4 ms·

Whose job is it/should it be to get that infrastructure built, and on what timeline? Obviously it's not reasonable for a private contractor to have to build a s

Whose job is it/should it be to get that infrastructure built, and on what timeline? Obviously it's not reasonable for a private contractor to have to build a school addition for each housing block (or is it?), but if the people haven't moved in yet then there's no data to show the city so that they can project tax/levy money and scale schooling, transit, and other infrastructure appropriately. If we let the circular dependencies stymie us at all turns, we'll never get anywhere. Gotta start somewhere, and having people to clamor for services seems like a good place to do so as any to me.

vkou 8y ago
> Whose job is it/should it be to get that infrastructure built, and on what timeline? The new residents, so, by proxy, the developer putting the apartment block in. Of course, the developer immediately starts grousing about regulation, and excessive fees, and apparently, this is the reason for why we can't have sub-$400,000 apartment units. > Obviously it's not reasonable for a private contractor to have to build a school addition for each housing block (or is it?) It is reasonable for them to pay the city enough money to construct the infrastructure necessary to serve the new density they are adding.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- helen___keller 8y ago
  infrastructure in sprawl costs more per capita than in dense urban developments. If these people will move to the same city anyways, maybe the city should be subsidizing the cost of the infrastructure because it’s cheaper to provide it to a big building on an existing street than it is to a new subdivision down the road
  - maxsilver 8y ago
    > infrastructure in sprawl costs more per capita than in dense urban developments. (snip) it’s cheaper to provide it to a big building on an existing street than it is to a new subdivision down the road Unfortunately, even if you divide the costs per person, it's still often cheaper to get 40 people new water lines in say 20 average suburban homes, than it is to get 40 people new water lines in say, one building in Manhattan. Infrastructure costs do not scale evenly per mile. The capital costs in infrastructure are rarely the actual wires or pipes, it's the installation and maintenance labour. Which are considerably more complex and more expensive in dense urban environments, than it is in the sprawl. There are plenty of downsides to sprawl (it's a waste of land, for instance). But sprawl is nearly always cheaper (even after removing all subsidies), that's kind of the whole reason sprawl exists in the first place.
    - Karrot_Kream 8y ago
      The problem is, you're comparing a Manhattan high-rise to 20 single-family homes. Price/performance tends to be mid-rise apartments, which look like duplexes for the most part. These mid-rise apartments are cheaper per-capita both capital wise and maintenance wise than sprawly single-family homes. Sprawl exists because of zoning codes, not because of a market equilibrium. If you're interested in the phenomenon, read https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/ https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/ about the Growth Ponzi Scheme.
      - maxsilver 8y ago
        > you're comparing a Manhattan high-rise to 20 single-family homes. That's generally what people mean by "Dense Urban" vs "sprawl", yes? You could replace "Manhattan" with "Chicago Loop" and it would be the roughly identical. > These mid-rise apartments are cheaper per-capita both capital wise and maintenance wise than sprawly single-family homes. They aren't, sprawly apartments (like duplexes, or low-mid-rise apartments) are roughly equivalent to costs as sprawly single family homes, and dense apartments are more expensive. This gets confusing, because sprawly apartments (like duplexes or low-rises) are usually lower quality and lower maintained than nearby single family homes, and therefore are cheaper. But if you brought the SFH down to that lower level of maintenance, they too would be cheaper in a similar way. (And similarly, if you brought those low-density apartments up to the quality of nearby SFH, they would be slightly more expensive). > Read Strong Towns I have, many many times. They get promoted on HN on a literally daily basis. Strong Towns is a fun blog to read, but unfortunately, Strong Towns is simply wrong sometimes. Their understanding of suburban finances is one thing they are semi-routinely incorrect on, they assume most suburbs are only financially viable if they continiously grow -- and while this is true for some, it is not common for most. The Growth Ponzi scheme they mention, while true for a handful of suburbs, does not apply in any way to 75% or more of suburbs across the US. Don't take my word for it. Most municipalities budgets are public record (they should all be, really). Look up one near you, and see this for yourself.
