6 ms·

I couldn't agree more. I'm originally from the Twin Cities and we solved (parts of this) problem years ago with a regional government called the Metropolitan Co

I couldn't agree more. I'm originally from the Twin Cities and we solved (parts of this) problem years ago with a regional government called the Metropolitan Council. When you have a metropolitan area that spans multiple local governments, coordinating efforts around transportation, development, and environment is critical. And coordination is difficult without some sort of central authority. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Council https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Council

abalashov 9y ago
This is exactly what we lack in Atlanta, which, as you probably know, is notorious for its decentralisation and far-reaching sprawl. As a result, everything that's done in the Atlanta metro area suffers from narrow incorporated municipality focus and a total lack of regional-scale goals.
health_in_usa 9y ago
This is a funny example to pick since the Metropolitan Council has demonstrated NIMBYism in its own right on a few topics. Importantly, the Council has been able to direct huge groups of people to far reaches of the Metropolis (with their attendant reduced bus service, higher crime, etc). [1] http://www.startribune.com/brooklyn-park-brooklyn-center-accuse-state-of-fair-housing-violations/275901391/ http://www.startribune.com/brooklyn-park-brooklyn-center-acc...
flomo 9y ago
Originally from Minneapolis. Farmlands extend infinitely outwards in all directions. The real Met Council power is over the sewer pipes, which allows them to limit sprawl and set a growth boundary. Maybe things have changed, but it used to be run mostly by real-estate types who wanted "controlled growth". (that is, it was a racket.) In San Francisco, the situation is entirely different. We have a massive greenbelt surrounding a geographically constricted urban area, which is 99% developed. Californians have a long history of anti-growth "pull up bridges" politics. It is not so simple as putting some enlightened developers in charge.
- skewart 9y ago
  > which is 99% developed. Not really. There's plenty of room to build a ton more in San Francisco. Just because there's already, say, a parking lot or a Burger King with a drive-through on a block in the city doesn't mean that it wouldn't be possible to build apartments there instead. Geography and existing land use do not prevent building more housing in SF. Anti-building regulations are the only meaningful reason why the housing supply is so restricted.
  - ianamartin 9y ago
    That sounds an awful lot like you're suggesting that people who have already acquired the rights to a piece of property shouldn't be allowed to keep them if a housing developer wants to put a high rise where your Burger King is. Also, I wonder if you would make the same argument for places that are also generally though of as real-estate constrained. Like Manhattan, or Tokyo. Or the part of Brooklyn where I live.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - koolba 9y ago
      That makes no sense. GP is saying that the owner of the land, whether it's a parking lot or a Burger King, can decide to do something else with it like build a high rise. It's their land after all. It's not like a random housing developer can come and kick you out just because they want to build condos.
    - Sukotto 9y ago
      Here in Japan your neighbour can build pretty much anything they want (within zoning constraints) and there is little you can do about it. The zoning here is pretty different than in the US though. The government created a national, unified zoning standard consisting of 12 zones. Local governments can split their land into more-or-less arbitrary regions, and choose which zone type they want each region to have. They also have some control over how large the resulting buildings can be in each region by mandating the maximum ratio of floor space to land area for each region. The main difference between Japanese and American zoning rules is that in the US, the zones are exclusive where-as in Japan they are (mostly) inclusive. There's a fascinating writeup about it here: https://urbankchoze.blogspot.jp/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html https://urbankchoze.blogspot.jp/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html

abalashov 9y ago

This is exactly what we lack in Atlanta, which, as you probably know, is notorious for its decentralisation and far-reaching sprawl. As a result, everything that's done in the Atlanta metro area suffers from narrow incorporated municipality focus and a total lack of regional-scale goals.

health_in_usa 9y ago

This is a funny example to pick since the Metropolitan Council has demonstrated NIMBYism in its own right on a few topics. Importantly, the Council has been able to direct huge groups of people to far reaches of the Metropolis (with their attendant reduced bus service, higher crime, etc). [1] http://www.startribune.com/brooklyn-park-brooklyn-center-accuse-state-of-fair-housing-violations/275901391/ http://www.startribune.com/brooklyn-park-brooklyn-center-acc...

flomo 9y ago

Originally from Minneapolis. Farmlands extend infinitely outwards in all directions. The real Met Council power is over the sewer pipes, which allows them to limit sprawl and set a growth boundary. Maybe things have changed, but it used to be run mostly by real-estate types who wanted "controlled growth". (that is, it was a racket.) In San Francisco, the situation is entirely different. We have a massive greenbelt surrounding a geographically constricted urban area, which is 99% developed. Californians have a long history of anti-growth "pull up bridges" politics. It is not so simple as putting some enlightened developers in charge.

skewart 9y ago
> which is 99% developed. Not really. There's plenty of room to build a ton more in San Francisco. Just because there's already, say, a parking lot or a Burger King with a drive-through on a block in the city doesn't mean that it wouldn't be possible to build apartments there instead. Geography and existing land use do not prevent building more housing in SF. Anti-building regulations are the only meaningful reason why the housing supply is so restricted.
- ianamartin 9y ago
  That sounds an awful lot like you're suggesting that people who have already acquired the rights to a piece of property shouldn't be allowed to keep them if a housing developer wants to put a high rise where your Burger King is. Also, I wonder if you would make the same argument for places that are also generally though of as real-estate constrained. Like Manhattan, or Tokyo. Or the part of Brooklyn where I live.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - koolba 9y ago
    That makes no sense. GP is saying that the owner of the land, whether it's a parking lot or a Burger King, can decide to do something else with it like build a high rise. It's their land after all. It's not like a random housing developer can come and kick you out just because they want to build condos.
  - Sukotto 9y ago
    Here in Japan your neighbour can build pretty much anything they want (within zoning constraints) and there is little you can do about it. The zoning here is pretty different than in the US though. The government created a national, unified zoning standard consisting of 12 zones. Local governments can split their land into more-or-less arbitrary regions, and choose which zone type they want each region to have. They also have some control over how large the resulting buildings can be in each region by mandating the maximum ratio of floor space to land area for each region. The main difference between Japanese and American zoning rules is that in the US, the zones are exclusive where-as in Japan they are (mostly) inclusive. There's a fascinating writeup about it here: https://urbankchoze.blogspot.jp/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html https://urbankchoze.blogspot.jp/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html