HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Jan 2, 2023, 7:41 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej View Post
Being leftist is all about social equality and being egalitarian, and not having a social hierarchy.
And yet, some of the most liberal cities have a more defined social hierarchy. San Francisco is a perfect example. Houston is pretty much right in the middle ideologically/ politically but there's less visible social striation.
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Jan 2, 2023, 8:15 PM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 6,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
And yet, some of the most liberal cities have a more defined social hierarchy. San Francisco is a perfect example. Houston is pretty much right in the middle ideologically/ politically but there's less visible social striation.
San Francisco is a very wealthy city whose voters support a status-quo corporatist political party. And don't they have the most Fortune 500 companies of any metro area in California? Very capitalist, so it shouldn't be surprising.
__________________
"I guess the only time people think about injustice is when it happens to them."

~ Charles Bukowski
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Jan 2, 2023, 8:31 PM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 6,846
From the Los Angeles Almanac, from September 2022. I thought this was interesting, for Los Angeles County:


laalmanac


laalamanac
__________________
"I guess the only time people think about injustice is when it happens to them."

~ Charles Bukowski
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Jan 2, 2023, 8:38 PM
Kngkyle Kngkyle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,092
I don't see the left-wing as being pro-development... if anything they are the most anti-development group with their fear of gEnTriFiCaTioN. The most leftist alderman here in Chicago basically compete over who can stop the most development in their wards. Happy to hear this is changing on the West coast but it's still pretty engrained in the far left here.
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Jan 2, 2023, 8:46 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver
Posts: 5,269
Tausanovitch, Chris, and Christopher Warshaw. “Measuring Constituent Policy Preferences in Congress, State Legislatures, and Cities.” Journal of Politics 75, no. 02 (April 2013): 330– 342.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1017...n_tab_contents

They maintain a database derived from the methodology they presented in this article which gives an ideological score to all cities and towns (among others).

Quote:
We provide new estimates of the ideological preferences and presidential voting behavior of Americans at the local level. We combine estimates of the ideology of about one million Americans based on 18 large-scale surveys between 2006-2021 with recent advances in opinion estimation to estimate the preferences of zipcode tabulation areas, states, counties, cities, subcounty units, school districts, congressional districts, and state legislative districts. We also aggregate presidential voting behavior to the level of these geographic units. These new estimates enable scholars to examine representation at a variety of geographic levels.
Here is a link to the 2022 white paper they wrote updating the method and calculations:

https://dataverse.harvard.edu/file.x...14&version=1.0

See here for the database:

https://dataverse.harvard.edu/datase...910/DVN/BQKU4M

Each city comes with 2 scores, each published for three time periods (2004-2011, 2012-2016, and 2017-2021). The first set of scores (IRT) are unweighted and are simply reporting what the average is for the actual respondents. The second set of scores use post-stratified multilevel regression on the respondents to account for non-response bias of others in their jurisdiction. These are the scores you want (and are the column labeled MRP_ideology) to grab for your municipality. Lower scores mean more liberal, higher scores mean more conservative and the scores are quasi-standardized so they should range from approx. -1 to 1 and 0 indicates a perfectly moderate ideological ideal point for that municipality. For anyone familiar with DW-Nominate Scores, these are the comparable.

Here are the scores for some major Texas cities:

Austin—
2004-2011: -.018
2012-2016: -0.19
2017-2021: -0.27

Dallas—
2004-2011: -0.13
2012-2016: -0.12
2017-2021: -0.17

Houston—
2004-2011: -0.06
2012-2016: -0.07
2017-2021: -0.11

Fort Worth—
2004-2011: 0.06
2012-2016: 0.12
2017-2021: 0.03

El Paso—
2004-2011: -0.00
2012-2016: -0.01
2017-2021: -0.14

McAllen—
2004-2011: 0.01
2012-2016: -0.01
2017-2021: -0.16

Brownsville—
2004-2011: -0.15
2012-2016: -0.03
2017-2021: -0.12

Note: blue=liberal, red=conservative, black=within standard error of zero.
__________________
HTOWN: 2305k (+10%) + MSA suburbs: 4818k (+26%) + CSA exurbs: 190k (+6%)
BIGD: 1304k (+9%) + MSA div. suburbs: 3826k (+26%) + adj. CSA exurbs: 394k (+8%)
FTW: 919k (+24%) + MSA div. suburbs: 1589k (+14%) + adj. CSA exurbs: 90k (+12%)
SATX: 1435k (+8%) + MSA suburbs: 1124k (+38%) + CSA exurbs: 18k (+11%)
ATX: 962k (+22%) + MSA suburbs: 1322k (+43%)

Last edited by wwmiv; Jan 2, 2023 at 10:28 PM.
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Jan 2, 2023, 8:47 PM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 6,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kngkyle View Post
I don't see the left-wing as being pro-development... if anything they are the most anti-development group with their fear of gEnTriFiCaTioN. The most leftist alderman here in Chicago basically compete over who can stop the most development in their wards. Happy to hear this is changing on the West coast but it's still pretty engrained in the far left here.
You're viewing it through a capitalist lens. A leftist wouldn't want luxury highrise condos with ground-level retail being built and displacing the lower-income people who are already there and housed, with businesses catering to their local neighborhood needs.

A leftist would be very pro-housing development with housing being affordable for all.
__________________
"I guess the only time people think about injustice is when it happens to them."

~ Charles Bukowski
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Jan 2, 2023, 9:07 PM
Kngkyle Kngkyle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej View Post
You're viewing it through a capitalist lens. A leftist wouldn't want luxury highrise condos with ground-level retail being built and displacing the lower-income people who are already there and housed, with businesses catering to their local neighborhood needs.

A leftist would be very pro-housing development with housing being affordable for all.
The choice isn't between luxury condos or affordable condos. It's between luxury condos or no condos. Today's luxury housing is tomorrow's affordable housing.
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Jan 2, 2023, 9:11 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 10,301
I'm not commenting to announce where I fall on the left of center spectrum, but since this question of how much leftists do or do not support new housing development I think its important to mention that most on the left support the intervention of the government to provide housing when the free market is unwilling or unable to do so. The greatly diminished presence of HUD in the midst of what is an absolute housing crisis (cost burden, unit scarcity & inadequate condition) for the richest country on earth is an absolute disgrace. I'd like to see HUD return to its former robustness in developing not only ground up lower/mixed income housing and not just funding redevelopments of the pre-war and post-war public housing, but also become aggressive partners in public-private housing developments making very ambitious unit count projects possible with a government funding partner where they otherwise would not be possible.
__________________
Everything new is old again

There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Jan 2, 2023, 9:17 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej View Post

A leftist would be very pro-housing development with housing being affordable for all.


The most leftist member of the NYC city council proudly rejected 400 units of low income housing in favor of a diesel-spewing truck stop. The most extreme leftist politicians are almost always the most anti-development.

There is no such thing as "affordable housing for all". What does that even mean? If my earnings are zero, I cannot even afford free housing. How do you force "affordable housing for all" without restricting liberties and expropriating private property?
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Jan 2, 2023, 9:19 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver
Posts: 5,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
A lot of people might automatically think SF or Seattle but it's actually likely pound for pound New York.
They automatically think SF and Seattle because the data supports it:

Seattle—
2004-2011: -0.51
2012-2016: -0.45
2017-2021: -0.60

San Francisco—
2004-2011: -0.50
2012-2016: -0.45
2017-2021: -0.54

New York—
2004-2011: -0.37
2012-2016: -0.30
2017-2021: -0.36
__________________
HTOWN: 2305k (+10%) + MSA suburbs: 4818k (+26%) + CSA exurbs: 190k (+6%)
BIGD: 1304k (+9%) + MSA div. suburbs: 3826k (+26%) + adj. CSA exurbs: 394k (+8%)
FTW: 919k (+24%) + MSA div. suburbs: 1589k (+14%) + adj. CSA exurbs: 90k (+12%)
SATX: 1435k (+8%) + MSA suburbs: 1124k (+38%) + CSA exurbs: 18k (+11%)
ATX: 962k (+22%) + MSA suburbs: 1322k (+43%)
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Jan 2, 2023, 9:21 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 10,301
The member demanded the proposal increase the affordability component past a number the developer was willing or able to go. The developer pulled their plans in favor of the truck stop. Its likely theatrics and the developer will make another pitch with something to placate the council member. Regardless its an example of the idiotic all or nothing approach by otherwise well intentioned politicians putting undo burden on the for-profit private sector for something that should be the role of the government through a robust, strategic and adequately funded housing program. "I'm in the affordable housing business" isn't much of an expression for a reason.
__________________
Everything new is old again

There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Jan 2, 2023, 9:22 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver
Posts: 5,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_denizen View Post
Portland
Portland—
2004-2011: -0.40
2012-2016: -0.40
2017-2021: -0.53
__________________
HTOWN: 2305k (+10%) + MSA suburbs: 4818k (+26%) + CSA exurbs: 190k (+6%)
BIGD: 1304k (+9%) + MSA div. suburbs: 3826k (+26%) + adj. CSA exurbs: 394k (+8%)
FTW: 919k (+24%) + MSA div. suburbs: 1589k (+14%) + adj. CSA exurbs: 90k (+12%)
SATX: 1435k (+8%) + MSA suburbs: 1124k (+38%) + CSA exurbs: 18k (+11%)
ATX: 962k (+22%) + MSA suburbs: 1322k (+43%)
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Jan 2, 2023, 9:23 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver
Posts: 5,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
DC, I think. DC has no moderate neighborhoods, even.

SF has socially conservative Asian neighborhoods. The whole western half of the city is pretty moderate. NYC has huge swaths of right-wing Orthodox and pretty big socially conservative ethnic nabes. Seattle and Portland have lots of zany ultra-left wing stuff, but both cities are largely socially moderate middle class white neighborhoods.
Washington, D.C. —
2004-2011: -0.55
2012-2016: -0.44
2017-2021: -0.47
__________________
HTOWN: 2305k (+10%) + MSA suburbs: 4818k (+26%) + CSA exurbs: 190k (+6%)
BIGD: 1304k (+9%) + MSA div. suburbs: 3826k (+26%) + adj. CSA exurbs: 394k (+8%)
FTW: 919k (+24%) + MSA div. suburbs: 1589k (+14%) + adj. CSA exurbs: 90k (+12%)
SATX: 1435k (+8%) + MSA suburbs: 1124k (+38%) + CSA exurbs: 18k (+11%)
ATX: 962k (+22%) + MSA suburbs: 1322k (+43%)
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Jan 2, 2023, 9:24 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
The member demanded the proposal increase the affordability component past a number the developer was willing to go.
No, she demanded an affordability component that does not exist. She demanded something that is legally impossible. Developers cannot build something that doesn't exist. Affordable housing is built to federal income guidelines, using a discrete set of allowable methodologies, under a set of approved programs. You cannot just say "I want 100% free housing" when that isn't a thing. You might as well ask for dragons and unicorns.

The councilperson isn't stupid. She's a Princeton grad and very savvy. She had no intention of ever approving any new housing in her district when she could pontificate against evil developers and gentrifiers.
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Jan 2, 2023, 9:24 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver
Posts: 5,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Comrade View Post
Berkeley.

I think Biden won 93% of the vote in 2020.
Berkeley—
2004-2011: -0.51
2012-2016: -0.58
2017-2021: -0.60
__________________
HTOWN: 2305k (+10%) + MSA suburbs: 4818k (+26%) + CSA exurbs: 190k (+6%)
BIGD: 1304k (+9%) + MSA div. suburbs: 3826k (+26%) + adj. CSA exurbs: 394k (+8%)
FTW: 919k (+24%) + MSA div. suburbs: 1589k (+14%) + adj. CSA exurbs: 90k (+12%)
SATX: 1435k (+8%) + MSA suburbs: 1124k (+38%) + CSA exurbs: 18k (+11%)
ATX: 962k (+22%) + MSA suburbs: 1322k (+43%)
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Jan 2, 2023, 9:32 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 10,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
No, she demanded an affordability component that does not exist. She demanded something that is legally impossible. Developers cannot build something that doesn't exist. Affordable housing is built to federal income guidelines, using a discrete set of allowable methodologies, under a set of approved programs. You cannot just say "I want 100% free housing" when that isn't a thing. You might as well ask for dragons and unicorns.

