Physical Address

304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124

The need for low-quality housing

The market urbanism axiom — permitting housing supply to increase is key to achieving affordable housing — has been made recently by Rick Jacobus at Shelterforce and Daniel Hertz at City Observatory. However both argue that even with an increasing supply, low-income people will need aid in order to afford what the authors feel is adequate housing. History shows us, though, that if developers are allowed to serve renters in every price range, they will. The movie Brooklyn portrays the type of housing many of our grandparents and great-grandparents lived in when they emigrated to the United States. People of very little means could afford to live in cities with the highest housing demand because they lived in boarding houses, residential hotels, and low-quality apartments, most of which are illegal today. Making housing affordable again requires not only permitting construction of more new units, but also allowing existing housing to be used in ways that are illegal under today’s codes. Young adults living in group houses with several roommates have found a way around these regulations, but low-income renters were better-served when families and single people could pay for housing that was designed to meet their needs at an affordable price. Alan During explains the confluence of interest groups that successfully eliminated cheap, low-quality housing: The rules were not accidents. Real-estate owners eager to minimize risk and maximize property values worked to keep housing for poor people away from their investments. Sometimes they worked hand-in-glove with well-meaning reformers who were intent on ensuring decent housing for all. Decent housing, in practice, meant housing that not only provided physical safety and hygiene but also approximated what middle-class families expected. This coalition of the self-interested and the well-meaning effectively boxed in and shut down rooming houses, and it erected barriers to in-home boarding, too. Over more than a century, […]

Market Urbanism MUsings March 18, 2016

1. This week at Market Urbanism: Nolan Gray‘s latest post, Liberate the Garage!: Autonomous Cars and the American Dream At present, zoning laws effectively prohibit entrepreneurs from using their garages for business. In many Americans cities, hiring employees, hosting visitors, putting up signs, and altering your garage for business purposes are all outright banned. As urban planner Sonia Hirt notes in her most recent book, these regulations reflect American zoning’s dogmatic insistence on separating work from home. These restrictions effectively mandate sprawl by forcing commercial uses and residential uses into segregated districts. More troublingly, these regulations fall hardest on low-income entrepreneurs by significantly raising the cost of starting a business. The article was cited at streetsblog, and Nolan discussed the article on KCBS radio San Francisco Michael Lewyn wrote his first Market Urbanism article, Rent Control: A No-Win It therefore seems to me that pro-rent control municipalities are caught in a no-win situation: if they adopt strict rent controls, they limit housing supply by making housing a less attractive investment. But if they adopt temperate rent controls, they don’t really control rents. 2. Where’s Scott? Scott Beyer is leaving Oklahoma City tonight for Houston to see the rodeo. This week, he delved into foreign policy, writing in Forbes about The Case For Another Cuban Boatlift. Since 1980, Miami has been one of the fastest-growing metro areas by population, and has become one of the best for startup activity and upward mobility. Along with other Latin American immigrants, Cubans have bolstered this, making up over a third of the city’s population…Well into the 21st century, Cubans had among the highest median incomes and homeownership rates of U.S. Hispanic groups. 3. At the Market Urbanism Facebook Group: Michael Hamilton is happy to see good news for once:  Arizona Senate Votes to Ban Cities from Banning Airbnb, Couch-Surfing Nick […]

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 […]

Market Urbanism MUsings March 11, 2016

1. This week at Market Urbanism: Matt Robare contributed his first Market Urbanism article, Protectionism Is Already Harming American Workers And Cities The delays and high costs associated with Buy America have helped to make American transit costs the world’s highest. The Congressional Research Service found that new bus prices were double in the United States versus Japan and South Korea. According to Alon Levy, locomotives purchased by Amtrak cost 30 percent more than the European equivalent, increasing costs by $100 million. Stephen Smith also touched on Buy America’s unintended consequences in 2010 2. Where’s Scott? On a related note, Scott Beyer, who finished his third week in Oklahoma City, wrote a Forbes piece titled Does Bernie Sanders Actually Think NAFTA Is What Killed Detroit? Detroit has long stood near the top in all the big-government indicators, with some of the nation’s highest taxes, strictest business regulations, lowest economic freedom rates, largest per capita public workforces, high rates of public and private sector unionization, and an Occupy-Wall-Street-style civic and governing culture. This model has produced exactly the dystopia that conservative critics fear, marked by human and capital flight. Scott’s previous MU photo essay on Cuba was translated into Spanish by the Latin American news site PanAm Post. 3. At the Market Urbanism Facebook Group: Anthony Ling warns about when “When city development goes wrong. Very wrong.” in California Bjorn Swenson tells us “Greyhound is rebranding itself as a relevant twenty-first century company” Tom W. Bell published a paper on Special Economic Zones in the United States and asks “Would USSEZs encourage innovation in urban design?” If you are in Toronto, come see Sanford Ikeda, who will be speaking about “Why a city can’t be a work of art” at the Ryerson University Planning Expo Krishan Madan reminds us that Seattle raised it’s minimum wage to help people get by, but neighbors still […]

