5 ms·

tldr: a) city population density outweighs most other factors at producing overall prosperity. b) suburban development is a bad roi for public financing c) t

tldr: a) city population density outweighs most other factors at producing overall prosperity. b) suburban development is a bad roi for public financing c) therefore, a lot of seemingly affluent areas (think gated communities) are actually going to ruin, because the roi on public financing can't keep them affluent. the article is interesting, but light on quantitative analysis. you're supposed to accept that the author ran the numbers. in particular, i doubt that misallocated public financing is the main reason for a city to grow or shrink. the global economy is too strong. there could even be reverse causation -- all the best urban planners left cleveland as it shrank, which resulted in waste...

bilbo0s 8y ago
"...all the best urban planners left cleveland as it shrank, which resulted in waste..." ??? But if they all left Cleveland, wasn't that because the places they moved to were more desirable for whatever reason? And if those other places were more desirable, doesn't that imply that they missed something in their planning? (Or else they would have done the planning to make their own place that desirable.) Serious question BTW. I'm not trying to be snarky.
- mushufasa 8y ago
  the article suggests that bad urban planning can cause a city to shrink. reverse causation would be that cities which shrink result in bad urban planning. the mechanism for the reverse causation could be that the best urban planners may choose to work in cities with promising growth. or, that shrinking makes urban planning too unpredictable to be effective. you seem to be assuming that urban planners cause a city to be desirable or not. I'm not so sure planners have as much influence, versus, say, trade/resources/industries. point being, i don't think the causal mechanisms on this are clear.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > But if they all left Cleveland, wasn't isn't that because the places they moved to were more desirable for whatever reason? Yes, for instance, jobs for urban planners, which are both more plentiful and better paying in growing (both population and economy) areas. > And if those other places were more desirable, doesn't that imply that they missed something in their planning? No, in the same way that an investment planner that experiences a known risk that would have been more likely under alternative courses, or who underperforms other portfolios that benefited from access to investments only made selectively available to people who owned particular investments before that advisor came onboard have not necessarily missed anything. Unavoidable risk and opportunities constrained by initial conditions definitely affect urban planning.
pchristensen 8y ago
The author has run the numbers (or at least found and cited them) - see e.g. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/5/7/the-more-we-build-the-poorer-we-get https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/5/7/the-more-we-bui... and https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/7/20/mapping-the-effects-of-californias-prop-13 https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/7/20/mapping-the-ef... It's true that the global economy is the biggest factor in a city's prosperity, but a strong economy is only papering over the fiscally unsustainable way most municipalities are run. Also, generally, urban planners are the technicians that implement decisions made by elected officials. They are NOT the ones setting the vision for a city. [citation: Masters in Urban Planning that I never used]
- aidenn0 8y ago
  Many articles on the site have numbers so I'm curious why you chose the first one; it has exactly 1 number, and a graph that looks illustrative rather than empirical. Second article definitely has data in the graphs (as does TFA, for that matter).
TangoTrotFox 8y ago
Doesn't this seem to be conflating correlation with causation? A sign of a wealthier than average household is a beamer in the drive way. That does not mean that buying a beamer is a a good way to get rich, quite the opposite in fact. Areas that are 'overall prosperous' are going to tend to drive economic migration. As a city's area for development tends to be limited this is going to drive population densities upward, as compared to areas that are not economically desirable. San Francisco is a great example, all the way back to its beginnings. San Francisco was practically created by the California gold rush. At the start of 1848 its population was around 1,000. By the end of 1849, it's population was 25,000. By 1890 it's population was 300,000 and it was the 8th largest city in the US. By 1906 the population was more than 400,000. Things then got shaken up by the quake of 1906. But the whole point is that as its population increased 40,000% in about 5 decades, you'd have seen population densities skyrocket. But the city didn't become prosperous because the population density increased. Its prosperity caused the density increases.
- SilasX 8y ago
  >Doesn't this seem to be conflating correlation with causation? A sign of a wealthier than average household is a beamer in the drive way. That does not mean that buying a beamer is a a good way to get rich, quite the opposite in fact. Yep. And most economic policy is based on exactly this fallacy: "When 'the economy' is prosperous, people are buying a lot. Therefore, if we artificially stimulate the economy, we will get prosperity in the relevant, desired sense."
  - yongjik 8y ago
    That's not a fallacy. If a lot of people start to buy a lot, more jobs are created. You are trying to take the case of a single household (where "buying a lot" can only mean using a lot of money) and apply that to the whole society.
    - SilasX 8y ago
      You just bought into the fallacy -- jobs (and buying stuff) are only good when they're satisfying a legit demand, not one artificially created by the stimulus policy. To the extent that that the desire to provide that job or purchase that item is artificial, the "prosperity" indicated by that action is likewise artificial. If I put a gun to your head and forced you to buy a sofa, that's not the same kind of prosperity as when you independently judged that you needed a sofa and freely bought one. The same basic dynamic is going on when I conceal it slightly by forcing other people to give me money so I can subsidize your sofa purchase.
village-idiot 8y ago
One of the points the author makes is that a lot of American communities are not financially robust. If the global economy hiccups, they won’t be able to handle it and might go bankrupt.

