5 ms·

That's oversimplfying things quite a lot to say the least. I see this sentiment shared often but the reality is that the major Texas cities are going through s

That's oversimplfying things quite a lot to say the least. I see this sentiment shared often but the reality is that the major Texas cities are going through similar growing pains as companies and people move out here. The cities are designed to grow outwards, rather than upwards which has a huge problem in that traffic quickly becomes a disaster due to poor infrastructure and city planning. Putting housing on land you own wouldn't solve much because it would still result in poor people being pushed further and further out of the city and congestion being made a major problem. This isn't to say NIMBYs aren't a problem, but rather that even if you removed them greed from landlords and land value in cities would still be a problem.

sneak 7y ago
> The cities are designed to grow outwards, rather than upwards Citation needed. Most cities that have a lot of density also have a lot of people who don’t own cars.
- fzeroracer 7y ago
  Have you lived in Texas? My citation is that I live in Austin and living here without a car simply isn't possible for a lot of people. The public transit infrastructure is poor, walkability is inconsistent thanks to poor roadwork and sidewalk connections. It's a fact that Texas cities have generally handled density through sprawl.
  - sneak 7y ago
    Yes, I have. I think you are saying something like “they have been designed to grow outwards” simply because that is how they have been built so far; I think it is about the same as saying an empty city-sized field is “designed to grow outwards”. Cities grow out, until they grow up. Even NYC didn’t have skyscrapers at one time. It will remain car-centric until such time density becomes sufficiently high that one can walk to enough different things, the achievement of which requires building vertically.
    - bretthoerner 7y ago
      And lots of people already live car-free lives in Austin. It largely depends on the neighborhood you choose to live in.
      - fzeroracer 7y ago
        You can live a car-free life in Austin (as I do), but that does not make it a good city to do so in. Austin as a whole consistently ranks low in terms of walkability and the public transit here pales in comparison to other major cities. Just because a small slice of the city occupied by the upper-middle class have the luxury of living next door to work does not a good city make.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        bretthoerner 7y ago
        > but that does not make it a good city to do so in. > Austin as a whole Shrug, neighborhoods matter way, way more than arbitrarily drawn city borders. There are neighborhoods of Austin that are more enjoyable to live in car-free than ones in NYC, for example.
        fzeroracer 7y ago
        Then I'm not sure what your point is if we want to point to arbitrary neighborhoods, say they're walkable and call it a day rather than address the ninety others which aren't. By your argument, we might as well say San Francisco is perfectly OK to live in because we can find one neighborhood that isn't a hellscape. You're not really addressing my points or arguments at all, just weirdly trying to sidestep it.
        bretthoerner 7y ago
        I just don't find arguments like "well if you lived in this random address in the City of Austin it probably wouldn't be walkable!" very interesting, sorry. Austin is 271 miles squares and SF is 46. Nobody should throw a dart (in any city) when selecting where to live and then make very location specific claims about the city (or region, state, country) as a whole based on their experience, IMO. If I go up thread you say "[Texas] cities are designed to grow outwards, rather than upwards" and "even if you removed [NIMBYs] greed from landlords and land value in cities would still be a problem." I mean... it's illegal to build anything except a single family home in most lots in Austin. NIMBYism is the problem. What else about Austin makes it "designed to grow outward" other than the zoning? How else do you push back against landlords and the high cost of land but via more units per acre? I assume you'll mention public transit, but I don't think any city built out a subway/rail system before it had some level of density. It's a chicken and egg problem and we need density in our urban core before we'll be able to pass more funding for transit, sadly. And we definitely can't afford to have a super great bus or rail system serving low density neighborhoods with low ridership. Also, I live in Central East Austin and many of my neighbors are poor. I don't buy arguments about central living being only for upper-middle class people (at least in Austin). The fact is most people choose to add miserable car commutes to their lives because they want more space, or they're afraid of living near people different than them (I'm being kind...), or whatever.
BurningFrog 7y ago
> the major Texas cities are going through similar growing pains They're growing, so they're going through growing pains, sure. But it's different pains! SF has decided to not grow. It's pains come from having to force a resident to move out for each new worker moving in.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > SF has decided to not grow. It's pains come from having to force a resident to move out for each new worker moving in. San Francisco’s population is growing, it doesn't have to (and doesn't) force a resident out for each new resident, worker or otherwise. It's not growing super rapidly, but it's never grown much faster than it is now since it was fully urbanized; the faster-growing US cities pretty much all have surrounding non-urbanized land to expand into.
  - BurningFrog 7y ago
    There is no formal resident removal program, but tons of people are leaving as they get priced out: https://sf.curbed.com/2019/1/30/18196549/san-francisco-everyone-leaving-first-person-migration-california https://sf.curbed.com/2019/1/30/18196549/san-francisco-every... This is an unavoidable consequence of people moving in and the housing supply not growing (you're right that it's growing a little, I exaggerated somewhat to make the point).

