Article is a year old and ever-more important as we approach the next election: where you live is an indicator of how you will vote....

 

 

 

 

 

12 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

 

With all due respect, the majority of Americans didn't see "sprawl" as a problem before Covid.  The virus has merely confirmed their suspicions, and all the learned studies aren't going to change many minds.   Perception and comfort are everything. 

 

Planners are seen as favoring density because density requires more planning, and I'm not so sure that suspicion isn't justified.   It's closely related to SIM City Syndrome.   If the battle against sprawl wasn't lost already, it is now.   For at least the next couple decades.

 

The challenge now is to find ways to get people to come into the denser areas for shorter periods of time.   Some may and will decide it's not so bad, and move there.   But successful cities will embrace and accommodate the sprawl.

 

 

7 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

But successful cities will embrace and accommodate the sprawl.

 

LOL what?  Nearly every city in America has been doing that for 70+ years, and look how that's worked out.    

11 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

If the battle against sprawl wasn't lost already, it is now.   For at least the next couple decades.

 

Part of the plan in combating global warming is curtailing the unsustainable growth patterns. That crisis is only on hold due to a global pandemic. 

51 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

But successful cities will embrace and accommodate the sprawl.

 

Yea, just look how successful Detroit is.

Society has an incredibly short-term memory. Californians keep building homes in fire-prone areas. Houstonians didn't change their behavior after Hurricane Harvey. People will forget about coronavirus in 3 years and things will keep going on as they have been. Plus, the people who have been most vocal about "urban areas spreading COVID" are mostly people who wouldn't live in urban areas anyway and are just looking for ways to reinforce their lifestyle choice. 

That and a lot of people who aren't sprawl-worshippers know that crowds rather than density are what spreads the virus. Otherwise Taiwan wouldn't be at 7 deaths and cases wouldn't have been far worse in NYC's "sprawl" rather than its densest areas.

1 hour ago, jjakucyk said:

 

LOL what?  Nearly every city in America has been doing that for 70+ years, and look how that's worked out.    

I mean, many of the fastest growing cities are sprawling messes in the sunbelt and the west.  Columbus is the same.

Columbus is getting denser. They haven't annexed any land in decades.

4 minutes ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

I mean, many of the fastest growing cities are sprawling messes in the sunbelt and the west.  Columbus is the same.

 

Sure. If you're only metric for success is population growth, many cities in the sunbelt are doing quite well. It is easy to add population when you annex all the rural areas around you and have limitless flat land to build sprawl. 

 

But not all population growth is created equal. Many of the fastest growing cities in the world are in China and India, and the quality of life in those places are abysmal. 

 

Here is an alternative metric. US metros by per capita income:

 

1 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, D.C-Virginia-Maryland MSA 5,949,178 $47,411

2 San Jose-Santa Clara-Sunnyvale, California MSA 1,918,944 $40,392

3 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, Washington MSA 3,611,644 $39,322

4 San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, California MSA 4,122,177 $38,355

5 Boston–Worcester–Providence, Massachusetts-Rhode Island MSA 5,819,100 $37,311

6 Honolulu, Hawaii MSA 921,000 $36,339

7 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, Minnesota MSA 3,478,415 $35,388

8 Hartford, Connecticut MSA 1,183,110 $34,310

9 Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, Colorado MSA 2,871,068 $32,399

10 Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, Oregon MSA 2,345,318 $31,377

 

That list tells a very different story. 

 

Here's another metric. Educational attainment for metros with at least 200k people:

 

Boulder, CO

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA

San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA

Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT

Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH

Durham-Chapel Hill, NC

Fort Collins, CO

Columbia, MO

Raleigh, NC

 

A mix of large, dense metros and college towns.

 

 

10 minutes ago, BigDipper 80 said:

Columbus is getting denser. They haven't annexed any land in decades.

 

Really very little additional residential sprawl since the 2008 crash. Some in Lewis Center.

32 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

US metros by per capita income:

I guess that works if you don't like poor people.

Edited July 8, 20204 yr by TH3BUDDHA

22 minutes ago, BigDipper 80 said:

Columbus is getting denser. They haven't annexed any land in decades.

