At Volokh, Ilya Somin discusses a recent piece in the American Prospect (also linked from here) that favors “New Urbanism” to prevent “unwalkable” sprawl. Somin favors “voting with your feet” as the preferred method of satisfying location preferences. Unfortunately, voting options have been whittled down through government interventions:
To the extent that we do need to enable more people to live in densely populated urban areas, it’s far from clear that government planning is the best way to achieve that goal. We can better achieve the same objective by cutting back on planning rather than increasing it. In many large cities, the cost of housing is artificially inflated by restrictive zoning laws, which tends to price out the poor and some middle class people. In the suburbs, as Adler points out, zoning policies sometimes artificially decrease density, for example by forbidding "mixed use" neighborhoods where commercial and residential uses are in close proximity to each other.
The ultimate question is whether we should trust deeper interventions into land use to fix the complete failure of past interventions. Long before “New Urbanism” was the progressive utopian ideal, sprawling, auto-friendly and trolley-free, single-family suburbs was their “American Dream”. But, progressives quickly forget their history when it turns out their past visions created something they are now supposed to hate:
Like previous generations of planners, the new urbanists often ignore the diversity of human preferences. Some people do indeed like high-density "walkable" environments. Others prefer to have more space and more peace and quiet. Neither preference is inherently superior to the other. To paraphrase a popular liberal slogan, we should celebrate diversity, not seek to use urban planning to force everyone to live the same lifestyle whether they want to or not.
The post evokes the typical variety of comments ranging from standard defense of suburbs as a rational choice to the favored Market Urbanist arguments. (Happily, market urbanist ideas seem to be gaining popularity.) As guest Market Urbanism writer, Stephen Smith correctly pointed out to the commenters:
It’s so sad when supposed libertarians defend the current transportation/land use situation, because in my opinion it’s one of the most profoundly damaging interventions in the American economy today.
I actually read through all of the comment thread and found it fascinating. It seemed that most of the participants in favor of sprawl were there to express a cultural preference (with a personal stake involved), not engage the actual economic arguments or extent of government intervention. I found it interesting that the one commenter who mentioned externalities of low-density living was met by numerous responses consisting of something like, “but this is my preference.” Completely missing the point.
I actually read through all of the comment thread and found it fascinating. It seemed that most of the participants in favor of sprawl were there to express a cultural preference (with a personal stake involved), not engage the actual economic arguments or extent of government intervention. I found it interesting that the one commenter who mentioned externalities of low-density living was met by numerous responses consisting of something like, “but this is my preference.” Completely missing the point.
Not all New Urbanists are public planners. Plenty of them are private sector builders, developers, designers. New Urbanism is not inherently dependent on public sector intervention. It is a design solution. There is more than one way to end up at that result.
All growth is currently regulated to some degree. Much of that regulation currently prevents or discourages New Urbanism.
And New Urbanism explicitly acknowledges that there are a variety of preferences. The main critique of suburbanism is that it provides few alternatives for lifestyle or transportation.
Not all New Urbanists are public planners. Plenty of them are private sector builders, developers, designers. New Urbanism is not inherently dependent on public sector intervention. It is a design solution. There is more than one way to end up at that result.
All growth is currently regulated to some degree. Much of that regulation currently prevents or discourages New Urbanism.
And New Urbanism explicitly acknowledges that there are a variety of preferences. The main critique of suburbanism is that it provides few alternatives for lifestyle or transportation.
Thanks Eliza,
I understand, and agree for the most part. I fully support New Urbanism as a design solution. Check out this article: http://www.marketurbanism.com/2009/01/21/the-story-of-ion/
What I don’t support is some of the land use restrictions New Urbanist planners attempt to force upon the marketplace. Such as this quote: “They could also put Kentlands-type zoning restrictions in place on land that is not yet in any developer’s sights. That way, when developers come, they will have a choice: build a walkable, eco-friendly environment, or build nothing.”
