What If Urban Sprawl Is the Only Realistic Way to Create Affordable Cities?(blogs.wsj.com)
blogs.wsj.com
What If Urban Sprawl Is the Only Realistic Way to Create Affordable Cities?
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/09/14/what-if-urban-sprawl-is-the-only-realistic-way-to-create-affordable-cities/
12 comments
> their development has been entrusted to, well, developers
Bullshit!
Look at the zoning codes for most cities. This is one of the most regulated markets in the US!
Minimum setbacks, heights, parking minimums, lot sizes, allowed uses - the list goes on and on, and is extremely prescriptive and detailed.
For instance, here in Bend Oregon, you can look through the city code for parking minimums:
"Beauty parlor and Barber shop: 3 spaces for each of the first 2 beauty or barber chairs, and 1½ spaces for each additional chair"
And this is pretty typical in the US.
Edit: I'll add that I am not a libertarian "markets solve all problems" kind of guy, but housing/land use is absolutely something where I think we could use more markets. I highly recommend these books:
The Rent is Too Damn High: http://amzn.to/2cxlP87
The Gated City: http://amzn.to/2cf7jBo
As well as this site: http://marketurbanism.com/ (some of those guys are pretty hard core libertarian, but I guess we can agree to disagree on many things and concentrate on markets and urbanism).
Bullshit!
Look at the zoning codes for most cities. This is one of the most regulated markets in the US!
Minimum setbacks, heights, parking minimums, lot sizes, allowed uses - the list goes on and on, and is extremely prescriptive and detailed.
For instance, here in Bend Oregon, you can look through the city code for parking minimums:
"Beauty parlor and Barber shop: 3 spaces for each of the first 2 beauty or barber chairs, and 1½ spaces for each additional chair"
And this is pretty typical in the US.
Edit: I'll add that I am not a libertarian "markets solve all problems" kind of guy, but housing/land use is absolutely something where I think we could use more markets. I highly recommend these books:
The Rent is Too Damn High: http://amzn.to/2cxlP87
The Gated City: http://amzn.to/2cf7jBo
As well as this site: http://marketurbanism.com/ (some of those guys are pretty hard core libertarian, but I guess we can agree to disagree on many things and concentrate on markets and urbanism).
Don't forget 'The high cost of Free Parking'
I'll raise you Houston, TX.
Still has a lot of regulation:
http://marketurbanism.com/2016/06/02/houston-beautiful-yet-p...
But it is affordable, which is good.
http://marketurbanism.com/2016/06/02/houston-beautiful-yet-p...
But it is affordable, which is good.
> One of the reasons cities have sprawled is because their development has been entrusted to, well, developers
This is specifically the opposite of the case. Developers would happily build New York and San Francisco up into the stratosphere if it were legal. It's not, so they have to build out instead. This is 100% determined by the regulatory structure that legalizes sprawl and prohibits densification.
This is specifically the opposite of the case. Developers would happily build New York and San Francisco up into the stratosphere if it were legal. It's not, so they have to build out instead. This is 100% determined by the regulatory structure that legalizes sprawl and prohibits densification.
But most of the country doesn't live in New York or San Francisco. In somewhere like, say, Columbus it's much cheaper for a developer to build cookie-cutter mansions than to plop down a new sky scraper in the city.
Most of the country also doesn't have the problem of rampant housing cost inflation the way NYC or SF does.
Sure they do. There are gentrification problems happening in most small-to-midsize "rest of the country" cities. Places like Cincinnati / Minneapolis / Austin / etc just don't get as much attention for it because the scale is smaller, but the effect on residents is very similar.
In these "rest of the country" places, you can't have a meaningful conversation about housing problems, because the residents will point to the suburbs/exurbs and say "those are still affordable -- that's where the middle class should go". Which is a better situation than say San Francisco, but it's still bad -- it's generating even more sprawl and further kills public transit (as this article highlights).
New dense urban construction in small Midwest cities is close-to-identical (within 10-15%) to top ten market pricing, even though wages are still 20-40% lower on average, and construction costs + land costs are lower. Small and medium sized Midwest cities cut themselves off at their own feet, building lots of "urban" housing that's priced identically to places like Seattle / Portland / Denver. They then act really surprised/frustrated when working class people complain about housing costs and gentrification in their "low cost of living" cities.
A $300k housing unit in "the rest of the country" is often just as unaffordable as say, a $600k housing unit in Seattle, if you measure that cost in terms of percent of paycheck -- which is what working class people rent/purchase housing with.
In these "rest of the country" places, you can't have a meaningful conversation about housing problems, because the residents will point to the suburbs/exurbs and say "those are still affordable -- that's where the middle class should go". Which is a better situation than say San Francisco, but it's still bad -- it's generating even more sprawl and further kills public transit (as this article highlights).
New dense urban construction in small Midwest cities is close-to-identical (within 10-15%) to top ten market pricing, even though wages are still 20-40% lower on average, and construction costs + land costs are lower. Small and medium sized Midwest cities cut themselves off at their own feet, building lots of "urban" housing that's priced identically to places like Seattle / Portland / Denver. They then act really surprised/frustrated when working class people complain about housing costs and gentrification in their "low cost of living" cities.
A $300k housing unit in "the rest of the country" is often just as unaffordable as say, a $600k housing unit in Seattle, if you measure that cost in terms of percent of paycheck -- which is what working class people rent/purchase housing with.
Especially when said developer can use the exact same cookie-cutter, with little to no deviation, in Cleveland, Cincinatti, Louisville, Nashville, and so forth...
