Stacking more paying customers into a smaller area generates more money per sq foot *gasp* ….who would have known? oh wait any one with half a brain. But it also increases violent crime and other things because people aren’t meant to be packed in so closely. Also the land will still exist so it will still be there and need to be subsidized.
And if we are going to run government spending like a business looking at ROI well then there is a whole host of other ways the government can increase that at the peoples expense…
Studies have shown that fertility is highest among couples living in single-family houses and lowest among those residing in apartments.[12] Experts claim that shortages of family housing can cause low birth rates. “Some have suggested that, like laboratory specimens, Italians have responded to their ever-more-crowded-suburbs and cramped apartments by curbing procreation”.[13] Children “aren’t wanted in the condominia (apartments), in public places where they can disturb”.[13] “Houses are bigger in the U.S. and generally more available. That may help explain why Americans have more babies”.[14]
Using a scatterplot (Figure 2) has the advantage that cultural effects are average out, revealing the underlying effect of housing on fertility rates. The correlation value (R=0.81) indicates that there is a strong positive correlation between family housing and fertility rates. Advanced countries that have mostly apartments are typically producing only 2/3rds of the children of countries that have mostly family housing.
Having children sustains culture and is good for the economy. Overall Anglo countries have enough children to be approximately sustainable. New Zealand and the United States produce a slight surplus of children, while Ireland, Australia and the UK have modest deficits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_dream
Everything about suburb type sprawl is wasteful and idiotic.
Doesn’t matter to some people, they demand having their 1950s white picket fence, big lawn, house on a cul-de-sac because they think cities and public transport are gross.
One thing the video doesn’t explore, which would be important context, is where exactly is that revenue coming from in those net positive revenue areas. It wouldn’t surprise me if those downtown areas generate a lot of their revenue from people who commute into those areas. There are definitely a lot of inefficiencies with suburbs but as presented it is not clear that the people in those areas are not shouldering more of the burden of that cost than presented in the video.
Part of the analysis was kind of shit. Downtown area may have bunch of poor neighborhoods but also large companies paying a lot of taxes. So saying the run down neighborhood is subsidizing the wealthier neighborhoods may be misleading. I don’t think that’s the correct conclusion to make, but obviously having more contracted dwelling will reduce expenses.
Does it seem to anyone else they this guy hates the suburbs first, then finds data that backs up his beliefs second?
I could be wrong, just puttin it out there.
Another point this creator consistently brings up (which I feel is one of the strongest arguments) is how car centric suburbia and city planning actively discourages our younger, elderly, and handicapped populations from being more independent and severely inhibits their autonomy on transportation options.
I truly don’t understand the people in every Not Just Bikes thread that feel the need to defend North American suburbs as though someone pointing out that it’s fiscally inefficient and wasteful is somehow an affront to them personally.
suburbs don’t exist in order to generate money. they exist for people to live in a nice quiet, safe, and clean place when they aren’t busy working at their jobs in high density areas.
should we get rid of national parks because they don’t generate much money relative to their area?
One thing that I found was very misleading is the assertion that a car park for a store is paid for by the city. If it was done right, it should be paid for by the builder of the store, and maintained by the owner of the store, and its existence should be MAKING money for the city.
In Australia, any big box retail complex with a large car park is paid for and built wholly and solely by the developer, including the carpark, and the ongoing taxes (or Rates, as we call them) is calculated on not only the area of land, but how many car parks it has. And if a set of traffic lights is needed on the adjoining road to control traffic in and out of the complex, the developer has to pay for that as well.
It’s exceedingly rare that a city owns any of these complexes.
Can say some counties in Florida are smart about this. A lot of services/costs/taxes are set locally. Even the streets are maintained locally. Need it re-paved? Your taxes will go up in the area and you have to foot the bill.
Florida has no state tax which helps with this as many local municipalities have to deal with it every day, not hope it fixes itself down the road.
Lafayette is not a typical city in the US at the end of the day as they do not have the same relations with parishes and cities like counties and cities in other areas. Still, the point holds, that city/parish is screwed because people are all in for making a quick buck over the next 5 years and love kicking the can down the road.
Makes me wonder how Covid shifted these values, given that working from home is now preferred over commuting to the office. Then there’s the growing opioid-addicted homelessness crisis taking over downtowns, resulting in property damage and crime that forces businesses out of the city.
I presume what was once spent in downtown is now being spread around the surrounding areas.
I hate this channel. Not because I think he’s dumb or misinformed, but quite the contrary. He is so well versed and data driven, but his bias is so undeniable that it’s hard to watch.
The mixed use developments that’s he’s so fond of to destroy typical suburbia with, are actually bankrupting towns/cities further. The developers are abusing the tax discounts to encourage this type of development, make their money, and move on. Over, and over, and over. It’s been slowly bankrupting the suburbs in my area because the developers have the city councils in pocket. We keep building these things like it’s the revenue answer we’ve been waiting on, yet they consistently fail and we just build more.
This is part of an [ongoing series](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0_FCUbeVWK6OGLN69ehUTVa) by Not Just Bikes on how American-style suburbia bankrupts cities.