Sprawl in the sense that I'm talking about doesn't just include annexation by the city.  It also includes suburban development.  Look at the growth up in Delaware county.  Sprawling mess.  But, overall good for central Ohio.

33 minutes ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

Sprawl in the sense that I'm talking about doesn't just include annexation by the city.  It also includes suburban development.  Look at the growth up in Delaware county.  Sprawling mess.  But, overall good for central Ohio.

 

I was getting ready to say, every time I head down there the development around and north of the Polaris area has crept even more up I-71. Aren't they getting ready to build a new off ramp off Africa Road? Also, didn't Columbus annex some land around the Polaris area or north side in the last few years? If so, good for them. Truth of the matter is there are still Sprawl developments getting built at the edges of every city in America. 

51 minutes ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

I guess that works if you don't like poor people.

 

This is a weird take on what I posted. 

 

Do people that try to fight back against growing inequality hate poor people? 

 

Do people that point out that there is lower poverty in Nordic countries and that we should emulate them hate poor people? 

 

Do people who are trying to eradicate poverty hate poor people? 

 

I absolutely want there to be less poor people. Not because I hate poor people, but because I hate poverty. 

 

Truth of the matter is, when a region is wealthier (i.e. high per capita income, higher GDP per capita, higher median household income, lower poverty rates) there are more resources to help bring more folks at the lower end of the wealth spectrum out of poverty. If you are a poor person born in Boston you are much more likely to end up middle class or wealthy than a poor person born in Atlanta. 

1 hour ago, DEPACincy said:

 

This is a weird take on what I posted. 

 

Do people that try to fight back against growing inequality hate poor people? 

 

Do people that point out that there is lower poverty in Nordic countries and that we should emulate them hate poor people? 

 

Do people who are trying to eradicate poverty hate poor people? 

 

I absolutely want there to be less poor people. Not because I hate poor people, but because I hate poverty. 

 

Truth of the matter is, when a region is wealthier (i.e. high per capita income, higher GDP per capita, higher median household income, lower poverty rates) there are more resources to help bring more folks at the lower end of the wealth spectrum out of poverty. If you are a poor person born in Boston you are much more likely to end up middle class or wealthy than a poor person born in Atlanta. 

Ok?  But, more population gain would always be a good thing in these scenarios, right?  Tens of thousands of people flocking to a city must mean it's doing something right, no? The social issues of inequality would be addressed independently.  You used per capita income and said "not all population growth is created equal" as a counter point to population growth being an indicator of a successful city.  What were you suggesting then?  I frequently see people on this very forum arguing that population losses in certain areas of Cleveland are ok because they are being replaced by higher income people.  While you seem to be trying to skirt around it, it seems you hold this same mentality.

Edited July 8, 20204 yr by TH3BUDDHA

12 minutes ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

Ok?  But, more population gain would always be a good thing in these scenarios, right?  Tens of thousands of people flocking to a city must mean it's doing something right, no? The social issues of inequality would be addressed independently.  You used per capita income and said "not all population growth is created equal" as a counter point to population growth being an indicator of a successful city.  What were you suggesting then?  I frequently see people on this very forum arguing that population losses in certain areas of Cleveland are ok because they are being replaced by higher income people.  While you seem to be trying to skirt around it, it seems you hold this same mentality.

 

My point was that population growth is a very crude measure and, while notable, cannot tell the full story of whether a place is successful. You have to look at other variables.

 

Also, I'd add that cities that continue to sprawl will face a reckoning when the growth dries up. They'll be full of low-density infrastructure that will need to be maintained and not enough taxpayers to maintain it because they are spread out over such a large area. The ROI on sprawl is negative in the long run.

17 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

My point was that population growth is a very crude measure and, while notable, cannot tell the full story of whether a place is successful.

Yea, and you used many of the most expensive cities in this country to prove your point.  Places where cost of living has skyrocketed so out of control that only the rich can afford a decent life there.  Not sure how that can be used as an argument for "better cities" unless you just prefer higher income people because they sure haven't increased the per capita income due to pulling people up out of poverty.  Many of the fastest growing cities are growing, in part, because people are fleeing that cost of living.

 

22 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

They'll be full of low-density infrastructure

Struggling to fund infrastructure isn't exclusive to low density.  I'd do a little reading on the current state of infrastructure in NYC and Chicago.