Developers aren't responsible for the construction of the municipal facilities and infrastructure necessary to support such a drastic increase in population density.
There are plenty of examples in NYC of forcing the developer to build infrastructure in order to get more building rights. In the suburbs developers are often required to build the underlying infrastructure for their subdivisions.
It's simple math. If the cost of building the development + required infrastructure is less than the price can sell it for then things will get built. It's the responsibility of the city to bundle the infrastructure requirements onto the building permit.
It's simple math. If the cost of building the development + required infrastructure is less than the price can sell it for then things will get built. It's the responsibility of the city to bundle the infrastructure requirements onto the building permit.
No, but they and their client certainly pay the property taxes and fees to make such things a possibility. More density = more property tax revenue = more facilities and infrastructure possible.
Cities have sprawled because of zoning regulations and poor transportation policies that force them to, because they can't build up, so they have to build out instead. You could easily get the reverse effect with an urban growth boundary and relaxed zoning.
At some point you likely also need eminent domain (with a fair-ish system for compensating people whom it affects). Somehow we are really good at eminent domain for building highways, but not skyscrapers or trains.
I don't think you really need eminent domain for skyscrapers. Economics + property taxes generally provide sufficient incentive.
We were completely awesome at eminent domain for trains. They just sort of went out of style. And the logistics revolution has made train freight more competitive than ever. The cost of air travel ( modulo whatever you suffer at the hands of the TSA ) is so low that trains almost have to be a custom travel experience to complete.
Eminent domain can only be used in cases of public use. Skyscrapers not being built by government functions are never a good idea. So, you cannot use eminent domain for developer acquisition.
Trains do not get a lot of eminent domain help, instead their is a lot of work to build within existing right of ways.
Trains do not get a lot of eminent domain help, instead their is a lot of work to build within existing right of ways.
This is basically what Portland, Oregon did, as I understand.
Cities with few or no zoning laws have also built out more than up. Dallas and Houston come to mind. Or Jakarta.
Houston still has minimum parking requirements, which pushes people towards cars, and it exists in a state that pushes car-oriented development.
You're speaking as if people exist for the benefit of cities and not the other way around. Some people like living in more quiet, open, kid-friendly spaces: i.e., suburban sprawl. If a city can't provide that for them, they are under absolutely no obligation to get cut down to fit in the urbanist Procrustean bed.
Nothing wrong with suburbs, but many American policies have basically forced sprawl even when people might like moderate levels of density.
A good example of this is Level of Service, a policy that dictated for decades that roads be evaluated by how many cars they moved in a given amount of time. People going by other modes? Safety? Measuring how long it actually takes people to get where they need to be? Not important; always cars, always faster.
One of the dumb things about American cities is that you have big cities with large apartment complexes and sprawly suburbs and not a whole lot in between, which is entirely due to policies, not the choices of individual families or developers. See: http://missingmiddlehousing.com
A good example of this is Level of Service, a policy that dictated for decades that roads be evaluated by how many cars they moved in a given amount of time. People going by other modes? Safety? Measuring how long it actually takes people to get where they need to be? Not important; always cars, always faster.
One of the dumb things about American cities is that you have big cities with large apartment complexes and sprawly suburbs and not a whole lot in between, which is entirely due to policies, not the choices of individual families or developers. See: http://missingmiddlehousing.com
Not to mention we traded the town square / main street / city center for a shopping mall in the suburbs.
I've never bought the "kid-friendly" argument. Kids grow up in cities in the US and around the world, safely and effectively. Do you have statistical evidence to the contrary? If I were to guess, it's not about being "kid-friendly", it's about being "parent-easy".
And kids, in my experience, hate suburbia, especially as they get into early teens and want some independence. It's like living in a giant protective bubble where there's nowhere to go and nothing to do, without having to have someone's parents cart you around.
And kids, in my experience, hate suburbia, especially as they get into early teens and want some independence. It's like living in a giant protective bubble where there's nowhere to go and nothing to do, without having to have someone's parents cart you around.
Totally agree. Up to about 10-14 or so (depending on the child), the suburbs are likely great for children. Afterwards, once they grow up a bit and start to form their own identity, I'd say they're actually damaging to a lot of teenagers. Without friends, without community, without anything to do, of course teenagers turn to drugs, cutting, and other maladaptive behaviors. Most are not permanently harmed, but I have no doubt that large numbers are. Yet, it doesn't seem like parents take this into account when choosing where to live (for the ones that have a choice, that is).
I also just realized/remembered that the leading cause of death for children, particularly teenagers, is automobile accidents.
Surely whatever dangers kids are exposed to in cities absolutely pale in comparison to the increased risk of car accidents caused by living in the suburbs, where virtually every outing requires a lengthy trip by car.
Surely whatever dangers kids are exposed to in cities absolutely pale in comparison to the increased risk of car accidents caused by living in the suburbs, where virtually every outing requires a lengthy trip by car.
Not to mention obesity. My guess is a large component is from sitting inside all day because your friends are too far away to meet up spontaneously, and there's nothing to do outside anyway — things like parks, basketball courts, etc. are all far enough away that a parent has to drive.
Look around "kid-friendly" suburbia, and there's practically no kids outside.
Look around "kid-friendly" suburbia, and there's practically no kids outside.
No kids outside, no sidewalks, no one walking around (without a dog) because there's nothing you can walk to, a bunch of unused baseball fields aka 'parks', the only place you will likely bump into your neighbor is the supermarket.