The councilperson isn't stupid. She's a Princeton grad and very savvy. She had no intention of ever approving any new housing in her district when she could pontificate against evil developers and gentrifiers.
You're response does not change the fact that the member was demanding an affordability percentage higher than what the developer found financially feasible. Whether or not the member was going to ever approve or what her motivations are is conjecture.
__________________
Everything new is old again

There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Jan 2, 2023, 9:33 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver
Posts: 5,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
I think it's more about big cities. Yeah, obviously college towns like Berkeley, Cambridge, New Haven, Ithaca, Ann Arbor, Madison and the like will be super lefty, overall.
Cambridge—
2004-2011: -0.51
2012-2016: -0.70
2017-2021: -0.69

New Haven—
2004-2011: -0.47
2012-2016: -0.38
2017-2021: -0.32

Ithica—
2004-2011: -0.85
2012-2016: -1.07
2017-2021: -0.71

Ann Arbor—
2004-2011: -0.66
2012-2016: -0.87
2017-2021: -0.66

Madison—
2004-2011: -0.47
2012-2016: -0.72
2017-2021: -0.62

Boulder—
2004-2011: -0.38
2012-2016: -0.30
2017-2021: -0.45

Also:

Boston—
2004-2011: -0.47
2012-2016: -0.43
2017-2021: -0.51
__________________
HTOWN: 2305k (+10%) + MSA suburbs: 4818k (+26%) + CSA exurbs: 190k (+6%)
BIGD: 1304k (+9%) + MSA div. suburbs: 3826k (+26%) + adj. CSA exurbs: 394k (+8%)
FTW: 919k (+24%) + MSA div. suburbs: 1589k (+14%) + adj. CSA exurbs: 90k (+12%)
SATX: 1435k (+8%) + MSA suburbs: 1124k (+38%) + CSA exurbs: 18k (+11%)
ATX: 962k (+22%) + MSA suburbs: 1322k (+43%)
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Jan 2, 2023, 9:36 PM
Chef's Avatar
Chef Chef is offline
Paradise Island
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 2,444
The most left wing city council Minneapolis has ever had was also the one that upzoned the entire city. There was a council member from the Green party, he supported it too. Most of the opposition came from the center-left liberal rich parts of the city.
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Jan 2, 2023, 9:37 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver
Posts: 5,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigs View Post
Maybe Oakland?
Oakland—
2004-2011: -0.43
2012-2016: -0.43
2017-2021: -0.51
__________________
HTOWN: 2305k (+10%) + MSA suburbs: 4818k (+26%) + CSA exurbs: 190k (+6%)
BIGD: 1304k (+9%) + MSA div. suburbs: 3826k (+26%) + adj. CSA exurbs: 394k (+8%)
FTW: 919k (+24%) + MSA div. suburbs: 1589k (+14%) + adj. CSA exurbs: 90k (+12%)
SATX: 1435k (+8%) + MSA suburbs: 1124k (+38%) + CSA exurbs: 18k (+11%)
ATX: 962k (+22%) + MSA suburbs: 1322k (+43%)
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Jan 2, 2023, 9:38 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
You're response does not change the fact that the member was demanding an affordability percentage higher than what the developer found financially feasible. Whether or not the member was going to ever approve or what her motivations are is conjecture.
I think it's reasonable to observe that a non-stupid politician demanding something that is inherently impossible seeks to insert an obvious poison pill, and has no intention of approving a project under any circumstances.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:46 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.