4 ms·
> The models haven't been significantly updated or reconsidered since, even though the development patterns have been mandated by law to become much less dense,
by ssivark 6y ago
> The models haven't been significantly updated or reconsidered since, even though the development patterns have been mandated by law to become much less dense, while street standards have also greatly increased, meaning much less tax base to support much more infrastructure.
This sounds like the utter lack of critical thinking which might result in a failing grade for a college term paper, so what gives? As in, what is the thinking with which sane people could justify using such models and/or approving estimates?
- peterwoerner 6y agoThe alternative is to provide fewer/worse services for more money.
- burlesona 6y agoA lot of it is time and culture gaps. These problems take 20-30 years to unfold so the people who create the problem are gone before the problem appears, and then the people who face the problem look at the budget and go "I dunno, in the past we made money when we took state subsidies and grew, we should do more of that." Suburbanization is a cultural phenomenon, and the result of a lot of social engineering and propoganda from as early as the FDR administration and continuing into the 80s and 90s. That makes it harder to question. There's also the old adage of it being hard to get a person to see a problem when their job depends on them not seeing it. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2011/12/12/best-of-blog-asce-and-the-infrastructure-cult.html https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2011/12/12/best-of-blog-...