Then again, suburban dwellers aren't totally crazy because our large cities are also built for cars with space for people as a complete afterthought most of the streets in Minneapolis need a road-diet. In Minneapolis, we invented the mall (Southdale), which sucked all the retail life out the city then we added the 'Mall of America' just to finish the job, to add insult to injury we built preposterous skyways which divides what's left of our paltry street-life onto two levels.
I really should move to Europe: Paris, Milan, Utrecht, Munich, London, Budapest, Prague... heartbreaking beauty.
Then again, suburban dwellers aren't totally crazy because our large cities are also built for cars with space for people as a complete afterthought most of the streets in Minneapolis need a road-diet. In Minneapolis, we invented the mall (Southdale), which sucked all the retail life out the city then we added the 'Mall of America' just to finish the job, to add insult to injury we built preposterous skyways which divides what's left of our paltry street-life onto two levels.
I really should move to Europe: Paris, Milan, Utrecht, Munich, London, Budapest, Prague... heartbreaking beauty.
Early so-called streetcar suburbs are great for young people because they are scaled perfectly for bicycling.
What people are referring to on this thread is really exurbs.
What people are referring to on this thread is really exurbs.
Yesterday's exurbs are today's suburbs. Today's exurbs are yesterday's small towns and neighboring counties. The sprawl keeps sprawling.
I live in one of those streetcar suburbs. It WOULD be great for kids, even though my house is a short walk from those oh-so-scary high rises, because that also makes it a short walk from a lot of things a kid wants to walk to.
The one catch is the risk of my kid being squished like a bug by idiot suburban drivers.
The one catch is the risk of my kid being squished like a bug by idiot suburban drivers.
> Some people like living in more quiet, open, kid-friendly spaces: i.e., suburban sprawl.
Good for them. If that's what they want then they should pay for it in a free and open market. I shouldn't have to subsidize their preferences via restrictive zoning.
Good for them. If that's what they want then they should pay for it in a free and open market. I shouldn't have to subsidize their preferences via restrictive zoning.
> Cities exist to make it easy for everyone in them to meet or work with anyone else as cheaply as possible
That is your rightful opinion, but it's not everyone's opinion. As someone who already lives in SF, I believe SF exists to stay nice and to not be overrun by more people/cars/traffic/pollution. In other words, the exact opposite of what you want it to be.
That is your rightful opinion, but it's not everyone's opinion. As someone who already lives in SF, I believe SF exists to stay nice and to not be overrun by more people/cars/traffic/pollution. In other words, the exact opposite of what you want it to be.
"When I moved here it was ok, but you shouldn't move here!"
I guess some people were born in the right place though, in which case you can only commend them for having worked so hard to be born there.
I guess some people were born in the right place though, in which case you can only commend them for having worked so hard to be born there.
> When cities make it difficult to meet and work with others, as they do when they sprawl
This doesn't follow. It's incredibly efficient, in time and effort terms, to get around sprawl. You just drive at 65mph on the wide-open freeways and up the parking lot with plenty of open space in front of every conceivable destination. I've never spent more than 30 minutes making a point-to-point hop where both points are in sprawl. Average case, more like 10. Traffic jams == not sprawl-y enough.
Thirty minutes for any public transit trip in San Francisco or Chicago (at least the parts I can afford) is like a once-a-year pop-the-champagne-corks celebration. Ten, forget it. Not gonna happen ever unless it's the corner store. Getting anywhere useful is usually abut 50 minutes. (I'm pretty sure this is the CTA's SLA. No matter the distance - past a point, roughly 50 minutes. Implies some design effort and a sophisticated balancing of slower and faster lines).
Sure, bus tickets are cheaper than car ownership, but our time is worth something too.
>just agglomerations of many towns without a center
This is precisely what the pro-density anti-car people on HN advocate: dense walkable neighborhoods, with no real solution for medium distance transportation. Tiny markets where local businesses get to price-gouge you because going to a competitor means lighting your afternoon on fire.
This doesn't follow. It's incredibly efficient, in time and effort terms, to get around sprawl. You just drive at 65mph on the wide-open freeways and up the parking lot with plenty of open space in front of every conceivable destination. I've never spent more than 30 minutes making a point-to-point hop where both points are in sprawl. Average case, more like 10. Traffic jams == not sprawl-y enough.
Thirty minutes for any public transit trip in San Francisco or Chicago (at least the parts I can afford) is like a once-a-year pop-the-champagne-corks celebration. Ten, forget it. Not gonna happen ever unless it's the corner store. Getting anywhere useful is usually abut 50 minutes. (I'm pretty sure this is the CTA's SLA. No matter the distance - past a point, roughly 50 minutes. Implies some design effort and a sophisticated balancing of slower and faster lines).
Sure, bus tickets are cheaper than car ownership, but our time is worth something too.
>just agglomerations of many towns without a center
This is precisely what the pro-density anti-car people on HN advocate: dense walkable neighborhoods, with no real solution for medium distance transportation. Tiny markets where local businesses get to price-gouge you because going to a competitor means lighting your afternoon on fire.
The list of cities I can get to from Oakland on BART in under 30 minutes is pretty long.
Thirty minutes of time on a BART car, sure.
Suppose you live in the premium housing really close to the BART, so your walk is only five minutes to the station. Then another five getting through the fare gate and waiting for your train. Then your destination is an easy ten-minute walk from the BART. Great, but that's not a 30-minute trip, it's a 50-minute trip.