5 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

But successful cities will embrace and accommodate the sprawl.

 

 

Sprawl means a similar number of people (taxpayers) spreading over a larger and larger area, thereby necessitating more miles of roadway, powerlines, water, sewer, more fire stations, more police stations (and/or more miles put on police vehicles), more demand for schoolbuses, etc. 

 

I fail to see how can that be financially sustainable over the long term.  What is your definition of a "successful" city?  And can you explain how cities could "embrace and accommodate the sprawl" to be successful?

 

 

^Groveport refuses to annex any single-family lot over 1/2 acre due to the vampiritic effects of too-large lot sizes on municipalities. Of course if a really expensive house goes up it's not so bad, but that's not the kind of houses that go up here.

37 minutes ago, Foraker said:

 

Sprawl means a similar number of people (taxpayers) spreading over a larger and larger area, thereby necessitating more miles of roadway, powerlines, water, sewer, more fire stations, more police stations (and/or more miles put on police vehicles), more demand for schoolbuses, etc. 

 

I fail to see how can that be financially sustainable over the long term.  What is your definition of a "successful" city?  And can you explain how cities could "embrace and accommodate the sprawl" to be successful?

 

I certainly get the geometry (area increases geometrically with radius) and resources-per-area argument.  However, I think there's still room to differentiate between two types of sprawl: that which hollows out the urban core and that which merely adds onto it.  Ohio clearly has significant problems with the former.  New York and San Francisco, not so much.

 

As for the definition of a "successful" city: Isn't that kind of a vague question to ask anyone?  We could brainstorm a dozen qualities a successful city should have, and most people would agree on most but not all of them, and some of them would be very difficult to quantify.  No one is holding up the examples of the decaying sprawl of Detroit as an example of a "successful city," but that doesn't mean that all low-density development is preordained to end up like that.

39 minutes ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

Yea, and you used many of the most expensive cities in this country to prove your point.  Places where cost of living has skyrocketed so out of control that only the rich can afford a decent life there.  Not sure how that can be used as an argument for "better cities" unless you just prefer higher income people because they sure haven't increased the per capita income due to pulling people up out of poverty.  Many of the fastest growing cities are growing, in part, because people are fleeing that cost of living.

 

Even when adjusted for cost of living the list is similar:

 

1. San Jose

2. San Fran

3. Boston

4. Hartford

5. Seattle

6. DC

7. St. Louis

8. Nashville

9.Minneapolis

10. Houston

 

I have many friends who have nice lives in some of the most "expensive" cities in the US. Are housing costs an issue? Yes. But the idea that "cost of living has skyrocketed so out of control that only the rich can afford a decent life there" is just some silly Fox News talking point. One of my best friends lives in Manhattan and makes roughly the same amount of money as I do. At the end of the day, he has more disposable income than me because he doesn't spend thousands of dollars per year owning and maintaining a car. 

 

1 hour ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

Struggling to fund infrastructure isn't exclusive to low density.  I'd do a little reading on the current state of infrastructure in NYC and Chicago.

 

This is an easy concept. If NYC's residents were spread over twice or three times the area they currently are, would it be more or less expensive to maintain the infrastructure to support them? I'm not sure why you're digging at NYC or Chicago here. Go to NYC and then go to Detroit and tell me which one has better infrastructure. 

14 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

I certainly get the geometry (area increases geometrically with radius) and resources-per-area argument.  However, I think there's still room to differentiate between two types of sprawl: that which hollows out the urban core and that which merely adds onto it.  Ohio clearly has significant problems with the former.  New York and San Francisco, not so much.

 

As for the definition of a "successful" city: Isn't that kind of a vague question to ask anyone?  We could brainstorm a dozen qualities a successful city should have, and most people would agree on most but not all of them, and some of them would be very difficult to quantify.  No one is holding up the examples of the decaying sprawl of Detroit as an example of a "successful city," but that doesn't mean that all low-density development is preordained to end up like that.

