4 ms·

Making landlords compete with low-cost government subsidized housing. Vienna[0] is a fantastic model. Though I think implementing this in the US has a lot of st

Making landlords compete with low-cost government subsidized housing. Vienna[0] is a fantastic model. Though I think implementing this in the US has a lot of stigma and challenges to overcome (ie, how can the government mass purchase apartments/land to create subsidized housing). Also, cooperative housing. A group of people buy a property with a Loan, and the cost of the loan + management is payed by all people in the apartment. Eventually, the loan is payed off and the cost of rent is lowered to cover only maintenance/mangement. This also has to come with restrictions about ownership and renting out the apartment. Because its ultimately a collective, its unfortunately totally possible there will be biases at play with these kinds of housing setups (ie, biases against allowing POC to move in, disagreements on how common space can be used). And lastly, fast public transit to expand the area its possible to live by people who can't afford cars. I found this youtube video[1] about the Vancouver housing situation interesting. Maybe a bit over-simiplified, but gives you an idea of some possible solutions. I know these aren't silver-bullet solutions. But I think it helps think of this in a different way then just a supply/demand problem. Its also a policy and profiteering problem. [0] https://www.politico.eu/article/vienna-social-housing-architecture-austria-stigma/ https://www.politico.eu/article/vienna-social-housing-archit... [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKudSeqHSJk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKudSeqHSJk

shiroiuma 3y ago
>And lastly, fast public transit to expand the area its possible to live by people who can't afford cars. Can't be done in North America. "Fast public transit" means subways (or trains on elevated tracks), and these are really expensive to build and maintain, so the economics don't work out unless you have a lot of ridership, and that only works if you have high enough density. So in Tokyo, it works great because the density is very high and ridership is enormous, so the city can afford hundreds of subway stations with trains running every 3-5 minutes. But in a typical American city, everything is SO spread out that it just won't work: it's too far for most people to walk to the station, having to drive to the station just adds more overhead plus having to deal with traffic with everyone else going to/from the station and looking for parking, etc. Of course, you could try a model where developers build huge, dense, mixed-use developments at the stations, but that's pretty hard to get done when all that land is already owned, and there's NIMBY zoning laws preventing such housing developments anyway: each such station would be a huge, expensive, long political fight. Honestly, I don't really see a solution; too many Americans think this kind of thing is anathema anyway, so the political will to make any of these ideas a reality is unlikely to materialize.
- fragmede 3y ago
  > But in a typical American city, everything is SO spread out that it just won't work Stop calling them cities then! They're just endless suburbs and strip malls, which makes for a really really large town. If they're not dense enough to do what cities do, they're not cities.
- oblio 3y ago
  > Can't be done in North America. "Fast public transit" means subways (or trains on elevated tracks), and these are really expensive to build and maintain, so the economics don't work out unless you have a lot of ridership, and that only works if you have high enough density. No, it can be express buses with 100% dedicated bus lanes and fewer bus stops. Of course, that will require removing some standard lanes and converting them into said dedicated bus lanes. > But in a typical American city, everything is SO spread out that it just won't work: it's too far for most people to walk to the station, having to drive to the station just adds more overhead plus having to deal with traffic with everyone else going to/from the station and looking for parking, etc. This can be solved with multi-modal traffic with a mix of bikes and buses. This again will require removing standard lanes and converting them into protected bike lanes, and while that's happening and considering the width of the average lane, a green shoulder with trees that separates the road from the bike lane and from the newly added sidewalk. > Honestly, I don't really see a solution; too many Americans think this kind of thing is anathema anyway, so the political will to make any of these ideas a reality is unlikely to materialize. However this is what kills any of these proposals, in practice :-)
- ImPleadThe5th 3y ago
  I agree with your point about the political climate and NIMBYism for sure. I think "fast" is subjective. Depending on city size, car culture, etc. Buses with dedicated lanes could be pretty fast. I suppose what I should say is, comprehensive public transit. And maybe not always out to the rural areas until we have good connections to the suburban hubs. As far as economics, much like Agriculture, Housing and Healthcare the economics will never really work out. They will run at a deficit and require government subsidies because they are necessities. Often with these things its a vicious cycle. People don't use Public Transit --> Because its slow and doesn't cover everywhere --> Because adding stops and more vehicles costs money --> And there's not enough money to improve it --> Because People don't use public transit --> ... repeat If we improve transit, make it more convenient than driving (banning cars in certain metropolitan areas, making it cheaper than gasoline, etc.) Then likely over years the US could transition. Though I agree, tis a pipe dream at this time in history.

