(warning some language)

Edited October 22, 20213 yr by LlamaLawyer

 

On 10/22/2021 at 12:57 PM, LlamaLawyer said:

 

(warning some language)

I’ve seen a couple of this guy’s videos and I don’t care for them. He’s an obnoxious narrator. I also didn’t care for the fact that he says he “unironically” likes Cleveland. Nice backhanded compliment. Oh well, I’ll get over it. 

 

On 12/2/2021 at 3:25 PM, KJP said:

 

You can find the analysis for the 2020 election by the journalist who made that map here. It does make a lot of sense why different sections of the country vote the way they do.

This was posted in the transportation section. I think it belongs here...

 

Our Self-imposed Scarcity of Nice Places

 

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/11/3/our-self-imposed-scarcity-of-nice-places

 

Every advocate for making urban design more [pick one: walkable, bikeable, beautiful, lovable, inviting, human-scale] has at some point or another faced the charge of elitism. Virtually every feature of public space that makes it more pleasant to linger in, stroll through, or simply view, has at some point been associated by someone with gentrification, or simply culturally coded as upscale.

 

This belief is rooted in the following true observation: The best American examples of top-notch urbanism are mostly places inhabited by well-to-do Americans, and their real-estate prices and rents are usually prohibitive for most others. This includes the majority of places that are currently walkable, bikeable, have attractive human-scale architecture, have attractive greenery, aren't pockmarked with parking lots, and are full of small storefronts suited for local businesses...

 

There is abundant evidence that nearly the entirety of the U.S. and Canada are dramatically under-supplied, not just in quaint historic places, but in walkable urban places, period. It's our “shortage of cities“ that makes urbanism a hot commodity...

 

Scarcity Makes It Harder to Tell What Communities Really Want

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6290048695001#sp=show-clips

 

Bizarre Tucker Carlson rant includes several minutes of talking about how awful tall buildings are and how nobody actually wants to live in a dense city. Just thought you all would be interested to see it...

^It's not bizarre at all. This is part of the radical rights playbook to garner even more hate towards cities. They're preparing and prepping their base to attack.

 

It's ironic, because the true ugliness of the country lies mostly outside of city borders. Every suburb across the country virtually looks the same, filled with the same corny stores/restaurants. That isn't beauty, creativity or any sense of worth.

Edited January 5, 20223 yr by Clefan98

Plus the base loves hearing that kind of stuff so that they feel like they picked the side that "won".

20 minutes ago, Clefan98 said:

It's ironic, because the true ugliness of the country lies mostly outside of city borders. Every suburb across the country virtually looks the same, and has the same corny stores/restaurants. That isn't beauty, creativity or any sense of worth.

 

They also lack the independent "small businesses" that conservatives claim to love. Any rural highway exit in red America is the same chains run by megacorps ... Flying J, McDonald's, Taco Bell, Wal*Mart, etc.

That stuff "won" too.

1 hour ago, Clefan98 said:

^It's not bizarre at all. This is part of the radical rights playbook to garner even more hate towards cities. They're preparing and prepping their base to attack.

 

It's ironic, because the true ugliness of the country lies mostly outside of city borders. Every suburb across the country virtually looks the same, and has the same corny stores/restaurants. That isn't beauty, creativity or any sense of worth.

Actually, the irony is why I'm saying it's bizarre. I get the draw of "everybody-knows-everybody" small towns. But the push out of the cities created the suburbs rather than revitalizing small towns. That seems to be what current migration trends are doing as well, with highly suburbanized states like Florida, Utah, and Arizona seeing massive growth, while states that do actually have lots of relatively small towns (i.e. Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa) didn't grow the same way. Just look at the below map.

 

The small town experience of "everybody-knows-everybody" is much more common in the city than in suburban areas. When I lived in suburban Columbus, I ran into people I knew at restaurants or the grocery store maybe twice a year. In Cleveland Heights, it happens almost weekly.

 

So that's what is bizarre about his statement. People have lived in dense cities and small towns for ten thousand years. The ancient city of Uruk had maybe 50,000-100,000 people living in three square miles. That was over 5,000 years ago.

 

Suburbia, on the other hand, has existed for all of 70 years and is the most isolating possible residential structure.

