This is a topic I want to cover more thoroughly, but for now I present a one hour documentary video on green buildings for you leisurely viewing.
I came across the snagfilms website from a recent Wall Street Journal article. Most of the documentary videos lean towards “progressive” tastes, but hopefully they’ll add some free-market content such as Friedman’s “Free To Choose” videos.
Through quick browsing, this video seemed to be the only one that had relevance to Market Urbanism. I think it does a decent job dispelling the Urbanism Legend that high density is bad for the environment. However, some of the commenters seem to fall for the myth that further government intervention will somehow solve the problem. They all seem to forget that progressive government meddling in transportation and land use has done much to cause the problems of sprawl and auto-dependency that modern progressives are now trying to fight with more intervention.
[Watching it a second time, I wanted to point something out. One commenter stated that European and Japanese developers plan for a 50 year life-cycle of buildings, while in the US only 12 months. This is absolutely false. Developers usually use a 10-year discounted cash flow model, but still incorporate a sale value of the property based on projected incomes in the 11th year. That sale value could be calculated on the cash flow of the next 10 years and so, on, but they usually use a more simple calculation for the 10th year sale. They could use 50 year models, but they wouldn’t give much better information than the standard 10-year model. European developers use the same methods as the US. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to decieve you.]
I am wondering: In a completely free market, would you accept an outcome of varying densities and different modes of transportation?
How about an outcome of exclusive sprawl and auto dependency?
Put another way: How is capitalism consistent with hoping for the “right” outcome for anyone other than yourself? (“Yourself” not being intended personally, of course…)
And, are we sure that the problems of “sprawl” and “auto dependency” are worse than the problems of “crowding” and “foot/bus/subway dependency”?
I am wondering: In a completely free market, would you accept an outcome of varying densities and different modes of transportation?
How about an outcome of exclusive sprawl and auto dependency?
Put another way: How is capitalism consistent with hoping for the “right” outcome for anyone other than yourself? (“Yourself” not being intended personally, of course…)
And, are we sure that the problems of “sprawl” and “auto dependency” are worse than the problems of “crowding” and “foot/bus/subway dependency”?
Great questions Bill. I encourage all the readers to answer with their thoughts on your insightful questions.
I am wondering: In a completely free market, would you accept an outcome of varying densities and different modes of transportation?
Of course. That is the outcome I would expect from a free market. Under a free market, I think densities would vary more than the current landscape. Sprawl would not disapear, but those who enjoy it would pay a little more for their commutes. Those who could afford it, would enjoy a congestion-free suburban lifestyle in their cars.
How about an outcome of exclusive sprawl and auto dependency?
I would accept it. But, I don’t see that as a likely outcome in an economy similar to the present simply because of economies of agglomeration. A system of exclusive sprawl would require drastically different employment and economic factors which eliminate the need to agglomerate.
Put another way: How is capitalism consistent with hoping for the “right” outcome for anyone other than yourself? (”Yourself” not being intended personally, of course…)
That is a difficult question to answer. I might have to think on that, but here’s what comes to mind: I think capitalism is a system that is very effective at allocating resources to the highest productive uses. Thus, I hope for a system that allows developers to build densely. I hope for a system that doesn’t tax people for things they choose not to use. I hope for a system without barriers to entry for entrepreneurs because of bureaucratic patronage and corruption.
And, are we sure that the problems of “sprawl” and “auto dependency” are worse than the problems of “crowding” and “foot/bus/subway dependency”?
I doubt we’ll get any consensus on that, but I see much of sprawl as a huge misallocation of resources. Auto-dependency could be just as bad as transit dependency. (It’s a complex issue that deserves a complex answer. ) Otherwise, mankind was foot-dependent through most of history, so I wouldn’t see that as a problem in itself…
We should be thankful we have cars and trains, etc. We should use them as much as necessary. But, we shouldn’t divert productive capital to subsidize them, just as we shouldn’t subsidize housing or ethanol or health care.
I think the environmental aspects of land use and transportation is an effective way to communicate to intervention-friendly progressives that their ways didn’t work. Their top-down methods of allocating resources have created problems they now acknowledge, but wrongly attribute to free enterprise.
Progressives can point to sprawl, and we can respond, “wait a second, if you think sprawl is a problem, then you need to point your fingers at the FDR-style progressives for their top-down planning of the highways, zoning, urban renewal, public housing, public schools, etc., etc. if you want to find the villian of sprawl.”
Great questions Bill. I encourage all the readers to answer with their thoughts on your insightful questions.
I am wondering: In a completely free market, would you accept an outcome of varying densities and different modes of transportation?
Of course. That is the outcome I would expect from a free market. Under a free market, I think densities would vary more than the current landscape. Sprawl would not disapear, but those who enjoy it would pay a little more for their commutes. Those who could afford it, would enjoy a congestion-free suburban lifestyle in their cars.
How about an outcome of exclusive sprawl and auto dependency?
