There is one area, though where I might disagree. Benjamin writes:

The problem, as I see it, is that underlying rationale for “land use policy” has morphed from essentially legitimate serious concerns to essentially illegitimate frivolous ones. The original rationale for “land use policy” was legitimate (protecting the health and well-being of citizens), so it seems to me, even when specific policies may have been misinformed and misguided (when, for instance, the regulations didn’t, in fact, protect health or property values).

Emily writes:

I’m not sure that there are any legitimate reason for government-enforced land use policy. The classic example is preventing a polluting industrial use from going in next to residential development. Sure, at face value this seems undesirable. But thinking about the alternatives maybe that’s not so true. In the developed world, I think it has been some time since polluting industries would find it profitable to build next to houses because they like to build factories that require a lot of land on the outskirts of cities where land is cheap. In the days where industrial uses would be found next to housing, and in the developing world today, I think it’s worthwhile to think about the tradeoffs involved in preventing this use. 

In sprawling cities of today in the developing world and of the early 1900s here, when this type of land use policy came about, low-income workers who worked in these polluting industries faced a set of choices that are unpleasant to think about today. Being able to work in these factories, in poor conditions and among pollutants, was what allowed them to earn money and provide better opportunities for their children. By preventing people to live near polluting industries, we could be preventing them from earning a living, or forcing them into a long, expensive, and potentially dangerous commute.

As I don’t see the abolishment of land use regulation as a conceivable reform in the near future, I think we are in agreement on all viable reforms.

– – – – – – – – – – – – –
 
Emily wrote:
 
Avent acknowledges that [1] density has decreasing returns; at some level of density average worker productivity will begin falling. [2] There is no reason that the market wouldn’t recognize this though, and shift to building out rather than up in a world of free land use.
 
Benjamin writes:

If I’m understanding Ryan Avent and you correctly, good points and well put! 

I’ve been trying to argue something similar when arguing AGAINST calls to “foster” more high-rise developments in areas that are already high-rise (and high-density) — especially when it is being done in order to misguidedly, in my opinion, “protect and preserve” the low-rise character (and, supposedly, the current socio-economic characteristics) of existing low-rise areas.   In my arguement, however, “building out” ALSO often means building up too.  My arguments are also arguments AGAINST efforts to “plan” for “single core” cities, rather than allow for the development of marketplace fueled multi-core ones. 

My ideas here are inspired by the writings of Jane Jacobs (who might, or might not, have agreed with my interpretations of her works).  I’m thinking especially of not only “Death and Life of Great American Cities,” of course, but also of one of her later books, “The Nature of Economies,” too.  (Ryan Avent’s ideas with regard to the benefits of high densities also appear to me to be heavily indebted, at least indirectly, to Jacobs.)

By the way, it seems to me that, to a degree, Jacob’s later book contradicts, at least a bit, her earlier book.  In the earlier book she seems to feel that absent gov’t intervention, successful districts are apt to self-destruct via the self-destruction of diversity.  In the later book, she seems to say that self-destruction of diversity in nature and economies is apt to only go just so far, and then diversification again become the order of the day.  In cities, so it seems to me, this happens when the marketplace readjusts itself (absent misguided government intervention) and again diversifies an area. 

In her earlier book, Jacobs argues that particular businesses are likely to crowd into a successful area, thereby killing off the diversity that brought them there in the first place.  Examples of this are banks moving onto all four corners of an intersection, thereby deadening the intersection and making it less prime for a bank;  or office towers in the Wall St. area crowding out other uses, and thereby making the area less attractive to office towers.  While there may be some truth to this (although overlooked gov’t policies may also be partly responsible for this supposed “market” failure), it seems to me that in her later book Jacobs also recognizes that, should this happen in the first place, the marketplace will (absent misguided governement intervention) eventually self-correct and re-diversify (as happens in nature and economies).

– – – – – – – – – – – – –

Emily wrote:

As much as I appreciated Avent’s perspective in The Gated City, the book left me feeling pessimistic.

Benjamin writes:

Although I haven’t read the book, I’m pessimistic too!  But, then again, this is really only the beginning of the fight (so it seems to me).

– – – – – – – – – – – – –

Emily wrote:

Avent provides several policy recommendations that would make it easier for increased development where it is most needed, [1] but none of them seem politically viable to me.[2] He suggests giving neighborhoods property rights to their land and the land surrounding them so that developers could purchase it to build new projects where they will be valuable. [3] He also suggests taxing density and using the revenue to compensate neighbors or creating a zoning budget so that urban planners faced a hard limit on how much density they could restrict. [4] It just seems that if any of these were possible in the current political landscape, the market pressure for increased density would have led them to be adopted already.

Benjamin writes:

Since I haven’t read the book, I may be misunderstanding the recommendations and their prospects.  But, at least from this brief summary, they seem like terrible suggestions.  He seems to be suggesting that we give people “rights” that they don’t have and don’t deserve — and, furthermore, he seems to be throwing in the towel when the game has just begun!

– – – – – – – – – – – –

Emily writes:

He didn’t quite get to this in the book, but on Econtalk two weeks ago, Avent suggested that perhaps the best way to improve land use policy would be for people to become more tolerant of what other people do on their own land. I would concur and add that a live and let live tolerance could improve all sorts of American policies on issues from gay marriage to drug laws. Unfortunately, I don’t know what tools are available to speed up the societal progression toward tolerance.

Benjamin writes:

If I understand Ryan and you correctly, this approach seems more like it — although I would phrase it a little differently.

The problem, as I see it, is that underlying rationale for “land use policy” has morphed from essentially legitimate serious concerns to essentially illegitimate frivolous ones. The original rationale for “land use policy” was legitimate (protecting the health and well-being of citizens), so it seems to me, even when specific policies may have been misinformed and misguided (when, for instance, the regulations didn’t, in fact, protect health or property values).

These days, however, people seem to be mistaking their own personal, largely aesthetic, preferences for what works or doesn’t work for cities or our society at large: “I like ‘x’ kind of districts and, therefore, ‘x’ kind of districts work best for our society.”  They seem to forget that the kind of districts that they don’t like (e.g., mixed use [including industrial uses], high density [with many high-rises], low open space districts]) also “work” just as well (for other people) or even better (for society at large).  So land use policy has degenerated from serious protections (e.g., a chemical plant across the street from a school) into a combination culture war (where it’s the taste and preferences of one group against that of others), or a family feud (where each group seeks to get more money and approval out of daddy [Federal gov’t] or mommy [State gov’t] than their sibling group).

So, I think people have to be “educated” that they are substituting their personal likes and dislikes for legitimate land use concerns (protecting people’s health and property values) and be shown how this is both unecessary and, for a variety of reasons, detrimental to our society.  In other words, Ryan’s book  — execept for the part where he seems to be giving away the store! — seems like a great early step in the right direction. 

Benjamin Hemric
Sat., 11/19/11, 7:40 p.m.

It’s one of those things where it’s always easier to destroy than to create, to oppose than to craft, etc. 

There’s also the matter of organization.  The interests in favor of development in those cases are strong and compelling, but they are also diffuse and disorganized relative to the channels that neighborhood groups have at their disposal.