• About
  • Adam Hengels
  • Emily Hamilton
  • Michael Lewyn
  • Salim Furth
  • What Should I Read to Understand Zoning?
  • 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
  • Economics
  • housing
  • planning
  • Zoning
  • Urban[ism] Legends
  • Book Reviews

Densifying Transit Corridors Is Not Densifying Enough

May 18, 2016 By Anthony Ling

Curitiba

Curitiba

One recent urban planning trend advocates for so-called “Transit-Oriented Developments”, or TODs. This is when cities allow already built-up areas to increase development along mass transit corridors, such as bus or rail lines. If such transit infrastructure didn’t exist, the potential development increase in these areas would be restricted.

The TOD idea is mainly based on the Curitiba model, a city that allowed denser building and populations along Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridors. The above image shows the effects: high-rise buildings with minimum or absent setbacks along the corridors, and sharp decreases in density on adjacent streets, since these latter streets would theoretically use the BRTs less.

The same logic is being applied for São Paulo’s new recently-approved Zoning Code: sharp density increases in allowed built-up areas along mass transit corridors, and more low-slung buildings further into the neighborhoods.

imagem_capa_eixos

 

This TOD model is certainly better than previous ones, wherein dense development was restricted altogether, even when near mass transit. As I’ve previously noted, lower densities undermine the economic feasibility of transit networks, which rely on intense agglomerations. Many factors justify TODs’ attractiveness to current planners, including that they make transit viable, increase the centrally-located housing stock, and satisfy residents of low-rise areas, who usually enjoy keeping their neighborhoods’ original features.

But I haven’t become a broad advocate of TODs because they disproportionately favor these low-rise residents, disregarding everyone who must be pushed into suburban peripheries. A TOD-driven approach has a correct logic of analyzing neighborhood scale, and trying to organize it likewise, based on transit and street availability. But it doesn’t account for the factthat every unit left unbuilt within a neighborhood will necessarily be built in the outskirts, generating longer commutes and higher infrastructure costs. Peripheral residents certainly are not the same as downtown ones, but they would still benefit from living in central locations that they are now priced out of.

So how would densification work inside neighborhoods not directly served by mass transit?

Keep in mind that allowing denser development does not mean all neighborhoods will suddenly become hyper-dense. Some regions are more attractive than others, and redevelopment costs are higher in neighborhoods already filled with 8- and 9-story buildings, such as the areas suggested for more density in São Paulo’s new Zoning Code. For redevelopment to occur, the demand for housing must surpass all transaction costs – meaning there would already need to be enormous pressure to occupy the area previously restricted via regulation.

Image of São Paulo’s Zoning Code diagram, representing the maintenance of heights and densities inside the neighborhoods.

Image of São Paulo’s Zoning Code diagram, representing the maintenance of heights and densities inside the neighborhoods.

 

Less-demanded neighborhoods will not receive such development, remaining available for those who prefer less intensive or cosmopolitan features. When considering a city’s dynamics as a whole, we should keep in mind that lower-density options will always be available, even if a little more distant from central zones. But the person demanding a less urban lifestyle should be the one to endure this distance trade-off, not the other way around.

Critics frequently claim that dense development would lead to greater motorized traffic congestion, but I disagree. As such areas become more viable for walking and transit, the need for personal car use would decrease on a per-capita basis.

Lastly, while such upzoning certainly transforms neighborhood characteristics, that transformation is just part of urban life. We should remember that no city or building would exist – not even the 8-story ones São Paulo intends to preserve – if its first inhabitants had shut out new neighbors on behalf of preserving their lifestyles. City life is, by definition, the life of dense human agglomeration of people.

[Originally published on the blog Caos Planejado]

Tweet

Filed Under: housing, Logistics & Transportation, Zoning

Comments

  1. Asher Of LA says

    May 20, 2016 at 5:21 am

    Support for special TOD rules is kind of a backwards form of support for parking requirements. “If we don’t provide them a boatload of transit, they’ll drive – and then we’ll need to require them to build lots of parking!”

    There are three ways to build density:

    *Taller
    *Smaller – smaller units
    *Infill – taking away space from land not occupied by buildings – principally parking, roads and miscellaneous dead space.
    Using a mix of all three will deliver a balanced, economical, and appealing result. Even if you limited building heights to 6 stories, you can achieve very high densities (up to ~100k per sq mile) with these three paths to density. Focusing only on heights is a tactical mistake.

    Not that you have, but when people mention density, people on both sides immediately fixate on height. But shifting between these three paths can give you more leverage to build density.

  2. hcat says

    August 21, 2016 at 11:10 am

    TOD is a little more politically acceptable. Also, if you put in density where transit is not good, you run the danger of what Sanphilippo calls “density without urbanism.” I don’t know whether the solution to “density without urbanism” is more deregulation, or (given what lenders will not loan on nowadays) some kind of government intervention is needed.

Listen in

  • Abundance
  • Conversations with Tyler
  • Densely Speaking
  • Ideas of India
  • Order Without Design
  • UCLA Housing Voice
  • Yeoman

Connect With Us

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Linkedin
  • RSS
  • Twitter

Market Sites Urbanists should check out

  • Arpitrage
  • Cafe Hayek
  • Center for Building in North America blog
  • Construction Physics
  • Conversable Economist
  • Environmental and Urban Economics | Matt Kahn
  • Erdmann Housing Tracker
  • Foundation for Economic Education
  • Marginal Revolution
  • Marginal Revolution University
  • Parafin
  • Propmodo
  • Rent Free
  • Time & Space
  • Urbanomics

Urbanism Sites capitalists should check out

  • Caos Planejado
  • City Density
  • Cornerstone
  • Granola Shotgun
  • Important Readings in Urbanism
  • Kartografia Ekstremalna
  • Metropolitan Abundance Project
  • Pedestrian Observations
  • Planetizen
  • Reinventing Parking
  • Skynomics Blog
  • StreetsBlog USA
  • Strong Towns
  • The Corner Side Yard | Pete Saunders
  • YIMBY Alliance

Meta

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

Copyright © 2025 Market Urbanism