• derf82@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    229
    ·
    1 year ago

    Most downtowns are built for commuters rather than residents. They forced out residents in favor of building higher cost commercial real estate. What residential buildings there is targets only the highest incomes. No surprise they are struggling.

  • Supervisor194@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    165
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    We have a dramatic shortage of residential property. We have a dramatic oversupply of commercial property. IF ONLY THERE WAS A SOLUTION

    • SuperDuper@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      74
      ·
      1 year ago

      IF ONLY THERE WAS A SOLUTION

      Middle managers: I agree. From now on you’ll be required to be in office 4 days a week instead of 2!

    • player1@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      1 year ago

      For the millionth time it’s not that simple. Retrofitting commercial buildings is often impossible or more expensive than just demolishing and building new which is also ungodly expensive especially with how high interest rates are right now. Unless cities step in with millions of dollars per project it’s usually not financially possible.

      • deft@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        34
        ·
        1 year ago

        If the problem is money then there is no problem. It becomes a necessity and you can’t just not afford necessity. We allegedly are the richest country they need to figure it out regardless of cost. That simple.

        It’s like climate change, there is no issue with money it just has to get done. Pay for it regardless of the cost. It is necessary

        • boreengreen@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          But what if we let the children pay for it when they grow up? Yes, the cost will be several orders of magnitude more, but we don’t have to think about that now.

          • ANGRY_MAPLE@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I mean, hopefully fewer people from the future generation will be homeless. It’s pretty rough starting out now, especially if you aren’t lucky enough to have a wealthy family.

            What we’ve been doing for the last number of years just isn’t working. The solution isn’t to keep procrastinating it indefinitely. There has always been debt that’s pushed onto future generations, but this debt might actually help them.

            I wish that people started building more housing many years ago. If housing was cheaper, increased taxes wouldn’t be as big of a concern. This is because there would also be more money available to spend. This means spending money for food, transportation, schooling, and more.

            Instead, currently many people are using the limited housing as investments and retirement plans. Life expectancies are increasing, and births are still happening. Where do you propose people live if there isn’t housing available?

            Rural forests in uninhabited areas also aren’t a legitimate option for most people. No running water, no heat, no medical care available, no pharmacies, no stores, no places to work, and nowhere to buy tools to build shelter. That sounds like a very bad time for most people.

      • Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        1 year ago

        Retrofitting commercial buildings is often impossible or more expensive than just demolishing

        That sounds like a “them” problem.

        They can watch their investments dry up and lose billions, or pivot to the new market. Not our fault they’re stuck in the 80s.

      • I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        I live on the North end of the SF Bay Area and literally every empty lot and a shit load of pasture land and open space is currently being developed into either low income apartments, high end apartments, town houses or track homes. It’s honestly kind of shocking. Everywhere you go, new residential development.

        Sonoma County supervisors were supposed to vote on a housing development plan in January, but failed to do so until August, and in the meantime there was a special rule that allowed builders to go ahead without most of the red tape they usually face. They took the opportunity and ran with it.

        • Kalkaline @leminal.space
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s more than that though, where do you bathe in an office?

          I’m not saying it can’t be done, but it’s a lot of work to redo the plumbing, electrical, install kitchens, and seal those spaces into secure private zones with natural light exposure.

        • inconel@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          What I hear is mostly water pipes. Commercial buildings have them concentrated in bathrooms and hard to split for each residence.

          I know there are bathroom less really cheap places but that attract type of people which property management/urban development corps dont want so they may also be reluctant for that change.

        • shutz@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Say you have an average size house, with a 2-car garage on the side. You decide to change that garage into a small apartment for renting. You need to add a wall or two, add insulation, build up a kitchen area (with proper water and power) and a bathroom.

          Imagine how much that would cost you for that single apartment. Now multiply that by, say, 50, to convert a large office building into 50 residential rental units. Even with economies of scale, that’s still going to cost millions…

        • Ashelyn
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          But high density residential operates to radically different specs. Proper fire escape routes accessible from each dwelling, at least one or more exterior windows to the outdoors per dwelling, individualized electricity and other utilities, and various other considerations. Retrofitting the electricity to get every unit on its own metered connection is a beast of a task by itself. You also have to account for the plumbing being used not only for the toilets/sinks, but also showers, baths, cooking, and junk getting dumped down the pipes in every unit.

        • player1@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Actually it’s not bullshit. Most office buildings are designed with large core space where the elevators and stairs etc go. That’s not at all how apartment buildings are designed. Changing that is extremely expensive.

    • TheHotze@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Unfortunately, in most cities that is illegal. Zoning laws prevent turning commercial property into residential even when it is possible. It also prevents developers from building moderate, high, and even certain types of low density housing.

        • FlowVoid@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Be careful what you wish for. Houston is notorious for abolishing its zoning laws, which means that residential and commercial properties are haphazardly scattered rather than concentrated into distinct areas.

