If you caught this one last week, yes, this is a re-upload- BUT WAIT! There's a fun announcement you definitely didn't get to see in the first version :)
Value per acre also needs to be applied to streets and sidewalks. In a dense enough neighborhood the streets provide more traffic for local business when turned over to pedestrians and bikes. Often vehicles are only passing through and contribute nothing
Oh they do contribute.....to pollution. Exhaust emissions, rubber particles, metallic particles due to braking etc etc etc. They do contribute, just not in ANY GOOD WAY.
@@schenksteven1 Just shows why Oslo banned non-essential street parking and that solves both problems, traffic, and people showing up in cars to bike/walk
@@schenksteven1 I'm sure everyone adapts differently, whether it's transit, biking, a mix of driving and transit, or just not going, but overall sales are up 10% at local retail businesses of those neighborhoods in which street parking was banned since Oslo made that one law change in 2017. That suggests the segment of the population who depended solely on driving to those neighborhoods to support local business either contributed insignificantly to the economy or adapted easily to the change. Keep in mind it happens on a neighborhood basis. Those neighborhoods with higher residential density are where the need is greater to eliminate street parking, and allow the residents out from the oppression of vehicle congestion. I realize there are other problems in U.S. like the white collar, 45 minute commute, but we're talking about cities with residents, not corporate campuses. My opinion is the U.S. problems are from a bubble created by government overreach, policy earmarks favoring specific corporations, lobbying, and trickle down, or top down funding initiatives throughout the economy. It's ironically a lack of ground-up capitalism that is hurting the U.S. as an actual place nowadays
I've had so many conversations with suburbanites where they become righteously indignant about the taxes they pay. But the subsidy they receive to make their lifestyle possible, is ENTIRELY invisible to them. I don't even blame them for being unable to see it. What do they know about how much roads and highways cost to upkeep? or pipes, pumps, water sanitation, electric, traffic lights, etc. If there was no subsidization of the suburbs, almost no one would choose to live in them, because the tax burden would be unbearable.
The problem is the way taxes are allocated. A big chunk goes to the Federal Government, and that kind of goes everywhere like the military. There is plenty of Federal money that goes into car centric infrastructure projects. From that, it seems legit, because Federal taxes are a huge part of my tax bill. Never mind that millions of people who live in the cities who don't directly drive on those highways are also paying a significant portion of it. If the taxes were apportioned closer to home, and the expenses where assumed in the same way, then you would have a lot more careful thought on the spending. The money that I make, I spend it carefully on me and my family. Money from the neighborhood is more carefully spent on taking care of that neighborhood. We could probably have much lower taxes, fewer expensive infrastructure liabilities, more efficient use of land.
I admire how skillfully you augment Chuck's discussions by incorporating compelling visuals and storytelling elements. Your efforts truly set a high standard for creators.
I love these new style videos, as well as Chuck Marohn's full talks and speeches at events, where he can give a 90 minute presentation. It's a great combo.
I love what he has to say like I lot, like i think its a top 5 issue for national thriving, but I hate his aesthitic and countenance so much. Hopefully im the outlier, cause I think it needs to be heard
I'm loving this new approach in telling the story of Strong Towns and strong towns. Value per-acre (and taxes per-acre) has been a transformative metric for how I view places in my local area. Of course that metric alone doesn't tell the whole story, but certainly helps to equalize how we compare developments.
I wonder how things like parks, playgrounds, urban gardens and public outdoor gyms factor in with this type of urban planning. as they have 0 revenue on their own (nor should they), but they do make for better more desirable neighborhoods.
@@thedapperdolphin1590 oh makes sense. Thank you. Dunno why I didn't figure that out xD just kept on thinkin bout parkin lots and comparing them to places ppl wanted to go to and linger.
perhaps on top of making areas more desirable, and therefore valuable, a metric like amenities per whatever unit of area could be developed and standardized allowing for quick reference
@@zabacinjsh Plus, they can also be used by communities to set up activities and events. Our park has a bar during summer months and in summer you find a lot of people giving yoga sessions and dance classes etc.
@@electrosyzygy That method is used in a number of areas, principally that I can think of is Vancouver, BC. "Vancouverism" as it's called in particular prioritizes mixed-use high density construction (with a distinct albeit sometimes boring architectural style) with required amenity contributions from developers for virtually every form of development. Want to throw in a new modern condo building in BC? Okay, you have to dedicate public park space(s), mixed use commercial space, affordable or subsidized public housing, and/or other public amenities (or just donate a big chunk of cash to the city for them to use for public projects). It is inarguably the reason why Vancouver (downtown especially) is as livable as it is -- assuming you can afford the typical, extreme high costs of living in any metropolitan area.
Urban3 recently put out a good presentation on their study of Shreveport, LA. They show how much tax money comes in for infrastructure vs how much they’re able to spend on it and, long story short, the city gets another several million in the hole every year. Really sheds light on how counterproductive our development pattern is.
I learn that the reason Shreveport and the rest of Louisiana has such low tax revenue is that the oil industry bribed and bullied the state into awarding huge tax exemptions. If Louisiana had the ablity to tax the oil that follows thru that state and, shared that revenue with the people. Then Louisiana's citizens could been as rich as the citizsns of Dubia or Kuwait.
@@Riorozen if it’s not their money, then why does the oil need to go through their land? Would you say the same about the gulf states? Should Louisiana not nationalize its oil industry?
This makes me think about population density and why we cover it so much on our channel. In a sense, density is another way of thinking about the productivity of land (that’s easier to calculate but not as precise, because it ignores non-residential uses). I think why we find density so interesting is that there are these large differences in "residential productivity" between different places (for example, a townhouse development having two or three times higher density than more spread out detached homes) that aren’t obvious until you actually run the numbers.
Hey guys! Love your visual guide for different categories of density, it’s a great introduction to show that density doesn’t have to be a box in the sky or a massive detached home. Hope Montreal is treating you well! -Mike
Why should we choose? We can have both. It is possible, at least in theory, to adjust $ per land area to account for population density ($ per resident). For businesses we could use $ (taxes/revenue/sales) per employee.
How to take into account the increased mental stress, crime, pollution that comes with increased population density zones? Not to mention overall decreased quality of life of those living in such areas.
@@chrismcintosh2286 , I am unaware of any evidence in support of your claims. Average wealth is growing with the population density. Crime rate per capita is generally decreasing with population density. Environmental impact of dense urban living is lower per capita. Please, consider reading “The Death and Life of Great American Cities” by Jane Jacobs.
Yes, why do we cover so much land? Could it be that people don't want to live in the way you want to live? Could it be that there if a value in not having people live overtop of stores (which could be dangerous or not child-friendly?) You are parochial in your perspective. I am libertarian in mine. I want people to live like THEY want to live, not how the Elite think everyone SHOULD live.