Suppose you live in the premium housing really close to the BART, so your walk is only five minutes to the station. Then another five getting through the fare gate and waiting for your train. Then your destination is an easy ten-minute walk from the BART. Great, but that's not a 30-minute trip, it's a 50-minute trip.
Granted, this is true for the more distant cities. But if I'm going to San Francisco or Berkeley (let's be honest, where the hell else would I want to go), the train ride itself is less than 15 minutes.
There are three grocery stores within a 15-minute walk of my house. Two of them are next to the nearest subway stop; they add no more to my commute than walking through a parking lot would add to yours. The subway gets me to many useful places in 30 minutes.
My time is valuable, and I spend none of it stuck in traffic or looking for parking.
Advocating for density means that more people have the option of living this way.
You've been served badly by public transit, but you seem to be saying that public transit should be as bad for everyone as it is for you.
My time is valuable, and I spend none of it stuck in traffic or looking for parking.
Advocating for density means that more people have the option of living this way.
You've been served badly by public transit, but you seem to be saying that public transit should be as bad for everyone as it is for you.
So Houston is the (a?) poster child for sprawl. But Houston now has really nice toll roads, and this greatly ameliorates any difficulty in getting around by quite a bit.
Developers do what they can in the tax and legal climate they operate in. Incentives are always extremely difficult.
Developers do what they can in the tax and legal climate they operate in. Incentives are always extremely difficult.
sorry, they had help from the government plowing homes and businesses down for interstates and more recently for political friends.
developers aren't to blame, zoning laws, political payoffs, and more, are to blame. Your so called bogeymen have to play by the rules set by the politicians who are concerned about reelection, post office income streams, and fame. They want to name bridges, buildings, and more, and get credit for stadiums and such. They certainly are not interested in the lives of residents until an election roles around
developers aren't to blame, zoning laws, political payoffs, and more, are to blame. Your so called bogeymen have to play by the rules set by the politicians who are concerned about reelection, post office income streams, and fame. They want to name bridges, buildings, and more, and get credit for stadiums and such. They certainly are not interested in the lives of residents until an election roles around
It's not. I'd recommend Jane Jacobs' "The Death and Life of Great American Cities" to anyone interested in a comprehensive picture of what it takes to make cities livable:
https://www.amazon.com/Death-Life-Great-American-Cities/dp/0...
Also read up on all the work Singapore is doing to increase density without ruining their economy or environment while improving livability.
And some further reading on the dynamics of city growth: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....
I love thinking about this stuff, complex and fascinating :)
Also read up on all the work Singapore is doing to increase density without ruining their economy or environment while improving livability.
And some further reading on the dynamics of city growth: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....
I love thinking about this stuff, complex and fascinating :)
This is funny. Singapore is one of the most expensive places to live on the planet. Density there, people work so many jobs just to live in the smallest possible dwellings.
The main obstacle to building upwards in American cities is the illegality of it. It's zoned, and coded and regulated to death, and can only be done in a small portion of the land around.
Suburban sprawl, meanwhile, remains actively subsidized.
So if your high rise builders are hobbled, OF COURSE more sprawl will be the only way to address increasing demand.
Suburban sprawl, meanwhile, remains actively subsidized.
So if your high rise builders are hobbled, OF COURSE more sprawl will be the only way to address increasing demand.
Tokyo is also never mentioned in the article: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/023562e2-54a6-11e6-befd-2fc0c26b3c..., but it should be.
The example of Tokyo undermines GP but actually confirms TFA. Lots of medium-rise buildings, extending to the horizon in all directions. The excellent transit makes the situation (only) somewhat bearable. Commute times are inversely proportional to income, up to a point.
There are eight megacities of 10MM or more people in the first world. Some of them sprawl, others allow reasonable densities in newly built neighborhoods. Reasonable density, in this case, means 100 or more, about what you get from building 2-3 stories, allowing buildings with very small setbacks, not requiring excessive parking, and allowing retail and commercial uses to mix in neighborhoods. Most highly desirable San Francisco neighborhoods are built at such density but such building is illegal in America.
Here they are, in order of inaccessibility and unaffordability to the middle class.
1. New York (Sprawls)
2. London (Doesn't)
3. Los Angeles (Sprawls)
4. Paris (Doesn't)
5. Tokyo (Doesn't)
6. Mexico City (Doesn't)
7. Seoul (Doesn't)
8. Osaka (Doesn't)
San Francisco sprawls and matches the high end of the list. Not much evidence for the op's thesis.
Here they are, in order of inaccessibility and unaffordability to the middle class.
1. New York (Sprawls)
2. London (Doesn't)
3. Los Angeles (Sprawls)
4. Paris (Doesn't)
5. Tokyo (Doesn't)
6. Mexico City (Doesn't)
7. Seoul (Doesn't)
8. Osaka (Doesn't)
San Francisco sprawls and matches the high end of the list. Not much evidence for the op's thesis.
Excessive parking: Two areas of San Diego have lots of restaurants, bars and clubs. There is also lots of "free" parking attached to some of the businesses in these areas. This parking is not available to the visitors to the restaurants, bars or clubs, which surprisingly have less parking. One bar I frequent has four parking spaces and way more than 16 chairs to sit on inside. The free parking is restricted to patrons of the business the spaces are attached to. If all the parking was paid parking, it would tend to be in reach of multiple businesses so one could pick up some Tums after a meal at a restaurant without first moving the car. I have daydreamed about reforming parking and adding in short hop buses like the jitneys that Atlantic City had for a few years, so you go to the dense business district, visit many businesses from one parking spot.