Such restrictions aren’t necessary and show an ignorance to market forces. Developers would be glad to build more densely if they were allowed. This type of rhetoric falsely conveys that developers don’t want to build densely. They will if zoning and NIMBYs got out of their way.
The problem isn’t the wrong kind of planning, it is restrictions put on development themselves.
All in all, I think New Urbanist planners pose less of a threat to true urbanism than traditional, Euclidean planners.
Thanks Eliza,
I understand, and agree for the most part. I fully support New Urbanism as a design solution. Check out this article: http://www.marketurbanism.com/2009/01/21/the-story-of-ion/
What I don’t support is some of the land use restrictions New Urbanist planners attempt to force upon the marketplace. Such as this quote: “They could also put Kentlands-type zoning restrictions in place on land that is not yet in any developer’s sights. That way, when developers come, they will have a choice: build a walkable, eco-friendly environment, or build nothing.”
Such restrictions aren’t necessary and show an ignorance to market forces. Developers would be glad to build more densely if they were allowed. This type of rhetoric falsely conveys that developers don’t want to build densely. They will if zoning and NIMBYs got out of their way.
The problem isn’t the wrong kind of planning, it is restrictions put on development themselves.
All in all, I think New Urbanist planners pose less of a threat to true urbanism than traditional, Euclidean planners.
Daniel,
This is exactly the challenge that awaits Market Urbanists in convincing fellow free-market folks that their “preference” doesn’t necessarily mean it is the product of the free market. It’s an uphill battle I’ve chosen, but urbanists may one day find an ally in the free-market supporters.
Daniel,
This is exactly the challenge that awaits Market Urbanists in convincing fellow free-market folks that their “preference” doesn’t necessarily mean it is the product of the free market. It’s an uphill battle I’ve chosen, but urbanists may one day find an ally in the free-market supporters.
If you will allow me, I will repost a comment I left on the antiplanner blog.
”
This is in fact a property conflict as the situation in a city is one of two properties, the individual building and the city as a whole. Whose property rights are to trump the other’s? Antiplanners like Randall O’Toole and Wendell Cox want the property rights of the city to rule in order to maintain the suburban model, while they want the property rights of land speculators to rule in order to extend the suburban model indefinitely, and thus avoid the affordability issues of zoning in the city centers.
Smart growthers, on the other hand, want individual property owners to rule against the city’s property rights in order to maximize affordability and density, and want to curb the property rights of land speculators in order to stop the suburban model.
In effect, this conflict is the centuries-old battle between the class of land lords and the class of tenants. On the side of the land lords are the ruling cities and land speculators.
There is really only one rational solution to this conflict, and that is to desocialize cities and make cities available to be bought and sold on markets so that planning regulations will be established on a rational basis that gradually increases density. That way the land speculators won’t be able to profit from further suburban development, and no urban growth boundaries will be needed.
”
The land lords have used their control of the state to keep the tenants in poverty and protect their own wealth by outlawing competition for all of history. Nothing has changed.
If you will allow me, I will repost a comment I left on the antiplanner blog.
”
This is in fact a property conflict as the situation in a city is one of two properties, the individual building and the city as a whole. Whose property rights are to trump the other’s? Antiplanners like Randall O’Toole and Wendell Cox want the property rights of the city to rule in order to maintain the suburban model, while they want the property rights of land speculators to rule in order to extend the suburban model indefinitely, and thus avoid the affordability issues of zoning in the city centers.
Smart growthers, on the other hand, want individual property owners to rule against the city’s property rights in order to maximize affordability and density, and want to curb the property rights of land speculators in order to stop the suburban model.
In effect, this conflict is the centuries-old battle between the class of land lords and the class of tenants. On the side of the land lords are the ruling cities and land speculators.
There is really only one rational solution to this conflict, and that is to desocialize cities and make cities available to be bought and sold on markets so that planning regulations will be established on a rational basis that gradually increases density. That way the land speculators won’t be able to profit from further suburban development, and no urban growth boundaries will be needed.