2 hours ago, Clefan98 said:

^It's not bizarre at all. This is part of the radical rights playbook to garner even more hate towards cities. They're preparing and prepping their base to attack.

 

It's ironic, because the true ugliness of the country lies mostly outside of city borders. Every suburb across the country virtually looks the same, and has the same corny stores/restaurants. That isn't beauty, creativity or any sense of worth.

 

Considering that rural areas all over the country are dying out and depopulating- and those places are the heart of their base- it's always made sense for them to attack urban areas.  Furthermore, people who live in a city gain more exposure to different kinds of people, which means they're not as scary and it's harder to hate them.  That's another problem for the Right, which builds its support on driving that kind of division.  Suburbs are turning more blue as they diversify/densify.

Edited January 5, 20223 yr by jonoh81

LOL people hate tall buildings? Someone better tell Tucker's friend and noted skyscraper developer DJT about that. 

5 hours ago, LlamaLawyer said:

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6290048695001#sp=show-clips

 

Bizarre Tucker Carlson rant includes several minutes of talking about how awful tall buildings are and how nobody actually wants to live in a dense city. Just thought you all would be interested to see it...

 

So he doesn't like his current workplace?

 

6 minutes ago, ColDayMan said:

 

So he doesn't like his current workplace?

 

 

Tucker Carlson's complaint about tall building reminds me of that old quote, "no body goes there anymore, it's too crowded."

 

^ Did any of you actually watch the whole thing? He makes some magnificent points, some of which are concerns many in urbanist circles share. For example, he says "accountants are doing our exterior design." I'm pretty sure many posters here agree with that one most of the time.

 

On density, he says that cities are loud, chaotic, and crowded. They are, and some people prefer that. His theory is that we're being misled into thinking that is desirable, in terms of human nature. It's almost an old school environmentalist hippie perspective.

 

And re: supertalls, I know I've read on this very site many suggestions that the sweet spot for density is ~5 stories of mixed use. 50 story condo towers can be just as impersonal as the worst exurbs.

8 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

^ Did any of you actually watch the whole thing? He makes some magnificent points, some of which are concerns many in urbanist circles share. For example, he says "accountants are doing our exterior design." I'm pretty sure many posters here agree with that one most of the time.

 

On density, he says that cities are loud, chaotic, and crowded. They are, and some people prefer that. His theory is that we're being misled into thinking that is desirable, in terms of human nature. It's almost an old school environmentalist hippie perspective.

 

And re: supertalls, I know I've read on this very site many suggestions that the sweet spot for density is ~5 stories of mixed use. 50 story condo towers can be just as impersonal as the worst exurbs.

I watched the whole thing. Tucker usually sprinkles a few interesting and legitimate points in his rants. That doesn't change the fact that what he is saying overall is absurd. I mean, c'mon, his basic point is we need to have less immigration because the U.S. would be better off with half as many people. That kind of population loss would be a disaster. He doesn't really believe that, he's just trying to stir up anti-immigrant sentiment.

13 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

 

 

On density, he says that cities are loud, chaotic, and crowded. They are, and some people prefer that. His theory is that we're being misled into thinking that is desirable, in terms of human nature. It's almost an old school environmentalist hippie perspective.

 

Cities aren't loud; cars are. And when you don't have cars filling the streets cities aren't crowded. A person takes up 2 square feet whereas a car takes 160.

10 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

 

Cities aren't loud; cars are. And when you don't have cars filling the streets cities aren't crowded. A person takes up 2 square feet whereas a car takes 160.

This is a silly point that often gets repeated on this site. Yes cars are loud and take up space, and yes cities would be quieter and less crowded without them, but compared to what? They will still be louder and more crowded than the middle of nowhere 100% of the time. They will be louder and more crowded than rural areas 90% of the time, and they will be louder and more crowded than suburbs 80% of the time. You can be pro-density without pretending it doesn't have any tradeoffs. 

Sounds travel miles in rural areas since there aren't any structures to divert the sound. Rural areas teem with noisy Harleys 10 months a year. Everybody saws the mufflers off their trucks and put howling mud tires on. Chainsaws and guns.

