Tag PMD

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 […]

On the Mixing of Incompatible Uses and Incumbency

I noticed an interestingly ironic thing today. The usual argument for the necessity of use-based zoning is that it protects homeowners in residential area from uses that would potentially create negative externalities – ie: smelting factory, garbage dump, or Sriracha factory. Urban Economics teaches us that such an event happening is highly unlikely in today’s marketplace. (nevermind the fact that nuisance laws should resolve these disputes) The business owner who is looking for a site for a stinky business would be foolish to look in a residential area where land costs are significantly higher. However, as Aaron Renn pointed out in the comments of my last post on Planned Manufacturing Districts, the inverse of this is happening in many cities as residential uses begin to outbid other uses in industrial areas: I think part of the rationale in this is that once you allow residential into a manufacturing zone, the new residents will start issuing loud complaints about the byproducts of manufacturing: noise, smells, etc. I know owners of businesses in Chicago who have experienced just that. They’ve been there for decades but now are getting complaints from people who live in residential buildings that didn’t even exist when the manufacturer located there. This puts those businesses under a lot of pressure to leave as officials will almost always side with residents who vote rather than businesses who don’t get to. It’s clear this is a more relevant defense of use-based zoning than the one we usually hear. Of course, I’d argue that segregating uses through zoning isn’t a just way to resolve these disputes, and my last post discusses some of the detrimental consequences for cities. It seems ironic, because it inverts the usual argument in-favor of zoning.  Residents are choosing to move near established industrial firms, and PMDs are a tool […]

Planned Manufacturing Districts: Planning the Life Out of Districts

They are called different things in different cities, but they are similar in form and intent among the cities where they are found.  For simplicity’s sake, a Planned Manufacturing District (PMD), as they are called in Chicago, is an area of land, defined by zoning, that prohibits residential development and other specific uses with the intent of fostering manufacturing and blue-collar employment. Proponent of PMDs purport to be champions of the middle-class or blue-collar workers, but fail to consider the unintended consequences of prohibiting alternative uses on that land.  At best, PMDs have little effect on changing land-use patterns where industrial is already the highest-and-best-use.  At worst, they have the long-run potential to distort the land use market, drive up the costs of housing, and prevent vibrant neighborhoods from emerging. A Race to The Bottom Before getting into it further, it is important to examine the economic decisions industrial firms make in comparison to other uses.  Earlier in the industrial revolution, industry was heavily reliant on access to resources.  Manufacturing and related firms were very sensitive to location.  The firms desired locations with easy access to ports, waterways, and later railways to transport raw materials coming in, and products going out. However, the advent of the Interstate Highway System and ubiquitously socialized transportation network have made logistical costs negligible compared to other costs.  Where firms once competed for locations with access to logistical hubs and outbid other uses for land near waterways in cities, they now seek locations with the cheapest land where they can have a large, single-floor facility under one roof.  This means sizable subsidies must be combined with the artificially cheap land to attract and retain industrial employers on constrained urban sites. Additionally, today’s economy has become much more talent-based rather than resource based, and patterns have shifted accordingly.  In contrast to industrial, residential and office uses are […]