        maxsilver 8y ago
  - AngryData 8y ago
    If it is taking people from actual rural areas (and not just suburbs), rural areas can grow much of their own food, heat their homes with renewable wood, draw their water from a well, shit into a drain field. The only infrastructure is power and roads and the roads are needed regardless because rural areas produce resources that cities require to exist. Be it crops, milk, meat, coal, iron, copper, sand/glass, stone, concrete, ect.
    - masonic 8y ago
      heat their homes with renewable wood This is increasingly regulated against, and we wouldn't want more if that even if unregulated.
- xapata 8y ago
  >> Whose job is it/should it be to get that infrastructure built? > The new residents Surely it's not their sole responsibility. New residents boost the local economy, so the old residents benefit.
- stale2002 8y ago
  Those apartment buildings are paying the same property taxes as everyone else. That I'd what property taxes are for. To pay for stuff like this.
  - masonic 8y ago
    paying the same property taxes as everyone else Not per capita, they aren't.
stormbrew 8y ago
This isn't really a circular dependency because the developers can't build without the city's permission. If a developer plans to add N units of housing to an area that means there is need for NxM of various kinds of resources in the area, and you need them before NxY people move into the area and need them. You can't just suddenly have 10,000 more people and no sewer system for them until you find out exactly how much poop they produce. It's not even like questions like "If you add this many 3 bedroom homes to an area how many schools do you need" aren't unstudied questions, either. Civil engineering is a thing and should be able to answer questions like that pretty darn well. Who is responsible for actually building it is a fair and open question with several different answers, but as long as city planning is a thing, the city that approves construction is responsible for ensuring that that construction will not overload resources somehow, and I don't even see how that can be under dispute.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > It's not even like questions like "If you add this many 3 bedroom homes to an area how many schools do you need" aren't unstudied questions, either. Civil engineering is a thing and should be able to answer questions like that pretty darn well. That's not the kind of question civil engineering answers. That's more urban planning.
  - stormbrew 8y ago
    That's fair. The point still stands.
- Retric 8y ago
  10,000 people sounds like a lot, but in terms of a large city’s sewer system it’s not that meaningful. In terms of traffic etc you are talking about 10k people in a 3,870k people population area. That less than 1/3 of one percent. PS: Simply from the overall US population growth rate the metro area should expect to add ~27,000 people every year.
  - stormbrew 8y ago
Symbiote 8y ago
> Obviously it's not reasonable for a private contractor to have to build a school addition for each housing block (or is it?) In the UK there have been various methods to get residential developers to pay for infrastructure. They're fairly recent, and I'm not too familiar with them. Even if the developer isn't to pay the full cost, there are efficiencies by the local government working with the developer to build relevant infrastructure at the same time. Example: https://www.telfordhomes-ir.london/media/press-releases/2017/telford-homes-receives-a-remarkable-three-housing-design-awards-2017/telford-homes-receives-a-remarkable-three-housing-design-awards-2017/ https://www.telfordhomes-ir.london/media/press-releases/2017...
- MarchHare 8y ago
  I wonder to what point some of these methods just increase housing prices. For example, having the developer plant trees along the street means the price of the new build goes up (of course the developer will pass along costs), and existing residents get an improved neighbourhood without increased taxation. But is this not something the council should be paying for? After all the new homeowners will be paying council tax, why must the also pay a fee to join the community?
souprock 8y ago
For large-scale development, it is reasonable for a private contractor to have to build a school addition for each housing block. I've seen it in Flowermound, TX. The developer built a really nice elementary school and donated it to the city. Perhaps it was required by the town. Perhaps the developer got a tax break. Either way, the nice school surely contributed to higher selling prices for the homes the developer was selling.