I live in Brooklyn, NY. We have a lot of old neighborhoods with shopping strips, apartments over the shops, and residential side streets around them. You can walk to shops and there are subways that can take you to Manhattan. Modern zoning often does not allow this kind of mixed use development.
I've been emailing my city council person and she basically said "we have the density for bike lanes downtown" so, the rest of us don't get them, and there's no chance they will seriously consider bikes as a transit choice we are allowed to have access to. I think I'll just have to run for city council. I'm grateful for this video because these principles appeal to fiscally conservative people (which my town is full of) and can help guide the conversation with data-driven, people centered solutions. I also want to get a little shed and set up a churro or soft serve place since I live on a corner and there are schools, parks, and lots of kids around. I think it would really liven up the neighborhood.
Do you live in a snow fall area ? This could be a or the issue. Municipalities seem Very hesitant to invest in something that’s unused for mouths out of the year.
@@elaishh3533as someone from the northern edge of NY, right on the Canadian border; all of our towns have a municipal park in the center, in easy walking distance of restaurants and often having picnic tables. Just because something is covered in snow for 4 months and likely too cold to use for another 2 doesn't mean it won't be loved in the remaining 6. Additionally if you are willing to shovel and salt/sand your sidewalks then they are usable all year. Cities need to learn that snow isn't an excuse, winter isn't an excuse, parks and sidewalks are mandatory.
The idea that our cities at one point destroyed half of their heritage in the name of "urban renewal" is still crazy to me. Even if it was a good idea. Why not build the new areas on empty land? Why did they have to bulldoze the city first??
I doubt it. No other trend in automotive history has changed the way the automakers function the way crossovers have. Minivans, retro cars, wagons, whatever never became so popular they they caused some brands to sell only crossovers. I mean it's so big it has Lamborghini, Rolls Royce, Ferrari etc chasing after it. And those sales keep the lights on and completely outsell everything else. Toyota sales so many crossovers of various sizes and styles yet you won't see that with sedans and cars. It might potentially cool off but I think it's here to stay. I see it as a return to the orginal car styles of the early 1900s. Lifted up two box designs.
It wont unless congress changes the way it measures emissions. The big SUV crazy is a result of congress enabling light trucks and SUV more emissions then cars. It's the same reason chevy trucks run outdated engines. This saves the auto manufacturers money on R&D and tech. So this is the vehicles that are pushed the hardest. And given that the administration which is pushing electric cars not only maintained the exemption but made it even more rewarding for the auto industry to push larger vehicles it's not happening anytime soon.
When he said “we could build people centered places, that last longer than us and are designed to linger in and be enjoyed” I had to shed a tear and cry a bit cause it touched my hope for a better future 6:45
I’m living in Asheville right now! I’m so happy they stood up and saved their city center for us to enjoy in the modern day. Hopefully we can all keep heading in the right direction as a community! Great video
The analogy to cars and trucks is helpful, in part because it reminds us that efficiency is important but also not the only thing to be considering. Just like there are good reasons to be the less-than-most-effcient car in some cases, there are good reasons to built less-than-most-efficient land uses in some cases as well. The idea is not that every single development needs to be maximally efficient in and of itself, but that efficiency should be highlighted and prioritized.
Wow, this is very inspiring and informative!! I'm from Sri Lanka, and I'm working toward creating a platform for those who wants to improve cities and towns here. Sometimes it's very frustrating because not many people interested in this and very hard to get people to involve in this. But folks like those who were mentioned in this video inspire me to continue my work.
99% of Australia's population lives on the coast. The Australian continent is as large as mainland United States, but almost noone lives away from the coast. An abundance of land isn't the issue.
I live in Asheville and this is bittersweet. Asheville is cute but its an amusement park you know? Many service workers are sending 50% of their check to rent (or more). Thankfully there are new housing projects in progress but a couple hundred units will go fast when its so many that are housing insecure. I appreciate you covering the concept of value per acre. Maybe that can promote the building of more housing (or at least the appropriation of taxes to even more housing)
Being from near Asheville, it is so tragic that it's almost unliveable now in the past few years because of the obscene traffic, largely single-family homes, and plans for even more highway widening. Transit like ART is almost nonexistent. If there was any kind of transit infrastructure at all then density could improve.
Seeing all these places turn into what Portland uses to be makes me happy, and sad, at the same time. I miss my city. This channel inspires me to try and get more involved. To try and be a part of the solution
I was starting to lean toward moving to Asheville when I graduate for bicycle engineering, and now I find out they’re actually trying to be a good place to live!? Hell yeah!
I just cited this video in a course on strategic planning as an example of a focus on strategy (desired overall outcome) versus just ad-hoc planning. I'm obsessed with this video and keep coming back to it. thank you for making it!
Well said! I was a municipal manager for about 5 years before the lightbulb went on for me, but once the realization came I could't unsee the mistaken approach to development we have been pursuing.
There is value in multiple ways to parks and libraries. A neighbourhood with a park at the end of the street will have higher value, and thus tax revenue, than a neighbourhood without. Even a modest park, available by foot, has significant benefits to (mental, physical) health , which will lead to lower health care expenses. A park can play a role in, expensive, storm water management and will lower pollutans in an area . And to resident users they offer a free/low cost recreation which they otherwise had to make (transport or private market) costs for ... Librariies employ people and offer a centre/network of knowledge and learning to a community which are also valuable ( and can be measured in a way ..) . Churches build networks of comfort/consolation, trust and support. These networks are very valuable in any society, especially in an individualized society like today . Without social network support/access most people will not thrive in life. Isolation is killing.
Urban Designer here. The challenge for establishing the values argument are two things: subsidy availability and a lack of innovative planning support. If we can buy down the debt, value based on placemaking vs bankable tenants is possible.
I like your channel, and living what was once rural is now getting built out because one particular industry growth. I don't like the growth. I don't like cities never have and never will. The boxes people live in make feel anxious. More people than trees. No wildlife. Pigeons don't count. I'm used to walking out my door and not see any one or cars. For as far back as my ancestors have been here never have lived in cities. To me the most productive land per acre is farmland not an apartment block, mixed use or whatever you want to call it. Can't eat city blocks. Glad some folks want to live in cities prevents me from having to move.
Fair enough. It's perfectly fine to live how you want and also be able to acknowledge that there's better ways for people in cities to live that would be better for them
Recently I've thought a lot of the Poletown plant built by GM in Detroit that cleared out an entire neighborhood. It was controversial but heavily promoted as a way to create jobs. The place is still operational today and is now called Factory Zero. But did it actually help reverse the city's decline and catalyze further growth and investment? It would be interesting to compare that to a project today like the Joe Louis Greenway.
I visited Asheville from Charleston, SC. Asheville is shockingly expensive. The downtown area is nice, but its wider area is not pedestrian friendly and had little to no public transportation.