30 minutes ago, Ethan said:

This is a silly point that often gets repeated on this site. Yes cars are loud and take up space, and yes cities would be quieter and less crowded without them, but compared to what? They will still be louder and more crowded than the middle of nowhere 100% of the time. They will be louder and more crowded than rural areas 90% of the time, and they will be louder and more crowded than suburbs 80% of the time. You can be pro-density without pretending it doesn't have any tradeoffs. 

 

48 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

On density, he says that cities are loud, chaotic, and crowded. They are, and some people prefer that. His theory is that we're being misled into thinking that is desirable, in terms of human nature.

 

I think about this a lot re: the suburbs. People are sold the idea that quite, spaced-out, natural environments are very desirable and the way to have that lifestyle that is to buy a house in the suburbs. But by buying a house in the suburbs, you might get a very small slice of a natural environment in the form of a 1/3 acre lot but you have to deal with the noise, chaos, and congestion of arterial roads and shopping center parking lots (and in pre-covid times, a long daily commute to the office on congested highways). So to me it's the worst of both worlds: you don't get the peace and quiet and remoteness of rural areas, and you don't get the many benefits that only cities can provide either. And yet many aspects of our society "mislead" people by teaching them that the suburbs are the default human environment, even though it didn't even exist a century ago in anything resembling the current definition of the term.

And they barely exist when not heavily subsidized by the government or are poverty areas like in the rest of the world.

1 hour ago, Ethan said:

This is a silly point that often gets repeated on this site. Yes cars are loud and take up space, and yes cities would be quieter and less crowded without them, but compared to what? They will still be louder and more crowded than the middle of nowhere 100% of the time. They will be louder and more crowded than rural areas 90% of the time, and they will be louder and more crowded than suburbs 80% of the time. You can be pro-density without pretending it doesn't have any tradeoffs. 

 

He's 110% right, which makes your entire post silly.

 

During the peak of COVID and shutdowns, downtown Cleveland was just as quiet, if not quieter, than any suburb I visited during that time. Yet downtown Cleveland's population (16-18k) is the size of an average suburb like Bay Village or Broadview Heights.

 

The only reasonable conclusion is cars = noise.

 

Not including the wind in this video, American suburbs are louder than European cities:

 

 

 

 

Edited January 5, 20223 yr by Clefan98

34 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

 

Thanks! That was an interesting video! It doesn't dispute anything I said, and I don't disagree with any of it, so I'm not sure why you shared it with me, but thanks. 

1 hour ago, taestell said:

 

I think about this a lot re: the suburbs. People are sold the idea that quite, spaced-out, natural environments are very desirable and the way to have that lifestyle that is to buy a house in the suburbs. But by buying a house in the suburbs, you might get a very small slice of a natural environment in the form of a 1/3 acre lot but you have to deal with the noise, chaos, and congestion of arterial roads and shopping center parking lots (and in pre-covid times, a long daily commute to the office on congested highways). So to me it's the worst of both worlds: you don't get the peace and quiet and remoteness of rural areas, and you don't get the many benefits that only cities can provide either. And yet many aspects of our society "mislead" people by teaching them that the suburbs are the default human environment, even though it didn't even exist a century ago in anything resembling the current definition of the term.

 

The entire suburban experiment is going to slowly fail over the next 20-30 years. Think about all of the housing structures and out-dated office buildings that won't be worth saving.  Homes built post 1960ish are going to crumble and won't be economically worth the cost of an extensive rehab, which will certainly be needed by then.

 

A lot of my friends that moved out to Olmsted, North Ridgeville and Avon deal with constant basement flooding/sewer backup, and many other issues due to quickly and cheaply built cluster home construction. I can tell you most are regretting their decision to leave the city/inner rings.

 

Even the new builds going up in today's suburbs aren't built to last. One way suburban builders cut costs is by using 2x4's for exterior walls, which inherently lowers the quality. This is awful for wind loads, energy consumption, bearing capacities, etc.

 

The city of Cleveland requires all builders to use 2x6's on exterior walls. This not only makes the house considerably more stronger, it's also great for green energy and lower utility bills. These houses, like the ones built in 1904, will be worth saving 100 years from now.

