Ed Glaeser has a sprawling feature story in The Atlantic about skyscrapers that’s full of urbanist history and themes that I’ve been meaning to blog about for a few days now. It’s a great article, with a lot of New York history in it, but I wanted to highlight a few bits.
The part I liked most was where Glaeser talks about what I’ve called development as preservation and others have called adaptive reuse – the idea that making use of existing developed land is the best way to preserve historic buildings, although Glaeser also points out that it’s useful for preserving open land like parks, too:
Yes, you can have your cake and eat it too!
In 2006, the developer Aby Rosen proposed putting a glass tower of more than 20 stories atop the old Sotheby Parke-Bernet building at 980 Madison Avenue, in the Upper East Side Historic District. Rosen and his Pritzker Prize–winning architect, Lord Norman Foster, wanted to erect the tower above the original building, much as the MetLife Building (formerly the Pan Am Building) rises above Grand Central Terminal. The building was not itself landmarked, but well-connected neighbors didn’t like the idea of more height, and they complained to the commission. Tom Wolfe, who has written brilliantly about the caprices of both New York City and the real-estate industry, wrote a 3,500-word op-ed in The New York Times warning the landmarks commission against approving the project. Wolfe & Company won. In response to his critics in the 980 Madison Avenue case, of whom I was one, Wolfe was quoted in The Village Voice as saying:
To take [Glaeser’s] theory to its logical conclusion would be to develop Central Park … When you consider the thousands and thousands of people who could be housed in Central Park if they would only allow them to build it up, boy, the problem is on the way to being solved!
But one of the advantages of building up in already dense neighborhoods is that you don’t have to build in green areas, whether in Central Park or somewhere far from an urban center. From the preservationist perspective, building up in one area reduces the pressure to take down other, older buildings. One could quite plausibly argue that if members of the landmarks commission have decided that a building can be razed, then they should demand that its replacement be as tall as possible.
There’re also some great parts where he talks about the economics of skyscrapers. Apparently the marginal cost per square foot of space between about the 10th and 50th floor is less than $400 (!), meaning that average construction costs can be dramatically lowered by adding stories. He also has nice things to say about building in Chicago (which I know have been echoed by Adam). He pays due respect to Jane Jacob, but takes issue with her ideas about skyscrapers, and I agree with him. The end of the article is dedicated to India’s urbanism woes, which are apparently pretty bad. In 1991, Mumbai fixed an FAR of 1.33 throughout most of the city, which means that the average density of non-street space in these areas is, at most, 1.33 stories – a shockingly low number for a poor city of 20 million. He mentions Singapore favorably, and notes that when it implemented its congestion charge in 1975, it was not a wealthy country.
One thing that I couldn’t get on board with, though, is the part where he sounds like he almost wishes that the anti-density restrictions were reversed. In the last sentence of the blockquote it looks like he’s just using it for rhetorical effect, but here he sounds like he actually believes it:
If Mumbai wants to promote affordability and ease congestion, it should make developers use their land area to the fullest, requiring any new downtown building to have at least 40 stories. By requiring developers to create more, not less, floor space, the government would encourage more housing, less sprawl, and lower prices.
If density is really regulated out of existence and pent-up demand is as huge as Glaeser says it is, then why would we need to require people to build skyscrapers? Ed Glaeser is very much a libertarian-leaning economist, so I doubt that he really means that we should do this, but the language he’s using is giving ammo to the war-on-cars crowd who hang on every sprawl-forbidding regulation as evidence that they are the norm, when I obviously do not believe this to be the case. I understand that The Atlantic is not putting this story out there to convince libertarians, but this is the kind of thing they like to jump on as evidence of a vast liberal conspiracy to herd freedom-loving suburbanites into 800 sq. ft. apartments and force them to ride bikes to the light rail station in the freezing cold.
Another part that I wasn’t so sure of was this one, where he gives his third recommendation for land use policy going forward:
Finally, individual neighborhoods should have more power to protect their special character. Some blocks might want to exclude bars. Others might want to encourage them. Rather than regulate neighborhoods entirely from the top down, let individual neighborhoods enforce their own, limited rules that are adopted only with the approval of a large share of residents. In this way, ordinary citizens, rather than the planners in City Hall, would get a say over what happens around them.
