Sep 19th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Greetings from Freiberg
This particular socialist hellhole actually seems rather nice, though I will grant that the beds at the Hotel Silberhof are freakishly tiny like the stuff they try to stick you with in college dorms:
Meanwhile, as everyone knows dense, walkable areas may work in Europe where nobody has children but it could never fly in the U.S. where people need to tote the kids around. Or maybe it’s that there’s no way to build human-scale walkable communities without blotting out the sun with Manhattan-style skyscrapers.
132 Responses to “Greetings from Freiberg”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Abortion
Afghanistan
Basketball
Blanche Lincoln
Budget
Cars
China
climate
Congress
Crime
DC
Demographics
Economics
Economy
Energy
EU
Finance
Football
Gender
Health Care
History
Inequality
Infrastructure
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NBA
Pakistan
Palestine
planning
Political Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Sarah Palin
Sports
Stimulus
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 19th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
I saw this without an ounce of sarcasm – I am looking forward to three weeks of posts like this.
September 19th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
You can have an old city with no population growth and a population of 42K all of one ethnic group and make it walkable.
Of course, none of those things work in the majority of the U.S.
Maybe you should point to a walkable city in Brazil, Indonesia, India, etc that would appeal to the sensibilities of elite white guys.
September 19th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Or maybe it’s that there’s no way to build human-scale walkable communities without blotting out the sun with Manhattan-style skyscrapers.
Er…I thought this was Matt’s opinion. Otherwise, why the constant whining about height restrictions in DC?
September 19th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Superdestroyer, are you really saying that only ethnically homogeneous very small cities can be walkable?
September 19th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
I don’t even understand what Superdestroyer is trying to say. What does growth and homogeneity have to do with walkability?
September 19th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Um, Matt, I’ve been in the homes of wealthy Germans and Austrians in and around Munich and Vienna, and I assure you that my family’s house is much, much bigger.
The problem has never been the height of the buildings, which you would know if you had grown up outside Manhattan in NY.
The problem is that Americans generally don’t really seem to like to live in neighborhoods with *densities* as high as Brooklyn, which has very few skyscrapers but about a third of the city’s population. Certainly it has fewer than Chicago, despite having roughly the same population.
September 19th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Heh, a Renault Twingo. The 1.2 petrol gets 40MPG (in US numbers) and the eco2 diesel’s around 59MPG.
You can have an old city with no population growth and a population of 42K all of one ethnic group and make it walkable.
Shorter pooperdestroyer: black people are scary!
(Still, it’s fascinating that poops compares the US to developing nations.)
September 19th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
“though I will grant that the beds at the Hotel Silberhof are freakishly tiny like the stuff they try to stick you with in college dorms:”
Get real. If you have a shower that can produce hot water, it’s fine. Try a cheap hotel in Asia. If you get a bucket of cold water, you’re lucky. But I have to say, once you get used to it, the bucket ain’t so bad. It’s like urban camping.
September 19th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
I don’t even understand what Superdestroyer is trying to say.
What he’s saying is that walking = risk of mugging by rampaging negroes.
He’s probably thinking of São Paulo, where the rich commute between tall apartment blocks by helicopter to avoid traffic and crime. And wishing he could do the same.
September 19th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
(Meanwhile, I misread the headline as being from “Freberg,” and was expecting commentary on things like the song Take An Indian To Lunch.)
September 19th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
On the other hand, if you’re willing to pay $30 a night, you can get a really nice room in Asia. I did that in Saigon, and for $27, I got a full suite (700 square feet), two satellite TVs, dual climate control, a full kitchen, marble floors, and hand carved teak molding. And I could watch Japanese baseball while eating dragon fruit all day long. And they gave me cigarettes.
September 19th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Population development of Freiburg, just for superdestroyer. Note thats just within city limits.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einwohnerentwicklung_von_Freiburg_im_Breisgau#Ab_1990
September 19th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
The most family-friendly place I ever lived was in a German town of 100K. Tons of parks and other amenities for the kids, cheap and excellent pre-school programs, cheap after-school programs right around the corner, walkable, good bus system and great train system, easy access to natural areas, schools within walking distance… I could go on a lot longer. And there were a lot of kids in our neighborhood, with several families with 4-6 kids. Density can be very child-friendly, if you make children a priority rather than a shibboleth.
September 19th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Oh, and i pick a small clean room with great breakfast over those huge dirty rooms with no breakfast(affordable) or huge clean rooms with crappy breakfast ( expensive) in the US.
September 19th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
urqs, that is a different “free city” (Freiburg vs Freiberg). Though the one in southwest Germany is also quite walkable.
September 19th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
that is a different “free city” (Freiburg vs Freiberg). Though the one in southwest Germany is also quite walkable.
And it has a functioning light rail system, despite a population of only 200,000!
September 19th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Um, Matt, I’ve been in the homes of wealthy Germans and Austrians in and around Munich and Vienna, and I assure you that my family’s house is much, much bigger.
How is this supposed to contradict anything Matt said? I rented a pretty big house in Lubbock, TX, but I much preferred the smaller apartment I paid more for in Burlington, VT, because Burlington isn’t an arid unwalkable hellhole of uniform strip malls as far as the eye can see. I suspect the same holds of Vienna.
The problem is that Americans generally don’t really seem to like to live in neighborhoods with *densities* as high as Brooklyn
And yet Brooklyn has millions of people and is still very expensive, indicating that there’s a lot of demand to live in it.
September 19th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Or maybe it’s that there’s no way to build human-scale walkable communities without blotting out the sun with Manhattan-style skyscrapers.
Or maybe you should visit Queens sometime other than to go to the airports, baseball or tennis. I live in Jackson Heights’ Historic District where no building is higher than six stories and the walking and biking are great.
September 19th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Oki, my mistake. But let me still second that Freiburg is walkable just like many other cities that have all the “problems” superdestroyer is implying like ethnical minority quarters, sice or rising population.
September 19th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
“Oh, and i pick a small clean room with great breakfast over those huge dirty rooms with no breakfast”
Depends on where you are. There’s no point in getting breakfast at your hotel in Vietnam. The really good local pho joint is two blocks away, wherever you are. And pho is good breakfast. Have that with a baguette, and you’re in heaven. In Turkey, it’s quite different. Your hotel will provide you with the standard Turkish breakfast. Boiled eggs, goat cheese, olives, and pastries. And maybe some grape leaves. The Turkish breakfast may sound weird, but it’s very good. All they need is some bacon, but that’s obviously out of the question.
September 19th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
The problem is that Americans generally don’t really seem to like to live in neighborhoods with *densities* as high as Brooklyn, which has very few skyscrapers but about a third of the city’s population.
Well, plenty of people seem to like living in Brooklyn. Isn’t the problem more that we’ve had more than half a century of development which has not really allowed development of neighborhoods which would allow the kind of density you see in Brooklyn, and that the already existing neighborhoods of that density were hit pretty hard by racial conflict, white flight, increasing crime, urban decay, and so forth in the 60s and 70?
September 19th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
And yet Brooklyn has millions of people and is still very expensive, indicating that there’s a lot of demand to live in it.
Um, that’s so laughable as to make me wonder if you’ve ever been to either of the boroughs on Long Island.
Brooklyn and Queens are *not* where the rich people live. The point is that good in question – space – is limited far beyond the desire to live there. As a result, these people are forced to accept far less space, which is the European and Japanese way. But Brooklyn is a pretty lonely example. The vast majority of Americans are not willing to live in small apartments and split level brownstones, they want to live in their own houses.
The entire point is that Brooklyn and Queens, in the eyes of Americans – and a lot of New Yorkers – is where poor people live when they’re incapable of buying their own home. When Americans can afford to move into the suburbs, they generally do, and that is why the white share of New York’s population has fallen. And similarly for every other formerly dense city in the US.