 

But we're talking about empirical data here, not just perceptions. High-density, mixed-use development provides the most bang for your buck from a taxes collected vs. taxes spent standpoint. Low-density residential is on the opposite end of that spectrum. This has been studied to death so there is no debate to be had. Now it is true, maybe you consider other things more important. That's fine. But the whole discussion started with the statement that "successful" cities are those that adapt to sprawl. The truth is that sprawl is a drag on local economies, quality of life, and the environment. That doesn't meet my definition of successful. If you have another definition of "successful" that you'd like to put forward we can discuss that.

 

And it is true that sprawl is more of an issue in a no-growth or negative-growth metro, but even in a high-growth metro it is inefficient. For even new resident of Atlanta, it is more fiscally advantageous to have them move closer to the urban core than it is to have them move farther away. 

8 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Even when adjusted for cost of living the list is similar:

 

1. San Jose

2. San Fran

3. Boston

4. Hartford

5. Seattle

6. DC

7. St. Louis

8. Nashville

9.Minneapolis

10. Houston

 

Btw, only two metros on this list have costs of living lower than the national average. Nashville and St. Louis.

7 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

But we're talking about empirical data here, not just perceptions. High-density, mixed-use development provides the most bang for your buck from a taxes collected vs. taxes spent standpoint. Low-density residential is on the opposite end of that spectrum. This has been studied to death so there is no debate to be had. Now it is true, maybe you consider other things more important. That's fine. But the whole discussion started with the statement that "successful" cities are those that adapt to sprawl. The truth is that sprawl is a drag on local economies, quality of life, and the environment. That doesn't meet my definition of successful. If you have another definition of "successful" that you'd like to put forward we can discuss that.

 

And it is true that sprawl is more of an issue in a no-growth or negative-growth metro, but even in a high-growth metro it is inefficient. For even new resident of Atlanta, it is more fiscally advantageous to have them move closer to the urban core than it is to have them move farther away. 

 

I'm not debating the point about the taxes collected:spent ratio; I'm well aware of the evidence on that.  But the "quality of life" issue is much more subjective, and as you note, people may consider other things more important.  Higher density makes it easier to economically offer more public services at scale, but not everyone needs that and some people don't even want it.  But more importantly, the "quality of life" argument is absolutely alien to people who consider density a negative per se, who aren't moving to the exurbs to get better services or schools or to escape perceived lack of safety (and before you jump on that point, I agree that cities are not as dangerous and exurbs are not as safe as the stereotypes suggest), it's specifically to get away from people.  These are the people who talk about how "overcrowded" the country is despite us having a fairly low-density country overall.

16 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

But the idea that "cost of living has skyrocketed so out of control that only the rich can afford a decent life there" is just some silly Fox News talking point.

Ummm, this is a widely accepted thing by many people outside of Fox News.  

 

17 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

One of my best friends lives in Manhattan and makes roughly the same amount of money as I do. At the end of the day, he has more disposable income than me

Frankly, if this is true, it sounds like you aren't very good at budgeting.

 

17 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

Go to NYC and then go to Detroit and tell me which one has better infrastructure. 

Well, considering NYC has a much larger city and metro land area than Detroit, I'm not sure how that helps your argument that being less spread out means better infrastructure.

46 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

High-density, mixed-use development provides the most bang for your buck from a taxes collected vs. taxes spent standpoint. Low-density residential is on the opposite end of that spectrum.

 

And yet the lobbying efforts of those low-density residents have led to them paying the same (or nearly the same) rates for most utilities despite them costing more to provide.  They receive more tax-funded projects than they pay for, especially roads, highways, and sewers.  They also take advantage of city/urban services and cultural institutions that they may not pay for in anything but a token way, but demand unfettered access too.  It's city residents subsidizing suburbanites, and on a larger scale metro residents subsidizing rural.  It's the opposite of the Fox News narrative, but it's demonstrably true.  If someone wants to live a suburban/exurban/rural lifestyle, why should anyone else help pay for it?  In most cases it's literally the poor subsidizing the rich.  

46 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

I'm not debating the point about the taxes collected:spent ratio; I'm well aware of the evidence on that.  But the "quality of life" issue is much more subjective, and as you note, people may consider other things more important.  Higher density makes it easier to economically offer more public services at scale, but not everyone needs that and some people don't even want it.  But more importantly, the "quality of life" argument is absolutely alien to people who consider density a negative per se, who aren't moving to the exurbs to get better services or schools or to escape perceived lack of safety (and before you jump on that point, I agree that cities are not as dangerous and exurbs are not as safe as the stereotypes suggest), it's specifically to get away from people.  These are the people who talk about how "overcrowded" the country is despite us having a fairly low-density country overall.

