58 minutes ago, GCrites said:

Housing in Cleveland is still double what it can be in Appalachia. I remember being at SSU and when the students from Cincinnati suburbs found out they could stay in Appalachia and buy a house for $50k after teaching a couple years of middle school they took it. They had seen their parents struggle to pay off the 250k mortgage their folks had in Anderson or whatever and saw a way out.

Not to mention, some people leave the east coast for land. They can buy a lot of it in Appalachia and be alone when they want to be. 

For independently wealthy people or retirees, sure, I can see some interest. But if you're of working age, why on earth would you intentionally live in such an impovershed region.

 

Articles like these feel like glorified advertorials. Wasn't there a DailyMail article several weeks ago about how Toledo is the best bang-for-your buck city in the US? No offense to Toledo, but that seems like a stretch.

 

They're just opinion pieces ultimately with a few biased facts here and there.

 

Edited June 17, 2024Jun 17 by TBideon

21 minutes ago, TBideon said:

Articles like these feel like glorified advertorials.

 

100%. These "everyone's moving to [x]" articles never really address that these smaller cities and rural areas simply don't have a lot of the cultural amenities of larger cities. So, if you don't care about those things, by all means, move to a more affordable region and save some money. But if you do care about being close to great restaurants, museums, concert venues that attract major touring artists, etc., you might be unhappy moving to the middle of Appalachia.

Reminds me of those articles where some cities offer a stipend for people to move there and work remotely. 

 

It's so desperate and shortsighted. What happens if the transplant loses their job or loses the remote option. It's not like those cities have other opportunities, else they wouldn't need these silly programs, so now the transplant is stuck in Tulsa or wherever. All for $5 or $10 thousand. 

1 hour ago, taestell said:

 

100%. These "everyone's moving to [x]" articles never really address that these smaller cities and rural areas simply don't have a lot of the cultural amenities of larger cities. So, if you don't care about those things, by all means, move to a more affordable region and save some money. But if you do care about being close to great restaurants, museums, concert venues that attract major touring artists, etc., you might be unhappy moving to the middle of Appalachia.

 

Appalachia is also a degree-in-the-trash type place unless you work remotely or can find something in the public sector.

Not to mention the horrible politicians and how lonely it can be to be the only person around who went to college. 

I don't feel like Cleveland and rural West Virginia are really comparable. If someone wants to live in West Virginia, that's great. It's a lovely state, and we should be happy, not jealous, if they're getting more residents.

 

Really, I don't really think most of Ohio can even be compared to West Virginia. You have to contextualize just how rural West Virginia is. There will always be land and homes for cheap way out in the middle of nowhere. It's pretty hard for me to believe that someone who chooses to live in rural West Virginia has a townhouse in Tremont as their second choice location. Other than the little spots that jut out near Pittsburgh and D.C., you're going to be quite far from a major city anywhere within WV. Look at this map of U.S. cities over 100K population and notice how none of them are remotely close to central W.VA

 

 

 

My family and I spent the weekend down in Hocking Hills three summers ago. It was uncomfortably quiet for me. Except for the trails to the rock formations and cliffs, there were few people. We left after dinner at about 8 pm, after trying hard to find anyplace open for dinner, passed through a couple of dead small towns on the way to I-77 and got back to Cleveland just after 10 pm. The amount of people out and about, businesses open, activity, etc. was a stunning change of pace. It was totally invigorating. Now I realize I'm a city guy, but if people are the lifeblood of a region, I'd say Appalachia is in need of a transfusion.  But are there any donors??

2 hours ago, KJP said:

My family and I spent the weekend down in Hocking Hills three summers ago. It was uncomfortably quiet for me. Except for the trails to the rock formations and cliffs, there were few people. We left after dinner at about 8 pm, after trying hard to find anyplace open for dinner, passed through a couple of dead small towns on the way to I-77 and got back to Cleveland just after 10 pm. The amount of people out and about, businesses open, activity, etc. was a stunning change of pace. It was totally invigorating. Now I realize I'm a city guy, but if people are the lifeblood of a region, I'd say Appalachia is in need of a transfusion.  But are there any donors??

