6 ms·

I am perplexed that this makes headlines. Even the free market has spoken. People pay premium to live in a more dense areas where the stuff they enjoy and inter

by vletal 5y ago

I am perplexed that this makes headlines. Even the free market has spoken. People pay premium to live in a more dense areas where the stuff they enjoy and interact with is within their proximity. Interesting how successful the car manufacturer lobby was in the US, transforming whole cities and life styles of ordinary Americans for generations.

cortesoft 5y ago
It makes headlines because almost all cities in the US still require a minimum number of parking spaces per building, even if it doesn't make sense. Even if it is common sense, it is new and rare, which is newsworthy.
mwt 5y ago
To take nothing away from the power of the manufacturers, I wonder to what extent local dealerships have had influence. In suburbia and mid-sized cities, the owners of dealerships tend to have a big say in local politics.
viro 5y ago
Then why was there a mass exodus during the height of WFH? Data seems to show that people pay that premium to reduce commute time. Let's not forget full remote was a lot harder to get before covid.
- quantumwannabe 5y ago
  That's because the HN urbanist crowd is a very small and vocal minority. The vast majority of people WANT to live in suburban or rural areas. Only 19% of Americans want to live in a dense urban environment. [1] [1] https://pewresearch.org/social-trends/2021/12/16/americans-are-less-likely-than-before-covid-19-to-want-to-live-in-cities-more-likely-to-prefer-suburbs/psdt_12-16-21_covid-community0_0/ https://pewresearch.org/social-trends/2021/12/16/americans-a...
  - bluGill 5y ago
    People have no idea what they really want. They however know how they live now, so when asked they will say they don't want to change. Where someone lives is a compromise. Everyone wants the best of ALL words: the dense urban area with a subway entrance on the same street, plenty of shopping and other entertainment. They also want a ski lift up a mountain, finish your day ski day in your own backyard, and a tropical beach in the front yard, among the other benefits of rural living. That is physically impossible no matter how much money you have, so you make the best of what you can get even though it cannot be perfect. With the current situation of the US subrubs are the best compromise, but as things change different compromises become better. Right now dense areas are a lot more expensive for a lot less space, and often that space comes with the problems of living in a very old building. Note that change will not happen overnight. Even if 30000 square foot apartments (intentionally be absurdly large to make the point) in neighborhoods with good schools was free it would take a lot of time for people to move even though the rent savings would allow for more than enough other lifestyle changes as to make it a better compromise for most people.
    - kelnos 5y ago
      > Where someone lives is a compromise. Yup, it's generally just a balancing of priorities and trade offs. For me, having to drive everywhere I need to go would make me really sad, so I chose an urban environment, in a neighborhood where there's a good mix of residential and commercial, that is decently well-connected to public transit. But that means I have to deal with more noise, crime, and homelessness, and don't get to have a yard, despite higher living costs. But that's my trade off, and others don't prioritize the same things I do.
      - dsizzle 5y ago
        Yep, and the costs is good summary of where the compromises balance out on average. Since urban areas cost more, it's fair to say people prefer urban areas more.
        5y ago
jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
It wasn't just the car lobby. Folks in charge of state / local DoT's have huge influence. Many people know about Robert Moses, just how politically powerful and influential he became, and how he deliberately used civic infrastructure projects as a way to try to redline particular populations. Similar dynamics still go on. Where I live Portland is overwhelmingly the major metro area, but the Oregon DOT is run out of the state capital, Salem, a much smaller and much more suburban community a bit south of the metro area. Despite supposedly being qualified professionals, it's clear ODOT sees things entirely in a car centric way. The only projects they're excited about pushing forward are freeway expansions. Portland is rather emphatic on NOT wanting that, but rather a multi-modal transit network that actually works with the density we have. In recent years ODOT has gotten so tired of the popular backlash on their projects in Portland that they've started playing deceptive games around the public notification process to try to sneak stuff through without pushback. This whole nation just somehow lost its mind over the ideal of a car centric suburban lifestyle. And yes, some of that was straight up racially motivated, in the trend of white flight. But there were lots of things that fed into it imo. And to be fair, there are plenty of people who do like a suburban lifestyle where they live on a culdesac and have to drive to a strip mall for routine errands. But if you look at the overall migration pattern, all the growth is happening in the 20 or so major metro areas, and in particular in the ones that offer the combination of high income jobs and a more urban lifestyle. Yet somehow all these DoT's across the nation are still acting like the dream of the 1950s is their only priority.
- secabeen 5y ago
  The other thing I've seen is safety-maximalism from the fire departments. They really push for wide streets, flat curbs, and maximum access. There is rarely any impact-benefit analysis evaluating the number of times a fire truck needs a certain amount of space, nor what the likely safety impact would be if the area was more dense, and less accessible. There also is no examination of other second-order effects of the wide, obstacle-free spaces they prefer, such as more speeding, etc.
- LegitShady 5y ago
  why is your State DOT planning and executing projects in the city of Portland at all? Doesn't portland have its own planning department? The state DOT is car centric because they take care of all the highways and highway bridge structures in your state. Your city's transportation or public works section should be planning and executing public works for multimodal systems within the city. Unless you have some kind of information to explain it, my bet is the Oregon DOT only provides grants for some related projects that the city of portland executes.

