LA struggling to change its DNA

[Dinner]

Individual suburbs aren't expensive but economically cities almost always lose money on them because the cost of extending services (roads, freeways, water lines, electrical lines, police, fire, sanitation, etc...) out to low density areas is so high but the tax returns are relatively low. Pay back on initial investments cities make is something like 50-100 years. Most suburbs still haven't paid cities back and will be slums before they ever do.

Density is the most economically efficient way to design a city when you actually count all the costs. Of course suburbs are a very cheap and easy way for developers to flip a quick buck and contributions from developers tend to be a major (if not the major) source of campaign funds for local politicians so developers almost always get their way at a local level.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Individual suburbs aren't expensive but economically cities almost always lose money on them because the cost of extending services (roads, freeways, water lines, electrical lines, police, fire, sanitation, etc...) out to low density areas is so high but the tax returns are relatively low. Pay back on initial investments cities make is something like 50-100 years. Most suburbs still haven't paid cities back and will be slums before they ever do.

I have not seen numbers to show this. The provision of those services isn't expensive (well, the freeways are expensive, but those aren't automatically part of the package). It's among the reasons why the taxes are so minimal in the suburbs.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Bosh

This is not for humans.

[DanS]

You're right. It's for Koreans.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Oerdin
It's like a giant fungus made out of concrete and asphalt that just keeps growing and spreading out.

The ideal is a single-family home with a yard and maybe a pool. That takes a lot of room. Also, L.A. is one of the fastest growing areas in the country. So yes, we grow.

[Colonâ„¢]

It's a beautiful ideal.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by DanS
You're right. It's for Koreans.

I actually like dense development when enough space is left for parks and playgrounds. I don't like concrete hives.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by DanS


But it is that expensive -- not something that you can get around.

Also, high density comes with much more capital-intensive infrastructure demands.

It also comes with underground power cables that don't go down at the first sign of an ice storm

I imagine that not needing miles of extra roads, water pipes, etc. saves loads of money infrastructure-wise.

I have not seen numbers to show this. The provision of those services isn't expensive (well, the freeways are expensive, but those aren't automatically part of the package). It's among the reasons why the taxes are so minimal in the suburbs.

I thought that was due to free riding at the expense of tax payers closer in to the core.

It's a beautiful ideal.

As beautiful as cancer.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
I imagine that not needing miles of extra roads, water pipes, etc. saves loads of money infrastructure-wise.

It's amazing that some of you city slickers think this is so. Apparently you don't know the value of a dollar. Rural is cheaper than suburban. Suburban is cheaper than urban. Full stop.

Roads are cheap. Water and sewerage pipes are cheap. Electricity strung from wooden poles is cheap.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by DanS
It's amazing that some of you city slickers think this is so. Apparently you don't know the value of a dollar. Rural is cheaper than suburban. Suburban is cheaper than urban. Full stop.

There's something inherently wrong your statement, but I just don't have the time to figure it out at the moment. I'll be back in a few hours.

Electricity strung from wooden poles is cheap.

Also has a tendency to fall off during storms... not that I'm bitter or anything.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DanS

I have not seen numbers to show this. The provision of those services isn't expensive (well, the freeways are expensive, but those aren't automatically part of the package). It's among the reasons why the taxes are so minimal in the suburbs.

Bull, you build up suburbs which are strictly residences and then you have the problem that people have to commute to their place of employment. That means freeways have to be built when ever the suburbs are extended outwards because surface streets just don't have the capacity to transport the volume of people over distance.

Just look at a map of the US's largest and main city which developed on the suburban expansion model, LA. Look at maps from 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970, and so on all the way up to today. The freeways ALWAYS follow the suburbs because people demand them and the density is so low in suburbs mass transit isn't viable.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by DanS


It's amazing that some of you city slickers think this is so. Apparently you don't know the value of a dollar. Rural is cheaper than suburban. Suburban is cheaper than urban. Full stop.

Roads are cheap. Water and sewerage pipes are cheap. Electricity strung from wooden poles is cheap.

One thing you're missing is the length of commutes that low density housing creates, if people spend a bit chunk of their time every day stuck in traffic jams in the freeway that's a lot of wasted man-hours right there.

But there's a lot of irrationality on both sides.

In the states you get the massive suburban sprawl with each house having its own yard. The amount of sprawl and the length of commutes that that sort of development makes necessary is pretty irrational.

Same in Korea. Over here you have apartment complexes in the boonies rising out of the middle of rice fields. There's absolutely no reason to have those sort of things where land is cheap but people want them anyway since living in a high rise apartment is "modern."

Probably a good compromise would be 3-4 story woodframe rowhouses without much in the way of yards but with plenty of parks.

[Dinner]

Believe it or not in the 1880's through about WW1 the 3-4 story row house located in the city with plenty of parks and tree lined streets was actually the norm in many places. You could say it was the Victorian middle class standard. Dense population patterns which could be supported by street cars and with local parks and open spaces to support the public good and need for fresh air.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by VetLegion


I actually like dense development when enough space is left for parks and playgrounds. I don't like concrete hives.

Here's a zoom out of the area, massive swath of high rise apartments, but there's is a stretch of green along the river which is nice.

[Dinner]

It's the river park a very new invention. Last time I was in Seoul they didn't have it and in fact the river was horribly polluted.