That started happening well before integration or busing or anything racially motivated during the 40s, 50s and 60s.
The only reason Bklyn and Qns didn’t vanish too is that on their island, the “suburbs” they border are as dense as most other US cities. And immediately next to those “suburbs” you’ve got the most expensive beachfronts in the US.
September 19th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Do all these post stem from Yglesias failing his drivers test as an adult?
September 19th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
The entire point is that Brooklyn and Queens, in the eyes of Americans – and a lot of New Yorkers – is where poor people live when they’re incapable of buying their own home.
Then the eyes are wrong.
September 19th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
“The entire point is that Brooklyn and Queens, in the eyes of Americans – and a lot of New Yorkers – is where poor people live when they’re incapable of buying their own home”
True. But Queens has the unique aspect of being the most ethnically diverse community in the world. If you want good food, go to Queens. And it really doesn’t matter what food you want, it’s all there. You can get great Cambodian food, and then follow it up with cannolis that would make your Italian grandmother blush. Queens may be a little rough, but the food and culture are awesome. It’s a place that really should be a huge tourist attraction. Where else can you get world class food in a blue collar setting? People may shit on Queens, but the people living there are living large. You can have money, and the people of Queens don’t, but they have life, and you don’t.
September 19th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
See, if you have people of different ethnic groups, they’ll walk into each other.
September 19th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Just to clarify, I spent half my time growing up in NY in Queens. I absolutely agree with fostert’s take on the ready availability of awesome food.
And Squeaky, of course they’re wrong, but that’s what they think.
September 19th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Greg,
I’m not from New York, and I wouldn’t live there for any price, but I’ve been to visit my college friend in Queens before, and it doesn’t seem like a poor neighborhood. It seems like a middle class neighborhood with some working class and some upper middle class people. I certainly don’t think it’s cheap to live there.
Fostert,
Yes, I’m a big fan of the bucket bath, and I lived for a couple years taking cold bucket baths (though it was in a hot climate so ‘cold’ was actually quite pleasant). Bucket baths take only about 1/3 as much water (2/3 if you use another bucket). Unfortunately, I don’t think most Yglesian hipsters are quite tough enough to endure a bucket bath.
September 19th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Nor are cul-de-sac developments with 10,000 square foot lots.
No, no, the rich people in NYC live in the much-denser Manhattan burrough.
The richest areas of NYC are more expensive than the richest parts of the surrounding suburbs. Ditto with the middle-class areas of the city, and the working-class areas of the city.
People whose experience with large cities extends all the way from “Good Times” to “NYPD Blue” often fail to realize that, while there are poor neighborhoods in cities and often none in their surrounding suburbs, that doesn’t mean there aren’t working class, middle-class, upper-middle-class, rich, and super-rich areas of those cities as well.
And even economically integrated areas, in which there is a diverse stock of housing types, and people from different economic strata live near each other. Including rich people!
And yet, both Brooklyn and Queens have middle-class and wealthy districts, ful of people who are wealthy enough to have choices.
September 19th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
I concur with the fellow who made the remark about DC height restrictions. I ived in DC for a while. I remember seeing tons of buidlings as high as the ones I see in this picture. In this case, filling those buildings counts as density. In DC, filling buildings this high counts as a sop to suburban Hummer drivers and other people who would rather carpet bomb cities than live in them.
If this picture counts as dense, DC is dense, no?
September 19th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Just to make a small point:
“The entire point is that Brooklyn and Queens, in the eyes of Americans – and a lot of New Yorkers – is where poor people live when they’re incapable of buying their own home. When Americans can afford to move into the suburbs, they generally do, and that is why the white share of New York’s population has fallen. And similarly for every other formerly dense city in the US.”
This isn’t simply a racial thing, it’s more of an economic thing. In and around Baltimore (and DC as well), a lot of the urban middle class black population has moved out to Baltimore County (from Baltimore) and Prince Georges County (from DC).
It’s not that there’s no demand for urban living; it’s just that it’s smaller than the demand for suburban living. Matt disapproves of that, but that’s ok; Matt disapproves of just about anything that doesn’t involve strapping Americans into a hairshirt to help them build character. Or something.
September 19th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
No, no, the rich people in NYC live in the much-denser Manhattan burrough.
Joe, Manhattan’s the denser borough because an absolutely massive number of people live above 110th.
The vast majority of rich people don’t, and they live in much larger dwellings than some schmuck in Washington Heights.
Similarly, in Brooklyn and Queens, you’ve got areas like Park Slope, where richer people live in brownstones that compare favorably to Westchester and Fairfield houses.
The richest parts of the city are *not* the most dense parts. Full stop.
I’ve spent my entire life in NYC and Chicago, and I cannot for the life of me think of another place than NY in the US where the middle and working classes accept the kind of housing you see in New York. Possibly Boston and DC. *Not* Chicago for one thing.
September 19th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
To repeat myself, I said in the eyes of others these things were true. Brooklyn and Queens demonstrate a wider variety of economic classes than anywhere else in the US. Same with the rest of the city. It’s those “real Americans” who seem to think that my city is full of dirt poor minorities who can’t get a place in the ‘burbs.
Frankly, I think it’s great that we have that kind of diversity.
I love living in a place where millionaires can ride the subway with crazy homeless people, and nobody bats an eyelash. In the rest of the country, with the prevalence of cars, and where buses only serve the poor and elderly, it’s unheard of.
And in Brazil, which is what we are sadly turning into, those rich people have fucking private armies to keep out the unwashed.
September 19th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Ask for the story of the little streams that run down the streets in old town Freiburg, and don’t forget to visit the beer gardens.
September 19th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
“Yes, I’m a big fan of the bucket bath”
Not surprised. Of everyone who posts here, you’re the one I can relate to the most. We’ve both spent some time living life the way most of the world lives. We have our obvious philosophical disagreements, but at least we do agree on how the world really works. Asia is an afterthought to most Americans, but half the world lives there. Africa isn’t even a thought, yet quite a lot of people live there, too. If you spend your life between America and Europe, you’ll miss almost everything.
September 19th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Asia is an afterthought to most Americans, but half the world lives there. Africa isn’t even a thought, yet quite a lot of people live there, too. If you spend your life between America and Europe, you’ll miss almost everything.
Well, fostert, in nearly every case, *my* city is where that half tries to go in order to get out of those places.
It’s not an afterthought in New York, it’s more a “Ukrainian restaurant next to a Turkish grocery store next to a Nigerian running a braiding shop with a Guatemalan daylaborer eating his lunch next to a Vietnamese or Cambodian woman selling lychees.”
September 19th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Conspiring with your socialist European friends again, Matt?
:p
September 19th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
“Unfortunately, I don’t think most Yglesian hipsters are quite tough enough to endure a bucket bath.”
Yup. My friends mostly think I’m crazy. Okay, they know it. But when I get back from a trip, they always wonder why I’d do it. I can try to explain, but they never get it. For me, the point of travel is to learn. And once you adapt, you really can have fun, too. I’d put it this way: If you don’t know why an Asian style toilet is better on a moving train, you’ll never understand anything. You have to rid yourself of all your cultural understanding and embrace the culture where you are. Do that, and it’s an ever opening lotus flower. The world is a truly beautiful place, and we are very blessed to have it. And those that realize that this is true are those that are truly blessed.
September 19th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
“Well, fostert, in nearly every case, *my* city is where that half tries to go in order to get out of those places.”
Well, even in those places, they still want Hollywood and Coca Cola. And they go to New York to get it. New York City is the capital of the world, and everyone wants to be in the capital. I can’t live there, it’s just too intense. But, man I love visiting it. I can taste the souvlaki from the random street cart already. Mmmm. Man, I miss that.
September 19th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Ohh, and a knish. Can’t get those here in Colorado.
September 19th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Hector, fostert -
Bucket baths in Bangalore are beautiful. Will be doing that again soon.
