4 ms·

Sure, turning Houston into Madrid would be very hard. But this is one of the most incrementally solvable problems I've ever seen. There are hundreds of low-cost

by pkulak 3y ago

Sure, turning Houston into Madrid would be very hard. But this is one of the most incrementally solvable problems I've ever seen. There are hundreds of low-cost, low-effort ways to start making things better.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
In the handful jurisdictions where I am familiar with zoning laws and the permitting process, low cost and low effort is not how I would describe any part of even a straightforward approval. Lord help you if you need a variance, and I cannot even imagine what eminent domain on that scale would look like. I do not see how the change would even be possible without tearing buildings down and building new ones closer to each other, and to do it legislatively adds unimaginable legal expenses, I presume. Edit: Also note the popular local opinion in many places is keeping a place car dependent means the population who cannot afford a car is kept out.
- pkulak 3y ago
  I meant stuff like city counsel passing a new zoning law. Maybe some concrete bollards to make a protected bike lane. Run a few more busses and trains. That kind of thing.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    My point is that does nothing, because the root problem of destinations being too far from one another is not addressed. A few more buses and trains are not going to cut it. You need to outcompete the convenience of a personal car. The bus or train has to run at least every 10min, otherwise one missed connection and you’re wasting 20min+ with your refrigerated groceries. And that type of frequency is simply not economical without density. Chicken and egg at this point. Best case scenario is to build outwards from already dense areas, but it will involve eminent domain and demolishing buildings and parking lots to make new ones that are pedestrian friendly and hostile to cars.
    - ryukafalz 3y ago
      Zoning changes and removal of parking minimums are the first steps towards bringing things closer together though, and that can happen at the stroke of a pen. Towns can't begin to densify until they're permitted to do so. Allow someone to build an apartment building on top of that enormous parking lot next to a shopping center, and in many cases I don't think you'd need eminent domain; it'll happen simply because the apartment building is more profitable than the surface parking lot. (Though a good form-based code might help to nudge things in the direction of walkability too.)
    - evandale 3y ago
      > A few more buses and trains are not going to cut it. So add more buses and trains. > You need to outcompete the convenience of a personal car. More buses and trains will make this happen. More bike lanes will make this happen. With the proper infrastructure people can go longer distances without a car. All these things can be done incrementally and you're trying to claim they can't be. > The bus or train has to run at least every 10min, otherwise one missed connection and you’re wasting 20min+ with your refrigerated groceries. No it doesn't and your groceries are fine being out in the heat for 20 minutes. They won't go bad. They could be out there for 2 hours and be fine. https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/are-you-storing-food-safely https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/are-you-stori... > Refrigerate or freeze perishables right away. Foods that require refrigeration should be put in the refrigerator as soon as you get them home. Stick to the "two-hour rule" for leaving items needing refrigeration out at room temperature. Never allow meat, poultry, seafood, eggs, or produce or other foods that require refrigeration to sit at room temperature for more than two hours—one hour if the air temperature is above 90° F. This also applies to items such as leftovers, "doggie bags," and take-out foods. Also, when putting food away, don't crowd the refrigerator or freezer so tightly that air can't circulate. On top of that, this two-hour thing is a general guideline for maximum safety and is overly restrictive on purpose to avoid ambiguity. Realistically you could leave things out for longer but the FDA would never admit that because it sends mixed messages.
