Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
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?
Limousine Liberals aren’t the only ones who oppose change. In Harlem, neighbors fought to keep new people out of their neighborhood, and want to force gentrification upon other neighborhoods. In the process they created such a stir at Wednesday’s Council session, they had to be cleared out. It’s such a strange phenomenon: progressives who act conservative; they preach tolerance, while excluding others from what they feel they own collectively. They applaud “Change” as a buzzword, then fight change when it effects them. NY Daily News: Council OKs Harlem rezoning plan; cops called to clear opponents The Real Deal: Council approves Harlem rezoning AMNY: Council approves controversial Harlem development plan Recent Market Urbanism post: 125th Street Rezoning
Tyler Cowen of Marginal Revolution asks a great question: How good would the abolition of zoning in New York City be? He argues that zoning restrictions prevent Manhattan from being a “forest of skyscrapers” such as Sao Paulo. Many of Manhattan’s skyscrapers are much taller than typical Sao Paulo skyscrapers. This is mostly because the rock that lies under Midtown and Downtown nearly eliminates the marginal cost of foundations for taller buildings. On the rest of Manhattan island the soil is less friendly to skyscrapers, rendering tall buildings less economical. Nonetheless, restrictive zoning prohibits optimal density in almost all areas of Manhattan. The restrictions are mostly created to cater to NIMBY activists who are afraid of too many people moving to their neighborhood, using more parking spots, making sidewalks more crowded, blocking views, and altering the “character” of their neighborhood. These activists have been granted property rights over their neighbors’ land by pandering politicians. Of course, this restricts creative destruction, and prevents entrepreneurs from increasing supply to meet the market demand. Shortages arise as a result of the density restrictions coupled with a limited stock of developable land. On top of all that, bureaucracy creates barriers to entry for new development. Only well-connected developers are able to grease city hall to get favorable zoning, and subsidies that others could not. This raises the price of land to a level that only well-connected developers can afford, flushing out wannabes that would build more housing and office space. Zoning restrictions, bureaucratic delays, and barriers to entry in NYC create a shortage of housing and office space, drive prices though the roof, and forces people to migrate to the outer boroughs and suburbs to find an affordable place to live. Without density restrictions, Manhattan would still be very expensive due to the higher […]
Whoever is putting together this petition, please let Market Urbanism readers know how to sign the petition. Gowanus Lounge: Carroll Gardens Rumor Mill: “Pro-Development” Petition?
Collectivists planned to join “Hands Across Harlem” to stop developers from further exercising their property rights. However, they only managed to gather a small crowd. New York Observer: 125th Street Rezoning Rally: 1968 Tries Again City Council Could Approve 125th Street Rezoning Tomorrow The Real Deal: Harlem rezoning critics want changes Latest: The Real Deal: City Council subcommittee approves Harlem rezoning NY Times
All these different players trying to “plan” economic growth could end up smothering it. Instead of letting the developer take the risk, politicians want to play hero. NY Times: West Side Redevelopment Plans in Disarray Curbed: West Side Doom & Gloom: Moynihan the Key for Megaprojects
NIMBYism and exclusionary zoning has helped “preserve the character” of desirable urban areas by driving out the economically unfortunate. Green Disparate Impact