asthasr

I agree with that, @cjd5050. In keeping with the theme of the thread, I think you can see an example of prioritizing TOD over connecting commuters in the NoVA area, where Arlington has already been converted into a pretty high-density second city for the DC metro and Tyson's Corner is beginning to show signs of life around its stations. There are still nits to pick--particularly in Tysons--but the extension of Metro out to that point has really made a big difference. It's gotten to the point now that Arlington actually has one of my favorite skylines in the country, purely because of its density around its metro stations; if you haven't been there, I recommend driving from DC into Arlington via the Roosevelt bridge at night. From the air, you can easily see how the TOD clusters around the Metro stations. I think the Wilkinson corridor could easily be similar.

Not really. Behind the giant, weird facade it's just a big box like a Lowe's or something. It's weirdly hilarious.

Admittedly it's a stupid name, but I'd love to have something like the "Gardens by the Bay" (which includes the Flower Dome and Cloud Forest) here.

It'd be nice to have some really extensive gardens... maybe something enclosed, like the "Flower Dome" and "Cloud Forest" in Singapore?

Yeah, but to be frank, some of the best memories I have are sitting outside (under an awning) in places like Bangkok, Saigon, or Nha Trang... they make us look like Arizona! Heaven is a cold tiger beer and a hot charcoal brazier...

Hmm. Other places have rain, too. We could have retractable awnings over open patios -- that would even help keep it cool. Sitting under an awning with the rain drumming on it is actually pretty cool. I wonder if there's some sort of ordinance preventing it? Everyone seems to use umbrellas, which are useless.

How much of a "new concept" can fried chicken be?

"RailEnd SouthYard" sounds oddly off-color.

Ah, makes sense. Normally I've seen the orange signs that say "OVERHEAD POWER LINES," not actual red flags on the line itself.

Why are there red flags on a power line?

I post a lot about Asian cities, but it can be hard to envision what they feel like from the ground. I've found a channel that I think is actually pretty interesting from this perspective: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfnRvYGNnrYP7zWQ3cZs1Vw/videos A representative video is this commentary about the "Little Japan" area in Saigon:

This is an absolutely gorgeous project in Mexico City: https://www.archdaily.com/893700/tlalpan-590-building-taller-dea-plus-koz-architectes I'd love to see some small-scale, but tall residential projects like this one here.

I think we've had this discussion before, but Charlotte is actually not highly segregated compared to northern cities and (especially) the Rust Belt. We do have "the wedge," but look at Chicago, St. Louis, and such -- it's at a whole different level.

I'm not sure why we do. It's going to be an absolute circus.

Probably not. However, there are sociological issues at play: poor people rely a lot on social networks for support. If you can't pay a good pre-school to keep your kid during the day, you probably rely on a relative or neighbor who you trust because you've lived there a long time. Urban and economic dynamism is awesome in many ways, but we have to figure out a way to balance that. "The right to stay where you live" is very compelling as an argument if you rely on that much more than you do your (nonexistent) money. Even fair compensation for property can't replace it. I think that's the source of poor NIMBYs and anti-gentrification movements, ultimately. I guess you could say it more succinctly: The physical capital, although appreciating in value, does not replace the social capital that already exists.

I didn't link the article, @Scribe did, and I thought it was pretty good. Please note that they are talking about the California YIMBY movement themselves, not white people on the whole. I think it's safe to say that the YIMBY folks are mostly upper middle class white people: at least, that's what I've observed. I don't expect them to understand poverty (how many grew up in Appalachian trailer parks? not many). As for the rest of your comment, please go jump in a lake.

My point is: much of the time, people will overestimate the danger associated with neighborhoods of people who belong to different racial and ethnic groups. White people are advantaged in that, even if they are poor, they still look white. People associate poverty with minorities, so seeing a minority neighborhood predisposes them to expect poverty and danger. That can make it hard to maintain a stable, diverse middle class neighborhood.

Analysis of our society is not "race baiting." Description of peoples' attitudes that I have personally encountered is also not "arguing that poor people of color [can't] maintain their own property." I'm not even sure where you got these things from what I posted. I agree. In general I don't feel that gentrification is that big of a problem: in the ideal world, those property owners would be fairly compensated and could get better housing than they previously had, with better services! However, it does involve the loss of the status quo, which can be emotionally difficult, and it'd also be disingenuous to claim that property owners are always fairly compensated in these situations. My favorite solution is to have property owners given a guaranteed spot in any new building that's built -- but that requires very high density (usually towers) and may not even be accepted if the person is used to living in a house with a yard and isn't open to living in an apartment.

The article you posted. (And the relevance of race to poverty/housing.)

There are many problems with this, though. First is the "big block of poverty" effect. If you have a large concentration of poverty, the crime levels are high, and so the strategy of a "mixed approach" is riskier because many people will not buy in the area--particularly families with children, who need the schools and who do more to set the tone of a neighborhood than transient renters or less active seniors. Second is the problem of gentrification, where people feel like they're being driven out of their homes by a tide of socioeconomically more powerful people. That is: if North Tryon suburbs suddenly start gentrifying, it can easily be too little (and thus gather no momentum) or too much (and thus engender resentment and anger). It does. Race absolutely plays into poverty issues in this country because black and hispanic people are far more likely to be poor. It makes poverty more obvious and more difficult to eradicate. If you take an average white person and drive them through a working class white neighborhood, they might not even be able to tell the difference between that and a middle class white neighborhood. Take the same person through a middle class black neighborhood and they'll often think they're in the middle of the projects. Furthermore, things like YIMBY (with whom I agree strongly) suffer from racial animus because the people who would benefit are often skeptical of the motivations of people out to help them, with good historical justification for this skepticism. Dismissing this line of analysis is not productive.

I count that as "suburban," too, to be honest.

Absolutely. The goal should be to expand housing supply, which will naturally cause prices to fall... mandate a couple of truly affordable (read: cheap) properties per block, build a light rail spur to the neighborhood(!), zone for mixed use, and see what happens. My bet would be: good things.

Oh, you sweet summer child.

This is a really good article about bus ridership: http://humantransit.org/2015/07/mega-explainer-the-ridership-recipe.html