Physical Address

304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124

Category housing

Rent Control: A No-Win

In an otherwise excellent article on NIMBYism and luxury housing, affordable housing consultant Rick Jacobus writes: “economist Anthony Downs reviewed the published studies and found that while ‘stringent’ rent control imposed over a very long time had reduced private apartment construction in the UK, there was ‘no persuasive evidence that temperate rent control ordinances inhibit the construction of new rental housing’.” Since I am familiar enough with Downs’ work to know that he is not a flaming radical, I was a bit surprised to read this. So I looked at Downs’ paper.  Downs is generally critical of rent control, writing that while rent control transfers resources from owners to tenants, “the total net amount of benefits received by the tenants is usually smaller than the total net amount of costs imposed upon the owners; hence, rent controls are not efficient.” (p. 26). Downs adds that “the experience of the United Kingdom strikingly confirms that stringent rent controls reduce new construction of rental units in the long run…the share of all housing in the United Kingdom provided through privately owned rental units dropped by about 85 percent from 1950 to 1986.” (p. 18). Then he discusses the U.S. experience, contrasting New York City’s stringent rent controls with the more moderate controls of Los Angeles. Downs cites a Rand Corporation study that “estimated that 1968 rents under New York City’s stringent ordinance averaged 57 percent below what they would have been without controls [while] 1990 rents under Los Angeles’ temperate ordinance would average only 3.5 percent below what they would have been without controls.”  (p. 25).  This small gap “helps explain why Los Angeles has not experienced many of the adverse effects generally associated with more stringent rent control ordinances.” In other words, “temperate” rent control ordinances don’t do very much to […]

Liberate the Garage!: Autonomous Cars and the American Dream

Apple garage

When it comes to the impact autonomous cars will have on cities, there’s plenty of room for disagreement. Will they increase or decrease urban densities? Will they help with congestion or make it worse? At the same time, there seems to be widespread agreement on at least two things: First, far fewer people will own cars. Second, we are not going to need nearly as much parking. By combining the technology of autonomous cars with the business model of transportation network companies like Uber and Lyft, low-cost, on-demand ride-hailing and dynamic routing bus lines could eliminate the need to keep an unused car hanging around for most of the day. When that happens, we will need far fewer parking spaces, turning on-street parking into wider sidewalks and bike lanes and surface lots and parking ramps into residential and commercial uses. So how does the humble American residential garage fit into all this? On its face, the garage is little more than the sheltered parking space that comes with most single-family homes. Yet the garage holds a certain mythological status in the American psyche: It gave rise to iconic American brands like Disney, Harley Davidson, and Mattel. It offered a space in which the firms that would launch the digital economy could get their start, including HP and Apple. Google and Microsoft, which both started in garages, maintain “garage” work spaces to this day in order to cultivate innovation. By providing a flexible space in which knowledge, free time, and ambition can transform into entrepreneurial innovation, the garage has played a crucial role in the American economy.   At least in the near term, garages are not going anywhere. Unlike municipal governments and large private landowners who will likely face immediate political and market pressures to retool their parking spaces, many homeowners are structurally stuck with their garages. Millions of garages could go unused, occasionally kept active by automobile hobbyists, most likely turning into de facto storage units. But it doesn’t have to be […]