I'm a big fan of your videos. I live in a town in West Virginia, named Martinsburg, that is a former woolen mill town who's economy was devastated by NAFTA in the late'80s early '90s when most of its clothing industry shut down and moved overseas. Ten years ago, the historic downtown had a vacant, run-down feel. I'm happy to say that in the pat 10 years, the town's fortunes have turned around, and those vacant woolen mills are being refurbished into residential and commercial uses, people are taking an interest in the downtown again with people renovating historic structures and opening new businesses, and we are just this summer opening a 1.2 mile hiker--biker trail downtown, that runs on the right-of-way of a former rail spur, and there is a budding emphasis on everything associated with the concept of walkability in the downtown core area that I am hoping will continue to grow and bear fruit. Keep on doing what you are doing - its definitely inspirational to see all of the creative ideas that you discuss on your platform.
The problem isn't finding solutions. It's trying to get those solutions passed under a political system too often corrupted by monied interests that benefit from the chaos. Especially when the point is often chaos to undermine faith in the government to create division. These solutions might be best for most people, but politicians typically choose the interests of their big money donors over the majority of their constituency.
1 problem with the thumbnail is that we can't have independent buildings sharing walls anymore. Due to lateral motions from wind and seismic, as well as fire code requirments, most building codes require building separation. this varies by use case, building height, and location. I just bring this up to note that a modern, low-rise, development would look very different than the older buildings slapped next to each other. Its also why you sometimes see new apartment and mixed use buildings taking up a whole block
I would totally love to attend the gathering at the end of May.. but it's on a Tuesday and Wednesday, which is gonna need PTO that I don't have. Hope to catch the next one!
Tampa, FL is starting to do this correctly. They are building walkable mini-spaces like the new Mid-Town development. They took an old commercial block, levelled it, and then built a ring of apartment buildings with some shops in the middle. Problem is they built a bunch of really small apartments that cost about $1000 per sqft to buy. So nobody can really afford to live there.
A citys most valuable asset is not land, its people. Giving people affordable desirable safe places to live will attract and retain them. There are walkable places to live in the US, like Boston, Many cities in the NE so people can choose that if it works for them. Social engineers are almost always wrong. Let people chase their own best interests.
Have to agree. Social engineers get it wrong quite often. They are not generally held accountable. Lived through integration of the education system in the US. Yes, ending segregation was important but how it was accomplished threw out the baby with the bath water. Look at our US education system now. Just a mess using any metric you please.
When your land is cheap and abundant - you should be concerned about raising land value and taxes per area, however doing it too long will bring you another set of problems. At some point, it is worth considering taxes per capita. As everything in economy, the impact of density on infrastructure costs is subject to the law of diminishing returns. If the density is too low even the most basic utilities would be cost prohibitive. Water, sewerage and electricity are taken for granted in most urban centers, but nobody expects it in every cabin in wilderness. Add little more density and you start seeing some forms of public transport. However, there is an opposite story unfolding as well. Although, the diameters of pipes and their costs do not grow significantly with the population density, construction costs do. Let`s compare two extremes. Green field development - we draw a line, and an excavator can start digging an open trench for those pipes. Now imagine similar pipes should be added in dense downtown - at best, we must block the road, mitigate alternative routes and some compensations, break and repair pavement, protect all other pipes and cables. In some instances, open excavation would not be possible at all, and we will have to use HDD or other similar techniques. Not to mention longer and more expensive permits. Higher population density requires more expensive structures, more complex engineering solutions just too provide services for all residents. Try to find a spot for new school, new hospital, new community center, fire depo in a dense city center - the land acquisition cost would be prohibitive in most cases. This is the reason why New York struggles to pay for the upkeep of the infrastructure. Those are two different extremes . Most of American cities which went bankrupt were struggling from depopulation. The land was not expensive, and even if there were some affordability issues those were caused by low income and unemployment rather than high property values. On the other end of spectrum there are cities like New York, Toronto and Vancouver. Population is growing in such cities and the land is super expensive (more valuable than structures on top of it). Both types could have struggles with infrastructure - but those are different struggles. Zoning could create an artificial land scarcity and density stacking will only exacerbate this problem. Towers will only further inflate land value, but Taxes per capita will be decreasing. Now they are replacing few high paying individuals with a bunch of low paying ones - how long will it take to hurt your city budget? Adjust your Breakdown of Revenue by Building Type to account for population density, no, of course, low density will not become profitable; but medium density would be more productive than high density (per capita).
pretty awesome to see this in Asheville!! the Charlotte Street townhomes project. I was really disappointed that they didn't go with a higher density plan. very silly that so many people came out to speak against it. It is downtown, let the downtown be a downtown
There's a concept in economics refers to as "moral hazard", meaning that if there are limited dis-incentives to exploit market failures, then market failures will occur. There are so many instances of moral hazard in city planning, like the costs of bankruptcy are not borne by decision makers but the general residences, bailout procedures for municipality are extremely lax, and the long timeframe of muni bonds (20-30 years) does not match with tenure of city leaders (~4 years), so the can of worms keep being kicked down the road. In general, I feel like it comes down to foundational cultural systems, as in the living affordability crisis is typically in Anglophone countries, with their common law systems really skewed the market toward private ownership.
Not to mention the environmental issue. Use the space & resources to their best ability... Not size & consumption... A perfect example of what happens when Walmart leaves areas that destroyed local small business & sucked local revenue & resources... Zero accountability.
Love the quality of the new content, guys. Reminds me about local (Vancouver) channel "About Here". As endearing as the old robot-voice animal character animation is, I'm also very happy to see ST content in video content that does the ideas justice.
You can rent a big storage unit and put lay your stuff flat on the floor Or you can rent a smaller unit and get some shelves so you can stack your stuff and use up that airspace. Both will hold your stuff the same, but one is more expensive than the other, all else being equal.
I'm loving these new videos and am so grateful for them. Well made and compelling! I can send this (and others) to my city council members (and like minded neighbors!) in my smallish town Eureka, CA on the remote north coast of California. These make dollars and cents arguments that can change minds. Eureka, like Asheville, lacked the finances to tear down their "blighted" old town to build a downtown mall across multiple city blocks. The idea of wrapping the whole footprint of the proposed mall was just brilliant! And now both our towns have character in our downtown cores that so many other cities don't. We're well into the next step change, and working on infill projects to build mixed use and housing on parking lots downtown, but the opposition to this based on a completely imaginary loss of parking is breathtaking. Your work makes our efforts to help our town be better and smarter so much easier. I've not seen such sensible content in bite-sized and easily defensible, shareable ways. Thank you and please keep it up!
