Small investments in poor neighborhoods are the best way for a community to build wealth. They are also the best way to lift people out of poverty without displacing them from their neighborhood.
My understanding is that they are considering how much a neighborhood is “worth” in terms of the amount of tax revenue provided to the city. So, although each individual house on a cul-de-sac produces more tax revenue than each house in the poorer crescent (they cost more and so generate more property tax revenue; their residents make more and so generate more in sales and income tax revenue), because the poorer neighborhood is much denser, the total revenue is much larger.
I will admit. though, that I posted the article because I found it interesting but didn’t feel like I fully got my head around it, and was hoping to get some input from the community.
Strong Towns and Not Just Bikes both go over the math more in other articles/videos, but I’ll try to provide a decent summary.
Basically, the cost to maintain the roads and infrastructure in a city are paid for by everyone in the area, and because cities are usually smaller and mixed-use, you have several homes and businesses chipping in to pay the same mile of asphalt and water/sewer.
When you get to the suburbs, even though they pay more in taxes because they’re larger and newer, they’re also more spread out, often with a large highway out to them. They require this dedicated infrastructure line, and still require fire/police/garbage services, which requires more staffing, more buildings, and more trucks.
Imagine you’re playing two games of Cities Skylines.
In the first game, you have small, 2-lane roads, your houses and apartment buildings are small, one-four block sizes, you have a corner store every other street, and because everything is within 5 blocks, people walk to their destination. You really only need one fire station, one police station, and a dump.
In the second game, you have a highway to a residential-only area. All your residences are 6 blocks big and in cul-de-sacs. You’d likely have to have one police/fire stations on one side of the suburb and one on the other in order to get full coverage. They’d require their own garbage dump in order to get the best service, and you’d have to run sewer/water lines out to them.
Which of these cities do you think would do better financially?
If you’d like more supplementary reading/watching here are the other videos that go into this more in-depth:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
My understanding is that they are considering how much a neighborhood is “worth” in terms of the amount of tax revenue provided to the city. So, although each individual house on a cul-de-sac produces more tax revenue than each house in the poorer crescent (they cost more and so generate more property tax revenue; their residents make more and so generate more in sales and income tax revenue), because the poorer neighborhood is much denser, the total revenue is much larger.
I will admit. though, that I posted the article because I found it interesting but didn’t feel like I fully got my head around it, and was hoping to get some input from the community.
Strong Towns and Not Just Bikes both go over the math more in other articles/videos, but I’ll try to provide a decent summary.
Basically, the cost to maintain the roads and infrastructure in a city are paid for by everyone in the area, and because cities are usually smaller and mixed-use, you have several homes and businesses chipping in to pay the same mile of asphalt and water/sewer.
When you get to the suburbs, even though they pay more in taxes because they’re larger and newer, they’re also more spread out, often with a large highway out to them. They require this dedicated infrastructure line, and still require fire/police/garbage services, which requires more staffing, more buildings, and more trucks.
Imagine you’re playing two games of Cities Skylines.
In the first game, you have small, 2-lane roads, your houses and apartment buildings are small, one-four block sizes, you have a corner store every other street, and because everything is within 5 blocks, people walk to their destination. You really only need one fire station, one police station, and a dump.
In the second game, you have a highway to a residential-only area. All your residences are 6 blocks big and in cul-de-sacs. You’d likely have to have one police/fire stations on one side of the suburb and one on the other in order to get full coverage. They’d require their own garbage dump in order to get the best service, and you’d have to run sewer/water lines out to them.
Which of these cities do you think would do better financially?
If you’d like more supplementary reading/watching here are the other videos that go into this more in-depth:
That last video is actually part of a whole playlist, which starts here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0_FCUbeVWK6OGLN69ehUTVa
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.