 

And that's fine, but we need to be honest about how much it costs to subsidize those people who want to live in the exurbs but still have access to the big city.

46 minutes ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

Frankly, if this is true, it sounds like you aren't very good at budgeting.

 

I do just fine, thank you. It is just a fact of life that owning a car is a HUGE portion of everyone's budget that has to own one. I got a fairly sizable raise when I moved to Ohio, but it was basically a wash because I bought a car. That's fine. I made plenty to sustain my lifestyle before, and I continue to do so. But I'd love to be putting the money that goes into my car into my 401k instead. That's what my buddy gets to do since he lives in Manhattan. 

 

48 minutes ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

Well, considering NYC has a much larger city and metro land area than Detroit, I'm not sure how that helps your argument that being less spread out means better infrastructure.

 

It isn't about the size of the metro area, it's about density. I thought that was obvious. 

 

Just now, DEPACincy said:

I do just fine, thank you.

 

Just now, DEPACincy said:

I got a fairly sizable raise when I moved to Ohio

 

1 minute ago, DEPACincy said:

I bought a car

It sounds like you fell victim to lifestyle creep.  Often happens when people get a raise.  I do well in tech and have received raises as well, but don't increase my lifestyle drastically because of it and have plenty of money to save.  I also own a car and it's a small percentage of my monthly income compared to the difference I would pay for living in a comparable quality apartment in Manhattan.  It's also important to note "comparable."  You may have been ignoring this when mentioning your friend.  Your friend may be living at a similar cost to you in Manhattan, but that doesn't mean much if they are living in a broom closet while you live in a spacious living space.

 

5 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

It isn't about the size of the metro area, it's about density. I thought that was obvious.

So you're saying sprawl doesn't matter then as long as it's dense?  Exactly.  This proves my original point.   Population growth is the mark of a successful city.  Because, even the sprawly messes have increasing density when they are gaining tens of thousands of people a year.  At one point, New York annexed more land, and if you had been around at the time, you probably would have called it out for sprawling.  But, it had the population growth to fill it in and now you mark it as a success of urban density.  No matter how compact a city is, it will be struggling if it has stagnated or is in population decline.

21 minutes ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

Population growth is the mark of a successful city.  Because, even the sprawly messes have increasing density when they are gaining tens of thousands of people a year.  At one point, New York annexed more land, and if you had been around at the time, you probably would have called it out for sprawling.  But, it had the population growth to fill it in and now you mark it as a success of urban density.  No matter how compact a city is, it will be struggling if it has stagnated or is in population decline.

 

If the population is growing such that the density (people/area) remains constant or grows even while the area increases, that isn't sprawl.  Sprawl is not just an increase in a city's footprint.  It's an increase in the footprint without the necessary tax base (people) to support the increase. 

 

I think we are all (almost all) in agreement.

 

1 hour ago, Gramarye said:

 

I'm not debating the point about the taxes collected:spent ratio; I'm well aware of the evidence on that.  But the "quality of life" issue is much more subjective, and as you note, people may consider other things more important.  Higher density makes it easier to economically offer more public services at scale, but not everyone needs that and some people don't even want it.  But more importantly, the "quality of life" argument is absolutely alien to people who consider density a negative per se, who aren't moving to the exurbs to get better services or schools or to escape perceived lack of safety (and before you jump on that point, I agree that cities are not as dangerous and exurbs are not as safe as the stereotypes suggest), it's specifically to get away from people.  These are the people who talk about how "overcrowded" the country is despite us having a fairly low-density country overall.

 

I'm not really sure what you're point is Gramarye.  If we're discussing sprawl, the reason it's a problem is because of the taxes collected/spent ratio to provide city services to low-density areas. 

 

The people who want to get away from people don't mind well water, gravel roads, septic systems, etc.  Those people are not the problem and a suburb outside the city with five acre minimums, gravel lots, well water, and septic systems are not what we are talking about when we say sprawl is a problem.

