Hey! Wait- we don't do this often, but I'm going to ask you to do something- this week is Member Week at Strong Towns! We are 5,000 Strong and counting, and we would love for you to make this movement yours. We are a member supported organization, and we work hard to make sure our members have the resources they need to improve their communities- if you have benefitted from any of our content or have been sitting on the sidelines waiting to get involved, would you consider donating? P.S. If you do, when you get the chance to leave a note, compliment Norm. You don't need to know Norm. Just give him a very detailed compliment.
Hey! I want to be part of the movement and make it into part of my career, what is an architecture career path that goes towards helping with strong towns? I'm thinking of studying in the US and staying to work there. I'm mostly thinking of urban planning/designer
I will donate when Strong Towns addresses how to accommodate the elderly, the injured and the handicapped into town/city planning. Everyone refurbishing old buildings simply brings back the limitations of the time they were built.
The whole "get out of the way" part is something I mention and usually get attacked for. What I see is forcing a high density, low freedom(difficult to leave) development that is not organic. Some people gate being lonely, some want everything done for them, some want privacy and nature. When things grew organically all types of people were able to find they home. Went from being forced into the suburbs, then punished for being there, see the trend here? I like rural life especially with the high crime and political division of today, but at the same time I should not be segregated from the rest of society for being The type of person I am. As with zoning, you wouldn't build a power plant, water treatment plant, or other big Industrial building a block from your house. Those places are my income, I simply don't have "transit route skills" that would get me anything more than poverty. Im getting into my late 30s so the prospect of reeducating into a desk job isn't very attractive. Plus my slowing metabolism would make it difficult to avoid morbid obesity If im sitting or standing around all day, every day.
Working for a state DOT made me realize how entrenched and insidious car dependency really is. So much of our work is really just maintaining the status quo. At least we’ve started to FINALLY realize that just “one more lane bro” is not a sustainable way to transport a population. Change is coming, it’s coming slow but it is definitely on its way and I support you guys all the time (and maybe rant to coworkers about it a little too much 😂)
Another problem with the top-down suburban development model is that it is extremely profitable to developers and their friendly elected representatives. So, Joe Citizen has to jump through many ridiculous hoops to get a basement apartment while the big boys pave over another wetland while no-one is looking. The demise of investigative journalism & local newspapers in recent years doesn't help. Cheers.
@@funky6399 True -- in principle -- but overlooking the difference in scale: the hundreds of millions accruing to suburban developers compared to the slightly smaller figure associated with the construction of a single granny flat. So important to maintain a sense of proportion, a key Strong Towns takeaway message. Cheers.
In the US, political campaigns are so expensive. So i guess you dont invest that money if you dont want to use your public office to do some business with your buddies/ for your donors
I spent time living and studying in Rome - 5 of us guys living in a flat on the 4th of 6 floor building. I miss the small grocer we had downstairs, the open air market 200 yards away, and how every little subdivision seemed to have its own gelateria and cafes that were all similar yet distinct. Any time I’ve spent in American cities, from Portland to New York, doesn’t compare. We really messed things up here in the States.
@@bingleflort4338a mix of unprecedented wealth and shortsightedness. For 20ish years the suburban model worked due to the wealth of the people who built them(think of the extremely rich single family home neighborhoods that existed in Europe before cars). Unfortunately that wealth declined (in part due to the housing/city planning model) and over time the houses stopped producing enough tax revenue to justify their existence. For reference as to just how wealthy America was at the time when suburbs started being a thing, the barrier to entry of the middle class was, adjusted for actual inflation, somewhere around $174,000 usd. That's not median middle class, that's not top end middle class, that's the bare minimum to be considered part of the middle class which at that point over 50% of the population met. For reference to where that number comes from its done based of off quality of life adjusted income rather than pure inflation numbers, which adjusts for more increases in cost of both living and of luxuries that a typical household would have. That wealth led to the misguided belief that the old ways of doing things was no longer necessary, which manifested in a ton of social change and a ton of economic change, some of which was for the better (race issues mainly) and a lot of which was for the worse (housing and city planning, outlook on government, and almost every economic decision post 1960)
I recently spent time in Thailand. I noticed a pattern of blocks of 4-6 story buildings where the bottom 1-2 floors were businesses and the floors above were residential. This seems to provide a close to optimal density. The new construction high rise condos seem to have too many people with too few resources while freestanding houses require a car or scooter.
Also, the big high rises tend to ignore basic resources down below - you kind of noted this but in my rapidly growing town we have tons of dense, 10-14 story buildings popping up in the core, and literally no grocery store. So, we built dense and then force even those chosing to live in the walkable area to have a car to get basic necessities. And then we wonder why many people opt to not live in these (generally expensive) areas.
@@markarbanasin4 Yeah. Where I was staying, you really needed to take a taxi to the grocery store, but there was a 7-11 just about every block, pharmacies every couple of blocks, lots of street vendors and other resources. I'm okay with taking a taxi every week or so to go to the grocery store to stock up or to the mall. Also, I have noticed that cars off the road are often a big problem as the space for parking pushes everything further apart.
@@bettyc1841 Agreed, unfortunately I saw this in the last suburban community I lived at, they voted against allowing mixed-used zoning and allowing higher density housing to be built. They all assume it'll be 'less desirables' moving in.
@@sparklesparklesparkle6318 because everyone in the US wants to live in a single family home, so only those who can't afford it live in high rises and those are the ones more likely to commit crimes. Besides, there's not just high density and low density. There's low rises (usually up to four floors) and mid rises (usually up to six floors with something around two to four apartments per floor) as well. In most of Europe, most of city centres are made up of those. No high crime there, just people living comfortably. The US has mostly cut those out, so it's either 'be wealthy enough for your own home' or 'be poor and live in a high-density area where there's a lot of crime' (as in a lot of poor communities).
Well ever live in a low income apartment complex. It's where you can always find drugs. And stolen goods. Ask me how I know? Years of experience.@@xtinafusco
Bob Vila back in the 80's developed what was being called the generational house. It started with a 1 bedroom core with kitchen and other rooms. Then, over time, there were ways to add wings for kids and increased public space. It ended with a pretty healthy building with a room for the grandparents or college age kid with fairly independent access, several kids bedrooms upstairs and utilities easy to expand. If the floorplan was built with durability, you would have a house that could hold 3 or 4 generations of semi-extended family... Yeah, master planning, and HOA's that went with them have ben inflexible.
Multigenerational housing has long been practiced in Italy, but the houses are closer together. The fatal flaw of the US and Canada is the prevalence of people thinking they have to be as isolated as they are from other families.
Austin has tripled in population since the 1980 census in the city limits alone and yet the infrastructure has hardly changed save for a few narrow toll roads here and there. They choose not to build roads or a decent train system despite there being the funds for it. Capital metro was a bust and barely even runs.
The worst part about Austin is many people will complain about housing prices and traffic in one breath, while opposing changes like public transportation improvements or building more dense housing in the other. Austin voted down what is essentially Project Connect 20 years ago, and many similar decisions only served to kick the can down the roads for today's youth to suffer the consequences
@@nihouma11 I generally agree with you, but would note that more housing is being built in Austin than in any other city in the country right now, much of it high-density towers and medium-high density 5/1s. Houston is not too far behind, but Austin's new dense housing is much more concentrated. This means lower prices in Houston, but also a less feasable urban future.
@@denali637 Congrats on them couple downtown high rises most can’t afford but most development in the ATX area is tract housing suburbia in the northwest and north sides. The costs are still well above national averages even compared to cities on the east coast. Harris county voters since 2004 have voted for the currently 3 rail lines and expanding (7th busiest LRT system in America in terms of riders/track mile), the other 400 miles and counting of bike lanes and paths, a new revamped BRT and local bus system that has made getting around the inner loop with or without a car much easier. Austin has been debating fixing I-35 all 3 plus decades I’ve been alive 🤦🏿♂️ and the one train y’all got doesn’t run after 6pm.
No urban area should be planned without factoring in walkability, any resident should be able to be within walking distance of amenities, shops, schools, parks and other employment opportunities. In the UK and Europe these principles are fundamental as they make up the basis for forming communities as opposed to just housing. Of course public transport options are always considered as well so as to make car ownership more of option and less of a necessity for survival.
The main irony is that doing it that way both saves money and makes driving easier as getting people out of cars reduce congestion and bike trails requires less maintenance then roads.
Great video. Interesting point about it being so easy to decrease density, but not increase it. Those early chicago neighbourhoods are beauties! A mix of types and affordabilities!
Came upon you by happenstance. Thirty seconds in, I realized that I'd stiff this one out, and watch it all. VERY informative, if not occasionally brilliant in its multi generational tale of how the entire system has evolved to put mostly nuclear families in flimsy suburban fantasy boxes. Ontario Premier Doug Ford (brother of the infamous Toronto Mayor, Rob Ford) should be Clockwork Oranged with all of this channel's videos. Very well done. And a new subscriber to boot!😅
The current restricted system gives all the power and options to corporations and leaves the normal citizens and potential small business owners as peons in service to those corporations. This is why things will be very hard to change as corruption and greed will fight to keep them as they are.
@NateBullock-ow6on Most current "multi-use" doesn't build for commercial use to be used by long term tenants. "Opitimizing " rents for REITs is corporate pillaging. "Multi use" is malarkey as Most of the "small business" are simply harvesting what other residents build. Not a coffee shop, grocery, hair salon, or ADU for gran, but a late night loud bar. and AirB&B party house That's where the short term fleece and run money is. Small businesses don"t "optimize revenue" for the REIT's. They don't attract long term tenants, the type who are not just looking for bars with high turnover.
Yeah, that's why it's sad seeing people still refer to the US and the EU as "democracies". Saddest part is that Marx predicted all of this, and what did those corporations do? Lie about him and mock him, even a century and a half after his death, as if his ghost is gonna come call them out somehow.
Most cities in Europe have continued to follow a traditional development pattern. There are some aspects of the American problems that we also have, but not as pronounced. Most little corner grocery stores have disappeared in Germany, for example, but usually you can still walk or bicycle to a small to mid-sized Aldi nearby. People often live up to an hours drive outside of big cites like Munich and commute, because of high housing prices, but each of these communities are usually complete towns and villages with their own little shops, not mere suburbs.
It's like this with London. It might be more dense than when it was first dreamt up, but each tube stop outside Zone 1 basically exists as a mini island suburb. A walkable bubble that has everything you need. I've lived here for a decade in four different places and I've never been more than 10 minutes walk from those typical services (groceries, pharmacy, doctors, barbers, dry cleaners, take-away).
@@Dekedence I remember the Jay Foreman video about the Northern Line. Every station was designed to be a civic center, with shops and establishments around the station, then more housing units were built all around it, basically building new towns along the way.
I know right. I grew up in a German village, then lived in car centric suburbs in Australia before moving to the city in Budapest, so I can compare those from first hand experience. I have lived in 2 different places in Budapest (first in Pest centre now in Buda) and every neighbourhood feels like a little village in itself. In between the arterial roads the small side streets are pretty quite and you see a decent amount of people walking around. Within less then 10 min. walking distance I have: 2 Grocery stores (Supermarket chains) 4 small corner shops, 3 tobacconists, 2 pharmacies, 1 butcher, 1 baker, one vegetable shop, a Police station, a Medical office, 1 florist, 2 kindergardens, 1 pub, 2 pizzerias, one kebab shop and 2 parks for having a stroll or other activities (both have open air gyms and the bigger one has a playground). If I need anything else, the post office, a rail station and a shopping centre are 2 bus or tram stops away. The suburbs in Australia were sterile. Eerily empty of people walking by except for Door to Door salesmen or Jehovah Witnesses. I had to drive the kids to Daycare, I had to drive 20 minutes to go shopping, I had to drive to get to the doctors and I couldn't even visit a pub without driving. So either you take a taxi, drive drunk or drink at home. There wasn't even a park nearby, you had to drive to get to a nice location to have a walk and a playground for children. Also the houses were stacked so close to each other, they could have as well have been apartment buildings, except apartments have better noise isolation. Here in Budapest it's all around the corner, I don't even own a car, it would just cost money. Even my office is only 2 Tram stops away. I have everything I need around me, I can get anywhere with public transport. The few times I go out of town I usually get away with taking the Train (or Plane). For those rare occasions I really need a car, I rent one. The cost of renting a car for about 1-2 weeks a year is still cheaper than the cost of buying one, paying insurance and tax plus fuel and maintenance on it. Sure in villages you need a car to get out of the village, but a village isn't a suburb. Suburbs are urban areas pretending to be rural and failing utterly at being any of those 2 worlds. I'd say well developed Urban areas are more like rural Villages, stacked next to each other in a box with public transport connecting them.
Suburbs in the US are home to large grocers and the infamous strip mall..even traditional malls are in the suburbs now. More and more, cities have just become office buildings
I love this architectural philosophy and have been unwittingly following it. I'm homesteading land in a ghost town in the Nevada desert, and the work of many years is accomplished one little task at a time. I don't pay enough in taxes for the government to be able to afford to send people out to bother me over building codes, and that benevolent noninterference has done more for me than most government programs and regulations. It doesn't surprise me one bit that this is taking off in a place like Houston.
11:48 there's a front yard small business across from my house and as a dog owner its great having the pet clinic so close! There's tons of front yard businesses in the houston area
It's interesting to look at suburban developments from the perspective of the American myth of freedom and independence. You have a small group of wealthy elites dictating how people live, it's central planning in its purest form. Whole towns built with just the input of a small handful of powerful individuals planning everything from the roads to the internal layouts of the houses.
Cities need to tax property for positive revenue. Anything else is a subsidy for the wealthy and is unsustainable. While I complain - living in Florida, there should be a national FEMA hazard tax for homes built along the beachfront and other high risk areas. Why are we subsidizing vacation properties along the coast for the wealthy that degrade and privatize what should be an important wildlife habitat and shared resource?
100% agree. So many people object to subsidizing public transportation that can potentially help every tax bracket, but never object to subsidizing vacation homes in places like you said. Also, we need to stop subsidizing suburbs with our property tax system.
That is called flood insurance and homeowners insurance. FEMA flood insurance allows the government to buy you out once you hit 2/3 of the value of the property in damage. I know of instances where people no longer claim damages because they would rather repair the damage than lose the house. Also local governments prefer the tax revenue on multimillion dollar homes that are beachfront property rather than unused land. Building codes are intended to prevent damage. I find the bigger issue is unethical developers who ignore flood hazards even when warned.
Taxing property is also a very effective tool for racists and classists to drive everyone who isn't rich out of an area where developers want access to the land. My late grandmother lived on the blind pension for the last twenty years of her life and the property tax on the house that she had inherited from her parents, a comfortable walk from the middle of her country town, was approximately six weeks' gross income for her. She just lived incredibly poor, saving up all year to be able to pay that tax, because otherwise she'd have been forced into a retirement home - and elderly blind people don't handle being pushed into new environments, so that probably would have killed her.
@@tealkerberus748 - It's literally not racist and classist if you do away with zoning ordinances at the same time. Property taxes should be based on how much acreage you control, not what is built on the land.
