Physical Address

304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124

Category Zoning

Reason.org’s Staley Not in Favor of Property Rights if…

That is, he argues that private property should be subject to government planning restrictions if a developer building densely on its property creates a traffic burden on government roads. Wooten points out that any solution to Atlanta’s traffic congestion has to focus on roads, not transit or land use. In a more interesting twist, he takes local policy makers to task for approving higher density zoning without making the commitment to improving the road network to support it. Hmmm… Interesting point of view from a so called free-market organization that claims to support individual property rights over government planning. I think I’ll remove them from the blogroll. click, click, done Add Staley to the list of Free-Market Impostors.

Glaeser on Affordability of NY vs Houston

Harvard Economist Ed Glaeser wrote an opinion piece in the New York Sun about the differences in housing affordability and other costs of living between Houston and New York. New York is naturally more expensive than Houston because the geographical constraints force higher density development, which is more expensive to build. New York’s highly regulated land use and zoning process adds more constraints that exacerbate this problem. On the flip side, Houston has few geographical constraints and relatively loose regulation, allowing the market to allocate housing more efficiently. In conclusion, Glaeser recommends that New York could do much to improve affordability by loosening it’s many regulations. NY Sun – Houston, New York Has a Problem Why is it so much more expensive in New York? For one, supplying housing in New York City costs much, much more — for a 1,500-square-foot apartment, the construction cost alone is more than $500,000. Also, part of the reason is geographic: an old port on a narrow island can’t grow outward, as Houston has, and the costs of building up — New York’s fate, especially in Manhattan — will always be higher than those of building out. And the unavoidable fact is that New York makes it harder to build housing than Chicago does — and a lot harder than Houston does. The permitting process in Manhattan is an arduous, unpredictable, multiyear odyssey involving a dizzying array of regulations, environmental, and other hosts of agencies. A further obstacle: rent control. When other municipalities dropped rent control after World War II, New York clung to it, despite the fact that artificially reduced rents discourage people from building new housing. Houston, by contrast, has always been gung ho about development. Houston’s builders have managed — better than in any other American city — to make the […]

Amateur Economist: Zoning Hurts Housing Affordability

G.L.C. at Amateur Economist wrote an informative article on zoning, an issue which always gets attention at Market Urbanism – Why Zoning Laws Are No Longer a Benefit to U.S. Home Buyers Virtually every town in the United States has zoning laws which affect land use, lot size, building heights, density, setbacks, and other aspects of property use. Zoning laws are government regulated restrictions on how a particular piece of land can be used – residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, and recreational. They impose many use restrictions, such as the height and overall size of buildings, their proximity to one another, what percentage of the area of a building lot may contain structures, and what particular kinds of facilities must be included with certain kinds of uses. G.L.C. goes on to discuss how zoning restrictions, such as height and density restrictions, constrain the supply of housing nationwide. These supply restrictions causes prices to be higher than they would be without restriction. The article also cites data from research by Ed Glaeser and Joe Gyourko: Edward Glaeser of Harvard and Joe Gyourko of the University of Pennsylvania studied this problem and attributed the error on the supply side to zoning restrictions. They studied the data from over two dozen American cities and concluded that zoning restrictions kept the housing prices high and did not allow competitive forces to correct the supply and demand position.

Urban[ism] Legend: Greedy Developers

This post is part of an ongoing series featured on Market Urbanism called Urbanism Legends. The Urbanism Legends series is intended to expose many of the myths about development and Urban Economics. (it’s a play on the term: “Urban Legends” in case you didn’t catch that) We’ve all heard it said by some NIMBY activist: “This greedy developer doesn’t care about the people of the neighborhood, he just wants to maximize his own profit.” Are developers the devil? No doubt, developers usually are self interested, and seek profit. However, just like in any business, profit seekers must try to satisfy the desires of its customers better than its competitors. The successful developer must direct capital towards creating value in the real estate market for potential customers. So, perhaps it seems particularly greedy that a developer who is creating value in a community, cares less about the current inhabitants than newcomers. But, as Henry Hazlitt wrote in the classic, Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics: the whole of economics can be reduced to a single lesson, and that lesson can be reduced to a single sentence. The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups. here’s a link to the quote in an online version of the book Most Urbanism Legends, like most economic myths, rely on looking at policies from the perspective of one group without looking at the effects on other groups and society as a whole. This Urbanism Legend is no different. Looking deeper at the issue, the developer represents the needs of the community in a less visible, yet […]

