4 ms·

Higher density areas zoned for mixed use are the only areas of modern american cities that are revenue positive for the city. Suburbs and other less dense devel

Higher density areas zoned for mixed use are the only areas of modern american cities that are revenue positive for the city. Suburbs and other less dense developments are massively subsidized by denser developments. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI Density also makes services like policing cover more ground for less money. Japanese & european cities are often much denser and face lower crime rates.

colechristensen 4y ago
Those statistical arguments I wouldn't trust until I'd seen a red team try to pick them apart, it is very easy for your biases to leak in especially in ambiguous things like claiming costs based on area. (example, how do you claim police charges, by the area or the actual number of calls? a highrise with hundreds of people has a very small footprint but likely quite a few emergency calls, vs a few suburban houses which might go decades with 0)
- bombcar 4y ago
  Yeah, I'm always highly suspicious of that "fact" thrown around, since urban areas always seem to be exceptionally expensive compared to actual rural towns (now suburbs may be a different deal) - said towns which pay for their own police, etc.
  - inferiorhuman 4y ago
    > said towns which pay for their own police, etc. Yeah they don't. At least not the way you're implying. e.g.: - That rural town in Maine (Passadumkeag) that basically shut down because its sole clerk couldn't survive on $13,000 annually. - There's plenty of state and federal money in local government. Texas, for instance, will use state funds to ensure a minimum level of school funding even in rural areas. - Some places don't have much in the way of services. For e.g. Timathy Taylor in Klamath County, Oregon. The sheriff there has three (3) officers to patrol 6,136 square miles.
- Hammershaft 4y ago
  This analysis wasn't from team blue, and it wasn't made to score political brownie points. It was paid for by struggling american cities in states like Louisiana to help stabilize finances & avoid bankruptcy. It measures the budgetary balance in each area of providing infrastructure & services compared to tax revenue recieved. Lafayette used the analysis to shift zoning laws towards higher density zoning across the city core and the city's finances improved. The uniquely north american model of cities oriented around sparse car centric growth is just not sustainable in the long run. Every metre of asphalt paved & pipes placed is a metre of commitment to eternal maintenance, and when that metre connects to a tiny suburb of 15 people that can't remotely afford the bill for the infrastructure that supports them then you have a cities that grow over the long run towards massively subsidized development, soaring property taxes, & growing debt.
  - RHSeeger 4y ago
    > tiny suburb of 15 people That seems more like rural. Every suburb I've lived in has been on the order of 5,000-40,000 people (and that's one town, with towns not separated by anything but an invisible line).

colechristensen 4y ago

Those statistical arguments I wouldn't trust until I'd seen a red team try to pick them apart, it is very easy for your biases to leak in especially in ambiguous things like claiming costs based on area. (example, how do you claim police charges, by the area or the actual number of calls? a highrise with hundreds of people has a very small footprint but likely quite a few emergency calls, vs a few suburban houses which might go decades with 0)

bombcar 4y ago
Yeah, I'm always highly suspicious of that "fact" thrown around, since urban areas always seem to be exceptionally expensive compared to actual rural towns (now suburbs may be a different deal) - said towns which pay for their own police, etc.
- inferiorhuman 4y ago
  > said towns which pay for their own police, etc. Yeah they don't. At least not the way you're implying. e.g.: - That rural town in Maine (Passadumkeag) that basically shut down because its sole clerk couldn't survive on $13,000 annually. - There's plenty of state and federal money in local government. Texas, for instance, will use state funds to ensure a minimum level of school funding even in rural areas. - Some places don't have much in the way of services. For e.g. Timathy Taylor in Klamath County, Oregon. The sheriff there has three (3) officers to patrol 6,136 square miles.
Hammershaft 4y ago
This analysis wasn't from team blue, and it wasn't made to score political brownie points. It was paid for by struggling american cities in states like Louisiana to help stabilize finances & avoid bankruptcy. It measures the budgetary balance in each area of providing infrastructure & services compared to tax revenue recieved. Lafayette used the analysis to shift zoning laws towards higher density zoning across the city core and the city's finances improved. The uniquely north american model of cities oriented around sparse car centric growth is just not sustainable in the long run. Every metre of asphalt paved & pipes placed is a metre of commitment to eternal maintenance, and when that metre connects to a tiny suburb of 15 people that can't remotely afford the bill for the infrastructure that supports them then you have a cities that grow over the long run towards massively subsidized development, soaring property taxes, & growing debt.
- RHSeeger 4y ago
  > tiny suburb of 15 people That seems more like rural. Every suburb I've lived in has been on the order of 5,000-40,000 people (and that's one town, with towns not separated by anything but an invisible line).