There were couple of videos on YouTube outlining how transport driven development makes poor people even more poor. Reasoning is that light rail transport makes housing along it more expensive. It's definitely feels like that in Montreal near REM, although I don't have 'proofs'. Gentrification on steroids kind of reasoning.
It's more about public transportation make the urban middle class richer, and have marginal to no effect on lower class people or rural middle class. As long as roads are not paid for by tolls and gas taxes but by general taxes (basically mine), public transportation should have no negative effect for poorer people. That's why i don't bitch about car being way, way more subsidized than train/buses in my city, and i find people crying about it out of touch and to be honest quite selfish.
Nope. I researched that in details, and I'm writing a book about it.
In short: no large city in Europe, US, or Japan managed to lower housing sale prices by increasing housing density and building transit. This is even tacitly acknowledged by urbanists. The best result that I found in literature, was a one-time 5-8% decrease in _rental_ costs immediately near the new construction.
But the negative effects are clear: people have to pay ever-rising costs for worse and worse housing. With the "upside" being "near to theaters and museums" (that people visit maybe once a year).
> Seems like you’ve been radicalized to a point of view, but by what?
By urbanist propaganda resulting in visible misery.
It has turned from a useful science of "how to make living in cities better" to "how to force more density onto people".
ive been flirting with the idea of leaving the city for years. what resources and/or communities do you recommend regarding this literal "movement"? please ignore me if this is like asking chomsky to check my grammar
so you want better outcomes (lower homelessness and lower housing sale prices) by restricting new builds in urban centers to motivate people to live further away (working remote)?
betaby|1 year ago
orwin|1 year ago
cyberax|1 year ago
In short: no large city in Europe, US, or Japan managed to lower housing sale prices by increasing housing density and building transit. This is even tacitly acknowledged by urbanists. The best result that I found in literature, was a one-time 5-8% decrease in _rental_ costs immediately near the new construction.
But the negative effects are clear: people have to pay ever-rising costs for worse and worse housing. With the "upside" being "near to theaters and museums" (that people visit maybe once a year).
> Seems like you’ve been radicalized to a point of view, but by what?
By urbanist propaganda resulting in visible misery.
It has turned from a useful science of "how to make living in cities better" to "how to force more density onto people".
boogieknite|1 year ago
archagon|1 year ago
If this is the only upside you see in cities, then maybe you need to do more research.
ofcourseyoudo|1 year ago
where has this actually been done?