West Virginia is great for people who love the outdoors -- camping, hiking, backpacking, mountain-bike riding, rafting -- it could be a sort of a smaller Colorado-of-the-East.  Eco-tourism is a potential growth area.  It is hard to get to West Virginia though.  Passenger rail access to several "gateway" locations in the state, with resorts/hotels/restaurants/guide services near the stations could help.

50 minutes ago, Foraker said:

West Virginia is great for people who love the outdoors -- camping, hiking, backpacking, mountain-bike riding, rafting -- it could be a sort of a smaller Colorado-of-the-East.  Eco-tourism is a potential growth area. 

 

This is how it is perceived by residents of the D.C. metro.

I hope some of you youngins realize how far our cities have come with examples from New York's East village and Detroit shown below.

 

23 hours ago, Foraker said:

West Virginia is great for people who love the outdoors -- camping, hiking, backpacking, mountain-bike riding, rafting -- it could be a sort of a smaller Colorado-of-the-East.  Eco-tourism is a potential growth area.  It is hard to get to West Virginia though.  Passenger rail access to several "gateway" locations in the state, with resorts/hotels/restaurants/guide services near the stations could help.

The Cardinal just just so happens to have 3 stops around that new Federal park. Better service could lead to more tourism from the NEC.

So despite all our riches, America, maybe this is why so many people are unhappy?

 

 

On 6/18/2024 at 1:17 AM, TBideon said:

For independently wealthy people or retirees, sure, I can see some interest. But if you're of working age, why on earth would you intentionally live in such an impovershed region.

 

Articles like these feel like glorified advertorials. Wasn't there a DailyMail article several weeks ago about how Toledo is the best bang-for-your buck city in the US? No offense to Toledo, but that seems like a stretch.

 

They're just opinion pieces ultimately with a few biased facts here and there.

 

The byline on that article is literally “Realty.com”. So the epitome of an advertorial. 
 

I was going to call that out further up thread, but the article itself did actually seem to be written by a human and not a glorified press release. Still, though, all of the points stand.

 

Edited June 19, 2024Jun 19 by brtshrcegr

3 hours ago, KJP said:

So despite all our riches, America, maybe this is why so many people are unhappy?

I've been biking a LOT more after buying an ebike and one of the things that it has really impressed on me is how impersonal our built environment is. It's basically telling us that we should not be acknowledging each other's existence, let along interacting with each other.
(It's also damn near impossible to communicate with someone inside of a car.)

51 minutes ago, Dev said:

I've been biking a LOT more after buying an ebike and one of the things that it has really impressed on me is how impersonal our built environment is. It's basically telling us that we should not be acknowledging each other's existence, let along interacting with each other.
(It's also damn near impossible to communicate with someone inside of a car.)

 

That's the influence of the computer age and the people who built it.   They preferred to control their interactions and minimize random or forced ones.

 

The 'net has also made it a lot more "socially" acceptable to be an introvert.

 

"Less happy"?   Less social pressure to appear happy and outgoing perhaps.    Or loaded surveys seeking to make a point.

Self-service checkouts led to an increase in crime.

The robotaxi demo from Tesla I thought was interesting primarily for its focus on the death of the parking lot. That spurred a lot of thoughts in me about the future of urban design in a self-driving world.

 

I would be pretty pessimistic that something like robotaxi actually hits the roads in 2026 as Elon promised, but I think the writing has been on the wall for a while that something similar is eventually coming, probably not in two years, but probably less than twenty. There's a lot of eye rolling about self driving, because it's something the industry has been talking up and promising for more than a decade now. But if you look at Waymo/Tesla performance as of 2024, I think it's fair to say that self driving is pretty much solved and the remaining regulatory obstacles are probably higher than the remaining technical obstacles.

