Physical Address

304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124

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 […]

Reforming Zoning in a Kludgeocracy

To market urbanists and many others, it’s clear that there is a positive relationship between high housing costs and land-use restrictions and that liberalizing zoning would lower housing costs relative to what they would be in a more regulated environment. Given this relationship, reducing zoning would improve efficiency in the housing market by allowing consumer demand to drive the amount of resources that are put into housing development. However, land-use reform would also affect other policy areas such as public schools, transportation infrastructure, and sewer and water provision. Predicting how a liberalizing reform in one policy area will affect the complete public policy landscape is as impossible as predicting how one private sector innovation will affect other markets. Political scientist Steven Teles coined the term “kludgeocracy” to describe the complexity of contemporary American policy. For example, zoning has become a tool to make high-performing public schools exclusive, even though land-use policy and education policy are seemingly unrelated areas governed by different agencies. Because providing zero-price quality education to every child in the country may be impossible, zoning is a kludge that allows policymakers to provide this service to their high-income and influential constituents. Teles describes this policy complexity: A “kludge” is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as “an ill-assorted collection of parts assembled to fulfill a particular purpose…a clumsy but temporarily effective solution to a particular fault or problem.” The term comes out of the world of computer programming, where a kludge is an inelegant patch put in place to solve an unexpected problem and designed to be backward-compatible with the rest of an existing system. When you add up enough kludges, you get a very complicated program that has no clear organizing principle, is exceedingly difficult to understand, and is subject to crashes. Any user of Microsoft Windows will immediately grasp the concept. […]

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 […]

Market Urbanism MUsings Feb 12, 2016

  1. Where’s Scott?: Scott Beyer returned to New Orleans for the end of Mardi Gras. This week at Forbes, he wrote a 4-part series on the “Quirks of New Orleans Culture,” covering things like Second Line Parades, King Cake, Mardi Gras Balls, and other idiosyncrasies. There are certain commentators who will argue that, thanks to gentrification, corporatism, and globalization, U.S. cities are losing their cultural distinctiveness. These people should really try leaving their rooms more often. One thing I’ve noticed while traveling is that cultural differences, in fact, remain alive and well in America. And nowhere is this more evident than New Orleans. 2. At the Market Urbanism Facebook Group: John Morris shared Daniel Hertz’s latest, Report: Market-rate housing construction is a weapon against displacement;  and some good news from Los Angeles LA’s Metro Going to Start Charging For Parking at Rail Stations Tory Gattis notified readers about Club Nimby, a new blog by Austin attorney Chris Bradford (of Austin Contrarian fame) that tries to better explain the phenomenon of American Nimbyism. We don’t talk about Atlanta enough, so Mike Lewyn shared Atlanta’s War on Density “The data says we’re right,” says Nick Zaiac about the report on market-rate development 3. Elsewhere: fxstreet.com covers Chicago‘s dreary financial situation, namely for the public school system. Bond buyers would have the promise that CPS will use its “full faith and credit” to repay the bonds. There’s only one problem. It’s a lie, and the district officials know it. The term “full faith and credit” means that a borrower will use all assets available to repay a debt. But Chicago’s school system, in the footsteps of Detroit two years ago and now Puerto Rico, has no intention of foregoing other expenses to pay bondholders. Charles Marohn loves Memphis, but not the “orderly but dumb” pyramid. MU twitter poll on the likelihood […]

Market Urbanism MUsings: Feb 5, 2016

1. This week at Market Urbanism: Nolan Gray‘s second article at Market Urbanism:  Return to Sender: Housing affordability and the shipping container non-solution 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. 2. Where’s Scott?: Scott Beyer is spending Friday in Mobile, AL, to celebrate Mardi Gras where it was invented. His article this week was at Forbes:  Washington, DC Reformed Its Zoning Code; Now Time To Ditch The Height Limits The DC zoning code changes are a testament to this growing consensus favoring deregulation. If it can happen in America’s center of governance, it means similar zoning overhauls may be awaiting other cities. 3. At the Market Urbanism Facebook Group: Alex Tabarrok of Marginal Revolution‘s Quora response to “What do economists think about buying vs renting a house?” via Nolan Gray It’s Superbowl Weekend, and John Morris had coffee with Pittsburgh Post-Gazette columnist, Brian O’Neill to explain why he wants to ‘Tear down Heinz Field’ (Pittsburgh Steelers) Krishan Madan informed us that Cincinnati Built a Subway System 100 Years Ago–BUT NEVER USED IT Sandy Ikeda shared a Guardian piece on the role of cities in shaping musical genres Speaking of music, let’s all sing the “Monorail Song” with Nolan Gray 4. Elsewhere: Alon Levy, Pedestrian Observations:  Why Costs Matter Joe Cortwright at City Observatory:  Don’t demonize driving—just stop subsidizing it Justin Fox: Why parking your car for free is actually expensive (h/t Donald Shoup) see this too Floating cities in Tokyo Bay??  (h/t Jeff Wood) RIP Bob Elliott:  Bob and Ray on Urban Planning  (h/t Michael Strong) Chicago may eliminate the Clybourn Planned Manufacturing District.  A move Adam Hengels called for in 2014. 5. Stephen Smith‘s Tweet of the Week: SF & NYC’s experiences w/density bonuses/mandatory IZ suggest to […]

