This Ponzi Scheme Might END Suburban Prosperity
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 май 2024
- Join a local conversation in YOUR neighborhood www.strongtowns.org/local
Come to our National Gathering! www.strongtowns.org/national-...
Vote in our Strongest Town Contest: www.strongtowns.org/strongest...
Merch: www.strongtowns.org/shop
Lots of case studies here: www.strongtowns.org/journal/2...
The Growth Ponzi Scheme, also called the "Municipal Ponzi Scheme," is a core Strong Towns insight describing the financial characteristics of post-war North American growth patterns.In the Growth Ponzi Scheme, municipalities receive the modest near-term financial benefits from new development in exchange for the larger long-term financial commitments of providing ongoing service and maintenance.
The Growth Ponzi Scheme is not nefarious; there is not a specific individual or group that has created it for their own benefit. It has emerged from a broad cultural consensus about economic growth, development patterns, and debt. So what can you do?
Lafayette Study: www.urbanthree.com/case-study...
Michel Durand-Wood article: www.strongtowns.org/journal/2...
Intro Clip: pikeoffota.com/
Donate to Strong Towns: www.strongtowns.org/membership
00:00 OG Ponzi Scheme
01:18 The Growth Ponzi Scheme
02:21 Reasonable Pushback
03:47 Mr. Beast Analogy
05:57 What Now?
08:30 Where Do YOU Start?
I honestly believe that if denser housing options in America were built with more soundproof walls, floors, and ceilings, Americans wouldn’t be afraid of townhomes, apartments, and duplexes. Whenever I was abroad, I never heard a peep from the surrounding neighbors in any of the hotels, hostels, or apartments I stayed at. In America, hotels and apartments alike have hollow walls that allow me to hear all kinds of unnecessary crap like stomping, arguments, etc. This lack of proper soundproofing is a form of privacy invasion and is absolutely detrimental to mental health over the long term. I honestly believe this is the main reason why middle and upper middle class Americans avoid denser housing options like the plague.
We need to modify our building codes to be more soundproof so developers aren’t skimping on those costs.
Nimbys are gonna be shook when their home prices crash because their city stops fixing the infrastructure in their suburb
"Everybody wants to build and nobody wants to do maintenance." Kurt Vonnegut
@@AlphaGeekgirl It's definitely one of those universal truths. More people cooking and eating the food than washing the dishes.
I think it is a weird American sense of entitlement. You ask a lot from your government like good safety and health services, good roads, water and other services. But hate contributing to it through taxes and taxing the rich and businesses. Suburbias do not earn money. If you have mixed use areas, this will also generate some income. Make public transportation readily available. Also some income and employment. Still would probably in debt but less bleeding than just suburbias. Also, new builds should have at least 30% social housing. It is sad that you guys have your own little bubbles.
The planners have led us through every disaster of the last 60 years and they will lead us through more. They are, and have been, well funded, well led and well connected. They use us as a canvas and pretend they are the artist. Write down what they say today...and compare it their words of tomorrow, because surely, they will be selling a different "solution" as soon as they identify a new source of income and prestige. P.S. This is anything BUT a grass roots movement. It is well funded by the usual "change agents" and activist government entities. Please note I am not saying there is no value to the movement, just know it is part of the same economically and socially profitable movement of "do gooders" that have already screwed ups some much of our world.
@@ksoosk "You ask a lot from your government like good safety and health services, good roads, water and other services."
Tell me you're not from America without telling me you're not from America
The worst part of our car-based lives and homes may be the fact that they completely remove normal contact with neighbours. It's such a specific and conspicuous thing to try to start a conversation like that in most places I've lived.
Indeed , especially these insane pickup trucks simply enforce an anti social standoffish apocalyptic me vs them mentality.
@@torquetrain8963 And they're not even proper, functional pickup trucks meant for farmers, ranchers, and construction workers. They're suburban toys!
Easier to make you to hate your neighbors as well as you know nothing about them. It isolates people and lets them stew in their own worlds with out any outside contact besides work. people become very jaded this way.
i know people who don't know their next door neighbors' names
I must have rotten luck because every apartment I move into has had weird rude neighbours who don’t want to talk or old people who get unnecessarily nosey. And every building, of course, has one old man who thinks he’s in charge of everyone.
It is the end stage of suburban sprawl. Malls are dying. The internet dealt the death blow. 20 years ago, I moved to a smaller, more expensive house near mainstreet. I live in a mixed use neighborhood. I took the chance. Our neighborhood is working on replacing fences.
So proud of my small town in Tennessee. We just adopted a new Zoning Ordinance that enables us to build a brand new downtown district!
Hopefully the Koch brothers can be exposed for their effort into convincing "conservatives " that light rail is a bad thing. I am a conservative that absolutely supports any and all efforts for zoning, public transportation, any rail being high speed or light rail. This is a non partisan issue and the Koch brothers need to be exposed.
Which town
@@torquetrain8963 Just appeal to traditionalism for conservatives and appeal to progression for progressives.
@@alialiyev6168 Nolensville
@@theonlylolking its hilarious that its ironically both at once.
It might be the fact that I grew up with car dependency and the death of small business in America causing like 60% of my problems, but I don't get why people think productive downtowns are unexciting.
Here they don't care about cost. The high school has a 200k budget for plays. It class they worry about, they'd rather keep the poors out, drive them an hour or so into work at their industrys. Studio apartments were illegal here until the state forced them to allow them. What they've done is build the city with the amenities, restaurants, shopping, entertainment, jobs, then lock in their property taxes and quit building then pull up the drawbridge and watch the property values skyrocket. They refuse to build anything, so a 200k home 20 years ago is 1m today and people are lined up to buy them. It's not a land issue they have huge "green spaces" surrounding the city to prevent growth. It's about class...
Imagine a world where we charged each suburb house owner taxes to pay for all upkeep necessary for that suburb on top of all the other services that area uses.
Mississauga Ontario can be an interesting example to follow. They have sprawled out as much as they can and have run out of room last year, the ponzi is over. Now they are trying to increase density to survive.
It certainly does feel like a lot of cities are going bankrupt, maybe this is why our roads suck so much despite everyone complaining about it - they're too expensive
That's exactly it, people don't pay enough per meter of road frontage to replace that amount of road, and at the same time we build local suburbam roads 4 cars wide.
Thank good old general motors for dismembering our once great interurban rail system across the U.S. cities and society crumbling, but cars still rolling. What a joke we have become here in Dumberica with our car centric idiocy.
@@neolithictransitrevolution427 frontage taxes are a great little technique for making things more fair.
@@tristanridley1601 I have to say I'm an LVT fan through and through. I like the concept but I'm not clear on the overal effect
@@tristanridley1601 That only goes so far. There's also the many highways and arterial that needs to built to connect these places with others because they cannot survive being isolated.
Mix used is what built this country My grandfather built his shop below his home(1929) his children had stay-at-home parents and he could be open anytime by walking downstairs. The children learned customer service from a young age and never "had nothing to do" Then for some reason this was outlawed hence the decline(and Ponzi scheme) I tried (hard) to find a property grandfathered in for my shop BUT all the owners new what they had eventually I found a shop a block away from a home. Still not the same
My only problem with mixed used and tighter living is the crap development. It's hard to see the "value" of a mixed use development when the walls are shody and you can hear everything/everyone all around you.
I love a walkable city but they need to be built better.
If you grow up poor in the suburbs without a car and no walkable work…. You’re stuck in poverty until you find a transportation source. Luckily Uber and Lyft exist nowadays… but when I was a poor teenager I didn’t have this opportunity. All I wanted to do was work, but had no ride there.
I find that a lot of the NIMBYs that block this sort of meaningful change are the old boomers that are the only ones that can afford a single family home these days. Young/poorer folks, good luck finding a house that isn't overpriced, or finding a place that isn't renting for outrageous amounts. We're hurting ourselves by these bad decisions that only benefit the few and its got to stop.
I can see the inversion of this in cities that didn't become massive suburbs. They are not constantly worried about the finances of the town govt., because the dense downtown pays for its own services and provides what is needed by residents. Portsmouth, NH is a great example of this.
I think Newburyport, MA is another excellent example.
Maybe I need to come check it out! Also, love your most recent video.
@@edwardmiessner6502 yes!!! They were the first to use urban renewal funds for pedestrian improvements. I made my first video on the place, you should check it out!
Not always, several towns have been killed because their core was gutted because a walmart moved into a neighboring town. The historic core in theory could still pay for itself, but there are no tenants to sustain the town as they all have been driven out of business.
@@linuxman7777 that also happens, very true. We have a Walmart in the next two towns but the businesses are so strong in Portsmouth that they outcompete the chains. Same goes for food. Only Home Depot has no real competitors.
To add, the sprawl of suburban layouts requires more distance for utilities, more materials, more cost to repairs for those utilities or roadways. Just financially unsustainable and just requires so much tax revenue commitment
It's important that zoning not restrict areas to one specific use. For example, it seems like many malls and office parks are on their way out, economically speaking. These are usually located in places with convenient access, and significant resources were invested in building them. If there's market demand to redevelop them into apartments, zoning laws shouldn't stand in the way.
My town was largely built with office parks and malls in mind during the era of White Flight. In the past 2 decades, companies went out of business and malls died. The town and developers are trying to redevelop office buildings into mixed use developments but residents push back, preferring to limit housing stock. They prefer to build more senior living places which do not fund schools or generate as much traffic instead of actual places to live and work.
Ever since becoming a small business owner 2 years ago I have been motivated to step my scrapy urbanism game up. Thanks Strongtowns for all the good info.
I respect this
Two words: "Fake London" - Njb Jason
Transportation is a non partisan issue, but car centricism is absolutely the most oppressive isolated insane dictatorial anti social wasteful disaster. It's a crime against humanity .
There should be options. Nothing wrong with car travel! The problem is car travel is the only way to get around. The more options individuals have the better!
You can blame the big box stores for this one, before that, even if you lived on the farm, you always could take your horse or later your car to town to do stuff, you could walk from store to store etc. Nowadays that isn't the case, as big box killed the local shops
@@linuxman7777 And the ironic thing, relative to the focus on bad zoning, is that you need pretty restrictive zoning to kill that. Just not restrictive in the same way that is common now.
@@josephfisher426 we do have restrictive zoning with the interstate highways, in that you are not allowed to build houses or businesses along any interstate. This is very good, but it requires funding to build and maintain the road that doesn't come from property or sales tax. Usually from fuel taxes or tolls.
@@linuxman7777 Same is effectively true of rail (especially as it gets faster). Though when it is not nationalized, it can be taxed.
5:20 "The scary duplex or townhomes that everyone is afraid will ruin the character of their neighborhood..."
Ya I remember the first home I grew up in was a townhouse. That was back in the early 2000s and it was the way that my blue-collar dad and my stay-at-home mom were able to not just make ends meet, but also afford for us to go out to decent dinners, a day out in the city, or go on a summer vacation every other year or so.
The only thing that's going to convince people to leave the suburbs and move into more dense urban areas is the cost of living in the former outpacing the latter. As long as cities continue to be more expensive than the suburbs, urban living is still going to be considered a luxury reserved solely for the elite.
Strong Towns needs to add Australia to the suburban experiment list as well. We followed the post war city planning of North America as well.
True, there are even shitty McMansion developments on the outskirts of country towns.
Yep, we definitely need an Australian Strong Towns chapter or our own affiliated movement.
Doesn't Australia have public transportation so that people living in their post-war towns can use public transportation to get to their closes major cities?
Our suburbs are much more mixed use and have better public transport than American cities. So, less of a problem.
@@frederickwallis4822 The new developments being built on the fringes of cities are pretty car dependant if you want to leave them.
Yup, once I realized how the United States works....throw as much debt on the youth to pay for the debts of the past.....I realized I needed to make my escape plans....
My city continues to build more car dependent suburbs and then wonders why the traffic is so bad.
"but I can't find the particular point all these cars come from"
@@stevebob2941 Why do you think cities are inherently crime? We aren't talking about Down town Chicago, the strong towns classic example is Baxter and Brainerd. Baxter doesn't have higher crime just because it's allowed small businesses in it's downtown. When I think scetchy area, I think Walmart parking lot.
Fair enough. My city’s downtown has a terrible reputation. No one seems to want to spend any time there. But, if the city invests into making it more liveable by making better use of the land and beefing up the transit system, I believe more people will want to live there. More people equals strength in numbers which ‘snuffs out’ crime.
Doing the next smallest thing is great advice - keep it sustainable for the long term. My little 864 sq. ft. prairie ranch house was built in 1945. Contrary to comments about how well built older houses are - I am positive that the original builder would be astonished to see it still exists. Anything can be made to survive, even if long life wasn’t planned in the original build. Many cities are attracted to big flashy projects, but long term viability often comes from the small projects spread over time.
The popular thing now is to have gaudy mcmansions that cost in excess of $500,000
@@runswithraptors In huge swaths of the U.S.A., $500k doesn't get you much at all - just a modest house. McMansions might be a thing your local spec builders do, but they are not common everywhere.
thank you for posing the argument in a constructive manner. This isnt some big nefarious scheme, Its chronic misunderstanding. Commonplace in human nature.
Excellent points, STs. However the "disneighborization" (new word?) of our communities runs much deeper than than just space between homes at the ends of long vulnerable roads.
I am fortunate enough to have been born before television became the ubiquitous cultural "preacher" in American homes and to remember what the neighborhoods were like back then.
Around 1954, in Tulsa Oklahoma, the neighborhood my family lived in consisted of fairly new but small single family homes, all built since the end of WWII and mostly occupied by the families of veterans who survived that war. Every family knew their neighbors by name for several houses down on both sides of the street. Cordiality permeated the place. The kids from the whole block were friends and played together from the time they got home from school till dark. Dads would come out and call their kids home at dinner time. The men would often get together in the evenings and play hearts, pinochle or penny-anty poker after dinner. The moms would get together, organize and script neighborhood events like little plays or funny skits, acted out by themselves and the kids for all the neighbors. Often, several times per week, neighbors would gather in somebody's house to enjoy these "spectacles". Radio was the "mass media" mode of the day and provided much inspiration for such local creative activities. In more "family moments" the parents and kids would all listen together in the living room to their favorite radio shows...laugh together or cry together...but TOGETHER.
Then something amazing happened. Tulsa got its first television station and somebody in our neighborhood actually got television set! A very small black and white circular picture screen in a massive wooden console attracted people like flies to sugar. Soon, most of the previous cultural creativity was set aside and the house with the TV became the evening gathering place for as many as could fit in. Then something else happened. Tulsa got a second TV station with different programming. Folks gathered at the one house with the TV began to argue, sometimes heatedly, about which station to watch. So somebody else got a TV set. Problem solved. First division made. Before long there were more local TV channels and most houses got their own TVs. Now everybody just sat in their own houses feeding on the creativity of distant others and a new level of cultural isolation was established. Then after another decade or so even families became divided about "what to watch" and the solution was multiple TVs in the same house. Division complete! Right down to within the single family level. Thoughts of individual and community creativity were long forgotten.
The rest is history. Cell phones have become the ultimate personal isolation devices...a tiny TV for everybody with thousands of programs instantly available on demand. Now parents are afraid to let their kids play unsupervised with neighbor kids, there are no thoughts of personal creativity and very few know the names of even their next door neighbors. Now mass murders and other unspeakable crimes are news almost every day...and one of the sweetest parts of American culture had been divided out of existence without folks even realizing what was happening. Sad but true.
The grift of NIMBYs is to scream about neighborhood character whilst taking more than they contribute, all whilst lying to selves that it’s justified since they “were here first”.
Our community did a 7-year rolling maintenance plan: 1/7th of the city gets upgrades addressed every year, and it rotates so as to ensure everyone gets regular investment and it doesn’t blow the budget when deferred maintenance issues come due. Way cheaper and people are happier!
My hometown of medicine hat, just recently got a strong town's advisor. I hope they change zoning laws and start revitalizing downtown. It should help them do it successfully since they have been trying to for years now
Alberta gang rise up
All that sounds good, but in Germany for example we arrived at a point in which municipalities are not allowing (almost) any new buildings outside existing city boarders. Leads to house and rent prices which are through the roof.. which you don’t even have above your head anymore.
Political parties will bail out the suburbs at any cost because that's where the swing voters are. The cities are solid blue and the rural areas are solid red. The suburbs are the places that matter in elections.
The idea that people in America find duplexes and townhouses "scary" is kind of hysterical to me. Then again, I live in a building that houses over one hundred families (not to mention a number of thriving businesses) in a footprint roughly the same size as that occupied by a single American suburban family.
It’s so weird yeah Americans are literally scared of duplexes and multifamily housing, I’ve literally never understood it
Yeah, to suburban NIMBYs duplexes and townhouses are like crosses to Count Dracula.
(Spoiler: It's Racism)
@@stevebob2941 Congratulations on outing yourself in a youtube comment section. What a brave soul
I live in a high rise with 2 young kids now outside the US, while space is minimal. We get outside everyday, can bike or walk to playgrounds and the neighborhood kids go to neighborhood schools. I wish my kids could continue this sort of independence when we move back 😢
These high quality videos are really nice. Even before NJB introduced me to strong towns, i still felt and knew something deep down that I did not like about suburbs. Something always irked me and the past few years these videos have really hit the nail on the head.
My small town got a massive fine a few years ago for putting in developments connected to existing infrastructure. The developments exceeded the capacity of the system, and there was a $2M fine. THEN the city had to build a second water treatment plant, expand the landfill, and put in three more pumping stations. It's not just the Ponzi itself; sometimes there are huge fines for overdevelopment.
Thanks for the positive message at the end, adds a lot of credibility to the strong towns movement. Going about things the right way
It's all to easy to be bitter online - it's so crucial to show that 'the movement' is optimistic for the future.
2 minutes into the video, yeah, we're facing that here in Cincinnati. Its really frustrating trying to find affordable places to buy. Because land is valued so highly, developers will only build luxury suburban homes or townhouses. They only place you can find new homes under $300k is outside the city in Goshen. New townhouses within 25 miles of Cincinnati start at around $450k.
It's like these designers never heard of the warning "don't put all your eggs in one basket"
It's great to have roads, but if the ONLY transport option you put full effort into is roads and cars of COURSE something was bound to go wrong. Hindsight is 20/20
Something goes wrong every time gas prices spike and everyone loses their mind because it's their only mode of transportation LOL
Hindsight... people have known this was a problem since before I was born (1990). Even back in the sixties, people knew there were major problems with mainstream culture. They were universally ignored. Universally. Ignored. This isn't hindsight, this is "we told you so."
In the Netherlands we have been changing things since thee early 1970s, before I was born.
It is not hindsight, we have known this for a literal life time. It is not new, or something we only learned recently.
You guys should read ‘the cracked Picture window’ by John C Keats. Released in 1958. He attracts the suburbs & saw the same problems back then & he quotes the congressional investigations & many experts & doctors that spoke out against them then. Great classic book.
My house is worth like 6x more than when I bought it 20 years ago. That is ABSURD. All I wanted to get out of owning a house is to stop paying rent, not make money.
It's entirely artificial. My property hasn't been improved significantly, people just give more money for it.
It's deeply deeply weird and disturbing. (and to be fair, my house is in a walk-able neighborhood near an urban center, so it actually has value unlike the McMansions that are going up nearby than you have to use a car to get anywhere).
I suppose that's what it means when some economist says housing isn't a productive asset. You didn't do anything to improve it yourself, it's just worth more due to scarcity of housing near good amenities after 20 years. My parents' house did the same thing but there's a big catch: there's no way I could afford that house if I were to try to buy it myself at the same age they were. This "Ponzi scheme" went and made housing far less attainable for younger and future generations. It's going to cause a whole host of societal problems going forward as we willingly chose as a society to value home values over roofs over our heads. Deeply disturbing indeed.
Maybe the increase in value is in part to the fact that it is in a walkable area while new homes have largely not been so.
@@melelconquistador yeah, that's not a good thing, though. Houses should theoretically work like cars, losing value as it ages. GAINING value with no investment whatsoever is concerning.
@@DanielFerreira-ez8qd That's the case in Japan
My parents just moved into a new development on the outskirts of a small Southern town. It’s one of many new developments in that area popping up on land that used to be orchards. One thing I noticed is the city has not bothered to put up any streetlights or signals on the long roads leading in and out, and to these developments. It’s dangerous at night, especially in the rain, which happens a lot. Of course there’s zero public transport. I’m worried about my parents’ safety driving here because traffic is heavy. Maybe the city realized they couldn’t pay for and maintain lights?
Once everybody sees what their property taxes were raised because of the artificially inflated prices last year, there are going to be some problems.
I'm so here for this notion of strong communities being a basis for strong towns. However, I've also seen how strong communities can be weaponized to fight to maintain the status quo, even if it's at the expense of the city around it. Strong communities have to be dynamic, making room for people to come and go and for the community itself to evolve over time; this can be a big ask, though, for many neighborhoods.
yeah, fine line between real community and 'what's in it for me' tribalism
this is a contradiction. you can not have a strong community that also truly accepts outsiders. that is quite literally not what a strong community is. id love to h ear the kind of mental gymnastics someone would have to go through to explain how that could even possibly work since their conflicting ideas.
This explains why I always lose in Cities Skylines when I try to build burbs lol
"minus the malicious intent" - I don't know about *that,* considering how redlining was a big part of that scheme.
Sure, the malicious intent was not directed the way it usually would be in a Ponzi scheme. But there still was a malicious intent at the core of it.
Malicious intent in the form of strategic racist scapegoating, indeed.
@@stevebob2941 Wow outing yourself as blatantly racist in multiple threads, scandalous
One thing that I love about Strong Towns is the way you insist upon talking about the economics on a scale that is relevant to the general population, with easily digestible language; all whilst offering practical solutions.
I love this down to earth approach. Thank you! 🙏
The problem with the 'suburban dream' (besides the economic issues pointed out on channels like this) is how badly it's been watered down.
Suburban lots started out with more land (typically half an acre to 1 acre afaik early on in the history of suburbia) and didn't have regulations on what people could use that land for productively. It was intended to be less-urban, but these days suburbia is just part of the city with less density and more expense.
Growing up my family lived on a half-acre. We had peaches and pears in volumes we couldn't even handle, sometimes the yard would smell like a winery and they were ten times better than from the store. We didn't irrigate or fertilize despite being in a semi-arid climate, we just let whatever plants volunteered grow, and we mowed them down when they got tall but left the clippings in the yard. The soil stayed rich and black for the entire 23 years I lived there with no artificial inputs. It was before the organic trend or we could have turned it into some decent money. I can't even eat peaches now because they just remind me of the enshittification of the past 50 years and what peaches used to taste like. Pears on the other hand have been getting better over the years, and some varieties at the store now are almost as good as what we had growing up.
And thanks to HOAs you aren't allowed to use that land for anything but growing grass, anyway. I feel like for most people it's just about having a noise barrier, anymore. Most people don't want to share a wall with someone.
@@MrBirdnose I've lived in houses cut up into subleased units, illegal basement apartments, regular apartment complexes, and now, a single family home. In every place I've lived prior to owning my own home, there's been serious issues with noise pollution, smoking, drug use, people trying to get into my mail, missing packages. Add ridiculous constant rent increases, and I say good riddance to high density housing. It's not good, it's not actually cheaper, and I'll be surprised if it turns into a real solution.
@@arfink You were forced into illegal housing in the past, and you think the solution is...less housing?
I was with you right up to the point where you said I need to talk to people in person.
In Canada it might be ok, but in the U.S. you better hope they don't feel intimidated and legally shoot you. I do not recommend ringing anyone's doorbell for sure unless they're expecting you.
@@jomo9454 holy shit what are you smoking? Fear is the only thing to fear my friend...
I love my old suburban neighborhood 😊 just went on a walk and stopped and chatted with the neighbors a couple times
Might is the important word in the title---because while this can happen (see: Ferguson, MO), localities make their tax revenue off demand. Dense housing managed well makes a lot of income, but dense housing managed poorly makes negative demand, and gives suburbia a significantly larger tax base even though it ought to be less efficient.
In my area, most services are organized on the County level, or even higher than that. So the richer suburbs support the poorer ones and there is minimal pressure on their finances, if any.
My small town keeps building suburban style golf course communities. Would be super helpful if you guys had some basic templates others in my predicament could use in early correspondence with local government to help broach this subject. Awesome stuff!
Any chance its all connected by GolfCart trails?
@@neolithictransitrevolution427 Unfortunately not. There is a dense old town with a quaint tourist friendly main street, and then far flung subdivisions subsidized by those living in the more modest homes of the old core.
@@noleftturnunstoned There is some good news there, you have a downtown. If you can get your council to allow 2-3 stories downtown with above appartments (including air b&bs), and SDUs in the surrounding suburbs, you have a real town going.
The far flung sprawl is bad, but maybe you can get a mix of bike and golfcart routes built for locals and tourists to use, and a few mixed use midrises along the arterials growing out from the downtown. More future oriented, but if you can grow the downtown, most people don't actually dislike the traditional town center, and the city will see the advantage financially. In a way your lucky, being tourist oriented meams the city can't gut out the core and leave it crumbing, which helps with both getting the city to invest and the community not to associate density with failure.
"We need to do something about this" Hell yeah!
"Get to know your neighbors" On second thought...
I exist ("live" feels too strong a word) in what I like to call a "non-place" in a county that is basically one giant suburban expanse. I feel like the analysis, advice, and fundamental principles all apply pretty well to the small town where I'm from as well as the economic engines that the suburb I exist in depends on. I still can't quite wrap my head around how entire suburban "cities" that themselves may be hemmed in by exurbs and limited in their expansionist growth potential can still manage to maintain the appearance of economic sustainability despite consisting of malls, office buildings, and single-family housing developments. County financial reports seem to give glowing impressions of solvency and sustainability, and it's hard to tell just how much of the infrastructure here is still "new", or at least hasn't been fully replaced or extensively maintained yet.
Are wealthy suburbs like Schaumburg, IL, Brentwood, TN, or Eden Prairie, MN, actually able to overcome the headwinds asserted by Strong Towns and be able to survive life-cycle maintenance of their infrastructure on their own? Do they really have the tax base to support it? Is their appearance of wealth and fiscal sustainability propped up and obfuscated by state budgets? I worry that the political power of suburban counties will ensure that they will continue to be propped up at the expense of cities and rural areas.
Eden Prairie has the Green Line extension being built through it right now. Hopefully the city makes good use of the area around the new stations.
Usually, they maintain themselves with much higher property taxes
I worked for the state of Pennsylvania as a new housing inspector who was limited to finding issues with energy usage in these new homes. As you mentioned in the video most new construction is built cheep and will require much more maintenance long term than older homes built in old cities or older close in suburban developments. I found many defects in the energy conservation measures that were supposed to be installed in these new homes. I also saw much cheep cut rate materials used in construction of these homes but was prohibited from citing them since they were not energy related. Many of the big single homes I inspected I doubted they would last even fifty years without major expenses in later years due to the cheep construction and low quality control in the building elements installed. Builders sell these homes based on visible features buyers want but most people never look to see how well the building was built or the things like heaters, air conditioners and window and doors used in building the house. Most builders buy the cheapest items that will still meet the minimum building code but cost the buyers long term. I am sure the same thing applies to the issues you showed in the video like the new roads, water and sewer pipes and electrical supply items need to serve the new developments. So what you said is right more mixed development is needed but also better tighter building codes in regard to long lasting materials need attention too.
@@johnchambers8528
I would agree. Japan has very strict building codes for the very reason that it would cost lives otherwise. Earthquakes care not for feelings, they just are
Shoutout to Dear Winnipeg, it’s a terrific blog that I love reading whenever them come out
The problem is there's no concept of individual investment in higher density living. You're renting to some massive development owner, you're beholden to an over bearing HOA or you and your follow residents are only there because they had no other choice and are generally not interested nor even aware of the changes they can affect in their local area. High density is a disenabler. It makes people complacent and reliant on their local amenities. That bus route doesn't have to be good it just has to collect fees from poor people. Rent doesn't have to reflect what individuals want, it can be there squandering any possibility of individuals collectively owning their living situation.
I actually love single family homes, I love having a yard to relax in, or grow food and fruit trees in, I love owning my own home and not paying rent every month. I think the problem with single family homes is the single use zoning law and home design. If single family homes could be mixed used allowing families to legally create a business from home and if homes had porches and sidewalks with narrow streets shaded by a canopy of trees it would make a pleasant walkable and bikeable neighborhood(ecosystem).
I feel a little better about some of the development in Ontario. Most of our subdivisions have mixed homes with detached, semi-detached and town homes all in the same developments using the same materials and construction methods. I think the next step would be advocating for multilevel structures as an essential part of all suburban developments with mixed use zoning worked in for businesses and other amenities.
Also in Ontario and seeing more mixed use / ground floor commercial etc. Wondering how new provincial restrictions on municipal development fees will affect this. In essence will they not turn off the ponzi tap?
@@DawImmigration It will have a big impact for sure but I don't think it eliminates fees altogether, just for specific types of developments.
Granted, these sorts of developments have been incentivized by the provincial government, but it may mean that cities and towns that have the space will dig their heels into single unit family homes. I think the fees effect any development with affordable housing but I'm not 100% sure, it's hard to parse through the material.
The tricky part with politicians is that you're never sure if they have an ulterior motive to passing these laws. It certainly benefits developers and no ones sure if it will actually impact home prices and provide real affordable housing. Cutting "red tape" often comes with it's own consequences that are usually felt years later.
I definitely agree, we also have have much smaller frontages for SFHs, pay much higher property taxes, until recently developers were required to pay for infrastructure connection whereas the US that is often financed by bonds to "support growth", our municipalities (for better or worse) have hard restrictions on debt levels, and are required to address unfunded infrastructure renewal costs. We also have very few freeways cutting up our cities.
That said, most of our communities are not able to fund infrastructure renewal deficits, and we aren't in a good position. But, at least the big cities with most of the economy, are addressing this and creating more profitable urban areas. I think in many ways Canada will be the success story of Suburbia, since our communities are nearly sufficient and building the tax bases needed to close the gap.
Where is this? I all I have heard of larger plots of single family housing in Ontario. I thought it was hopeless.
Meanwhile, here on Vancouver Island…
On a serious note... I sent this to my family and friends because it makes important points about endless growth and the reason cities constantly find themselves unable to keep up the maintenance because of how we invested but also we need to account for the maintenance when financing these projects in the first place. Politicians are only thinking of "how much does it cost to build" and not "how much does it cost to build AND maintain". We need to start considering housing/business projects that bring in the most self sustaining tax revenue.
Spin off suburbs into independent cities and allow house owners to pay for maintenance and upkeep of the new city
Very good introductory material, great job being open and not shaming. I'm really enjoying Strong Towns having a better communication system.
I really enjoyed the Winnipeg example, I hope you can do more in depth case studies. Thats the key to being convincing..
Thank you! We've got tons of case studies :) www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/8/28/the-growth-ponzi-scheme-a-crash-course
@@strongtowns I'm actually currently talking to a project manager about a road redesign, they are trying to go from two to 5 lanes. I've used you "7 stroads that were saved" and "was redesigning this road every minute" (titles may be off) articles as examples of why 3 lanes is great, but most of your road diets are 4 lane to 3. Since you were quick with the links, any case studies on 5 vs 3 lane roads? Thank you very much.
@@neolithictransitrevolution427 I would have suggested that article- check out our article search feature, it may point you to more helpful articles! actionlab.strongtowns.org/hc/en-us/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&query=converted
@@strongtowns Thank you!
Mixed use, mid-rise blocks with commercial property on the ground floor, office space on the first floor, and three to five storeys of residential property above are completely ubiquitous where I live. This is the default type of development in small, medium-sized, and large cities here and is the type of property where 90% of people I know live. The remaining 10% live either in historic town centres or in smart developments of single-family homes quite far from town. While these 'single-family' developments are usually relatively expensive, I also know many well-off families who could afford to live in a place like that, but *choose* to live in a flat in a mixed-use development near the city centre because they like it.
The aversion in some countries to mixed-use, medium-density urban development is purely cultural and based on misguided notions about community and shared space.
What country do you live in?
@@lpphillyfan Spain
The fact that you have to argue for getting to know your neighbours by calling it "build that relational capital" is concerning
Illinois compounds this problem with the way the state constitution deals with pensions. It was a good idea to protect the pension payouts of those who gave years of service to the state, however it was interpreted by the state supreme court that changes to pension plans in place are also unconstitutional. Currently, most towns are paying over half their budgets paying out pensions. This is putting DOWNWARD pressure on local maintenance budgets. Raise taxes, and more people leave than already have.
The idea of nothing but big single family homes with giant yards in major cities is ridiculous. Of course I would love to have a big single family home, but only out in the country when I can just live off of working remotely, and where I grow my own food, get my water from a nearby well, and dispose of human waste using an outhouse or septic tank. However, I'm a young, fast paced working adult without the capital available to afford that currently, so it's essential that I live in convenient neighborhoods with shops and services within walking distance. That's the entire point of living in a city, and it will never happen in neighborhoods that don't allow for a reasonable mix of densities and uses. This doesn't mean that homeowners have to give up their nice big single family homes or live next to skyscrapers, but accept a new kind of zoning that allows a set of townhouses or a mixed use simplex with a corner store next to them. It also means that local taxation should be based on the value of land over property so that the public funds are available to service the personal choices of local land owners.
Buying land and building a house in the countryside might be more affordable than you think. I did it and am only 27
@@philippenight2421
I'm 56, And I will never be able to afford land south of the treeline.
@@danbeaulieu2130 south of the tree line? Where are you?
@@philippenight2421
I'm south of the treeline.
Land prices are obscene, thanks to real-estate speculators, and house flippers.
Anything with tillable soil is being bid on by chinese and american speculators, driving prices through the roof.
Too many people treating land as an investment, rather than a resource. And homes as an investment rather than a place to live.
I could buy land in Nunavut, and try to grow carrots on permafrost. But that's about it.
@@danbeaulieu2130 surely it can’t be an arm and a leg in say Alberta, I don’t know much about Canada.. I’m in Oklahoma and bought 5 acres for 20k USD which isn’t an abnormal price
Our town passed a comprehensive plan policy requiring new suburban subdivisions to not raise taxes on the existing tax base. They need to be at least tax revenue neutral and financially self sustaining. A developer tried to annex to build a subdivision and was required to produce a financial study, it showed a nearly $200,000 yearly loss to our general tax fund would occur a few years after initial development impact fee payments ran out. Corrupt pro-development council members did not like the policy, asked town attorney if they needed to follow it, but kept it for now. I expect the policy to disappear when our comprehensive plan is updated. Politician big-headed town council members tend to want the Ponzi scheme to continue. Town council thinks new construction is prosperity and wants the initial sales tax revenue from construction regardless of the long term tax and infrastructure burden which is put on the backs of residents forever
That blog is great, I've been reading it awhile. I'm originally from Winnipeg and Winnipeg is the poster-child of how to do everything wrong. Not that my current city is tons better, but the NIMBYism in Winnipeg is unreal.
I'm super-pleased with all the infill I've been seeing in my current home including lots of missing middle construction, but then we're also subsidizing the builders on a ridiculous development on the edge of town including destroying wetlands with endangered plants and cropland in the middle of the oil seed and grain belt.
But I'm hopeful. The decision for building upgrades to the water distribution network and sewer lift on taxpayer money so this developer can build on precious farmland and wetland has been deferred again. More infill has been approved including waiving minimum parking requirements. Lots of small businesses popping up in the core.
Baby steps!
There's one thing I like about Florida local politics and it's that multi-unit housing isn't looked down on. Maybe it's the New York influence, or because the costs of draining undeveloped land are so high, IDK. Sadly though, single-unit homes are becoming more and more common, and where multi-units are being built they cost at least a million per unit or around 2-3k per month so only a few people can afford them. Of course all the service people who cater to the leisurely lifestyle of the winter residents and tourists are just draft animals who can sleep in a dumpster for all they care as long as they don't do anything that makes the comparatively wealthy uncomfortable in any way.
One problem with this approach. Condos they build where I'm at are simply not livable. They're barely bigger than hotel rooms. Think 527 square foot one-bedrooms with a janky layout that you can't even fit a queen bed without pushing it up against the wall. But then, on the other side, you have 2500 square foot McMansions... no good inbetween like a decent 1200 square foot 2-3 bedroom apartment with a spacious balcony.
Not livable? I just spent a week in a 560sqft semi-detached house with 2 bedrooms and a loft with six people and three dogs without any problems. This even included a sauna which in most other countries would free up space for something else. I could understand saying you want to have more space for one reason or another but saying it's not livable is just ridiculous.
@@houndofculann1793 unless that only counts floor space, excludes wall space or bathrooms/closets, or it's a 2-level house and 560 square feet is the footprint and not total floor area, I don't see how you could conceivably fit 2 bedrooms and a loft into 560 square feet and still have space left for a kitchen, a bathroom, and a living room.
Rooms wouldn't even be able to fit anything other than a single (one-person) bed at that size.
At least here, floor space typically includes anything between outer walls. Including walls, closets, cabinets, doorways, technical space
My city is nowhere near a model of success, but one good thing they do is being very lenient with multi family development. Every neighborhood seems to have random duplexes scattered in them, and that makes them actually quite affordable even less than single family homes despite having more cash flow potential. On top of that downtown seems to have new dense urban apartments going up al the time, it does seem to do better than a lot of cities you hear they just shut down anything that might break the suburban model.
2:48 Woah, it's Winnipeg, my tragically car-dependent hometown!
Give the Dear Winnipeg blog a read, if Strong Towns is your thing. It’s awesome. Really is quite the eye opener
I would personally love to see a sort of "dating app" style application that combines job hunting (with the possibility of moving cities and towns if a person is willing) and it'll show what kind of home that job can afford in the area it is located in. And the app would show what kind of demographics an area has, what kind of schools, groups, clubs, and third spaces. Just, enticing people to new areas and new jobs so everyone doesn't end up in the six largest cities wondering why nothing is affordable and lamenting that no one knows anybody.
That would be too depressing when most people saw they couldn't afford any home.
@@aluisious We already know we can't afford anything. But! It might also show the jobs in the area what they're actually offering - which is nothing.
These new videos are amazing! Hopefully by growing the channel and making more videos like these, more people will come to understand what needs to be done.
Great points!
Liked and subscribed. You have opened my eyes Mr. Strong Towns!
I totally 100% agree, but I think I heavily dislike my neighbors, What can I do that is actually compassionate for people that I think are not affable? Love the video!!
Awesome video! Love the empathetic and understanding approach to this topic; addressing common concerns and such
the safety regulations for suburban development require roads be wider than they need to be, you can cut cost by reducing the road surface area needing maintenance and give more property to productive means structurally by changing that.
It’s crazy to think how far ahead Switzerland is. Seems stupid to not think a bit ahead, but I guess it isn’t easy to change the system you’re in.
ik i'm commenting this on like every other video you post but i'm really loving these recent videos
The top down stuff is my biggest disagreement with Strong Towns. Yes top down infrastructure is often a white elephant, but things like ending single family zoning, FAR, min lot size and parking requirements would be better done at once instead of piecemeal
Yeah it's probably my biggest disagreement too. Doing it piecemeal risks getting stuck once top down inertia kicks in. How fast can doing it bit by bit go once someone decides to block development top down and you have your hands tied before you can even begin?
Didn't California just ban single family housing zoning?
Your approach works for policy not infrastructure.
Incredible, empathetic, and accessible. It's difficult to get to know your neighbors these days - but I've always wanted to make an effort.
The battle against the ponzi scheme begins with Gina Raimondo the US Chambers secretary,NAR CEO Bob Goldberg,and the APA CEO. I notice within all my research theirs been a massive miscommunication on the topic and these 3 people are the only ones that can collectively make this happen but they may have never even talked to each other 😢
Elaborate?
Gina Raimondo overseas the section of government that instituted Euclidean zoning from the SZEA of 1922 ,Bob Goldberg overseas the national association of realtors that yearn for zoning reform ,and Joel Albizino is the planning association ceo whose goals are inline with reform .
@@QuintonPierre777 neat
The only thing that will allow this to happen is for zoning to be changed drastically. And that means you can't give nimbys a say over what the rest of us do, they are financially motivated to keep housing scarce.
I’m from the east coast rust belt and it’s so insanely frustrating to go through these old, empty, dilapidated downtowns. Growing up, my grandparents told me these towns were so crowded she’d have to walk in the road because sidewalks were bursting - these towns nobody has even heard of were happening! Nowadays, the first thing someone thinks when they go downtown anywhere is, “I don’t want to deal with parking” - We’ve completely lost our way and beautiful architecture wonders are literally rotting into oblivion as we bulldoze nature to build suburban monstrosities.
These subdivisions can exist without the urban cores but they will look like what rural housing looks like today. No gas line, no sewer, well water, unpaved driveway and road unless you can pay for it yourself, Lower speed internet, etc.
And that's the whole point. The urban cores shouldn't be subsidizing the less urban areas.
I find it difficult enough to convince others that I'm sensible for living my values of not wanting to spend money I don't have on a car or live in a big house on a large lot in a difficult to access location. Many people have such a hard time seeing such things as anything but absolutely good, that opposing them personally is eccentric, and advocating against them is an affront. I'm someone who would prefer to avoid conflict, so my inclination is just to return to underappreciated and decaying older cities with like-minded others and help to restore them.
Love this video. I have thought about this many times when out and about. A small bridge or new sewer systems installed in far flung reaches of suburbia. The cost per mile is the relativley the same, but the density changes and is unsustainable.
"We went by what we were told would make us wealthy"... er... I think I found the problem...
As someone who has never lived in a suburb, it is pretty annoying having to pay mad taxes to support suburban dwellers, who then try to stifle development so my rents keep getting driven up. I've always wanted to see my city concentrate on urban development, downtown - our downtown is dead compared to how it was in 1950.
It is a complete failure of American planning in cities.
Post 1950, you either lived in the burbs or in a skyscraper in the city. It is very inefficient, and makes city living impossible. It is a global problem, but very much amplified in the US.
Nearly every city in the planet has 4 - 8 storey buildings for housing people, it is the solution for high density affordable living. Indeed it is clearly visible in pre-1950 city buildings in the US, they were brick or concrete built and housed a lot of families.
Only now, are a few cities returning to the pre-1950 model of city planning. Indeed, the timber detached houses that require rebuilding every 30 years is now recognised as the worst Ponzi scheme in the US.
But in the next 6-12 months, the suburban property super bubble will collapse as property prices will crash to 2014 levels (already happening in Hollywood Hills), wiping out the amateur property flippers and developers.
Thank you for making this good video, let's spread the word.
Great content; never looked at the cost of suburban development.
It should be enough in the USA the property tax to cover for the services and maintenance in suburban developments. Unfortunately there's an ongoing corruption in many major cities and the money is lost or miss used. Any residential area should have integrated as well within enough comercial development which generates money and thus adds to maintain well the suburbs, instead of the big box stores that just pay for themselves and if this is correct they don't or barely support the neighborhoods or suburbs.
Great video, thanks!
brilliant stuff!
Once again, incredible video
I like your point of view.
I'm from Winnipeg. The city has only recently started zoning and encouraging mid-density residential along the rapid transit routes and front business centres of sprawling suburbs. It's a start but we need less continuous sprawl.
Now we have a mayor who wants to spend a billion dollars expanding Kenaston road and Chief Peguis Trail!
Take one step forward, then 3 steps backwards.
I believe this is why where I live (central Florida) town homes are becoming so much more common. I hate it because it’s caused a huge influx of people causing more traffic and crowding. But I know it’s better than more single family homes in terms of financial and environmental sustainability.