 

I'm personally pretty curious how a transition away from car ownership would affect development patterns. Although you certainly would increase car access, that increase would be pretty modest since 92% of households already have a car. On the other hand, due to efficiencies of scale, relying on autonomous taxis should be *vastly* cheaper than car ownership. So car ownership would almost certainly decline; it's not hard for me to imagine a version of 2050 where only 1 in 10 households own a car that they rely on for transportation. I would think that may increase demand for walkable neighborhoods because calling a taxi to drive a route you can walk in 10 minutes just feels much crazier than taking your own personal car to drive a route that you can walk in 10 minutes (something that people of course do all the time, and which diminishes the value of walkable neighborhoods). Certainly, parking minimums, parking garages, parking lots, oil-change places, auto-parts stores, car dealerships, and all sorts of auto-related infrastructure and business would become absurd and obsolete in a world with limited car ownership. Would people still want to go through drive throughs in a robotaxi, or would it become a rare curiosity like the drive-in movie?

 

What I would be more worried about is rail. I really like rail because it's inherently more carbon efficient than auto-based transportation as well as being *far* superior from a microplastic standpoint. In theory, rail also should be able to get you from point a to point b faster than auto-based travel, although that often isn't the case in this country. You've also got the level of comfort that comes from being able to walk around and use the restroom on many trains. And obviously in high-traffic situations, trains become a lot better from a time standpoint. All that being said, I could see trains doing very well, particularly as a shift away from car ownership removes the stigma of public transport and as easy access to cheap taxis improves access to train stops for those who don't live within walking distance (e.g., your commute may be a 4 minute robo-taxi ride followed by a 20-minute train ride). On the other hand, if the powers that be who are in charge of managing train-based travel aren't forward looking and careful, I could see a world where lots of rail systems get left in the dirt by extremely convenient and cheap autonomous taxi options.

 

A lot of the above is just speculation, but these seem to be considerations that any urbanist should be thinking about. It may not happen in 2026, but self driving will be here long before your new 30-year mortgage matures.

32 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

The robotaxi demo from Tesla I thought was interesting primarily for its focus on the death of the parking lot. That spurred a lot of thoughts in me about the future of urban design in a self-driving world.

 

I would be pretty pessimistic that something like robotaxi actually hits the roads in 2026 as Elon promised, but I think the writing has been on the wall for a while that something similar is eventually coming, probably not in two years, but probably less than twenty. There's a lot of eye rolling about self driving, because it's something the industry has been talking up and promising for more than a decade now. But if you look at Waymo/Tesla performance as of 2024, I think it's fair to say that self driving is pretty much solved and the remaining regulatory obstacles are probably higher than the remaining technical obstacles.

 

I'm personally pretty curious how a transition away from car ownership would affect development patterns. Although you certainly would increase car access, that increase would be pretty modest since 92% of households already have a car. On the other hand, due to efficiencies of scale, relying on autonomous taxis should be *vastly* cheaper than car ownership. So car ownership would almost certainly decline; it's not hard for me to imagine a version of 2050 where only 1 in 10 households own a car that they rely on for transportation. I would think that may increase demand for walkable neighborhoods because calling a taxi to drive a route you can walk in 10 minutes just feels much crazier than taking your own personal car to drive a route that you can walk in 10 minutes (something that people of course do all the time, and which diminishes the value of walkable neighborhoods). Certainly, parking minimums, parking garages, parking lots, oil-change places, auto-parts stores, car dealerships, and all sorts of auto-related infrastructure and business would become absurd and obsolete in a world with limited car ownership. Would people still want to go through drive throughs in a robotaxi, or would it become a rare curiosity like the drive-in movie?