 

It's the people who want paved multi-lane highways, city water, city sewer, and city trash collection, AND object to the high taxes needed to pay for such amenities to their low-density residences that don't support the taxes needed to provide those services.  In paving roads and providing city services to those developers we have created our sprawl-problem.

1 hour ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

 

 

It sounds like you fell victim to lifestyle creep.  Often happens when people get a raise.  I do well in tech and have received raises as well, but don't increase my lifestyle drastically because of it and have plenty of money to save. 

 

I did no such thing. I went from not owning a car to owning a modest used car. My point is that it cost thousands of dollars per year to insure, maintain, and drive a car. It doesn't matter how modest the car is. I can't even believe you're trying to argue that. The average cost of owning a sedan in the US is around $9k per year. Mine is substantially lower than that but it is still several hundred dollars per month out of my pocket. That's the point I'm making.

1 hour ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

 

So you're saying sprawl doesn't matter then as long as it's dense?  Exactly.  This proves my original point.   Population growth is the mark of a successful city.  Because, even the sprawly messes have increasing density when they are gaining tens of thousands of people a year.  At one point, New York annexed more land, and if you had been around at the time, you probably would have called it out for sprawling.  But, it had the population growth to fill it in and now you mark it as a success of urban density.  No matter how compact a city is, it will be struggling if it has stagnated or is in population decline.

 

What are you even arguing? Who here said that any new growth is sprawl? Sprawl is low density, auto-oriented growth at the edge of a city or metro. New, mixed use, dense development is not sprawl. TOD is not sprawl. When your geographic footprint is increasing rapidly while population is growing more slowly or not at all, that's sprawl.

4 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

One of my best friends lives in Manhattan and makes roughly the same amount of money as I do. At the end of the day, he has more disposable income than me because he doesn't spend thousands of dollars per year owning and maintaining a car.

 

There seem to be a lot of things off about this statement. First, your rent plus utilities should be at least half, if not a third of those you're friend pays in Manhattan for anything that remotely resembles similar living conditions. And if we're talking about owning property, a ballpark comparison can't really even be made. For the price of the cheapest, entry-level studio apartments in Manhattan, you can have anything from a high-end home in a gentrifying neighborhood to a starter home in some of best school districts in Ohio.

 

So far as the car - spending thousands of dollars per year is a choice. You can get a ~10+ year old used car for $5000, drive it for 5+ years, and spend nothing else on it but $50/month on gas and insurance plus $30 for an annual oil change. Most things that break on a car can be fixed by watching Youtube videos and/or using your library card to access the Chilton Library. Spending any more than about $1000/year on a car is a personal choice - you value something about the car that is more than just getting you from A to B reliably.

3 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

 

There seem to be a lot of things off about this statement. First, your rent plus utilities should be at least half, if not a third of those you're friend pays in Manhattan for anything that remotely resembles similar living conditions. And if we're talking about owning property, a ballpark comparison can't really even be made. For the price of the cheapest, entry-level studio apartments in Manhattan, you can have anything from a high-end home in a gentrifying neighborhood to a starter home in some of best school districts in Ohio.

 

So far as the car - spending thousands of dollars per year is a choice. You can get a ~10+ year old used car for $5000, drive it for 5+ years, and spend nothing else on it but $50/month on gas and insurance plus $30 for an annual oil change. Most things that break on a car can be fixed by watching Youtube videos and/or using your library card to access the Chilton Library. Spending any more than about $1000/year on a car is a personal choice - you value something about the car that is more than just getting you from A to B reliably.

 

Yes my friend lives in an apartment and I have more space. But he gets to live in Manhattan, with all the amenities it affords. So it's not really comparable. My only point here was that the other poster was wrong that only the ultra rich can afford to live in Manhattan. You can live comfortably on a middle class salary in Manhattan if you rent a modest apartment and don't own a car. You guys seems to want to pick apart aspects of this that aren't even remotely close to the point. I never said you could own a 4 bedroom house in NYC for the same price as Cincinnati.

 

As far as your points about car ownership I'm not even going to argue with you. It's not even remotely close to true and the discussion has been had here a million times. No need to pull my hair out arguing with a troll again. 