      - SauciestGNU 3y ago
        Another note on the refrigeration issue - I get around predominantly by bike, and if I need to I have a soft cooler (like delivery people use) that I can put an ice pack in to transport frozen goods. But last night I went out with just a backpack in 80F heat and bought ice cream that survived the 20 minute trip home just fine.
  - sidewndr46 3y ago
    Where I live the city council deliberately rezones the city on a regular basis in a manner contrary to state law. Each time, it's overturned by the same group of citizens. It's a deliberate political tactic so they can tell voters "well we're trying to fix the issue but the awful government won't let us!". This way they can campaign on the same issues until the heat death of the universe. All the NIMBYs know in practice it is safe to vote for them, as they will never rezone the city.
- shepherdjerred 3y ago
  > In the handful jurisdictions where I am familiar with zoning laws and the permitting process, low cost and low effort is not how I would describe any part of even a straightforward approval. At what point can we as a people say: screw it, break the laws and just get it done. it'll be worth it in the long-run.
ahoy 3y ago
Exactly. You can't "fix" most of our cities overnight, but you could do a lot to make them a lot better within about a decade.
- andyjohnson0 3y ago
  > within about a decade Which is longer than the elction cycle in most counties, not just the US. Herein may lie part of the problem: its hard to incentivise politicians to solve long-term problems when doing so does not help them get re-elected.
BitwiseFool 3y ago
>"There are hundreds of low-cost, low-effort ways to start making things better." I used to think this as well, until I started sitting in on HOA and city council meetings. Good lord, even the most seemingly simple proposals are drenched in red tape and artificial barriers imposed by busybodies. I'm not sure how to get around this, sadly.
- piffey 3y ago
  Easy: drop the public commentary portion of development. Random old people with nothing to do all day shouldn't be allowed to delay a project by months because they want to complain about the orientation of a window on a project. If you don't own the land, weren't democratically elected, and aren't funding the property you shouldn't get a say in local land use. Ridiculous that we've even set up these systems.
  - brailsafe 3y ago
    Months is incredibly generous
  - ArtemZ 3y ago
    That's ridiculous to prohibit residents from having a say about the area development, whether they are old or not.
    - p_j_w 3y ago
      They wouldn't be prohibited from having a say, they get to vote.
    - amanaplanacanal 3y ago
      They have a say when they vote for the city council members or whoever.
    - mdu02 3y ago
      Matt Yglesias had a good piece about this a few days ago. https://open.substack.com/pub/matthewyglesias/p/community-meetings-arent-democracy https://open.substack.com/pub/matthewyglesias/p/community-me...
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
What is the election cycle in Houston, exactly? Incrementalism is difficult when the longest any single policymaker can be guaranteed to be office is 2 years.
notacoward 3y ago
Key point: all of these "low cost, low effort" ways depend on people staying where they have influence. Any change to zoning laws, or to approve funding for bike and public-transit infrastructure, etc., requires residents who support those things. People who grew up in a city because that's where their parents lived, or who run away from the suburbs to the cities (or to other countries), have zero influence over the problem where it exists and therefore have little moral standing in these debates. Don't just make things better for yourself. Don't be a coward. Stand and fight.