And havin’ me a few yards of coffee
September 19th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Gmorbgmibgnikgnok, have a beer for me on Brigade Road. If you don’t drink, then have a Chai for me.
September 19th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
I don’t drink unless I’m in Bangalore, especially on Brigade Road, and that’s because my cousins don’t take no for an answer.
September 19th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
I’ve spent plenty of time in Brooklyn and Queens, and more to the point have known a lot of people who’ve looked for living space in Brooklyn and Queens. It is not cheap.
Anyway, I still don’t see how the size of your house is supposed to contradict anything Yglesias says.
September 19th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
It’s not that there’s no demand for urban living; it’s just that it’s smaller than the demand for suburban living.
James, you are correct in absolute terms, but wrong in relative terms. I assume your background is not very quantiative, because you are mixing up relative vs. absolute numbers. There is an excess supply relative to demand for suburban living throughout maryland, while there is a shortage of supply for walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods relative to demand.
Which is why, when some people get priced out of DC, they move to federal hill in baltimore and commute downtown by MARC train rather than moving to Columbia.
September 19th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
It’s true that many people, when able to buy into a wealthier home, choose to move where the expensive, new housing is being built. This would remain true if the expensive, new housing was being built in the style of a traditional neighborhood – of the numerous single-family (or mostly single-family) streets in outer-burrough NYC. In fact, it was true – those places were built as suburbs.
September 19th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
“I don’t drink unless I’m in Bangalore, especially on Brigade Road, and that’s because my cousins don’t take no for an answer.”
Well, that’s Bangalore. Enjoy.
September 19th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Nonetheless, Greg, they live in much denser circumstances – row houses, high-rises, condos – than you were telling us rich people are willing to endure. Much denser than the Long Island suburbs, denser even than the middle-class areas of Queens.
It’s certainly true that NYC, Boston, and DC offer amenities that induce people to want to jam into smaller quarters than they would in most places, and that those densities probably aren’t viable for building a new residential community outside of Phoenix. On the other hand, this thread started off discussing Freiberg, which certainly isn’t built at Park Avenue densities.
September 19th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
PS, Greg – I realize you weren’t talking about your own opinion, but that of a large body of suburban Americans. So was I.
And no question, you are right, a lot of them feel as you describe.
September 19th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Greg – population in Manhattan is not concentrated above 110th Street. According to Census data, of the 1.55M people in Manhattan, about 550K live below 59th Street, about 500K between 59th and 110, and 500K above 100. Density-wise also not much difference between these areas overall.
Concerning density versus income, this is not so easy to answer. Some live in townhouses, some in high rises, but many rich to upper middle class people live in medium-high buildings (10 floors) say on the Upper East or West, which can result in fairly high density. The areas with the highest buildings (Lower Manhattan, Midtown) actually have less population as most of the space is used for offices. But within Manhattan there is probably no clear relation.
Concerning white people moving out, that was the case until about 10 years ago. Now their percentage of the population is roughly stable, which means the absolute numbers are going up as overall population is increasing.
Any chance you spent the first half of your life in NYC, and that some things have changed since you moved away?
September 19th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
On the other hand, this thread started off discussing Freiberg, which certainly isn’t built at Park Avenue densities.
Hehe. One of my degrees is in Early Modern History, basically Renaissance and early Reformation. At one point, Freiberg, like other early modern cities, probably had *Calcutta* densities.
September 19th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Concerning density versus income, this is not so easy to answer. Some live in townhouses, some in high rises, but many rich to upper middle class people live in medium-high buildings (10 floors) say on the Upper East or West, which can result in fairly high density. The areas with the highest buildings (Lower Manhattan, Midtown) actually have less population as most of the space is used for offices. But within Manhattan there is probably no clear relation.
I was one of those people on the Upper West.
I guess you could say that I’m saying Euros routinely live in higher densities, across the board, which is absolutely not the case outside New York, and possibly a few small number of other places in the US.
I would also say that the *reason* this happens is that the middle and working classes in this country have decided that the American dream includes a single family home. However, for this to happen, it requires our transportation grid to be heavily automobile-based.
However, the point about my house was that in Europe you have rich people choosing to live in smaller spaces than their counterparts in America. And that’s true even in NY. My Dad used to own a middle sized brownstone in Brooklyn as part of the middle/upper middle class. *And* it’s true of the apartment I grew up in on the Upper West. The brownstone was larger than the houses of many much wealthier families I’ve visited in Europe. But the *apartment* was also definitely larger than apartments in similarly priced districts in Europe.
September 19th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Heh, you’re probably right.
Still, today, we’re talking about a density comparable to one of those “New Urbanist” communities that sell so well, or a bit higher.
That’s a good question. Cities across this country have undergone a renaissance over the past decade or so.
We’re still too close to recognize it, but the hollowing-out of our cities from the 60s-80s is a unique historical fluke. It’s just right now that we have a large body of people who look at NYC in 1979 and think that that’s normal, and natural.
September 19th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
I’m talking about the built environment, not the occupancy of the houses and apartments. Yes, European and American cities used to feature families of nine living in three rooms. The decline in family size is quite a different question.
Today, a three-decker in Lowell might house six people, where seventy years ago, it housed 17.
September 19th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Greg,
Actually, it doesn’t. There was a great move to suburban communities during the 20s (which was when automobile ownership became widespread, growing from 1/3 to 4/5 of households during that decade), yet the communities built in that area (which feature mostly single-family homes) are walkable, featured mixed-use neighborhoods, and were transit-based.
September 19th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
As far as Asia is concerned, stay at Shangri-La Hotels, Taj Hotels in India, both magnificent. JW Marriott in Hongers was nice last week as was the Ritz in Moscow.
None have buckets in the rooms.
September 19th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
“As far as Asia is concerned, stay at Shangri-La Hotels, Taj Hotels in India, both magnificent.”
If you want to avoid Asia, then that’s good advice. But you miss the culture. If you want to understand Asia, pay $5 for a room. I’ve been styled in the Royal Orchid Sheraton in Bangkok, and I’ve stayed in crappy rooms on Khoa San. The latter is real, the former is Disneyland. Do what you want, but reality will still stay the same. It’s just a question of whether you see it.
September 19th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
And Myke K, your desire to avoid reality explains why you are so clueless about it.
September 19th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
But Queens has the unique aspect of being the most ethnically diverse community in the world.
Toronto.
September 19th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Myke K? That comes from a parody attack on Steve Benen’s page. Strangely enough, I can’t tell the difference between the real posts and the parodies. They are both just as stupid. But at least the parody is joking. My advice to you Mike, is discover what reality really looks like, and then come back. You can’t see reality from luxury hotels.
September 19th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
“Toronto.”
Good one. I’d still take Queens over Toronto, but Toronto is quite diverse. And a wonderful city. But Toronto actually tries to be diverse, Queens doesn’t have to try.
September 19th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
The point is that Toronto is more diverse than Queens, which is not in fact the world’s most ethnically diverse community.
September 19th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
“The point is that Toronto is more diverse than Queens”
Okay, is that actually true? I’m willing to believe it, but my experience in both places says otherwise. But experiences are just experiences. Data says more. If you have some data on this, I’d love to see it. Either way, both are very diverse. And Toronto is more enjoyable, but a little sugar-coated. Queens is raw and real. Maybe a little too real.
September 19th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Tyro – The population of Baltimore (city) has been dropping for a long while now – there’s no real demand to move there at all. While DC has grown population, it’s a lopsided growth; it doesn’t include many middle class families (witness the continually shrinking DC school system).
Howard County had been growing crazily right up until the housing crunch hit; I haven’t seen stats for the last year or so, but there aren’t empty houses in much (if any) of this county; the unemployment rate here (due to the huge number of government workers and the supporting jobs) is still under 6%.