 

What I would be more worried about is rail. I really like rail because it's inherently more carbon efficient than auto-based transportation as well as being *far* superior from a microplastic standpoint. In theory, rail also should be able to get you from point a to point b faster than auto-based travel, although that often isn't the case in this country. You've also got the level of comfort that comes from being able to walk around and use the restroom on many trains. And obviously in high-traffic situations, trains become a lot better from a time standpoint. All that being said, I could see trains doing very well, particularly as a shift away from car ownership removes the stigma of public transport and as easy access to cheap taxis improves access to train stops for those who don't live within walking distance (e.g., your commute may be a 4 minute robo-taxi ride followed by a 20-minute train ride). On the other hand, if the powers that be who are in charge of managing train-based travel aren't forward looking and careful, I could see a world where lots of rail systems get left in the dirt by extremely convenient and cheap autonomous taxi options.

 

A lot of the above is just speculation, but these seem to be considerations that any urbanist should be thinking about. It may not happen in 2026, but self driving will be here long before your new 30-year mortgage matures.

I agree with most of this, though I think the transition away from personal ownership of cars will be slower, even once self driving cars become the norm. What I think is more likely, particularly in the short term, is that the average number of cars per household decreases dramatically. There will be far fewer households with 3+ cars. There will be few teenagers with cars, and dual commuting households might be able to get away with one car if their schedules are sufficiently different, or if one's commute is sufficiently short to make rental practical. 

 

Commuting, combined with Americans predilection for self-reliance, is also why I'm skeptical of car ownership going away. Rental models don't work well when everyone wants to rent at the same time. 

 

There's also some interesting options with algorithms/AI for self driving cars to become public transportation. Share taxis are a common form of transportation in poorer parts of the world, and an AI or algorithm could plot routes that allow for continuously picking up and dropping people off with minimal inconvenience to the passengers. It's basically a smaller, more flexible, and more direct bus at that point. I'd be more worried about how this might impact buses than rail. 

 

Parking reduction though is a real possibility, and something that is worth getting excited about, even if it isn't the perfect urbanist solution. 

9 minutes ago, Ethan said:

Commuting, combined with Americans predilection for self-reliance, is also why I'm skeptical of car ownership going away. Rental models don't work well when everyone wants to rent at the same time.

I agree with most of what @Ethan said.  But this is critical -- and if you need a surplus of self-driving vehicles to cover the "surge" events -- end of a ballgame or concert, large employer shift changes, etc. -- you'll still need parking and there will be people who will retain private vehicles. 

 

An interesting idea (and perhaps worth some investment by a wealthy investment firm) would be "short bus" type vehicles that run AI-selected routes.  Perhaps with drivers at first, and later driverless.  But like rail, these services will work better in a dense urban neighborhood rather than low-density suburbia or rural areas.

@Ethan and @Foraker, I agree with most of what you said, but I think the difference in cost could potentially make this a bigger deal than one would expect. Also, the "surge" event issue is real, but that's probably where busses and vans come in to mitigate the problem.

 

1 hour ago, LlamaLawyer said:

it's not hard for me to imagine a version of 2050 where only 1 in 10 households own a car that they rely on for transportation. 

 

The bolded italicized part of what I said above is important. Musk estimated a cost per mile to the consumer of $0.40 for robotaxi. That figure immediately makes me think of the federal mileage rate, which is 67 cents a mile for 2024. In other words, if the Musk numbers worked out, robotaxi would be cheaper than driving your own car.

 

To take a tangible example of potential numbers, the average American drives 14,000 miles a year, which at $0.40 a mile translates to about $450 a month. So let's say Tesla wants to drive adoption of robotaxi and they make a plan that's like cell phones. In the "Tesla family plan" you get unlimited mileage to destinations within 50 miles of your house. It's $500 a month for you and $200 a month for each additional rider. Routes beyond 50 mile radius are priced at $0.40 a mile. 