I know that Glaeser probably really meant the “limited” part of “limited rules,” but I fear that people will instead focus on the “individually neighborhoods should have more power” part. While a lot of libertarians support governing at the lowest level possible, I think experience has shown that giving localities more zoning power often results in more restrictive anti-density zoning. As much as libertarians deride regional planning efforts, such efforts seem to result in more complete property rights those wishing to do high-density development.
But beyond those two things, it was a great piece, and I’m glad The Atlantic is giving urbanism the space it deserves.
Yeah that last bit seems like a terrible idea. Neighborhood NIMBYism seems to me to be one of the biggest obstacles to allowing dense development.
Yeah that last bit seems like a terrible idea. Neighborhood NIMBYism seems to me to be one of the biggest obstacles to allowing dense development.
“Funny” that you should bring this article up, as I am at the very moment trying to put together a comment to post on “the Atlantic” website. I already posted a quick comment yesterday, and hope to post two more quick comments there either later tonight or tomorrow. Originally I had hoped to be somewhat detailed in my comments on “the Atlantic” site, but upon reflection, I’m thinking maybe I should “save” a detailed essay for a “review” of his book and, instead, just “outline” my major arguments in my comments there.
I’ve also posted some preliminary comments on Tyler Cowen’s “Marginal Revolution” website:
“Marginal Revolution” — “In My Pile” (Feb. 11, 2011 at 10:41 a.m.
My comment is #7, Feb. 11, 2011, 7:55 p.m.
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/02/in-my-pile.html#comments
Generally speaking, I agree with much of what Glaeser has to say in defense of cities and skyscrapers. However, unfortunately, it seems to me that he has greatly misunderstood and, therefore, greatly mischaracterized Jane Jacobs’ writings with regard to 1) high-densities, 2) high-rises (she was NOT against high-rises!), 3) old buildings and 4) what makes for healthy urban districts in general (she did NOT believe cities should be nothing but Greenwich Villages!). These mischaracterizations of her arguments not only unfairly diminish Jacobs’ work — and make her appear to be somewhat of a dimwit (which she assuredly was not) — but they also wind up diminishing Glaeser’s own work too, I think. Since Glaeser is missing her points, he winds up failing to address them too; and since some of her points are valid ones that at least should be addressed, it seems to me that Glaeser winds up making his own work weaker in the process.
Benjamin Hemric
Sat., Feb. 12, 2011, 8:55 p.m.
P.S. — I hope people will not mind if any future posts of mine in this thread, if there are any, are done as independent comments (i.e., outside the nesting feature).
Glad to see you’re trying to publish in The Atlantic! If you need someone to read over it or help edit it, I’d be happy to help – my email’s [email protected]. In any case, good luck, and of course send me a link to anything you get published!
let individual neighborhoods enforce their own, limited rules that are adopted only with the approval of a large share of residents.
It seems to me the missing piece of this is that neighborhoods don’t have to “live with the consequences”. IE: If the parks, and the roads, and all the other services in the area are paid for by the city at large, what benefit is there for the neighborhood to approve denser development? On the other hand, if the locals see direct benefits from the additional property taxes, it would probably change the equation for a lot of people.
Regarding Glaeser on Jacobs — I agree completely, and wrote about it here:
http://oldurbanist.blogspot.com/2011/02/glaeser-jacobs-and-old-buildings.html
Something about the cavalier manner with which he misrepresents her arguments (and casts them as “confused” and simplistic) bothered me; even more so since Jacobs’ treatment of the same subject in her book was actually more nuanced and complex than Glaeser’s supply-and-demand analysis in his article.
While I’m at it, I’ve also put up a post on why skyscrapers alone are unlikely to be able to relieve the pressure on New York’s residential real estate market (mostly number crunching):
http://oldurbanist.blogspot.com/2011/02/can-new-york-build-its-way-up-to.html
1) Re Rationalitate’s comment above:
Thanks, Stephen, for your encouragement!
However, I hope I haven’t mislead you: the comments I’m working on are just intended for the comments section of the online edition of “the Atlantic.” They would be similar to, but hopefully shorter than, the comments I posted on Benjamin Schwarz’s, “Gentrification and It’s Discontents,” in the on-line “Atlantic” last year. It seems to me that both Schwarz and Glaeser (and lots of other people too!) are not dealing with what Jacobs actually wrote, said or did, but rather with what people “say” she wrote, said or did. (As you may know, Schwarz, aside from being a writer himself, is apparently the literary and national editor of “the Atlantic.”)
