Most downtowns are built for commuters rather than residents. They forced out residents in favor of building higher cost commercial real estate. What residential buildings there is targets only the highest incomes. No surprise they are struggling.
Hear me out, and this might sound crazy: but what if we build walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods with shops, parks, and libraries? That way people will boost local economy instead of getting into car and driving to centralized locations like Walmart or malls?
Then who would we sell gas to?
Sadly this is one of the biggest pieces of the puzzle, even more sadly the rest of it is probably racism
That sounds like some of that communist soci-libral nazism to me, for sure for sure /s
We had that. We bulldozed it.
I mean, what kind of healthy life are you trying to live?
But then you will hear many decry the creation of 15 minute cities and they want to force us to never leave the area and take away our cars to control us.
I wish I could end this with /s but I've actually seen people post this sadly.
We will reach a point when the "I can't park anywhere" crowd is outvoted by the I want to walk to run errands crowd.
That's already happening in some places. The cities right outside Boston, for example.
The problem is that once again people with genuine concerns get derided and insulted which pushes them deeper into these views - people have a lot of great reasons for not wanting their car taken away and fearing that the rich's solution to population growth is going to be to force people into prison communities, that's been a common theme in history - Australia and America only exist as they are because of the clearances, and the North of England owes most it's population to poors getting tricked into moving to brutally compact works towns and treated like cattle.
Instead of hearing the fears and needs of people they're just attacked, called stupid and going by most the times I've seen it come up flooded by people saying things like 'cars are bad, it would be better if we got rid of them all' which is super unhelpful, it's like calling a movement 'defund the police' and having everyone yell about how we should get rid of them all because they're all bastard's but not address the actual needs society has for people tasked with stopping crime - why do people supporting sensible and important things have to make their views sound so intensely unpalatable?
We need to address all the great things that cars and suburban living have brought us, and yes I can already hear the comments from people yelling that it's a literal hellscape and traffic and etc etc etc but what are people who are living lives they enjoy going to say when they hear that? What are people who don't want to live the small community lifestyle going to say when told it's the only good way of living? When people who enjoy the benefits of modern logistics get told they'll just learn to adapt to having less?
The dumbest bit is we could be focusing on positive additions to peoples lives and offering greater efficiency and freedom through the use of modern planning and technology - that's what the 15 min city idea is actually about (kinda, depending who's version you look at).
The logistics of a 15 min lifestyle have to exceed in quality of life the current system, and people need to actually agree not just be badgerd into accepting less. I could talk for days about how this can be done, key points include integrated transport networks to facilitate travel and exploration, nationalised version of Amazon and eBay with community shipping, zoning rules based on measured impact rather than use type (e.g. you're welcome to live in a high noise area or have shops in a low pollution and traffic area if you can accept the limitations), nationalised services for community utilities to avoid corporate monopolies, measures to improve temporary relocation and travel, investment in affordable and efficient multi-transport cargo (rather than a removal van taking your house the whole way you fill a cargo container and have it collected by a lorry to do the first mile journey to a station where it's loaded onto a train or ship to move to a transport hub then forwarded to the final destination where it's taken last mile to the new address by a lorry..)
Improving logistics has to come first, the rallying cry can't be 'you need this and will have to try and learn to live with it' it has to be 'this is how we can live better lives'
You are right. And that is because any departure from that 15 minute zone by a vehicle is supposed to be billed. And people don't want to be restricted to move free of charge only within those 15 minutes. Nobody is stupid not to want everything they need on a daily basis within a spiting distance.
because I love spending 4 hours in the bus to go to a park for lunch.
Not a problem if there's a park and a cafe 5min walk from your house.
I cant tell if there were a bunch of people who missed the inherent sarcasm in my post.
Or if they genuinely believe a 4 hour bus ride to the park is a good thing.
Take this /s, we are on the internet, tone and intent don't communicate via text. Use it wisely.
You must be talking about that liberal agenda to make communist “15 minute cities!”
Not today, bill gates!!
My local walkable grocery store is a Safeway. They sell a 3lb pack of ground turkey for $18.
Walmart, target, smart and final, and Lucky's are all <$12, but I have to drive. And that's one item. I save hundreds a month in groceries because I have a car and can shop around. I can wait for deals, I can buy in bulk.
The idea of a walkable city is nice, but if you restrict competition, prices skyrocket. And yeah, that Safeway is walkable to an apartment, the only grocery store that is, and they know it. It is infuriating to dismiss practicality for an dream.
Walkable cities and car hate are just another generations NYMBY's. Those rich enough and finantialy secure to afford premiums that push others out. Meanwhile this transitional uncertainty greatly harms many of us struggling to make ends meet.
I go to Walmart or Target in my car.
Walkable neighbourhoods restrict competition.
🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
That's one thing I won't understand about this self-reclusive, anti-atomony movement.
Its basic logic. If I have a walkable radius of 1 mile and a drivable radius of 10, I have the accessability of all grocery stores within that area with a greater selection and purchasing power. These apartments I referenced have exactly one store to shop for groceries. The decision is literally A) Do you purchase an overpriced product for convenience or B) spend an extra hour and public transit to hunt a deal.
I mean sometimes I feel like I'm arguing with children; zero experience in real life. Yes, some can make it work. No, it doesn't work for everyone. Area of accessibility and the competitive choices it allows, are essential to those not as well off.
I'm still undecided about this "fuck cars" movement, but you seem to be kind of saying that walkable cities won't work because presently you can't walk everywhere you want to go. I think the answer to that is simply that you don't live in a walkable city - your city has been designed around the notion that everyone has access to a car.
I guess the inability to drive around smurfing up bargains is a very specific problem that walkable cities aren't intended to address. I think the basic premise is that if there's more people seeking basic vittles within walking distance from their home then competition will appear. They may not be quite as cheap as at the Walmart 10 miles away, but then the opportunities for local vendors will improve your own personal financial circumstances also.
As an aside, when you spend a little time in a large city with public transport and lots of shops, it's easy to see how the fuck cars movement seems like a no-brainer. "If no one had cars then no one would need them!"... but as someone who lives in a regional / rural area it's really hard to see how it could possibly work. I mean perhaps "possible" in some way but it definitely undermines most of the reasons I enjoy living away from a large city.
That's the result of poor planning, and not true everywhere. Places with good planning for non-automotive transport have much smaller shops, smaller streets, and more of everything because of it. The radius you can reach within 15 minutes might be smaller, but the actual number of places you can get to can be much larger.
That doesn't even make sense - you are in a neighborhood that only has one grocery store nearby due to car dependent planning, therefore walkability isn't practical?
I live in a neighborhood that was definitely originally designed for cars and has been gradually getting better and I've already got at least two grocery stores I can easily walk to, plus two convenience stores and a pharmacy that's kind of also a convenience store. Then I've got another three or four that I can easily bike to. And these aren't small grocery stores, they're all like massive supermarkets designed originally around car traffic.