 

The same type of abandonment and disinvestment that happened to cities across the rust belt, will eventually leak into areas where buildings are no longer viable to upkeep.

Edited January 5, 20223 yr by Clefan98

41 minutes ago, Ethan said:

Thanks! That was an interesting video! It doesn't dispute anything I said, and I don't disagree with any of it, so I'm not sure why you shared it with me, but thanks. 

 

A city can be louder than a secluded suburb or rural area without being loud. You're pretending that just because something is louder than something else that it is then too loud. We can do things to make our cities more livable, too. This entire thread is about the future of America and its cities, not the status quo of its cities. So we can retrofit cities to become more hospitable places to live.

 

There are many rural areas that are significantly louder than urban communities at night. By no means all (probably not even most), but some rural areas are really loud when the birds, frogs, and insects start going nuts for half the year at sunrise and sunset or throughout the night. Not every urban area is built next to a highway or filled with late-night bars and restaurants. You can get some downright peaceful neighborhoods surrounded by good density.

 

And chances are if you live in the suburbs, you are pretty close to a 40mph arterial street that you can hear from your house (since most people are going 55mph). In suburban Cincinnati, most major arterials seem to be about 1 mile apart from each other in a loose grid. You're at most 1/2 mile away from 4 different arterials (if you're right in the middle of the block), and more than likely within 1/4 mile of 1 or 2 of them since you probably don't live in the very center of the super block.

 

Again, I'm not disputing that on average cities are louder, because they are, but people have a poor idea of just how loud the less urbanized/dense places can be.

1 minute ago, ryanlammi said:

 

A city can be louder than a secluded suburb or rural area without being loud. You're pretending that just because something is louder than something else that it is then too loud. We can do things to make our cities more livable, too. This entire thread is about the future of America and its cities, not the status quo of its cities. So we can retrofit cities to become more hospitable places to live.

 

There are many rural areas that are significantly louder than urban communities at night. By no means all (probably not even most), but some rural areas are really loud when the birds, frogs, and insects start going nuts for half the year at sunrise and sunset or throughout the night. Not every urban area is built next to a highway or filled with late-night bars and restaurants. You can get some downright peaceful neighborhoods surrounded by good density.

 

And chances are if you live in the suburbs, you are pretty close to a 40mph arterial street that you can hear from your house (since most people are going 55mph). In suburban Cincinnati, most major arterials seem to be about 1 mile apart from each other in a loose grid. You're at most 1/2 mile away from 4 different arterials (if you're right in the middle of the block), and more than likely within 1/4 mile of 1 or 2 of them since you probably don't live in the very center of the super block.

 

Again, I'm not disputing that on average cities are louder, because they are, but people have a poor idea of just how load less urbanized/dense places can be.

I agree with basically all of this too. The original point was in reference to a comparison between cities and less dense areas. That is the context of my reply. (Also, I've found that many people who grew up in rural areas have a much lower standard for what constitutes 'loud' than people who live in urban areas).

 

My point more broadly is that it's a pointless argument which will convince absolutely no one on the fence. To be more convincing it helps to cede a bit of ground, let in some nuance, and then people are more willing to hear what you have to say.

 

Instead of: "cities aren't loud, cars are!" Say "yes, cities can be a bit loud at times, but a lot of that noise is actually due to cars. By focusing on increasing public transportation and reducing road speeds the noise of cities can be greatly reduced"  This then presents a great opportunity transition into other talking points or a broader conversation. However if you lead off with a comment like "cities aren't loud, cars are". No one is going to listen to you. Nor should they.

 

I've been in third world markets without a car in sight, trust me, they're loud, because people make noise! If there are a lot of people around it gets loud.

 

Also, the other half of my post was talking about cars and crowdedness. Crowded is just a pejorative form of density. Same denotation, different connotation. You can't have density without it being crowded to some people.

 

Again, I'm not really sure that we really disagree on anything here, besides style. The nuanced version of the point you're making basically agrees with the nuanced version of my point. Which is kind of the meta point I'm making, it's important not to lose that nuance. 

56 minutes ago, Ethan said:

Also, the other half of my post was talking about cars and crowdedness. Crowded is just a pejorative form of density. Same denotation, different connotation. You can't have density without it being crowded to some people.