Stacking more paying customers into a smaller area generates more money per sq foot *gasp* ….who would have known? oh wait any one with half a brain. But it also increases violent crime and other things because people aren’t meant to be packed in so closely. Also the land will still exist so it will still be there and need to be subsidized.
And if we are going to run government spending like a business looking at ROI well then there is a whole host of other ways the government can increase that at the peoples expense…
Wait, why did anyone bulldoze a block worth $900,000 and build something only worth $180,000?
Studies have shown that fertility is highest among couples living in single-family houses and lowest among those residing in apartments.[12] Experts claim that shortages of family housing can cause low birth rates. “Some have suggested that, like laboratory specimens, Italians have responded to their ever-more-crowded-suburbs and cramped apartments by curbing procreation”.[13] Children “aren’t wanted in the condominia (apartments), in public places where they can disturb”.[13] “Houses are bigger in the U.S. and generally more available. That may help explain why Americans have more babies”.[14]
Using a scatterplot (Figure 2) has the advantage that cultural effects are average out, revealing the underlying effect of housing on fertility rates. The correlation value (R=0.81) indicates that there is a strong positive correlation between family housing and fertility rates. Advanced countries that have mostly apartments are typically producing only 2/3rds of the children of countries that have mostly family housing.
Having children sustains culture and is good for the economy. Overall Anglo countries have enough children to be approximately sustainable. New Zealand and the United States produce a slight surplus of children, while Ireland, Australia and the UK have modest deficits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_dream
Repost from 5 days ago
Everything about suburb type sprawl is wasteful and idiotic.
Doesn’t matter to some people, they demand having their 1950s white picket fence, big lawn, house on a cul-de-sac because they think cities and public transport are gross.
One thing the video doesn’t explore, which would be important context, is where exactly is that revenue coming from in those net positive revenue areas. It wouldn’t surprise me if those downtown areas generate a lot of their revenue from people who commute into those areas. There are definitely a lot of inefficiencies with suburbs but as presented it is not clear that the people in those areas are not shouldering more of the burden of that cost than presented in the video.
Part of the analysis was kind of shit. Downtown area may have bunch of poor neighborhoods but also large companies paying a lot of taxes. So saying the run down neighborhood is subsidizing the wealthier neighborhoods may be misleading. I don’t think that’s the correct conclusion to make, but obviously having more contracted dwelling will reduce expenses.
Does it seem to anyone else they this guy hates the suburbs first, then finds data that backs up his beliefs second?
I could be wrong, just puttin it out there.
omg my hometown
Another point this creator consistently brings up (which I feel is one of the strongest arguments) is how car centric suburbia and city planning actively discourages our younger, elderly, and handicapped populations from being more independent and severely inhibits their autonomy on transportation options.
I truly don’t understand the people in every Not Just Bikes thread that feel the need to defend North American suburbs as though someone pointing out that it’s fiscally inefficient and wasteful is somehow an affront to them personally.
suburbs don’t exist in order to generate money. they exist for people to live in a nice quiet, safe, and clean place when they aren’t busy working at their jobs in high density areas.
should we get rid of national parks because they don’t generate much money relative to their area?
Who’s subsidizing WHOM?
TL;DR: Higher density means higher revenue.
One thing that I found was very misleading is the assertion that a car park for a store is paid for by the city. If it was done right, it should be paid for by the builder of the store, and maintained by the owner of the store, and its existence should be MAKING money for the city.
In Australia, any big box retail complex with a large car park is paid for and built wholly and solely by the developer, including the carpark, and the ongoing taxes (or Rates, as we call them) is calculated on not only the area of land, but how many car parks it has. And if a set of traffic lights is needed on the adjoining road to control traffic in and out of the complex, the developer has to pay for that as well.
It’s exceedingly rare that a city owns any of these complexes.
Can say some counties in Florida are smart about this. A lot of services/costs/taxes are set locally. Even the streets are maintained locally. Need it re-paved? Your taxes will go up in the area and you have to foot the bill.
Florida has no state tax which helps with this as many local municipalities have to deal with it every day, not hope it fixes itself down the road.
Lafayette is not a typical city in the US at the end of the day as they do not have the same relations with parishes and cities like counties and cities in other areas. Still, the point holds, that city/parish is screwed because people are all in for making a quick buck over the next 5 years and love kicking the can down the road.
Makes me wonder how Covid shifted these values, given that working from home is now preferred over commuting to the office. Then there’s the growing opioid-addicted homelessness crisis taking over downtowns, resulting in property damage and crime that forces businesses out of the city.
I presume what was once spent in downtown is now being spread around the surrounding areas.
I hate this channel. Not because I think he’s dumb or misinformed, but quite the contrary. He is so well versed and data driven, but his bias is so undeniable that it’s hard to watch.
The mixed use developments that’s he’s so fond of to destroy typical suburbia with, are actually bankrupting towns/cities further. The developers are abusing the tax discounts to encourage this type of development, make their money, and move on. Over, and over, and over. It’s been slowly bankrupting the suburbs in my area because the developers have the city councils in pocket. We keep building these things like it’s the revenue answer we’ve been waiting on, yet they consistently fail and we just build more.