If you spend time in places that have actual walkable neighborhoods, you find lots of much smaller grocery stores and you can easily shop around and compare prices on foot.
I think there's a big difference in how you understand these things depending what angle you come from, logistically your situation makes no sense and only seems to exist, as you said, because of car centric infrastructure. Where I live was very much designed around foot traffic and yes it's great being able to get all the daily things nearby, I love the parks and on rare occasions I actually went to go where the busses take me, plan to be back before they stop and don't have to take more than a bags worth of stuff with me they're great too.
There are very real problems though, local library is useful if you order books and don't mind waiting forever, shops likewise are great for bread, cheese and snacks but unless you want a very boring diet and dont mind paying a premium otherwise you need to go somewhere with a higher volume of trade than the walkable zone around the local shops can support - that's before you consider things beyond food like tools, clothes, and services.
All the small grocery stores their entire customer base can walk to are more expensive than larger stores and they all sell the same basic items - it's just logistics. It's not hard to look at the lives people here lived before cars, they had less and did less and lived much worse lives - well those the couldn't afford a horse drawn carriage of course, personal wheeled transport has been deemed a necessity of good living for centuries.
I'm thankfully not American. There are 3 large grocery stores within walking distance of my home. Also 5 bakeries, 3 greensgrocers, 2 furniture sellers, 7 butchers, 5 banks, 3 stationeries, 4 hairdressers... the list goes on and on. I'm not even very close to the city center, either.
Homer : Sir, I need to know where I can get some business hammocks.
Hank Scorpio : Hammocks? My goodness, what an idea. Why didn't I think of that? Hammocks! Homer, there's four places. There's the Hammock Hut, that's on third.
Homer : Uh-huh.
Hank Scorpio : There's Hammocks-R-Us, that's on third too. You got Put-Your-Butt-There.
Homer : Mm-Hmm.
Hank Scorpio : That's on third. Swing Low, Sweet Chariot... Matter of fact, they're all in the same complex; it's the hammock complex on third.
We have a dramatic shortage of residential property. We have a dramatic oversupply of commercial property. IF ONLY THERE WAS A SOLUTION
IF ONLY THERE WAS A SOLUTION
Middle managers: I agree. From now on you'll be required to be in office 4 days a week instead of 2!
Unfortunately, in most cities that is illegal. Zoning laws prevent turning commercial property into residential even when it is possible. It also prevents developers from building moderate, high, and even certain types of low density housing.
In most US cities. Hmm, I wonder if we can spot a solution...
Oops, thanks
Be careful what you wish for. Houston is notorious for abolishing its zoning laws, which means that residential and commercial properties are haphazardly scattered rather than concentrated into distinct areas.
People never know when a CVS will pop up next door to their home. Now you know why they form HOAs.
For the millionth time it’s not that simple. Retrofitting commercial buildings is often impossible or more expensive than just demolishing and building new which is also ungodly expensive especially with how high interest rates are right now. Unless cities step in with millions of dollars per project it’s usually not financially possible.
If the problem is money then there is no problem. It becomes a necessity and you can't just not afford necessity. We allegedly are the richest country they need to figure it out regardless of cost. That simple.
It's like climate change, there is no issue with money it just has to get done. Pay for it regardless of the cost. It is necessary
But what if we let the children pay for it when they grow up? Yes, the cost will be several orders of magnitude more, but we don't have to think about that now.
Just jubilee the debt away? Bro money is fake, who cares?
I mean, hopefully fewer people from the future generation will be homeless. It's pretty rough starting out now, especially if you aren't lucky enough to have a wealthy family.
What we've been doing for the last number of years just isn't working. The solution isn't to keep procrastinating it indefinitely. There has always been debt that's pushed onto future generations, but this debt might actually help them.
I wish that people started building more housing many years ago. If housing was cheaper, increased taxes wouldn't be as big of a concern. This is because there would also be more money available to spend. This means spending money for food, transportation, schooling, and more.
Instead, currently many people are using the limited housing as investments and retirement plans.
Life expectancies are increasing, and births are still happening. Where do you propose people live if there isn't housing available?
Rural forests in uninhabited areas also aren't a legitimate option for most people. No running water, no heat, no medical care available, no pharmacies, no stores, no places to work, and nowhere to buy tools to build shelter. That sounds like a very bad time for most people.
Retrofitting commercial buildings is often impossible or more expensive than just demolishing
That sounds like a "them" problem.
They can watch their investments dry up and lose billions, or pivot to the new market. Not our fault they're stuck in the 80s.
I live on the North end of the SF Bay Area and literally every empty lot and a shit load of pasture land and open space is currently being developed into either low income apartments, high end apartments, town houses or track homes. It's honestly kind of shocking. Everywhere you go, new residential development.
Sonoma County supervisors were supposed to vote on a housing development plan in January, but failed to do so until August, and in the meantime there was a special rule that allowed builders to go ahead without most of the red tape they usually face. They took the opportunity and ran with it.
This is such bullshit. It doesn't cost millions of dollars to add new plumbing, HVAC, and interior walls.
Actually it’s not bullshit. Most office buildings are designed with large core space where the elevators and stairs etc go. That’s not at all how apartment buildings are designed. Changing that is extremely expensive.
Say you have an average size house, with a 2-car garage on the side. You decide to change that garage into a small apartment for renting. You need to add a wall or two, add insulation, build up a kitchen area (with proper water and power) and a bathroom.
Imagine how much that would cost you for that single apartment. Now multiply that by, say, 50, to convert a large office building into 50 residential rental units. Even with economies of scale, that's still going to cost millions...
Dude... you're arguing that it's better to tear down, and build from scratch then it is to retro fit. This is obvious bullshit. In your example it would be more practical to retro fit the garage then to tear it down, and build a new building. Like fuck man.
After moving from the US to Europe there is something magical about walking around the city and town centers here. Not just the tourist traps like Rome and Paris but smaller towns and villages with tiny narrow streets lined with shops and restaurants and people walking around. So much better than the souless shells our downtowns have become in the US.
Of course they are nice to walk through, people wouldn't have lived there for thousands of years if they weren't.
People have lived for thousands of years in Cairo
Subtle. Very good.
The 8000th "Covid killed cities" article, just shifting the goalposts and jumping around to different cities with different metrics out of context to make it seem worse than it is.
Capitalism killed cities, not COVID.
cars kill cities
They do too, but the cost of living (a problem exacerbated by capitalism treating property as an investment) has pushed workers out of cities, which kills the ability of businesses to keep employees, and thus the downtown empties of businesses like restaurants.
Urbanization has been increasing globally for hundreds of years. Nothing killed cities.
Therein lies your problem – USA is just barely civilized.
Walmart, suburbs, and the Internet killed downtowns IMO.
Are you saying that you don't think cities are having issues?