”
The land lords have used their control of the state to keep the tenants in poverty and protect their own wealth by outlawing competition for all of history. Nothing has changed.
Thanks for pointing that out. I just read that “anti”planner post, and am dumbfounded by the hypocrisy.
Thanks for pointing that out. I just read that “anti”planner post, and am dumbfounded by the hypocrisy.
The idea of “anti-planning” is really confusing from the start. Planning is a simple part of our day, everyone’s day. Forced planning, as some propose, isn’t a good idea, but a careful distinction must be made between normal community planning and lobbied, ill-intentioned planning. Cities, or communities as we used to call them, are normal aspects of life. Humans will always make agreements to better their existence and we need to recognize the proper place for those contracts and relationships. Communities are often a great place to grow those relationships. The beauty of the Republic form of government is it’s democratic form of electing its representatives. It is perfectly acceptable for voters to allow their personal representative to protect their stake in our communities. I don’t want to engage in a debate with the anti-planner crowd over whether or not governments or representatives should exist at all. The very fact that they exist in associations, groups, clubs, defies their ability to deny others the same privileges.
Adam, you are perfectly correct. I am excited to hear your arguments and can’t wait to see more and more “constitutionalists”, libertarians, independents, republicans, and democrats see the value of less is more, and TRUE market solutions to our personal preferences.
The idea of “anti-planning” is really confusing from the start. Planning is a simple part of our day, everyone’s day. Forced planning, as some propose, isn’t a good idea, but a careful distinction must be made between normal community planning and lobbied, ill-intentioned planning. Cities, or communities as we used to call them, are normal aspects of life. Humans will always make agreements to better their existence and we need to recognize the proper place for those contracts and relationships. Communities are often a great place to grow those relationships. The beauty of the Republic form of government is it’s democratic form of electing its representatives. It is perfectly acceptable for voters to allow their personal representative to protect their stake in our communities. I don’t want to engage in a debate with the anti-planner crowd over whether or not governments or representatives should exist at all. The very fact that they exist in associations, groups, clubs, defies their ability to deny others the same privileges.
Adam, you are perfectly correct. I am excited to hear your arguments and can’t wait to see more and more “constitutionalists”, libertarians, independents, republicans, and democrats see the value of less is more, and TRUE market solutions to our personal preferences.
Adam –
I think the reason for libertarian preferences for automobiles, highways, etc., is that (costs aside) there is a visceral appeal for the independence of going when and where you please — and with a vastly greater area at your disposal. (Obviously, there are limitations to driving freedom during peak periods, but that’s because pricing mechanisms are absent.)
Rejecting an automobile means reducing your choices — and that’s not compatible with libertarian personalities. Restricted oneself to a handful of stores within walking distance feels more “conrolling” than having anything within a 25-mile radius at your disposal — and with a huge cargo carrier to transport everything in. And the consequent increased competition among retailers has instinctual appeal to libertarians’ sense of expanded operations of free markets.
Even with private transit, I would think that highways have more libertarian appeal — just as a libertarian personality is probably more comfortable with the “open road” than with the rules and restrictions of air travel.
Adam –
I think the reason for libertarian preferences for automobiles, highways, etc., is that (costs aside) there is a visceral appeal for the independence of going when and where you please — and with a vastly greater area at your disposal. (Obviously, there are limitations to driving freedom during peak periods, but that’s because pricing mechanisms are absent.)
Rejecting an automobile means reducing your choices — and that’s not compatible with libertarian personalities. Restricted oneself to a handful of stores within walking distance feels more “conrolling” than having anything within a 25-mile radius at your disposal — and with a huge cargo carrier to transport everything in. And the consequent increased competition among retailers has instinctual appeal to libertarians’ sense of expanded operations of free markets.
Even with private transit, I would think that highways have more libertarian appeal — just as a libertarian personality is probably more comfortable with the “open road” than with the rules and restrictions of air travel.