5 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

 

So far as the car - spending thousands of dollars per year is a choice. You can get a ~10+ year old used car for $5000, drive it for 5+ years, and spend nothing else on it but $50/month on gas and insurance plus $30 for an annual oil change. Most things that break on a car can be fixed by watching Youtube videos and/or using your library card to access the Chilton Library. Spending any more than about $1000/year on a car is a personal choice - you value something about the car that is more than just getting you from A to B reliably.

$5k car driven 5 years is $1k/yr right there, not counting insurance, gas, oil change, and the inevitable repairs on a car that age. 

I've been working on cars all my life, and most people aren't really suited to fixing their own car even with liberal amounts of YouTube, Chilton, Haynes and advice from the parts store. I have a hard enough time with it even with my own garage, decades of experience on a hobbyist level, thousands of dollars in tools, three years on a local NASCAR team and membership on 5 automotive forums.

Edited July 9, 20204 yr by GCrites80s

2 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

What are you even arguing? Who here said that any new growth is sprawl? Sprawl is low density, auto-oriented growth at the edge of a city or metro. New, mixed use, dense development is not sprawl. TOD is not sprawl. When your geographic footprint is increasing rapidly while population is growing more slowly or not at all, that's sprawl.

 

In San Diego if you say "density" everyone thinks you mean "sprawl," as if those things are the same. 

 

They also think if we added more highway lanes that would fix the horrendous traffic problem....such bad planning out here. It's very unfortunate the city has grown up so reliant on the interstates for getting anywhere. 

 

 

1 hour ago, GCrites80s said:

I've been working on cars all my life, and most people aren't really suited to fixing their own car even with liberal amounts of YouTube, Chilton, Haynes and advice from the parts store. I have a hard enough time with it even with my own garage, decades of experience on a hobbyist level, thousands of dollars in tools, three years on a local NASCAR team and membership on 5 automotive forums.

 

I do a fair amount of my own maintenance, but it is really a marginal savings overall, and the big stuff (and even some stuff that should be pretty basic maintenance) is moving further out of reach of home mechanics.  More and more of the tools you need are proprietary, for very specific things, and expensive.

4 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

I did no such thing. I went from not owning a car to owning a modest used car. My point is that it cost thousands of dollars per year to insure, maintain, and drive a car. It doesn't matter how modest the car is. I can't even believe you're trying to argue that. The average cost of owning a sedan in the US is around $9k per year. Mine is substantially lower than that but it is still several hundred dollars per month out of my pocket. That's the point I'm making.

How the hell are you paying 9k a year for a sedan?  I bought a brand new car last year and pay nowhere near that.  Like I said, bad budgeting.

Edited July 9, 20204 yr by TH3BUDDHA

24 minutes ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

How the hell are you paying 9k a year for a sedan?  I bought a brand new car last year and pay less than half of that per year.  Like I said, bad budgeting.

Let me google that for you:

 

According to Consumer Expenditures in 2019 by the U.S. Department of Labor's U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average vehicle costs $9,576 per year to own and operate. The breakdown of the figure comes to $4,054 for purchasing the vehicle, $1,968 in gasoline and motor oil expenses, and $3,554 in other vehicle-related costs.

 

In its 2018 Your Driving Costs survey, it summarizes the cost of gasoline, maintenance, insurance, license and registration, loan finance charges, and depreciation costs for a variety of vehicles. According to AAA, the average person spends $8,849 per year for the privilege of driving. The numbers also don't include the cost of parking.

 

9 minutes ago, Enginerd said:

Let me google that for you:

In its 2018 Your Driving Costs survey, it summarizes the cost of gasoline, maintenance, insurance, license and registration, loan finance charges, and depreciation costs for a variety of vehicles. According to AAA, the average person spends $8,849 per year for the privilege of driving. The numbers also don't include the cost of parking.

 

 

I don't think including depreciation (a noncash expense) is fair on this point.  But the rest is.  Including depreciation makes any comparison with non-owned forms of transportation (ridesharing, transit) inherently not apples-to-apples, not to mention not being what a typical reader is going to interpret as the meaning of what you're "paying" for driving when they say someone "pays" $9k/yr to own a car.

