this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2024
51 points (98.1% liked)

Solarpunk Urbanism

1802 readers
4 users here now

A community to discuss solarpunk and other new and alternative urbanisms that seek to break away from our currently ecologically destructive urbanisms.

Checkout these related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] blazera@kbin.social 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Ive seen NJB explaining density generating more revenue, but this is a bit of a different take. Higher income high density exists, and like in this image, lower density low income is a thing.

The cost to the city is the same but the poor block is worth 78% more and, subsequently, pays 78% more taxes to the city, than the affluent block.

Is really strange, i do not believe the pictured poor neighborhood pays more taxes than the pictured rich neighborhood. The dense downtown business area vs the wide open taco johns, sure, but not the residential comparison.

[–] RiderExMachina@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You're coming at it from the wrong angle. The reason it's worth more is not because the owners are paying more in taxes, but rather, the costs to maintain the neighborhood are less, allowing the money to be used for other improvements.

[–] blazera@kbin.social -1 points 10 months ago

The cost to the city is the same

[–] Magiccupcake@startrek.website 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

A lot of strong towns framing uses "financial productivity" defined as tax revenue per unit area, usually acre. Poor neighborhood's houses may be cheap, but are packed much more densely, leading to higher revenue per unit area. less in taxes per lot, but also lower maintenance costs per lot.

[–] meyotch@slrpnk.net 1 points 10 months ago

The efficiency and therefore cost of providing services is a big factor, which I think doesn’t occur to people unfamiliar with the formula Strong Towns uses to assess this. Multiply that higher efficiency by the higher lot density and that’s where the winning numbers come from.

[–] blazera@kbin.social 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The pictured neighborhood at least isnt that dense. Its still single family homes spaced apart. This whole density for revenue idea has always focused on things like multi story apartment complexes and packed together downtowns.

[–] Magiccupcake@startrek.website 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Those lots are probably a quarter the size of the lot I'm on, in a affluent suburban house. Maybe even smaller

Its true that it's not that dense though.

It's also pretty likely that there are more residents per house than a typical affluent neighborhood.