I think the biggest problem is the lack of education. If our whole community was better informed about how to increase quality of life AND value, maybe we could move away from car dependent communities
Andres Duany was my introduction to New Urbanism and "Smart Growth", and Strong Towns is carrying all that wisdom and knowledge forward. Keep it going strong! 💪💪💥
Property taxes are structured differently across the country. Where I live, for example, town-level taxes are about $3k/acre (or $4k per capita). It would be great to see examples of places that are already "doing it right" in terms of sustainable tax policy.
The Asheville "City Watch" is brilliant! I would love a publication in my area (Seattle) focusing on where in the city improvements could be made or opportunities are.
I live in the Midwest (Ohio) and we have towns every ten miles that are full of multi-story and multi-use and these buildings all standing empty because the chain stores all build in the suburbs. How do you convince home depot or Walmart to build downtown if there won't be acres of parking lots? Most of these towns are lucky to have a couple restaurants and a few non-profits. The towns have lots of close-in housing, These people still have to drive to the suburbs just to buy a board or a mixer.
My family is from Asheville. They’ve lived there for nearly a century. My grandmother moved in the 60s to New Jersey but I’d love to go back and visit sometime.
Great comparison at the 13:20 mark. To take this one step further, what about the difference in economic opportunities these two options provide? Not sure if there is a way to pull employer data related to this. Part of having a strong town is having good jobs.
Maximizing the "City's Return On Investment" one might think that maximum use density is the great ideal in planning. This may lead to the conclusion that mix use building should be planned where we have high density of apartments combined with small shops of varying businesses. But how many individuals and families would wish to live there? I have watched cities of every size expand their borders into suburban neighborhoods to collect more tax revenues and building fees for single family housing and now complain that their ROI is too low. Beware of using only one metric, remember, to a workman who only has a hammer for a tool everything looks like a nail.
I feel lile when it comes to new buildings almost always its efficency over quality. efficency is important, but people deserve high quality enviroments with detail in the facades. this is what separates historic buildings from modern ones and within reason and budget i think the acknowledgement of this is overdue by all concerned in the making (and destruction) of our towns and cities.
Asheville is a fantastic city. Recently visited Burlington, Vermont and it has a very similar vibe to Asheville. Both have a great sense of place. They're places you want to be and just spend time as a person. Take it all in. Not just a single destination to drive to and leave. Really wish more cities would get this right.
I have goals to get into local politics to better advocate for Charleston, SC's working natives. A lot of big industry came to our city in the early 00's and we were collectively pretty excited about the job boom. This was also about the time that Charleston was consistently being ranked a #1 international tourist destination, which caused an exciting boom of new tourism that was really good for our city for a while. But all this together caused tourists to look around and realize a few things at once: A. Charleston is a very, VERY pretty city. B. Compared to the places these people were visiting from, real estate in South Carolina is dirt cheap. C. With thousands of new jobs being created in the medical, industrial, construction, and law fields, one could up and relocate at the drop of a hat. So instead of coming here, enjoying our city, eating our food, buying our art, staying at our hotels, paying our parking meters, and leaving like they used to, more and more people are just...... Buying our homes, taking our jobs, raising our property taxes, and still expecting us to brew their lattes and pick up their garbage and bag their groceries. Luxury apartments and new developments STARTING in the low $400's are popping up where marshes and swamps that were a vital part of our ecosystem used to be, and the people who were already here can't afford to take advantage of any of it. It's got really out of control, and I want to be part of reeling it back in.
One issue with the approach of considering just value per physical space is leaving out the nature aspect. Having trees in a city and allowing some space to let the city "breathe" is very important. Very dense cities are really bad for us people, animals and the environment as a whole.
Yes and no. If a city is more dense it allows for areas that aren’t as dense close to that area. Boston is a great example of dense areas but still plenty of trees and parks and other things that help the environment.
Год назад+6
@@theeggreat4 As mentioned before, "just value per physical space". There should always be a multi dimensional consideration. While there are dense cities that are not as bad as you mention, it's my understanding that they are the exception instead of the rule.
As an expat living in a dense city, I am surrounded by more trees and parks and planned green spaces then back home in Florida. In fact most suburbs are completely raised and void of nature and wildlife surrounded by boiling concrete. I’m sure there is a middle ground in there somewhere. Nobody is saying the US should be Jakarta, but I’m enjoying a vastly different lifestyle that’s not really possible back home.
Год назад+1
@@jasminewilliams1673 You don't mention your current city, but all over the world, very dense cities are horrendous places to live and you would see almost no living beings other than the ones families and industries promote/allow.
Singapore shows that both can be done. They require developers to inventory existing trees or natural features before building, and require developers to have 10% MORE green coverage than the existing undeveloped site. That's why you see a lot of buildings and structures in Singapore being covered with trees and plants.
If you caught this one last week, yes, this is a re-upload- BUT WAIT! There's a fun announcement you definitely didn't get to see in the first version :)
I was so confused!
Wait, where? I'm confused!
@@MissMoontree At the very end, around 12:40
@@ajs1721 thank you
omg I thought I was going crazy
Value per acre also needs to be applied to streets and sidewalks. In a dense enough neighborhood the streets provide more traffic for local business when turned over to pedestrians and bikes. Often vehicles are only passing through and contribute nothing
Oh they do contribute.....to pollution. Exhaust emissions, rubber particles, metallic particles due to braking etc etc etc. They do contribute, just not in ANY GOOD WAY.
@@schenksteven1 Just shows why Oslo banned non-essential street parking and that solves both problems, traffic, and people showing up in cars to bike/walk
LOL 😄😂😂 you "educated" people Crack Me Up.
@@schenksteven1 Deliveries and handicapped parking are ok
@@schenksteven1 I'm sure everyone adapts differently, whether it's transit, biking, a mix of driving and transit, or just not going, but overall sales are up 10% at local retail businesses of those neighborhoods in which street parking was banned since Oslo made that one law change in 2017. That suggests the segment of the population who depended solely on driving to those neighborhoods to support local business either contributed insignificantly to the economy or adapted easily to the change. Keep in mind it happens on a neighborhood basis. Those neighborhoods with higher residential density are where the need is greater to eliminate street parking, and allow the residents out from the oppression of vehicle congestion. I realize there are other problems in U.S. like the white collar, 45 minute commute, but we're talking about cities with residents, not corporate campuses. My opinion is the U.S. problems are from a bubble created by government overreach, policy earmarks favoring specific corporations, lobbying, and trickle down, or top down funding initiatives throughout the economy. It's ironically a lack of ground-up capitalism that is hurting the U.S. as an actual place nowadays
I've had so many conversations with suburbanites where they become righteously indignant about the taxes they pay. But the subsidy they receive to make their lifestyle possible, is ENTIRELY invisible to them. I don't even blame them for being unable to see it. What do they know about how much roads and highways cost to upkeep? or pipes, pumps, water sanitation, electric, traffic lights, etc. If there was no subsidization of the suburbs, almost no one would choose to live in them, because the tax burden would be unbearable.