People keep saying there’s demand for walkable neighborhoods and towns, and yet they don’t ever get built. While developers can be idiots, I have a real problem with the notion that there’s a huge demand for something that no one in the market will supply. If the demand existed in the way people here think it does, more of the new communities built in the last decade or so would reflect that demand. The fact that it hasn’t really happened should tell you something.
September 19th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
“Maybe a little too real.”
And that’s something that’s a little strange for people. Most people want a nice city, I want a real one. I prefer Bangkok over Paris. In Bangkok, the good, bad, and ugly are right there in front of you. They don’t hide anything. But Bangkok is a beautiful representation of what humanity really is. And as ugly as it gets, the good people are just that much better. Paris hides it’s dark side, but that only makes the good people darker.
September 19th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
james robertson –
an example: a tremendous amount of new housing has been built in the past 15 years in and nearby downtown seattle.
September 19th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
You think I want to see reality when I can visit on an expense account? Silly guys! By the way, my total is now 71 countries, how’s yours?
September 19th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
#66 – From bestplaces.net:
So yes, it’s been growing over the course of the decade, but hardly in a “massive” way. Also, a look at the Wikipedia page reveals that the area was declining until 1980 – the growth since then coincides nicely with the rise of Microsoft.
Heck, starting in 1980, when Seattle went back to growth, Howard County MD (all suburban) grew more both in raw terms and in percentage terms. Look at the chart here.
I’m not saying that urban is better or worse; I’m making the point that people have mostly not chosen urban areas over suburban ones over the last few decades here in the US. Sure, a lot of that has to do with policy choices, but those choices were made by the population, not some group of others.
September 19th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
james,
i don’t know what you are trying to prove with that data point. you earlier made the assertion that there were no new high density neighborhoods being created in the US. i gave an example of such a neighborhood. perhaps i should have been specific: the belltown area, north of downtown seattle, is almost all new (less than 20 years old) high density housing. i lived there in 1991 when new construction was starting; it’s a completely new place now.
i did not say that all of seattle was high density.
your earlier point was not that people were mostly choosing suburban areas over urban ones. your point was that no walkable neighborhoods were being built. so i provided a counterexample.
i agree with your point that most americans prefer to live in suburban areas rather than urban areas. seattle is certainly a case in point here: the seattle metropolitan area is very spread out, and this is overwhelmingly consumer driven. but saying ‘most’ does not mean that there is no demand for new urban areas.
September 19th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
“You think I want to see reality when I can visit on an expense account? Silly guys!”
No, I don’t. But if you’d like to speak of reality, maybe you should experience it first. Why the hell should I listen to you about reality when you’ve obviously done your best to avoid it? Live in your dream world of luxury hotels, but don’t expect us to think that’s how reality works. Even Tom Friedman has a more realistic view than you. It’s great that you’ve been to 71 countries, but have you ever seen any of them? You’ve only seen the hotels in the major cities. And they’re all the same. With the same drunk English colonial guy at the bar. And he’s always telling the same story about how he had to leave Kenya. For once in your life, see the real world and experience it as the locals do.
September 20th, 2009 at 12:06 am
However, the point about my house was that in Europe you have rich people choosing to live in smaller spaces than their counterparts in America.
Ah, thanks for the explanation.
Now, I’m still not sure that these choices are independent of land-use priorities. James Robertson is talking about how new developments aren’t dense, but I believe that in many places zoning regulations actually make dense building impossible. (Burlington, which is quite walkable in the center of town, is zoned up the wazoo to keep density down.) And of course we subsidize cars heavily; roads don’t build and maintain themselves.
September 20th, 2009 at 12:20 am
#69 – I don’t think I said there were no new high density projects going on; just not that many. Far more low density projects have gone in over the last few decades, and that’s not the result of some conspiracy; ultimately, it represents how most people have freely chosen to live.
This is why all of the pushing for more transit isn’t likely to go anywhere – the built environment we have simply isn’t structured for it, and it doesn’t look that likely that people will suddenly stage a massive move back out of the suburbs.
I don’t have anything against high density or transit; I just don’t see it being the majority choice here in the US.
September 20th, 2009 at 12:44 am
You’ve only seen the hotels in the major cities. And they’re all the same. With the same drunk English colonial guy at the bar. And he’s always telling the same story about how he had to leave Kenya. For once in your life, see the real world and experience it as the locals do.
I think this is a major reason, fostert, why the British were the best and evilest empire builders around.
They really did “go native”, or at least a substantial section of them did. If you recall Victorian and Edwardian literature, the trope of the Great White Hope being thrown into a foreign culture and not turning it into Old England, but rather understanding and mastering it, was present in tons of books.
Whereas Americans are extremely uncomfortable with other cultures; witness, for example, how we responded to Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, where we built huge bases filled with Americana. The Brits lived in barracks too, and so did the Legion d’Etranger, but they interacted with the locals in a way that we can’t, when we wall ourselves off.
That former Kenyan or Rhodie might be a drunken prick wishing for the days when he was a master of his domain, but he got those cultures better than any supposedly globe trotting American ever could. If you don’t believe me, look at how “real Americans” react to Queens; how the hell can we understand a foreign country when we can’t even handle an Ethiopian restaurant?
September 20th, 2009 at 1:09 am
Density can be very child-friendly, if you make children a priority rather than a shibboleth.
I find this use of the word “shibboleth” to be perplexing.
The point is that Toronto is more diverse than Queens, which is not in fact the world’s most ethnically diverse community.
There’s also a place called “Los Angeles” that should be in the mix. I grew up in Long Beach, and at my high school, in the split between the umbrella ethnicities of white, black, Hispanic, and Asians/Islanders, no one group had more than 30% of the school population. My home parish was mostly Filipino, but we had sizable populations of Mexicans, Central Americans, Nigerians, Samoans, Tongans, Koreans, Vietnamese, and even a few white and black Americans.
September 20th, 2009 at 1:10 am
Greg says: I would also say that the *reason* this happens is that the middle and working classes in this country have decided that the American dream includes a single family home. However, for this to happen, it requires our transportation grid to be heavily automobile-based.
Joe says: Actually, it doesn’t. There was a great move to suburban communities during the 20s (which was when automobile ownership became widespread, growing from 1/3 to 4/5 of households during that decade), yet the communities built in that area (which feature mostly single-family homes) are walkable, featured mixed-use neighborhoods, and were transit-based.
In a way both Greg and Joe are correct. Once the automobile took off, the neighborhoods Joe is describing started incorporating things like back alleys and garages, which actually adds up to quite an investment in car-based transportation. People still used transit for purposes like commuting, but started using their cars for a lot of other purposes.
Which is a model that still makes sense today, in fact, although high-tech car-sharing may make it possible to invest a lot less in things like alleys and garages, to the collective benefit of residents in such neighborhoods.
Far more low density projects have gone in over the last few decades, and that’s not the result of some conspiracy; ultimately, it represents how most people have freely chosen to live.
“Conspiracy” is a distortion of the relevant claims. The pervasive existence of distorting regulations and subsidies has been well-documented, as have their effects on pricing (such that controlling for other variables, housing in denser walkable developments cost more per square foot in ways that can’t be explained in terms of costs). Additionally, surveys and other attempts to ascertain underlying demand have confirmed that the potential market for denser developments has been undersupplied. But “conspiracy” implies a degree of central coordination that isn’t necessary for all this to be true.
it doesn’t look that likely that people will suddenly stage a massive move back out of the suburbs.
Again, this grossly oversimplifies the relevant claim. What has already been happening is that the U.S. population has continued to urbanize, and U.S. urbanized areas are gradually getting increasingly dense. This process will likely accelerate a bit with the accelerated aging of the U.S. population.
But the suburbs aren’t somehow going to be depopulated–rather, much of the suburbs will be participating in this process, gradually becoming increasingly dense as the U.S. population continues to urbanize and grow (and age).