 

So let's say you have a three-person household with two cars--one oldish car that they own outright and a newish car that has a car payment of $500 a month. Well this Tesla package looks like a really good deal to them. So they sell their newish car, and now for $900 a month (just $400 more than their car payment) they get basically chauffeured around almost all the time without ever having to worry about driving or maintenance. They probably drive their oldish car occasionally and use it for long trips. But they're already paying $900 a month for the Tesla service, so they feel like it would be a huge waste not to use it whenever they can. And it's just so nice to be able to read a book or scroll your phone instead of paying attention to the road. The owned car gets used less and less. If they have a big suburban house with a 2.5-car garage, the car that they own probably just sits there along with the other kinds of rarely used junk people keep in their garage. They are car owners, but not reliant on their car at all. This could be a very common situation.

 

There's also a world where all car ownership becomes much less common though. Let's say this family above is looking to move. There's a townhouse that's a nice option, but it's got no garage and no easy street parking. In 2024 that would have been a deal-breaker for this family. But in 2040, that's not nearly as big of a deal. After all, they can always just sell their old car. They don't really need it.

On 10/11/2024 at 11:32 AM, LlamaLawyer said:

@Ethan and @Foraker, I agree with most of what you said, but I think the difference in cost could potentially make this a bigger deal than one would expect. Also, the "surge" event issue is real, but that's probably where busses and vans come in to mitigate the problem.

 I understand, I'm just not convinced.  Remember when Uber was going to make it easy to ditch your car?  And now there are times when you can't get an Uber no matter how much you might be willing to pay. 

 

A Tesla-Taxi service would still have to have enough cars that you could get to work or the airport when you really need one.  If you can't reliably get a ride when you need one, you'll stick with your personal vehicle.  And who gets the one family car when both you and your spouse want to go in different directions?  We are addicted to the convenience of the personal automobile. 

 

It took 100 years to build out America to be low-density car-dependent, and it will take another 100 years to redesign away from that.  Meanwhile personal vehicles will continue to dominate.  

Uber enters the bus business.  Now if only they could use realtime AI routing we'd be on our way toward a transformative bus system.

https://www.travelandleisure.com/uber-announces-new-shuttle-options-airport-transport-8648891

Where will the US grow and shrink by 2100? A recent paper in nature has some useful projections informed by climate modeling. By 2100, they project half of US cities will lose population. 

 

One region that won't lose people, even under their more pessimistic projection? Florida

https://www.nature.com/articles/s44284-023-00011-7#MOESM1

 

2 hours ago, KJP said:

Where will the US grow and shrink by 2100? A recent paper in nature has some useful projections informed by climate modeling. By 2100, they project half of US cities will lose population. 

 

One region that won't lose people, even under their more pessimistic projection? Florida

https://www.nature.com/articles/s44284-023-00011-7#MOESM1

 

Not surprising.  There is a large portion of our population willing to make life decisions based only on weather.   They move there with no plan, no job, and live a miserable existence all to avoid a little snow.   So weak...  

8 hours ago, KJP said:

Where will the US grow and shrink by 2100? A recent paper in nature has some useful projections informed by climate modeling. By 2100, they project half of US cities will lose population. 

 

One region that won't lose people, even under their more pessimistic projection? Florida

https://www.nature.com/articles/s44284-023-00011-7#MOESM1

 

But there is a lot of red over Cleveland/Cuyahoga - meaning slowing depopulation of different degrees of red color - while the green color - growing population is found in our outlying counties.  If the region remains static - that is still a great sign compared to the recent past decades of embarassing flight- but we need to begin the work that will prove their study inaccurate for Cleveland/Cuyahoga by making some major wholesale changes to prop up the region's mothership or host city/county.  Please note that this study painted a dark green blob over central Ohio meaning amazing population growth will continue.  Why let only C-bus get all of the climate chaos future investments and benefits - there is plenty to pursue for us too. We have to keep up and hit the gas now. This climate modeling study could be useful to our planners and our political leaders to rationalize directing even more public resources to the Center City as the outlying counties will do fine as along as the host city/county is not on life support (a Brook Park dome will only exacerbate the problem).

9 hours ago, KJP said:

Where will the US grow and shrink by 2100? A recent paper in nature has some useful projections informed by climate modeling. By 2100, they project half of US cities will lose population. 