by pkulak 3y ago

lotsofpulp 3y ago

In the handful jurisdictions where I am familiar with zoning laws and the permitting process, low cost and low effort is not how I would describe any part of even a straightforward approval. Lord help you if you need a variance, and I cannot even imagine what eminent domain on that scale would look like. I do not see how the change would even be possible without tearing buildings down and building new ones closer to each other, and to do it legislatively adds unimaginable legal expenses, I presume. Edit: Also note the popular local opinion in many places is keeping a place car dependent means the population who cannot afford a car is kept out.

pkulak 3y ago
I meant stuff like city counsel passing a new zoning law. Maybe some concrete bollards to make a protected bike lane. Run a few more busses and trains. That kind of thing.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  My point is that does nothing, because the root problem of destinations being too far from one another is not addressed. A few more buses and trains are not going to cut it. You need to outcompete the convenience of a personal car. The bus or train has to run at least every 10min, otherwise one missed connection and you’re wasting 20min+ with your refrigerated groceries. And that type of frequency is simply not economical without density. Chicken and egg at this point. Best case scenario is to build outwards from already dense areas, but it will involve eminent domain and demolishing buildings and parking lots to make new ones that are pedestrian friendly and hostile to cars.
  - ryukafalz 3y ago
    Zoning changes and removal of parking minimums are the first steps towards bringing things closer together though, and that can happen at the stroke of a pen. Towns can't begin to densify until they're permitted to do so. Allow someone to build an apartment building on top of that enormous parking lot next to a shopping center, and in many cases I don't think you'd need eminent domain; it'll happen simply because the apartment building is more profitable than the surface parking lot. (Though a good form-based code might help to nudge things in the direction of walkability too.)
  - evandale 3y ago
    > A few more buses and trains are not going to cut it. So add more buses and trains. > You need to outcompete the convenience of a personal car. More buses and trains will make this happen. More bike lanes will make this happen. With the proper infrastructure people can go longer distances without a car. All these things can be done incrementally and you're trying to claim they can't be. > The bus or train has to run at least every 10min, otherwise one missed connection and you’re wasting 20min+ with your refrigerated groceries. No it doesn't and your groceries are fine being out in the heat for 20 minutes. They won't go bad. They could be out there for 2 hours and be fine. https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/are-you-storing-food-safely https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/are-you-stori... > Refrigerate or freeze perishables right away. Foods that require refrigeration should be put in the refrigerator as soon as you get them home. Stick to the "two-hour rule" for leaving items needing refrigeration out at room temperature. Never allow meat, poultry, seafood, eggs, or produce or other foods that require refrigeration to sit at room temperature for more than two hours—one hour if the air temperature is above 90° F. This also applies to items such as leftovers, "doggie bags," and take-out foods. Also, when putting food away, don't crowd the refrigerator or freezer so tightly that air can't circulate. On top of that, this two-hour thing is a general guideline for maximum safety and is overly restrictive on purpose to avoid ambiguity. Realistically you could leave things out for longer but the FDA would never admit that because it sends mixed messages.
    - SauciestGNU 3y ago
      Another note on the refrigeration issue - I get around predominantly by bike, and if I need to I have a soft cooler (like delivery people use) that I can put an ice pack in to transport frozen goods. But last night I went out with just a backpack in 80F heat and bought ice cream that survived the 20 minute trip home just fine.
- sidewndr46 3y ago
  Where I live the city council deliberately rezones the city on a regular basis in a manner contrary to state law. Each time, it's overturned by the same group of citizens. It's a deliberate political tactic so they can tell voters "well we're trying to fix the issue but the awful government won't let us!". This way they can campaign on the same issues until the heat death of the universe. All the NIMBYs know in practice it is safe to vote for them, as they will never rezone the city.
shepherdjerred 3y ago
> In the handful jurisdictions where I am familiar with zoning laws and the permitting process, low cost and low effort is not how I would describe any part of even a straightforward approval. At what point can we as a people say: screw it, break the laws and just get it done. it'll be worth it in the long-run.

ahoy 3y ago

Exactly. You can't "fix" most of our cities overnight, but you could do a lot to make them a lot better within about a decade.

andyjohnson0 3y ago
> within about a decade Which is longer than the elction cycle in most counties, not just the US. Herein may lie part of the problem: its hard to incentivise politicians to solve long-term problems when doing so does not help them get re-elected.

BitwiseFool 3y ago

>"There are hundreds of low-cost, low-effort ways to start making things better." I used to think this as well, until I started sitting in on HOA and city council meetings. Good lord, even the most seemingly simple proposals are drenched in red tape and artificial barriers imposed by busybodies. I'm not sure how to get around this, sadly.

piffey 3y ago
Easy: drop the public commentary portion of development. Random old people with nothing to do all day shouldn't be allowed to delay a project by months because they want to complain about the orientation of a window on a project. If you don't own the land, weren't democratically elected, and aren't funding the property you shouldn't get a say in local land use. Ridiculous that we've even set up these systems.
- brailsafe 3y ago
  Months is incredibly generous
- ArtemZ 3y ago
  That's ridiculous to prohibit residents from having a say about the area development, whether they are old or not.
  - p_j_w 3y ago
    They wouldn't be prohibited from having a say, they get to vote.
  - amanaplanacanal 3y ago
    They have a say when they vote for the city council members or whoever.
  - mdu02 3y ago
    Matt Yglesias had a good piece about this a few days ago. https://open.substack.com/pub/matthewyglesias/p/community-meetings-arent-democracy https://open.substack.com/pub/matthewyglesias/p/community-me...

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

What is the election cycle in Houston, exactly? Incrementalism is difficult when the longest any single policymaker can be guaranteed to be office is 2 years.

notacoward 3y ago

Key point: all of these "low cost, low effort" ways depend on people staying where they have influence. Any change to zoning laws, or to approve funding for bike and public-transit infrastructure, etc., requires residents who support those things. People who grew up in a city because that's where their parents lived, or who run away from the suburbs to the cities (or to other countries), have zero influence over the problem where it exists and therefore have little moral standing in these debates. Don't just make things better for yourself. Don't be a coward. Stand and fight.