Economist David Friedman Says India Must Go Taller To Make Homes Affordable

In this exclusive interview to PropGuide, legendary economist David Friedman, who studied at Harvard University and University of Chicago, says that the government should allow developers to build high-rises to make homes affordable for everyone by 2022. I met David Friedman at Starbucks in Connaught Place, the Central Business District of Delhi. Starbucks, which exemplifies the age of aesthetics, tends to maintain consistency in look, feel and attitude across the world. But, its store in Delhi’s premier market reeks of traditionalism, with bare cement interiors, local crafts and furniture. The Connaught Place market, though somewhat dilapidated, is one of the most expensive office spaces in the world. Starbucks, which does not have many outlets in India, bought space here because as per its brand values, it cannot afford to open stores where the catchment area does not justify the investment. The young men and women who listened to Friedman consuming expensive retail space without consuming the expensive coffee epitomize India’s leisurely café culture. Economist David Friedman is one of the most creative minds of our times. Friedman studied Physics at Harvard and Chicago, and has never taken a course for credit in economics or law. But, the finest of minds vouch that Friedman’s class on legal systems is the best economics course in the world. David Friedman is the son of Milton Friedman, the 1976 winner of Nobel Prize in Economics, and economist Rose Director. Rose Director was the co-author of Milton’s best-selling book, ‘Free to Choose’ and sister of economist Aaron Director who was instrumental in the development of the Chicago School of Economics. Here are excerpts from an interview: Shanu Athiparambath: Economist Tyler Cowen said that when he visited India, he was surprised to see crowded streets where nothing happened. He couldn’t see their possessions, because they live on the streets. Why are so […]

Return to Sender: Housing affordability and the shipping container non-solution

Shipping container homes in Cuba

Washington, D.C. has a monopoly on many things. Bad policy, unfortunately, isn’t among them. Last month, a development corporation in Lexington, Kentucky installed a shipping container house in an economically distressed area of town to improve housing affordability. The corporation is a private non-profit, though a line near the end of this article indicates that the project received public support: “The project is funded through an assortment of grants from the city’s affordable housing fund [and two philanthropic organizations].” Shipping container projects designed to improve housing affordability aren’t limited to my Old Kentucky Home: a quick Google search reveals that the idea of using shipping containers to put a dent in housing costs is popular among policymakers and philanthropists all over the world. The sad reality is that shipping container homes likely have little—if any—role to play in handling the nationwide housing affordability problem. Aside from being inefficient for housing generally, there’s decent evidence that shipping containers appeal far more to reasonably well-off, single urbanites than to working families in need of affordable housing. More broadly, the belief that these projects could address the growing affordability crisis hints at a profound misunderstanding of the nature of the problem and distracts policymakers from viable solutions. Before digging into the meatier problems, it’s worth looking first at the problems with the structures themselves. I’ll yield to an architect: Housing is usually not a technology problem. All parts of the world have vernacular housing, and it usually works quite well for the local climate. There are certainly places with material shortages, or situations where factory built housing might be appropriate—especially when an area is recovering from a disaster. In this case prefab buildings would make sense—but doing them in containers does not. The source goes on to detail the enormous costs associated with zoning approval, insulation, and utilities. Then there’s the somewhat obvious fact that they’re small. As in, 144 square […]

The deal-making behind the Silver Line

In political transactions, players cannot make deals using dollars, but nonetheless they engage in trades to pursue their goals. Policymakers may engage in trades both with other policymakers and with private sector actors . While these deals are not denominated in dollars, their gains from trade can still be considered “profit” that goes to the parties to the trade. In the decision to create the DC Metro’s silver line extending from West Falls Church to Dulles International Airport, many public sector and private sector parties profited from the complex dealmaking that facilitated the extension. The Silver Line was accompanied by redevelopment planning for Tysons Corner, a suburb of DC along the line’s route. These rail construction and accompanying rezoning benefitted three primary groups. The first and most obvious beneficiaries of the development of the Silver Line were the individuals and corporations that owned large parcels of land near the planned stations. The value of their holdings increased not only because of the new infrastructure, but also because the planning for the Silver Line involved significant upzoning, making more intensive and profitable use of their land legal. The combined promise of upzoning and the new metro stations ensured local policymakers that powerful landowners would support their efforts. These large landowners who benefited from upzoning include West Group, Tysons Corner Property, and West Mac Associates among other. The leadership members of these corporations were active in commenting on the proposed changes to the area’s land use and transportation plans. Because of its large investment in Tysons Corner and its corresponding importance in the development process, West Group has had special involvement in the redevelopment process. Implementing the proposed grid of streets relies heavily on West Group properties and other major developers cooperating to minimize the need to use eminent domain to achieve the infrastructure requirements to facilitate increased […]