 

One region that won't lose people, even under their more pessimistic projection? Florida

https://www.nature.com/articles/s44284-023-00011-7#MOESM1

 

 

I think this is generous for Florida. Given the rising cost of living there, the insurance collapse, the increasingly bad climate change effects... I think Florida's best growth years are potentially already behind it, or will be in the next decade. 

I can picture the methy inner parts losing people due to lack of job choices but Orlando and especially Miami have a future. Miami is such an aspirational city for much of the rest of the country. Moving to Zephyrhills on the other hand isn't going to pay off.

3 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

I think this is generous for Florida. Given the rising cost of living there, the insurance collapse, the increasingly bad climate change effects... I think Florida's best growth years are potentially already behind it, or will be in the next decade. 

Just anecdotal, but I know of two people who moved out this past year, one to NYC and another to North Carolina.  Opposite ends of the political spectrum as well so the "issues" seem to be affecting everybody.  Of course a lot of others continue to flock in.

7 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

I think this is generous for Florida. Given the rising cost of living there, the insurance collapse, the increasingly bad climate change effects... I think Florida's best growth years are potentially already behind it, or will be in the next decade. 

 

And there are solid numbers behind what you're saying.

 

Miami MSA:

2000 - 5,007,564 - 23.5%

2010 - 5,564,635 - 11.1%

2020 - 6,138,333 - 10.3%

 

Tampa Bay Area

2010 - 2,783,243 - 16.2%

2020 - 3,175,275 - 14.1%

 

Orlando MSA

 

2000 - 1,644,561 - 34.3%

2010 - 2,134,411 - 29.8%

2020 - 2,673,376 - 25.3%

 

Same for DUUUUVAAAAL, Sarasota, etc.  Even the legendary, incomparable Fort Myers-Cape Coral has basically cut in half:

 

Fort Myers MSA

2010- 618,754 - 40.3%

2020 - 760,822 - 23.0%

 

So yeah, Florida isn't exactly trending in a high-growth future but they are still blowing most of us out the water.  Now Texas on the other hand...wowzers.

On 12/6/2024 at 11:31 PM, KJP said:

Where will the US grow and shrink by 2100? A recent paper in nature has some useful projections informed by climate modeling. By 2100, they project half of US cities will lose population. 

 

One region that won't lose people, even under their more pessimistic projection? Florida

https://www.nature.com/articles/s44284-023-00011-7#MOESM1

 

And yet, even in the authors' discussion of climate change they expect Miami to continue growing by 2100 -- while other studies indicate that Miami will be underwater by 2100.  I have a hard time imagining both scenarios playing out.  If Miami is mostly underwater, I would expect some pretty dramatic population decline (probably to another Florida city's advantage).

1 hour ago, Foraker said:

And yet, even in the authors' discussion of climate change they expect Miami to continue growing by 2100 -- while other studies indicate that Miami will be underwater by 2100.  I have a hard time imagining both scenarios playing out.  If Miami is mostly underwater, I would expect some pretty dramatic population decline (probably to another Florida city's advantage).

Even if the climate plays out as predicted by the most pessimistic studies. Miami will not be underwater. It may become a Dutch style Island, but infrastructure will be built to keep the water out. It's simply becoming too valuable to surrender to nature. 

 

A similar situation is the Mississippi and New Orleans. The delta has wanted to move for a long time. We decided that nature's whims weren't acceptable in this case and force the river to maintain its past course. 

16 minutes ago, Ethan said:

Even if the climate plays out as predicted by the most pessimistic studies. Miami will not be underwater. It may become a Dutch style Island, but infrastructure will be built to keep the water out.