 

Not true.  Crowding is when the built environment- from streets and sidewalks to public transit to housing, commercial spaces and parks, are not built with enough capacity to handle the amount of usage.  A shotgun shack with 10 people living in one room is less dense than a 4 story, 25 unit apartment building full of singles living in 1 bedroom apartments on the same amount of land.  But it is more crowded.

3 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

 

Cities aren't loud; cars are. And when you don't have cars filling the streets cities aren't crowded. A person takes up 2 square feet whereas a car takes 160.

 

I lived on a hill in Cincinnati, overlooking downtown and the west end. The car/truck sound was a white noise; always there but subconsciously tuned out because it was so constant.

 

The sounds that are perceived as "loud" are disruptive ones. In my experience that was loud talkers (it was always crazy to me how I could hear some conversation from 1000 feet away at times - probably echos off buildings?), the streetcar chime, metro bus station announcements/chime/air suspensions, and gunshots, which woke me up once or twice a week.

 

In my opinion it's buses that are the worst offenders in terms of noise pollution. They make so many different noises between the diesel engines, tires on the asphalt, air suspensions, announcements, and beeps - they hit almost every audible pitch and frequency simultaneously.

 

Has Cincinnati converted over a lot of buses to CNG like Columbus has over the past 10 years? Those are a lot quieter -- you mostly just hear the turbo. Of course in Dayton when the buses run in the parts of town with the cantenary they get a lot quieter too.

 

School buses are definitely the worst about noise and you don't get to avoid them by living in the suburbs. Well at least some suburbs. "STAND CLEAR OF THE SCHOOL BUS! THE SCHOOL BUS IS ABOUT TO MOVE! BEEPBEEPBEEPBEEP!" Groveport-Madison does not offer bus service to kids that live within 2 miles of their school since the town is walkable and their budget is small. Lots of kids walking and on bikes.

12 hours ago, Ram23 said:

In my opinion it's buses that are the worst offenders in terms of noise pollution. They make so many different noises between the diesel engines, tires on the asphalt, air suspensions, announcements, and beeps - they hit almost every audible pitch and frequency simultaneously.

 

My guess is that the public transit vehicle fleet in the US will be electrified over the next decade or two, even without heavy central government pushes like the ones that have caused the rapid electrification of the public transit vehicle fleet in China.  You'll still have tires on the asphalt and air suspensions, but the groaning of a diesel engine constantly trying to get up to speed again after every stop will go away.

 

14 hours ago, ryanlammi said:

There are many rural areas that are significantly louder than urban communities at night. By no means all (probably not even most), but some rural areas are really loud when the birds, frogs, and insects start going nuts for half the year at sunrise and sunset or throughout the night. Not every urban area is built next to a highway or filled with late-night bars and restaurants. You can get some downright peaceful neighborhoods surrounded by good density.

 

Those natural sounds don't sound as wrong as the noise of a nearby arterial street, with the trash and utility trucks clanging through in the middle of the night or well before dawn.

 

Also, FWIW, you can get plenty of those natural wildlife sounds in a relatively developed urban or suburban setting, too, if you live near a park.  Some forms of wildlife may need the greater expanse of a truly rural area, but you can find even fairly large fauna (including deer, which I know don't make much noise but still just show that human habitats don't drive out all large animals) in many sprawling suburbs.  And I live in West Akron and we've got hawks, owls, and all kinds of other woodland creatures because of Sand Run Park being nearby.  They do sometimes make noises at night but they're not the kind that are bothersome.

 

By far the sound that the human ear is designed to pick up and focus on is other human voices.  Whether you're in an apartment in the densest part of the city two floors above the sidewalk, or in a trailer park miles from any major city, hearing a public argument between two other people on any topic, no matter how completely unrelated or unconnected to it you are, will attract your attention and likely stick in your mind negatively.  We ruled out a street to live on because we heard someone shouting on a nearby porch.  To this day, I can't remember what it was about (some problem with a friend or family member).  The only thing I retain is the reaction--"no way, let's go look at the next place on our list."