For real, suburbanites gotta be taxed properly
The problem is the way taxes are allocated. A big chunk goes to the Federal Government, and that kind of goes everywhere like the military. There is plenty of Federal money that goes into car centric infrastructure projects. From that, it seems legit, because Federal taxes are a huge part of my tax bill. Never mind that millions of people who live in the cities who don't directly drive on those highways are also paying a significant portion of it.
If the taxes were apportioned closer to home, and the expenses where assumed in the same way, then you would have a lot more careful thought on the spending.
The money that I make, I spend it carefully on me and my family. Money from the neighborhood is more carefully spent on taking care of that neighborhood.
We could probably have much lower taxes, fewer expensive infrastructure liabilities, more efficient use of land.
I admire how skillfully you augment Chuck's discussions by incorporating compelling visuals and storytelling elements. Your efforts truly set a high standard for creators.
I love these new style videos, as well as Chuck Marohn's full talks and speeches at events, where he can give a 90 minute presentation. It's a great combo.
The graphic visuals are from Urban3 and their research. I'd say Chuck Marohn is a very good 'storysteller' himself .
I love what he has to say like I lot, like i think its a top 5 issue for national thriving, but I hate his aesthitic and countenance so much. Hopefully im the outlier, cause I think it needs to be heard
I'm loving this new approach in telling the story of Strong Towns and strong towns. Value per-acre (and taxes per-acre) has been a transformative metric for how I view places in my local area. Of course that metric alone doesn't tell the whole story, but certainly helps to equalize how we compare developments.
I wonder how things like parks, playgrounds, urban gardens and public outdoor gyms factor in with this type of urban planning. as they have 0 revenue on their own (nor should they), but they do make for better more desirable neighborhoods.
They generate revenue in terms of how they increase the property value of surrounding homes and businesses
@@thedapperdolphin1590 oh makes sense. Thank you. Dunno why I didn't figure that out xD just kept on thinkin bout parkin lots and comparing them to places ppl wanted to go to and linger.
perhaps on top of making areas more desirable, and therefore valuable, a metric like amenities per whatever unit of area could be developed and standardized allowing for quick reference
@@zabacinjsh Plus, they can also be used by communities to set up activities and events. Our park has a bar during summer months and in summer you find a lot of people giving yoga sessions and dance classes etc.
@@electrosyzygy That method is used in a number of areas, principally that I can think of is Vancouver, BC. "Vancouverism" as it's called in particular prioritizes mixed-use high density construction (with a distinct albeit sometimes boring architectural style) with required amenity contributions from developers for virtually every form of development. Want to throw in a new modern condo building in BC? Okay, you have to dedicate public park space(s), mixed use commercial space, affordable or subsidized public housing, and/or other public amenities (or just donate a big chunk of cash to the city for them to use for public projects). It is inarguably the reason why Vancouver (downtown especially) is as livable as it is -- assuming you can afford the typical, extreme high costs of living in any metropolitan area.
Urban3 recently put out a good presentation on their study of Shreveport, LA. They show how much tax money comes in for infrastructure vs how much they’re able to spend on it and, long story short, the city gets another several million in the hole every year. Really sheds light on how counterproductive our development pattern is.
I learn that the reason Shreveport and the rest of Louisiana has such low tax revenue is that the oil industry bribed and bullied the state into awarding huge tax exemptions. If Louisiana had the ablity to tax the oil that follows thru that state and, shared that revenue with the people. Then Louisiana's citizens could been as rich as the citizsns of Dubia or Kuwait.
The politicians are bought and paid for. Very easy to understand. But the citizens are ignorant.....and keep voting for repubs because "muh god"....
@@Riorozen if it’s not their money, then why does the oil need to go through their land? Would you say the same about the gulf states? Should Louisiana not nationalize its oil industry?
@@Riorozen It's their land, land belongs to the people, and they should be able to tax people who use it.
This makes me think about population density and why we cover it so much on our channel. In a sense, density is another way of thinking about the productivity of land (that’s easier to calculate but not as precise, because it ignores non-residential uses). I think why we find density so interesting is that there are these large differences in "residential productivity" between different places (for example, a townhouse development having two or three times higher density than more spread out detached homes) that aren’t obvious until you actually run the numbers.
Hey guys! Love your visual guide for different categories of density, it’s a great introduction to show that density doesn’t have to be a box in the sky or a massive detached home. Hope Montreal is treating you well!
-Mike
Why should we choose? We can have both. It is possible, at least in theory, to adjust $ per land area to account for population density ($ per resident). For businesses we could use $ (taxes/revenue/sales) per employee.
How to take into account the increased mental stress, crime, pollution that comes with increased population density zones? Not to mention overall decreased quality of life of those living in such areas.
@@chrismcintosh2286 , I am unaware of any evidence in support of your claims. Average wealth is growing with the population density. Crime rate per capita is generally decreasing with population density. Environmental impact of dense urban living is lower per capita.
Please, consider reading “The Death and Life of Great American Cities” by Jane Jacobs.
Yes, why do we cover so much land? Could it be that people don't want to live in the way you want to live? Could it be that there if a value in not having people live overtop of stores (which could be dangerous or not child-friendly?) You are parochial in your perspective. I am libertarian in mine. I want people to live like THEY want to live, not how the Elite think everyone SHOULD live.
I live in Brooklyn, NY. We have a lot of old neighborhoods with shopping strips, apartments over the shops, and residential side streets around them. You can walk to shops and there are subways that can take you to Manhattan. Modern zoning often does not allow this kind of mixed use development.
I've been emailing my city council person and she basically said "we have the density for bike lanes downtown" so, the rest of us don't get them, and there's no chance they will seriously consider bikes as a transit choice we are allowed to have access to. I think I'll just have to run for city council. I'm grateful for this video because these principles appeal to fiscally conservative people (which my town is full of) and can help guide the conversation with data-driven, people centered solutions. I also want to get a little shed and set up a churro or soft serve place since I live on a corner and there are schools, parks, and lots of kids around. I think it would really liven up the neighborhood.
Run for local office. People that want to see change taking the initiative to make it happen is the only way it will happen.
@@makeart5070 You're right. I actually looked into how to do it last week.
Do you live in a snow fall area ? This could be a or the issue. Municipalities seem Very hesitant to invest in something that’s unused for mouths out of the year.
@@elaishh3533as someone from the northern edge of NY, right on the Canadian border; all of our towns have a municipal park in the center, in easy walking distance of restaurants and often having picnic tables. Just because something is covered in snow for 4 months and likely too cold to use for another 2 doesn't mean it won't be loved in the remaining 6. Additionally if you are willing to shovel and salt/sand your sidewalks then they are usable all year.
Cities need to learn that snow isn't an excuse, winter isn't an excuse, parks and sidewalks are mandatory.
@Kevin ..no, that's Theft.