@@arthurwintersight7868 So she owned half an acre of land in a premium location, while living on a blind pension. The combination of owning a very high market value asset that yields no cash income, while living on a very low income, really isn't that uncommon. Taxing people on the saleable value of an asset they haven't sold is always going to cause harm. This also applies to another couple I used to know who bought a run-down farmlet on the edge of town and turned it into a wildlife refuge. It wasn't earning money either, and would have been worth a mint to someone willing to bulldoze the trees and subdivide it for housing. But they had koalas and echidnas and all sorts of birds and so forth - they didn't want to destroy that for human houses! Taxes should be primarily based on income, because that is the ultimate proof of capacity to pay. We have expenditure taxes as well as a backup way to get some revenue from people with tax-free or undeclared income, but expenditure taxes bear hard on people who have no income and are depleting their savings to buy groceries so we try to minimise that.
I'm from Chicago. It blew my mind when I moved to other cities and realized how terrible it was to be a pedestrian without a car. My grandmother lived her whole life in Chicago without ever using a car. I live in San Francisco Bay now and it is marginally better than most cities in terms of getting places by foot in east bay but things are still spread apart.
But that said? As a committed pedestrian, Chicago is still pretty miserable. Traffic is terrible here and trains and buses can be really unpredictable. Every time I walk to go get groceries, it’s a 85% chance someone turning right on red out of some major parking lot (that doesn’t need to be there in a city so supposedly full of public transport) won’t see me and I almost get hit.
@@innocentnemesis3519 It's really sad how truly awful the country is in terms of walkability and public transportation. I've lived within about 2 hours of Boston my entire life, and despite the hatred people have for the T here, a full 50% of Boston's workforce uses it every day for their commute. And the subway system is only half the size it was 100 years ago. But even despite that, and the frequent fires, the Boston T still ranks in the top 3 public transportation networks in the country and is a full half hour shorter commute on average than the countrywide average.
I lived in the East Bay for my third decade and it's a large and varied area. Where I first moved to, at the edge of the South Campus area in Berkeley, it was _extremely_ walkable. When I moved to, first, South Berkeley by the Ashby BART station and then North Oakland near the MacArthur BART, it was a lot less so. I still managed to get around well enough by bicycle (being in my 20s and the area being flat), riding to my office job on the Emeryville Marina - but it was obvious that the expected method of getting around was by car. However, the area around MacArthur BART has been undergoing a lot of change lately, with a TOD in what used to be the station's enormous parking lot on the Telegraph Ave side, which has itself been redesigned to provide for bicycles and buses instead of just cars, some other TOD appearing on the other side of the tracks (the side I used to live on), and bicycle lanes being installed on that side too. Of course, when I lived there, it was long before the massive influx in tech development in Emeryville transformed the whole area west of San Pablo Ave - it was a run-down ghost town when I was riding through it on my way to work & back in the late-'80s. I think Genentech had moved in just before I moved to San Francisco; all the big development there happened after. But the area between the freeway/BART tracks and San Pablo Ave remained a static, neglected slum all throughout that period and I'm only recently (through the BART train windows) seeing some new buildings pop up on that side. I only hope that the new stuff doesn't price everyone who currently lives in the neighborhood out. But that's been the pattern. Developers constantly tell us themselves, there's no money to be made renting apartments to non-millionaires, we have to *force* them to set aside a meager percentage for that; given their druthers, they price *everything* sky-high and kick *everyone* who can't afford it out of the entire area.
As a German, I live in the large city of Hamburg. Yet despite living in a small development area within the eastern district of Wandsbek that was created after the war to provide the much needed housing it still retains its "small village" aspect. Within the next five minutes of my front door, walking distance obviously, I have two hair salons, a bakery and cafe, two general practitioner doctors, two dentists, a small Penny supermarket, a phone store, two subway lines, three bus lines... the list goes on and on. While my tiny 'mini-suburb' has building restrictions on houses within this development (two floors above ground) the immediate vicinity doesn't have any restrictions. Four floor apartment buildings support multi-use construction. Within the building are located small stores like hair salons, physical therapy practices, cafes, bakeries, etc. with apartments above them. It is a vibrant, living community. Just to show that city planning does not require full mixed usage, only that mixed usage has to be the predominant usage. Small developments within a mixed usage setting may have *some* restrictions on what is allowed to be built, and heavy industry is never allowed within a mixed usage area. But the whole area requires walkable mixed usage zoning, or rather, non-zoning.
@@Runco990 You may like the German style, but it appears that most Americans do not. many Americans are still voting with their money & moving OUT of dense cities into suburbs. Please google the Atlantic - April 2022; Brookings Institute July 2022; the Business Insider August 2023; & the study published by the University of Toronto Sept 2023. All of these and more state that people are leaving dense urban areas and moving to more suburban locations. The people doing the moving are 30-to45 year-olds.
@@gregorybiestek3431 dude most Americans aren't moving out of cities because they don't like the "German Style" (despite that style being common in literally every country" . Americans are leaving cities because it's just too damn expensive to live in them.
@@gregorybiestek3431 A lot of people, Americans and Europeans, move from cities to suburbs, for a few simple reasons: space, privacy, having a garden. If you're starting a family, suburbs are generally much better places for kids to grow up in. Most people who move there do not regret their choice, and do not return to an urban home until a much later stage in their life. The problem with some suburbs (in particular the American ones) is that it's homes only, as far as the eye can see. When we moved to a new Dutch suburb in the 70s, they planned a shopping center and some other amenities right in the middle of it. It was deemed so important that while the shopping center was being built, they opened a bunch of emergency shops in wooden barracks nearby, even though there were plenty of stores only a short drive away. The norm seems to be that basic amenities like stores, libraries, sports facilities, entertainment and bars, ought to be at most an easy bike ride away. Great for kids! Our parents wouldn't dream of driving us anywhere, and they let us go everywhere on our own.
Take a step back and ask yourself why do we even have cities? The first answer that should come to your mind is that humans needed places to TRADE. It is all about transportation, which is why cities developed along natural trade routes and harbors with the primary products traded being agricultural and mineral. People are dispersed because most of them are still needed to grow food. Along comes the industrial revolution and steam power. Suddenly you have the railroad -- a tremendous advance in transportation that links the vast interior of the USA with the coasts. All you have to do is lay the rails and vast agricultural and mineral resources are available to your factories, which at this point are still in or near port cities. As people flocked to the cities to work in the factories this is where you got tenements, overcrowding and generally poor conditions for most. What also happens is that new cities spring up along the rail hubs in the interior and people start spreading out looking for a better life. The next huge leap in transportation isn't just the automobile, it is the truck. Suddenly you are not limited to just the rail lines - anyplace with decent roads lets you move truckloads of goods into the market. With the postwar development of the interstate highway system, suddenly the factories producing your goods don't need to be located at a railroad hub or port city - and neither do your workers. Factories and jobs leave the cities and the workers follow because they get a better life outside the cities. The suburbs didn't develop "for the rich", they developed because a burgeoning middle class wanted something better for themselves and their children. Fast forward to the 21st century - the transportation system is a vast array of containers full of goods moved by ship, rail, and truck anywhere they need to go. For a city to even be considered as a location for a factory or transportation hub they have to give out huge concessions on taxes and costs -- because they have priced themselves out of the market. Suburbs didn't destroy the cities - mismanagement did, along with the basic failure to city leaders to understand that their city exists because people come there to trade and do business. Running business out of your city means you run the revenue out of your city as well.
@@zncon The very existence of our current housing crisis proves that there is not enough land to spread apart, and that there is a place for urban density.
@@evanramee796 In the US at least, land is plentiful though. There's millions of empty acres out there. If a company wanted to build homes, they can find a place to do it. We have a housing crisis because not enough homes have been built for decades. There's a lot of reasons for that, but mostly it's just not that profitable to build houses. Consider this - If there was meaningful profit to be made building houses, corporations would be tripping over each other to do it. Cities wouldn't have to bribe and seduce builders to come in - they'd be making them to fight for contracts. Now why is there no money to be made here when houses sell for so much? Materials, procedures, and labor costs. Everything is inflated. This is also why the shortages are the worst for small/starter homes. 5% profit on a $500k home is a lot more attractive then 5% of $100k.
Thank you for this important context. I think it is important to remember that we have more transportation technology than we have ever had before. The challenge comes in using it wisely. I recently visited my grandparents, who live 4 hours away by car. Before the automobile, the trip may have taken weeks. I thank the car for letting me visit my grandparents every year. I, however, do not think that the car is inherently superior to other modes of transportation, especially in cities. Transit on a dedicated right-of-way can move far more people with far less resources than a similar investment into highways. Walking and biking improve mental and physical health, and even electric scooter rentals can provide convenient, expedient travel with little upfront investment. I wholeheartedly believe that car access is fundamentally no different from pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or even unicycle access, and that nobody should live under the tyranny of a transportation system that does not serve them. Sidewalks should be safe and abundant, bike lanes should be separated and contiguous, transit systems should run frequently and reliably, and roads should run smoothly with available parking. I'm not anti-car, I'm pro transportation choice.
@@evanramee796 I am pro transportation choice also. Although I remember there used to be many more trains to smaller and large cities so sometimes you could visit your grandparents and other relatives with the train easier. To use an example with even a big city, Cincinnati used to have more trains at better times to travel to Cincinnati. However, now the only train that comes to Cincinnati that is a passenger train comes at a very odd time. I know that because I traveled with a relative that couldn’t take a plane because of a medical condition and I can’t drive a long way so I went with them
Here is a simple one for the thumbnail, where the suburban loop pinches closest, put a bike path with sidewalk. do it in an organised way across the neighborhood, and suddenly you have a neighborhood where people can easily walk from one place to another. put a small school(1 classroom per year group type thing, for kids under 12), a small supermarket (size of a normal house or so), and drug store in the middle with 10 car parking spots combined or less, and you have a walkable neighborhood that serves most basic needs of the people living there, while still being hostile to through traffic. A little traffic calming on the street by the school, and by many of the pedestrian crossings would be great. then we're just some gentle density away from the neighborhood acting like a small town
Start asking how many people have been to Europe. Those who have will understand. Those who have not will be made known that they do not understand the progress we are working to achieve.
I lived in Chicago ('71-'83). My grandparents lived four houses down. I thought it was odd that their house was towards the middle of the block and was built in 1920 but that my parents' house was built 35 years later on the same block. We eventually moved to the suburbs (in a different state) where our yard could fit >4 of those houses in Chicago.
America's largest city, New York City, didn't really grow in this unplanned way. In the early 1800s, New York Governor DeWitt Clinton, planned for the city's expansion into a major manufacturing center. He had the Erie Canal built from Buffalo to Albany, so that materials from the Midwest could be more cheaply and efficiently transported down the Hudson River to the city where these raw materials could be manufactured into goods. He had a grid of numbered and lettered streets cut into the forests and farmlands surrounding what was then, the modest sized city of New York. He also had a huge aqueduct built, to serve the water needs of the future New York, that he dreamed of. A city with millions of people from all over the world, who produced clothing, books, small appliances, and all kinds of other goods. DeWitt Clinton also had a vision for how New York City could benefit the surrounding rural areas. His pitch to these places was that the city would generate more business for the farms surrounding the city, and that the city would produce more goods for the farmers to buy with their money. So, it was really a vision, and a plan to turn that vision into a reality, that allowed New York City to grow and thrive.
True, but New York did allow businesses on the ground floor/ basement and upper level apartments. Which under all these new zoning rules would not be allowed. There are apartment building literally right next to single family homes and restaurants. It was well planned ( I always complain that cities aught to be laid out in a grid for ease of travel) but there was a lot of freedom in the planning
@@tinkthestrange Planning is often incremental. That is a common point in that more ideas are tried than implemented. huge redesigns ( Moses, Hausmann, Eisenhower's interstates) can fail big when not thought through and flexibly applied being devastatingly divisive rather than unifying.
So he planned the street layout and the utilities, but he wasn't dictating what sort of building could be built in each location. That's the difference between a well planned city and an authoritarian dictatorship.
One thing that I always say us that humans are natural problem solvers, so if you see a problem that isn't getting solved there's a good chance it's because someone powerful doesn't want it to be solved. In this case, it's car salesmen and real estate speculators/landlords.
None of those groups are organized or have a concentrated impact on politics, though. Car salesmen aren't even unionized. Organizations of REALTORS, though, are usually the #2 biggest spenders in state and local politics behind teachers' unions, I'd point directly at them for an explanation of why zoning is continually getting stricter. People who take a percentage of every home sale have a direct interest in keeping the price of housing high. And with regard to cars, it's not salesmen but the manufacturers and the investment banks who own most of the stock of those manufacturers who are influential on policy at the federal level and control how the money is spent for transport infrastructure.
@@xeroprotagonist Poor wording about car salesment maybe, but my point still stands. As for landlords though, I wasn't primarily talking about human landlords. The companies that maintain complexes of five-over-ones wouldn't be able to charge nearly as much in a healthy, natural housing market. This might be a controversial opinion but I actually don't think human landlords are that bad. They're just people who got tricked (or forced by availability) into buying a house which is excessive for their needs and taking debt which is excessive for their means.
Yep. That two flat to single is disappointing. I found out my childhood home near St Ben’s was up for sale. But was converted to single family and way out of my budget when i wanted to buy it a few years ago.
This channel is a gem! I’d like to see community gardens sprinkled throughout all of Phoenix and suburbs. There’s certainly enough people, and the healthier availability of produce will not only help sustain local need, but also help secure some financial stability when the grocery store mega corps shut their doors. Local food should be incentivized. How do we achieve a sprinkling of small farm/gardens?
The death of the corner store and at home business is also being enforced by the elite business owning class. My wife is a phenomenal baker and can’t even sell cupcakes at a local market if they’re not made in a “commercial kitchen” - setting the bar ever higher for people to make some money. We used to be the land of the free - up until the Boomers decided their 401k was worth more than their kid’s freedom.
@@robertbergren8680 at least here in the US, it's a fact that the baby boomer generation largely (and yes this is obviously a generalization, but it's true of more of them than not) voted for conservative politicians that supported current policies that resulted in what OP is describing.
@@timheilman2089 in many cases that's true. It's also true that a majority of baby boomers have consistently voted to continue them and are actively against changing them.
@strongtowns that commute at 9:49 has made me move jobs before and discouraged me from COUNTLESS jobs in the suburbs that aren't remote or at least variable office. I have actually gotten a recruiter call before "Hey I see this job is actually in bolingbrook which is only about 11 miles from you" LMAO.
Or in other words, we shifted responsibility for the design of our cities from things like local society and market and environmental pressures to bureaucratic procedures and organizations.
And corporate profit. Car centric design and sprawling suburbs exist too because there's more profit in it than actually building the places we live in with people in mind. No developer wants to build mid-rise developments because there's less profit in it than selling single family homes individually. So we get either massive condo towers or suburban sprawl, with nothing in between.
I live in an area of London, UK that was built as a huge development of single family homes with small shopping areas and many corner shops. Unfortunately many of the house and corner shops are now being developed into maisonettes (two-flats) and the shopping centres are losing out to supermarkets. I have no specific problem with attic or basement developments but feel that covering over back gardens with housing would be detrimental. London is said to have 35-40 % green space but public areas can be crowded and having your own patch of green space that is not overshadowed by buildings would be helpful.
A bit of green space of your own should be counted as a human right. Food is a human right, and if you don't own your own bit of soil sufficient to grow your food, you're stuck with buying it from someone who has more than they need.
Really well done and argued. Thought provoking. Tough in my view to find the balance between regulation to preserve a certain quality of life and esthetic and the freedom to be flexible and serve your own needs.