Hyde Park Chicago Before Zoning

photo by flickr user mandus I recently came across a great blog, Hyde Park Urbanist, which focuses on urbanism in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago. Hyde Park is located along Lake Michigan on the South Side and is the home of The University of Chicago as well as Frank LLoyd Wright’s famous Robie House and Chicago’s Museum of Science and Industry. A recent article discusses how the area originally grew unhampered by zoning, with streets lined with businesses and shops. Then, urban renewal schemes disrupted the natural patterns of living. Presently, planners are seeing the folly of past ambitions. Unfortunately, we have to keep our eyes on the planners as they test out newfangled schemes for future generations to untangle. Hyde Park Urbanist – Before Zoning: this post is about what happened before zoning began to shape Hyde Park’s urban landscape. “urban renewal”, when the commercial heart of Hyde Park was suddenly ripped out. Planning in the late 1950s was primarily about separating residential, commercial and industrial districts. A couple generations later, most planners believe that residential and commercial uses can be combined along one block. That’s a lesson in itself. Half of today’s planning notions will look terribly wrong 50 years from today; we just don’t know which half. The commercial building patterns that Rossi describes occurred before zoning became mildly effective in the late 1920s. Those patterns can be seen as natural, in the sense that they were a response to the marketplace rather than the result of government fiat. (emphasis mine) I recommend checking out the Hyde Park Urbanist’s blog, especially for you Chicagoans…

How to Obscure Reality to Make Planners Seem Important

Regular reader, Bill forwarded this article from the New York Daily News calling it an “outstanding collection of anti-density and anti-market propaganda presented (as always) as objective journalism.” The article is riddled with misconceptions (aka Urbanism Legends) about zoning and development and is a perfect example of the quality of journalism that touches on city development issues referenced in today’s earlier post, Journalists and Cities. Let’s spot the more egregious statements from City and residents aim to keep Rockaway low-density: “The hope is to spur investment by maintaining low-scale development that fits into the area’s historic character. Similar zoning changes in Bay Ridge, Park Slope and the West Village along the Hudson River inspired great growth.” hmmm, restrictions inspire growth? Rockaway’s last zoning change came in 1961, allowing multifamily homes to be built where single-family homes once stood. The results were rapid development and streets butchered by an ungainly mix of large and small apartment buildings and homes. Wait, growth is bad? “We don’t have the space to be densely populated, and the owners of these big buildings don’t even live here” more space :: more density? not the equation I learned “Home prices should begin a steady increase if this zoning gets us better transportation.” This “zoning” that brings transportation sounds even nicer than the tooth fairy, and just as real. “I don’t know if the new upzoning of 116th St. will work, but I do know that the old, low-scale zoning on 116th St. did not bring in the amount of new businesses and investment required to improve the area.” Then again, density is good for retail… To ensure that parking does not become a problem, Gaska worked with Burden’s city planners to ensure that each new development has parking for at least 85 percent of the residents, […]

Urban[ism] Legend: Zoning Creates Density

This post will be the first of many of an ongoing feature at Market Urbanism entitled Urbanism Legends. (a play on the term: “Urban Legends” in case you didn’t catch that) In many public forums and in the blogosphere, I consistently encounter myths about land development and Urban Economics. These myths typically look at how policies may benefit or harm a specific person or groups of people. However, as with many popular economic misconceptions, these viewpoints fail to look at how a particular policy may affect other, less visible people. These less visible people are the ones who William Graham Sumner called “The Forgotten Man” in a famous 1883 lecture. These myths are plentiful, and I expect the feature to be stocked with myths to dispel well into the distant future. In many different contexts, I have heard people argue that liberalizing zoning restrictions will cause “over development” or high density development filled with low income people. Even in relatively low density areas, people make the sensationalist argument that if zoning restrictions were lifted, high rises would be built in their community, creating congestion and overburdening infrastructure. On the other end of the spectrum, I have even heard free-market advocates argue against Smart Growth and other urbanist concepts using several Urbanism Legends. They argue that Smart Growth goes against the market and causes density to increase in urban areas. They are correct when they refer to Urban Growth Boundaries that restrict development in outlying areas. Strangely, these market advocates rarely applaud Smart Growth proponents advocacy for loosening zoning restrictions in infill areas. They have argued that the upzoning discourages single family homes, which is the desired living arrangement for most people. And that the market should allow for more single family homes. The reality is that zoning can not create […]

