4 ms·

Walkable places are inherently more expensive because they lack economy of scale. It's why Dunkin Donuts can sell a dozen for $10 but it costs ~$20 for half a

by treis 5y ago

Walkable places are inherently more expensive because they lack economy of scale. It's why Dunkin Donuts can sell a dozen for $10 but it costs ~$20 for half a dozen at my local walkable place. Granted, there is a quality of ingredients difference but not 4x the cost.

cozzyd 5y ago
There are plenty of Dunkin Donuts stores in walkable places. I have a Dunks across the street from my condo and another one around the corner (and several others several blocks away). (I live in this area, which is VERY walkable: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8822495,-87.6254941,1122a,35y,3.11h/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8822495,-87.6254941,1122a,35...) It's true there are also other, superior, options, but that's a bonus!
wilkommen 5y ago
No, it's the suburbs that lack economy of scale. The walkable areas contribute far more per acre in taxes than the suburbs. They also require fewer resources to maintain per person because they're physically smaller. The suburbs have such a paucity of "economies of scale" that municipalities around the country have gone into debt to support them. The reason donuts cost more at your local walkable place is because real estate prices are higher in walkable places, because walkable places are so in-demand that as a nation we've bid the prices of those places to the moon. So we ought to change our zoning rules so that the market can build more of them. That's the whole point of Strong Towns idea.
- QuarterReptile 5y ago
  Plus the Dunkin Donuts was gifted expensive public infrastructure since, in all likelihood, they have a 10 year tax incentive that prevents them from paying almost any property taxes.
  - cozzyd 5y ago
    Dunkin Donuts also doesn't bake their donuts on premises (with a few exceptions). Surprise, you can get even cheaper (and shittier) donuts at the dollar store!
- treis 5y ago
  >No, it's the suburbs that lack economy of scale. The walkable areas contribute far more per acre in taxes than the suburbs. They also require fewer resources to maintain per person because they're physically smaller. The suburbs have such a paucity of "economies of scale" that municipalities around the country have gone into debt to support them. Yes, Strong towns loves to say this too despite it being obviously not true. Infrastructure stuff like roads and pipes and so on is cheap. Usually 10-15% of the budget. The real cost of government is in providing services to people. And those are invariably more expensive in the cities than the suburbs. Show me even one city in the US that has lower taxes and spends less per Capita than the surrounding suburbs.
  - kortex 5y ago
    That's not the right metric though. Cities and suburbs are not comparable in terms of overall experience. The extra services you cite are one of the reasons why. For one, suburbs are pretty economically difficult for low-earning households. Low earners are more likely to live in cities, therefore cities tend to have more social services. You need to do an apples-to-apples comparison, which unfortunately is not easy.
    - treis 5y ago
      The services (schools, police, fire) aren't better in a city. They're more expensive and usually significantly worse.
  - cozzyd 5y ago
    I mean City of Chicago has lower property tax rates than suburbs (due to the large amount of taxable commercial property in the city).
    - treis 5y ago
      Tax rate is only half of the calculation so it's a meaningless number on its own. Plus, there's sales tax and other assorted fees.
xmprt 5y ago
You have it completely backwards. Suburbs aren't scalable. That's why back in the 50s-70s when they were first built, they were amazing, but today, they are rife with traffic problems, noise pollution, and crumbling infrastructure.
- treis 5y ago
  The percentage of the population living in the suburbs is growing, not shrinking.
  - ZoomerCretin 5y ago
    "O(n^2) sorting time doesn't scale." "The amount of data we are going to sort in O(n^2) is growing, not shrinking." Notice how the second statement doesn't disprove the first.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

by treis 5y ago

cozzyd 5y ago

There are plenty of Dunkin Donuts stores in walkable places. I have a Dunks across the street from my condo and another one around the corner (and several others several blocks away). (I live in this area, which is VERY walkable: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8822495,-87.6254941,1122a,35y,3.11h/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8822495,-87.6254941,1122a,35...) It's true there are also other, superior, options, but that's a bonus!

wilkommen 5y ago

No, it's the suburbs that lack economy of scale. The walkable areas contribute far more per acre in taxes than the suburbs. They also require fewer resources to maintain per person because they're physically smaller. The suburbs have such a paucity of "economies of scale" that municipalities around the country have gone into debt to support them. The reason donuts cost more at your local walkable place is because real estate prices are higher in walkable places, because walkable places are so in-demand that as a nation we've bid the prices of those places to the moon. So we ought to change our zoning rules so that the market can build more of them. That's the whole point of Strong Towns idea.

QuarterReptile 5y ago
Plus the Dunkin Donuts was gifted expensive public infrastructure since, in all likelihood, they have a 10 year tax incentive that prevents them from paying almost any property taxes.
- cozzyd 5y ago
  Dunkin Donuts also doesn't bake their donuts on premises (with a few exceptions). Surprise, you can get even cheaper (and shittier) donuts at the dollar store!
treis 5y ago
>No, it's the suburbs that lack economy of scale. The walkable areas contribute far more per acre in taxes than the suburbs. They also require fewer resources to maintain per person because they're physically smaller. The suburbs have such a paucity of "economies of scale" that municipalities around the country have gone into debt to support them. Yes, Strong towns loves to say this too despite it being obviously not true. Infrastructure stuff like roads and pipes and so on is cheap. Usually 10-15% of the budget. The real cost of government is in providing services to people. And those are invariably more expensive in the cities than the suburbs. Show me even one city in the US that has lower taxes and spends less per Capita than the surrounding suburbs.
- kortex 5y ago
  That's not the right metric though. Cities and suburbs are not comparable in terms of overall experience. The extra services you cite are one of the reasons why. For one, suburbs are pretty economically difficult for low-earning households. Low earners are more likely to live in cities, therefore cities tend to have more social services. You need to do an apples-to-apples comparison, which unfortunately is not easy.
  - treis 5y ago
    The services (schools, police, fire) aren't better in a city. They're more expensive and usually significantly worse.
- cozzyd 5y ago
  I mean City of Chicago has lower property tax rates than suburbs (due to the large amount of taxable commercial property in the city).
  - treis 5y ago
    Tax rate is only half of the calculation so it's a meaningless number on its own. Plus, there's sales tax and other assorted fees.

xmprt 5y ago

You have it completely backwards. Suburbs aren't scalable. That's why back in the 50s-70s when they were first built, they were amazing, but today, they are rife with traffic problems, noise pollution, and crumbling infrastructure.

treis 5y ago
The percentage of the population living in the suburbs is growing, not shrinking.
- ZoomerCretin 5y ago
  "O(n^2) sorting time doesn't scale." "The amount of data we are going to sort in O(n^2) is growing, not shrinking." Notice how the second statement doesn't disprove the first.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]