I moved to Austin back in 2010 due to my job being relocated. I lived in a nice 2 bedroom 2 bath apartment near I-35 and Breaker Lane. My rent was $850 per month, and I had some of the nicest neighbors. By the time I moved out in 2017 my rent skyrocketed up to $1500 per month, and the neighborhood had completely changed. I truly believe I was the only person living there who did not receive government housing assistance. I now live about 40 miles outside of the city, and I have to commute. As much as I hate driving, I would absolutely hate living in Austin ever again!
You mentioning gov assistance makes me think of a rule that you shouldn't rent a place that deosnt accept section 8 checks because their are so many slum lords who slather paint over a problem rather than actually fix it and with section 8 all faucets, electrical outlets doors and windows must work. I have seen plenty of slum lords prey on people who are on food stamps and such because they know those people don't have the financial support to sue them or fight for their rights
TX has some serious issues, on so many levels. That said, the best city in TX IMHO is CC, because it's still smol, and the sprawl is rather minimal. The suburbs around the city have actual walk-able infrastructure still. Oh, to be back there again.
This obsession with micromanaging cities to give “permanence” essentially petrified American cities. Preventing change and development like this is what robbed the American economy of the spectacular dynamism that it once had.
The other side of the coin is that Cars have always been a part of the modern American experience. In places such as Chicago, NY, and other traditionally designed cities the focus was still on people. Most modern urban planners design cities around moving people with cars, at the expense of ALL other things . . . especially the safety and well being of the citizens. Cities are supposed to be where people live, not cars . . . but modern America is a nation built for CARS. Lobbying, Corporate over reach, and lots of underhanded dealings over the last century has really reduced social spaces and actual space for people BECAUSE of the cars. Bus, bike, and sensible city design removes the need for every single person needing a car ALL of the time. I lived in a sprawl city many years ago, not even my own house had a sidewalk to or from it. There was no safe way to get to the main strip or downtown. Petrol and The Big Car companies are huge part of the problem.
@@WhatWillYouFindI think that cars are going to disappoint America. The makers are increasingly using circuit boards (PCBs)--in order to cheapen them--as well as to increase MPG. The feds reward the makers handsomely for the latter. The boards add trouble and costs--later--when parts deteriorate and wear out You won't be able to get these circuit boards from AutoZone or NAPA. The makers desire solely that their dealers do repairs. Furthermore, they wish to patent parts The car makers aren't really talented in this PCB tech arena: Stupidly, it's merely a slipshod afterthought. Mr. Snap-On is dying-off--fewer tradespeople are studying to get their SAE bonafides: The writing's on the wall! Besides, the car industry is unanimously hell-bent on electric: In many ways, it's more versatile--it features less parts and complexity, as well--far less future expense. Battery tech is red-hot: That certainly will improve. Sure, it will transition--cocoon into butterfly.. As with the mobile revolution, battery tech will encase, protect, and bolster the industry, mightily--really, society. Related infrastructure will enhance. Furthermore, infrastructure needs instead require plumbing, electrical, welding--and, other trades. Auto repair traditionally was considered a mere and minor ancillary cost of a vehicle: Will hapless owners, later on, be able to get their increasingly costly, flaky, and frustrating vehicles fixed? None of the makers care about ICE (internal combustion engine) vehicles anymore--or, their owners: It's over! Big petrol agrees: They'll push plastics....
You've gotta have at least some amount of urban planning and zoning laws to avoid chaotic sprawl (just look at Houston) but the long-running obsession with preventing residential and commercial units from existing in the same building has destroyed so many neighborhoods for no reason. All it does is increase journey times and force car-centric living with no improvement to quality of life. "Oh, we can't allow residences to be built above businesses! Nobody wants to live in an apartment that's directly above a restaurant/bar/store!" What are you _talking about? Tons of people_ want that! I've heard people say that their "dream apartment" would be one above a grocery store or local cafe! It's ironic, now that I think about it... You're starting to see a return of multi-use structures that host businesses on the first floor and housing above, but mostly just in "luxury" apartment buildings. Residences located above a business used to be considered a sign of (relative) poverty, but as we come to our senses about how convenient and life-enhancing it is to have amenities in walking distance, they've become reserved for the (relatively) wealthy.
@@Sammie1053 Even in "luxury" apartments, the businesses on the first floor are not terribly succesful. People aren't in the habit, and more importantly, business just isn't conducted on that scale. Stores are mega.
@@josephfisher426 Every small business has to start somewhere, and it's usually not with a "mega" store. There's plenty of examples of business being conducted on that scale. Where do you think Walmart started off?
Missing middle and general affordable housing is a major problem right now that needs to be fixed. Weve started turning old manufacturing and religious buildings into housing but there should be better options.
@@marlenestewart7442 When we look in the mirror we see ourselves. Things mostly work as they were designed to work. Our cities reflect us , and we are sadly often narcissistic, racist, class bound, with diminishing equality. We don't want to sit next them or live next to them. Mirror, mirror in my hand, who's the fairest in the land?
Historic cities grew in population only when there was an expansion of employment. The work had to pay decent wages in order that housing could be built. Low wages meant crowded housing. Slums are an income problem. Zoning was used to segregate people as well as uses. Richard Rothstein gave that history in his 2017 "The Color of Law." All employed and student planners should read that, as well as armchair urbanists. Suburbs, housing not related to local employment, were enabled by Cold War Civil Defense. Interstates should not have gone into City centers, but did so for evacuation. The long-term fear of attack on the City because of the density of population and industry, became fear of the city and fear of density. Cities lost population, which meant loss of revenue for the maintenance of infrastructure for a greater population that worked in industry. Now that households have enormous private space requirements, the fact that they convert three units to one is not surprising. The early bedroom communities that lack local employment at wages that puts people in that housing market will be hitting demographic walls as young people leave home. A town that has no long term market function in its region(s) is unlikely to be strong. Construction is a basic industry in very few localities.
I agree that we need to streamline the process, however, imagine having a neighbor that is building a new backyard cottage that’ll overlook your bathroom/bedroom windows as well as losing natural light on your downstairs windows. I think next door neighbor approval should be required at the minimum
Or have simple regulations about overshadowing and about looking in other people's windows, and the building designer has to show that their proposed building isn't going to breach those regulations. They don't need the neighbour's consent, but they're not allowed to build something that will objectively harm the neighbour either.
That's not even the problem. Due to the backwards economics we've created with suburbs, people most often build a bigger house where the already large house they bought was. Those homes are built to maximize value. That means building as much house as possible on the property. Which leads to suddenly having walls and windows where your view used to be. And places where people can turn their head and look right into your home.
Very glad there is urbanism content that speaks the language of conservatives. Preach to the choir, but don't forget to also reach the ones that aren't in church yet.
It doesn't speak to conservatives at all. If you listen to what conservatives say, their complaints are crime, political corruption, and general decline. Cities are places to flee from, or places that you have to spend an insane amount of money to live in a nice place that still has some crappy things about it.
@@BulletRain100 but that's exactly what is weird. Why blame zoning for lapses in law enforcement? If the police are corrupt, why blame transit and housing?
@@BulletRain100 It is speaking to conservatives where they live, not trying to convince them to move to the big cities. The things they are talking about apply to towns of all sizes.
this is brilliant! so many good ideas in a short video. and the best tagline for city governments: "get out of the way". love it. subscribing right away.
The neighborhood I grew up in had 'sweetshops' all over the place. They were run by polish immigrants, and sold bread, eggs, flour, etc., and candy. The neighborhood consisted of Polish flats - a house that started as a basement with a roof, and was expanded by lifting the roof and adding a second and third story at some time in the future (we lived in one of those third story flats) - and at least half of the houses had a granny flat in the alley. The alleys were actually like a completely different neighborhood. Most lots had four families living on them! I love the idea of the accessory dwelling, but would like to add that in addition to the zoning, building codes are making homes insanely expensive and out of reach for many. A lot of people are leaving cities just to get away from the building codes.
And the shitty thing is that the codes result in worse homes than 20 years ago, being written for an extremely slap-dash style of construction that sees every home go through a litany of warranty work
I lived on a sail boat in the tropical Pacific for 5.5 years. That cured me of the desire for the amenities of cities. Now back on land I moved to place 5 miles outside a town of 770 in nowhere WY. I would never live in a metropolitan area again. I can't even see any of my nearest neighbors houses from my house. It is quiet and I can see the Milkyway on clear nights. There is nothing in a city as awe inspiring and beautiful as the stars at night in a sky without light pollution. I live poor by the deranged value systems in cities but I don't feel poor.
And it would be very sad if suburban sprawl made its way to your nice, quiet spot and took the tranquility away from you. People who like their space should be advocating for density and preserving urban living in downtown areas the most! Just because you don’t want to live in an apartment downtown doesn’t mean a hundred young people wouldn’t. If their only option is a single family home in Nowhere, WY, they’re going to have to live there, go into debt for it, and drive thousands of miles in commutes every year. Advocate for mixed use development to keep natural places natural.
@@sarahrose9944 Thanks. I take your comment in the light of the constructive intent I imagine it was made with. Metropolitan areas will eventually expand to just about everywhere. I found things that will mitigate it though it for myself though, by the covenants of the subdivided land I have lots cannot be smaller than 4 acres and the people that are moving in now are very wealthy. They are millionaires that are being displaced by billionaires from places like Jackson Hole and Aspen. Some are coming straight from Silicon valley. The town that is 5 miles away has a population 770, but oddly enough they built an airport with a runway that can handle private jets even at the rather high elevation of 7,000'. These people are displacing the less well heeled but they are paying the people they are displacing handsomely. Property values are rocketing. These people will have the clout to keep it looking as beautiful as it is today because it is theirs. I live at the end of a private dirt road abutting a national forest on two sides and thus no one can build to my south or east. It will very likely stay secluded. It took a lot of thought and search to find such a place and I bought when it was still affordable to non-millionaires. That said. I am advocating for people to save themselves rather than spend there lives fighting the system. Cities are becoming increasingly dysfunctional and quite dangerous. If one is willing to sacrifice, one can avoid going down with that ship. One doesn’t need the high paying jobs, good restaurants or the public entertainment venues of cities to live a happy and fulfilling life. I have lived in San Francisco, Chicago, LA, Charlotte and Paris France - I know what I am missing and I don’t miss it much.
Awesome explanation. This presentation also vindicates my strong desire to eliminate the artificially created commuter nightmare which uses so much carbon releasing fuels to bridge the distance between home and work. This issue, along with desertification and surface heat reflectivity, comprises the "Big Three" climate change drivers. That is why I worked very hard and developed a heat reflective pavement repair material that is much cheaper and longer lasting than other road and bridge maintenance solutions. And yes, in the winter you can run a low voltage charge through it for deicing, saving the billions spent on snow melt chemicals that pollute our groundwater and destroy the pavements that they are applied to.
Sounds like you made a great argument for limited government, and that property owners should be able to do what they want with their own land instead of being limited by local governments who want to hold property values higher by limiting housing supply.
I'd say rather "effective government". The problem with limiting government is that the parts remaining are still for sale to the highest bidder, just like today. Government itself isn't the problem. The way it's practiced in the US is the problem. Get the money out of politics and we can debate whether something should be regulated or not. I'm absolutely here for that discussion. But the way it stands right now, limiting government will just make it easier for the plutocrats to buy up whatever's left for themselves.
My father was a Geography Professor with an emphasis in planned communities. I would have loved to have been able to watch this with him and see what his thoughts would have been about it. Thanks!
Most residents of expensive property resent cheaper housing bringing lower-income people into their neighbourhood. The question is, should we care if racists don't like it?
an excellent article, needs wider presentation. I lve in a small UK depressed and depressing UK town that is evidence of the growth through this latest model and now in need of its the old approach to rset its heart.
There are many people that just want to put as much space between themselves and other people as they can and afford. This is why suburbs are still the most desirable place despite their many drawbacks. Unless you’re so wealthy that you can buy your way out of the inconvenience of living in crowded cities, most people that are older than 25 just want more space.
That's me for sure. I want space. The idea of crowding more and more people into smaller and smaller spaces is crazy. My city describes more and more people as 'vibrant communities'. I call it noisy! I would love to live on a 1000 acres if I had the money. I have no need to be near people
And no one is saying you can’t have that. But… that type of development loses cities money in the long run (infrastructure costs exceed tax revenue in the long term). So, are you okay with having lots of space, but outside the city? And being responsible for sewage and water and other services yourself? If your answer is “yes”, then there’s no problem, you do you.
@@solidaverage a well, septic, and a genny aren’t exactly rocket science. If you can’t handle that stuff, just stay in the city with the rest of the people who can’t function on their own.
The younger generations complain they can’t afford a house. Why should they need one? They aren’t marrying and they aren’t raising families. They don’t even want to work for the same employer long enough, or work on the premises. Cities and leasing are the perfect arrangement for people who can’t commit to anything.
@louisnall3102 It’s true that home ownership gives One purpose and security. But you can’t save for a down payment if you have no desire to work and satisfy every craving or boredom between paychecks.
This seems simplistic. Not all suburbs were built the same way. I grew up in an older suburb in northern New Jersey. It was built more or less on a grid; houses were built mostly one at a time by lots of different builders; there were designated shopping districts; there were no stroads; and there were alternate ways to get anywhere within the town (and to neighboring towns) by bike or foot without traveling on the busier roads if you didn’t want to. And there were lots of suburbs built this way. So the real question is why this pattern of suburban development changed to the large subdivision model that is now widespread.
I'm assuming when he speaks of suburbs, he means specifically the post WW2 auto oriented, mass produced suburbs, and not older suburbs that developed more traditionally. Many city neighborhoods in older cities were actually at one point considered suburbs.
Modern suburban development is largely spurred by 3 things: car centric design, isolation of uses into separate zoning, and land being sold to developers in large lots rather than parcel by parcel. All of which happened post WW2, with the last one being largely due to cities having to sell land to developers to pay for the maintenance of existing suburbs, only for those developers to create more suburbs since they're the most profitable, thus repeating the cycle and making the problem worse because existing suburbs don't increase in density and provide more revenue for the city, they just continue to be a net drain on city resources.
There's a concept called "streetcar suburbs" - older, pre-war suburbs that were once serviced by public transportation as cities grew and industry and commerce needed access to work forces and customer bases further out than a five or ten-minute walk. When car-centrism came into vogue, part of what fueled it (pun intended, haha) was the decommissioning of other means of public transit--fewer trolley lines meant more people needing cars, more cars meant more places needing parking lots, more parking lots led to less housing, longer distances led to the need for larger roads, which led to highways which led to large swathes of neighborhoods being cleared out wholesale...etc. You get the idea. Revitalizing older or "inner ring" suburbs (the ones that are on the inside of whatever Interstate "ring road" that allows traffic to bypass cutting through a given urban area) with the return of public transport like trolleys and streetcars, bike lanes, and returning bus lines or light rail would allow for soft increases of density while keeping the "car creep" from exponentially skyrocketing. Right now, most people have two choices--either in the city on top of each other where a car may not be required, or separated from your neighbors in the 'burbs, but where a car is definitely required to go anywhere. More "streetcar suburbs" would provide a third option--a way to be closer to places like school, work, or shopping with a short hop on a trolley, but still have enough space for breathing room between you and the people on the other side of the wall.
I grew up in Hialeah Florida and that describes the way Hialeah was from the 1940s to the early 1970s, no one one builds any new suburbs like this in Florida and I suspect most anywhere in the USA.