 

15 hours ago, Clefan98 said:

The entire suburban experiment is going to slowly fail over the next 20-30 years. Think about all of the housing structures and out-dated office buildings that won't be worth saving.  Homes built post 1960ish are going to crumble and won't be economically worth the cost of an extensive rehab, which will certainly be needed by then.

 

A lot of my friends that moved out to Olmsted, North Ridgeville and Avon deal with constant basement flooding/sewer backup, and many other issues due to quickly and cheaply built cluster home construction. I can tell you most are regretting their decision to leave the city/inner rings.

 

Even the new builds going up in today's suburbs aren't built to last. One way suburban builders cut costs is by using 2x4's for exterior walls, which inherently lowers the quality. This is awful for wind loads, energy consumption, bearing capacities, etc.

 

The city of Cleveland requires all builders to use 2x6's on exterior walls. This not only makes the house considerably more stronger, it's also great for green energy and lower utility bills. These houses, like the ones built in 1904, will be worth saving 100 years from now.

 

The same type of abandonment and disinvestment that happened to cities across the rust belt, will eventually leak into areas where buildings are no longer viable to upkeep.

 

Plenty of neighborhoods built 100 years ago weren't built to last, either.  It's just that we don't remember them because they didn't last, and 100 years have passed.

 

I would definitely prefer that building codes stress building to last, especially in under-the-hood "bones" of structures that are not easily inspected by buyers (and are more relevant to communities as collective entities than to individual buyers because the individual buyers don't plan to still be living there, or anywhere else, in 100 years).  But let's not romanticize 1920s-era buildings or look at that era through rose-tinted glasses when the our only contemporary experience with buildings of that era are the very best of the crop, since those are the only ones still standing 100 years later.

 

15 hours ago, taestell said:

 

I think about this a lot re: the suburbs. People are sold the idea that quite, spaced-out, natural environments are very desirable and the way to have that lifestyle that is to buy a house in the suburbs. But by buying a house in the suburbs, you might get a very small slice of a natural environment in the form of a 1/3 acre lot but you have to deal with the noise, chaos, and congestion of arterial roads and shopping center parking lots (and in pre-covid times, a long daily commute to the office on congested highways). So to me it's the worst of both worlds: you don't get the peace and quiet and remoteness of rural areas, and you don't get the many benefits that only cities can provide either. And yet many aspects of our society "mislead" people by teaching them that the suburbs are the default human environment, even though it didn't even exist a century ago in anything resembling the current definition of the term.

 

This is also why, or at least very related to why, providing for parks is a critical element of urban planning.  If you have 10 acres to work with, you can make 30 houses on 1/3 acre lots, or you can make 50 houses on 0.1-acre lots, build basically to the property line on those lots (0.1 acre is still more than 4300sf, so you still have a decent footprint to work with if you use it efficiently), and still have 5 acres left for a public park that everyone can use on top of a relatively comfortable amount of living space.  It's more efficient because the vast majority of suburban lawns go unused the vast majority of the time, so it's truly rare that you'll have the residents of all 50 houses overcrowding the park even though they technically could.

 

20 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Considering that rural areas all over the country are dying out and depopulating- and those places are the heart of their base- it's always made sense for them to attack urban areas.  Furthermore, people who live in a city gain more exposure to different kinds of people, which means they're not as scary and it's harder to hate them.  That's another problem for the Right, which builds its support on driving that kind of division.  Suburbs are turning more blue as they diversify/densify.

 

That's one narrative.  Maybe it will even prove true over time.  Maybe not.  I've encountered quite a few people that are easier to hate, not harder, after being exposed to them.  My nosy neighbor across the street wouldn't be the bane of my existence if either she or we moved away.  But we all know I'm just a grouchy, benighted conservative.  However, beyond just me, it may be that the change in the political tint of many regions is due to transplants as much or more than changing minds among the native-born population, including when they move.  Moving from Kirkersville to Columbus and Akron did not turn me into a liberal; it turned Columbus and Akron 0.0001% more conservative.  On the national level, Georgia would not have gone blue without the transplant-fueled growth of Atlanta; Texas is still red but less so, and that fade has a lot to do with California transplants to Austin, who might be on the conservative side for California but not necessarily for Texas.  Similarly on the intrastate level: Young urban liberals that finally reach the age when many people have always moved out to the suburbs to raise families are, well, moving out to the suburbs to raise families.  That doesn't suddenly turn them into stodgy conservatives; they bring their beliefs and values with them.  That hardly makes them "not as scary and [] harder to hate" for the old guard who blames the newcomers for "spoiling how this town used to be" or some such; how do you think NIMBY and anti-development dynamics manifest?

