“I still fail to understand on what basis anyone can claim that the removal of government [controls and subsidies, hidden or not,] would result in a mass migration from suburbs to cities.” [The additional words with the brackets are mine. — BH]
Benjamin Hemric writes:
I doubt that the elimination of government involvement (e.g., zoning rules, and government subsidies, hidden or explicit) would result in a “mass migration” of people from suburbs to cities, however, that’s not my point (although it may be the point of others).
I do think it’s true, however, that some significant number of people who might otherwise be inclined to choose suburban living would decide not to do so if they really had to pay the full cost of what suburban living would be without pro-suburban governmental regulations and subsidies.
Also, I believe that without pro-suburban governmental regulations and subsidies, private capital would flow more freely into both cities and into more densely built-up new suburbs (e.g., New [Sub]Urban developments), and less freely into brand new low-density suburbs.
However, I think one of the most important results of “market urbanism” is one that seems to me to be genererally overlooked in city vs. suburb discussions: the fact that without government regulations (e.g., zoning regulations) and subsidies, today’s suburbs (especially the older one’s) would be highly unlikely to continue to remain suburbs forever, but instead would gradually be likely to “densify” and diversify and ultimately become urban areas themselves. When one looks at cities historically, today’s “city” is quite often yesterday’s suburb (e.g., Greenwich Village, Georgetown, etc.). It seems to me that this would likely be true in the future too — unless the various levels of government step in to prevent such an occurence from happening. (For instance, it seems to me that many suburban zoning regulations essentially freeze out those builders and those buyers who would want to “densify” and diversify suburbs, and thus, ultimately, make them more urban.)
]]>“I still fail to understand on what basis anyone can claim that the removal of government [controls and subsidies, hidden or not,] would result in a mass migration from suburbs to cities.” [The additional words with the brackets are mine. — BH]
Benjamin Hemric writes:
I doubt that the elimination of government involvement (e.g., zoning rules, and government subsidies, hidden or explicit) would result in a “mass migration” of people from suburbs to cities, however, that’s not my point (although it may be the point of others).
I do think it’s true, however, that some significant number of people who might otherwise be inclined to choose suburban living would decide not to do so if they really had to pay the full cost of what suburban living would be without pro-suburban governmental regulations and subsidies.
Also, I believe that without pro-suburban governmental regulations and subsidies, private capital would flow more freely into both cities and into more densely built-up new suburbs (e.g., New [Sub]Urban developments), and less freely into brand new low-density suburbs.
However, I think one of the most important results of “market urbanism” is one that seems to me to be genererally overlooked in city vs. suburb discussions: the fact that without government regulations (e.g., zoning regulations) and subsidies, today’s suburbs (especially the older one’s) would be highly unlikely to continue to remain suburbs forever, but instead would gradually be likely to “densify” and diversify and ultimately become urban areas themselves. When one looks at cities historically, today’s “city” is quite often yesterday’s suburb (e.g., Greenwich Village, Georgetown, etc.). It seems to me that this would likely be true in the future too — unless the various levels of government step in to prevent such an occurence from happening. (For instance, it seems to me that many suburban zoning regulations essentially freeze out those builders and those buyers who would want to “densify” and diversify suburbs, and thus, ultimately, make them more urban.)
]]>I don’t think removal of government would result in “mass migration”. Of course, the existing stock of housing and infrastructure would remain intact until obsolete. Even radical policy shift wouldn’t cause living patterns to change overnight – but more efficient and sustainable patterns will emerge over the long term if left to the marketplace.
I cannot predict the consequences exactly, but I feel pretty confident that removal of transportation subsidization and socialization (plus use of eminent domain) would result in most people desiring shorter commutes. At the same time, removal of zoning would allow those who desire to locate closer to find suitable housing. I have a draft post that I’ve been toying with for a few months that shows this using fundamental microeconomic concepts.
Of course, in a free-market, we never know what solutions would emerge given enough time. Perhaps roads would be obsolete and commuting negligible due to innovations created through competition – people would likely spread out further. Or perhaps construction innovations would allow construction costs of high density to be similar to single family homes enabling cities to accommodate much higher densities at affordable prices – patterns will get denser.
We don’t know exactly what the result of certain changes would be, but economics allows us to deduce the likely outcomes….
]]>I don’t think removal of government would result in “mass migration”. Of course, the existing stock of housing and infrastructure would remain intact until obsolete. Even radical policy shift wouldn’t cause living patterns to change overnight – but more efficient and sustainable patterns will emerge over the long term if left to the marketplace.
I cannot predict the consequences exactly, but I feel pretty confident that removal of transportation subsidization and socialization (plus use of eminent domain) would result in most people desiring shorter commutes. At the same time, removal of zoning would allow those who desire to locate closer to find suitable housing. I have a draft post that I’ve been toying with for a few months that shows this using fundamental microeconomic concepts.
Of course, in a free-market, we never know what solutions would emerge given enough time. Perhaps roads would be obsolete and commuting negligible due to innovations created through competition – people would likely spread out further. Or perhaps construction innovations would allow construction costs of high density to be similar to single family homes enabling cities to accommodate much higher densities at affordable prices – patterns will get denser.
We don’t know exactly what the result of certain changes would be, but economics allows us to deduce the likely outcomes….
]]>In a world of:
– Private highways,
– Market-based land use,
– Competing private transit systems without labor unions,
– The elimination of gas taxes, registration fees, etc.
– The elimination of ALL transit subsidies, including capital expenses
– The elimination of government-administered drivers licenses (I would like to insurance companies, or highway companies, issue licenses…)
– The reassignment of liability away from municipalities, transit agencies, highway authorities, etc.
– Etc., etc., etc. (Can you add to this list?)
…how can one predict the consequences?
Perhaps a heretofore undiscovered (and unimagined) land use might emerge that is neither urban, suburban, or rural.
Meanwhile, if people like cities, they should just move to one! I guarantee, if the demand for city living is there, it will be met — as is now being done in several major downtowns. (And that goes especially for James Kunstler, with his obscenity-laced pontifications from Satratoga, NY.)
BTW, why does anyone care about what Mr. Yglesias has to say? He doesn’t seem to offer any expertise or originality in much. I guess he’s cool or something?
]]>In a world of:
– Private highways,
– Market-based land use,
– Competing private transit systems without labor unions,
– The elimination of gas taxes, registration fees, etc.
– The elimination of ALL transit subsidies, including capital expenses
– The elimination of government-administered drivers licenses (I would like to insurance companies, or highway companies, issue licenses…)
– The reassignment of liability away from municipalities, transit agencies, highway authorities, etc.
– Etc., etc., etc. (Can you add to this list?)
…how can one predict the consequences?
Perhaps a heretofore undiscovered (and unimagined) land use might emerge that is neither urban, suburban, or rural.
Meanwhile, if people like cities, they should just move to one! I guarantee, if the demand for city living is there, it will be met — as is now being done in several major downtowns. (And that goes especially for James Kunstler, with his obscenity-laced pontifications from Satratoga, NY.)
BTW, why does anyone care about what Mr. Yglesias has to say? He doesn’t seem to offer any expertise or originality in much. I guess he’s cool or something?
]]>Just some thoughts …
]]>Just some thoughts …
]]>