Protectionism Is Already Harming American Workers And Cities

Both Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and New York reality television personality Donald Trump have based their presidential campaigns in part on the issue of trade. Both of them oppose free trade policies like the North American Free Trade Agreement and the pending Tran Pacific Partnership, arguing that free trade has resulted in American jobs going overseas, leaving American workers worse-off. To remedy this situation, Trump has proposed declaring China a currency manipulator and imposing duties on Chinese-made goods, while elsewhere he’s advocated a 35 percent import tax on items made in Mexico and a 20 percent tax on all other imported goods. Sanders has also advocated imposing tarrifs on countries that manipulate their currencies to subsidize exports. To counter both candidates’ narratives of heartless corporations offshoring American jobs or unscrupulous foreigners “stealing” jobs that belong to American workers, economists and commentators from across the political spectrum have compiled impressive arrays of statistics proving that free trade actually benefits everyone. But they didn’t have to do so much. There are already examples, right now, of protectionist legislation that explodes the myths of the Trump and Sanders crowds. Since 1978, the “Buy America” provision of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act has forced transit agencies and passenger railroads like Amtrak and commuter rail services to have around 60 percent of the equipment and structural components manufactured in the United States if they want federal funding for their projects, unless they apply for and receive a waiver. Has this provision protected American workers? Does the United States now have a thriving rail equipment industry capable of competing with European, Japanese and Chinese companies, bearing out Alexander Hamilton’s “infant industry” argument? No. According to Metro Magazine, the Buy America provision makes “significant supply-chain disruptions” likely because the American market share for bus and train components […]

Market Urbanism MUsings March 4, 2016

1. Where’s Scott? Scott Beyer spent his second week in the Oklahoma City area, finding a place in the relatively wealthy northern college suburb of Edmond, OK. This week he wrote for Governing about New Orleans‘ music noise issue, and profiled a man in Forbes who escaped Cuba by raft for Miami. There are over 1.1 million Cuban immigrants in the United States, and even more than other immigrant groups, they have clustered, with over two-thirds living in greater Miami. What unites this group is not dislike of their home country, but the need to leave the Castro brothers’ Communist regime. 2. At the Market Urbanism Facebook Group: Nolan Gray found another great Daniel Hertz article: Great neighborhoods don’t have to be illegal—they’re not elsewhere John Morris shared Donald Shoup‘s contribution to a Washington Post series on cities becoming less car-dependent  (h/t Nolan Gray) John Morris also found a post at Medium calling for repeal of segregationist zoning policies Jeff Fong shared a short podcast interview with Alain Betaud Sandy Ikeda shared Bill Easterly‘s research on the largely unplanned emergence over 400 years of single block in Soho Mark Frasier congratulates Zach Caceras‘ work seeding local reforms at Startup Cities Adam Lang‘s ongoing frustration with urban renewal in his Philadelphia neighborhood which we previously covered 3. Elsewhere: New Geography reposted Nolan Gray’s recent article on Jane Jacob’s Hayekian approach William Fischel will be speaking Tuesday at NYU about his new paper: The Rise of the Homevoters: How OPEC and Earth Day Created Growth-Control Zoning that Derailed the Growth Machine Chris Hagan‘s WBEZ radio piece about population loss in Chicago‘s North Center neighborhood due to restrictive zoning Nick Zaiac wrote Maryland Is an Over-Regulated Disaster: Here’s How to Fix It and published a report at The Maryland Public Policy Institute Commutes in the U.S. are getting longer, reports the Washington Post’s Wonkblog. 4. Stephen […]

