Jump to content


Member Since 23 May 2006
Offline Last Active Sep 29 2012 08:10 PM

#54263 The Induced Traffic Principle, aka Latent Demand

Posted by FoUTASportscaster on 23 March 2009 - 02:17 PM

QUOTE (avvy @ Mar 23 2009, 03:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I see, yes, we don't want to reduce people's choices. But we do need to sell other, non-suburban options to those who want/need space. I am on a one-girl mission to promote core ring neighborhoods like mine. Because when it comes down to it, you can drive way out and get some "space" but those houses are built just as closely together as houses "inside the loop", usually

I also failed to mention that the higher price is also due to better construction. Houses built in the 1920's are still around, but I doubt many of the houses on the fringe will be around in 80-90 years.

#54253 The Induced Traffic Principle, aka Latent Demand

Posted by FoUTASportscaster on 23 March 2009 - 11:44 AM

QUOTE (avvy @ Mar 23 2009, 11:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
By extension, are you saying offering more of the walkable/new urban environment will bring down price? I'm talking about up front cost, not cost over time. The high rent/sale price of many of these places is prohibitive to many people who would otherwise choose to live there. Conversely, the price may be low because it is substandard, causing only the poorest to live there. These seem to be the choices, the closer to DT one gets. So you have rich and poor but no one in between.

Good point. I was making an observation as a whole. You were making it an individual level. But, while it isn't true on the whole, you can find cheaper places near the core in decent areas, for example the Cultural District has some decent, well-made housing.

See previous answer. The thought of paying hundreds more for rent for less square footage can turn people off. Not me personally, but for some this is an issue. There has to be a way to bring down pp sq ft. Is it the construction of these things that causes high overhead? eta: I totally understand the need to turn a profit and I know that is a huge consideration. I am not asking for huge decreases but if someone offered an "economy loft" that maybe doesn't have all the bells and whistles, but was still in a mixed use type area I wonder how that would do in the marketplace.

This isn't a discussion about all people. In fact, I want all things for everybody. As I told my family this weekend, I don't want to take away the option to live in the suburbs for you, but I don't want to be required to live in one. We need options. Some people will choose space as their prefered amenity (though that can be found in the core as well), while some people, like me and maybe you will prefer accessibility and walkability as their prefered amenity. However, when comparing all costs, the suburbs aren't that much of an advantage.

Attempting to bring this post back to topic, I am all for density, which I believe more and bigger roads discourages - why walk when you can drive? seems to be the mantra. It is such a way of life here. My hypothesis is that increasing the marginal benefit (close proximity to services people use day to day and not just high end retail; lower rent/sale price of units) over the marginal cost of high-density housing will make it more appealing and affordable to more people.

Agreed whole-hearted agree. While I am not against driving per se, I am against driving as the sole or even majority means of transportation. Walking and transit need to be a bigger part of the mix. In order to do that, the way we have designed physical space needs to be fundamentally altered.