One of the issues is that we consider housing a wealth creation thing and that only happens here in the USA. In order to fix the housing situation we need to admit that we need to break that status quo. Gotta beat back the "I got mine" mindset.
The Japanese mentality around housing would be great. The wealthy don't like buying older houses they want new builds and in general see houses the same way we see cars, a depreciating asset. It's not a solution but it does seem to help keep rent and house prices at a reasonable level.
You make god points. I used to live in Chicago, (Wrigleyville and Lincoln Park). Used to be a beautiful city. Crime, unemployment and city income taxes were another cause of suburban expansion. We used to make things in our factories in our cities, people moved away when we shipped those jobs offshore. Down town St. Louis, Detroit and many others are examples.
Great channel you earned a subscriber. I would love to implement this. I have noticed in my neighborhood and a few others home owners are converting their garages into room and rent them family or others another option.
This is fascinating. Thanks for putting this together. I was born and raised in Chicago. Now I live on the west coast in California and something has always felt off. This explains a lot. Curious to know what other towns were built like Chicago. It seems like Portland is now embracing this mixed use strategy. Interesting the Houston is also doing it.
Perhaps suburbs are an inevitable growth of large cities, which are not really a solution to the problem of large cities, but neither were cities a solution to anything either...other than concentrating workers...wooo Small towns in America are more numerous, balanced, and solve most of these problems...there are over 19,000 cites in America and only about 333 have a population greater than 100,000...88 greater than 250,000, 37 greater than 500,000, and 9 greater than 1,000,000. Density and scale. Large cities create a majority of people in a minority of space creating a majority of problems. The side effect of small towns however still creates the criss-crossing commuting problem of people living in one town only to commute to another to do the same job someone in that town commutes to the other town to do, sometimes for the same company.
May I request an extremely condensed version of this video into a concise pitch, short enough to be read in city council meetings? It would be amazing if we viewers could be crowd sourced for decentralized change.
I appreciate every time you all touch upon the fact that cities, and settlements in general, are living systems, and no living system exists forever in one way. It also highlights the unhealthy relationship people often have with homeownership, expecting infinite growth in their property's value while nothing actually changes to increase that wealth. They can see and feel the remnants of a system meant to keep growing and evolving, but don't want to embrace it. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if this obsession with permanence is part of what makes people fear the myth of overpopulation too.
While the population size in the United States is not the reason for the lack of affordable housing, the earth definitely has a carrying capacity. The population of the planet as a whole, along with the corresponding consumption of natural resources and carbon emissions, especially by United States, has its limits.
@@barryrobbins7694 It does, but I've yet to read a socio-ecologist that argues we would realistically hit that limit or that reaching that limit would occur no matter our living conditions. We've been overproducing food for decades. Water purification exists at every scale. We have solutions for housing, transportation, medicine, and all sort of amenities that can accommodate many more people with some planning and putting humans before the very top level of the economy. We very much have the capacity for more people without everyone living at the density of New York City or relying exclusively on subsistence farming, but that reasonably seems impossible if the only vision of the future is more of what we have now.
Myth of overpopulation? Nay, it's a fact. Malthus calculated long ago that the Earth can support only 1 billion people with starvation and diseases, the Georgia Guidestones suggested an ideal population of 500 million. Of course, with fossil fuels extraction (our covenant with death), the population is in overshoot to 8 billion at present. When fossil fuels run out or the planet becomes inhospitable to life due to carbon emissions from burning all those fossil fuels you'll know for sure that overpopulation is a _fact._
@@barryrobbins7694 and there is a real limit on how much population every nation can support/house. no one (and especially the planet) wants a country completely build over and full of 100 story skyscrapers. every country should have an X % of it's land mass dedicated to staying nature, to keep the country and the world safe and healthy. you can't expect the (world)population to keep growing until (and even after) we reach to point of the world looking like Coruscant in Star Wars. or having cities like in Blade Runner or Robocop is not what the world should aspire to become.
Put bicycle/pedestrian paths connecting up the cul-de-sacs. Also, when shopping centers abut residential neighborhoods, put foot/bike paths connecting them.
I don’t know how this ended up in my recommended, or for that matter what even peeked my interest enough to click on it, but I’m glad I did! Great job with this, and not only was it informative - it’s giving me ideas… 👍
My friend, welcome to the urbanist rabbit hole. Strong Towns has amazing content. Also check out CityNerd, City Beautiful, Not Just Bikes, Oh The Urbanity (for a Canadian perspective) as well.
BS. Gran don't live there. It becomes an AirB&B party house Most current "multi-use" doesn't build for commercial use to be used by long term tenants. "Opitimizing " rents for REITs is corporate pillaging. "Multi use" is malarkey as Most of the "small business" are simply harvesting what other residents build. Not a coffee shop, grocery, hair salon, or ADU for gran, but a late night loud bar. and AirB&B party house That's where the short term fleece and run money is. Small businesses/gran hflat ADU's don"t "optimize revenue" They don't attract long term tenants, the type who are not just looking for short term use with high turnover.
I would not use Houston as an example of any quality building. Huge sections of the city are prone to flooding. In some parts of the city, and in most of the surroundings areas, sidewalks are a luxury. Zoning laws are nonexistent or not enforced. This results in areas that look like a third world country.
It's all part of the plan. Go back and read about that guy Noah, and his take on flood plains. only now , instead of two by two, you just take your phone. That helps avoid the whole trans/cis issue as well.
We like to think corner stores would be independently own. But i think we all know that it would be owned by either cvs, Walgreens, 7/11, a gas station chain, or a dollar store.
10:55 Deed restrictions =/= zoning or HOA’s. You’re conflating a lot of different things here. Save for suburban Kingwood which was sadly annexed, Houston itself doesn’t have HOA’s. The suburbs do. Both articles you showed are about neighborhoods in Houston that have no HOA’s. So these laws wouldn’t even apply anyway. I do have 2 neighborhood corner stores which is nice but it’s a lot more complicated than you make it seem and a lot of these stores survive through unethical means to say the least and not places I go after sunset
I recall hearing from Ezra Klein that to make housing affordable, cities would need to be building millions of new homes. An astronomical number that seems unattainable. These little ADUs or granny flats seem like a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things.
Also, the amount of housing trapped on the rental market by giant corporations who snapped it up during the 2008 crash would do a big dent if we made them sell it to people would be a big dent. Also if more people make basements apartments or granny shacks and let family use them, it means that more working adults can be helping pay the same mortgage. The minimum wage still needs to be higher as well
Just found your channel and I like the government stepping back. Another thing that would be good is a step back to the sustainable home lot, gardens, chickens, sheep, and a return to an "Oak Savanah" of perenial food producing staple crops with large animals eating down energy corridors(powerlines, natural gas lines, ect...). I liked this deep dive keep up the good work. Just as a suggestion work with a few Permaculture designers, regenerative agroculturalists, and ecologists may aid in the "Next" level of city development.
Urbanism is just urban fetishization from "performative progressives". People with a Hollywood image of these places that they like to indulge in until they are out of their early 20s and actually have kids, and no longer see life as eating out and partying.
Can you make a guide for how to efficiently communicate all the points you’ve made over the years? I’M willing to sit down and watch hours worth of videos, but not everyone is. It would be great to be able to explain to someone exactly what’s wrong and how to fix it in just a minute or two, instead of having to stumble over myself and try to explain how everything layers back into itself
Excellent piece. As a former Chicagoan (and homeowner), would also agree 100% with a whole series of points presented. ...These are somewhat nuanced arguments, but are badly needed across the U.S. This is a discussion we need to have.
In germany, the price of a property essentially depends on whether basic services are available. In the countryside, you can buy a large house for little money. But a small plot of land within walking distance of a supermarket, bakery, pharmacy and subway or bus stop costs several times as much.
We need much less government involvement... Government stifles the average person and allows huge developers to do what they want. Let people build their own homes... Development corps are terrible for the environment and freedom..
I loathe suburbia and I grew up in it (Houston), you can’t walk to anything and biking is a tall ask in many cases, public transit doesn’t exist, and even going many places by car can take quite awhile. Just getting a haircut required a 15-20 minute drive to/from, plus 20-30 minutes for the hair cut. I now live in Chicago and while it certainly could be much better, it is vastly superior to a Houston suburb. Walking is very doable, biking is still a bit annoying, but not as bad, and public transit is good (by American standards). My neighborhood has mixed use buildings, mostly single family homes, but there’s several small apartments and multi-unit houses scattered about. There are corner stores, bars, a barber shop, small restaurants, and the kids can and do walk to school (it would’ve taken me the better part of an hour to walk to my high school in Houston). Suburbs suck. I have a lawn, a backyard, a garage, none of those things need to be 3x larger.
Cool story. Live there all you want, but the burbs are becoming popular again because of the big elephant in the room that urban fetishists want to ignore. CRIME.
As european I cant grasp the lack of bars, shops and amenities in residential areas. Here, if you dont have a shop, hair salon, a bar and a pharmacy within walking distance (say 400 m) - your property immediately costs way less. Ok. Its different in countryside but thats obviously less dense and different to cities... but for a reason. You have houses with 10 acre lots - but that lot is not a lawn, its a field. Which grows stuff.
Chicago's diversity of housing within blocks (and that of other towns of the same vintage) is not typical of the biggest US cities. Old money had much more influence in Philadelphia, Baltimore, etc., and much like townhouse builders of today, they overwhelmingly went for the sweet spot of cheap and dense (three stories near the core quickly transitioned to two). Result being that most neighborhoods didn't contain a relief valve if you needed more space or wanted a garden, so too many people wanted to move somewhere else at one time. I don't think cities and counties are unaware of the bang for the buck that they get out of townhouses. You still see very little true mix-and-match between housing types, though.
Terrace housing is brilliant. It's the sweet spot between suburbia and apartments - everyone has their own front door, their own back yard, and their own roof, just like suburbia, so they can have a substantial level of independence, but by making the houses have a smaller footprint and going up instead of out you can fit a lot more households per hectare, more like apartments.
Set-back laws are pointless waste of space & the homeowners money. Not to mention overly restrictive zoning laws. Case-in-point: I have a 0.35 acre corner lot in a very small Upper-Midwestern village. The right-of-way boundary is 30' from the center of the street and the set back law says I cannot build within 25' of the right-of-way. I cannot build a permanent structure on over 0.13ac of the property. Add into that, a more open feel on the street leads to faster driving by the average individual. This results in a more unsafe set of conditions for the kids playing in the neighborhood. And YES, kids CAN play in the streets, IF people aren't "flying" around in cars.
You're describing the fruits of central planning. Bureaucrats survive by making citizens jump through hoops. The administrative state is making a big push to consolidate more power in central government. The "Big Thinkers" want control because "they know better than we do," which is a total lie. Can we buck the trend to return local decision making down to the neighborhood level and buck the trend towards centralization? That is the challenge over the next 40 years to solve.
Oh, boo-fucking-hoo. Acting like the free-market never had any say in any of this. And I say that as market anarchist: The free market has never been at the mercy of any legal fiction. And there is no bigger legal fiction than the state. I'm so over anything that sounds even remotely like, nOtHiNg We DoN't lIkE iS cAuSeD bY aNyThInG We lIkE. If the free market didn't consent to all of this, there is nothing any threat of force could do about it. Because it would have to be free market actors using threats of force to uphold it. Which might work in the short term, but eventually the enforcers would have mobs of violent protestors to deal with.
Problems vary with place. In Fla , everybody wants to live in a park , but nobody spends time out there because its too hot . Theres tennis courts and pools , most unused , and people want to fish, but the lakes are all encircled with private property. The curly subdivisions stymie change , and residents want it that way, simultaneously, gov aims to push growth and accommodate population that nobody wants. They dont even sequence streetlights , what makes anyone think they can coordinate development.
When I see such city layouts, I want to add some bike and foot path to reconnect the streets, set a 30 or 20 km/h speed limit and replace those single family homes with at least three story tall buildings which are closer together. Then add shops and a kindergarten in the center. Unfortunately, I can't do it reality is not city skylines.
Hey! Wait- we don't do this often, but I'm going to ask you to do something- this week is Member Week at Strong Towns! We are 5,000 Strong and counting, and we would love for you to make this movement yours. We are a member supported organization, and we work hard to make sure our members have the resources they need to improve their communities- if you have benefitted from any of our content or have been sitting on the sidelines waiting to get involved, would you consider donating?
P.S.
If you do, when you get the chance to leave a note, compliment Norm. You don't need to know Norm. Just give him a very detailed compliment.
does strong towns do work outside of the US and canada? just wondering
Hey! I want to be part of the movement and make it into part of my career, what is an architecture career path that goes towards helping with strong towns? I'm thinking of studying in the US and staying to work there. I'm mostly thinking of urban planning/designer
I will donate when Strong Towns addresses how to accommodate the elderly, the injured and the handicapped into town/city planning. Everyone refurbishing old buildings simply brings back the limitations of the time they were built.
@@theoriginalkage www.strongtowns.org/journal/tag/disability 👀
The whole "get out of the way" part is something I mention and usually get attacked for. What I see is forcing a high density, low freedom(difficult to leave) development that is not organic. Some people gate being lonely, some want everything done for them, some want privacy and nature. When things grew organically all types of people were able to find they home. Went from being forced into the suburbs, then punished for being there, see the trend here? I like rural life especially with the high crime and political division of today, but at the same time I should not be segregated from the rest of society for being The type of person I am. As with zoning, you wouldn't build a power plant, water treatment plant, or other big Industrial building a block from your house. Those places are my income, I simply don't have "transit route skills" that would get me anything more than poverty. Im getting into my late 30s so the prospect of reeducating into a desk job isn't very attractive. Plus my slowing metabolism would make it difficult to avoid morbid obesity If im sitting or standing around all day, every day.
Working for a state DOT made me realize how entrenched and insidious car dependency really is. So much of our work is really just maintaining the status quo. At least we’ve started to FINALLY realize that just “one more lane bro” is not a sustainable way to transport a population. Change is coming, it’s coming slow but it is definitely on its way and I support you guys all the time (and maybe rant to coworkers about it a little too much 😂)
you're wrong and you have a reddit account so double wrong
@@andrewstachowski3375 why?
@@andrewstachowski3375 brain damage?
@@andrewstachowski3375 tf??
@@andrewstachowski3375
Theres no standing arguement on your end
Average bot L
Another problem with the top-down suburban development model is that it is extremely profitable to developers and their friendly elected representatives. So, Joe Citizen has to jump through many ridiculous hoops to get a basement apartment while the big boys pave over another wetland while no-one is looking. The demise of investigative journalism & local newspapers in recent years doesn't help. Cheers.
It’s can be profitable to develop the proper development, the city just needs to allow it
@@funky6399 True -- in principle -- but overlooking the difference in scale: the hundreds of millions accruing to suburban developers compared to the slightly smaller figure associated with the construction of a single granny flat. So important to maintain a sense of proportion, a key Strong Towns takeaway message. Cheers.
In the US, political campaigns are so expensive. So i guess you dont invest that money if you dont want to use your public office to do some business with your buddies/ for your donors
@@funky6399 Yeah, actually that's the only way that a city can be profitable but corruption seems to work best when things are insanely unprofitable.
There was an experiment where a scientist made a perfect mouse city it didn’t end well. Large cities bring crime and misery
I spent time living and studying in Rome - 5 of us guys living in a flat on the 4th of 6 floor building. I miss the small grocer we had downstairs, the open air market 200 yards away, and how every little subdivision seemed to have its own gelateria and cafes that were all similar yet distinct.