bilbo0s 8y ago

"...all the best urban planners left cleveland as it shrank, which resulted in waste..." ??? But if they all left Cleveland, wasn't that because the places they moved to were more desirable for whatever reason? And if those other places were more desirable, doesn't that imply that they missed something in their planning? (Or else they would have done the planning to make their own place that desirable.) Serious question BTW. I'm not trying to be snarky.

mushufasa 8y ago
the article suggests that bad urban planning can cause a city to shrink. reverse causation would be that cities which shrink result in bad urban planning. the mechanism for the reverse causation could be that the best urban planners may choose to work in cities with promising growth. or, that shrinking makes urban planning too unpredictable to be effective. you seem to be assuming that urban planners cause a city to be desirable or not. I'm not so sure planners have as much influence, versus, say, trade/resources/industries. point being, i don't think the causal mechanisms on this are clear.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> But if they all left Cleveland, wasn't isn't that because the places they moved to were more desirable for whatever reason? Yes, for instance, jobs for urban planners, which are both more plentiful and better paying in growing (both population and economy) areas. > And if those other places were more desirable, doesn't that imply that they missed something in their planning? No, in the same way that an investment planner that experiences a known risk that would have been more likely under alternative courses, or who underperforms other portfolios that benefited from access to investments only made selectively available to people who owned particular investments before that advisor came onboard have not necessarily missed anything. Unavoidable risk and opportunities constrained by initial conditions definitely affect urban planning.

pchristensen 8y ago

The author has run the numbers (or at least found and cited them) - see e.g. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/5/7/the-more-we-build-the-poorer-we-get https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/5/7/the-more-we-bui... and https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/7/20/mapping-the-effects-of-californias-prop-13 https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/7/20/mapping-the-ef... It's true that the global economy is the biggest factor in a city's prosperity, but a strong economy is only papering over the fiscally unsustainable way most municipalities are run. Also, generally, urban planners are the technicians that implement decisions made by elected officials. They are NOT the ones setting the vision for a city. [citation: Masters in Urban Planning that I never used]

aidenn0 8y ago
Many articles on the site have numbers so I'm curious why you chose the first one; it has exactly 1 number, and a graph that looks illustrative rather than empirical. Second article definitely has data in the graphs (as does TFA, for that matter).

TangoTrotFox 8y ago

Doesn't this seem to be conflating correlation with causation? A sign of a wealthier than average household is a beamer in the drive way. That does not mean that buying a beamer is a a good way to get rich, quite the opposite in fact. Areas that are 'overall prosperous' are going to tend to drive economic migration. As a city's area for development tends to be limited this is going to drive population densities upward, as compared to areas that are not economically desirable. San Francisco is a great example, all the way back to its beginnings. San Francisco was practically created by the California gold rush. At the start of 1848 its population was around 1,000. By the end of 1849, it's population was 25,000. By 1890 it's population was 300,000 and it was the 8th largest city in the US. By 1906 the population was more than 400,000. Things then got shaken up by the quake of 1906. But the whole point is that as its population increased 40,000% in about 5 decades, you'd have seen population densities skyrocket. But the city didn't become prosperous because the population density increased. Its prosperity caused the density increases.

SilasX 8y ago
>Doesn't this seem to be conflating correlation with causation? A sign of a wealthier than average household is a beamer in the drive way. That does not mean that buying a beamer is a a good way to get rich, quite the opposite in fact. Yep. And most economic policy is based on exactly this fallacy: "When 'the economy' is prosperous, people are buying a lot. Therefore, if we artificially stimulate the economy, we will get prosperity in the relevant, desired sense."
- yongjik 8y ago
  That's not a fallacy. If a lot of people start to buy a lot, more jobs are created. You are trying to take the case of a single household (where "buying a lot" can only mean using a lot of money) and apply that to the whole society.
  - SilasX 8y ago
    You just bought into the fallacy -- jobs (and buying stuff) are only good when they're satisfying a legit demand, not one artificially created by the stimulus policy. To the extent that that the desire to provide that job or purchase that item is artificial, the "prosperity" indicated by that action is likewise artificial. If I put a gun to your head and forced you to buy a sofa, that's not the same kind of prosperity as when you independently judged that you needed a sofa and freely bought one. The same basic dynamic is going on when I conceal it slightly by forcing other people to give me money so I can subsidize your sofa purchase.

village-idiot 8y ago

One of the points the author makes is that a lot of American communities are not financially robust. If the global economy hiccups, they won’t be able to handle it and might go bankrupt.