• About
    • What Should I Read to Understand Zoning?
  • Market Urbanism Podcast
  • Adam Hengels
  • Stephen Smith
  • Emily Hamilton
  • Jeff Fong
  • Nolan Gray
  • Contact

Market Urbanism

Liberalizing cities | From the bottom up

“Market Urbanism” refers to the synthesis of classical liberal economics and ethics (market), with an appreciation of the urban way of life and its benefits to society (urbanism). We advocate for the emergence of bottom up solutions to urban issues, as opposed to ones imposed from the top down.

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Linkedin
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • Podcast
  • Economics
  • housing
  • planning
  • Transportation
  • zoning
  • Urban[ism] Legends
  • How to Fight Gentrification
  • Culture of Congestion by Sandy Ikeda
  • What Should I Read to Understand Zoning?

Planning As A Question Of Scale

May 11, 2016 By Jeff Fong

urban planning emergence

This post was inspired by Nolan Gray’s “Jane Jacobs’ Hayekian Critique of Urban Planning” and the discussion it recently sparked over at Strong Towns.

In Jane Jacob’s Hayekian Critique of Urban Planning, Nolan Gray argues for the futility of trying to master plan something as complex as an entire city. And he’s right. The last century’s Corbusian fantasies overwhelmingly ended in failure. And, in what’s a very even-handed article, he goes on to make room for some amount of centralization where decentralized planning just seems to break down. He’s right on that point as well.

But after reading Mr. Gray’s article and the discussion it sparked over at Strong Towns, I think we can take the conversation a little farther. Instead of a binary choice, we should be speaking in terms of a spectrum with centralization and decentralization on opposite, theoretical ends. Once we think in those terms, we can approach questions of planning as questions of determining what issues are best addressed at what scale (individual, neighborhood, district, municipal, regional, etc).

Looking at India’s or China’s Wenzhou, we can see how hard it is to produce certain kinds of city-wide infrastructure through decentralized market coordination. In the specific areas where relatively decentralized coordination produces sub-par results, it makes sense solve problems via a single entity with responsibility for an entire urban area.

The point here is not that municipal or regional planners are ever better at confronting knowledge problems than market participants; it’s that, in some places, transaction costs render decentralized coordination nearly impossible, so the potential benefits of better-leveraged local knowledge never even have a chance to appear. In these situations, any plan is better than no plan, and below a certain scale, no plan is what we end up with. And where transaction costs aren’t too high we should eschew with the Fordist style micro-management and let order organically emerge.

Ultimately, what we want for any given issue is that sweet spot where social coordination is small enough in scale to cope with knowledge problems, but large enough in scale to overcome transaction costs. And we want to recognize that this sweet spot will be very different for different things. And that instead of thinking in terms of central planning vs. decentralized coordination, we should recognize a scale of relative values and frame our thinking and our debates accordingly.

Tweet

Share this:

  • Email
  • Print
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn

Filed Under: planning

About Jeff Fong

Jeff graduated from San Jose State University where he studied Politics and Economics. After college he spent time working in financial services before moving to on-demand transportation startup Lyft. He now works at the consumer logistics platform Postmates where he leads the company’s team dedicated to risk mitigation.

Along the way, Jeff has become increasingly interested in urban economics and periodically contributes to housing reform efforts in the Bay Area through the region’s various YIMBY organizations, including publishing commentary via Tech for Housing.

Comments

  1. ChuckyBill says

    May 13, 2016 at 10:40 am

    As a big fan of Jane Jacobs, as well as Austrian economics, I am really appreciating this discussion. Perhaps it would be instructive to describe the types of planning that might best be decentralized and centralized, as “planning” runs that gamut from co-ordination to prescription. Thank you.

Market Urbanism Podcast

Connect With Us

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Linkedin
  • RSS
  • Twitter

Recent Posts

  • California Housing Reform: 2021 Edition
  • Why Houston Isn’t An Argument for Zoning
  • What’s Wrong With Hong Kong?
  • The Urban Planning of the North Pole
  • Are increased levels of homeownership good for affordability? No… and yes.
  • yes, minimum parking requirements do limit development
  • Opening Arlington up to Housing
  • What’s a stickplex?
  • How to Price Congestion: The Benefits of Dynamic Variable Tolling
  • Get the tuck out of here
  • In praise of fee simple ownership
  • Stuck in the (Missing) Middle
My Tweets

Market Sites Urbanists should check out

  • Cafe Hayek
  • Culture of Congestion
  • Environmental and Urban Economics
  • Foundation for Economic Education
  • Let A Thousand Nations Bloom
  • Marginal Revolution
  • Mike Munger | Kids Prefer Cheese
  • Neighborhood Effects
  • New Urbs
  • NYU Stern Urbanization Project
  • Parafin
  • Peter Gordon's Blog
  • Propmodo
  • The Beacon
  • ThinkMarkets

Urbanism Sites capitalists should check out

  • Austin Contrarian
  • City Comforts
  • City Notes | Daniel Kay Hertz
  • Discovering Urbanism
  • Emergent Urbanism
  • Granola Shotgun
  • Old Urbanist
  • Pedestrian Observations
  • Planetizen Radar
  • Reinventing Parking
  • streetsblog
  • Strong Towns
  • Systemic Failure
  • The Micro Maker
  • The Urbanophile

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org

Copyright © 2021 Market Urbanism

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.