Any time I’ve spent in American cities, from Portland to New York, doesn’t compare. We really messed things up here in the States.
At least you have soulless chains for all your retail needs...
@@bingleflort4338a mix of unprecedented wealth and shortsightedness. For 20ish years the suburban model worked due to the wealth of the people who built them(think of the extremely rich single family home neighborhoods that existed in Europe before cars). Unfortunately that wealth declined (in part due to the housing/city planning model) and over time the houses stopped producing enough tax revenue to justify their existence. For reference as to just how wealthy America was at the time when suburbs started being a thing, the barrier to entry of the middle class was, adjusted for actual inflation, somewhere around $174,000 usd. That's not median middle class, that's not top end middle class, that's the bare minimum to be considered part of the middle class which at that point over 50% of the population met. For reference to where that number comes from its done based of off quality of life adjusted income rather than pure inflation numbers, which adjusts for more increases in cost of both living and of luxuries that a typical household would have.
That wealth led to the misguided belief that the old ways of doing things was no longer necessary, which manifested in a ton of social change and a ton of economic change, some of which was for the better (race issues mainly) and a lot of which was for the worse (housing and city planning, outlook on government, and almost every economic decision post 1960)
I recently spent time in Thailand. I noticed a pattern of blocks of 4-6 story buildings where the bottom 1-2 floors were businesses and the floors above were residential. This seems to provide a close to optimal density. The new construction high rise condos seem to have too many people with too few resources while freestanding houses require a car or scooter.
Also, the big high rises tend to ignore basic resources down below - you kind of noted this but in my rapidly growing town we have tons of dense, 10-14 story buildings popping up in the core, and literally no grocery store.
So, we built dense and then force even those chosing to live in the walkable area to have a car to get basic necessities. And then we wonder why many people opt to not live in these (generally expensive) areas.
@@markarbanasin4 Yeah. Where I was staying, you really needed to take a taxi to the grocery store, but there was a 7-11 just about every block, pharmacies every couple of blocks, lots of street vendors and other resources. I'm okay with taking a taxi every week or so to go to the grocery store to stock up or to the mall. Also, I have noticed that cars off the road are often a big problem as the space for parking pushes everything further apart.
So move to Thailand. I guarantee you won't want to stay.
@@maxbrazil3712 you are being a jerk. You know nothing about me and my situation.
Nice if you want to live in rabbit cages
It seems like just getting rid of parking requirements and restrictive zoning would go a long way to restoring sanity in our communities.
In the case of Houston, where I live, it’s about implementing zoning that makes sense. Homeowners are constantly at war with loud businesses.
@@bettyc1841 Agreed, unfortunately I saw this in the last suburban community I lived at, they voted against allowing mixed-used zoning and allowing higher density housing to be built. They all assume it'll be 'less desirables' moving in.
@@sparklesparklesparkle6318 because everyone in the US wants to live in a single family home, so only those who can't afford it live in high rises and those are the ones more likely to commit crimes. Besides, there's not just high density and low density. There's low rises (usually up to four floors) and mid rises (usually up to six floors with something around two to four apartments per floor) as well. In most of Europe, most of city centres are made up of those. No high crime there, just people living comfortably. The US has mostly cut those out, so it's either 'be wealthy enough for your own home' or 'be poor and live in a high-density area where there's a lot of crime' (as in a lot of poor communities).
Nothing says sanity like overcrowding. its great having 1 foot of lawn to share with ten other families in a concrete jungle.
Well ever live in a low income apartment complex. It's where you can always find drugs. And stolen goods. Ask me how I know? Years of experience.@@xtinafusco
Bob Vila back in the 80's developed what was being called the generational house. It started with a 1 bedroom core with kitchen and other rooms. Then, over time, there were ways to add wings for kids and increased public space. It ended with a pretty healthy building with a room for the grandparents or college age kid with fairly independent access, several kids bedrooms upstairs and utilities easy to expand. If the floorplan was built with durability, you would have a house that could hold 3 or 4 generations of semi-extended family... Yeah, master planning, and HOA's that went with them have ben inflexible.
Multigenerational housing has long been practiced in Italy, but the houses are closer together. The fatal flaw of the US and Canada is the prevalence of people thinking they have to be as isolated as they are from other families.
Austin has tripled in population since the 1980 census in the city limits alone and yet the infrastructure has hardly changed save for a few narrow toll roads here and there. They choose not to build roads or a decent train system despite there being the funds for it. Capital metro was a bust and barely even runs.
And their project connect is a bust
The worst part about Austin is many people will complain about housing prices and traffic in one breath, while opposing changes like public transportation improvements or building more dense housing in the other. Austin voted down what is essentially Project Connect 20 years ago, and many similar decisions only served to kick the can down the roads for today's youth to suffer the consequences
@@nihouma11 I generally agree with you, but would note that more housing is being built in Austin than in any other city in the country right now, much of it high-density towers and medium-high density 5/1s.
Houston is not too far behind, but Austin's new dense housing is much more concentrated. This means lower prices in Houston, but also a less feasable urban future.
@@denali637 Congrats on them couple downtown high rises most can’t afford but most development in the ATX area is tract housing suburbia in the northwest and north sides. The costs are still well above national averages even compared to cities on the east coast. Harris county voters since 2004 have voted for the currently 3 rail lines and expanding (7th busiest LRT system in America in terms of riders/track mile), the other 400 miles and counting of bike lanes and paths, a new revamped BRT and local bus system that has made getting around the inner loop with or without a car much easier.
Austin has been debating fixing I-35 all 3 plus decades I’ve been alive 🤦🏿♂️ and the one train y’all got doesn’t run after 6pm.
Would be fine if they built many bus lanes like Curitiba instead. But I guess they did not do that. 1 bus lane is as good as 5 car lanes.
No urban area should be planned without factoring in walkability, any resident should be able to be within walking distance of amenities, shops, schools, parks and other employment opportunities. In the UK and Europe these principles are fundamental as they make up the basis for forming communities as opposed to just housing. Of course public transport options are always considered as well so as to make car ownership more of option and less of a necessity for survival.
The main irony is that doing it that way both saves money and makes driving easier as getting people out of cars reduce congestion and bike trails requires less maintenance then roads.
Great video. Interesting point about it being so easy to decrease density, but not increase it. Those early chicago neighbourhoods are beauties! A mix of types and affordabilities!
Came upon you by happenstance. Thirty seconds in, I realized that I'd stiff this one out, and watch it all. VERY informative, if not occasionally brilliant in its multi generational tale of how the entire system has evolved to put mostly nuclear families in flimsy suburban fantasy boxes. Ontario Premier Doug Ford (brother of the infamous Toronto Mayor, Rob Ford) should be Clockwork Oranged with all of this channel's videos. Very well done. And a new subscriber to boot!😅
The current restricted system gives all the power and options to corporations and leaves the normal citizens and potential small business owners as peons in service to those corporations. This is why things will be very hard to change as corruption and greed will fight to keep them as they are.
Not really
@NateBullock-ow6on
Most current "multi-use" doesn't build for commercial use to be used by long term tenants.
"Opitimizing " rents for REITs is corporate pillaging.
"Multi use" is malarkey as Most of the "small business" are simply harvesting what other residents build.
Not a coffee shop, grocery, hair salon, or ADU for gran, but a late night loud bar. and AirB&B party house
That's where the short term fleece and run money is. Small businesses don"t "optimize revenue" for the REIT's.
They don't attract long term tenants, the type who are not just looking for bars with high turnover.
Yeah, that's why it's sad seeing people still refer to the US and the EU as "democracies". Saddest part is that Marx predicted all of this, and what did those corporations do? Lie about him and mock him, even a century and a half after his death, as if his ghost is gonna come call them out somehow.
DURURRRR HURRRR CORPORATIONS EEEEVILLL 🤓🤓☝️
@@nano31742 most eloquent retort from the reactionaries as usual 😂
Most cities in Europe have continued to follow a traditional development pattern. There are some aspects of the American problems that we also have, but not as pronounced. Most little corner grocery stores have disappeared in Germany, for example, but usually you can still walk or bicycle to a small to mid-sized Aldi nearby. People often live up to an hours drive outside of big cites like Munich and commute, because of high housing prices, but each of these communities are usually complete towns and villages with their own little shops, not mere suburbs.
It's like this with London. It might be more dense than when it was first dreamt up, but each tube stop outside Zone 1 basically exists as a mini island suburb. A walkable bubble that has everything you need. I've lived here for a decade in four different places and I've never been more than 10 minutes walk from those typical services (groceries, pharmacy, doctors, barbers, dry cleaners, take-away).
@@Dekedence I remember the Jay Foreman video about the Northern Line. Every station was designed to be a civic center, with shops and establishments around the station, then more housing units were built all around it, basically building new towns along the way.
I know right. I grew up in a German village, then lived in car centric suburbs in Australia before moving to the city in Budapest, so I can compare those from first hand experience.
I have lived in 2 different places in Budapest (first in Pest centre now in Buda) and every neighbourhood feels like a little village in itself.
In between the arterial roads the small side streets are pretty quite and you see a decent amount of people walking around.
Within less then 10 min. walking distance I have: 2 Grocery stores (Supermarket chains) 4 small corner shops, 3 tobacconists, 2 pharmacies, 1 butcher, 1 baker, one vegetable shop, a Police station, a Medical office, 1 florist, 2 kindergardens, 1 pub, 2 pizzerias, one kebab shop and 2 parks for having a stroll or other activities (both have open air gyms and the bigger one has a playground). If I need anything else, the post office, a rail station and a shopping centre are 2 bus or tram stops away.
The suburbs in Australia were sterile. Eerily empty of people walking by except for Door to Door salesmen or Jehovah Witnesses. I had to drive the kids to Daycare, I had to drive 20 minutes to go shopping, I had to drive to get to the doctors and I couldn't even visit a pub without driving.
So either you take a taxi, drive drunk or drink at home. There wasn't even a park nearby, you had to drive to get to a nice location to have a walk and a playground for children.
Also the houses were stacked so close to each other, they could have as well have been apartment buildings, except apartments have better noise isolation.
Here in Budapest it's all around the corner, I don't even own a car, it would just cost money. Even my office is only 2 Tram stops away.
I have everything I need around me, I can get anywhere with public transport. The few times I go out of town I usually get away with taking the Train (or Plane).
For those rare occasions I really need a car, I rent one. The cost of renting a car for about 1-2 weeks a year is still cheaper than the cost of buying one, paying insurance and tax plus fuel and maintenance on it.
Sure in villages you need a car to get out of the village, but a village isn't a suburb. Suburbs are urban areas pretending to be rural and failing utterly at being any of those 2 worlds.
I'd say well developed Urban areas are more like rural Villages, stacked next to each other in a box with public transport connecting them.
@@boomerix nice comparison between Hungary and Australia
Suburbs in the US are home to large grocers and the infamous strip mall..even traditional malls are in the suburbs now. More and more, cities have just become office buildings
I love this architectural philosophy and have been unwittingly following it. I'm homesteading land in a ghost town in the Nevada desert, and the work of many years is accomplished one little task at a time. I don't pay enough in taxes for the government to be able to afford to send people out to bother me over building codes, and that benevolent noninterference has done more for me than most government programs and regulations. It doesn't surprise me one bit that this is taking off in a place like Houston.
Dangerously based.
Awesome for you. Your ancestors probably fled the old world for exact same reason.
11:48 there's a front yard small business across from my house and as a dog owner its great having the pet clinic so close!
There's tons of front yard businesses in the houston area
This was VERY interesting. Very thought provoking.
It's interesting to look at suburban developments from the perspective of the American myth of freedom and independence. You have a small group of wealthy elites dictating how people live, it's central planning in its purest form. Whole towns built with just the input of a small handful of powerful individuals planning everything from the roads to the internal layouts of the houses.
quite the opposite. The city is easily the most unfree place you can live.
Start going to your local township meetings then.
@@ramsaybolton9151Which city? You're talking like there is only one.
@@rasputozen Some people have to go to work and have to take care of other things outside of their jobs themselves.
Are those people complaining in youtube comment sections about their lack of influence on town/city planning as well?@@eitkoml
Cities need to tax property for positive revenue. Anything else is a subsidy for the wealthy and is unsustainable. While I complain - living in Florida, there should be a national FEMA hazard tax for homes built along the beachfront and other high risk areas. Why are we subsidizing vacation properties along the coast for the wealthy that degrade and privatize what should be an important wildlife habitat and shared resource?
100% agree. So many people object to subsidizing public transportation that can potentially help every tax bracket, but never object to subsidizing vacation homes in places like you said. Also, we need to stop subsidizing suburbs with our property tax system.
That is called flood insurance and homeowners insurance. FEMA flood insurance allows the government to buy you out once you hit 2/3 of the value of the property in damage. I know of instances where people no longer claim damages because they would rather repair the damage than lose the house. Also local governments prefer the tax revenue on multimillion dollar homes that are beachfront property rather than unused land.
Building codes are intended to prevent damage. I find the bigger issue is unethical developers who ignore flood hazards even when warned.
Taxing property is also a very effective tool for racists and classists to drive everyone who isn't rich out of an area where developers want access to the land. My late grandmother lived on the blind pension for the last twenty years of her life and the property tax on the house that she had inherited from her parents, a comfortable walk from the middle of her country town, was approximately six weeks' gross income for her.
She just lived incredibly poor, saving up all year to be able to pay that tax, because otherwise she'd have been forced into a retirement home - and elderly blind people don't handle being pushed into new environments, so that probably would have killed her.
@@tealkerberus748 - It's literally not racist and classist if you do away with zoning ordinances at the same time. Property taxes should be based on how much acreage you control, not what is built on the land.
@@arthurwintersight7868 So she owned half an acre of land in a premium location, while living on a blind pension. The combination of owning a very high market value asset that yields no cash income, while living on a very low income, really isn't that uncommon. Taxing people on the saleable value of an asset they haven't sold is always going to cause harm.
This also applies to another couple I used to know who bought a run-down farmlet on the edge of town and turned it into a wildlife refuge. It wasn't earning money either, and would have been worth a mint to someone willing to bulldoze the trees and subdivide it for housing. But they had koalas and echidnas and all sorts of birds and so forth - they didn't want to destroy that for human houses!
Taxes should be primarily based on income, because that is the ultimate proof of capacity to pay. We have expenditure taxes as well as a backup way to get some revenue from people with tax-free or undeclared income, but expenditure taxes bear hard on people who have no income and are depleting their savings to buy groceries so we try to minimise that.
I'm from Chicago. It blew my mind when I moved to other cities and realized how terrible it was to be a pedestrian without a car. My grandmother lived her whole life in Chicago without ever using a car. I live in San Francisco Bay now and it is marginally better than most cities in terms of getting places by foot in east bay but things are still spread apart.
I live over in the east bay too, and it is so close to being walkable. You still need a car for the most part which is frustrating.
But that said? As a committed pedestrian, Chicago is still pretty miserable. Traffic is terrible here and trains and buses can be really unpredictable. Every time I walk to go get groceries, it’s a 85% chance someone turning right on red out of some major parking lot (that doesn’t need to be there in a city so supposedly full of public transport) won’t see me and I almost get hit.