The idea that our cities at one point destroyed half of their heritage in the name of "urban renewal" is still crazy to me.
Even if it was a good idea. Why not build the new areas on empty land? Why did they have to bulldoze the city first??
“the trendy but now dying mall..” Hopefully this will happen with the current SUV craze too.
Brilliant speakers, brilliant channel 🙏
I doubt it. No other trend in automotive history has changed the way the automakers function the way crossovers have.
Minivans, retro cars, wagons, whatever never became so popular they they caused some brands to sell only crossovers. I mean it's so big it has Lamborghini, Rolls Royce, Ferrari etc chasing after it. And those sales keep the lights on and completely outsell everything else.
Toyota sales so many crossovers of various sizes and styles yet you won't see that with sedans and cars.
It might potentially cool off but I think it's here to stay.
I see it as a return to the orginal car styles of the early 1900s. Lifted up two box designs.
It wont unless congress changes the way it measures emissions.
The big SUV crazy is a result of congress enabling light trucks and SUV more emissions then cars. It's the same reason chevy trucks run outdated engines. This saves the auto manufacturers money on R&D and tech. So this is the vehicles that are pushed the hardest.
And given that the administration which is pushing electric cars not only maintained the exemption but made it even more rewarding for the auto industry to push larger vehicles it's not happening anytime soon.
@Phillip Banes You’re right. I love malls too 🫣
ironic...because malls are super super dense in business
It's already happening, so many of them are $40-50k plus, the majority of Americans can't afford that.
When he said “we could build people centered places, that last longer than us and are designed to linger in and be enjoyed” I had to shed a tear and cry a bit cause it touched my hope for a better future 6:45
real estate evaluation is shrouded in mystery these days, hope we can start bringing back these common sense ways of looking at things back to reality
Found this channel through Not Just Bikes, and I'm so glad I did... Commenting for ENGAGEMENT!
I’m living in Asheville right now! I’m so happy they stood up and saved their city center for us to enjoy in the modern day. Hopefully we can all keep heading in the right direction as a community! Great video
finally clicked on a strong towns video and i'm blown away. the quality is so high it's absurd. love it
The analogy to cars and trucks is helpful, in part because it reminds us that efficiency is important but also not the only thing to be considering. Just like there are good reasons to be the less-than-most-effcient car in some cases, there are good reasons to built less-than-most-efficient land uses in some cases as well. The idea is not that every single development needs to be maximally efficient in and of itself, but that efficiency should be highlighted and prioritized.
I hardly ever comment on YT videos, but was compelled to. Great content, exactly what our towns need
Wow, this is very inspiring and informative!! I'm from Sri Lanka, and I'm working toward creating a platform for those who wants to improve cities and towns here. Sometimes it's very frustrating because not many people interested in this and very hard to get people to involve in this. But folks like those who were mentioned in this video inspire me to continue my work.
You're doing an amazing job, keep it up .
That's the thing, the US is so big it barely considers land a finite resource
99% of Australia's population lives on the coast. The Australian continent is as large as mainland United States, but almost noone lives away from the coast. An abundance of land isn't the issue.
This. This was the single best video strong towns made. This is the one that made me UNDERSTAND. It's because of "value per acre".
I live in Asheville and this is bittersweet. Asheville is cute but its an amusement park you know?
Many service workers are sending 50% of their check to rent (or more). Thankfully there are new housing projects in progress but a couple hundred units will go fast when its so many that are housing insecure.
I appreciate you covering the concept of value per acre. Maybe that can promote the building of more housing (or at least the appropriation of taxes to even more housing)
Being from near Asheville, it is so tragic that it's almost unliveable now in the past few years because of the obscene traffic, largely single-family homes, and plans for even more highway widening. Transit like ART is almost nonexistent. If there was any kind of transit infrastructure at all then density could improve.
Seeing all these places turn into what Portland uses to be makes me happy, and sad, at the same time. I miss my city. This channel inspires me to try and get more involved. To try and be a part of the solution
I will not eat the bugs and I will not live in the pods
Putting this in terms of economics makes good sense.
I was starting to lean toward moving to Asheville when I graduate for bicycle engineering, and now I find out they’re actually trying to be a good place to live!?
Hell yeah!
I just cited this video in a course on strategic planning as an example of a focus on strategy (desired overall outcome) versus just ad-hoc planning. I'm obsessed with this video and keep coming back to it. thank you for making it!
Great to have the hard numbers that "taxes per acre" provide when discussing with friends who are skeptical. Super valuable video. Thank you.
Well said! I was a municipal manager for about 5 years before the lightbulb went on for me, but once the realization came I could't unsee the mistaken approach to development we have been pursuing.
How does value-per-acre account for “non-productive” buildings such as libraries, churches, parks, etc.?
There is value in multiple ways to parks and libraries. A neighbourhood with a park at the end of the street will have higher value, and thus tax revenue, than a neighbourhood without. Even a modest park, available by foot, has significant benefits to (mental, physical) health , which will lead to lower health care expenses. A park can play a role in, expensive, storm water management and will lower pollutans in an area . And to resident users they offer a free/low cost recreation which they otherwise had to make (transport or private market) costs for ...
Librariies employ people and offer a centre/network of knowledge and learning to a community which are also valuable ( and can be measured in a way ..) .
Churches build networks of comfort/consolation, trust and support. These networks are very valuable in any society, especially in an individualized society like today . Without social network support/access most people will not thrive in life. Isolation is killing.
Urban Designer here. The challenge for establishing the values argument are two things: subsidy availability and a lack of innovative planning support. If we can buy down the debt, value based on placemaking vs bankable tenants is possible.
Ayy Bloomington IL, represent!!! Just joined the Facebook for town. Can't wait to help build up my own strong town!
I like your channel, and living what was once rural is now getting built out because one particular industry growth. I don't like the growth. I don't like cities never have and never will. The boxes people live in make feel anxious. More people than trees. No wildlife. Pigeons don't count. I'm used to walking out my door and not see any one or cars. For as far back as my ancestors have been here never have lived in cities. To me the most productive land per acre is farmland not an apartment block, mixed use or whatever you want to call it. Can't eat city blocks. Glad some folks want to live in cities prevents me from having to move.
I think you're on the wrong channel then.
Fair enough. It's perfectly fine to live how you want and also be able to acknowledge that there's better ways for people in cities to live that would be better for them
Recently I've thought a lot of the Poletown plant built by GM in Detroit that cleared out an entire neighborhood. It was controversial but heavily promoted as a way to create jobs.
The place is still operational today and is now called Factory Zero.
But did it actually help reverse the city's decline and catalyze further growth and investment?
It would be interesting to compare that to a project today like the Joe Louis Greenway.
Your opening mindset led to the projects housing per acre
I visited Asheville from Charleston, SC. Asheville is shockingly expensive. The downtown area is nice, but its wider area is not pedestrian friendly and had little to no public transportation.