And the illegality comes from NIMBYs, who want all the benefits of the city with none of the downsides, but only for themselves of course.
Downtown high-rise condos are always way more costly than the equivalent size condo 20 miles out.
Build a bunch of three story condos out on some cheap land and you don't even need an elevator or parking garages because there's room for covered outdoor parking.
Build a high rise and you have all sorts of cost with putting something 20 stories high. Just the materials cost more. It also takes longer to break ground and build.
Build a bunch of three story condos out on some cheap land and you don't even need an elevator or parking garages because there's room for covered outdoor parking.
Build a high rise and you have all sorts of cost with putting something 20 stories high. Just the materials cost more. It also takes longer to break ground and build.
If the condo twenty miles out is in the middle of nowhere, it may not be any cheaper, once you factor in the cost of building out infrastructure there and providing public services further out. Often times these things are subsidized though, so Americans don't realize how expensive things actually are.
A good example is when someone in a rural area is outraged when the cable company says it'll cost a couple grand to wire up their house that's a ways off from any main road. Like, did you think that stuff was just free?
A good example is when someone in a rural area is outraged when the cable company says it'll cost a couple grand to wire up their house that's a ways off from any main road. Like, did you think that stuff was just free?
> If the condo twenty miles out is in the middle of nowhere, it may not be any cheaper, once you factor in the cost of building out infrastructure there and providing public services further out. Often times these things are subsidized though, so Americans don't realize how expensive things actually are.
That's the textbook case of privatizing the profits and socializing the losses. The infrastructure you're talking about will be built by the city/state and the costs borne by everyone who lives up to the point of that condo 20 miles out.
When things are not subsidized, the developers only end up building luxury condos in urban areas, which is the case for most large metro areas right now.
That's the textbook case of privatizing the profits and socializing the losses. The infrastructure you're talking about will be built by the city/state and the costs borne by everyone who lives up to the point of that condo 20 miles out.
When things are not subsidized, the developers only end up building luxury condos in urban areas, which is the case for most large metro areas right now.
> That's the textbook case of privatizing the profits and socializing the losses.
Yes, agreed. And I'm not completely against socialization, but I see little reason to encourage it for this case. If infrastructure and services cost more further out, property taxes for those areas should reflect that.
> When things are not subsidized, the developers only end up building luxury condos in urban areas, which is the case for most large metro areas right now.
This tends to be true because SFH-zoned areas are held as sacred cows, and what increased density is allowed is constrained into small areas. This both keeps land prices high, so developers need to target the high end of the market, and it means that cheaper forms of increased density (say, building duplexes/triplexes/granny flats in existing low-density areas) are literally illegal.
I swear, people want developers to build huge towers and then offer up the units for cheap. Do you think it's cheap to build those towers? Hint: it is not. Brand new, inherently-expensive-to-build housing is always going to be expensive to rent. The solution is to a) permit cheaper forms of housing where possible, b) allowed increased density across a wide swathe of residential area (which can be done the same way as (a), really), and c) accept that new things always cost more than old things. The luxury units of today are the upper-middle class units of twenty years from now, the middle-class units of forty years from now, the working-units of sixty years from now, etc.
Yes, agreed. And I'm not completely against socialization, but I see little reason to encourage it for this case. If infrastructure and services cost more further out, property taxes for those areas should reflect that.
> When things are not subsidized, the developers only end up building luxury condos in urban areas, which is the case for most large metro areas right now.
This tends to be true because SFH-zoned areas are held as sacred cows, and what increased density is allowed is constrained into small areas. This both keeps land prices high, so developers need to target the high end of the market, and it means that cheaper forms of increased density (say, building duplexes/triplexes/granny flats in existing low-density areas) are literally illegal.
I swear, people want developers to build huge towers and then offer up the units for cheap. Do you think it's cheap to build those towers? Hint: it is not. Brand new, inherently-expensive-to-build housing is always going to be expensive to rent. The solution is to a) permit cheaper forms of housing where possible, b) allowed increased density across a wide swathe of residential area (which can be done the same way as (a), really), and c) accept that new things always cost more than old things. The luxury units of today are the upper-middle class units of twenty years from now, the middle-class units of forty years from now, the working-units of sixty years from now, etc.
Not outraged at all. Plus I have my own septic, I pay for trash service, I pay for plowing, I pay for a propane tank and oil.
> Downtown high-rise condos are always way more costly than the equivalent size condo 20 miles out.
Because more people want to live there. The solution to high prices is to build more of the type of housing that people want to live in; not to build more of the type of housing that is already in low demand.
Because more people want to live there. The solution to high prices is to build more of the type of housing that people want to live in; not to build more of the type of housing that is already in low demand.
Three story condo? In a remote area? With surface parking?
I'll pass, thank you.
Three story condo closer into town? With no parking? Sure! I'll give up my car even.
If, that is, you can get permission to build such a thing somewhere. THAT is the problem.
I'll pass, thank you.
Three story condo closer into town? With no parking? Sure! I'll give up my car even.
If, that is, you can get permission to build such a thing somewhere. THAT is the problem.
True, but the difference in cost is magnified by greater legal restrictions on building that downtown high-rise condo.
It's cheaper only because nobody pays the true cost of transportation. Make gas $8 a gallon to cover for the damage to the environment and suddenly sprawl won't seem so cheap.
In that case everyone in the burbs will just buy a Leaf, Bolt, Volt or Model S/X to bypass the cost of gasoline.