5 hours ago, Foraker said:

 

If the population is growing such that the density (people/area) remains constant or grows even while the area increases, that isn't sprawl.  Sprawl is not just an increase in a city's footprint.  It's an increase in the footprint without the necessary tax base (people) to support the increase. 

 

I think we are all (almost all) in agreement.

 

 

I'm not really sure what you're point is Gramarye.  If we're discussing sprawl, the reason it's a problem is because of the taxes collected/spent ratio to provide city services to low-density areas. 

 

The people who want to get away from people don't mind well water, gravel roads, septic systems, etc.  Those people are not the problem and a suburb outside the city with five acre minimums, gravel lots, well water, and septic systems are not what we are talking about when we say sprawl is a problem.

 

It's the people who want paved multi-lane highways, city water, city sewer, and city trash collection, AND object to the high taxes needed to pay for such amenities to their low-density residences that don't support the taxes needed to provide those services.  In paving roads and providing city services to those developers we have created our sprawl-problem.

 

Maybe that's what you're talking about, and if so, then yes, I think we can be in agreement on that.

 

That's not everyone's definition of "sprawl."  By this definition, for example, a lot of the townships outside Akron and Canton are not "sprawl."  They have well water and septic systems, and the only four-lane highway coming through is I-77 en route from Akron to Cleveland (OH-18 also forms the southern border of the township).  A lot of urbanists do consider Bath Township to be sprawl, though (certainly some that I know personally and interact with regularly, including on housing and planning issues).

13 minutes ago, Enginerd said:

Let me google that for you:

 

According to Consumer Expenditures in 2019 by the U.S. Department of Labor's U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average vehicle costs $9,576 per year to own and operate. The breakdown of the figure comes to $4,054 for purchasing the vehicle, $1,968 in gasoline and motor oil expenses, and $3,554 in other vehicle-related costs.

 

In its 2018 Your Driving Costs survey, it summarizes the cost of gasoline, maintenance, insurance, license and registration, loan finance charges, and depreciation costs for a variety of vehicles. According to AAA, the average person spends $8,849 per year for the privilege of driving. The numbers also don't include the cost of parking.

 

Just looking at the average doesn't take into account that many people make irresponsible choices in their pick of car, which is my main point.  Just because that is the average doesn't mean it NEEDS to be the average.  Many people live above their means.

Edited July 9, 20204 yr by TH3BUDDHA

For places like NYC, this topic of the costs of cars and whether going without one frees up a significant amount of budget to live in high-cost, high-density areas is one thing.

 

In most Ohio cities, though, even people who live in the heart of the urban cores cannot realistically go car-free.  Yes, some can.  But it's a sliver of the population and not easy for others to duplicate; the "low-hanging fruit" in terms of people who can live like that in Ohio cities probably already do.  My confident guess is that even most people living in downtown Cleveland own (or lease) cars.  Car ownership is not just for sprawlburbs in Ohio.

1 hour ago, X said:

 

I do a fair amount of my own maintenance, but it is really a marginal savings overall, and the big stuff (and even some stuff that should be pretty basic maintenance) is moving further out of reach of home mechanics.  More and more of the tools you need are proprietary, for very specific things, and expensive.

 

Yes. Changing your own oil saves maybe $20 but you have to get jackstands or ramps, a jack, an oil filter wrench, an oil pan, a wrench or ratchets/sockets, then take the old oil to the parts store to get recycled afterward. The main cost is the oil itself since it's not $1 a quart like it was in the '80s. Getting under a car on jackstands or even ramps really isn't all that safe, and you probably should have someone else there in case the worst happens. I only change my own oil on 4x4 trucks that don't require jacking and I haven't owned one of those in a long time. $20 isn't worth the risk plus the oil change places grease your suspension fittings, load test the battery, test your coolant for age, check the hard to access differential and top off fluids. Most individuals are only going to do "the thing that needs fixed".

 

An oil change place sure isn't as good as me at adjusting fuel and spark tables on a Tuned Port Injection system but they're way more efficient than me at the things they do.

 

And good luck diagnosing a modern car without the killer diagnostic tools that dealerships and specialty shops have. "But I have Google and my phone!" Good luck, buddy.

Edited July 9, 20204 yr by GCrites80s