Physical Address

304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124

11/11/11 Day Links

1. Several people including Lydia DePillis, Charlie Gardner, and Steve Stofka have discussed the emergent order that we can see in the Occupy settlements. Similarly this video shows a beautiful illustration of the spontaneous urban development at Burning Man. 2. The Atlantic Cities features the work of Boston cartographers at Bostonography. They have produced some very fun and informative visualizations of data on the city. 3. An environmentally friendly house is going up in a DC neighborhood, and it doesn’t “fit in” at all with the surrounding row houses. A commenter at Prince of Petworth said, “Its different, quirky. Its not like they tore down a historic house to build it. I say build more weird houses. In 50 years people will thank you.” Although this house is really ugly, I tend to agree. 4. The New Republic reports that Mitt Romney used to be a supporter of Smart Growth for Massachusetts. Ezra Klein says that Romney has shied away from this issue in the national spotlight since the median voter has a vested interest in sprawl. Anyone think this change means that Romney has seen the error of central planning? Anyone?

Why DC’s Architecture Is So Boring

An Eric Colbert special, everywhere and anywhere in DC I’m a little behind on posting this, but Lydia DePillis at Washington City Paper did a great profile a week or so ago of DC architect Eric Colbert, whose buildings’ unifying features seems to be blandness. There are a lot of people out there who dismiss all modern architecture as boring out of hand, and in my opinion undeservedly, but in this case Lydia has a point. He gets a lot of work in DC, and answering the question of why his boring style is so pervasive in Washington, she discusses some of familiar themes, DC’s restrictive height limit and the usual developer conservativeness among them….

Cities and the Tax Code

We spend a lot of time here talking about the local regulations that harm cities, from parking minimums, to height limits to restrictions on mixed-use development. I’ve been thinking recently about another policy that impacts cities at the federal level: the tax code. I bring up this topic not to stoke the political debate on redistribution, but to think about the outcome that results if tax burdens push and pull people out of cities. I’ve often heard libertarian and conservative types say that they prefer suburban or rural living because city residents are more dependent on government services, but is it really true that city dwellers depend on government programs more so than others? City residents clearly pay higher local taxes and receive more local government services, but I would argue that this isn’t as important as federal taxation and spending because local taxes benefit the taxpayers more directly than the wider net of federal redistribution. In Triumph of the Cities, Ed Glaeser points to the mortgage interest tax deduction as an important factor that pulls people to the suburbs by way of home ownership, and I would certainly agree that all federal policies with the goal of promoting home ownership or facilitating easy credit harm cities. Another much-talked-about tax expenditure for ethanol fuel blenders has benefits that fall on drivers, and this is on top of all of the other tax benefits that domestic oil companies receive. Several government programs subsidize those who choose to live in inconvenient places. The USPS delivers many packages for a flat rate fee, while I doubt that FedEx would find this pricing profitable. Similarly, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided funds for expanding broadband to areas of the country that could not otherwise support the service. On the other hand, some federal policies […]

The Day the Engineers Turned Against California HSR

No, but really – fly California. On Tuesday, the California High-Speed Rail Authority laid down their cards in the form of a new “business plan” for the proposed line, and its cards are not good – the system is now projected to cost $98 billion in year-of-expenditure dollars, which, taking into account inflation, is about twice the $33 billion figure given in 2008.* But despite the price hike, not many people’s opinions on the project seem to have changed – those who were for it are still for it, while those opposed are even more set against it….

Midweek Links and Business

1. Stephen writes at The Atlantic Cities on Japan’s largely privatized rail system. He points out that free market reforms have benefited both cities and transit there. 2. For readers in the DC area, the Urban Land Institute is holding Capital Markets Interchange in McLean on November 10th. The event will focus on real estate investment in the current climate of political uncertainty. 3. Ryan Avent is on Econtalk this week. I’ve not yet read The Gated City, but I hope to read it this week and offer my thoughts on it next week. His conversation with Russ Roberts was great, and I was excited to hear that they covered some of the themes of yesterday’s post on opportunities for lobbying planning departments and city councils for land use privileges. 4. I am shocked, shocked by the increase in the estimated cost of California’s HSR. Check out The OC Register’s account of yesterday’s new developments compared to CAHSR blog’s for an interesting contrast in perspectives. 5. Four readers commented and two emailed me saying that they would be interested in my copy of The Instant City (reviewed last week). At random, I selected the second email that I received, so I will be sending the book to that reader shortly.

