Physical Address

304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124

Category Uncategorized

Russia links

1. “Experts have proposed increasing road taxes for Moscow drivers six or seven-fold in an effort to alleviate the Russian capital’s notorious traffic congestion.” 2. Moscow Mayor Sobyanin wants to regulate taxis, of which over 80% (!) are current unlicensed. Racial undertones abound (“They should get them off the road, especially those who came from the mountains”), and you know a plan is probably not a good idea when even the monopolists (i.e., current licensed drivers) are skeptical. 3. Moscow drivers are planning a protest over the recent death of a student at the hands of one of the city’s notorious official cars that use flashing blue lights to routinely halt traffic throughout the congested capital. 4. Russian President Medvedev has signed a decree banning foreigners from owning land along most of Russia’s borders with Finland and Norway. It’s unclear how they’ll deal with land already owned by them. It’s unclear to me if the ban includes land extending into, say, the Russian city of Vyborg. 5. The Potemkin Village of Skolkovo. Is there any officially-designated Silicon Valley wannabe that hasn’t been an utter failure? More on Moscow’s unfortunate urbanism here.

Links

1. A report on (Western) European parking policies. Abstract of the abstract: Big on charging market rates for on-street parking, but also big on capping private developer’s ability to build parking. I’d be interested to see an analysis like this done to see if the caps are actually set lower than the market equilibrium. Streetsblog also has a good summary. 2. It’s unfortunate that this developer chose to express himself in such an unsympathetic way (someone should teach him the meaning of the word “corruption,” in particular), but his analysis of NYC’s recent property tax assessment hikes is consistent with what we’ve seen before: people who live in apartments are taxed at higher rates than people who live in single-family homes. 3. Urbanists are trying to change Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and HUD’s policies of not funding small mixed use projects. From what I understand, the GSEs’ role in financing American mortgages has actually increased in the wake of the financial crisis, so the federal bias against mixed use may actually be stronger than it was before the recession. 4. Washington, DC may speed through zoning changes that require parking to not be out front. I’m not sure, but I think that DC currently has some laws mandating that it be out front, which means this would be yet another example of zoning codes going from density-forbidding to density-forcing without any intermediate stop. 5. Remember yesterday when I said that Gallaudet was a bigger drag on its neighborhood than the industrial-looking blight nearby? DC lawmakers may try to one-up Gallaudet by replacing the buildings with a soccer stadium.

Why are universities so bad at managing their land?

I’ve lived near a lot of schools in my life. Growing up on the Main Line I could walk to (at least?) five institutions of high learning, I went to school in Georgetown, and just a few weeks ago I’ve moved across the street from Gallaudet University in DC. And I’ve noticed a common thread among the schools: they make horrible land use decisions. I was inspired to write this by this post in Greater Greater Washington by Ken Archer about the housing situation at Georgetown, which is pretty bad. Though the university houses a lot of its students, it’s not great and a lot of people are forced out into the surrounding neighborhoods of Burleith and West Georgetown. The prices range from about $900/bedroom/month at the low end in Burleith to over $2000/bedroom/month in West Georgetown, and the campus housing could get as pricey as $2000/room/month without dedicated kitchens and bathrooms (!) for freshmen sharing dorms. Much of this is no doubt due to the neighbors’ refusal to allow affordable, dense housing in their communities for students, but at least half of the problem is universities simply making poor use of their existing space. GGW post does a good job of describing Georgetown’s failures. There is no shortage of short, architecturally-insignificant buildings on Georgetown’s campus that could be densified, and yet the university doesn’t take advantage of it. My first choices for infill projects would be New South and the awful concrete plaza next to Harbin, and I’m not sure many people would complain if the brutalist buildings were razed and replaced with something glassy and denser. And unlike, say, Villanova, there is no existing constituency of student drivers to cater to, so that can’t be it. And it’s not just Georgetown. In fact, likely due to the extreme […]

Why am I so mean?

In the past week I’ve been asked twice why, essentially, I have to be so mean: Steven [sic!], I’m struck by how well you couple true insight with meaningless insults that undermine your credibility to those who don’t share your point of view. Stephen– I like your work here quite a bit, but I find the tone is sometimes accusatory and demeaning rather than informative. I think you should explain why the NY Times is “wrong” rather than saying they “utterly humiliate” themselves. First of all, I apologize for not giving these topics – and many others – the time they deserve. Up until early January I was unemployed and had a lot of time to write, and this blog really grew, but since I started interning at Reason I’ve had much less time. Beyond that, I certainly won’t deny that I’m more bombastic and harsh than most land use bloggers. But why? One reason is that I think that the issues that Adam and I write about are far more important than they’re given credit for, and, quite honestly, it makes me angry. There are plenty of people who make a living writing about green energy, about racism and tolerance, and about culture, but few people recognize the land use origins of all of these debates. Would we have gay marriage by now if zoning and state road building projects didn’t turn us into a suburban nation? To what extent do our land use decisions impact our energy consumption and the forces of global warming? To what extent does anti-density zoning affect racial segregation? These are all interesting questions, but they aren’t ones that are often asked by journalists and commentators, who instead choose to spend their time rehashing tired but news-worthy themes. A second reason is that I […]

Long weekend links

1. The NYT utterly humiliates itself with a story on how difficult it is for a kid straight outta college from “a prominent Portuguese banking family” to rent a $2,500/mo. studio in a Chelsea coop for less than 12 months. Sounds like the perfect posterchild for Sheldon Silver’s rent control plans. 2. What does it cost in bribes to get an 11-story hotel built in Park Slope? $9,850 to Marty Markowitz and 400-space public garage. The developer called the garage a “magnificent cake,” and Irene Lo Re of the Fifth Ave. BID says, “We can’t turn our backs on 400 spaces.” The commenters are throwing a lot of scorn at the developer for the garage, but it looks to me like it’s the fault of Irene Lo Re and the parking-obsessed neighbors. 3. Vancouver considers easing up on “social housing requirement” for developer (for the first time ever?!) if they’ll give the city a few parcels of land. 4. New (again) California Governor Jerry Brown proposes elimination of redevelopment agencies.