For those who are interested, here’s a link:
http://tinyurl.com/2e2eq86
I have three comments: 1) 5/13/10, 9:42 p.m. (the main comment); 2) 5/14/10, 6:50 p.m.; 3) 5/21/10, 7:08 p.m.
I don’t know who I’d submit a possible review of the Glaeser book to, but I kind of doubt “the Atlantic” would be receptive to an extended review (by an unknown, yet) of a book that it has just excerpted for an article — especially a somewhat critical one that focuses on how Glaeser (like, previously, the literary and national editor of the magazine!) has misunderstood Jacobs and, thus, weakened his own work.
But I appreciate your offer to edit, and if I do eventually put together an article, I think I’ll take you up on it.
– – – – – – – – – – – –
2) Re: Charlie’s comment above:
I thought your comment on your blog was very nicely (effectively and succinctly!) put.
I made similar comments to an earlier version of Glaeser’s thesis, entitled, “Reservations about landmarks preservation,” which he published in the “Economix” blog on “The New York Times” website last year.
Here’s a link to my comments, which are comments #18 (5/11/10, 10:56 p.m;) and #19 (5/11/10, 10:56 p.m.):
http://tinyurl.com/39zqz9t
Also thanks for the link to your blog, which looks very interesting! I think we are like minded. I am trying to put together a blog, which would focus on a Jane Jacobs-inspired version of “Market Urbanism,” which I am calling “True Urbanism” (which is also an “anti-” planning play on the name “New [Sub-]Urbanism”).
Here’s a link to my nacscent blog — it’s just a mission statement at the moment:
http://tinyurl.com/5rhsgrw
– – – – – – – – – – – –
Benjamin Hemric
Sat., Feb. 12, 2011, 12:40 p.m.
P.S. — As usual, I hope people will not mind if any future posts of mine in this thread, if there are any, are done as independent comments (i.e., outside the nesting feature).
1) Re Rationalitate’s comment above:
Thanks, Stephen, for your encouragement!
However, I hope I haven’t mislead you: the comments I’m working on are just intended for the comments section of the online edition of “the Atlantic.” They would be similar to, but hopefully shorter than, the comments I posted on Benjamin Schwarz’s, “Gentrification and It’s Discontents,” in the on-line “Atlantic” last year. It seems to me that both Schwarz and Glaeser (and lots of other people too!) are not dealing with what Jacobs actually wrote, said or did, but rather with what people “say” she wrote, said or did. (As you may know, Schwarz, aside from being a writer himself, is apparently the literary and national editor of “the Atlantic.”)
For those who are interested, here’s a link:
http://tinyurl.com/2e2eq86
I have three comments: 1) 5/13/10, 9:42 p.m. (the main comment); 2) 5/14/10, 6:50 p.m.; 3) 5/21/10, 7:08 p.m.
I don’t know who I’d submit a possible review of the Glaeser book to, but I kind of doubt “the Atlantic” would be receptive to an extended review (by an unknown, yet) of a book that it has just excerpted for an article — especially a somewhat critical one that focuses on how Glaeser (like, previously, the literary and national editor of the magazine!) has misunderstood Jacobs and, thus, weakened his own work.
But I appreciate your offer to edit, and if I do eventually put together an article, I think I’ll take you up on it.
– – – – – – – – – – – –
2) Re: Charlie’s comment above:
I thought your comment on your blog was very nicely (effectively and succinctly!) put.
I made similar comments to an earlier version of Glaeser’s thesis, entitled, “Reservations about landmarks preservation,” which he published in the “Economix” blog on “The New York Times” website last year.
Here’s a link to my comments, which are comments #18 (5/11/10, 10:56 p.m;) and #19 (5/11/10, 10:56 p.m.):
http://tinyurl.com/39zqz9t
Also thanks for the link to your blog, which looks very interesting! I think we are like minded. I am trying to put together a blog, which would focus on a Jane Jacobs-inspired version of “Market Urbanism,” which I am calling “True Urbanism” (which is also an “anti-” planning play on the name “New [Sub-]Urbanism”).
Here’s a link to my nacscent blog — it’s just a mission statement at the moment:
http://tinyurl.com/5rhsgrw
– – – – – – – – – – – –
Benjamin Hemric
Sat., Feb. 12, 2011, 12:40 p.m.