I'm saying cities aren't dying. Cities reinvent themselves when they have issues. Oh no, the textile industry is leaving NYC after WWII and the area those factories were in is considered a slum, the city is dying... and now that area is SoHo.
If this article was just trying to say "cities are still working their way back to pre-covid commercial activity levels" then sure, there is a temporary issue from a generational pandemic, agreed. But if you think people are going to stop moving to cities long term you are just wrong.
I mean the author is basically saying what you're saying. the title definitely left off a keyword from the title : "[Traditional] Downtowns are dead, dying or on life support... " with their definition of traditional downtowns being only business focused downtowns, rather than muxed usage downtowns
Gotta agree. I travel extensively and have seen downtrodden town centers as well as vibrant ones. There are multiple factors, not just “white flight” which has had decades to be mitigated or shift culturally. One of the truths is that people are generally moving to urban areas. That’s where the jobs are. That means leaving small towns. However, if that small town is near an urban area it stands a good chance of getting an economic boost as move in or people looking to “get away” dump money into the tourist market. Yeah, crime and poverty do a lot to keep economic improvement away, but even places like Oakland in California, a hotbed of crime in the ‘80s/‘90s, has seen an economic boost and an overall improvement as rising property values made the area more desirable. Towns will grow or shrink as economic opportunities leave or arrive.
There are going to be winners and losers, but the general trend is that urban areas are still going to be the bigger beneficiaries.
Makes sense. Downtowns are commercial districts with few, if any, residential buildings. Restaurants exist there to feed the various workers. Workers will shop after work or bring family/friends/dates to the area because it's something they know or are familiar with.
With WFH, no one has a reason to go to downtown. Cost of living increases already make them think twice about doing so.
All in all, we're seeing a shift from specifically zoned districts to mixed use downtowns. This means smaller stores, more walkable or mass transit focus. These cities will just need to incentivize conversion of these downtowns to include more residential structures.
we need statewide laws, preempting any local zoning laws, that allow dense residential buildings with no parking minimums in any zone that allows office uses.
Disabled parking should always be required. Not everybody can take public transit, or not without it being unreasonably burdensome and/or dangerous (think immunocompromised people for transit being dangerous).
paratransit vans have been a thing for a long time and solve this issue. the amount of traffic they cause is negligible. just follow ADA rules for disabled parking with the spaces you do end up building and don't worry about it. disabled people are much less likely to own a car in the first place than the average person, so privileging cars does them no good
Statewide laws preempting local laws is how you consolidate corruption most effectively. We added a half cent local sales tax to permanently end toll roads 30ish years ago and the state went ahead and overruled it. We still pay thebextra half cent AND they just added ANOTHER goddamn half cent.
Florida is purple but all the state sponsored corruption, racism and meth cna sure make it seem red.
here in cali the state's suing cities for not allowing enough housing to be built, which is literally the cause of half of everything that's wrong with the state
I can understand that but at the same time, it can also counteract a lot of localized perverse incentives. The majority of people might want more housing, but then at the same time there's a significant part of the voting population (especially at a municipal level) that doesn't want it in their community because of unfounded fears of higher density, so everybody wants it somewhere else and it doesn't get done. Well, if you go up a level of government, it's going to get done everywhere fairly, and people finally realize that it won't be a problem.
Until you realize that moving it up a level means it is much harder for the individual to affect change. Higher levels means rich people have their say because they can afford to lobby for their say. At least local initiatives can be engaged with by local individuals without the need for a massive warchest to fight entrenched interests. Fight these things locally rather than kicking the can upstairs and hoping the good parts trickle back down.
I strongly think your take is ass backwards as a long term strategy, even while you can affect some short term wins. Republicans are taking over at the state level to push abortion bans, book bans, education limits, pay for religious education with public funding, eliminate equal rights, push conspiracy nonsense, enact voter suppression schemes, push pure propaganda as an educational standard, and on and on. They can't affect these changes at the municipal level, only by grabbing power away from the local level. There's a lot more happening in a cumulative manner that needs to be fought against than to be primarily concerned over than local rich landowners and NIMBY fuck-os trying to assert their real estate whims.
What cities are preventing downtown residential construction? All the office construction was because it was more profitable. Cities are already bending backwards to developers.
Here here
Zoning is only useful for the type of place that isn't built to keep harmful emissions confined to their land. Farms (manure smell), and some chemical industry apply and should not have housing at all. Farmers will be shocked to learn I just told them they need to move to town.
Decades of rebuilding downtowns to accommodate vehicle traffic and commuters is the problem.
people commuting from the Styx often do not reside within the same county they work in. County/City budget revenues decreased
even if those residents happen to live in the same county or municipal area, cities were rebuilt to accommodate vehicle traffic. Highways cutting through urban cores. Areas where people once lived are replaced with parking lots/garages.
city budgets further decimated by having to increase coverage of services (water, electric, sewage, …). Increased coverage requirement means new infrastructure. New infrastructure means more maintenance cost as the years progress. Also, first responders often stretched. Cities struggle to hire the correct amount of people to cover area
poorly zoned cities with single use zoning are largely to blame as well. Many cities have dedicated commercial or residential only zones. Thus creating this strong coupling on vehicle commuters to come to office, spend money on lunch, then fuck off back to their shitty suburban home. If cities rezoned and allowed for more diverse zoning (mixed use, higher density). The problem of businesses that relied on commuters becomes a non-issue since that is largely replaced by walkin traffic.
poorly designed cities replacing walkability with “vehicle accessibility”. This means the city has to maintain expensive road infrastructure. Also makes it very difficult to consider alternative forms of transportation to get to/from restaurants, entertainment, general living, grocery store.
It's "the sticks", not "the Styx" unless they're coming from a Tommy Shaw concert or commuting from the bowels of hell. :)
If anything they would be commuting to Styx.
Decades of rebuilding downtowns to accommodate vehicle traffic and commuters is the problem.
More like "demolishing" than "rebuilding," but otherwise you're spot-on!
Could probably use some more stadiums and parking lots.
That'll perk things up.
I have a strong hatred for how many storefronts are taken up by "antique shops" (i.e. dusty warehouses full of junk you couldn't give away) instead of actual businesses in the last two small towns I lived in. Makes it so you can't really get that much shopping done downtown.
Don't hate on the antique shops. Hate on the big box stores that everyone goes to shop and has left the only possible business for a small store to become an antique shop.
The tax write off shops for bored housewives needing something to do.
I can't afford food for myself, and every day gets worse and worse, I'm sure I'm not alone, this is what happens when you let the working class go so far down the hole all they can afford to do is work and sleep.
Are you living in the US by any chance?
Yep.
Wait, is this another trick to make me go back to the office?
I wouldn't say thats what it is, but it is used for that
I use to go downtown somewhat often, but I don't have the money to do it these days.