Demographics + Transportation Costs + Lower Crime = More Urbanization

WSJ: Suburbs a Mile Too Far for Some Demographic Changes, High Gasoline Prices May Hasten Demand for Urban Living Messrs. Boseman and Wells embody trends that are dovetailing to potentially reshape a half-century-long pattern of how and where Americans live: The drivable suburb — that bedrock of post-World War II society — is for many a mile too far. In recent years, a generation of young people, called the millennials, born between the late 1970s and mid-1990s, has combined with baby boomers to rekindle demand for urban living. Today, the subprime-mortgage crisis and $4-a-gallon gasoline are delivering further gut punches by blighting remote subdivisions nationwide and rendering long commutes untenable for middle-class Americans. Peter Gordon contends that urbanism correlate less with gas prices than crime rates: Harry Richardson and Soojung Kim and I presented a conference paper earlier this year where we looked at the cycles of suburbanization-exurbanization since 1969. Our Figures 2a-2g and Tables 3-4 and 3-5 show the “rural renaissance” of the early 70s and how that reversed as the price of gasoline spiked in the early 1980s. But the following cycles of reversal of reversal and so forth did not track gasoline prices. The largest metros came back again in the late 1990s when gas prices were very low. The suburbanization-exurbanization-ruralization cycles that we found tracked the ebb and flow of crime rates better than gasoline prices. It makes sense to me. Those who prefer urban living had possibly been discouraged by higher urban crime rates of the past. Nonetheless, gas prices will have some long-term effect on where rational people choose to live. If crime continues to subside, could this be the perfect storm? Demographics + higher transportation costs + low crime –> high degrees of urbanization over the next decade. Let’s hope cities welcome the […]

EcoDensity: Scary Name, but Not-so-Bad

Vancouver’s City Council has approved an “EcoDensity” policy. How is EcoDensity different from regular density, which already comes pre-equipped with environmental benefits? Well, its just an environmental-sounding catch-prefix and comes with less bureaucracy for green developments. Planetizen – EcoDensity Approved in Vancouver Amongst the additional actions, Council has approved in principle the development of bylaws that could allow lane-oriented housing (coach houses and apartments above garages) potentially throughout the city (what we’ve called “hidden” density); new secondary suite options in every housing type (what we’ve called “invisible” density – Vancouver currently allows one secondary suite in single-detached housing, but not in other housing forms such as rowhouses and apartments); exploration of new mid-rise building typologies and associated zoning; a new “Green means Go” priority approval system for exemplary sustainable projects; the removal of numerous existing regulatory disincentives to green design approaches; EcoDensity demonstration projects on city-owned land; the development of new amenity and services funding tools to support quality density; and so on. One action in particular will represent the culmination of much of our thinking – the development over time of a new EcoCityPlan, respecting and building on the highly successful and influential CityPlan developed in the mid-90’s with incredible public engagement. It’s interesting how they are able to make an environmental case to make the bureaucratic approval process not seem so bad. “Hey, if you make it green, we’ll actually try not to slow you down as much as we usually do.” Why can’t all projects be given a speedy approval process? All-in-all, this seems like a good example of how market liberalization (while only incremental here) can be made to appeal to typically anti-market progressives. I guess all you have to is add the “Eco” prefix. How about “EcoProfits”, “EcoTrade”, “EcoPrivatization” or “EcoTaxCut”?

Want Density? Turn the Free Market Loose

Matthew Yglesias – What Price Density The solution, as Ryan Avent says, is to build denser communities. We ought to build more transit infrastructure, of course, but it’s cheaper to use what we already have more intensively. And, of course, it’s more practical to build new infrastructure if there’s a reasonable expectation that it will serve intensive development. Beyond that, density also serves to make walking and biking more practical for more trips. And best of all, getting denser could be accomplished mostly through growth-enhancing relaxation of regulatory burdens. And of course if the supply of housing in central cities and nearby suburbs were radically higher, then it would be much easier for people to afford to live in them. Instead, restrictions on the supply of conveniently located housing lead to high prices and the “drive until you qualify” phenomenon that’s currently leaving many Americans in deep trouble as they try to pay for fuel. In general, relaxing density restrictions will ease housing prices. But, a couple notes: Creating more socialized infrastructure, whether transit or roads, disperses development. High densities create demand for transit, not the other way around. Transit creates demand to locate near the stations, but not elsewhere. This is because as commuters are diverted from roads, congestion subsides, allowing drivers to commute from further-out places. So, if density is the goal, I would privatize highways & parking, while putting the breaks on construction of new public highways & parking prior to building new expensive transit. If individual commuters were to pay for their use of the roads, many would alter their habits and perhaps where they choose to commute to / from. The change in location preference will, no-doubt, increase density. Building densely has higher construction costs per unit as land costs are dispersed among more units, […]

Trending now

gentrification
Only 2 Ways to Fight Gentrification (you’re not going to like one of them)
The problem with “public” transportation
The Great American Streetcar Myth
O’Toole Under More Fire