September 20th, 2009 at 1:11 am
“They really did “go native”, or at least a substantial section of them did.”
That’s an interesting point. And it’s real. Ever read about the White Mughals in India? The original British in India really did go native. And they wanted to continue to existing paradigm. The problem with the British is that the later people always rejected that. It’s only during The Raj that the British really tried to change things. Prior to that, it was business as usual. But there were obvious strains as the Sepoy Rebellion makes clear. I think that comes from poor leadership on Zafar’s part.
“how the hell can we understand a foreign country when we can’t even handle an Ethiopian restaurant?”
I can handle the Ethiopian restaurant (love it), but few Americans can. Which is a major problem for us. If we want to be the world’s policeman, we’d better know who we’re policing. And we don’t. And this is the real problem. We’re all a bunch of Mike K’s who think we can do business in a country and think we know it. But we’re only interacting with bullshit leaders who are only sustained by our presence. It’s all Disneyland for a while, but then the locals get really pissed off. And we’re somehow surprised by this. Whatever. As a wise Thai woman told me, “same thing happen every time.” Yet we think it’s all going to be different this time. How’s that working for you?
September 20th, 2009 at 1:29 am
Um, that’s so laughable as to make me wonder if you’ve ever been to either of the boroughs on Long Island. Brooklyn and Queens are *not* where the rich people live.
Really? I’m wealthy, and I live in Brooklyn. 10 minutes by towncar from Wall Street to my brownstone, and I’m not surrounded by tourists on the weekends. Why would I live anywhere else?
September 20th, 2009 at 1:34 am
Really? I’m wealthy, and I live in Brooklyn. 10 minutes by towncar from Wall Street to my brownstone, and I’m not surrounded by tourists on the weekends. Why would I live anywhere else?
So do my brother’s mom and her husband. But I would still guess that the bulk of rich people in NY live in Manhattan.
September 20th, 2009 at 1:37 am
While developers can be idiots, I have a real problem with the notion that there’s a huge demand for something that no one in the market will supply.
Quality affordable healthcare.
September 20th, 2009 at 1:50 am
So me and my mom took my uncle out to lunch at a Japanese restaurant. My uncle picked his chopsticks and used them like a pro. My mother asked how he’d possibly know how to use them so well. And my uncle said: “Remember the Vietnam War? I lived there for three years. It’s how you eat there.” And mom didn’t get it. My mom thought of chopsticks as this strange exotic thing, not something a normal person would use all the time. Go to Vietnam, and you’ll learn quickly that chopsticks are what you eat with. Don’t want to use them? Fine, don’t eat. There’s a complete cultural disconnect between America and Asia. People here can’t imagine the simple concept that they are just normal people trying to get their daughter into college without her getting knocked up first. Their language may sound strange, but they are just normal people with the same problems as you and me. They aren’t alien, they aren’t exotic, they’re just people. Normal people.
September 20th, 2009 at 1:59 am
So me and my mom took my uncle out to lunch at a Japanese restaurant. My uncle picked his chopsticks and used them like a pro. My mother asked how he’d possibly know how to use them so well. And my uncle said: “Remember the Vietnam War? I lived there for three years. It’s how you eat there.”
A lot of the most intelligent, sophisticated people I know are vets of the Second War, Korea, Nam, and various other Cold War deployments, even some current deployments in the Middle East. It seems that the servicemen who can get beyond the Disneyland basecamps are capable of enormous cultural understanding. However, it has been the expressed policy of the Pentagon to avoid fraternization with the natives since at least World War 2, and to crack down harshly on American soldiers who go too native; witness John Paul Vann, one of the few Americans who actually knew what was going on in South Vietnam and could have made a difference in the struggle (ie. understood that Ho was a nationalist, that Diem was a nationalist but also feudal and anti-Buddhist, and that only by using things like Nationalism and Buddhism, which was de facto the national religion, could we ever hope to get to a Korea-like situation).
In the Pentagon’s defence, this was in part due to the McCarthy Era’s treatment of servicemen and diplomats who were China hands and blamed for “losing” China, despite the fact every single one of them were screaming for five years that Mao would win a renewed civil war.
September 20th, 2009 at 2:35 am
People keep saying there’s demand for walkable neighborhoods and towns, and yet they don’t ever get built. While developers can be idiots, I have a real problem with the notion that there’s a huge demand for something that no one in the market will supply.
Developers sell lots and houses. Lot and house size are crudely quantifiable into dollars. They’re not going to add sidewalks that take away 100 square feet from each lot unless they’re compelled. (They are going to build to minimum lot sizes and parking allocations where that’s compelled.) When the lots are sold, the developer takes the money, moves on to the next project, and doesn’t give a crap about what it’s like to live there because it’s now Somebody Else’s Problem. Because of all this, developers are usually lazy; on the flip side, if you look at any development project with a whiff of New Urbanism or even the streetcar suburb you’ll see just how difficult it is to get the damn things built.
So I think you’re very much overstating the “freedom of choice” generally available when buying homes in most of the US. If your inclination is for a 3BR ranch on half an acre, then it may feel like your cup runneth over, but that’s just confirmation bias.
To expand upon DTM’s point — most people buy the houses that are there. A minority build them to spec, but you can’t custom-build a community. And the power of home buyers to dictate not just the kinds of homes that are built but the surrounding neighbourhoods is miniscule. (If a bunch of millionaires collectively want a bunch of mansions in a gated community, then they’ll probably find a developer willing to pick up the phone.)
So I agree with the sentiment in this ten-year-old essay:
Since you can’t magic up those kind of communities out of thin air, people make do. And the making-do becomes the norm, and attempts to change that norm become treated as subversive, often for the most trivial or factitious reasons. (The parallels to the healthcare debate are striking.)
September 20th, 2009 at 2:40 am
I see that Stefan beat me to it; I’d call it ‘learned helplessness’, but that’s a bit harsh. ‘Putting up with the crap that’s on offer’ is a better description.
September 20th, 2009 at 2:55 am
“It seems that the servicemen who can get beyond the Disneyland basecamps are capable of enormous cultural understanding.”
I ate at a fried chicken joint in Hue and talked to her about it. Why did she have a fried chicken joint? Well, a soldier from Arkansas taught her how to make it. And American soldiers paid. Everyone else stiffed her. So if fried chicken brought the Americans in, she’d cook it up. And damn, she made some great fried chicken. But that happened because some guy from Arkansas got her on our side and taught her how to make fried chicken. That’s cultural understanding. And she became their eyes and ears. Chicken’s hot, intelligence is cold. Just the way you wanted it. And we can do that now. It would help if our officers knew the local language.
September 20th, 2009 at 3:05 am
“There’s also a place called “Los Angeles” that should be in the mix.”
Right on. I lived in that area. And I’ll say this: Any place where you can get a pastrami taco is fine with we. And I’m not kidding. That says a lot about diversity. If the Russian Jews are getting along with the Mexicans, something must be right.
September 20th, 2009 at 3:12 am
Any place where you can get a pastrami taco is fine with we.
The hip thing the kids are flocking to now is Kogi, a Korean taco truck.
September 20th, 2009 at 3:13 am
The hip thing the kids are flocking to now is Kogi, a Korean taco truck.
You’re joking! That’s the awesomest/weirdest culinary idea I’ve ever heard.
September 20th, 2009 at 3:45 am
Korean tacos. That sounds good. I was on a Tibetan refugee camp in India. And I was served this dish that was basically taco filling, and they served it with a bread that was essentially a tortilla. I was a little green back then and didn’t know the customs. So I just made tacos. They’d never seen anything like that. But they thought it was pretty cool. Last time I was there, there was a restaurant serving Tibetan Tacos. I guess it caught on.
September 20th, 2009 at 4:34 am
You can’t see reality from luxury hotels.