That's one of the biggest factors for me, too. Of course the elite want to blame it all on WFH, but there are plenty of people who would still go to downtown areas to eat and shop and go to bars, but who the hell can afford that these days? If wages were even close to keeping up with the cost of living, I'd guess there would be more downtown activity.
WFH does has some effect on people going out. Personally, I have the financial means to still go out on occasion, I just don't. When I used to have to drive in for work, I would eat lunch out about once every other week (I have an old, bad habit of treating myself to lunch on pay day). That's a sold meal which is now gone from that area's economy, and I'm sure there were a lot more. Beyond that, I find that there is now a greater mental barrier to the effort required to get dressed up and go out for a meal or shopping downtown. I'm like Professor Farnsworth from Futurama, "well, I could go out. But, I am already in my pajamas."
That said, ya it's not all WFH. Even with the financial means to go out, the current economic environment means that I'd rather not spend $100 eating an over-priced, poorly cooked meal somewhere downtown. I can spend $50 on some really nice ingredients, grill up a couple steaks, cook vegetables which aren't overcooked to be limper than a eunuch's dick and eat potatoes which don't taste like they came out of a box. The other $50 can go into savings and I don't face social pressure to put on real pants.
In my small town (15K) in MA, we call it "uptown" and it's doing great!
Small theater with plenty of live events. Well used library. New brewpub in the old fire house. New sushi joint. Brand new ice cream shop. Small, but, functional dessert bakery, Pho shop, and soon a new butcher/seafood shop.
Throw in other restaurants, pizza joints, barber, salon, liquor store.
Plenty of people living right there also. It's a very successful New England "village". There's even a really nice band stand on the center park where they have all types of activities. Free concerts every Thursday night during Summer and Christmas caroling the Thursday before Christmas.
I pray you guys never get a walmart
Definitely not in town center. There are 2 Walmarts within 15 minutes. 2 Targets also within 15 minutes.
We also have a NFL stadium in town. It is very isolated in the business/commercial district.
I'd bet over a million people have been in town and never visited the center of our quintessential New England village.
That actually sounds cool. My experience with downtown areas has been less than positive.. more of a maze, everything very overpriced.. now that I think about it it's very similar to a large airport.
Shame as it'd be nice to just walk around for all your needs.. you'd think it would actually be more cost effective.
One of the most-striking experiences of my regional metro core's death throes was needing to pee but my train was delayed. Tried walking across the way to the local train station to use their facilities but the security guy they'd hired to keep the homeless out about fought me to keep me from using the restroom.
If you wonder why your city streets and transit zones smell like piss, it's because when you lock up your bathrooms to keep the homeless people away, they'll piss on your street
You think it would be obvious but for some reason. I'm not sure if I have IBS or something, but I am always on the look out for bathrooms and they are so hard to find downtown.
In the town that we spent our summers in, there was a single, well hidden, public restroom on Main Street. This is a town that makes their living on tourism. You would think they wouldn't want people have quit shopping and leave downtown to pee.
How the fuck does this article define "downtown"? Can't find an explanation in it.
I don't think it's something that needs to be explained.
You can look up for yourself what downtown means if you're confused.
Poorly planned cities no surprises there.
In the middle of the 20th century there was a huge migration of people out of city centres and into suburbs. Some of my relatives bought up properties back then and made bank when the city expanded. I don't expect inner cities to remain quiet forever, but the way they're used might change.
huge migration of people
White people. Because due to desegregation, they were suddenly required to have black people in their neighborhoods if those black people wanted to buy a house there. So they ran away from the black people.
Not everyone lives in the US. While aboriginal people in Australia also tended to stay in the inner city they make up a much smaller proportion of the population, and the divide between city and suburbs was more along socioeconomic lines than racial ones; it just happened that due to racism the Aboriginals were in the lower socioeconomic group.
Shock and horror... White people mooooooved...
No one said it was shocking or horrific. Just typical systemic racism.
Redlining is systemic racism, people choosing to move away is just regular old racism.
The biggest draw major cities can implement is not designing their city centers around cars.
Cities could be like amusement parks, not whatever they are now.
Modern downtown includes residential developments - live and work without the need for a car.
Good. Fuck those clusterfuck jungles.
Good. Much like malls, big cities are a thing of the past. People don't want that anymore, cities are hell to travel around, dirty, stinky, expensive and unsustainable. Most people would have a vastly better time in a well developed small/mid town area.
Always hate going downtown. Way too dangerous and theres too much stuff packed in too small an area.
Totally agree.
No one wants to be downtown in any city. That's where all of the trouble is, drug addicts, homeless, crime..
I avoid downtown at all costs in all of the cities near me.
There’s plenty of drugs and crime in the boonies, too
Yeah but there's white picket fences and at least two Lowe's, so you can say "hey let's go to the good Lowe's today."
This town has three Krogers. The downtown Kroger was the shitty Kroger. Then they renovated it and we all realized it was all three Krogers that were shitty and now that one isn't.
I'm still disappointed that they closed the Market Basket on Boston Road in Billerica. Now I have to go down to the Market Basket on Boston Road, or even all the way to the Market Basket on Boston Road!
I mean, by density it seems like there just would be less unless you are claiming a much higher drugs and crime per capita in the boonies. And you can drive by at 55mph and avoid it much more IME.
Usually the drug use is kept on people's properties.
And the people, you know, actually own their property.
As far as crime? Well, my car was never broken into until I moved in with my friends in the center of Houston.
We've all had our cars broken into without the guy ever getting caught. Also had a stabbing murder right down the street, so that was nice.
Ever since leaving the major city, I haven't really experienced any crime personally. Not that it doesn't happen, it's just way more prevalent in major cities.
Ya, because I totally get stabbed by used needles and homeless people in the boonies..
I'd argue the types of crime happening in the boonies is vastly different than downtown, but the drug selling is probably higher. Going by the police blotters for the towns in my area:
Number one crime in the biggest city: Car theft.
Number one crime in the country: Farmers shooting their pets.
But there's definitely hella drug dealing going on in the cuts. Ain't no cops, less likely to be seen.
Doing drugs in the boonies is a lot less likely to attract police attention and the related Police violence due to the 'war on drugs'. So drug use is still very high, just easily overlooked and doesn't impact others in the same way as dense cities.
US perspective of course.
If a meth lab blows up in the boonies and no one survived to hear it, did it blow up at all?
Dark humor aside, the types of issues faced in rural and semi-rural communities are just different than the issues faced by more urbanized environments. I live in a somewhat suburbanized area in a rural county. And crime is really only something we read about in the news. I have never had a package stolen off my porch. The neighbors did grab a package to keep it from getting soaked in the rain and their kids brought it by later. No one has ever been mugged walking to the pool or park. Car jacking is something one does to their car, to put it up on blocks. And gun violence out here is much less kids shooting each other over drug turf and more grandpa getting seriously depressed and shooting himself.