 

 

The streets will be flooding this week, the challenges they'll face in 80 years will be much greater

https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/miami-florida-king-tides-explained-how-they-work-timing-and-more-21330441

 

I think you might be overly optimistic.  The cost will be astronomical. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/miami-floods-sea-level-rise-solutions-2018-4

 

 

57 minutes ago, Foraker said:

 

 

The streets will be flooding this week, the challenges they'll face in 80 years will be much greater

https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/miami-florida-king-tides-explained-how-they-work-timing-and-more-21330441

 

I think you might be overly optimistic.  The cost will be astronomical. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/miami-floods-sea-level-rise-solutions-2018-4

 

 

I might be, but many, many developers are still choosing to build in Miami. They may not be considering quite as far out as 2100, but they I'm sure they are doing so with consideration of likely long term market trends, of course that will include potential impacts of climate change. They could all be wrong, but many smart people have put a lot of money betting on the medium to long term future of Miami. 

2 hours ago, Ethan said:

We decided that nature's whims weren't acceptable 

 

That's pretty much one of the definitions of civilization.

Miami will be 60 percent under water by the year 2060, according to researchers. The main culprit: climate change.

Scientists at the University of Miami predict the Magic City has a little over 30 years before the water takes over.

 

The sea water is rising at a dramatic rate so much so insurance companies, like Farmers Insurance, are quiet-quitting the Sunshine State.

 

By 2040, sea levels are expected to be 10 to 17 inches higher than the levels in the year 2000, according to the Unified Sea Level Rise Projection for Southeast Florida Regional Climate Compact.

 

https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/will-miami-be-underwater-someday/3119902/

1 hour ago, Ethan said:

I might be, but many, many developers are still choosing to build in Miami.

 

A lot of investors and developers are already shifting their focus to less vulnerable regions, signaling that climate concerns are already influencing decisions. Furthermore, the popularity of an action doesn't inherently validate its sustainability or long-term wisdom. 

Edited December 9, 2024Dec 9 by Clefan98

2 hours ago, Ethan said:

I might be, but many, many developers are still choosing to build in Miami. They may not be considering quite as far out as 2100, but they I'm sure they are doing so with consideration of likely long term market trends, of course that will include potential impacts of climate change. They could all be wrong, but many smart people have put a lot of money betting on the medium to long term future of Miami. 

I think there are quite a few "really smart people" who are uninformed about climate change or just choose not to "believe" in climate change.  After all, the smartest guy in the world, our President Elect, and south Florida property owner, says it's a hoax.

 

Watch the insurance companies, many of whom are exiting Florida or raising their rates significantly -- insurance costs might be what slows or halts construction in Miami in the future. 

34 minutes ago, Foraker said:

I think there are quite a few "really smart people" who are uninformed about climate change or just choose not to "believe" in climate change.  After all, the smartest guy in the world, our President Elect, and south Florida property owner, says it's a hoax.

 

Developers are also known for prioritizing short-term profits over long-term risks, especially if they believe they can sell properties before significant climate impacts materialize.

5 hours ago, Clefan98 said:

 

A lot of investors and developers are already shifting their focus to less vulnerable regions, signaling that climate concerns are already influencing decisions. Furthermore, the popularity of an action doesn't inherently validate its sustainability or long-term wisdom. 

You may be right, but I'm not basing anything on popularity here. I'm just saying that people don't site buildings on a whim. Lots of research goes into it. More than the average person on this forum has done or has time to do. Developers generally don't care about anything except their investment. For one reason or another developers have basically zero concern about building in Miami. That may change in the future. It could be that we just aren't close enough to high water levels for it to ward off developers. But when developers stop building, Miami should be worried. Until then I'll have absolutely zero concern about Miami's medium term future. Long term may be another matter. 

14 hours ago, Foraker said:

I think there are quite a few "really smart people" who are uninformed about climate change or just choose not to "believe" in climate change.  After all, the smartest guy in the world, our President Elect, and south Florida property owner, says it's a hoax.

 

 

Yeah, his Martha's Vineyard property would seem even more vulnerable.  

 

Oh yeah, that's the other ex-President.

I'm guessing that most are counting on the public sector to bail them out of their bad decisions when things go south.  Either through infrastructure investment, insuring the insurers, or some other sort of subsidy.