P.S. — As usual, I hope people will not mind if any future posts of mine in this thread, if there are any, are done as independent comments (i.e., outside the nesting feature).
The issue with density is really not about very large skyscraper. We all love the views you get from the 42nd floor, but Charlie’s comments on Old Urbanist are perfectly correct: it’s a small portion of city housing, even at very high density. Nor is it even necessary. The UES is currently the single densest neighborhood in the Western world, and achieves this distinction with lots of buildings in the 10-20 story range. I don’t know the details about this project, and from what you’ve said I’d be inclined to support it, but the main way densification should be achieved is by small increases across the board – e.g. adding an average of one floor to every building in Upper Manhattan would provide room for around 100,000 people. Development over railyards and empty fields and such could be very helpful as well, if building the required connecting transit were at all affordable. (There’s about half a square mile’s worth of land over Sunnyside Yards, which is getting nothing at all even though all it takes is an infill LIRR station, which could be done for a fraction the cost of the 7 extension.)
As for Singapore, some people like its urban form; others have lived in it. I love the way it remains transit-oriented, but it’s not walkable, and the government is stuck in a pre-1960s mentality toward everything, including urban renewal.
I finally posted, in the comments section of the Glaeser article, “Part II” of my planned three-part comment — and hope that fellow readers of “Market Urbanism” will take a look.
It’s, unfortuantely, longer than I hoped it would be; but as George Benard Shaw once said, “Excuse me, but I didn’t have the time to be brief.” (Actually, the quote I found just now via a Google search is, “I’m sorry this letter is so long, I didn’t have time to make it shorter.” But I like the other version better.) I felt it was better to get the basics down so that at least I could maybe rework it into a more manageable and writerly piece later.
By the way, if you choose to comment on my comment over there on “the Atlantic” website (which is what I would prefer), it may take me a little while to respond since I seem to be having problems today with my Disqus account over there. I tried to post my “Part II” comment a number of times, and even opened up a second Disqus account to try it that way, but nothing worked for me. The only way I finally got to add my “Part II” comment was by adding it as an extended “edit” to my first post. (The version of Disqus used by “The Atlantic” allows you to edit your post as many times as you like — which is wonderful!)
Now it’s on to “Part III” — hopefully this part will be a lot shorter.
Benjamin Hemric
Sun., Feb. 13, 2011, 9:15 p.m.
P.S. — I hope people will not mind if any future posts of mine in this thread, if there are any, are done as independent comments (i.e., outside the nesting feature).
I think you’re right, Alai. It’s hard to see in this limited context whether or not Glaeser is envisioning a movement of both service provisions and regulatory authority to the neighborhood level or merely the latter. In the first case, devolving power toward the hyperlocal level offers Tiebout competition a chance to really work and helps to internalize the costs of density restrictions. More about this idea here: http://mercatus.org/publication/bids-rids-creating-residential-improvement-districts?id=16056
I FINALLY got a chance to write “Part Three” of my comment on Glaeser’s article in “the Atlantic.” However, I had trouble posting it at the end of my original comment (which included “Part One” and “Part Two”), and thus had to post “Part Three” as a separate comment further down in the thread. (This new comment is currently comment #68.) Actually, this may be just as well, as it is probably easier to find since it is the last comment in the thread when one sorts the comments with the “oldest first,” and the “first comment” in the thread when one sorts the comments with the newest first. (At least for now.)
Basically, the argument I make is that Jacobs is interested in increasing the supply of a city’s healthy DISTRICTS, which means increasing densities in the many areas that now have densities that are too low, instead of the few that already have high densities. (A healthy district is an economically self-generating district that is naturally chosen as a place to live and/or work by people with choice.)
Glaeser, at least in the various articles of his that I’ve read, doesn’t address cities in the same holistic way as Jacobs does, and thus misguidedly suggests guiding density and skyscrapers i) towards areas that are already experiencing maximum benefits from them anyway (where they are likely to create damage rather than beneficial effects), and ii) away from areas that where they would actually be useful (as they would remedy problems and also increase a city’s supply of healthy districts).
In other words, Glaeser seems to be killing the gooses that are laying the golden eggs, while Jacobs is interested in maintaining the health and productivity of existing gooses — and breeding an even greater supply of these gooses down the road.
Benjamin Hemric
Sat., Feb. 26, 2011, 7:10 p.m.