sneak 7y ago

> The cities are designed to grow outwards, rather than upwards Citation needed. Most cities that have a lot of density also have a lot of people who don’t own cars.

fzeroracer 7y ago
Have you lived in Texas? My citation is that I live in Austin and living here without a car simply isn't possible for a lot of people. The public transit infrastructure is poor, walkability is inconsistent thanks to poor roadwork and sidewalk connections. It's a fact that Texas cities have generally handled density through sprawl.
- sneak 7y ago
  Yes, I have. I think you are saying something like “they have been designed to grow outwards” simply because that is how they have been built so far; I think it is about the same as saying an empty city-sized field is “designed to grow outwards”. Cities grow out, until they grow up. Even NYC didn’t have skyscrapers at one time. It will remain car-centric until such time density becomes sufficiently high that one can walk to enough different things, the achievement of which requires building vertically.
  - bretthoerner 7y ago
    And lots of people already live car-free lives in Austin. It largely depends on the neighborhood you choose to live in.
    - fzeroracer 7y ago
      You can live a car-free life in Austin (as I do), but that does not make it a good city to do so in. Austin as a whole consistently ranks low in terms of walkability and the public transit here pales in comparison to other major cities. Just because a small slice of the city occupied by the upper-middle class have the luxury of living next door to work does not a good city make.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - bretthoerner 7y ago
        > but that does not make it a good city to do so in. > Austin as a whole Shrug, neighborhoods matter way, way more than arbitrarily drawn city borders. There are neighborhoods of Austin that are more enjoyable to live in car-free than ones in NYC, for example.
        fzeroracer 7y ago
        Then I'm not sure what your point is if we want to point to arbitrary neighborhoods, say they're walkable and call it a day rather than address the ninety others which aren't. By your argument, we might as well say San Francisco is perfectly OK to live in because we can find one neighborhood that isn't a hellscape. You're not really addressing my points or arguments at all, just weirdly trying to sidestep it.
        bretthoerner 7y ago
        I just don't find arguments like "well if you lived in this random address in the City of Austin it probably wouldn't be walkable!" very interesting, sorry. Austin is 271 miles squares and SF is 46. Nobody should throw a dart (in any city) when selecting where to live and then make very location specific claims about the city (or region, state, country) as a whole based on their experience, IMO. If I go up thread you say "[Texas] cities are designed to grow outwards, rather than upwards" and "even if you removed [NIMBYs] greed from landlords and land value in cities would still be a problem." I mean... it's illegal to build anything except a single family home in most lots in Austin. NIMBYism is the problem. What else about Austin makes it "designed to grow outward" other than the zoning? How else do you push back against landlords and the high cost of land but via more units per acre? I assume you'll mention public transit, but I don't think any city built out a subway/rail system before it had some level of density. It's a chicken and egg problem and we need density in our urban core before we'll be able to pass more funding for transit, sadly. And we definitely can't afford to have a super great bus or rail system serving low density neighborhoods with low ridership. Also, I live in Central East Austin and many of my neighbors are poor. I don't buy arguments about central living being only for upper-middle class people (at least in Austin). The fact is most people choose to add miserable car commutes to their lives because they want more space, or they're afraid of living near people different than them (I'm being kind...), or whatever.

BurningFrog 7y ago

> the major Texas cities are going through similar growing pains They're growing, so they're going through growing pains, sure. But it's different pains! SF has decided to not grow. It's pains come from having to force a resident to move out for each new worker moving in.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> SF has decided to not grow. It's pains come from having to force a resident to move out for each new worker moving in. San Francisco’s population is growing, it doesn't have to (and doesn't) force a resident out for each new resident, worker or otherwise. It's not growing super rapidly, but it's never grown much faster than it is now since it was fully urbanized; the faster-growing US cities pretty much all have surrounding non-urbanized land to expand into.
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  There is no formal resident removal program, but tons of people are leaving as they get priced out: https://sf.curbed.com/2019/1/30/18196549/san-francisco-everyone-leaving-first-person-migration-california https://sf.curbed.com/2019/1/30/18196549/san-francisco-every... This is an unavoidable consequence of people moving in and the housing supply not growing (you're right that it's growing a little, I exaggerated somewhat to make the point).