@@innocentnemesis3519 that’s not wrong either I remember it well people are terrible drivers
@@innocentnemesis3519 It's really sad how truly awful the country is in terms of walkability and public transportation. I've lived within about 2 hours of Boston my entire life, and despite the hatred people have for the T here, a full 50% of Boston's workforce uses it every day for their commute. And the subway system is only half the size it was 100 years ago. But even despite that, and the frequent fires, the Boston T still ranks in the top 3 public transportation networks in the country and is a full half hour shorter commute on average than the countrywide average.
I lived in the East Bay for my third decade and it's a large and varied area. Where I first moved to, at the edge of the South Campus area in Berkeley, it was _extremely_ walkable. When I moved to, first, South Berkeley by the Ashby BART station and then North Oakland near the MacArthur BART, it was a lot less so. I still managed to get around well enough by bicycle (being in my 20s and the area being flat), riding to my office job on the Emeryville Marina - but it was obvious that the expected method of getting around was by car.
However, the area around MacArthur BART has been undergoing a lot of change lately, with a TOD in what used to be the station's enormous parking lot on the Telegraph Ave side, which has itself been redesigned to provide for bicycles and buses instead of just cars, some other TOD appearing on the other side of the tracks (the side I used to live on), and bicycle lanes being installed on that side too.
Of course, when I lived there, it was long before the massive influx in tech development in Emeryville transformed the whole area west of San Pablo Ave - it was a run-down ghost town when I was riding through it on my way to work & back in the late-'80s. I think Genentech had moved in just before I moved to San Francisco; all the big development there happened after. But the area between the freeway/BART tracks and San Pablo Ave remained a static, neglected slum all throughout that period and I'm only recently (through the BART train windows) seeing some new buildings pop up on that side.
I only hope that the new stuff doesn't price everyone who currently lives in the neighborhood out. But that's been the pattern. Developers constantly tell us themselves, there's no money to be made renting apartments to non-millionaires, we have to *force* them to set aside a meager percentage for that; given their druthers, they price *everything* sky-high and kick *everyone* who can't afford it out of the entire area.
As a German, I live in the large city of Hamburg. Yet despite living in a small development area within the eastern district of Wandsbek that was created after the war to provide the much needed housing it still retains its "small village" aspect. Within the next five minutes of my front door, walking distance obviously, I have two hair salons, a bakery and cafe, two general practitioner doctors, two dentists, a small Penny supermarket, a phone store, two subway lines, three bus lines... the list goes on and on. While my tiny 'mini-suburb' has building restrictions on houses within this development (two floors above ground) the immediate vicinity doesn't have any restrictions.
Four floor apartment buildings support multi-use construction. Within the building are located small stores like hair salons, physical therapy practices, cafes, bakeries, etc. with apartments above them. It is a vibrant, living community.
Just to show that city planning does not require full mixed usage, only that mixed usage has to be the predominant usage. Small developments within a mixed usage setting may have *some* restrictions on what is allowed to be built, and heavy industry is never allowed within a mixed usage area. But the whole area requires walkable mixed usage zoning, or rather, non-zoning.
@@Runco990 that isn't a german thing, that's a "literally everywhere in the world" thing that has people living above shops
@@Runco990 You may like the German style, but it appears that most Americans do not. many Americans are still voting with their money & moving OUT of dense cities into suburbs. Please google the Atlantic - April 2022; Brookings Institute July 2022; the Business Insider August 2023; & the study published by the University of Toronto Sept 2023. All of these and more state that people are leaving dense urban areas and moving to more suburban locations. The people doing the moving are 30-to45 year-olds.
@@gregorybiestek3431 dude most Americans aren't moving out of cities because they don't like the "German Style" (despite that style being common in literally every country" . Americans are leaving cities because it's just too damn expensive to live in them.
@@gregorybiestek3431 A lot of people, Americans and Europeans, move from cities to suburbs, for a few simple reasons: space, privacy, having a garden. If you're starting a family, suburbs are generally much better places for kids to grow up in. Most people who move there do not regret their choice, and do not return to an urban home until a much later stage in their life.
The problem with some suburbs (in particular the American ones) is that it's homes only, as far as the eye can see. When we moved to a new Dutch suburb in the 70s, they planned a shopping center and some other amenities right in the middle of it. It was deemed so important that while the shopping center was being built, they opened a bunch of emergency shops in wooden barracks nearby, even though there were plenty of stores only a short drive away. The norm seems to be that basic amenities like stores, libraries, sports facilities, entertainment and bars, ought to be at most an easy bike ride away. Great for kids! Our parents wouldn't dream of driving us anywhere, and they let us go everywhere on our own.
Um, Hamburg's good only because Germans know how to work together.
Texans just buy more guns.
Take a step back and ask yourself why do we even have cities? The first answer that should come to your mind is that humans needed places to TRADE. It is all about transportation, which is why cities developed along natural trade routes and harbors with the primary products traded being agricultural and mineral. People are dispersed because most of them are still needed to grow food. Along comes the industrial revolution and steam power. Suddenly you have the railroad -- a tremendous advance in transportation that links the vast interior of the USA with the coasts. All you have to do is lay the rails and vast agricultural and mineral resources are available to your factories, which at this point are still in or near port cities.
As people flocked to the cities to work in the factories this is where you got tenements, overcrowding and generally poor conditions for most. What also happens is that new cities spring up along the rail hubs in the interior and people start spreading out looking for a better life.
The next huge leap in transportation isn't just the automobile, it is the truck. Suddenly you are not limited to just the rail lines - anyplace with decent roads lets you move truckloads of goods into the market. With the postwar development of the interstate highway system, suddenly the factories producing your goods don't need to be located at a railroad hub or port city - and neither do your workers. Factories and jobs leave the cities and the workers follow because they get a better life outside the cities. The suburbs didn't develop "for the rich", they developed because a burgeoning middle class wanted something better for themselves and their children.
Fast forward to the 21st century - the transportation system is a vast array of containers full of goods moved by ship, rail, and truck anywhere they need to go. For a city to even be considered as a location for a factory or transportation hub they have to give out huge concessions on taxes and costs -- because they have priced themselves out of the market.
Suburbs didn't destroy the cities - mismanagement did, along with the basic failure to city leaders to understand that their city exists because people come there to trade and do business. Running business out of your city means you run the revenue out of your city as well.
I love this. In places with a enough land for everyone to spread out on, dense cities are pointless.
@@zncon The very existence of our current housing crisis proves that there is not enough land to spread apart, and that there is a place for urban density.
@@evanramee796 In the US at least, land is plentiful though. There's millions of empty acres out there. If a company wanted to build homes, they can find a place to do it.
We have a housing crisis because not enough homes have been built for decades. There's a lot of reasons for that, but mostly it's just not that profitable to build houses.
Consider this - If there was meaningful profit to be made building houses, corporations would be tripping over each other to do it. Cities wouldn't have to bribe and seduce builders to come in - they'd be making them to fight for contracts.
Now why is there no money to be made here when houses sell for so much? Materials, procedures, and labor costs. Everything is inflated.
This is also why the shortages are the worst for small/starter homes. 5% profit on a $500k home is a lot more attractive then 5% of $100k.
Thank you for this important context. I think it is important to remember that we have more transportation technology than we have ever had before. The challenge comes in using it wisely. I recently visited my grandparents, who live 4 hours away by car. Before the automobile, the trip may have taken weeks. I thank the car for letting me visit my grandparents every year. I, however, do not think that the car is inherently superior to other modes of transportation, especially in cities. Transit on a dedicated right-of-way can move far more people with far less resources than a similar investment into highways. Walking and biking improve mental and physical health, and even electric scooter rentals can provide convenient, expedient travel with little upfront investment. I wholeheartedly believe that car access is fundamentally no different from pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or even unicycle access, and that nobody should live under the tyranny of a transportation system that does not serve them. Sidewalks should be safe and abundant, bike lanes should be separated and contiguous, transit systems should run frequently and reliably, and roads should run smoothly with available parking. I'm not anti-car, I'm pro transportation choice.
@@evanramee796 I am pro transportation choice also. Although I remember there used to be many more trains to smaller and large cities so sometimes you could visit your grandparents and other relatives with the train easier.
To use an example with even a big city, Cincinnati used to have more trains at better times to travel to Cincinnati. However, now the only train that comes to Cincinnati that is a passenger train comes at a very odd time. I know that because I traveled with a relative that couldn’t take a plane because of a medical condition and I can’t drive a long way so I went with them
Praise for Strong Towns!
Here is a simple one for the thumbnail, where the suburban loop pinches closest, put a bike path with sidewalk. do it in an organised way across the neighborhood, and suddenly you have a neighborhood where people can easily walk from one place to another. put a small school(1 classroom per year group type thing, for kids under 12), a small supermarket (size of a normal house or so), and drug store in the middle with 10 car parking spots combined or less, and you have a walkable neighborhood that serves most basic needs of the people living there, while still being hostile to through traffic. A little traffic calming on the street by the school, and by many of the pedestrian crossings would be great. then we're just some gentle density away from the neighborhood acting like a small town
Start asking how many people have been to Europe. Those who have will understand. Those who have not will be made known that they do not understand the progress we are working to achieve.
I lived in Chicago ('71-'83). My grandparents lived four houses down. I thought it was odd that their house was towards the middle of the block and was built in 1920 but that my parents' house was built 35 years later on the same block. We eventually moved to the suburbs (in a different state) where our yard could fit >4 of those houses in Chicago.
America's largest city, New York City, didn't really grow in this unplanned way. In the early 1800s, New York Governor DeWitt Clinton, planned for the city's expansion into a major manufacturing center. He had the Erie Canal built from Buffalo to Albany, so that materials from the Midwest could be more cheaply and efficiently transported down the Hudson River to the city where these raw materials could be manufactured into goods. He had a grid of numbered and lettered streets cut into the forests and farmlands surrounding what was then, the modest sized city of New York. He also had a huge aqueduct built, to serve the water needs of the future New York, that he dreamed of. A city with millions of people from all over the world, who produced clothing, books, small appliances, and all kinds of other goods. DeWitt Clinton also had a vision for how New York City could benefit the surrounding rural areas. His pitch to these places was that the city would generate more business for the farms surrounding the city, and that the city would produce more goods for the farmers to buy with their money. So, it was really a vision, and a plan to turn that vision into a reality, that allowed New York City to grow and thrive.
That and Robert Moses.
True, but New York did allow businesses on the ground floor/ basement and upper level apartments. Which under all these new zoning rules would not be allowed. There are apartment building literally right next to single family homes and restaurants. It was well planned ( I always complain that cities aught to be laid out in a grid for ease of travel) but there was a lot of freedom in the planning
@@tinkthestrange Planning is often incremental. That is a common point in that more ideas are tried than implemented. huge redesigns ( Moses, Hausmann, Eisenhower's interstates) can fail big when not thought through and flexibly applied being devastatingly divisive rather than unifying.
So he planned the street layout and the utilities, but he wasn't dictating what sort of building could be built in each location. That's the difference between a well planned city and an authoritarian dictatorship.
9:48I love "Typical commute 50 min to 1 hr 40 min". That's really helpful.
One thing that I always say us that humans are natural problem solvers, so if you see a problem that isn't getting solved there's a good chance it's because someone powerful doesn't want it to be solved. In this case, it's car salesmen and real estate speculators/landlords.
None of those groups are organized or have a concentrated impact on politics, though. Car salesmen aren't even unionized. Organizations of REALTORS, though, are usually the #2 biggest spenders in state and local politics behind teachers' unions, I'd point directly at them for an explanation of why zoning is continually getting stricter. People who take a percentage of every home sale have a direct interest in keeping the price of housing high. And with regard to cars, it's not salesmen but the manufacturers and the investment banks who own most of the stock of those manufacturers who are influential on policy at the federal level and control how the money is spent for transport infrastructure.
@@xeroprotagonist Poor wording about car salesment maybe, but my point still stands. As for landlords though, I wasn't primarily talking about human landlords. The companies that maintain complexes of five-over-ones wouldn't be able to charge nearly as much in a healthy, natural housing market. This might be a controversial opinion but I actually don't think human landlords are that bad. They're just people who got tricked (or forced by availability) into buying a house which is excessive for their needs and taking debt which is excessive for their means.
Yep. That two flat to single is disappointing. I found out my childhood home near St Ben’s was up for sale. But was converted to single family and way out of my budget when i wanted to buy it a few years ago.
This channel is a gem! I’d like to see community gardens sprinkled throughout all of Phoenix and suburbs. There’s certainly enough people, and the healthier availability of produce will not only help sustain local need, but also help secure some financial stability when the grocery store mega corps shut their doors. Local food should be incentivized. How do we achieve a sprinkling of small farm/gardens?
The death of the corner store and at home business is also being enforced by the elite business owning class. My wife is a phenomenal baker and can’t even sell cupcakes at a local market if they’re not made in a “commercial kitchen” - setting the bar ever higher for people to make some money.
We used to be the land of the free - up until the Boomers decided their 401k was worth more than their kid’s freedom.
You could've omitted that last sentence. Just because someone is of a certain age doesn't mean they caused you misery. The folks in power did.
The policies in question where enacted before some of the Boomers for where even born.
@@robertbergren8680 And the folks voting (or not voting) at that time let them. I say this as a boomer.
@@robertbergren8680 at least here in the US, it's a fact that the baby boomer generation largely (and yes this is obviously a generalization, but it's true of more of them than not) voted for conservative politicians that supported current policies that resulted in what OP is describing.
@@timheilman2089 in many cases that's true. It's also true that a majority of baby boomers have consistently voted to continue them and are actively against changing them.
@strongtowns that commute at 9:49 has made me move jobs before and discouraged me from COUNTLESS jobs in the suburbs that aren't remote or at least variable office. I have actually gotten a recruiter call before "Hey I see this job is actually in bolingbrook which is only about 11 miles from you" LMAO.
Or in other words, we shifted responsibility for the design of our cities from things like local society and market and environmental pressures to bureaucratic procedures and organizations.
And corporate profit. Car centric design and sprawling suburbs exist too because there's more profit in it than actually building the places we live in with people in mind. No developer wants to build mid-rise developments because there's less profit in it than selling single family homes individually. So we get either massive condo towers or suburban sprawl, with nothing in between.
no we subordinated it to the profit of real estate and car companies
I live in an area of London, UK that was built as a huge development of single family homes with small shopping areas and many corner shops. Unfortunately many of the house and corner shops are now being developed into maisonettes (two-flats) and the shopping centres are losing out to supermarkets.
I have no specific problem with attic or basement developments but feel that covering over back gardens with housing would be detrimental. London is said to have 35-40 % green space but public areas can be crowded and having your own patch of green space that is not overshadowed by buildings would be helpful.
A bit of green space of your own should be counted as a human right. Food is a human right, and if you don't own your own bit of soil sufficient to grow your food, you're stuck with buying it from someone who has more than they need.
Really well done and argued. Thought provoking. Tough in my view to find the balance between regulation to preserve a certain quality of life and esthetic and the freedom to be flexible and serve your own needs.
I moved to Austin back in 2010 due to my job being relocated. I lived in a nice 2 bedroom 2 bath apartment near I-35 and Breaker Lane. My rent was $850 per month, and I had some of the nicest neighbors. By the time I moved out in 2017 my rent skyrocketed up to $1500 per month, and the neighborhood had completely changed. I truly believe I was the only person living there who did not receive government housing assistance. I now live about 40 miles outside of the city, and I have to commute. As much as I hate driving, I would absolutely hate living in Austin ever again!