 

The polls today obviously could change a great deal between now and November, of course, but hold onto that "the suburbs are turning blue as they diversify" theory.  You may be eating those words this fall.  The suburbs will be even more diverse in 2022 than they were in 2020 or 2016; whether they are more blue is still very much an open question.

2 hours ago, Gramarye said:

 

My guess is that the public transit vehicle fleet in the US will be electrified over the next decade or two, even without heavy central government pushes like the ones that have caused the rapid electrification of the public transit vehicle fleet in China.  You'll still have tires on the asphalt and air suspensions, but the groaning of a diesel engine constantly trying to get up to speed again after every stop will go away.

I would agree with this especially when the majority of legacy auto makers are heading to end production of internal combustion powered vehicles.

 

2 hours ago, Gramarye said:

The polls today obviously could change a great deal between now and November, of course, but hold onto that "the suburbs are turning blue as they diversify" theory.  You may be eating those words this fall.  The suburbs will be even more diverse in 2022 than they were in 2020 or 2016; whether they are more blue is still very much an open question.

 

Disagree on this...the more Trumpy the Trumpster candidates try to Trump, the more they will turn off women.  Also there are a lot of baby boomers dying off in the suburbs, shrinking the Fox News faithful in these areas.   

3 hours ago, Gramarye said:

But let's not romanticize 1920s-era buildings or look at that era through rose-tinted glasses when the our only contemporary experience with buildings of that era are the very best of the crop, since those are the only ones still standing 100 years later.

 

blah blah blah

 

Unless you're architect or structural engineer, your opinion holds about as much weight as a Ryan Home.

Edited January 6, 20223 yr by Clefan98

18 minutes ago, Clefan98 said:

 

blah blah blah

 

Unless you're architect or structural engineer, your opinion holds about as much weight as a Ryan Home.

 

It doesn't take an architect or structural engineer to recognize survivorship bias.

16 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

It doesn't take an architect or structural engineer to recognize survivorship bias.

 

Your beliefs reinforce this proof that it does. 

Just now, Clefan98 said:

 

Your beliefs reinforce this proof that it does. 

 

You are entitled to your beliefs about my beliefs.

3 hours ago, Gramarye said:

Plenty of neighborhoods built 100 years ago weren't built to last, either.  It's just that we don't remember them because they didn't last, and 100 years have passed.

 

Since there are plenty, can you offer up any examples?

Just now, Gramarye said:

 

You are entitled to your beliefs about my beliefs.

 

The difference is my beliefs are derived from working with engineers and architects, daily.

An enormous amount of fantastic buildings were torn down for parking or short-term assets such as downtown shopping malls. So the survivorship bias argument is damaged by that but bolstered by the fact that, sure, there were crummy shacks 100 years ago too. The wood back then was far better than we see today for one thing, but then again we don't want to use up that kind of wood today or deforest for it.

8 minutes ago, Clefan98 said:

 

Since there are plenty, can you offer up any examples?

Irishtown bend, the shanty town where the Shoreway is, the original flats, much of the original Slavic village and Tremont. Alot of hastily made working housing throughout the city that honestly needs to be demoed, Trust me. I've probably been in more houses in the city of Cleveland than most people on this forum. I will say that most of the expendable units are single family homes. A good amount of the apartments above retail were built to last. 

So little of that quality of wood exists.  A hundred years ago pine was a solid wood for construction because it was old growth- not like the weak, warped junk that most houses are made of now..  Also, lumber has gotten smaller- that 2x4 isn't actually 2x4.  But it used to be.

 

And even the high end new homes aren't built to last.  I remember a friend's home in high school that was almost brand new, $500k+ (in the 90's, probably $1 mil+ now) and the decorative column at the doorway could be pushed out of place with 1 hand.  Just trash.  But a lot of it!