London congestion pricing, then and now

It’s already Sunday and I’ve exhausted my cache of unread blog posts from the week, so I went in search of new blogs to read and can across this really good one: Spatial Analysis. A post from December has this set of maps – private turnpikes in 18th century London and the congestion zone map in the 21st: It looks to me like the old map is skewed and that they are actually quite similar, but I’m having trouble aligning them – maybe someone who knows London better than me could compare them for us? Again, that’s from spatialanalysis.co.uk.

LaHood’s revealingly stupid reply to the WaPo’s HSR criticism

The WaPo earlier this week ran an editorial against California high-speed rail, and on Friday ran a response from Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. As the dedicated anti-California HSR blog High-Speed Train Talk says, the letter does a pretty good job of summing up everything that’s wrong with the guy. The letter starts off with this stunningly ignorant comparison to highway building in the 1950s: If President Dwight D. Eisenhower had waited until he had all the cash on hand, all the lines drawn on a map and all the naysayers on board, America wouldn’t have an interstate highway system. And if it didn’t have an interstate highway system, maybe rail transportation wouldn’t have died out in the first place! We also learn that “put[ting] Californians back to work” is “perhaps [the] most important” goal of the project – a candid admission that this project is more about making work for union workers than it is about transportation. This was obvious beforehand – we will, after all, pay double for the HSR trains due to procurement protectionism – but it’s nice to see LaHood finally admit it. And just in case we still harbored any delusions about LaHood’s reasoning skills, he rounds the letter out with this blatant tautology: Focusing the total sum of our federal dollars in one project, as The Post suggests, is a poor strategy that will not serve our long-term goal of creating a national high-speed rail network.

Prince Charles on urbanism: the good and the bad

Prince Charles, perhaps the world’s most famous urbanist, on Dharavi, which he’s planning to replicate in either Calcutta or Bangalore: Unlike the ‘fragmented, deconstructed housing estates’ built in the West, the slum has ‘order and harmony’ he claimed, adding: ‘We have a great deal to learn about how complex systems can self-organise to create a harmonious whole.’ Though he’s got good things to say about organic development, his critiques of modern architectural styles and his habit of injecting himself into planning decisions have not earned him fans in the UK, where two years ago a group of architects actually sent him a letter telling him to shut up: Charles’s “private comments and behind-the-scenes lobbying” were anomalous in a modern, democratic system, said the letter writers, who also included Jacques Herzog and Pierre de Meuron, the Swiss duo whose practice turned the former Bankside power station into the Tate Modern, and Italy’s Renzo Piano, the co-designer with Rogers of the Pompidou Centre in Paris. […] Rogers’ proposals for the Chelsea site had already been adapted following local objections and were now in the hands of Westminster council planners, they noted. “If the prince wants to comment on the design of this, or any other, project, we urge him to do so through the established planning consultation process. Rather than use his privileged position to intervene in one of the most significant residential projects likely to be built in London in the next five years, he should engage in an open and transparent debate.” “This is not really about a style, or an argument about how buildings look, but how we go about things,” said Deyan Sudjic, the director of the Design Museum in London, who also signed the letter. “What’s slightly depressing is that this is kind of an old argument […]

Midnight link list

1. “Gen Y/Millennials” want density. Ha! Sucks for them. 2. Mini-bleg: Does anyone know what “building regulations” are preventing this proposed Jackson Heights building from having windows on one side? 3. Southwest DC, before and after highways/urban renewal, in pictures. 4. Overplanning in China. 5. Palm Beach County wants to allow private developers to build along West Palm Beach’s train line and bus stops, but Mayor Lois Frankel wants a sports stadium. 6. St. Louis got money from Obama’s stimulus to hire consulting firms to upzone the city’s dense neighborhoods.

Hump day list

Because for the first time since May, I have a hump day. Which is why all you get is a list. 1. Traditionally, the NYC-dominated New York State Assembly’s whacky rent control impulses have been tempered by the suburban/upstate-dominated Senate, but the NYT says that they may have struck a deal, with the Assembly winning the following: About one million apartments in the city’s five boroughs, roughly half of all rental units, are covered by the existing laws, which sharply limit landlords’ ability to raise rents and keep many apartments, particularly in Manhattan, renting at well below market value. Currently, apartments become deregulated when the rent reaches $2,000 and total household income of the tenants is at least $175,000 annually for two years. [Assembly speaker Sheldon] Silver said he would like not only to preserve those protections, but also to expand them, by raising the income and rent thresholds. “You want to preserve people making $210,000, $225,000 a year, living where they’re living,” Mr. Silver said. Uh, maybe you want to preserve that… 2. A good article from the NYT about Brooklyn’s new skyline. I’m impressed that they held off until the last page to quote a naysaying politician: Robert Perris, the district manager of Community Board 2, which represents the area, said the benefits of residences along Flatbush Avenue were clear. But, he added, so are the benefits of a strong commercial district — and strengthening the commercial district was one of the chief goals of the rezoning. When residential buildings are erected in commercial zones, he said, their lots are lost for commercial purposes. It also would have been nice to have a sentence or two more more detail in this fairly long article about the 2004 “rezoning,” though. 3. This study found that parking adds 10% to […]

Trending now

A self-defeating argument
Texas MUD
gentrification
Only 2 Ways to Fight Gentrification (you’re not going to like one of them)
The problem with “public” transportation