Sure you can. It may not suit your picture of the world, but rich, successful brown people are every bit as real – and every bit as brown – as the poor struggling ones whom you are so transparently proud of yourself for putting up with. And neither the rich nor the poor are half as appreciative of your generous appreciation as you imagine they are.
fostert, you’re doing a really great impression (parody?) of that one privileged douchebag everyone knew in college, who never shut up about all the places he’d been. The one we take pains to avoid now that we have the ability to go abroad, ourselves. When we roll up on the chicken stand and see you chatting up the counter lady with that shiteating “look at me, I really get it, aren’t I cool” grin on your face, we look away and quickly move on to the next place, because we’re FUCKING WELL EMBARRASSED TO DEATH OF YOUR KIND. See, “real” Americans know that the price of the food covers the food, not the food + some poor sap’s entire fucking life story. Possibly something to do with the fact that in our own lives, it didn’t require a trip halfway around the world to meet people who weren’t born with silver spoons in their mouths.
September 20th, 2009 at 5:14 am
Nice rant EMG, but you really missed the mark. Let’s start with this:
“And neither the rich nor the poor are half as appreciative of your generous appreciation as you imagine they are.”
I imagine that they don’t give shit about me. But that’s not what you expected. Sorry. There are some people who really do give a shit, and you know what they’re called? Friends. And they are real friends.
And I’m some privileged douchebag? If there is some privilege in my life, it would be nice if someone let me in on the deal. I got one thing in my life, and it’s an Ivy League education. My parents busted their asses to give me that. And I am grateful. But they weren’t blue bloods by any means. I grew up in the same crappy suburban home you did. I’m no better than you, and I’m no worse.
And maybe you don’t require a trip around the world to learn something, but that’s because you have no desire to learn. Be an idiot and refuse knowledge. That’s your choice. But don’t expect me to think you know what you’re talking about. What to discuss Turkey? Well you’d be more credible if you actually went there. I hear people like you talk crap like this all the time. You think you know what people in other countries think, and you’re just projecting your Iowa mentality on cultures you can’t even begin to understand. And this is exactly why America is so good at fucking things up. We go into a place like Cambodia and think they want to be Kansas. Get a fucking grip.
If you think I’m just writing this stuff because I want to look cool, think again (or maybe for the first time). My intent is mostly to inform and maybe entertain. But nobody is giving me a medal for being here. I don’t get hot chicks for writing. You think I just live my life to impress people? If I live my life for anything, it’s to piss them off.
And you think I’m not a real American? What does that even mean? The only reason I raise criticisms of this country is to improve it. I believe America can be better, so I try to push it to be better. If you don’t like that, fuck off.
But really, tell me how not knowing about foreign cultures makes you more knowledgeable about foreign cultures. You are obviously intentionally ignorant. And that’s some badge of honor? If I were ignorant, I sure wouldn’t be parading that fact around.
September 20th, 2009 at 5:30 am
Sadly, EMG, redneck pieces of shit like you are why our country can’t have a rational foreign policy. We base everything on delusional fantasies because we don’t even try to understand other cultures. ‘Red Dawn’ is what you consider to be the epitome of foreign policy. That shit doesn’t work in Pakistan. It’s the biggest issue in the world right now, and you think not going there and understanding the culture is the solution. Ignorance may be bliss, but it sure as hell isn’t rational thought. That you think ignorance should be the basis of our thought is truly sad.
September 20th, 2009 at 7:49 am
Re: The vast majority of Americans are not willing to live in small apartments and split level brownstones, they want to live in their own houses.
The older single family house suburbs were quite walkable too, assuming the definition of “walkable” is “Can walk/bike many places” not “never need a car for any reason at all”. I grew up in such a suburban development. Within a ten block radius of my house we had my school, two parks, four churches, a grocery store, a Kmart, a pharmacy, two banks, a medical clinic, a dentist office, a convenience store, a full service gas station, and a number of other businesses. Given good weather people did in fact walk places. Even when they did drive (as when it was not good weather, or when loading up on groceries) a drive of a few blocks is still much better than a drive of a few miles.
Re: The population of Baltimore (city) has been dropping for a long while now – there’s no real demand to move there at all.
You’d never know it from the rents or housing prices in the better neighborhoods. There an old rehabed row house next to my church (Patterson Park neighborhood) that sold for 500K three years ago. In Pigtown (not the nicest neighborhood though not a slum either) I am paying the same rent I paid for a SFH in Fort Lauderdale at the height of the housing boom.
Re: I have a real problem with the notion that there’s a huge demand for something that no one in the market will supply.
Two words: Zoning laws.
Re: I can handle the Ethiopian restaurant (love it), but few Americans can.
What’s with Ethiopian restaurants? I’ve seen them in places rangeing from Ann Arbor to Baltimore. Never eaten at one yet. Is the food really bizarre or something?
September 20th, 2009 at 8:53 am
It’s not just about people buying what’s on offer; you have to address how what’s on offer came up. I grew up in a suburb that had a 1 acre minimum for new housing. That didn’t appear out of nowhere; it was voted on by the local county government after a small amount of lower density (1/2 acre lots) went in. The local population didn’t go up in arms over it; they generally favored the land use restrictions.
The zoning rules, land use restrictions (etc) that brought us the current suburban landscape came about via freely chosen activity. We can like or dislike what it’s brought us, but it’s not “learned helplessness” – it’s what people have collectively wanted.
What bothers so many people here about it is that simple reality: people have wanted it.
September 20th, 2009 at 9:01 am
Ethiopian restaurants are great, but you basically eat the plate (the food is served on a giant piece of bread which you tear up and pick the food up with), which might put people off. I don’t know, I don’t make any claims about Americans’ ability or not to handle Ethiopian restaurants.
September 20th, 2009 at 9:05 am
That didn’t appear out of nowhere; it was voted on by the local county government after a small amount of lower density (1/2 acre lots) went in. The local population didn’t go up in arms over it; they generally favored the land use restrictions.
And are you for this or against it? You usually take a liberatarian view, but in this case it looks like a bunch of people banded together to make sure that people who wanted small lots in the area couldn’t have them, even if they wanted to build them on their own property.
You should read John Cheever’s Shady Hill stories. A lot of them are about zoning.
September 20th, 2009 at 9:26 am
here is a map of Baltimore Unemployment in July 2009 (BLS data)
http://www.localetrends.com/metro/baltimore_maryland_home.php?MAP_TYPE=curr_ue
September 20th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Re: Ethiopian restaurants are great, but you basically eat the plate (the food is served on a giant piece of bread which you tear up and pick the food up with), which might put people off.
The interesting thing is that actual Ethiopian food, in Ethiopia, apparently consists for the majority of the year of bread and vegetables, that’s it (due to the stringent fasting requirements of the Coptic Church). Ethiopians take their faith seriously. Their staple food is a grain called teff, which is supposed to be highly nutritious (but isn’t really grown much outside Ethiopia). There’s also a edible plant called the false banana that agricultural experts are trying to get Ethiopians to grow more of, but apparently the Ethiopians think that the agricultural experts are crazy.
Re: Sure you can. It may not suit your picture of the world, but rich, successful brown people are every bit as real – and every bit as brown – as the poor struggling ones whom you are so transparently proud of yourself for putting up with. And neither the rich nor the poor are half as appreciative of your generous appreciation as you imagine they are.
Oh, Chr*st. More of the idiocy typical of comment threads on this blog. Luxury hotels don’t reflect reality in the US and they certainly don’t reflect it in the developing world. If you want to experience another culture then go talk to some sweet potato farmers, not the Americanised elite in the luxury hotels. And yes, bucket baths may be involved.