          People never know when a CVS will pop up next door to their home. Now you know why they form HOAs.

  • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    73
    ·
    1 year ago

    The 8000th “Covid killed cities” article, just shifting the goalposts and jumping around to different cities with different metrics out of context to make it seem worse than it is.

        • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          ·
          1 year ago

          They do too, but the cost of living (a problem exacerbated by capitalism treating property as an investment) has pushed workers out of cities, which kills the ability of businesses to keep employees, and thus the downtown empties of businesses like restaurants.

      • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m saying cities aren’t dying. Cities reinvent themselves when they have issues. Oh no, the textile industry is leaving NYC after WWII and the area those factories were in is considered a slum, the city is dying… and now that area is SoHo.

        If this article was just trying to say “cities are still working their way back to pre-covid commercial activity levels” then sure, there is a temporary issue from a generational pandemic, agreed. But if you think people are going to stop moving to cities long term you are just wrong.

        • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Gotta agree. I travel extensively and have seen downtrodden town centers as well as vibrant ones. There are multiple factors, not just “white flight” which has had decades to be mitigated or shift culturally. One of the truths is that people are generally moving to urban areas. That’s where the jobs are. That means leaving small towns. However, if that small town is near an urban area it stands a good chance of getting an economic boost as move in or people looking to “get away” dump money into the tourist market. Yeah, crime and poverty do a lot to keep economic improvement away, but even places like Oakland in California, a hotbed of crime in the ‘80s/‘90s, has seen an economic boost and an overall improvement as rising property values made the area more desirable. Towns will grow or shrink as economic opportunities leave or arrive.

          There are going to be winners and losers, but the general trend is that urban areas are still going to be the bigger beneficiaries.

        • Habahnow@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I mean the author is basically saying what you’re saying. the title definitely left off a keyword from the title : "[Traditional] Downtowns are dead, dying or on life support… " with their definition of traditional downtowns being only business focused downtowns, rather than muxed usage downtowns

  • CluelessLemmyng@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    1 year ago

    Makes sense. Downtowns are commercial districts with few, if any, residential buildings. Restaurants exist there to feed the various workers. Workers will shop after work or bring family/friends/dates to the area because it’s something they know or are familiar with.

    With WFH, no one has a reason to go to downtown. Cost of living increases already make them think twice about doing so.

    All in all, we’re seeing a shift from specifically zoned districts to mixed use downtowns. This means smaller stores, more walkable or mass transit focus. These cities will just need to incentivize conversion of these downtowns to include more residential structures.

    • Uranium3006@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      we need statewide laws, preempting any local zoning laws, that allow dense residential buildings with no parking minimums in any zone that allows office uses.

      • Drusas@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Disabled parking should always be required. Not everybody can take public transit, or not without it being unreasonably burdensome and/or dangerous (think immunocompromised people for transit being dangerous).

        • Uranium3006@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          paratransit vans have been a thing for a long time and solve this issue. the amount of traffic they cause is negligible. just follow ADA rules for disabled parking with the spaces you do end up building and don’t worry about it. disabled people are much less likely to own a car in the first place than the average person, so privileging cars does them no good

      • dezmd@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Statewide laws preempting local laws is how you consolidate corruption most effectively. We added a half cent local sales tax to permanently end toll roads 30ish years ago and the state went ahead and overruled it. We still pay thebextra half cent AND they just added ANOTHER goddamn half cent.

        Florida is purple but all the state sponsored corruption, racism and meth cna sure make it seem red.

        • wishthane@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I can understand that but at the same time, it can also counteract a lot of localized perverse incentives. The majority of people might want more housing, but then at the same time there’s a significant part of the voting population (especially at a municipal level) that doesn’t want it in their community because of unfounded fears of higher density, so everybody wants it somewhere else and it doesn’t get done. Well, if you go up a level of government, it’s going to get done everywhere fairly, and people finally realize that it won’t be a problem.

          • dezmd@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Until you realize that moving it up a level means it is much harder for the individual to affect change. Higher levels means rich people have their say because they can afford to lobby for their say. At least local initiatives can be engaged with by local individuals without the need for a massive warchest to fight entrenched interests. Fight these things locally rather than kicking the can upstairs and hoping the good parts trickle back down.

            I strongly think your take is ass backwards as a long term strategy, even while you can affect some short term wins. Republicans are taking over at the state level to push abortion bans, book bans, education limits, pay for religious education with public funding, eliminate equal rights, push conspiracy nonsense, enact voter suppression schemes, push pure propaganda as an educational standard, and on and on. They can’t affect these changes at the municipal level, only by grabbing power away from the local level. There’s a lot more happening in a cumulative manner that needs to be fought against than to be primarily concerned over than local rich landowners and NIMBY fuck-os trying to assert their real estate whims.