Value per acre, never thought about it, but sounds like a great measure.
I'm a big fan of your videos. I live in a town in West Virginia, named Martinsburg, that is a former woolen mill town who's economy was devastated by NAFTA in the late'80s early '90s when most of its clothing industry shut down and moved overseas. Ten years ago, the historic downtown had a vacant, run-down feel. I'm happy to say that in the pat 10 years, the town's fortunes have turned around, and those vacant woolen mills are being refurbished into residential and commercial uses, people are taking an interest in the downtown again with people renovating historic structures and opening new businesses, and we are just this summer opening a 1.2 mile hiker--biker trail downtown, that runs on the right-of-way of a former rail spur, and there is a budding emphasis on everything associated with the concept of walkability in the downtown core area that I am hoping will continue to grow and bear fruit.
Keep on doing what you are doing - its definitely inspirational to see all of the creative ideas that you discuss on your platform.
The problem isn't finding solutions. It's trying to get those solutions passed under a political system too often corrupted by monied interests that benefit from the chaos. Especially when the point is often chaos to undermine faith in the government to create division.
These solutions might be best for most people, but politicians typically choose the interests of their big money donors over the majority of their constituency.
Production quality on these are killing it👏🏼👏🏼 love this format😀🧠
I appreciate the reactionary comments here. They do a great job at illustrating why this channel and movement is neccessary.
More more more, just bring more of Strong Towns, the world must hear it! 👍💥💥
1 problem with the thumbnail is that we can't have independent buildings sharing walls anymore. Due to lateral motions from wind and seismic, as well as fire code requirments, most building codes require building separation. this varies by use case, building height, and location. I just bring this up to note that a modern, low-rise, development would look very different than the older buildings slapped next to each other. Its also why you sometimes see new apartment and mixed use buildings taking up a whole block
I would totally love to attend the gathering at the end of May.. but it's on a Tuesday and Wednesday, which is gonna need PTO that I don't have. Hope to catch the next one!
Tampa, FL is starting to do this correctly. They are building walkable mini-spaces like the new Mid-Town development. They took an old commercial block, levelled it, and then built a ring of apartment buildings with some shops in the middle. Problem is they built a bunch of really small apartments that cost about $1000 per sqft to buy. So nobody can really afford to live there.
This channel gives me hope
This is such an important piece of making more livable, sustainable, and equitable towns and cities. Thank you for sharing this!
A citys most valuable asset is not land, its people. Giving people affordable desirable safe places to live will attract and retain them. There are walkable places to live in the US, like Boston, Many cities in the NE so people can choose that if it works for them. Social engineers are almost always wrong. Let people chase their own best interests.
Have to agree. Social engineers get it wrong quite often. They are not generally held accountable. Lived through integration of the education system in the US. Yes, ending segregation was important but how it was accomplished threw out the baby with the bath water. Look at our US education system now. Just a mess using any metric you please.
Ah, that romanticism, this is amazing.
Thank you
love this so much!! I mean it hits close to home. ❤
Would love Johnson City to get a hold of these conversations. Maybe we should start a group there ??
I think you undervalue aesthetics. it's part of a high value, just only one part.
Would love to see stats for the Canadian cities / towns / neighbourhoods that have the highest value per acre!
Everything is about productivity and money now. Happiness is rarely a factor.
Love the Moneyball reference at the end to wrap up the whole video. Big fan.
When your land is cheap and abundant - you should be concerned about raising land value and taxes per area, however doing it too long will bring you another set of problems. At some point, it is worth considering taxes per capita.
As everything in economy, the impact of density on infrastructure costs is subject to the law of diminishing returns. If the density is too low even the most basic utilities would be cost prohibitive. Water, sewerage and electricity are taken for granted in most urban centers, but nobody expects it in every cabin in wilderness. Add little more density and you start seeing some forms of public transport. However, there is an opposite story unfolding as well. Although, the diameters of pipes and their costs do not grow significantly with the population density, construction costs do. Let`s compare two extremes. Green field development - we draw a line, and an excavator can start digging an open trench for those pipes. Now imagine similar pipes should be added in dense downtown - at best, we must block the road, mitigate alternative routes and some compensations, break and repair pavement, protect all other pipes and cables. In some instances, open excavation would not be possible at all, and we will have to use HDD or other similar techniques. Not to mention longer and more expensive permits. Higher population density requires more expensive structures, more complex engineering solutions just too provide services for all residents. Try to find a spot for new school, new hospital, new community center, fire depo in a dense city center - the land acquisition cost would be prohibitive in most cases. This is the reason why New York struggles to pay for the upkeep of the infrastructure.
Those are two different extremes . Most of American cities which went bankrupt were struggling from depopulation. The land was not expensive, and even if there were some affordability issues those were caused by low income and unemployment rather than high property values. On the other end of spectrum there are cities like New York, Toronto and Vancouver. Population is growing in such cities and the land is super expensive (more valuable than structures on top of it). Both types could have struggles with infrastructure - but those are different struggles.
Zoning could create an artificial land scarcity and density stacking will only exacerbate this problem. Towers will only further inflate land value, but Taxes per capita will be decreasing.
Now they are replacing few high paying individuals with a bunch of low paying ones - how long will it take to hurt your city budget?
Adjust your Breakdown of Revenue by Building Type to account for population density, no, of course, low density will not become profitable; but medium density would be more productive than high density (per capita).
pretty awesome to see this in Asheville!! the Charlotte Street townhomes project. I was really disappointed that they didn't go with a higher density plan. very silly that so many people came out to speak against it. It is downtown, let the downtown be a downtown
There's a concept in economics refers to as "moral hazard", meaning that if there are limited dis-incentives to exploit market failures, then market failures will occur. There are so many instances of moral hazard in city planning, like the costs of bankruptcy are not borne by decision makers but the general residences, bailout procedures for municipality are extremely lax, and the long timeframe of muni bonds (20-30 years) does not match with tenure of city leaders (~4 years), so the can of worms keep being kicked down the road.
In general, I feel like it comes down to foundational cultural systems, as in the living affordability crisis is typically in Anglophone countries, with their common law systems really skewed the market toward private ownership.
Woot, I'm from Bloomington/Normal Illinois!
Saving to show EE and those like him.
Not to mention the environmental issue. Use the space & resources to their best ability... Not size & consumption... A perfect example of what happens when Walmart leaves areas that destroyed local small business & sucked local revenue & resources... Zero accountability.
Love the quality of the new content, guys. Reminds me about local (Vancouver) channel "About Here". As endearing as the old robot-voice animal character animation is, I'm also very happy to see ST content in video content that does the ideas justice.
Uytae is awesome!
I'm a simple man. I see a Strong Towns video, I smash the like button.