September 20th, 2009 at 9:49 am
The zoning rules, land use restrictions (etc) that brought us the current suburban landscape came about via freely chosen activity
The obtuseness is stunning here. If this is what people wanted, then those restrictions wouldn’t exist, because alternatives wouldn’t have been built. You yourself admit the obvious: you can’t afford to live in denser, walkable inner-ring suburbs like Bethesda and Arlington, which is why you live in Columbia. Your problem, James, has always been a willful blindness to everything but your own isolated experience, which you insist is the way things have to be because the alternative would be to admit that other people, many of whom are more successful and more interesting than you, made choices that you didn’t make. The only way you can justify many wasted aspects of your life is to insist that all your decisions were the “ideal” ones. Which explains your mindless shilling for Bush, as well.
September 20th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Also, Mike K, that is some grade-A troll bait, there. Well played.
September 20th, 2009 at 9:53 am
#95 – I was about 2 when those rules were made, so I grew up with them as an established fact. Tyro – I didn’t live in denser areas primarily due to the appalling quality of the schools there (compared to Columbia, where I do live).
The question of walkable neighborhoods didn’t even arise; we looked at “close enough to where the wife worked” and “quality of schools”. Period.
September 20th, 2009 at 10:10 am
While developers can be idiots, I have a real problem with the notion that there’s a huge demand for something that no one in the market will supply.
You’re also misunderstanding the role of the market — the market doesn’t want to provide everyone with what they want, rather, the market works to set a price at which someone providing a good or service can make a profit at doing so.
Developers don’t make a profit by building sidewalks, planning walkable neighborhoods, etc., bc these are all benefits born by the many that they would have to pay without recompense — so they don’t do it.
September 20th, 2009 at 10:26 am
The other part of what makes this work is that the Swedes do not own automobiles, as clearly seen in MY’s photo.
Cranky
September 20th, 2009 at 10:37 am
http://kogibbq.com/
A friend and I at work were trying to come up with the next taco truck craze; he suggested Armenian tacos; I suggested Ethiopian ones.
It may not suit your picture of the world, but rich, successful brown people are every bit as real – and every bit as brown – as the poor struggling ones
I’m basically on fostert’s side in this argument, but EMG does have a point here about terminology. Nobody has a monopoly on reality. Bill Gates and Prince William are real people, too. I don’t know what the appropriate term should be for getting out of the hotel and seeing how most people in a place actually live, but I don’t think “more real” is the right word for it.
I’m reminded of the girl on “Flavor of Love” who pooped on Flav’s floor and then said she was just too “real” for the other girls.
September 20th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Cranky Observor, please don’t judge by the photo. European cities abound with underground parking garages. There are plenty of cars, but they are not necessarily visible.
September 20th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
> Cranky Observor, please don’t judge by the
> photo. European cities abound with underground
> parking garages. There are plenty of cars,
> but they are not necessarily visible.
Um, yes, that was the point of my comment. The Thinkprogress site does not support the tag
Cranky
September 20th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
> support the tag
OK, that was supposed to be “the [IRONY] tag”. Apparently the TP site converts my historically-accurate emoticon to an obnoxious smiley, but takes out my angle bracket non-tag.
Cranky
September 20th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Cranky, I think that if you type &</irony&> you will get what you want, thus: </irony>
September 20th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Oh dear, I hit “Submit” when I meant to hit “Preview.” Anyway, type < to make the less-than sign, and > to make the greater-than sign (though just plain > should also work).
September 20th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
The zoning rules, land use restrictions (etc) that brought us the current suburban landscape came about via freely chosen activity.
You still act as if people get to choose where they live as if it’s dinner from a Vegas buffet.
I’m going to turn down the dial for this thread, but James — you have a set of living preferences that happen to align with those of the majority of housing stock. So you’re sailing with the wind at your back. If you have a different set of living preferences, then your experience of the “free choice” available in most parts of the US is only slightly dissimilar from the colour options for Model T buyers.
Now, I can understand why local government might instinctively have sphincter-tightening moments towards somewhat denser building, for good reasons as well as bad. For the most part, American developers have forgotten how to build that way, which means the results aren’t always much good. But developers also have a huge amount of clout on those local officials.
It’s also much harder to reverse restrictions than it is to impose them. It’s even harder to enforce restrictions when money greases the wheels of . Where I live, there’s a city development ordinance that aims to prevent crappy cookie-cutter building within a downtown largely spared the demolition and architectural monstrosities of the 60s and 70s. That hasn’t prevented recent in-your-face violations, as developers gamble that the city council doesn’t have the cojones to enforce its rules.
I grew up in a late 70s suburb with two-storey semi-detached homes on quarter-acre lots in cul de sacs, with extensive footpaths and cyclepaths running both alongside roads and away from them. I could walk to school or the shops, and cycle the four miles to the middle of town without ever riding on the road. You simply cannot find that kind of building for love or money in most of the US, and where it does exist, it goes at a premium.
September 20th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
I grew up in a late 70s suburb with two-storey semi-detached homes on quarter-acre lots in cul de sacs, with extensive footpaths and cyclepaths running both alongside roads and away from them. I could walk to school or the shops, and cycle the four miles to the middle of town without ever riding on the road. You simply cannot find that kind of building for love or money in most of the US, and where it does exist, it goes at a premium.
These days, in much of Westchester and Long Island, where densities are pretty high, you can’t really walk anywhere. And that wasn’t true even 20 years ago.
September 20th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
> Oh dear, I hit “Submit” when I meant to
> hit “Preview.” Anyway, type < to
> make the less-than sign, and > to make
> the greater-than sign (though just
> plain > should also work).
Matt W,
Thanks for the reminder and example. I just don’t normally spend the time trying to figure out what the bizarre formatting engine that Thinkprogress uses is going to do with my post.
Cranky
September 20th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Actually, we have paths like that here in Columbia – there’s an odd thing where the association opposes painting “this way to blah” at path intersections, but you can get from my house to the village center (2 miles away) on foot or bike with only 3 street crossings (and two of those are neighborhood streets).
However, as detailed in the book “Traffic”, the number of people who will walk to a destination drops off to nearly zero after you get further out than 1/2 mile. I never walk to those stores; if I get there on foot, it’s with the gym (weights) as a destination while jogging. Sometimes on bike, if I’ve had an injury that prevents jogging.
I wouldn’t mind living closer to those shops, but that low level desire was crowded out by the desire to live near the better schools (and the place that new home construction was going on at the time).
Subsequently, more dense housing has been built near those shops (Townhomes and Condos), mostly. That’s out of reach for lower income people. Why no apartments? It’s one of the outflows of law that favors the renter over the landlord (as far as kicking non paying tenants out goes), and the requirement to include section 8 apartments in such residences. While section 8 was well intentioned, it’s had the effect of limiting the construction of new high density housing.
September 20th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
The zoning rules, land use restrictions (etc) that brought us the current suburban landscape came about via freely chosen activity. We can like or dislike what it’s brought us, but it’s not “learned helplessness” – it’s what people have collectively wanted.
You aren’t asking the right question, which is “which people have collectively wanted this?”
The people who have collectively wanted this are residential property owners with a perceived vested economic interest in the preserving the regulations and subsidies favoring the low-density, single-use status quo they bought into. But there is a different group of people, potential residents as well as the developers and land owners who would benefit from serving those potential residents, who have a different set of interests. And this group of potential residents is constantly being replenished as our population both grows and urbanizes.
But our current system for making these decisions makes it very easy for the incumbent residents to overrule the interests of potential residents and those who would like to serve them. So, it is not ALL the people who have collectively made these decisions. Rather, at any given point it is a subset of people who don’t have aligned interests with the rest of the people who have made these decisions. And that is how you can get a situation which systematically underserves entire classes of people.
The question of walkable neighborhoods didn’t even arise; we looked at “close enough to where the wife worked” and “quality of schools”. Period.
Note that neither of those two things has anything to do with low density development, and in fact the former would arguably be better served on an aggregate basis by higher density. This is part of the hidden cost of the current system for making the relevant decisions: even people who are indifferent to the density issue end up de facto subsidizing those who have distorted the system in their favor.