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 […]

Market Urbanism MUsings: Jan 29, 2016

[this is a pilot for a regular weekly series rounding-up the week’s happenings in the world of Market Urbanism.  I’d love to get your feedback in the comments or contact us directly.  If the response is positive, we’ll continue it.] 1. Here at Market Urbanism, Scott Beyer wrote about Charlottesville developer Oliver Kuttner for his series on America’s Progressive Developers.  Not uncommon in US cities, Kuttner faces ever increasing obstacles to innovative development: I do believe that every time you add an extra layer in city hall, you make interesting buildings less likely. 2. Scott was also quoted in The New Tropic about Miami gentrification: If you have a population increase and you don’t increase housing, people will get pushed out read the rest of the quote and article here. 3. At the Market Urbanism Facebook group: Nolan Gray shared some encouraging news about D.C.‘s new zoning code. Similar good news from Hartford, Connecticut! via John Morris China to build worlds largest Mega-City.  “What could possibly go wrong?” asks Mark Frazier. Trump thinks Eminent Domain is wonderful via Anthony Ling. 4. Elsewhere: Michael Lewyn at Planetizen: Right to the City Daniel Hertz at City Observatory: In some cities, the housing construction boom is starting to pay off Dan Savage jumps on the SFyimby bandwagon: When It Comes to Housing, San Francisco Is Doing It Wrong, Seattle Is Doing It Right, Cont. Jonathan Coppage at The American Conservative: Why San Francisco Has to Build Up Kim-Mai Cutler at TechCrunch:  A Long Game Chicago‘s proposed anti-Airbnb ordinance limits the number of nights a host can have guests, an additional 2% tax on top of Chicago’s 17.5% hotel tax, and possible jail-time for users!  Let’s hope the opposition triumphs. Strong Towns interviews @stuckbertha (that Tunnel Boring Machine that got stuck 1,000 ft under Seattle) during #NONEWROADS week 5. And finally, Stephen Smith‘s tweet of […]

A Public-Private Shopping Mall

Forest City Enterprises recently received approval from Arlington County to redevelop its Ballston Common Mall. The deal is a public-private partnership in which the county will pay for $10 million in infrastructure improvements around the mall and provide $45 million in tax increment financing for the reconstruction. The deal is not only a waste of taxpayer money, but it also perpetuates development through political favoritism as opposed to allowing competition to determine the best use of land. Opened in 1986, today Ballston Common Mall is a sad structure with a high vacancy rate. However, a public-private partnership isn’t needed to turn it into an updated, profitable development. The mall sits on incredibly valuable land. A nearby parcel less than half the size of the mall site recently sold for $7.5 million. With demand so high for land along Arlington’s Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor, county money certainly isn’t needed to facilitate retail development. The mall owner, Forest City Enterprises, is well-versed in navigating public-private partnerships. In DC the company has received over $100 million in subsidies for recent projects. Forrest City Ratner, the corporation’s New York office, was the developer of the famed Atlantic Yards (now Pacific Park) project that has become a poster project for cronyism in real estate. Like the Atlantic Yards project, the Ballston Common Mall redevelopment will involve both direct subsidies and a TIF. The TIF that will help finance the new mall is debt financing that will be paid back with property tax increases that county officials believe the new mall will bring. This will be the first TIF ever used in Arlington. The Ballston project follows a high-profile retail development in Fairfax County, where the Mosaic District was completed as that county’s first TIF. By allowing municipal policymakers to spend future tax revenues today, TIFs provide a tool for obscuring the costs of economic development […]

A Smart City in Your Pocket: From top-down command centers to bottom-up app markets

Woman sitting on a bench in a park using a smartphone

  Cities, for most of human history, were dumb. At least, that’s what the “smart cities” movement might lead you to believe. Over the past few years, a chorus of acquisitive multinational tech corporations, trend-savvy politicians, and optimistic developers­­—an odd mixture of former SimCity players, in all likelihood—has come to sing of technology’s potential to solve urban problems. Through implementation of technologies like augmented physical infrastructure, central command centers, and information exchange, proponents of smart cities argue that information technology offers new solutions to old problems like trash collection, public health, and traffic congestion. While the movement’s ideological variations are many and varied, a focus on top-down smart city solutions has ultimately distracted urban observers from the bottom-up smart city revolution that’s already underway. In his 2014 book Smart Cities: Big Data, Civic Hackers, and the Quest for a New Utopia, scholar Anthony M. Townsend paints a troubling picture of the former in Rio de Janeiro’s modestly titled Center for Intelligent Operations. Developed by IBM, the center acts as a hub for hundreds of surveillance cameras and sensors. At best, the center achieves little more than, in Townsend’s words, “looking smart.” At worst, the center seems to be a regression back to twentieth century centralization. Townsend’s explorations of Songdo, South Korea, a city purported to be both centrally-planned and smart, hardly quells these concerns. The discussion leaves the reader with a healthy skepticism of top-down smart city solutions. Other criticisms have made the top-down smart city feel less like something out of 1984 and more like something out of Terry Gilliam’s Brazil. In a couple of recent posts, Emily points out the roadblocks presented by poor incentives and a lack of market signals, both for politicians and high-ranking public servants. For similar reasons, both parties lack the incentives to implement […]

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