You mentioning gov assistance makes me think of a rule that you shouldn't rent a place that deosnt accept section 8 checks because their are so many slum lords who slather paint over a problem rather than actually fix it and with section 8 all faucets, electrical outlets doors and windows must work. I have seen plenty of slum lords prey on people who are on food stamps and such because they know those people don't have the financial support to sue them or fight for their rights
@@kateajurors8640 Where I live, section 8 housing means idle men, crime, drugs, and violence. Not the sort of place you want your wife to be near.
@@tonyennis1787 that's the system's fault more than it is any of the "idle men's" fault. We desperately need to change the status quo in the US.
TX has some serious issues, on so many levels. That said, the best city in TX IMHO is CC, because it's still smol, and the sprawl is rather minimal. The suburbs around the city have actual walk-able infrastructure still. Oh, to be back there again.
This obsession with micromanaging cities to give “permanence” essentially petrified American cities. Preventing change and development like this is what robbed the American economy of the spectacular dynamism that it once had.
The other side of the coin is that Cars have always been a part of the modern American experience. In places such as Chicago, NY, and other traditionally designed cities the focus was still on people. Most modern urban planners design cities around moving people with cars, at the expense of ALL other things . . . especially the safety and well being of the citizens. Cities are supposed to be where people live, not cars . . . but modern America is a nation built for CARS. Lobbying, Corporate over reach, and lots of underhanded dealings over the last century has really reduced social spaces and actual space for people BECAUSE of the cars. Bus, bike, and sensible city design removes the need for every single person needing a car ALL of the time. I lived in a sprawl city many years ago, not even my own house had a sidewalk to or from it. There was no safe way to get to the main strip or downtown. Petrol and The Big Car companies are huge part of the problem.
@@WhatWillYouFindI think that cars are going to disappoint America.
The makers are increasingly using circuit boards (PCBs)--in order to cheapen them--as well as to increase MPG. The feds reward the makers handsomely for the latter.
The boards add trouble and costs--later--when parts deteriorate and wear out
You won't be able to get these circuit boards from AutoZone or NAPA. The makers desire solely that their dealers do repairs. Furthermore, they wish to patent parts
The car makers aren't really talented in this PCB tech arena: Stupidly, it's merely a slipshod afterthought.
Mr. Snap-On is dying-off--fewer tradespeople are studying to get their SAE bonafides: The writing's on the wall!
Besides, the car industry is unanimously hell-bent on electric: In many ways, it's more versatile--it features less parts and complexity, as well--far less future expense. Battery tech is red-hot:
That certainly will improve. Sure, it will transition--cocoon into butterfly..
As with the mobile revolution, battery tech will encase, protect, and bolster the industry, mightily--really, society. Related infrastructure will enhance.
Furthermore, infrastructure needs instead require plumbing, electrical, welding--and, other trades.
Auto repair traditionally was considered a mere and minor ancillary cost of a vehicle: Will hapless owners, later on, be able to get their increasingly costly, flaky, and frustrating vehicles fixed?
None of the makers care about ICE (internal combustion engine) vehicles anymore--or, their owners: It's over!
Big petrol agrees: They'll push plastics....
You've gotta have at least some amount of urban planning and zoning laws to avoid chaotic sprawl (just look at Houston) but the long-running obsession with preventing residential and commercial units from existing in the same building has destroyed so many neighborhoods for no reason. All it does is increase journey times and force car-centric living with no improvement to quality of life. "Oh, we can't allow residences to be built above businesses! Nobody wants to live in an apartment that's directly above a restaurant/bar/store!" What are you _talking about? Tons of people_ want that! I've heard people say that their "dream apartment" would be one above a grocery store or local cafe!
It's ironic, now that I think about it... You're starting to see a return of multi-use structures that host businesses on the first floor and housing above, but mostly just in "luxury" apartment buildings. Residences located above a business used to be considered a sign of (relative) poverty, but as we come to our senses about how convenient and life-enhancing it is to have amenities in walking distance, they've become reserved for the (relatively) wealthy.
@@Sammie1053 Even in "luxury" apartments, the businesses on the first floor are not terribly succesful. People aren't in the habit, and more importantly, business just isn't conducted on that scale. Stores are mega.
@@josephfisher426 Every small business has to start somewhere, and it's usually not with a "mega" store. There's plenty of examples of business being conducted on that scale. Where do you think Walmart started off?
Missing middle and general affordable housing is a major problem right now that needs to be fixed. Weve started turning old manufacturing and religious buildings into housing but there should be better options.
Your "housing" is"Artist's sudios" for artistic attorneys, brokers and bankers Arch Digest spread before flipping.
start by disinviting hundreds of thousands of homeless people into the problem each year.
@@marlenestewart7442 When we look in the mirror we see ourselves.
Things mostly work as they were designed to work.
Our cities reflect us , and we are sadly often narcissistic, racist, class bound, with diminishing equality. We don't want to sit next them or live next to them.
Mirror, mirror in my hand, who's the fairest in the land?
Historic cities grew in population only when there was an expansion of employment. The work had to pay decent wages in order that housing could be built. Low wages meant crowded housing. Slums are an income problem. Zoning was used to segregate people as well as uses. Richard Rothstein gave that history in his 2017 "The Color of Law." All employed and student planners should read that, as well as armchair urbanists. Suburbs, housing not related to local employment, were enabled by Cold War Civil Defense. Interstates should not have gone into City centers, but did so for evacuation. The long-term fear of attack on the City because of the density of population and industry, became fear of the city and fear of density. Cities lost population, which meant loss of revenue for the maintenance of infrastructure for a greater population that worked in industry. Now that households have enormous private space requirements, the fact that they convert three units to one is not surprising. The early bedroom communities that lack local employment at wages that puts people in that housing market will be hitting demographic walls as young people leave home. A town that has no long term market function in its region(s) is unlikely to be strong. Construction is a basic industry in very few localities.
I agree that we need to streamline the process, however, imagine having a neighbor that is building a new backyard cottage that’ll overlook your bathroom/bedroom windows as well as losing natural light on your downstairs windows. I think next door neighbor approval should be required at the minimum
Or have simple regulations about overshadowing and about looking in other people's windows, and the building designer has to show that their proposed building isn't going to breach those regulations. They don't need the neighbour's consent, but they're not allowed to build something that will objectively harm the neighbour either.
It happened to me, it sucks!
That's not even the problem. Due to the backwards economics we've created with suburbs, people most often build a bigger house where the already large house they bought was. Those homes are built to maximize value. That means building as much house as possible on the property. Which leads to suddenly having walls and windows where your view used to be. And places where people can turn their head and look right into your home.
Very glad there is urbanism content that speaks the language of conservatives. Preach to the choir, but don't forget to also reach the ones that aren't in church yet.
It doesn't speak to conservatives at all. If you listen to what conservatives say, their complaints are crime, political corruption, and general decline. Cities are places to flee from, or places that you have to spend an insane amount of money to live in a nice place that still has some crappy things about it.
@@BulletRain100 Hate to break it to ya, buddy, but Strong Towns began with Chuck Marohn, a sweater-vest wearing Republican from Minnesota.
@@BulletRain100 but that's exactly what is weird. Why blame zoning for lapses in law enforcement? If the police are corrupt, why blame transit and housing?
@@BulletRain100 It is speaking to conservatives where they live, not trying to convince them to move to the big cities. The things they are talking about apply to towns of all sizes.
I agree, so much of other content is just a climate change or anti-car tirade. It’s beat to death.
this is brilliant! so many good ideas in a short video. and the best tagline for city governments: "get out of the way". love it. subscribing right away.
The neighborhood I grew up in had 'sweetshops' all over the place. They were run by polish immigrants, and sold bread, eggs, flour, etc., and candy. The neighborhood consisted of Polish flats - a house that started as a basement with a roof, and was expanded by lifting the roof and adding a second and third story at some time in the future (we lived in one of those third story flats) - and at least half of the houses had a granny flat in the alley. The alleys were actually like a completely different neighborhood. Most lots had four families living on them! I love the idea of the accessory dwelling, but would like to add that in addition to the zoning, building codes are making homes insanely expensive and out of reach for many. A lot of people are leaving cities just to get away from the building codes.
And the shitty thing is that the codes result in worse homes than 20 years ago, being written for an extremely slap-dash style of construction that sees every home go through a litany of warranty work
I lived on a sail boat in the tropical Pacific for 5.5 years. That cured me of the desire for the amenities of cities. Now back on land I moved to place 5 miles outside a town of 770 in nowhere WY. I would never live in a metropolitan area again. I can't even see any of my nearest neighbors houses from my house. It is quiet and I can see the Milkyway on clear nights. There is nothing in a city as awe inspiring and beautiful as the stars at night in a sky without light pollution. I live poor by the deranged value systems in cities but I don't feel poor.
And it would be very sad if suburban sprawl made its way to your nice, quiet spot and took the tranquility away from you. People who like their space should be advocating for density and preserving urban living in downtown areas the most! Just because you don’t want to live in an apartment downtown doesn’t mean a hundred young people wouldn’t. If their only option is a single family home in Nowhere, WY, they’re going to have to live there, go into debt for it, and drive thousands of miles in commutes every year. Advocate for mixed use development to keep natural places natural.
@@sarahrose9944 Thanks. I take your comment in the light of the constructive intent I imagine it was made with. Metropolitan areas will eventually expand to just about everywhere. I found things that will mitigate it though it for myself though, by the covenants of the subdivided land I have lots cannot be smaller than 4 acres and the people that are moving in now are very wealthy. They are millionaires that are being displaced by billionaires from places like Jackson Hole and Aspen. Some are coming straight from Silicon valley. The town that is 5 miles away has a population 770, but oddly enough they built an airport with a runway that can handle private jets even at the rather high elevation of 7,000'. These people are displacing the less well heeled but they are paying the people they are displacing handsomely. Property values are rocketing. These people will have the clout to keep it looking as beautiful as it is today because it is theirs. I live at the end of a private dirt road abutting a national forest on two sides and thus no one can build to my south or east. It will very likely stay secluded. It took a lot of thought and search to find such a place and I bought when it was still affordable to non-millionaires. That said. I am advocating for people to save themselves rather than spend there lives fighting the system. Cities are becoming increasingly dysfunctional and quite dangerous. If one is willing to sacrifice, one can avoid going down with that ship. One doesn’t need the high paying jobs, good restaurants or the public entertainment venues of cities to live a happy and fulfilling life. I have lived in San Francisco, Chicago, LA, Charlotte and Paris France - I know what I am missing and I don’t miss it much.
This video is so good. Thank you. 10:20 reveals such a sad state of the American community . I'm hopeful though. The Strong Towns movement is growing.
Great video!! Writing my city leaders today. This video inspired me to start the work.
Awesome explanation. This presentation also vindicates my strong desire to eliminate the artificially created commuter nightmare which uses so much carbon releasing fuels to bridge the distance between home and work. This issue, along with desertification and surface heat reflectivity, comprises the "Big Three" climate change drivers. That is why I worked very hard and developed a heat reflective pavement repair material that is much cheaper and longer lasting than other road and bridge maintenance solutions. And yes, in the winter you can run a low voltage charge through it for deicing, saving the billions spent on snow melt chemicals that pollute our groundwater and destroy the pavements that they are applied to.
You need to think a few steps further if you think de-icing roads with electricity is a practical and successful solution.
Sounds like you made a great argument for limited government, and that property owners should be able to do what they want with their own land instead of being limited by local governments who want to hold property values higher by limiting housing supply.
No convenience stores in neighborhoods!
I'd say rather "effective government". The problem with limiting government is that the parts remaining are still for sale to the highest bidder, just like today. Government itself isn't the problem. The way it's practiced in the US is the problem. Get the money out of politics and we can debate whether something should be regulated or not. I'm absolutely here for that discussion. But the way it stands right now, limiting government will just make it easier for the plutocrats to buy up whatever's left for themselves.
My father was a Geography Professor with an emphasis in planned communities. I would have loved to have been able to watch this with him and see what his thoughts would have been about it. Thanks!
People don't seem to understand that most residents don't like more housing in their neighborhood.
Most residents of expensive property resent cheaper housing bringing lower-income people into their neighbourhood. The question is, should we care if racists don't like it?
always the nimbys making things worse for everyone and too scared of change
an excellent article, needs wider presentation. I lve in a small UK depressed and depressing UK town that is evidence of the growth through this latest model and now in need of its the old approach to rset its heart.
There are many people that just want to put as much space between themselves and other people as they can and afford. This is why suburbs are still the most desirable place despite their many drawbacks.
Unless you’re so wealthy that you can buy your way out of the inconvenience of living in crowded cities, most people that are older than 25 just want more space.
That's me for sure. I want space. The idea of crowding more and more people into smaller and smaller spaces is crazy. My city describes more and more people as 'vibrant communities'.
I call it noisy! I would love to live on a 1000 acres if I had the money. I have no need to be near people
And no one is saying you can’t have that. But… that type of development loses cities money in the long run (infrastructure costs exceed tax revenue in the long term). So, are you okay with having lots of space, but outside the city? And being responsible for sewage and water and other services yourself? If your answer is “yes”, then there’s no problem, you do you.
@@solidaverage a well, septic, and a genny aren’t exactly rocket science. If you can’t handle that stuff, just stay in the city with the rest of the people who can’t function on their own.
The younger generations complain they can’t afford a house. Why should they need one? They aren’t marrying and they aren’t raising families. They don’t even want to work for the same employer long enough, or work on the premises. Cities and leasing are the perfect arrangement for people who can’t commit to anything.
@louisnall3102 It’s true that home ownership gives One purpose and security. But you can’t save for a down payment if you have no desire to work and satisfy every craving or boredom between paychecks.
Mmmmmmmmmmmmm..........Thought provoking.....a Brilliant share!!!!
This seems simplistic. Not all suburbs were built the same way. I grew up in an older suburb in northern New Jersey. It was built more or less on a grid; houses were built mostly one at a time by lots of different builders; there were designated shopping districts; there were no stroads; and there were alternate ways to get anywhere within the town (and to neighboring towns) by bike or foot without traveling on the busier roads if you didn’t want to. And there were lots of suburbs built this way.
So the real question is why this pattern of suburban development changed to the large subdivision model that is now widespread.
I'm assuming when he speaks of suburbs, he means specifically the post WW2 auto oriented, mass produced suburbs, and not older suburbs that developed more traditionally.
Many city neighborhoods in older cities were actually at one point considered suburbs.
I think the distinction is the suburbs in northern New Jersey started more as independent "towns" before complete dependence on cars.
Modern suburban development is largely spurred by 3 things: car centric design, isolation of uses into separate zoning, and land being sold to developers in large lots rather than parcel by parcel. All of which happened post WW2, with the last one being largely due to cities having to sell land to developers to pay for the maintenance of existing suburbs, only for those developers to create more suburbs since they're the most profitable, thus repeating the cycle and making the problem worse because existing suburbs don't increase in density and provide more revenue for the city, they just continue to be a net drain on city resources.
There's a concept called "streetcar suburbs" - older, pre-war suburbs that were once serviced by public transportation as cities grew and industry and commerce needed access to work forces and customer bases further out than a five or ten-minute walk. When car-centrism came into vogue, part of what fueled it (pun intended, haha) was the decommissioning of other means of public transit--fewer trolley lines meant more people needing cars, more cars meant more places needing parking lots, more parking lots led to less housing, longer distances led to the need for larger roads, which led to highways which led to large swathes of neighborhoods being cleared out wholesale...etc. You get the idea.