I would accept it. But, I don’t see that as a likely outcome in an economy similar to the present simply because of economies of agglomeration. A system of exclusive sprawl would require drastically different employment and economic factors which eliminate the need to agglomerate.
Put another way: How is capitalism consistent with hoping for the “right” outcome for anyone other than yourself? (”Yourself” not being intended personally, of course…)
That is a difficult question to answer. I might have to think on that, but here’s what comes to mind: I think capitalism is a system that is very effective at allocating resources to the highest productive uses. Thus, I hope for a system that allows developers to build densely. I hope for a system that doesn’t tax people for things they choose not to use. I hope for a system without barriers to entry for entrepreneurs because of bureaucratic patronage and corruption.
And, are we sure that the problems of “sprawl” and “auto dependency” are worse than the problems of “crowding” and “foot/bus/subway dependency”?
I doubt we’ll get any consensus on that, but I see much of sprawl as a huge misallocation of resources. Auto-dependency could be just as bad as transit dependency. (It’s a complex issue that deserves a complex answer. ) Otherwise, mankind was foot-dependent through most of history, so I wouldn’t see that as a problem in itself…
We should be thankful we have cars and trains, etc. We should use them as much as necessary. But, we shouldn’t divert productive capital to subsidize them, just as we shouldn’t subsidize housing or ethanol or health care.
I think the environmental aspects of land use and transportation is an effective way to communicate to intervention-friendly progressives that their ways didn’t work. Their top-down methods of allocating resources have created problems they now acknowledge, but wrongly attribute to free enterprise.
Progressives can point to sprawl, and we can respond, “wait a second, if you think sprawl is a problem, then you need to point your fingers at the FDR-style progressives for their top-down planning of the highways, zoning, urban renewal, public housing, public schools, etc., etc. if you want to find the villian of sprawl.”
Here’s an analogous issue that might clarify things: Smoking in restaurants.
It’s banned in NY, but still allowed in other states (to say nothing of other countries) — and it is something that I detest. So, should I hope for a system (capitalism) that would permit restaurant owners to ban smoking? Yes. In fact, that is exactly what is done in many states. Has capitalism “worked” to eliminate smoking in restaurants — or at least to provide a choice smoking or no-smoking? Somewhat in the USA. And not at all in many other countries.
Personally, I accept this, and exercise my option to avoid restaurants where people smoke — or at least make my visits very brief.
Actually, I tend to avoid restaurants altogether because the food quality is usually pretty lousy. Now, I could be “progressive” and “advocate” for food preparation to meet my personal standards (at govt-enforced prices), or I could eat at home when I can. I accept the latter.
Very often, mass tastes don’t coincide with what an influential (“progressive”) minority wants — and that’s why this minority makes others pay for their public television/radio, their museums, their “free” public parks, etc. For them, capitalism has failed because it hasn’t delivered exactly what they want. They do not tolerate the free choices of others.
So, I would also hope for an outcome of varying densities in cities — but if it didn’t happen, then I too would (reluctantly) accept it. But I would still probably fish for a way to blame govt regulations. Just my bias, there…
Here’s an analogous issue that might clarify things: Smoking in restaurants.
It’s banned in NY, but still allowed in other states (to say nothing of other countries) — and it is something that I detest. So, should I hope for a system (capitalism) that would permit restaurant owners to ban smoking? Yes. In fact, that is exactly what is done in many states. Has capitalism “worked” to eliminate smoking in restaurants — or at least to provide a choice smoking or no-smoking? Somewhat in the USA. And not at all in many other countries.
Personally, I accept this, and exercise my option to avoid restaurants where people smoke — or at least make my visits very brief.
Actually, I tend to avoid restaurants altogether because the food quality is usually pretty lousy. Now, I could be “progressive” and “advocate” for food preparation to meet my personal standards (at govt-enforced prices), or I could eat at home when I can. I accept the latter.
Very often, mass tastes don’t coincide with what an influential (“progressive”) minority wants — and that’s why this minority makes others pay for their public television/radio, their museums, their “free” public parks, etc. For them, capitalism has failed because it hasn’t delivered exactly what they want. They do not tolerate the free choices of others.
So, I would also hope for an outcome of varying densities in cities — but if it didn’t happen, then I too would (reluctantly) accept it. But I would still probably fish for a way to blame govt regulations. Just my bias, there…
Yeah, if we took the City of Boston and moved everyone into one massive building we could use the rest of the land for farming and public parks so I definitely see how density is a good thing, when done right.
Yeah, if we took the City of Boston and moved everyone into one massive building we could use the rest of the land for farming and public parks so I definitely see how density is a good thing, when done right.
Unfortuntately the limousine liberal NIMBYs of Boston fight-to-the-death any attempts at allowing higher densities. I found many Bostonians to be such hypocrites in that regard…
Unfortuntately the limousine liberal NIMBYs of Boston fight-to-the-death any attempts at allowing higher densities. I found many Bostonians to be such hypocrites in that regard…