shiroiuma 3y ago

>And lastly, fast public transit to expand the area its possible to live by people who can't afford cars. Can't be done in North America. "Fast public transit" means subways (or trains on elevated tracks), and these are really expensive to build and maintain, so the economics don't work out unless you have a lot of ridership, and that only works if you have high enough density. So in Tokyo, it works great because the density is very high and ridership is enormous, so the city can afford hundreds of subway stations with trains running every 3-5 minutes. But in a typical American city, everything is SO spread out that it just won't work: it's too far for most people to walk to the station, having to drive to the station just adds more overhead plus having to deal with traffic with everyone else going to/from the station and looking for parking, etc. Of course, you could try a model where developers build huge, dense, mixed-use developments at the stations, but that's pretty hard to get done when all that land is already owned, and there's NIMBY zoning laws preventing such housing developments anyway: each such station would be a huge, expensive, long political fight. Honestly, I don't really see a solution; too many Americans think this kind of thing is anathema anyway, so the political will to make any of these ideas a reality is unlikely to materialize.

fragmede 3y ago
> But in a typical American city, everything is SO spread out that it just won't work Stop calling them cities then! They're just endless suburbs and strip malls, which makes for a really really large town. If they're not dense enough to do what cities do, they're not cities.
oblio 3y ago
> Can't be done in North America. "Fast public transit" means subways (or trains on elevated tracks), and these are really expensive to build and maintain, so the economics don't work out unless you have a lot of ridership, and that only works if you have high enough density. No, it can be express buses with 100% dedicated bus lanes and fewer bus stops. Of course, that will require removing some standard lanes and converting them into said dedicated bus lanes. > But in a typical American city, everything is SO spread out that it just won't work: it's too far for most people to walk to the station, having to drive to the station just adds more overhead plus having to deal with traffic with everyone else going to/from the station and looking for parking, etc. This can be solved with multi-modal traffic with a mix of bikes and buses. This again will require removing standard lanes and converting them into protected bike lanes, and while that's happening and considering the width of the average lane, a green shoulder with trees that separates the road from the bike lane and from the newly added sidewalk. > Honestly, I don't really see a solution; too many Americans think this kind of thing is anathema anyway, so the political will to make any of these ideas a reality is unlikely to materialize. However this is what kills any of these proposals, in practice :-)
ImPleadThe5th 3y ago
I agree with your point about the political climate and NIMBYism for sure. I think "fast" is subjective. Depending on city size, car culture, etc. Buses with dedicated lanes could be pretty fast. I suppose what I should say is, comprehensive public transit. And maybe not always out to the rural areas until we have good connections to the suburban hubs. As far as economics, much like Agriculture, Housing and Healthcare the economics will never really work out. They will run at a deficit and require government subsidies because they are necessities. Often with these things its a vicious cycle. People don't use Public Transit --> Because its slow and doesn't cover everywhere --> Because adding stops and more vehicles costs money --> And there's not enough money to improve it --> Because People don't use public transit --> ... repeat If we improve transit, make it more convenient than driving (banning cars in certain metropolitan areas, making it cheaper than gasoline, etc.) Then likely over years the US could transition. Though I agree, tis a pipe dream at this time in history.