Adding on to your point, the populations perception of the police would play a factor, too. If everyone within a community truly believed that police only caused more problems than they solve, many crimes wouldn't be reported.
In other areas, the police might not care because it's easy for them to ignore the problems that they can't see.
Yeah but whenever they try to accost me on the side of the road I can just roll coal in their face and drive away
I love living downtown.
Good for you
I don't know where it love but downtown is probably some of the most sought after property and desirable locations in Toronto. So you statement is most definitely not applicable to "any city".
Most downtowns are built for commuters rather than residents. They forced out residents in favor of building higher cost commercial real estate. What residential buildings there is targets only the highest incomes. No surprise they are struggling.
Hear me out, and this might sound crazy: but what if we build walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods with shops, parks, and libraries? That way people will boost local economy instead of getting into car and driving to centralized locations like Walmart or malls?
Then who would we sell gas to?
Sadly this is one of the biggest pieces of the puzzle, even more sadly the rest of it is probably racism
That sounds like some of that communist soci-libral nazism to me, for sure for sure /s
We had that. We bulldozed it.
I mean, what kind of healthy life are you trying to live?
But then you will hear many decry the creation of 15 minute cities and they want to force us to never leave the area and take away our cars to control us.
I wish I could end this with /s but I've actually seen people post this sadly.
We will reach a point when the "I can't park anywhere" crowd is outvoted by the I want to walk to run errands crowd.
That's already happening in some places. The cities right outside Boston, for example.
The problem is that once again people with genuine concerns get derided and insulted which pushes them deeper into these views - people have a lot of great reasons for not wanting their car taken away and fearing that the rich's solution to population growth is going to be to force people into prison communities, that's been a common theme in history - Australia and America only exist as they are because of the clearances, and the North of England owes most it's population to poors getting tricked into moving to brutally compact works towns and treated like cattle.
Instead of hearing the fears and needs of people they're just attacked, called stupid and going by most the times I've seen it come up flooded by people saying things like 'cars are bad, it would be better if we got rid of them all' which is super unhelpful, it's like calling a movement 'defund the police' and having everyone yell about how we should get rid of them all because they're all bastard's but not address the actual needs society has for people tasked with stopping crime - why do people supporting sensible and important things have to make their views sound so intensely unpalatable?
We need to address all the great things that cars and suburban living have brought us, and yes I can already hear the comments from people yelling that it's a literal hellscape and traffic and etc etc etc but what are people who are living lives they enjoy going to say when they hear that? What are people who don't want to live the small community lifestyle going to say when told it's the only good way of living? When people who enjoy the benefits of modern logistics get told they'll just learn to adapt to having less?
The dumbest bit is we could be focusing on positive additions to peoples lives and offering greater efficiency and freedom through the use of modern planning and technology - that's what the 15 min city idea is actually about (kinda, depending who's version you look at).
The logistics of a 15 min lifestyle have to exceed in quality of life the current system, and people need to actually agree not just be badgerd into accepting less. I could talk for days about how this can be done, key points include integrated transport networks to facilitate travel and exploration, nationalised version of Amazon and eBay with community shipping, zoning rules based on measured impact rather than use type (e.g. you're welcome to live in a high noise area or have shops in a low pollution and traffic area if you can accept the limitations), nationalised services for community utilities to avoid corporate monopolies, measures to improve temporary relocation and travel, investment in affordable and efficient multi-transport cargo (rather than a removal van taking your house the whole way you fill a cargo container and have it collected by a lorry to do the first mile journey to a station where it's loaded onto a train or ship to move to a transport hub then forwarded to the final destination where it's taken last mile to the new address by a lorry..)
Improving logistics has to come first, the rallying cry can't be 'you need this and will have to try and learn to live with it' it has to be 'this is how we can live better lives'
I'm not reading all that.
Sorry for you tho. Or happy that it happened.
You are right. And that is because any departure from that 15 minute zone by a vehicle is supposed to be billed. And people don't want to be restricted to move free of charge only within those 15 minutes. Nobody is stupid not to want everything they need on a daily basis within a spiting distance.
because I love spending 4 hours in the bus to go to a park for lunch.
Not a problem if there's a park and a cafe 5min walk from your house.
I cant tell if there were a bunch of people who missed the inherent sarcasm in my post.
Or if they genuinely believe a 4 hour bus ride to the park is a good thing.
Take this /s, we are on the internet, tone and intent don't communicate via text. Use it wisely.
You must be talking about that liberal agenda to make communist “15 minute cities!”
Not today, bill gates!!
My local walkable grocery store is a Safeway. They sell a 3lb pack of ground turkey for $18.
Walmart, target, smart and final, and Lucky's are all <$12, but I have to drive. And that's one item. I save hundreds a month in groceries because I have a car and can shop around. I can wait for deals, I can buy in bulk.
The idea of a walkable city is nice, but if you restrict competition, prices skyrocket. And yeah, that Safeway is walkable to an apartment, the only grocery store that is, and they know it. It is infuriating to dismiss practicality for an dream.
Walkable cities and car hate are just another generations NYMBY's. Those rich enough and finantialy secure to afford premiums that push others out. Meanwhile this transitional uncertainty greatly harms many of us struggling to make ends meet.
🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
That's one thing I won't understand about this self-reclusive, anti-atomony movement.
Its basic logic. If I have a walkable radius of 1 mile and a drivable radius of 10, I have the accessability of all grocery stores within that area with a greater selection and purchasing power. These apartments I referenced have exactly one store to shop for groceries. The decision is literally A) Do you purchase an overpriced product for convenience or B) spend an extra hour and public transit to hunt a deal.
I mean sometimes I feel like I'm arguing with children; zero experience in real life. Yes, some can make it work. No, it doesn't work for everyone. Area of accessibility and the competitive choices it allows, are essential to those not as well off.
I'm still undecided about this "fuck cars" movement, but you seem to be kind of saying that walkable cities won't work because presently you can't walk everywhere you want to go. I think the answer to that is simply that you don't live in a walkable city - your city has been designed around the notion that everyone has access to a car.
I guess the inability to drive around smurfing up bargains is a very specific problem that walkable cities aren't intended to address. I think the basic premise is that if there's more people seeking basic vittles within walking distance from their home then competition will appear. They may not be quite as cheap as at the Walmart 10 miles away, but then the opportunities for local vendors will improve your own personal financial circumstances also.
As an aside, when you spend a little time in a large city with public transport and lots of shops, it's easy to see how the fuck cars movement seems like a no-brainer. "If no one had cars then no one would need them!"... but as someone who lives in a regional / rural area it's really hard to see how it could possibly work. I mean perhaps "possible" in some way but it definitely undermines most of the reasons I enjoy living away from a large city.
That's the result of poor planning, and not true everywhere. Places with good planning for non-automotive transport have much smaller shops, smaller streets, and more of everything because of it. The radius you can reach within 15 minutes might be smaller, but the actual number of places you can get to can be much larger.