September 20th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
I wouldn’t mind living closer to those shops, but that low level desire was crowded out by the desire to live near the better schools (and the place that new home construction was going on at the time).
And again, here it becomes quite clear James himself is in the category of people being poorly served by the current system for determining regulations and subsidies. There is no fundamental reason why better schools and new construction can’t be combined with walkable mixed-use development, and yet James was forced to prioritize one set of his preferences over the other by a system which has been distorted such that it underserves people like him.
September 20th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Redneck? Iowa? Red Dawn? Way to presume. I’m a queer half-Mexican from downtown L.A. I know what the chicken-counter lady really thinks of you because for years, my mom was that lady. I’m sure that “crappy suburban house” you grew up in was real boring and all, leaving you with contempt for civilization as it has, but I wouldn’t know. We were in a four-unit house with bullet-holes in the walls and incidentally, the showers didn’t always work, which conveniently saved me a lot of plane fare in the long run as far as figuring out what that is like.
Or does the educational value of privation only apply to people like you who have the ability to opt out the second they want to? Alas… poverty is wasted on the poor.
What you fail to realize about all the farmers and food servers whom you rely on to serve up your oh-so-gritty “reality” with a wink and a smile is this: they are working their fingers to the BONE to get their hands on the luxuries you so despise: warm running bathwater at the end of a hard day of work, cooking and heating fuel that doesn’t take twice as long to collect or earn as it does to burn, high school education for one’s children. You think the rat-infested $5 hotel room is pretty fucking quaint, huh? Spend twenty years raising a bunch of kids in it and then come back and tell us how “real” it was. You invoke “Disneyland” against those of us who go to other cultures to see the actual cultures, and not a bunch of desperate bums staring jealously at the (admittedly delicious) street food consumed by the slightly-less-poor (which we saw a lifetime’s worth of growing up TYVM)? I think it’s pretty fucking Disneyland for you to expect the rest of the world to hold itself back so you can experience your precious little Marie Antoinette version of true grit. And you completely miss the fact that people create amenities for tourists precisely as a buffer zone against crass, self-congratulating voyeurs like yourself.
As for “real Americans,” I was turning your (obsessive, uncreative, douchey) use of the word “real” around on you. You wouldn’t know reality if it bit you on the ass. But forget Americans, OK (although the fact that you saw “American” and read “white” says way more about you, brother, than it does me). Real PEOPLE, period, don’t use the sufferings of others as a form of cheap entertainment.
I totally loved it, though, when you dropped the teabagger talking point about how your parents WORKED for what they gave you, goddammit! Classic.
September 20th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Sorry, this isn’t true:
“The entire point is that Brooklyn and Queens, in the eyes of Americans – and a lot of New Yorkers – is where poor people live when they’re incapable of buying their own home”
Ever heard of Forest Hills Gardens? It’s gorgeous, and very expensive. Brooklyn is the new Manhattan (as the now very tired saying goes) and a lot of rich people do live there now. I was just in Brooklyn, today, visiting my friend who runs a division of a Fortune 500 company.
I live in Queens, and my husband and I make $250k together. We aren’t rich by NYC standards, but we aren’t exactly the urban poor, either.
I love how people in Kansas City (or other random places) are apparently authorities on how people live in NYC and how miserable they are.
September 20th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
only passes from the lips of people who can not afford to live in Manhattan
September 20th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
DTM,
Life isn’t a Hallmark movie, and we don’t get a perfect set of options at the end. It’s always about prioritizing choices. When you find the happy vale filled with ice cream and ponies, let me know. I’m busy living in the real world…
September 20th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Life isn’t a Hallmark movie, and we don’t get a perfect set of options at the end.
And now we return to our regularly scheduled programming, “Fuck you, I got mine”. Oh well.
September 20th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Re: My intent is mostly to inform and maybe entertain
I’ll say this, Fostert, you certainly do inform and entertain me, and I appreciate your posts here a lot.
September 20th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
#119 – no, I didn’t get everything I wanted, which is kind of the point. The house is a compromise – less closet space than would be ideal, but it has other compensations that I do like. The neighborhood is great for jogging (which I like to do), but the stores are too far away to walk to. The schools are good, but not within walking distance.
The point I was making is that life is mostly a serious of compromises. You always have to make trade off decisions; it’s rare for everything to work out perfectly.
September 20th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Brooklyn is the new Manhattan
only passes from the lips of people who can not afford to live in Manhattan
Well, isn’t that part of the point? It didn’t used to be the case that you had to be rich to live in Manhattan. Now it pretty much is, with all the predictable corollaries.
September 20th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Heath Ledger used to live in Boerum Hill. I think Michelle Williams is still in Brooklyn. They could probably have afforded to live in Manhattan.
September 20th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Life isn’t a Hallmark movie, and we don’t get a perfect set of options at the end. It’s always about prioritizing choices. When you find the happy vale filled with ice cream and ponies, let me know. I’m busy living in the real world…
But that is why I noted this particular set of tradeoffs has no fundamental basis. Again, there is no fundamental incompatibility between better schools and new construction on the one hand, and denser walkable developments on the other.
So in effect you are like a person living in a world where putting pepperoni on pizza is illegal, and saying the idea of having pepperoni pizza is asking for free ice cream and ponies, and you are just being a realist by accepting the fact you can’t get pepperoni pizza. But just as providing pepperoni pizza in that world wouldn’t actually require magic, just a different public policy, the same is true of better serving people like you who aren’t actually asking for something magical when it comes to residential developments: it would just require a different set of public policies.
September 20th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Heath Ledger should have stayed in Brooklyn, and not set foot in Manhattan.
I believe John Rawls had a theory about justice and pizzas, where people chose their place in life “before the veil,” not knowing what sort of pizza toppings would be readily available to them upon their birth. It’s in his unpublished manuscript, A Theory of Sausage.
September 20th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
and this is funny and useful — find all the Ethiopian restaurants in the world!
September 20th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
You aren’t asking the right question, which is “which people have collectively wanted this?”
A majority of the people. Or, rather, separate majorities in each of thousands of cities and counties all over the country, where the kind of zoning laws and restrictions you don’t like have been affirmed and reaffirmed by the democratic process for decade after decade.
The fundamental fact that you still refuse to confront is that most people don’t want to live the way you want them to live. They don’t want “new urbanism.” They don’t want to get around by public transportation. You’d better find a way to come to terms with that, because it’s probably not going to change.
September 20th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
If this is what people wanted, then those restrictions wouldn’t exist, because alternatives wouldn’t have been built.
Ah yes. Once again, when the specific issue is land use density, Tyro magically transforms from his usual raving lefty idiot into a raving libertarian idiot, insisting that legal restrictions on density are unnecessary because market forces alone would produce the density most consistent with what people want.
September 20th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Too late, fuckface.
September 21st, 2009 at 6:45 am
The problem is that Americans generally don’t really seem to like to live in neighborhoods with *densities* as high as Brooklyn.
True. Nobody wants to live there. It’s too crowded.
September 21st, 2009 at 9:54 am
as everyone knows dense, walkable areas may work in Europe where nobody has children but it could never fly in the U.S. where people need to tote the kids around.
IMHO, having to tote a kid around has made me far more passionate about the benefits of dense, walkable areas.
The real limit on my 2 year old’s endurance while we’re running errands is the number of times I have to take him in and out of his car seat. Three seems to be the maximum number before he’s just had too much.
If I lived in a walkable environment, I could simply keep him in the same stroller the whole time, except for when he wanted to walk. It would be possible to do many more errands, with kid in tow, with fewer transitions between being strapped into one seat, and walking or being strapped into the seat of a grocery cart.
September 21st, 2009 at 12:29 pm
[...] aside, the point I would make about Frieberg in Saxony (pictured below) is that it’s really a kind [...]