How land use regulations hurt the poor

Sandy Ikeda and I have published a new Mercatus paper on the regressive effects of land use regulation. We review the empirical literature on how the effects of rules such as maximum density, parking requirements, urban growth boundaries, and historic preservation affect housing prices. Nearly all of the studies on the price effects of land use regulations find that — as supply and demand analysis would predict — these rules increase the price of housing. While the broad consensus on the price effects of land use regulations is probably to no surprise to Market Urbanism readers, some policy analysts continue to insist that in fact rules requiring detached, single family homes help cities maintain housing affordability. Ed Glaeser, Joseph Gyourko, and Raven Saks estimate the effects of regulations on house prices in their paper “Why Is Manhattan So Expensive? Regulation and the Rise in Housing Prices.” They estimate what they call the “zoning tax” in 21 cities. The zoning tax indicates the proportion of housing costs that are due to land use regulations. The chart below shows the percentage of housing costs that this “tax” accounts for: Policies that increase housing costs have a clear constituency in all homeowners, but they hurt renters and anyone who is hoping to move to an expensive city. The burden of land use regulations are borne disproportionately by low-income people who spend a larger proportion of their income on housing relative to higher income people. These regressive effects of land use policy extend beyond reducing welfare if the least-advantaged Americans. Additionally, rules that increase the cost of housing in the country’s most productive cities reduce income mobility and economic growth. In our paper Sandy and I also discuss proposals for reducing the inefficiency of cities’ current land use regulation practices. David Schleicher has proposed some […]

Shell Games in NIMBYism

Yesterday the Cato Institute hosted an event featuring William Fischel’s discussion of his new book Zoning Rules! with commentary by Mark Calabria, Matt Yglesias, and Robert Dietz. Fischel explained his theory that zoning was an effective tool for minimizing nuisances between land uses through the 1970s. Until that time, he asserts that city planners did a good job of separating incompatible land uses, such as industrial and residential uses, benefiting residents and protecting home values in the process. His theory is that in the 1970s, inflation increased the value of homeownership relative to cash savings, leading homeowners to increasingly view their houses as investments. At the same time, the rise of environmentalism provided the policy justification for using zoning as a tool to limit the growth of housing supply. According to his theory, homeowners then began using their power to lobby for downzoning to protect their large, undiversified asset, and valued minimizing any potential downside risk in their home value. In his discussion of Fischel’s book, Matt Yglesias pointed out that today, NIMBYism has gone far beyond keeping out polluting land uses and low-income neighbors. For example, some residents in San Francisco’s Mission District are supporting a moratorium on luxury housing development, and some Brooklyn residents are fighting to keep vacant industrial properties in place on the waterfront. Permitting high-end residential development in these neighborhoods would be more likely to raise than lower nearby homeowners’ property values. This opposition to development is at odds with Euclidean zoning in these neighborhoods where expensive housing now abuts abandoned warehouses. It’s also demonstrates that NIMBYs are not motivated by narrow profit interests, but have complex preferences that are not easily understood by observing the policies that they advocate for. In the private sector, profit is measured in money, and it’s generally safe to say that both parties to a transaction […]

Systemic bias against small scale development

In recent years, some of the country’s largest mixed-use real estate developments involved disposition of government-owned land directly to developers. For example, Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn and DC’s City Center and Marriott Marquis came about when municipal governments issued requests-for-proposals for underutilized land that they owned. Last week, Mid­Atlantic Realty Partners and Ellis Development Group closed on a deal to purchase 965 Florida Avenue NW from the District of Columbia. In 2012 the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (DMPED) issued an RFP for this 1.45 acre at the intersection of the Shaw, U Street, and Columbia Heights neighborhoods. The RFP specified that any development on the site include affordable housing. Ultimately two developers submitted proposals. The winning developer purchased the land for just $400,000, at least $5 million less than appraisers estimated the land’s value to be, even after factoring in the affordable housing provision and needed environmental cleanup. By choosing to allocate very large parcels of land through this process rather than auctioning off small parcels of city-owned land, municipal officials favor large developers not only because smaller developers can’t afford such large parcels, but also because the RFP process favors established developers with political connections. In DC, large development firms provide some of the largest contributions to local campaigns. Not only does the sale of large parcels of public land exclude small developers who have less financial capital, it also reduces the pool of potential buyers to include only those with the political capital needed to navigate the RFP process. In the case of a private owner selling off a large tract of land, we would expect him to list the property for sale, accepting the best price he could get. If he thought smaller parcels would sell for more, the owner would likely try to subdivide before selling, expanding […]