That doesn't even make sense - you are in a neighborhood that only has one grocery store nearby due to car dependent planning, therefore walkability isn't practical?
I live in a neighborhood that was definitely originally designed for cars and has been gradually getting better and I've already got at least two grocery stores I can easily walk to, plus two convenience stores and a pharmacy that's kind of also a convenience store. Then I've got another three or four that I can easily bike to. And these aren't small grocery stores, they're all like massive supermarkets designed originally around car traffic.
If you spend time in places that have actual walkable neighborhoods, you find lots of much smaller grocery stores and you can easily shop around and compare prices on foot.
I think there's a big difference in how you understand these things depending what angle you come from, logistically your situation makes no sense and only seems to exist, as you said, because of car centric infrastructure. Where I live was very much designed around foot traffic and yes it's great being able to get all the daily things nearby, I love the parks and on rare occasions I actually went to go where the busses take me, plan to be back before they stop and don't have to take more than a bags worth of stuff with me they're great too.
There are very real problems though, local library is useful if you order books and don't mind waiting forever, shops likewise are great for bread, cheese and snacks but unless you want a very boring diet and dont mind paying a premium otherwise you need to go somewhere with a higher volume of trade than the walkable zone around the local shops can support - that's before you consider things beyond food like tools, clothes, and services.
All the small grocery stores their entire customer base can walk to are more expensive than larger stores and they all sell the same basic items - it's just logistics. It's not hard to look at the lives people here lived before cars, they had less and did less and lived much worse lives - well those the couldn't afford a horse drawn carriage of course, personal wheeled transport has been deemed a necessity of good living for centuries.
I'm thankfully not American. There are 3 large grocery stores within walking distance of my home. Also 5 bakeries, 3 greensgrocers, 2 furniture sellers, 7 butchers, 5 banks, 3 stationeries, 4 hairdressers... the list goes on and on. I'm not even very close to the city center, either.
Homer : Sir, I need to know where I can get some business hammocks.
Hank Scorpio : Hammocks? My goodness, what an idea. Why didn't I think of that? Hammocks! Homer, there's four places. There's the Hammock Hut, that's on third.
Homer : Uh-huh.
Hank Scorpio : There's Hammocks-R-Us, that's on third too. You got Put-Your-Butt-There.
Homer : Mm-Hmm.
Hank Scorpio : That's on third. Swing Low, Sweet Chariot... Matter of fact, they're all in the same complex; it's the hammock complex on third.
Homer : Oh, the hammock district!
Hank Scorpio : That's right.
We have a dramatic shortage of residential property. We have a dramatic oversupply of commercial property. IF ONLY THERE WAS A SOLUTION
Middle managers: I agree. From now on you'll be required to be in office 4 days a week instead of 2!
Unfortunately, in most cities that is illegal. Zoning laws prevent turning commercial property into residential even when it is possible. It also prevents developers from building moderate, high, and even certain types of low density housing.
In most US cities. Hmm, I wonder if we can spot a solution...
Oops, thanks
Be careful what you wish for. Houston is notorious for abolishing its zoning laws, which means that residential and commercial properties are haphazardly scattered rather than concentrated into distinct areas.
People never know when a CVS will pop up next door to their home. Now you know why they form HOAs.
For the millionth time it’s not that simple. Retrofitting commercial buildings is often impossible or more expensive than just demolishing and building new which is also ungodly expensive especially with how high interest rates are right now. Unless cities step in with millions of dollars per project it’s usually not financially possible.
If the problem is money then there is no problem. It becomes a necessity and you can't just not afford necessity. We allegedly are the richest country they need to figure it out regardless of cost. That simple.
It's like climate change, there is no issue with money it just has to get done. Pay for it regardless of the cost. It is necessary
But what if we let the children pay for it when they grow up? Yes, the cost will be several orders of magnitude more, but we don't have to think about that now.
Just jubilee the debt away? Bro money is fake, who cares?
I mean, hopefully fewer people from the future generation will be homeless. It's pretty rough starting out now, especially if you aren't lucky enough to have a wealthy family.
What we've been doing for the last number of years just isn't working. The solution isn't to keep procrastinating it indefinitely. There has always been debt that's pushed onto future generations, but this debt might actually help them.
I wish that people started building more housing many years ago. If housing was cheaper, increased taxes wouldn't be as big of a concern. This is because there would also be more money available to spend. This means spending money for food, transportation, schooling, and more.
Instead, currently many people are using the limited housing as investments and retirement plans. Life expectancies are increasing, and births are still happening. Where do you propose people live if there isn't housing available?
Rural forests in uninhabited areas also aren't a legitimate option for most people. No running water, no heat, no medical care available, no pharmacies, no stores, no places to work, and nowhere to buy tools to build shelter. That sounds like a very bad time for most people.
That sounds like a "them" problem.
They can watch their investments dry up and lose billions, or pivot to the new market. Not our fault they're stuck in the 80s.
I live on the North end of the SF Bay Area and literally every empty lot and a shit load of pasture land and open space is currently being developed into either low income apartments, high end apartments, town houses or track homes. It's honestly kind of shocking. Everywhere you go, new residential development.
Sonoma County supervisors were supposed to vote on a housing development plan in January, but failed to do so until August, and in the meantime there was a special rule that allowed builders to go ahead without most of the red tape they usually face. They took the opportunity and ran with it.
This is such bullshit. It doesn't cost millions of dollars to add new plumbing, HVAC, and interior walls.
Actually it’s not bullshit. Most office buildings are designed with large core space where the elevators and stairs etc go. That’s not at all how apartment buildings are designed. Changing that is extremely expensive.
Say you have an average size house, with a 2-car garage on the side. You decide to change that garage into a small apartment for renting. You need to add a wall or two, add insulation, build up a kitchen area (with proper water and power) and a bathroom.
Imagine how much that would cost you for that single apartment. Now multiply that by, say, 50, to convert a large office building into 50 residential rental units. Even with economies of scale, that's still going to cost millions...
Dude... you're arguing that it's better to tear down, and build from scratch then it is to retro fit. This is obvious bullshit. In your example it would be more practical to retro fit the garage then to tear it down, and build a new building. Like fuck man.
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/real-estate/why-empty-offices-aren-t-being-turned-housing-despite-lengthy-n1274810
“ In parts of the country where land is relatively cheap, it's far less expensive to build housing from scratch than to convert old offices.”
After moving from the US to Europe there is something magical about walking around the city and town centers here. Not just the tourist traps like Rome and Paris but smaller towns and villages with tiny narrow streets lined with shops and restaurants and people walking around. So much better than the souless shells our downtowns have become in the US.
Of course they are nice to walk through, people wouldn't have lived there for thousands of years if they weren't.
People have lived for thousands of years in Cairo
Subtle. Very good.