Revitalizing older or "inner ring" suburbs (the ones that are on the inside of whatever Interstate "ring road" that allows traffic to bypass cutting through a given urban area) with the return of public transport like trolleys and streetcars, bike lanes, and returning bus lines or light rail would allow for soft increases of density while keeping the "car creep" from exponentially skyrocketing. Right now, most people have two choices--either in the city on top of each other where a car may not be required, or separated from your neighbors in the 'burbs, but where a car is definitely required to go anywhere. More "streetcar suburbs" would provide a third option--a way to be closer to places like school, work, or shopping with a short hop on a trolley, but still have enough space for breathing room between you and the people on the other side of the wall.
I grew up in Hialeah Florida and that describes the way Hialeah was from the 1940s to the early 1970s, no one one builds any new suburbs like this in Florida and I suspect most anywhere in the USA.
You bet I'm discouraged, this won't be solved before I'm in an old folks home.
One of the issues is that we consider housing a wealth creation thing and that only happens here in the USA. In order to fix the housing situation we need to admit that we need to break that status quo. Gotta beat back the "I got mine" mindset.
The Japanese mentality around housing would be great. The wealthy don't like buying older houses they want new builds and in general see houses the same way we see cars, a depreciating asset. It's not a solution but it does seem to help keep rent and house prices at a reasonable level.
I started my channel to urge Midsweden to make its towns better!
You make god points. I used to live in Chicago, (Wrigleyville and Lincoln Park). Used to be a beautiful city. Crime, unemployment and city income taxes were another cause of suburban expansion. We used to make things in our factories in our cities, people moved away when we shipped those jobs offshore. Down town St. Louis, Detroit and many others are examples.
Great channel you earned a subscriber. I would love to implement this. I have noticed in my neighborhood and a few others home owners are converting their garages into room and rent them family or others another option.
@9:55 sums it up perfectly! The sea of boring beige sameness across the country is nauseating.
you did NOT have to go so hard with that hop transition in the first 15 seconds of this video
This is fascinating. Thanks for putting this together. I was born and raised in Chicago. Now I live on the west coast in California and something has always felt off. This explains a lot. Curious to know what other towns were built like Chicago. It seems like Portland is now embracing this mixed use strategy. Interesting the Houston is also doing it.
Great summary of so many topics.
Perhaps suburbs are an inevitable growth of large cities, which are not really a solution to the problem of large cities, but neither were cities a solution to anything either...other than concentrating workers...wooo
Small towns in America are more numerous, balanced, and solve most of these problems...there are over 19,000 cites in America and only about 333 have a population greater than 100,000...88 greater than 250,000, 37 greater than 500,000, and 9 greater than 1,000,000. Density and scale. Large cities create a majority of people in a minority of space creating a majority of problems.
The side effect of small towns however still creates the criss-crossing commuting problem of people living in one town only to commute to another to do the same job someone in that town commutes to the other town to do, sometimes for the same company.
May I request an extremely condensed version of this video into a concise pitch, short enough to be read in city council meetings?
It would be amazing if we viewers could be crowd sourced for decentralized change.
I appreciate every time you all touch upon the fact that cities, and settlements in general, are living systems, and no living system exists forever in one way. It also highlights the unhealthy relationship people often have with homeownership, expecting infinite growth in their property's value while nothing actually changes to increase that wealth. They can see and feel the remnants of a system meant to keep growing and evolving, but don't want to embrace it. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if this obsession with permanence is part of what makes people fear the myth of overpopulation too.
the last sentence did hit hard with permanence and the myth of overpopulation
While the population size in the United States is not the reason for the lack of affordable housing, the earth definitely has a carrying capacity. The population of the planet as a whole, along with the corresponding consumption of natural resources and carbon emissions, especially by United States, has its limits.
@@barryrobbins7694 It does, but I've yet to read a socio-ecologist that argues we would realistically hit that limit or that reaching that limit would occur no matter our living conditions. We've been overproducing food for decades. Water purification exists at every scale. We have solutions for housing, transportation, medicine, and all sort of amenities that can accommodate many more people with some planning and putting humans before the very top level of the economy.
We very much have the capacity for more people without everyone living at the density of New York City or relying exclusively on subsistence farming, but that reasonably seems impossible if the only vision of the future is more of what we have now.
Myth of overpopulation? Nay, it's a fact. Malthus calculated long ago that the Earth can support only 1 billion people with starvation and diseases, the Georgia Guidestones suggested an ideal population of 500 million. Of course, with fossil fuels extraction (our covenant with death), the population is in overshoot to 8 billion at present. When fossil fuels run out or the planet becomes inhospitable to life due to carbon emissions from burning all those fossil fuels you'll know for sure that overpopulation is a _fact._
@@barryrobbins7694 and there is a real limit on how much population every nation can support/house.
no one (and especially the planet) wants a country completely build over and full of 100 story skyscrapers.
every country should have an X % of it's land mass dedicated to staying nature, to keep the country and the world safe and healthy.
you can't expect the (world)population to keep growing until (and even after) we reach to point of the world looking like Coruscant in Star Wars.
or having cities like in Blade Runner or Robocop is not what the world should aspire to become.
What a well-researched and presented video!
Put bicycle/pedestrian paths connecting up the cul-de-sacs. Also, when shopping centers abut residential neighborhoods, put foot/bike paths connecting them.
Don't forget huts for the walkers and cyclists to overnight during their long treks.
@@whazzat8015 Most errands are less than five miles away, and most of those less than two. Well within the capacity of a healty adult on a bicycle.
@@comment8767 Not in the city itself. But in the sububs?
I don’t know how this ended up in my recommended, or for that matter what even peeked my interest enough to click on it, but I’m glad I did!
Great job with this, and not only was it informative - it’s giving me ideas… 👍
My friend, welcome to the urbanist rabbit hole. Strong Towns has amazing content. Also check out CityNerd, City Beautiful, Not Just Bikes, Oh The Urbanity (for a Canadian perspective) as well.
Do a video on cities losing apartments….. nyc lost 10,000 in the past ten years
surviving and having excess = success
Big fan of ADUs! It’s a nice way to keep family’s close by while preserving independence.
BS. Gran don't live there. It becomes an AirB&B party house
Most current "multi-use" doesn't build for commercial use to be used by long term tenants.
"Opitimizing " rents for REITs is corporate pillaging.
"Multi use" is malarkey as Most of the "small business" are simply harvesting what other residents build.
Not a coffee shop, grocery, hair salon, or ADU for gran, but a late night loud bar. and AirB&B party house
That's where the short term fleece and run money is. Small businesses/gran hflat ADU's don"t "optimize revenue"
They don't attract long term tenants, the type who are not just looking for short term use with high turnover.
excellent video and explanation, thank you!
I would not use Houston as an example of any quality building. Huge sections of the city are prone to flooding. In some parts of the city, and in most of the surroundings areas, sidewalks are a luxury. Zoning laws are nonexistent or not enforced. This results in areas that look like a third world country.
It's all part of the plan.
Go back and read about that guy Noah, and his take on flood plains.
only now , instead of two by two, you just take your phone.
That helps avoid the whole trans/cis issue as well.
We like to think corner stores would be independently own. But i think we all know that it would be owned by either cvs, Walgreens, 7/11, a gas station chain, or a dollar store.
10:55 Deed restrictions =/= zoning or HOA’s. You’re conflating a lot of different things here. Save for suburban Kingwood which was sadly annexed, Houston itself doesn’t have HOA’s. The suburbs do. Both articles you showed are about neighborhoods in Houston that have no HOA’s. So these laws wouldn’t even apply anyway. I do have 2 neighborhood corner stores which is nice but it’s a lot more complicated than you make it seem and a lot of these stores survive through unethical means to say the least and not places I go after sunset
I live in Midtown and have an HOA.
@@denali637 True, I worded that a bit poorly. I should have specified I was referring to SFR communities. My sister also lives in midtown :)
Love it Mike, great work.
I recall hearing from Ezra Klein that to make housing affordable, cities would need to be building millions of new homes. An astronomical number that seems unattainable. These little ADUs or granny flats seem like a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things.
Issa start, but we need real apartment building. High rises too. We need high rises until all Americans have homes
@@thenotoriousmichaeljackson8938 we need to get over the idea that the "american dream" is a 2500 sq ft single family home on a half acre lot.
Also, the amount of housing trapped on the rental market by giant corporations who snapped it up during the 2008 crash would do a big dent if we made them sell it to people would be a big dent. Also if more people make basements apartments or granny shacks and let family use them, it means that more working adults can be helping pay the same mortgage. The minimum wage still needs to be higher as well
The freeway of Houston Texas look like a blight upon the landscape. !!! I saw them for the first time on the way to New Orleans.
Just found your channel and I like the government stepping back. Another thing that would be good is a step back to the sustainable home lot, gardens, chickens, sheep, and a return to an "Oak Savanah" of perenial food producing staple crops with large animals eating down energy corridors(powerlines, natural gas lines, ect...). I liked this deep dive keep up the good work. Just as a suggestion work with a few Permaculture designers, regenerative agroculturalists, and ecologists may aid in the "Next" level of city development.
Awesome video about Chicago.
It's interesting: urbanism is a progressive issue, but the solutions are libertarian.
Urbanism is just urban fetishization from "performative progressives". People with a Hollywood image of these places that they like to indulge in until they are out of their early 20s and actually have kids, and no longer see life as eating out and partying.
I think you mean librarian.
@@whazzat8015 Ha!
The corn field analogy for cities is apt, considering how the Covid pandemic escalated in cities and sent city dwellers into a panic.
Can you make a guide for how to efficiently communicate all the points you’ve made over the years? I’M willing to sit down and watch hours worth of videos, but not everyone is. It would be great to be able to explain to someone exactly what’s wrong and how to fix it in just a minute or two, instead of having to stumble over myself and try to explain how everything layers back into itself
You might like to read Suburban Nation, or Death and Life of Great American Cities, or the Architecture of Community.
This was great! Thank you!
Excellent piece. As a former Chicagoan (and homeowner), would also agree 100% with a whole series of points presented. ...These are somewhat nuanced arguments, but are badly needed across the U.S. This is a discussion we need to have.
In germany, the price of a property essentially depends on whether basic services are available. In the countryside, you can buy a large house for little money. But a small plot of land within walking distance of a supermarket, bakery, pharmacy and subway or bus stop costs several times as much.
We need much less government involvement... Government stifles the average person and allows huge developers to do what they want. Let people build their own homes... Development corps are terrible for the environment and freedom..
Really great video ❤❤ love what Strong Towns has been doing here :)
String Towns is the truth.
Dangling fantasy in front of developers and HGTV types that have newly found religion.
I loathe suburbia and I grew up in it (Houston), you can’t walk to anything and biking is a tall ask in many cases, public transit doesn’t exist, and even going many places by car can take quite awhile. Just getting a haircut required a 15-20 minute drive to/from, plus 20-30 minutes for the hair cut.
I now live in Chicago and while it certainly could be much better, it is vastly superior to a Houston suburb. Walking is very doable, biking is still a bit annoying, but not as bad, and public transit is good (by American standards).
My neighborhood has mixed use buildings, mostly single family homes, but there’s several small apartments and multi-unit houses scattered about. There are corner stores, bars, a barber shop, small restaurants, and the kids can and do walk to school (it would’ve taken me the better part of an hour to walk to my high school in Houston).
Suburbs suck. I have a lawn, a backyard, a garage, none of those things need to be 3x larger.
Cool story. Live there all you want, but the burbs are becoming popular again because of the big elephant in the room that urban fetishists want to ignore. CRIME.
As european I cant grasp the lack of bars, shops and amenities in residential areas.
Here, if you dont have a shop, hair salon, a bar and a pharmacy within walking distance (say 400 m) - your property immediately costs way less.
Ok. Its different in countryside but thats obviously less dense and different to cities... but for a reason. You have houses with 10 acre lots - but that lot is not a lawn, its a field. Which grows stuff.
Chicago's diversity of housing within blocks (and that of other towns of the same vintage) is not typical of the biggest US cities. Old money had much more influence in Philadelphia, Baltimore, etc., and much like townhouse builders of today, they overwhelmingly went for the sweet spot of cheap and dense (three stories near the core quickly transitioned to two). Result being that most neighborhoods didn't contain a relief valve if you needed more space or wanted a garden, so too many people wanted to move somewhere else at one time.
I don't think cities and counties are unaware of the bang for the buck that they get out of townhouses. You still see very little true mix-and-match between housing types, though.
Terrace housing is brilliant. It's the sweet spot between suburbia and apartments - everyone has their own front door, their own back yard, and their own roof, just like suburbia, so they can have a substantial level of independence, but by making the houses have a smaller footprint and going up instead of out you can fit a lot more households per hectare, more like apartments.
Outstanding Video!
Set-back laws are pointless waste of space & the homeowners money. Not to mention overly restrictive zoning laws.
Case-in-point: I have a 0.35 acre corner lot in a very small Upper-Midwestern village. The right-of-way boundary is 30' from the center of the street and the set back law says I cannot build within 25' of the right-of-way. I cannot build a permanent structure on over 0.13ac of the property.
Add into that, a more open feel on the street leads to faster driving by the average individual. This results in a more unsafe set of conditions for the kids playing in the neighborhood. And YES, kids CAN play in the streets, IF people aren't "flying" around in cars.
That's where the stroad goes.
Thank god that Philly's walkable.
You're describing the fruits of central planning. Bureaucrats survive by making citizens jump through hoops. The administrative state is making a big push to consolidate more power in central government. The "Big Thinkers" want control because "they know better than we do," which is a total lie. Can we buck the trend to return local decision making down to the neighborhood level and buck the trend towards centralization? That is the challenge over the next 40 years to solve.
You're a wasting your time. Most of this urbanist lads are somewhat socialist and tend to blame the greedy housing cartels.
Oh, boo-fucking-hoo. Acting like the free-market never had any say in any of this. And I say that as market anarchist: The free market has never been at the mercy of any legal fiction. And there is no bigger legal fiction than the state.
I'm so over anything that sounds even remotely like, nOtHiNg We DoN't lIkE iS cAuSeD bY aNyThInG We lIkE. If the free market didn't consent to all of this, there is nothing any threat of force could do about it. Because it would have to be free market actors using threats of force to uphold it. Which might work in the short term, but eventually the enforcers would have mobs of violent protestors to deal with.
Problems vary with place. In Fla , everybody wants to live in a park , but nobody spends time out there because its too hot .
Theres tennis courts and pools , most unused , and people want to fish, but the lakes are all encircled with private property.
The curly subdivisions stymie change , and residents want it that way, simultaneously, gov aims to push growth and accommodate population that nobody wants.
They dont even sequence streetlights , what makes anyone think they can coordinate development.
Florida is all going to be underwater anyway by the time the ice caps finish melting. Its problems are definitively short term problems.
There is nothing more permanent than a temporary solution.
When I see such city layouts, I want to add some bike and foot path to reconnect the streets, set a 30 or 20 km/h speed limit and replace those single family homes with at least three story tall buildings which are closer together. Then add shops and a kindergarten in the center. Unfortunately, I can't do it reality is not city skylines.
First urbanist account I have seen that is able to describe how cities are subverting the free market to keep density artificially low