        • Uranium3006@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          here in cali the state’s suing cities for not allowing enough housing to be built, which is literally the cause of half of everything that’s wrong with the state

      • Nurgle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        What cities are preventing downtown residential construction? All the office construction was because it was more profitable. Cities are already bending backwards to developers.

      • bluGill@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Zoning is only useful for the type of place that isn’t built to keep harmful emissions confined to their land. Farms (manure smell), and some chemical industry apply and should not have housing at all. Farmers will be shocked to learn I just told them they need to move to town.

  • malloc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    1 year ago

    Decades of rebuilding downtowns to accommodate vehicle traffic and commuters is the problem.

    • people commuting from the Styx often do not reside within the same county they work in. County/City budget revenues decreased
    • even if those residents happen to live in the same county or municipal area, cities were rebuilt to accommodate vehicle traffic. Highways cutting through urban cores. Areas where people once lived are replaced with parking lots/garages.
    • city budgets further decimated by having to increase coverage of services (water, electric, sewage, …). Increased coverage requirement means new infrastructure. New infrastructure means more maintenance cost as the years progress. Also, first responders often stretched. Cities struggle to hire the correct amount of people to cover area
    • poorly zoned cities with single use zoning are largely to blame as well. Many cities have dedicated commercial or residential only zones. Thus creating this strong coupling on vehicle commuters to come to office, spend money on lunch, then fuck off back to their shitty suburban home. If cities rezoned and allowed for more diverse zoning (mixed use, higher density). The problem of businesses that relied on commuters becomes a non-issue since that is largely replaced by walkin traffic.
    • poorly designed cities replacing walkability with “vehicle accessibility”. This means the city has to maintain expensive road infrastructure. Also makes it very difficult to consider alternative forms of transportation to get to/from restaurants, entertainment, general living, grocery store.
    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Decades of rebuilding downtowns to accommodate vehicle traffic and commuters is the problem.

      More like “demolishing” than “rebuilding,” but otherwise you’re spot-on!

    • Zoolander@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s “the sticks”, not “the Styx” unless they’re coming from a Tommy Shaw concert or commuting from the bowels of hell. :)

  • TheHarpyEagle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    1 year ago

    I have a strong hatred for how many storefronts are taken up by “antique shops” (i.e. dusty warehouses full of junk you couldn’t give away) instead of actual businesses in the last two small towns I lived in. Makes it so you can’t really get that much shopping done downtown.

  • JokeDeity@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    1 year ago

    I can’t afford food for myself, and every day gets worse and worse, I’m sure I’m not alone, this is what happens when you let the working class go so far down the hole all they can afford to do is work and sleep.

    • Cihta@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That actually sounds cool. My experience with downtown areas has been less than positive… more of a maze, everything very overpriced… now that I think about it it’s very similar to a large airport.

      Shame as it’d be nice to just walk around for all your needs… you’d think it would actually be more cost effective.

    • frickineh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s one of the biggest factors for me, too. Of course the elite want to blame it all on WFH, but there are plenty of people who would still go to downtown areas to eat and shop and go to bars, but who the hell can afford that these days? If wages were even close to keeping up with the cost of living, I’d guess there would be more downtown activity.

      • sylver_dragon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        WFH does has some effect on people going out. Personally, I have the financial means to still go out on occasion, I just don’t. When I used to have to drive in for work, I would eat lunch out about once every other week (I have an old, bad habit of treating myself to lunch on pay day). That’s a sold meal which is now gone from that area’s economy, and I’m sure there were a lot more. Beyond that, I find that there is now a greater mental barrier to the effort required to get dressed up and go out for a meal or shopping downtown. I’m like Professor Farnsworth from Futurama, “well, I could go out. But, I am already in my pajamas.”

        That said, ya it’s not all WFH. Even with the financial means to go out, the current economic environment means that I’d rather not spend $100 eating an over-priced, poorly cooked meal somewhere downtown. I can spend $50 on some really nice ingredients, grill up a couple steaks, cook vegetables which aren’t overcooked to be limper than a eunuch’s dick and eat potatoes which don’t taste like they came out of a box. The other $50 can go into savings and I don’t face social pressure to put on real pants.

  • quindraco@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    How the fuck does this article define “downtown”? Can’t find an explanation in it.

  • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    One of the most-striking experiences of my regional metro core’s death throes was needing to pee but my train was delayed. Tried walking across the way to the local train station to use their facilities but the security guy they’d hired to keep the homeless out about fought me to keep me from using the restroom.

    If you wonder why your city streets and transit zones smell like piss, it’s because when you lock up your bathrooms to keep the homeless people away, they’ll piss on your street

    • VentraSqwal@links.dartboard.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      You think it would be obvious but for some reason. I’m not sure if I have IBS or something, but I am always on the look out for bathrooms and they are so hard to find downtown.

    • bufordt@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      In the town that we spent our summers in, there was a single, well hidden, public restroom on Main Street. This is a town that makes their living on tourism. You would think they wouldn’t want people have quit shopping and leave downtown to pee.