The 8000th "Covid killed cities" article, just shifting the goalposts and jumping around to different cities with different metrics out of context to make it seem worse than it is.
Capitalism killed cities, not COVID.
cars kill cities
They do too, but the cost of living (a problem exacerbated by capitalism treating property as an investment) has pushed workers out of cities, which kills the ability of businesses to keep employees, and thus the downtown empties of businesses like restaurants.
Urbanization has been increasing globally for hundreds of years. Nothing killed cities.
Therein lies your problem – USA is just barely civilized.
Walmart, suburbs, and the Internet killed downtowns IMO.
Are you saying that you don't think cities are having issues?
I'm saying cities aren't dying. Cities reinvent themselves when they have issues. Oh no, the textile industry is leaving NYC after WWII and the area those factories were in is considered a slum, the city is dying... and now that area is SoHo.
If this article was just trying to say "cities are still working their way back to pre-covid commercial activity levels" then sure, there is a temporary issue from a generational pandemic, agreed. But if you think people are going to stop moving to cities long term you are just wrong.
I mean the author is basically saying what you're saying. the title definitely left off a keyword from the title : "[Traditional] Downtowns are dead, dying or on life support... " with their definition of traditional downtowns being only business focused downtowns, rather than muxed usage downtowns
Gotta agree. I travel extensively and have seen downtrodden town centers as well as vibrant ones. There are multiple factors, not just “white flight” which has had decades to be mitigated or shift culturally. One of the truths is that people are generally moving to urban areas. That’s where the jobs are. That means leaving small towns. However, if that small town is near an urban area it stands a good chance of getting an economic boost as move in or people looking to “get away” dump money into the tourist market. Yeah, crime and poverty do a lot to keep economic improvement away, but even places like Oakland in California, a hotbed of crime in the ‘80s/‘90s, has seen an economic boost and an overall improvement as rising property values made the area more desirable. Towns will grow or shrink as economic opportunities leave or arrive.
There are going to be winners and losers, but the general trend is that urban areas are still going to be the bigger beneficiaries.
Makes sense. Downtowns are commercial districts with few, if any, residential buildings. Restaurants exist there to feed the various workers. Workers will shop after work or bring family/friends/dates to the area because it's something they know or are familiar with.
With WFH, no one has a reason to go to downtown. Cost of living increases already make them think twice about doing so.
All in all, we're seeing a shift from specifically zoned districts to mixed use downtowns. This means smaller stores, more walkable or mass transit focus. These cities will just need to incentivize conversion of these downtowns to include more residential structures.
we need statewide laws, preempting any local zoning laws, that allow dense residential buildings with no parking minimums in any zone that allows office uses.
Disabled parking should always be required. Not everybody can take public transit, or not without it being unreasonably burdensome and/or dangerous (think immunocompromised people for transit being dangerous).
paratransit vans have been a thing for a long time and solve this issue. the amount of traffic they cause is negligible. just follow ADA rules for disabled parking with the spaces you do end up building and don't worry about it. disabled people are much less likely to own a car in the first place than the average person, so privileging cars does them no good
Statewide laws preempting local laws is how you consolidate corruption most effectively. We added a half cent local sales tax to permanently end toll roads 30ish years ago and the state went ahead and overruled it. We still pay thebextra half cent AND they just added ANOTHER goddamn half cent.
Florida is purple but all the state sponsored corruption, racism and meth cna sure make it seem red.
here in cali the state's suing cities for not allowing enough housing to be built, which is literally the cause of half of everything that's wrong with the state
I can understand that but at the same time, it can also counteract a lot of localized perverse incentives. The majority of people might want more housing, but then at the same time there's a significant part of the voting population (especially at a municipal level) that doesn't want it in their community because of unfounded fears of higher density, so everybody wants it somewhere else and it doesn't get done. Well, if you go up a level of government, it's going to get done everywhere fairly, and people finally realize that it won't be a problem.
Until you realize that moving it up a level means it is much harder for the individual to affect change. Higher levels means rich people have their say because they can afford to lobby for their say. At least local initiatives can be engaged with by local individuals without the need for a massive warchest to fight entrenched interests. Fight these things locally rather than kicking the can upstairs and hoping the good parts trickle back down.
I strongly think your take is ass backwards as a long term strategy, even while you can affect some short term wins. Republicans are taking over at the state level to push abortion bans, book bans, education limits, pay for religious education with public funding, eliminate equal rights, push conspiracy nonsense, enact voter suppression schemes, push pure propaganda as an educational standard, and on and on. They can't affect these changes at the municipal level, only by grabbing power away from the local level. There's a lot more happening in a cumulative manner that needs to be fought against than to be primarily concerned over than local rich landowners and NIMBY fuck-os trying to assert their real estate whims.
What cities are preventing downtown residential construction? All the office construction was because it was more profitable. Cities are already bending backwards to developers.
Here here
Zoning is only useful for the type of place that isn't built to keep harmful emissions confined to their land. Farms (manure smell), and some chemical industry apply and should not have housing at all. Farmers will be shocked to learn I just told them they need to move to town.
Decades of rebuilding downtowns to accommodate vehicle traffic and commuters is the problem.
It's "the sticks", not "the Styx" unless they're coming from a Tommy Shaw concert or commuting from the bowels of hell. :)
If anything they would be commuting to Styx.
More like "demolishing" than "rebuilding," but otherwise you're spot-on!
Could probably use some more stadiums and parking lots.
That'll perk things up.
I have a strong hatred for how many storefronts are taken up by "antique shops" (i.e. dusty warehouses full of junk you couldn't give away) instead of actual businesses in the last two small towns I lived in. Makes it so you can't really get that much shopping done downtown.
Don't hate on the antique shops. Hate on the big box stores that everyone goes to shop and has left the only possible business for a small store to become an antique shop.
EDIT: Also fuck dollar general
The tax write off shops for bored housewives needing something to do.
I can't afford food for myself, and every day gets worse and worse, I'm sure I'm not alone, this is what happens when you let the working class go so far down the hole all they can afford to do is work and sleep.
Are you living in the US by any chance?
Yep.
Wait, is this another trick to make me go back to the office?
I wouldn't say thats what it is, but it is used for that
I use to go downtown somewhat often, but I don't have the money to do it these days.
That's one of the biggest factors for me, too. Of course the elite want to blame it all on WFH, but there are plenty of people who would still go to downtown areas to eat and shop and go to bars, but who the hell can afford that these days? If wages were even close to keeping up with the cost of living, I'd guess there would be more downtown activity.
WFH does has some effect on people going out. Personally, I have the financial means to still go out on occasion, I just don't. When I used to have to drive in for work, I would eat lunch out about once every other week (I have an old, bad habit of treating myself to lunch on pay day). That's a sold meal which is now gone from that area's economy, and I'm sure there were a lot more. Beyond that, I find that there is now a greater mental barrier to the effort required to get dressed up and go out for a meal or shopping downtown. I'm like Professor Farnsworth from Futurama, "well, I could go out. But, I am already in my pajamas."
