Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by hank chinaski

this isn't really in reply to you.

The thread started with a reference to baltimore, then i threw detroit into the mix. Luxury high rises have nothing to do with solving the problem.

Baltimore is a very distressed city. But detroit i know better. There is a "revitalized" thread down the main avenue, and spreading from it. It is chock full of well paid young people and smart shops.

And if you get a half mile off it, you are in rodent infested very challenged areas. For a long while trash pick up was spotty, at best, in those areas. There are blocks with 20 homes, 1 or 2 occupied- they have to try to provide city services in a place that has home density that is almost rural. There are tons of hopeless uneducated people- for generations the high school drop out rate was high, it still is.

The nyt posts travel stories about visiting detroit the revived city. My daughter lives in a neighborhood that includes the epicenter of the 1967 riots. You will not find an available rental property today. They are no longer beat homes to fix up.

The nyt will direct you to where my daughter lives. Visitors don't see the real challenge. It's great to be able to go to restaurants in the city that are wonderful, but fact is the city's people are not enjoying that rebirth- maybe some jobs- but life still is pretty much tough.

Foreign investment is the answer? Ain't no pracical answer at all.

UBI

Or debt forgiveness.

Pick.

Or advocate a lil bit of both.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Your posts about cities make no sense here in California.

SF, Oakland, touché.

Ain’t no other “cities” out there. Just sprawled out counties called cities.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

SF, Oakland, touché.

Ain’t no other “cities” out there. Just sprawled out counties called cities.

Don't be ignorant. I like density at least as much as the next person, but cities that grew after WWII are still cities. Los Angeles, San Diego and San Jose are all larger than SF or Oakland, and are three of the ten largest cities in the country.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The notion that development = improvement remains at the core of urban problems.

We generally need ways of delivering quality low and moderate income housing, not ways of converting whatever (flawed though it may be) low and moderate income housing to luxury housing (or absentee condos for Chinese buyers).

And some areas with high vacancy rates have remained that way for decades - how long do we have to wait for the magical improvers to come in?

I think Philly’s plan allows for organic regeneration of communities. Give the empty homes to the poor with a promise of ownership and then Leave Them Alone. Let people recreate what we once called “communities” - vibrant places where the “melting pot” concept originated. Stop precluding the would be store owner with a shit ton of regs and licensing horseshit. Let him open his place and sell. Let the craft brewer open with a cheap version of a liquor license instead of forcing him to fork over a king’s ransom. Let the chef open his byob joint without having to fill out 30 forms and pay 20 fees.

Make these places “Ellis Island” zones, where the poor can take a chance and build something, together. Give them a fucking break. Don’t force them to acquire capital to serve Big Finance. Let them act as the immigrants did a hundred years ago. Let them run things off the grid a bit. If they succeed, great. If they fail, how much worse could it be?

Yes, I know the melting pot was part legend. But it was part real, and the real part was what created the best elements of American culture. Give the battered communities to the people who are priced out of our bifurcated economy. Tax them lightly, let them reopen the local stores, parks, theaters, etc. And let immigrants come in and join. It worked a hundred years ago. I’m unaware of what would preclude such a Renaissance today.

And frankly, we need it. This Brave New World Shithole we’re creating where people like us control the cultural innovations is producing a wretchedly dull society. It’s more boring than materialism.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Don't be ignorant. I like density at least as much as the next person, but cities that grew after WWII are still cities. Los Angeles, San Diego and San Jose are all larger than SF or Oakland, and are three of the ten largest cities in the country.

Not cities like we have out east. LA is a fucking County.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Not cities like we have out east. LA is a fucking County.

Yes, Sebastian. I grew up in an East Coast city. I live in a West Coast city now. Expand your horizons a little.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Yes, Sebastian. I grew up in an East Coast city. I live in a West Coast city now. Expand your horizons a little.

I agree with you. Many CA cities do not fit within my construct. However, geographically, many aren’t really “cities.”

LA and SF could not be less alike in terms of size and layout. NY, SF, and Boston are quite similar. Pittsburgh and Baltimore are more similar in size, concentration and layout to SF than is LA or SD.

ETA: This isn’t a knock on SD or LA. I like them. I’m the strange person who thinks sprawl is “freeing.” I’m just saying, in a conversation about problems with traditional densely packed cities, citing LA isn’t assisting the discussion, as you note. So perhaps, say something relevant? You don’t get points for telling us what applies to Boston doesn’t apply to LA.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Yes, Sebastian. I grew up in an East Coast city. I live in a West Coast city now. Expand your horizons a little.