This is why municipalities are pressing higher order governments to move to comprehensive road pricing instead of gas taxes.
It's a good step forward, as long as the pricing scales with the amount of damage a car does to roads when driven. A heavy truck with skinny tires should pay much more than a 2 door convertible with fat tires. Base it on average recommended tire pressure, perhaps?
I'd actually like to see the tax on businesses relative to the distance their employees commute. As a bonus, without changing other rules, this also makes part time labor filling a full time job less cost effective.
Yep! that's how you do it. But the poor schmoe who has a magnetic sign and ladder on his old pickup will suffer for it, and we have integrated that into our politics. See also Jimmy Carter.
A big gas tax will hurt rural areas the most. Maybe we could base the tax on the population density of an area, and give electric car tech time to trickle down into less populated regions until we ultimately start turning up the heat there, too.
Last I heard it was more like 16/gal
Here's an actual study [1] from 2015, as opposed to hearsay, that suggests +$3.80/gal for gas and +$4.80/gal for diesel to represent the environmental damage.
[1] http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-015-1343-0
This article is a load of garbage. It's not a dichotomy between towers and sprawl. There are cities that strike a balance between these, with mid-ride and high-rise depending on the neighborhood and the intended use of the properties.
You can have human-scale development, buildings 5-7 stories tall, moderate density that promotes local commerce, safe environments for children and other vulnerable groups, easy access to amenities, and much more.
You can have human-scale development, buildings 5-7 stories tall, moderate density that promotes local commerce, safe environments for children and other vulnerable groups, easy access to amenities, and much more.
Can you provide an example city built in this style somewhere in the US, to help me evaluate its success?
Most thriving American cities at the turn of the 20th century were built very much in this style. Many of those buildings were demolished to make way for parking lots, expressways, or higher density development in the later decades.
This street in Chicago (http://www.iroquoistheater.com/pics/madison-street-chicago-i...) is typical of most cities of that time, be it Cleveland, Cincinnati, Buffalo, or New York City. The effects of the automobile were only just starting to be felt.
Cities had to be walkable because apart from trolleys or horse-drawn carriages there wasn't much else in the way of options. Cycling was an option for the brave as I can only imagine how much horse crap there was in the streets back then.
This street in Chicago (http://www.iroquoistheater.com/pics/madison-street-chicago-i...) is typical of most cities of that time, be it Cleveland, Cincinnati, Buffalo, or New York City. The effects of the automobile were only just starting to be felt.
Cities had to be walkable because apart from trolleys or horse-drawn carriages there wasn't much else in the way of options. Cycling was an option for the brave as I can only imagine how much horse crap there was in the streets back then.
Chicago has a variety of housing that is relatively affordable. From the US cities I have lived in (LA, SF, grew up in suburbs of Houston, spent ~2 months in Queens and a little time working in Manhattan), I found Chicago to be the most reasonable to live an affordable urban lifestyle in.
Chicago has the advantage of plenty of land as opposed to New York or SF.
There are massive sprawling suburbs, but I get the impression people move there when they have kids mostly due to better schools, not being priced out or leaving for safety.
Of course, Chicago has the most murders in the US (but still about half the murder rate per capita of New Orleans or Detroit), bitterly cold winters, and far from any mountains, but nowhere is perfect (where being affordable is part of being perfect).
Chicago has the advantage of plenty of land as opposed to New York or SF.
There are massive sprawling suburbs, but I get the impression people move there when they have kids mostly due to better schools, not being priced out or leaving for safety.
Of course, Chicago has the most murders in the US (but still about half the murder rate per capita of New Orleans or Detroit), bitterly cold winters, and far from any mountains, but nowhere is perfect (where being affordable is part of being perfect).
Greater Boston has wide swathes of triple deckers, which are a 3-4 story (depending on basement status) compromise between the detached house and the 5-story apartment block. They were illegal to build for a period of ~90 years though, allegedly due to concerns over fire. It's curious they never consider the obvious solution to that (building out of masonry instead of timber) though.
Washington DC has a strict height limit so even the tallest buildings don't really go beyond 12 floors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_W....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_W....
Washington, DC. It has one of the most dense downtowns in the U.S. and has no towers or skyscrapers (outside of NW though is relatively empty, and the massive commuter population makes the overall numbers smaller).
> outside of NW though is relatively empty
NW is the largest quadrant, but I'd hardly call the other quadrants "relatively empty." There are active neighborhoods and lots of development all across the city.
NW is the largest quadrant, but I'd hardly call the other quadrants "relatively empty." There are active neighborhoods and lots of development all across the city.
You're right, but they're nowhere near as dense. We're talking single family, row homes and garden-style apartments.
San Francisco is a medium density city, though by North American standards some may consider it high density.
A lot of people would like to live in cities like SF but it's been illegal to build them since the early post war era, so there's a big supply and demand imbalance.
A lot of people would like to live in cities like SF but it's been illegal to build them since the early post war era, so there's a big supply and demand imbalance.
This is difficult to do, since many policies that affect cities are still decided at the national level. It's only recently become fully kosher to have physically protected bike lanes, for example.
Brooklyn.
Could Brooklyn exist in unchanged form without the other boroughs of the same city and the urban area it anchors?
As in, despite Brooklyn's relatively functional nature, its density gains are counterbalanced by the suburbs of NYC on the east, north, and west.