by vletal 5y ago

cortesoft 5y ago

It makes headlines because almost all cities in the US still require a minimum number of parking spaces per building, even if it doesn't make sense. Even if it is common sense, it is new and rare, which is newsworthy.

mwt 5y ago

To take nothing away from the power of the manufacturers, I wonder to what extent local dealerships have had influence. In suburbia and mid-sized cities, the owners of dealerships tend to have a big say in local politics.

viro 5y ago

Then why was there a mass exodus during the height of WFH? Data seems to show that people pay that premium to reduce commute time. Let's not forget full remote was a lot harder to get before covid.

quantumwannabe 5y ago
That's because the HN urbanist crowd is a very small and vocal minority. The vast majority of people WANT to live in suburban or rural areas. Only 19% of Americans want to live in a dense urban environment. [1] [1] https://pewresearch.org/social-trends/2021/12/16/americans-are-less-likely-than-before-covid-19-to-want-to-live-in-cities-more-likely-to-prefer-suburbs/psdt_12-16-21_covid-community0_0/ https://pewresearch.org/social-trends/2021/12/16/americans-a...
- bluGill 5y ago
  People have no idea what they really want. They however know how they live now, so when asked they will say they don't want to change. Where someone lives is a compromise. Everyone wants the best of ALL words: the dense urban area with a subway entrance on the same street, plenty of shopping and other entertainment. They also want a ski lift up a mountain, finish your day ski day in your own backyard, and a tropical beach in the front yard, among the other benefits of rural living. That is physically impossible no matter how much money you have, so you make the best of what you can get even though it cannot be perfect. With the current situation of the US subrubs are the best compromise, but as things change different compromises become better. Right now dense areas are a lot more expensive for a lot less space, and often that space comes with the problems of living in a very old building. Note that change will not happen overnight. Even if 30000 square foot apartments (intentionally be absurdly large to make the point) in neighborhoods with good schools was free it would take a lot of time for people to move even though the rent savings would allow for more than enough other lifestyle changes as to make it a better compromise for most people.
  - kelnos 5y ago
    > Where someone lives is a compromise. Yup, it's generally just a balancing of priorities and trade offs. For me, having to drive everywhere I need to go would make me really sad, so I chose an urban environment, in a neighborhood where there's a good mix of residential and commercial, that is decently well-connected to public transit. But that means I have to deal with more noise, crime, and homelessness, and don't get to have a yard, despite higher living costs. But that's my trade off, and others don't prioritize the same things I do.
    - dsizzle 5y ago
      Yep, and the costs is good summary of where the compromises balance out on average. Since urban areas cost more, it's fair to say people prefer urban areas more.
      - 5y ago

jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago

It wasn't just the car lobby. Folks in charge of state / local DoT's have huge influence. Many people know about Robert Moses, just how politically powerful and influential he became, and how he deliberately used civic infrastructure projects as a way to try to redline particular populations. Similar dynamics still go on. Where I live Portland is overwhelmingly the major metro area, but the Oregon DOT is run out of the state capital, Salem, a much smaller and much more suburban community a bit south of the metro area. Despite supposedly being qualified professionals, it's clear ODOT sees things entirely in a car centric way. The only projects they're excited about pushing forward are freeway expansions. Portland is rather emphatic on NOT wanting that, but rather a multi-modal transit network that actually works with the density we have. In recent years ODOT has gotten so tired of the popular backlash on their projects in Portland that they've started playing deceptive games around the public notification process to try to sneak stuff through without pushback. This whole nation just somehow lost its mind over the ideal of a car centric suburban lifestyle. And yes, some of that was straight up racially motivated, in the trend of white flight. But there were lots of things that fed into it imo. And to be fair, there are plenty of people who do like a suburban lifestyle where they live on a culdesac and have to drive to a strip mall for routine errands. But if you look at the overall migration pattern, all the growth is happening in the 20 or so major metro areas, and in particular in the ones that offer the combination of high income jobs and a more urban lifestyle. Yet somehow all these DoT's across the nation are still acting like the dream of the 1950s is their only priority.

secabeen 5y ago
The other thing I've seen is safety-maximalism from the fire departments. They really push for wide streets, flat curbs, and maximum access. There is rarely any impact-benefit analysis evaluating the number of times a fire truck needs a certain amount of space, nor what the likely safety impact would be if the area was more dense, and less accessible. There also is no examination of other second-order effects of the wide, obstacle-free spaces they prefer, such as more speeding, etc.
LegitShady 5y ago
why is your State DOT planning and executing projects in the city of Portland at all? Doesn't portland have its own planning department? The state DOT is car centric because they take care of all the highways and highway bridge structures in your state. Your city's transportation or public works section should be planning and executing public works for multimodal systems within the city. Unless you have some kind of information to explain it, my bet is the Oregon DOT only provides grants for some related projects that the city of portland executes.