16 minutes ago, X said:

I'm guessing that most are counting on the public sector to bail them out of their bad decisions when things go south.  Either through infrastructure investment, insuring the insurers, or some other sort of subsidy.

 

Or they don't think that 0.25 to 0.50" a year is neccesarily unmanageable even if things indeed continue at that rate.

50 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

Or they don't think that 0.25 to 0.50" a year is neccesarily unmanageable even if things indeed continue at that rate.

 

The current rate doesn’t negate the potential for rapid changes. Real estate markets can be slow to react to risk until a tipping point is reached, such as a major hurricane or a sudden spike in sea-level rise, after which property values would decline greatly.

Edited December 10, 2024Dec 10 by Clefan98

11 hours ago, Ethan said:

You may be right, but I'm not basing anything on popularity here. I'm just saying that people don't site buildings on a whim. Lots of research goes into it. More than the average person on this forum has done or has time to do. Developers generally don't care about anything except their investment. For one reason or another developers have basically zero concern about building in Miami. That may change in the future. It could be that we just aren't close enough to high water levels for it to ward off developers. But when developers stop building, Miami should be worried. Until then I'll have absolutely zero concern about Miami's medium term future. Long term may be another matter. 

 

Yeah, zero concern isn't realistic. The statement "developers have basically zero concern" is an over-generalization and not supported by any evidence.

 

Developers and investors in Miami are already:

• Paying higher insurance premiums as climate risks are priced into the market.
• Factoring in additional costs for flood mitigation (e.g., elevated construction).
• Advocating for and investing in infrastructure upgrades (e.g., seawalls, pumps) to protect their investments.

These actions indicate that concerns exist currently as cost-management rather than avoidance of Miami altogether.

 

While it’s true that developers conduct research before building, their focus is primarily on profitability, not necessarily long-term sustainability or risk avoidance. Their aim is to build, sell, or lease quickly, leaving long-term risks to future property owners or tenants. Additionally, not all developers have equal expertise or access to top-tier environmental studies.

Edited December 10, 2024Dec 10 by Clefan98

1 hour ago, E Rocc said:

 

Yeah, his Martha's Vineyard property would seem even more vulnerable.  

 

Oh yeah, that's the other ex-President.

Funny guy. 

 

Miami has a population of about 5.5 million at an average elevation of 6 feet above sea level.  And they already have problems with streets flooding and seawater pushing sewage back into homes on a regular basis due to king tides.  No storm required!  No big deal.  Thankfully Mar-a-Lago is a full 15 feet above sea level and hurricanes are rare in Florida.  Whew.

 

Pay no attention to the lying news.

https://www.pnj.com/story/money/2023/07/12/florida-insurance-crisis-farmers-insurance-home-insurance-what-to-know/70407302007/

 

Martha's Vineyard has about 20,000 year-round residents, maybe 200,000 summertime residents (including President Obama?), and has an average elevation of 43 feet.  Some of its towns/villages also have flooded following big storms.  Definitely something to give you pause before moving there.

 

https://governor.ohio.gov/media/news-and-media/governor-dewine-declares-state-of-emergency-in-four-southern-ohio-counties

 

Good to know that Martha's Vineyard is more vulnerable to sea level rise than Miami, which surely will bail itself out (one bucket at a time) and would be a far better place for our investments.

1 hour ago, X said:

I'm guessing that most are counting on the public sector to bail them out of their bad decisions when things go south.  Either through infrastructure investment, insuring the insurers, or some other sort of subsidy.

This was basically my point, though I'm assuming the public subsidy will come in my form of flood infrastructure. And the bigger cities like Miami get, the more likely this becomes. It's the too big to fail problem. 

nobody take this the wrong way but we're sitting here in Ohio like the "good guy" complaining about unstable "bad boy" Miami getting all the action 😉

 

Buyer beware…

 

Dozens of luxury condos, hotels in Miami sinking at ‘unexpected’ rates, new study reveals

Read more at:

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/climate-change/article296831519.html