vkou 8y ago

> Whose job is it/should it be to get that infrastructure built, and on what timeline? The new residents, so, by proxy, the developer putting the apartment block in. Of course, the developer immediately starts grousing about regulation, and excessive fees, and apparently, this is the reason for why we can't have sub-$400,000 apartment units. > Obviously it's not reasonable for a private contractor to have to build a school addition for each housing block (or is it?) It is reasonable for them to pay the city enough money to construct the infrastructure necessary to serve the new density they are adding.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
helen___keller 8y ago
infrastructure in sprawl costs more per capita than in dense urban developments. If these people will move to the same city anyways, maybe the city should be subsidizing the cost of the infrastructure because it’s cheaper to provide it to a big building on an existing street than it is to a new subdivision down the road
- maxsilver 8y ago
  > infrastructure in sprawl costs more per capita than in dense urban developments. (snip) it’s cheaper to provide it to a big building on an existing street than it is to a new subdivision down the road Unfortunately, even if you divide the costs per person, it's still often cheaper to get 40 people new water lines in say 20 average suburban homes, than it is to get 40 people new water lines in say, one building in Manhattan. Infrastructure costs do not scale evenly per mile. The capital costs in infrastructure are rarely the actual wires or pipes, it's the installation and maintenance labour. Which are considerably more complex and more expensive in dense urban environments, than it is in the sprawl. There are plenty of downsides to sprawl (it's a waste of land, for instance). But sprawl is nearly always cheaper (even after removing all subsidies), that's kind of the whole reason sprawl exists in the first place.
  - Karrot_Kream 8y ago
    The problem is, you're comparing a Manhattan high-rise to 20 single-family homes. Price/performance tends to be mid-rise apartments, which look like duplexes for the most part. These mid-rise apartments are cheaper per-capita both capital wise and maintenance wise than sprawly single-family homes. Sprawl exists because of zoning codes, not because of a market equilibrium. If you're interested in the phenomenon, read https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/ https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/ about the Growth Ponzi Scheme.
    - maxsilver 8y ago
      > you're comparing a Manhattan high-rise to 20 single-family homes. That's generally what people mean by "Dense Urban" vs "sprawl", yes? You could replace "Manhattan" with "Chicago Loop" and it would be the roughly identical. > These mid-rise apartments are cheaper per-capita both capital wise and maintenance wise than sprawly single-family homes. They aren't, sprawly apartments (like duplexes, or low-mid-rise apartments) are roughly equivalent to costs as sprawly single family homes, and dense apartments are more expensive. This gets confusing, because sprawly apartments (like duplexes or low-rises) are usually lower quality and lower maintained than nearby single family homes, and therefore are cheaper. But if you brought the SFH down to that lower level of maintenance, they too would be cheaper in a similar way. (And similarly, if you brought those low-density apartments up to the quality of nearby SFH, they would be slightly more expensive). > Read Strong Towns I have, many many times. They get promoted on HN on a literally daily basis. Strong Towns is a fun blog to read, but unfortunately, Strong Towns is simply wrong sometimes. Their understanding of suburban finances is one thing they are semi-routinely incorrect on, they assume most suburbs are only financially viable if they continiously grow -- and while this is true for some, it is not common for most. The Growth Ponzi scheme they mention, while true for a handful of suburbs, does not apply in any way to 75% or more of suburbs across the US. Don't take my word for it. Most municipalities budgets are public record (they should all be, really). Look up one near you, and see this for yourself.
      - maxsilver 8y ago
- AngryData 8y ago
  If it is taking people from actual rural areas (and not just suburbs), rural areas can grow much of their own food, heat their homes with renewable wood, draw their water from a well, shit into a drain field. The only infrastructure is power and roads and the roads are needed regardless because rural areas produce resources that cities require to exist. Be it crops, milk, meat, coal, iron, copper, sand/glass, stone, concrete, ect.
  - masonic 8y ago
    heat their homes with renewable wood This is increasingly regulated against, and we wouldn't want more if that even if unregulated.
xapata 8y ago
>> Whose job is it/should it be to get that infrastructure built? > The new residents Surely it's not their sole responsibility. New residents boost the local economy, so the old residents benefit.
stale2002 8y ago
Those apartment buildings are paying the same property taxes as everyone else. That I'd what property taxes are for. To pay for stuff like this.
- masonic 8y ago
  paying the same property taxes as everyone else Not per capita, they aren't.

stormbrew 8y ago

This isn't really a circular dependency because the developers can't build without the city's permission. If a developer plans to add N units of housing to an area that means there is need for NxM of various kinds of resources in the area, and you need them before NxY people move into the area and need them. You can't just suddenly have 10,000 more people and no sewer system for them until you find out exactly how much poop they produce. It's not even like questions like "If you add this many 3 bedroom homes to an area how many schools do you need" aren't unstudied questions, either. Civil engineering is a thing and should be able to answer questions like that pretty darn well. Who is responsible for actually building it is a fair and open question with several different answers, but as long as city planning is a thing, the city that approves construction is responsible for ensuring that that construction will not overload resources somehow, and I don't even see how that can be under dispute.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> It's not even like questions like "If you add this many 3 bedroom homes to an area how many schools do you need" aren't unstudied questions, either. Civil engineering is a thing and should be able to answer questions like that pretty darn well. That's not the kind of question civil engineering answers. That's more urban planning.
- stormbrew 8y ago
  That's fair. The point still stands.
Retric 8y ago
10,000 people sounds like a lot, but in terms of a large city’s sewer system it’s not that meaningful. In terms of traffic etc you are talking about 10k people in a 3,870k people population area. That less than 1/3 of one percent. PS: Simply from the overall US population growth rate the metro area should expect to add ~27,000 people every year.
- stormbrew 8y ago

Symbiote 8y ago

> Obviously it's not reasonable for a private contractor to have to build a school addition for each housing block (or is it?) In the UK there have been various methods to get residential developers to pay for infrastructure. They're fairly recent, and I'm not too familiar with them. Even if the developer isn't to pay the full cost, there are efficiencies by the local government working with the developer to build relevant infrastructure at the same time. Example: https://www.telfordhomes-ir.london/media/press-releases/2017/telford-homes-receives-a-remarkable-three-housing-design-awards-2017/telford-homes-receives-a-remarkable-three-housing-design-awards-2017/ https://www.telfordhomes-ir.london/media/press-releases/2017...

MarchHare 8y ago
I wonder to what point some of these methods just increase housing prices. For example, having the developer plant trees along the street means the price of the new build goes up (of course the developer will pass along costs), and existing residents get an improved neighbourhood without increased taxation. But is this not something the council should be paying for? After all the new homeowners will be paying council tax, why must the also pay a fee to join the community?

souprock 8y ago

For large-scale development, it is reasonable for a private contractor to have to build a school addition for each housing block. I've seen it in Flowermound, TX. The developer built a really nice elementary school and donated it to the city. Perhaps it was required by the town. Perhaps the developer got a tax break. Either way, the nice school surely contributed to higher selling prices for the homes the developer was selling.