Smash huh
You can rent a big storage unit and put lay your stuff flat on the floor Or you can rent a smaller unit and get some shelves so you can stack your stuff and use up that airspace. Both will hold your stuff the same, but one is more expensive than the other, all else being equal.
Great video!
Love Asheville! Great video Strong Towns
Commenting for visibility, great video. More people need to be vocal to their cities about proper land use.
I'm loving these new videos and am so grateful for them. Well made and compelling!
I can send this (and others) to my city council members (and like minded neighbors!) in my smallish town Eureka, CA on the remote north coast of California. These make dollars and cents arguments that can change minds.
Eureka, like Asheville, lacked the finances to tear down their "blighted" old town to build a downtown mall across multiple city blocks. The idea of wrapping the whole footprint of the proposed mall was just brilliant! And now both our towns have character in our downtown cores that so many other cities don't.
We're well into the next step change, and working on infill projects to build mixed use and housing on parking lots downtown, but the opposition to this based on a completely imaginary loss of parking is breathtaking.
Your work makes our efforts to help our town be better and smarter so much easier. I've not seen such sensible content in bite-sized and easily defensible, shareable ways.
Thank you and please keep it up!
Thank you for what this channel does!
I think the biggest problem is the lack of education. If our whole community was better informed about how to increase quality of life AND value, maybe we could move away from car dependent communities
I’ve been entertaining the idea of. Owing to Asheville, and this has definitely helped with my decision.
Great description! Good work
Well done.
Andres Duany was my introduction to New Urbanism and "Smart Growth", and Strong Towns is carrying all that wisdom and knowledge forward. Keep it going strong! 💪💪💥
Same back in 2008 but I later realized both NU and Sprawl are flawed
Very important information here
The audio is very nice.
Stellar work
It's really sad how land is so value, but because the US has so much of it, it takes it for granted
Asheville has a wonderful downtown. So glad they kept it
Property taxes are structured differently across the country. Where I live, for example, town-level taxes are about $3k/acre (or $4k per capita). It would be great to see examples of places that are already "doing it right" in terms of sustainable tax policy.
The Asheville "City Watch" is brilliant! I would love a publication in my area (Seattle) focusing on where in the city improvements could be made or opportunities are.
I live in the Midwest (Ohio) and we have towns every ten miles that are full of multi-story and multi-use and these buildings all standing empty because the chain stores all build in the suburbs. How do you convince home depot or Walmart to build downtown if there won't be acres of parking lots? Most of these towns are lucky to have a couple restaurants and a few non-profits. The towns have lots of close-in housing, These people still have to drive to the suburbs just to buy a board or a mixer.
My family is from Asheville. They’ve lived there for nearly a century. My grandmother moved in the 60s to New Jersey but I’d love to go back and visit sometime.
Great comparison at the 13:20 mark. To take this one step further, what about the difference in economic opportunities these two options provide? Not sure if there is a way to pull employer data related to this. Part of having a strong town is having good jobs.
H E N R Y G E O R G E
C O P E
Maximizing the "City's Return On Investment" one might think that maximum use density is the great ideal in planning. This may lead to the conclusion that mix use building should be planned where we have high density of apartments combined with small shops of varying businesses. But how many individuals and families would wish to live there? I have watched cities of every size expand their borders into suburban neighborhoods to collect more tax revenues and building fees for single family housing and now complain that their ROI is too low. Beware of using only one metric, remember, to a workman who only has a hammer for a tool everything looks like a nail.
I didn’t comment last week but I will this time - I LOVE that you all combined my two loves: baseball and planning haha. Great video!
Baseball sucks. I would rather watch polo or cricket.
Please read MoneyBall!!! You'll love all the connections.
All the sports references are flying over my head
This was a beautiful video! Everything from the storytelling to the visuals felt right and thought out. Keep up the good work!
great again
the effects of the red scare are alive and well in the US
This was excellent. Thank you!
2-3 levels building is for me, ideal. Enough space for single or multiple owners, doesn't ruin skyline, has enough interaction.
I feel lile when it comes to new buildings almost always its efficency over quality. efficency is important, but people deserve high quality enviroments with detail in the facades. this is what separates historic buildings from modern ones and within reason and budget i think the acknowledgement of this is overdue by all concerned in the making (and destruction) of our towns and cities.
Asheville is a fantastic city. Recently visited Burlington, Vermont and it has a very similar vibe to Asheville. Both have a great sense of place. They're places you want to be and just spend time as a person. Take it all in. Not just a single destination to drive to and leave. Really wish more cities would get this right.
I have goals to get into local politics to better advocate for Charleston, SC's working natives. A lot of big industry came to our city in the early 00's and we were collectively pretty excited about the job boom. This was also about the time that Charleston was consistently being ranked a #1 international tourist destination, which caused an exciting boom of new tourism that was really good for our city for a while. But all this together caused tourists to look around and realize a few things at once:
A. Charleston is a very, VERY pretty city.
B. Compared to the places these people were visiting from, real estate in South Carolina is dirt cheap.
C. With thousands of new jobs being created in the medical, industrial, construction, and law fields, one could up and relocate at the drop of a hat.
So instead of coming here, enjoying our city, eating our food, buying our art, staying at our hotels, paying our parking meters, and leaving like they used to, more and more people are just...... Buying our homes, taking our jobs, raising our property taxes, and still expecting us to brew their lattes and pick up their garbage and bag their groceries. Luxury apartments and new developments STARTING in the low $400's are popping up where marshes and swamps that were a vital part of our ecosystem used to be, and the people who were already here can't afford to take advantage of any of it. It's got really out of control, and I want to be part of reeling it back in.
A very money conversation
One issue with the approach of considering just value per physical space is leaving out the nature aspect. Having trees in a city and allowing some space to let the city "breathe" is very important. Very dense cities are really bad for us people, animals and the environment as a whole.
Yes and no. If a city is more dense it allows for areas that aren’t as dense close to that area. Boston is a great example of dense areas but still plenty of trees and parks and other things that help the environment.
@@theeggreat4 As mentioned before, "just value per physical space". There should always be a multi dimensional consideration. While there are dense cities that are not as bad as you mention, it's my understanding that they are the exception instead of the rule.
As an expat living in a dense city, I am surrounded by more trees and parks and planned green spaces then back home in Florida. In fact most suburbs are completely raised and void of nature and wildlife surrounded by boiling concrete. I’m sure there is a middle ground in there somewhere. Nobody is saying the US should be Jakarta, but I’m enjoying a vastly different lifestyle that’s not really possible back home.
@@jasminewilliams1673 You don't mention your current city, but all over the world, very dense cities are horrendous places to live and you would see almost no living beings other than the ones families and industries promote/allow.
Singapore shows that both can be done. They require developers to inventory existing trees or natural features before building, and require developers to have 10% MORE green coverage than the existing undeveloped site. That's why you see a lot of buildings and structures in Singapore being covered with trees and plants.