Cities and the Market Process: Part 2

In the first post of this little series, I addressed the problems of top down land use regulation through the lens of Austrian economics. Because cities contain public space and infrastructure that is used by many residents and cannot be bought and sold in the way that many goods can be, Alon Levy suggests turning to collective choice to solve these problems. I will agree that collective choice, or its close cousin communal property rights can be employed well in cities. For example, business improvement districts can work together to undertake projects that would not be worthwhile for any business to take individually, benefitting themselves and their customers in the process. Similarly, these voluntary and emergent organizations can emerge among homeowners or neighborhoods, circumventing some of the coordination problems involved within communities. In a future post, I will go into further detail about the benefits of these types of organizations, whether they’re formal or informal. But now, I want to point out the problems of collective choice when carried out through legislation or land use regulation. As Alon points out, collective choice is inherently biased toward favoring a city’s or neighborhood’s current residents, against potential future residents. This makes policies created through collective choice inherently anti-density and anti-growth. It also means that cities come with a built-in vested interest that wants to protect their property. When planning departments allow this group to protect their interest through the political process, the market process is stifled because entrepreneurs cannot take advantage of available profit opportunities to increase urban density. Furthermore, collective choice leads to many unholy alliances, such as NIMBYs and historic preservationists, NIMBYs and environmentalists who want to protect open space, NIMBYs and those opposed to new transit projects, etc. In other words, collective choice leads to many of the results that urbanists criticize. […]

Hey Bloomberg, Buy Your Own 7 Train to New Jersey!

A few days ago, Mayor Bloomberg made a startling announcement: The 7 train extension to New Jersey is still on. The idea was first floated last year as a replacement for the canceled trans-Hudson commuter rail ARC project, but it was a hard sell then, and at $10 billion, it’s still a hard sell. The federal ARC funds have long since been redistributed, and New York City has no idea how it’ll even finish the Second Avenue Subway – where does Bloomberg think money for a subway line to New Jersey is going to come from? …

Book Review of Instant City: Life and Death in Karachi

I’m reviewing Instant City: Life and Death in Karachi by Steve Inskeep as part of a TLC Book Tour. Other bloggers are also reviewing the book throughout October, and you can find links to their reviews here. I received a complimentary copy of the book, and I’d like to send it to a reader if anyone who’d like to read it doesn’t mind a copy with some underlining and margin notes. If you’d like it, just comment saying so by Wednesday, November 2nd. If multiple readers would like it, I’ll pick one at random. _____________________________ In a manner that is rare for non fiction, Instant City is really a page turner. Inskeep takes us through the history of Karachi from Pakistan’s independence in 1947 through the present, stringing personal stories of social entrepreneurs, politicians, activists and real estate developers together to tell the city’s story. He revolves the historical accounts around a 2007 bombing, in which unknown perpetrators bombed a procession that was part of a Shia religious holiday. Following the bombing, rioters burned down blocks of wholesale retail buildings. Despite the arrests of four suspects, many of the city’s residents are so distrustful of the city’s MQM government that they believe that city officials caused the bombing and subsequent fires in order to clear out the neighborhood’s current tenants to make way for more glamorous businesses. While the city’s mayor passionately denies that city government had any involvement with burning its citizens’ property, that residents have so little faith in their government demonstrates how absent the rule of law is in Karachi regarding property rights to land. In with the history of the city’s history, growth, and conflict, Inskeep covers land use in Karachi in considerable detail. To me, “Groundbreaking” is the most interesting chapter, where Inskeep details the experience of slum clearance in the […]

Cities and the Market Process: Part 1

In a post about the tendency for emergent urbanists to promote the idea of cities having a single equilibrium, Alon Levy recently wrote that collective choice is the best manner for determining urban form. Many urbanists accept that some of the top-down regulations that limit density or use are detrimental to cities, but they often stop short of suggesting that land use regulation should be abolished and transportation privatized, which I will support here with arguments based in Austrian economics. This post does not get to a critique of the collective choice that Alon supports; later entries in this market process series will address both the problems of creating urban policy through collective choice, and some of the institutions that have emerged within civil society that are essential to cities and their residents. The cohort of economists and urbanists who support the elimination of land use regulation is small because cities present all of the problems that neoclassical and Keynesian economists describe as market failures, including externalities, high transaction costs involved in Coasean bargaining, non-excludable goods, etc. However, I believe that emergent solutions solve these problems more effectively than either central planning or collective decision making that becomes law, and the failed and inefficient government projects that urbanist bloggers write about everyday suggest that government failure is no trivial concern. The first reason that regulation is a poor tool to for determining urban form comes from Friedrich Hayek. He clearly identified the calculation problem inherent in central planning: the information necessary to coordinate markets (including land use markets) is held by individuals with “particular knowledge of time and place.” Even assuming that urban planners are benevolent and seek to provide the best outcomes for their communities, they could never compile the knowledge necessary to determine what those outcomes are. Jane […]

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