Physical Address

304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124

Tag density

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, […]

A Recipe to Destroy Affordability in Any City.

Austin Contrarian discusses an article that describes how Seattle has become less affordable in recent years. He prescribes a recipe for Austin to become what he calls a “Superstar City” such as New York, Boston, San Francisco, or Seattle. By “Superstar City”, I assume he means an ultra-hip place where housing prices rise rapidly, NIMBY activism grows, and development is restricted, making it even less affordable for many, except the wealthy and subsidized. The agenda would work for any city: Here’s the agenda I’d propose for propelling Austin into the “Superstar City” pantheon: (1) discourage the construction of traditionally affordable housing like garage apartments and duplexes; (2) restrict the amount of land available for multi-family housing; (3) strictly limit multi-family density; (4) limit the construction of upscale condos and townhomes in order to force affluent homebuyers to compete for the scarce supply of close-in housing; (5) ban small-lot and “urban home” zoning; (6) require property owners/developers who build dense developments to shoulder the financial burden for things like affordable housing, parks and infrastructure; and (7) impose onerous design standards to increase the cost of new construction. We can call it the “progressive” agenda. We’ll be in the superstar ranks in no time. Austin Contrarian: Sound familiar?

Should the Government Build the Cars or the Roads?

I tend to agree that there is some hypocrisy in the conservative/libertarian world when it comes to transportation, which is part of the reason I started this blog. A more free-market transporation system would certainly lead to a more urban land use pattern; something between pre-auto, transit-reliant density and current auto-reliant sprawling suburbs. Regardless, market-based solutions will lead to a denser land use pattern in the long-run. This article discusses governement’s role in infrastructure and some libertarian free-market advocates’ strange love affair with government planned highways: Maybe the Government Should Build the Cars Is transportation like education, a communal service that works best through heavy general funding that pays off down the road in a community’s overall prosperity, or is it best delivered by targeting users, especially road users through congestion pricing to reduce demand and increase revenues? Also: King of the Road They seem to see a highway as an expression of the free market and of American individualism, and a rail line as an example of government meddling and creeping socialism. However, the above article portrays the government as the hero for overspending on highways, but what do you expect from a magazine named Governing? Rationalitate: Libertarians for Statism on the Governing article: “[o]ur national road system would never have been built if every street were required to pay for itself.” Yeah, that’s exactly the point! Our “national road system” is the problem, and the author’s implication is that not only would there be no “national road system,” but that roads are indeed synonymous with transportation. But just because we wouldn’t have trillion-dollar pavement stretching across the continent doesn’t mean we wouldn’t be able to get across the continent – or, more importantly, wherever it is that we want to go. Latest: How McCain or Obama Can Permanently […]

NIMBYs sue to force developer to “protect character”

Nearby residents want to stall Columbus Village from being their Upper West Side neighbor. The myth that dense development is bad for the environment continues… Maybe high-priced attorneys help propagate these myths at the expense of the environment and supply of housing for the sake of their clients’ Legal Plunder. GlobeSt: Resident Files Suit Seeking Environmental Review

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