The grandparent post implied that it's possible to have an environment that doesn't include high-rises and excessive sprawl, and I believe Brooklyn's heavy integration in the NYC metropolitan area makes it so that it doesn't satisfy this constraint -- it just moves the 'problem parts' immediately outside of its borough limits, which is kind-of how we ended up with suburban sprawl in the first place.
As in, despite Brooklyn's relatively functional nature, its density gains are counterbalanced by the suburbs of NYC on the east, north, and west.
The grandparent post implied that it's possible to have an environment that doesn't include high-rises and excessive sprawl, and I believe Brooklyn's heavy integration in the NYC metropolitan area makes it so that it doesn't satisfy this constraint -- it just moves the 'problem parts' immediately outside of its borough limits, which is kind-of how we ended up with suburban sprawl in the first place.
Madison, Wi?
Philadelphia. Madison.
HTH.
HTH.
The areas of Philadelphia that are built in this style can hardly be called a 'safe environment', unfortunately [1].
Madison, however, on first blush seems like an excellent example, in that it's a large (~250k) city ranked highly on most metrics, and has a mid-rise downtown. But a look at a satellite image reveals that the city limits of Madison contain large areas of single-family detached houses, and mid- and high-rises are restricted to the Isthmus and areas immediately surrounding the University [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia#Crime
[2] https://www.google.com/maps/place/Madison,+WI/@43.0850975,-8...
Madison, however, on first blush seems like an excellent example, in that it's a large (~250k) city ranked highly on most metrics, and has a mid-rise downtown. But a look at a satellite image reveals that the city limits of Madison contain large areas of single-family detached houses, and mid- and high-rises are restricted to the Isthmus and areas immediately surrounding the University [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia#Crime
[2] https://www.google.com/maps/place/Madison,+WI/@43.0850975,-8...
"The areas of Philadelphia that are built in this style can hardly be called a 'safe environment', unfortunately"
Center city is pretty safe. So is South Street. Old City. Plenty of other neighborhoods too numerous to mention with this style of buildings. Yes, crime is relatively high in the city, but it's concentrated in certain areas (see: http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Philadelphia-Pennsylvania/...). There's a reason the Badlands is called the Badlands and Center City isn't. Judging the whole city to be unsafe by its overall crime stats is ridiculous, unfair, and misleading.
Center city is pretty safe. So is South Street. Old City. Plenty of other neighborhoods too numerous to mention with this style of buildings. Yes, crime is relatively high in the city, but it's concentrated in certain areas (see: http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Philadelphia-Pennsylvania/...). There's a reason the Badlands is called the Badlands and Center City isn't. Judging the whole city to be unsafe by its overall crime stats is ridiculous, unfair, and misleading.
Madison is interesting because it limits height to no higher than the Capitol dome, which isn't particularly high, but also allows a pretty high density by right in most neighborhoods. You could buy a property in Madison and put a three-flat dwelling on it with minimal red tape. If you tried that in SF you'd be dead before all the permitting went through.
A city limited to buildings 5-7 stories tall can get moderately bigger than a city with buildings 1-2 stories tall, but the model will fall down if it becomes too popular.
Ultimately, NIMBYism and these sorts of height restrictions are a result of the city deciding that it doesn't want new people moving in past a certain point. I won't moralize that choice, but it is certainly different than the set of choices that led to a city like New York becoming so special.
Ultimately, NIMBYism and these sorts of height restrictions are a result of the city deciding that it doesn't want new people moving in past a certain point. I won't moralize that choice, but it is certainly different than the set of choices that led to a city like New York becoming so special.
Most of NYC is 5-7 stories tall. There are pockets of residences taller than that, but large swaths of Manhattan are about that height. Brooklyn & Queens are almost entirely that height.
Paris is also moderate density across the entire city, but there's also very little wasted space in comparison to most American suburbs.
One of the biggest differences in these types of cities is parking is very limited or located underground, the buildings push very close to the streets, there's no excess road or empty front yards, and the buildings are mixed retail/residential.
Those things make for consistently more livable environments. There's no long trek across an empty parking lot and a big lawn just to get from point A to point B.
One of the biggest differences in these types of cities is parking is very limited or located underground, the buildings push very close to the streets, there's no excess road or empty front yards, and the buildings are mixed retail/residential.
Those things make for consistently more livable environments. There's no long trek across an empty parking lot and a big lawn just to get from point A to point B.
Paris is moderate density? It's denser than London or New York. Similarly dense to Hong Kong. Twice as dense as Tokyo or Mexico City or Seoul. And four times as dense as the city and county San Francisco, not including surrounding sprawl.
What I mean is the buildings themselves achieve higher density not through height but through aggressively crowding mid-rise buildings together. It also has a fairly uniform density compared to New York where you have skyscrapers in some parts and detached family homes in others. Staten Island pulls down the density average in a huge way.
The result is it doesn't feel nearly as dense as it actually is.
This is in contrast to Hong Kong, São Paulo, and other cities that achieve density through high-rise buildings. You're intimately aware you're in a big city when you're in the built-up cores of these.
The result is it doesn't feel nearly as dense as it actually is.
This is in contrast to Hong Kong, São Paulo, and other cities that achieve density through high-rise buildings. You're intimately aware you're in a big city when you're in the built-up cores of these.
Yes and it's essentially impossible ($$$) to live with a short commute to where you work, even with one of the better transport systems.
Also, I think it's very unlikely that NYC would be where it is had they restricted buildings to 5-7 stories. As it is they don't have enough density.
Also, I think it's very unlikely that NYC would be where it is had they restricted buildings to 5-7 stories. As it is they don't have enough density.