I’m gonna call bullshit. You weren’t raised in a suburb?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I don't know the stats, but this is a reality in a small slice of the market - luxury high rises in Boston, SF, and NY. We've had a bunch of referrals from firms we work with in China, Taiwan and Australia to help them buy some of these, and one of my partners has developed a little guide (in English and Chinese) on buying such properties. I had one I passed on to someone who does that stuff where someone was buying a $30 million apartment in NY. Who does that?

It's almost comical in Boston because until recently we really didn't do luxury highrises. People with money in Boston live in Brownstones or single family houses, not highrises. But lately a bunch have been going up, and they fill almost entirely with people not from here (including a lot of relocated NYers - thanks GE!).

It happens in those cities, but it is not a meaningful driver of development activity even there. Yet it is invoked, for example, here, as a reason to block new housing.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Don't be ignorant. I like density at least as much as the next person, but cities that grew after WWII are still cities. Los Angeles, San Diego and San Jose are all larger than SF or Oakland, and are three of the ten largest cities in the country.

None of which have the problems of Baltimore and Detroit. I’m all for disparaging their sprawl, but they aren’t dying/shrinking.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I think Philly’s plan allows for organic regeneration of communities. Give the empty homes to the poor with a promise of ownership and then Leave Them Alone. Let people recreate what we once called “communities” - vibrant places where the “melting pot” concept originated. Stop precluding the would be store owner with a shit ton of regs and licensing horseshit. Let him open his place and sell. Let the craft brewer open with a cheap version of a liquor license instead of forcing him to fork over a king’s ransom. Let the chef open his byob joint without having to fill out 30 forms and pay 20 fees.

Make these places “Ellis Island” zones, where the poor can take a chance and build something, together. Give them a fucking break. Don’t force them to acquire capital to serve Big Finance. Let them act as the immigrants did a hundred years ago. Let them run things off the grid a bit. If they succeed, great. If they fail, how much worse could it be?

Yes, I know the melting pot was part legend. But it was part real, and the real part was what created the best elements of American culture. Give the battered communities to the people who are priced out of our bifurcated economy. Tax them lightly, let them reopen the local stores, parks, theaters, etc. And let immigrants come in and join. It worked a hundred years ago. I’m unaware of what would preclude such a Renaissance today.

And frankly, we need it. This Brave New World Shithole we’re creating where people like us control the cultural innovations is producing a wretchedly dull society. It’s more boring than materialism.

Maybe it’s different if your city isn’t growing, but where it is, allowing those places to evolve and grow is absolutely key.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I agree with you. Many CA cities do not fit within my construct. However, geographically, many aren’t really “cities.”

LA and SF could not be less alike in terms of size and layout. NY, SF, and Boston are quite similar. Pittsburgh and Baltimore are more similar in size, concentration and layout to SF than is LA or SD.

ETA: This isn’t a knock on SD or LA. I like them. I’m the strange person who thinks sprawl is “freeing.” I’m just saying, in a conversation about problems with traditional densely packed cities, citing LA isn’t assisting the discussion, as you note. So perhaps, say something relevant? You don’t get points for telling us what applies to Boston doesn’t apply to LA.

You talk about the problems with "cities" when you mean post-industrial mid-Atlantic cities. San Jose really is a city. It's not perfect, but it's problems are different than Philadelphia's problems. If you want to have a conversation about the problems in Philadelphia (or Baltimore, or Detroit), fine -- just don't think you're talking about "cities" generally.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I’m gonna call bullshit. You weren’t raised in a suburb?

No.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

None of which have the problems of Baltimore and Detroit. I’m all for disparaging their sprawl, but they aren’t dying/shrinking.

Fine, but do we have to live in an East Coast paradigm? For those of us in the rest of the country, it gets tired.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You talk about the problems with "cities" when you mean post-industrial mid-Atlantic cities. San Jose really is a city. It's not perfect, but it's problems are different than Philadelphia's problems. If you want to have a conversation about the problems in Philadelphia (or Baltimore, or Detroit), fine -- just don't think you're talking about "cities" generally.

Houston is going to agree with this. Hell most of Texas is going to agree with this.

ETA: And Houston solves some of these problems by annexing the suburbs to ensure that the massive sprawl is under one tax base. Makes for a 600 square mile city the size of Rhode Island but it also avoids some of the problems ya'll are talking about.