4 ms·
There are significant economies of scale for infrastructure that happen with density. The amount of road surface a tall, mixed-use building requires per occupa
by elgenie 10y ago
There are significant economies of scale for infrastructure that happen with density.
The amount of road surface a tall, mixed-use building requires per occupant is dramatically less than what a detached single family home does, but the latter road needs more maintenance than what the taxes on that single-family home provide for.
- gozur88 10y agoDensity brings costs of its own, though. There's a reason everything is more expensive in dense areas.
- xenadu02 10y ago>Density brings costs of its own, though That's very self-evident. What matters is that density means costs rise at a slower rate than income and because density tends to raise prices (the area is more desirable all else equal). Most of the cost of installing water pipes is in digging up the street and paying people to lay the pipes. By comparison putting in a small pipe costs the same as a huge one. Suburbs need small pipes spread over a larger distance to reach X people. High-rises need large pipes over a much smaller distance to reach the same number of people. Even if you assume property values per person were identical and taxes identical the dense area has a massive cost advantage.
- JamesBarney 10y agoAnd this article brings up that one reason it is more expensive is that dense areas subsidize less dense areas of a city.
- gozur88 10y agoThis is based on the fact that the downtown area provides more tax revenue. All he's managed to prove is people do their shopping in the city core.
- JamesBarney 10y agoFrom an expenses stand point it seems intuitively obvious that the per capita cost of individuals is lower in high density areas. And from a tax revenue standpoint city's get ~4.5x of their revenue from property taxes than from sales tax. And most suburbanites, like urbanites probably spend most of their tax near where they live.
- gozur88 10y ago>From an expenses stand point it seems intuitively obvious that the per capita cost of individuals is lower in high density areas. A lot of things that seem obvious aren't actually true. >And from a tax revenue standpoint city's get ~4.5x of their revenue from property taxes than from sales tax. And most suburbanites, like urbanites probably spend most of their tax near where they live. The city has some control over the mix of revenue sources. NYC has an income tax, and San Francico gets more than twice as much money from "service charges" as it gets from property taxes. In terms of where people spend money, suburbanites spend a lot of discretionary income in the local city, particularly in places like restaurants and bars. Let me ask you this: If it's so much more efficient to live in a city, why is everything more expensive in cities?
- astrange 10y agoIs it because people in cities can afford it?
- davidw 10y agoActually, dense stuff is mostly cheaper until you start building way up. Tons of Italy is pretty dense and is not all that expensive in the grand scheme of things. It's also very livable and walkable. Same goes for many other places in Europe.
- CalRobert 10y ago"There's a reason everything is more expensive in dense areas." Often, that reason is "there's a strong market preference for density, but supply is artificially restricted by parking minimums and zoning regulations put in place by property owners who wish to maximize the value of their asset"
- gozur88 10y agoIf that were actually true there would be housing shortages in cities that aren't trendy, and that's not the case. There's not a lot of "preference for density" in places like Kansas City and Cleveland.