San Francisco Turned Sisyphus: Why the City Can’t Fix the Housing Crisis On its Own

Housing prices in San Francisco are obscene. And, in large part, that’s because the city hasn’t permitted enough new construction. But that’s not the entire story. For as hard as San Francisco has resisted development, the Peninsula cities have resisted it even more. And in so doing they’ve pushed the responsibility of development onto their Northern neighbor. If San Francisco’s housing crisis is to be resolved, the Peninsula cities will have to quite literally grow up. Bad Neighbors San Francisco is synonymous with tech, but there’s plenty going on just down the road. Menlo Park has Facebook. Mountain View has both Google and Linkedin. These two cities alone are home to over 1,300 other tech companies and the story’s much the same elsewhere on the Peninsula. But where firms have sprung up and jobs have become abundant, housing has remained in short supply. Tech companies bus an estimated 7,500 workers from San Francisco apartments to Peninsula offices every day. They don’t do this for fun. There’s simply not enough housing near major employers. And what is available is often unaffordable, even for tech workers. But if housing prices are as bad or worse on the peninsula, one might ask why we only hear the word “crisis” in San Francisco. The reason is simple. What makes for crisis in San Francisco is nothing but windfall to the South. According to the U.S. Census, San Francisco’s homeownership rate is 36.6%. Mountain View’s is 41.8%, San Mateo’s is 53.6%, Palo Alto’s is 55.4%, Menlo Park’s is 56.2%, and Cupertino’s is 63.7%. Homeowners in these cities aren’t faced with skyrocketing rent. And thanks to Prop 13, they also pay almost nothing in property tax–no matter how much their homes appreciate in value. They not only face no downside from the anti-development status quo, they […]

Trickle-Down Housing Economics? Laying Reagan’s Ghost to Rest

In a recent 48 Hills post, housing activist Peter Cohen aimed a couple rounds of return fire at SPUR’s Gabriel Metcalf. The post comes in response to Mr. Metcalf’s own article critiquing progressive housing policy. Mr. Cohen bounces around a bit, but he does repeat some frequently used talking points worth addressing. Trickle-down economics Mr. Cohen calls the argument for market-rate construction ‘trickle down economics’.  Trickle down economics actually refers to certain macro theories popularized during the Reagan years. These models assumed a higher marginal propensity to save among wealthier individuals. And given this assumption, some economists concluded that reducing top marginal tax rates would result in higher savings. This would then mean higher levels of investment which would, in turn, have a positive effect on aggregate output. And from there we get the idea of a rising tide lifting all ships. Note that none of that has anything to do with housing policy. Labeling something ‘trickle down’ is a way to delegitimize certain policy proposals by associating them with Ronald Reagan. It’s somewhere between rhetorically dishonest and intellectually lazy. Though to be fair, it’s probably pretty effective in San Francisco. The concept Mr. Cohen is trying to critique is actually called filtering. In many instances, markets do not produce new housing at every income level. But they do produce housing across different income levels over time. Today’s luxury development is tomorrow’s middle income housing. The catch, however, is that supply has to continually expand. If not, prices for even dilapidated housing can go through the roof. For a more thorough explanation, see SFBARF’s agent based housing model.   If you build it, they’ll just come But even accurately defined, Mr. Cohen still objects to the concept of filtering. He cites an article by urban planning authority William Fulton to make […]

Trending now

Zoning kills dreams
YIMBY should not become a political party
War worker housing of last resort: Chicken coops?
Why didn’t people sleep on the streets of US cities during World War II?
Mini-review: Chapter 1 of Wonder City
An Anti-Development Manifesto