If the 5-7 model fell down inevitably, then Berlin and almost all german cities would be post-apocalyptic wastelands by now.
I'm comfortable with that choice, as long as the NIMBYism is applied to business investment and money as well as people so that people don't have to move in to take jobs. If you don't want me, then you shouldn't get my money.
Relax zoning so you can have more jobs near housing. Then you won't have hundreds of acres of homogenous tract housing that requires such a long commute.
Houston has no single major business district. It does have a serious lack of solid transit. But if you want to live close to work, that doesn't necessarily mean in the "downtown" area like in many cities. There are huge concentrations of offices and stores in the Energy Corridor, the Galleria, Upper Kirby, the Bush airport area and several suburbs/exurbs.
Houston has no single major business district. It does have a serious lack of solid transit. But if you want to live close to work, that doesn't necessarily mean in the "downtown" area like in many cities. There are huge concentrations of offices and stores in the Energy Corridor, the Galleria, Upper Kirby, the Bush airport area and several suburbs/exurbs.
Few people outside of Manhattan picture a home as an office building with a doorman.
A few (closer to 20 now that I looked) years ago, Atlanta had a mini-boom of hi-rise condo building. A couple of the properties did very well; they were mostly pre-sold, though probably to speculators. Some of the others had trouble selling all their units.
Going vertical also brings a problem, mentioned by another commentor, of "viewing" rights (i.e. no blocking the views of established properties.) I think Trump had a similar problem with one of his projects.
There's an easy solution to this: remove all notion of "viewing rights". You have no right to your view, or your lack of density, or any such NIMBY invented property rights.
This works great for Tokyo, and housing prices are very cheap.
http://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-c...
http://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-c...
NIMBY types vote. You try telling them that someone can put up a hideous skyscraper between their house and the mountains/ocean/etc... and they'll have you on your ass in the street come November.
Their parents bought that house. They've lived in it all their lives. Now you want to ruin the view and gentrify the neighborhood just because you think single family detached homes have no business being within a mile of the city center? Half of the legislature lives in those neighborhoods! All you are going to do is attract undesirables anyway.
Their parents bought that house. They've lived in it all their lives. Now you want to ruin the view and gentrify the neighborhood just because you think single family detached homes have no business being within a mile of the city center? Half of the legislature lives in those neighborhoods! All you are going to do is attract undesirables anyway.
If viewing rights exist they should be taxed (at a premium). The valuation should be greater than the loss of all the affected height-lines.
Easier still to take the Coasian view. Viewing rights (by default) do not exist. You are free to side contract with other property owners to ensure your viewing rights by paying them.
That's a risky position IMHO. You create a situation where it becomes profitable to threaten to erect a tall structure in order to extort money from the neighbors.
Seems like honeycombs / interior courtyards provide a pretty decent solution to the viewing rights problem, at least to the 4-6 floor range (e.g. Berlin, Paris). If the buildings are aesthetically pleasing and appropriately spaced, the limit comes down to sunlight.
" . . . a website for contractors." I think that might be relevant. Not that I expect the WSJ to challenge the status quo. Any serious analysis would have to consider Copenhagen, Paris, Singapore, Austin at the least. And take livability analyses seriously, too.
But it doesn't matter if everyone's miserable so long as they're working 9 to 5 (or longer) - why would you think it does? /s
The article fails to break out cost of building versus cost of litigating to be able to build. They mention the NIMBYs, but without putting dollar or % value on what costs they create.
Santa Monica and West LA are great examples - costs and rents have skyrocketed. However, much of the land is 1-2 stories, if that. Large portions of the housing stock is more than 50 years old.
If they were to make it 3-4 stories instead (hardly Manhattan density, or even SF), we could fit 2-3x people no problem. Unfortunately, between zoning, NIMBYs and rent control, you can pretty much forget about it.
Santa Monica and West LA are great examples - costs and rents have skyrocketed. However, much of the land is 1-2 stories, if that. Large portions of the housing stock is more than 50 years old.
If they were to make it 3-4 stories instead (hardly Manhattan density, or even SF), we could fit 2-3x people no problem. Unfortunately, between zoning, NIMBYs and rent control, you can pretty much forget about it.
It seems to me like the real solution to a lot of traffic and affordable housing problems is 'work-from-home' ideology. In the 1800s it was common for business owners to contract with homesteads to produce good for them, which is then picked up and sold in markets (i.e. shoes). These 'workers' were free to find work as they chose between seasons. Of course, a very different world now with scheduled mortgage payments and other needs, however there must be a tipping point. The 'sharing/contractor' economy seems to be an inevitable ideological revolution.
I have this theory that autonomous vehicles will enable a resurgence of the suburb. If I can disengage from the transporting myself into being transported, I can spend that travel time working instead of navigating. If I lived an hour away from work but I could spend 2 hours working via my car, I'd have no problem moving to the suburbs. But as it stands right now, the commute is the part that really freaks me out.
City "connectedness" is much more about time than space. So fast, affordable, convenient transport (a la Hong Kong) can make a big city feel smaller. Cars are the problem not the solution.
Cities exist to make it easy for everyone in them to meet or work with anyone else as cheaply as possible. They are markets for jobs, goods and services. When cities make it difficult to meet and work with others, as they do when they sprawl, they have effectively failed. In a sense, they are not really cities, but just agglomerations of many towns without a center. This describes many so-called cities in America, with LA being one of the most egregious examples.
One of the reasons cities have sprawled is because their development has been entrusted to, well, developers. