First, the increase in the cost of services is not linear. This doesn't say that, but I think readers may read it into what is said. There are moments in the progression when adding density does require upgraded capital facilities and/or operating costs. For small places getting larger, a good example is the moment when the fire service switches from volunteer to full-time. And then when you have to buy a ladder truck. Density has added a substantial cost that wasn't there before. There are also moments when basic utilities and intersections have to be upgraded to accommodate more units/higher density. This doesn't change the message that cost per unit falls in the long run, but I think it is important to acknowledge that some substantial costs have to be absorbed along the way.
Second, how this impacts people is noticeably affected by both the state/local tax/fee structure and the quality of management. There's no general conclusion to draw about that. but I wonder if there is a correlation between mediocre management and NIMBYism.
Excellent overview of both the complexities and disconnects. Love the graphic! This is a visual business after all. Of course as it turns out, there may be more items to add to the venn diagram such as intergenerational mix, kind-of-like a village. Multi-generations have different living requirements but connect on many levels. (I keep thinking more university/college campuses should be building apartments for retirees. The advantage: continuous learning opportunities for retirees, intergenerational learning, on-going funding stream for funding-strapped post secondary education.)
We do need to keep this "Why don't they just ...?" conversation alive. Add in some more systems thinking.
This is sort of obvious to anyone who thinks about it very hard, and I don't mean that in a bad way it's a great article. After attending many community meetings and engaging with a lot of homeowners who made those "Why don't we just..." objections, I became pretty cynical. Smart people who want solutions will come to the conclusions you have reached. I did. Many others have. The vast, vast majority of people who attend those meetings don't reach that place. Because they aren't driven by any interest in a solution or any rationality at all. They just have a vague fear of change and they are only there to express it, not to engage with the problem. There's no fix for this.
The only thing to do is take them out of the process altogether. It's a shitty solution that violates many principles I thought I held but if you ever want to make progress on getting things done or making American cities better you just have to stop listening to the people who keep saying no to everything.
Good explanation. Two amendments:
First, the increase in the cost of services is not linear. This doesn't say that, but I think readers may read it into what is said. There are moments in the progression when adding density does require upgraded capital facilities and/or operating costs. For small places getting larger, a good example is the moment when the fire service switches from volunteer to full-time. And then when you have to buy a ladder truck. Density has added a substantial cost that wasn't there before. There are also moments when basic utilities and intersections have to be upgraded to accommodate more units/higher density. This doesn't change the message that cost per unit falls in the long run, but I think it is important to acknowledge that some substantial costs have to be absorbed along the way.
Second, how this impacts people is noticeably affected by both the state/local tax/fee structure and the quality of management. There's no general conclusion to draw about that. but I wonder if there is a correlation between mediocre management and NIMBYism.
Love this additional detail, Lee. Thank you!
Excellent overview of both the complexities and disconnects. Love the graphic! This is a visual business after all. Of course as it turns out, there may be more items to add to the venn diagram such as intergenerational mix, kind-of-like a village. Multi-generations have different living requirements but connect on many levels. (I keep thinking more university/college campuses should be building apartments for retirees. The advantage: continuous learning opportunities for retirees, intergenerational learning, on-going funding stream for funding-strapped post secondary education.)
We do need to keep this "Why don't they just ...?" conversation alive. Add in some more systems thinking.
Oooh... retirees on college campuses is a fascinating idea. I can see pros and cons but I like where you're heading with that idea.
This is sort of obvious to anyone who thinks about it very hard, and I don't mean that in a bad way it's a great article. After attending many community meetings and engaging with a lot of homeowners who made those "Why don't we just..." objections, I became pretty cynical. Smart people who want solutions will come to the conclusions you have reached. I did. Many others have. The vast, vast majority of people who attend those meetings don't reach that place. Because they aren't driven by any interest in a solution or any rationality at all. They just have a vague fear of change and they are only there to express it, not to engage with the problem. There's no fix for this.
The only thing to do is take them out of the process altogether. It's a shitty solution that violates many principles I thought I held but if you ever want to make progress on getting things done or making American cities better you just have to stop listening to the people who keep saying no to everything.
Thank you for explaining this very complex issue. Can you comment on Douglas MI’s recent plan for affordable housing? Thank you!