and found more startups in preexisting cities, all you VCs and entrepreneurs.

davidw 11y ago

This is the answer. Deregulate housing/small businesse spaces/offices and let the market do its work. It's crazy the amount of regulation there is that pretty much dictates single family detached homes for large swaths of the country. Here in Bend, for instance, you must have a driveway with not one, but two parking spots. Land of the free indeed... http://marketurbanism.com/ http://marketurbanism.com/ Also, this book, although it's pretty high level: http://amzn.to/1qsn2RD http://amzn.to/1qsn2RD I think this is one of the most important issues in this day and age. It's happening everywhere, and things need to change. Edit: downvoters, care to actually state your opinions? I'm hardly a libertarian, and neither is Matt Yglesias, author of the aforementioned book. I don't think 'free markets' are the answer to all the world's problems. But I do think a more liberalized market would help housing a lot. These areas need more supply, and if you don't want LA style sprawl, the best way to do that is via density. And the best way to accomplish that is probably by letting the market work, within reason: I don't suppose I'd be in favor of allowing an outdoor thrash metal venue in the midst of an otherwise quiet neighborhood, but there are a lot of things you could add to make places more livable and walkable without cars.

moheeb 11y ago
"Here in Bend, for instance, you must have a driveway with not one, but two parking spots. Land of the free indeed..." Where I live people don't leave any room for parking on their own property and all of the streets are completely jammed with cars, every inch. You don't hardly dare move your car if you've been able to find a spot. Is that freer?
- davidw 11y ago
  If you want more parking on your own property, feel free to build it. If you don't need it, you shouldn't have to.
- 100k 11y ago
  Forcing everyone to build parking makes building more expensive (http://www.thestranger.com/news/feature/2015/07/29/22612207/the-hidden-reason-behind-seattles-skyrocketing-housing-costs http://www.thestranger.com/news/feature/2015/07/29/22612207/...) and spread out (google "parking crater" for examples, e.g., http://www.gcpvd.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/parking-crisis-illustrated-834px.jpg http://www.gcpvd.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/parking-cris...) which makes it harder to walk, bike, and take public transportation, which causes more people to drive, which causes more need for parking. Parking your car costs money. People should pay to use it if they need it, but the rest of us shouldn't have to. Right now, drivers are subsidized.
- akgerber 11y ago
  I'm sorry someone is forcing you to own a car, and forcing you not to pay a garage owner for somewhere to park it.
- savanaly 11y ago
  I don't know what point you're trying to make here. Everyone who lives there was free to put a driveway on their property, presumably, but just chose to deal with the hassle of tight street parking in exchange for more room for yard or house on their property. Allowing them this tradeoff is very much freer!
Tiktaalik 11y ago
I'm not sure deregulation is actually the answer here. It's more that our municipalities have bought into car oriented design and have adopted a terrible philosophy and awful set of regulations. We need to regulate good design that leads to compact and efficient communities instead. My fear with less regulations is that while you could see taller, and denser buildings in some areas, you'd also open up the potential for an increase in sprawl, as lazy developers chasing profits would equally be allowed to build low density sprawl if there was an incentive to. The local example of this is that in Metro Vancouver it is basically now impossible to build a typical suburban mall. No city will allow it because it's a terrible idea from an urban design and planning point of view. However, two malls have recently been built nonetheless! This happened because the developers found land near the airport and on First Nations land that was outside the jurisdiction of local government, and they could build whatever they wanted with little to no oversight.
- davidw 11y ago
  > increase in sprawl Deregulation within an urban growth boundary. I don't like sprawl either. Houston or LA are not my ideas of "the answer", although Houston does - apparently - get some deregulation right within the city as well.
- acomjean 11y ago
  I think you need deregulation of housing stock and increased public transit. One of the reasons rents are getting up there is fewer people driving and not a ton of options on where to live if you don't. I'm in Boston and simple little stuff like an extension of the subway can't get off the ground due to mismanagement and lack of funding.