Market Urbanism MUsings: February 26, 2016

1. This week at Market Urbanism: Nolan Gray contributed a post Who Plans?: Jane Jacobs’ Hayekian critique of urban planning discussing Jacobs’ three arguments against central planning: Hayek and Jacobs defended the importance of local knowledge, illustrated the power of decentralized planning, and celebrated the sublime spontaneous orders that organize our lives. Yet their theoretical innovations went largely unnoticed long after their respective publications. Here, the two thinkers diverge: while Hayekian ideas have largely driven centralized economic planning into the dustbin of history, I suspect the Jacobsian urban revolution has only just begun. The post was also discussed at Reason and Urban Liberty 2. Where’s Scott?: Scott Beyer is now in Oklahoma City, with plans to spend this weekend in Stillwater, OK. This week at Forbes, he described urban liberals’ inability to understand housing “filtering”: Officials believe that if new projects can’t be forced to charge lower prices, they shouldn’t be allowed at all. A smarter approach would be to view such projects the way one would view a gated community of mansions. Sure, such housing isn’t affordable, but it still serves a purpose: to provide rich people a place to live, thereby opening up older, smaller, less luxurious units for lower-income people. 3. At the Market Urbanism Facebook Group: Nolan Gray shared a CityLab piece quantifying the influx of young people in downtowns Private Protection Co. Puts Govt. Police to Shame in Detroit via Mark Frazier Bad news from John Morris: L.A. is seizing tiny homes from the homeless What Computer Games Taught Daniel Hertz About Urban Planning via Erik Genc 4. Elsewhere: Strong Towns spent the week discussing the numerous ways federal housing policies distort the marketplace against walkable urban environments.  Lots of good reads and podcasts… Chicago plans to use Eminent Domain to seize the old Post Office and sell it. (when Chicago issues an RFP, […]

Who Plans?: Jane Jacobs’ Hayekian critique of urban planning

Cities are fantastically dynamic places, and this is strikingly true of their successful parts, which offer a fertile ground for the plans of thousands of people. – Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities For most of the field’s history, prominent urban planning theorists have taken for granted that cities require extensive central planning. With the question framed as “To plan or not to plan?” students and practitioners answer with an emphatic “Yes,” subsequently setting out to impose their particular ideal order on what they perceived to be, as Lewis Mumford put it, “solidified chaos.” Whether through the controlled centralization of Le Corbusier or the controlled decentralization of Ebenezer Howard and Frank Lloyd Wright, cities were to be just that: controlled. When in 1961 Jane Jacobs set out to attack the orthodox tradition of urban planning, it was this dogma that landed squarely in her crosshairs. With her characteristically deceptive simplicity, she invites us to ask, “Who plans?” While many take Jacobs’ essential contribution to be her insights into urban design, her subversion begins at the theoretical level in the introduction to The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Despite their diverse aesthetic preferences, Corbusier and Howard share much in common. Both assume that planning entails the enshrining of a single plan and the suppression of all other individual plans. Both insist on imposing a “pretended order” on the “real order,” treating the city as a simple machine rather than a manifestation of organized complexity. Like Adam Smith’s “man of system,” each thinker was “so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he [could not] suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it.” Jane Jacobs’ critique of this orthodox tradition unfolds in three steps, closely following F.A. Hayek’s argument in […]

Market Urbanism MUsings: February 19, 2016

1. This week at Market Urbanism: Shanu Athiparambath has his first post on the blog via Scott Beyer: Economist David Friedman Says India Must Go Taller to Make Homes Affordable I remember my father saying that when he visited India in the 1950s and 1960s, bureaucrats in Delhi made arguments for restricting luxuries for the rich in air-conditioned luxury hotels where bureaucrats and American visitors held conferences. Emily Washington: Reforming Zoning in a Kludgeocracy While studying economics often leads people to think about the ceteris paribus effect of a policy change, in the real world, a policy will rarely be changed without resulting in domino effect of other changes in other policies and market outcomes because land-use policy is entangled with so many other policies. 2. Where’s Scott?: Scott Beyer is spending a final weekend in New Orleans before heading to Oklahoma City. This week, he wrote for National Review about rapid high-rise growth in the Miami neighborhood of Brickell. Starting as a low-slung neighborhood, it grew to become what it now is thanks to the city’s tolerance of unfettered growth. And rather than bringing Armageddon, as critics of rapid urban development might suspect, Brickell has become an economic powerhouse and an urban destination. At a time when so many other cities suppress development — and suffer the consequences – Brickell symbolizes a mentality worth restoring throughout urban America. 3. At the Market Urbanism Facebook Group: Nick Zaiac wants you to check out Cato’s new study related to immigration and housing affordability Tobias Cassandra Holbrook is interested in London’s growing skyline: Don’t listen to the Nimbies – skyscrapers can make London great again R John Anderson introduced the group to his latest post explaining where small urban developers should be looking to build  4. Elsewhere: New study confirms that boomers are clueless about where they like to live. h/t: Charles […]

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