That said, ya it's not all WFH. Even with the financial means to go out, the current economic environment means that I'd rather not spend $100 eating an over-priced, poorly cooked meal somewhere downtown. I can spend $50 on some really nice ingredients, grill up a couple steaks, cook vegetables which aren't overcooked to be limper than a eunuch's dick and eat potatoes which don't taste like they came out of a box. The other $50 can go into savings and I don't face social pressure to put on real pants.
In my small town (15K) in MA, we call it "uptown" and it's doing great!
Small theater with plenty of live events. Well used library. New brewpub in the old fire house. New sushi joint. Brand new ice cream shop. Small, but, functional dessert bakery, Pho shop, and soon a new butcher/seafood shop.
Throw in other restaurants, pizza joints, barber, salon, liquor store.
Plenty of people living right there also. It's a very successful New England "village". There's even a really nice band stand on the center park where they have all types of activities. Free concerts every Thursday night during Summer and Christmas caroling the Thursday before Christmas.
I pray you guys never get a walmart
Definitely not in town center. There are 2 Walmarts within 15 minutes. 2 Targets also within 15 minutes.
We also have a NFL stadium in town. It is very isolated in the business/commercial district.
I'd bet over a million people have been in town and never visited the center of our quintessential New England village.
That actually sounds cool. My experience with downtown areas has been less than positive.. more of a maze, everything very overpriced.. now that I think about it it's very similar to a large airport.
Shame as it'd be nice to just walk around for all your needs.. you'd think it would actually be more cost effective.
One of the most-striking experiences of my regional metro core's death throes was needing to pee but my train was delayed. Tried walking across the way to the local train station to use their facilities but the security guy they'd hired to keep the homeless out about fought me to keep me from using the restroom.
If you wonder why your city streets and transit zones smell like piss, it's because when you lock up your bathrooms to keep the homeless people away, they'll piss on your street
You think it would be obvious but for some reason. I'm not sure if I have IBS or something, but I am always on the look out for bathrooms and they are so hard to find downtown.
In the town that we spent our summers in, there was a single, well hidden, public restroom on Main Street. This is a town that makes their living on tourism. You would think they wouldn't want people have quit shopping and leave downtown to pee.
How the fuck does this article define "downtown"? Can't find an explanation in it.
I don't think it's something that needs to be explained.
You can look up for yourself what downtown means if you're confused.
Poorly planned cities no surprises there.
In the middle of the 20th century there was a huge migration of people out of city centres and into suburbs. Some of my relatives bought up properties back then and made bank when the city expanded. I don't expect inner cities to remain quiet forever, but the way they're used might change.
White people. Because due to desegregation, they were suddenly required to have black people in their neighborhoods if those black people wanted to buy a house there. So they ran away from the black people.
Not everyone lives in the US. While aboriginal people in Australia also tended to stay in the inner city they make up a much smaller proportion of the population, and the divide between city and suburbs was more along socioeconomic lines than racial ones; it just happened that due to racism the Aboriginals were in the lower socioeconomic group.
Shock and horror... White people mooooooved...
No one said it was shocking or horrific. Just typical systemic racism.
Redlining is systemic racism, people choosing to move away is just regular old racism.
The biggest draw major cities can implement is not designing their city centers around cars.
Cities could be like amusement parks, not whatever they are now.
Modern downtown includes residential developments - live and work without the need for a car.
Good. Fuck those clusterfuck jungles.
Good. Much like malls, big cities are a thing of the past. People don't want that anymore, cities are hell to travel around, dirty, stinky, expensive and unsustainable. Most people would have a vastly better time in a well developed small/mid town area.
Always hate going downtown. Way too dangerous and theres too much stuff packed in too small an area.
Totally agree.
No one wants to be downtown in any city. That's where all of the trouble is, drug addicts, homeless, crime..
I avoid downtown at all costs in all of the cities near me.
There’s plenty of drugs and crime in the boonies, too
Yeah but there's white picket fences and at least two Lowe's, so you can say "hey let's go to the good Lowe's today."
This town has three Krogers. The downtown Kroger was the shitty Kroger. Then they renovated it and we all realized it was all three Krogers that were shitty and now that one isn't.
I'm still disappointed that they closed the Market Basket on Boston Road in Billerica. Now I have to go down to the Market Basket on Boston Road, or even all the way to the Market Basket on Boston Road!
I mean, by density it seems like there just would be less unless you are claiming a much higher drugs and crime per capita in the boonies. And you can drive by at 55mph and avoid it much more IME.
Usually the drug use is kept on people's properties.
And the people, you know, actually own their property.
As far as crime? Well, my car was never broken into until I moved in with my friends in the center of Houston.
We've all had our cars broken into without the guy ever getting caught. Also had a stabbing murder right down the street, so that was nice.
Ever since leaving the major city, I haven't really experienced any crime personally. Not that it doesn't happen, it's just way more prevalent in major cities.
Ya, because I totally get stabbed by used needles and homeless people in the boonies..
I'd argue the types of crime happening in the boonies is vastly different than downtown, but the drug selling is probably higher. Going by the police blotters for the towns in my area:
Number one crime in the biggest city: Car theft.
Number one crime in the country: Farmers shooting their pets.
But there's definitely hella drug dealing going on in the cuts. Ain't no cops, less likely to be seen.
Doing drugs in the boonies is a lot less likely to attract police attention and the related Police violence due to the 'war on drugs'. So drug use is still very high, just easily overlooked and doesn't impact others in the same way as dense cities.
US perspective of course.
If a meth lab blows up in the boonies and no one survived to hear it, did it blow up at all?
Dark humor aside, the types of issues faced in rural and semi-rural communities are just different than the issues faced by more urbanized environments. I live in a somewhat suburbanized area in a rural county. And crime is really only something we read about in the news. I have never had a package stolen off my porch. The neighbors did grab a package to keep it from getting soaked in the rain and their kids brought it by later. No one has ever been mugged walking to the pool or park. Car jacking is something one does to their car, to put it up on blocks. And gun violence out here is much less kids shooting each other over drug turf and more grandpa getting seriously depressed and shooting himself.
Adding on to your point, the populations perception of the police would play a factor, too. If everyone within a community truly believed that police only caused more problems than they solve, many crimes wouldn't be reported.
In other areas, the police might not care because it's easy for them to ignore the problems that they can't see.
Yeah but whenever they try to accost me on the side of the road I can just roll coal in their face and drive away
I love living downtown.
Good for you
I don't know where it love but downtown is probably some of the most sought after property and desirable locations in Toronto. So you statement is most definitely not applicable to "any city".
U scared bro?
https://youtu.be/i02Tkn-SiE8?si=89ZOjZ3RPKSrlFBN