Just now, KFM44107 said:

Irishtown bend, the shanty town where the Shoreway is, the original flats, much of the original Slavic village and Tremont. Alot of hastily made working housing throughout the city that honestly needs to be demoed, Trust me. I've probably been in more houses in the city of Cleveland than most people on this forum. I will say that most of the expendable units are single family homes. A good amount of the apartments above retail were built to last. 

 

I'd love to know how many of these structures needed demolished due to shotty work/materials vs. not being properly maintained during the disinvestment years (1970s - 2000s)

6 minutes ago, Clefan98 said:

 

I'd love to know how many of these structures needed demolished due to shotty work/materials vs. not being properly maintained during the disinvestment years (1970s - 2000s)

Just from foundations alone probably thousands. Any house for the right amount of money can last far longer than its useful life. But should it? Does the cost equal the value?

 

 

44 minutes ago, KFM44107 said:

58 minutes ago, Clefan98 said:

 

Since there are plenty, can you offer up any examples?

Irishtown bend, the shanty town where the Shoreway is, the original flats, much of the original Slavic village and Tremont. Alot of hastily made working housing throughout the city that honestly needs to be demoed, Trust me. I've probably been in more houses in the city of Cleveland than most people on this forum. I will say that most of the expendable units are single family homes. A good amount of the apartments above retail were built to last. 

  

In Akron, Middlebury and much of the portions of the neighborhoods immediately surrounding it.  Also, while I don't know this for a fact, I would consider it at least very likely to apply to the working-class neighborhoods razed to put in OH-59.  Note that this is not an endorsement of that generations-ago decision, so don't take this in that direction--just an bare observation that those ramshackle, cookie-cutter buildings in those neighborhoods were not the survivors, while the wealthier and more stately Merriman Hills and Fairlawn Heights were.

 

In Columbus, Franklinton.

 

  

42 minutes ago, X said:

So little of that quality of wood exists.  A hundred years ago pine was a solid wood for construction because it was old growth- not like the weak, warped junk that most houses are made of now..  Also, lumber has gotten smaller- that 2x4 isn't actually 2x4.  But it used to be.

 

I was aware of this from an ancient reddit TIL but I still haven't gotten the backstory: When did the 2 x 4 become the 1.5 x 3.5, anyway?  Especially if the quality of the wood went downhill, too?

16 minutes ago, Clefan98 said:

I'd love to know how many of these structures needed demolished due to shotty work/materials vs. not being properly maintained during the disinvestment years (1970s - 2000s)

 

Maintenance issues are almost always the reason buildings need to be torn down, and water infiltration is typically the cause. But the same will be true for anything built in the 1970s and on. A 2x4 framed suburban house built in the 70s can last over 100 years with routine and preventative maintenance. If water is kept out and moisture/vapor is somewhat controlled, 2x4 framed house isn't going to fall apart just because it gets old.

 

For comparison sake, the first house I owned was an 1870s wood framed, wood clapboard clad house. The majority of homes like that in Cincinnati have been torn town, usually because they go without maintenance for some time and water infiltration and unconditioned interior air lead to rot and structural failure. These homes fail a little bit faster than masonry supported buildings because the envelope needs more frequent maintenance and is more prone to leakage than brick. Mine and a few like it survived because they are perched on a hillside with a great view and have been continuously lived in and properly maintained since they were built. But even grandiose masonry buildings of the same age will eventually fail without maintenance. Water rots the roof and floor joists, the floor joists fail, and the masonry walls they laterally brace fail with them.

 

I live in a 1990s house now. It's a 2x6 framed house entirely clad in brick. So long as this house is maintained and kept weather-tight, there's no reason it won't last as long as that 1870s house.

I think the panic over modern architecture is somewhat overblown. I just happened to stumble upon a Strong Towns article called Boring Buildings, Great Places the other day and it aligns with what I observed in my visits to Japan and Korea. Most buildings are nothing remarkable but because of the vibrant street life and merchants occupying the ground floors, you don't really notice.

I never noticed for years how ramshackle Kwoloon was in Bloodsport since the action and Van Dammage moved so quickly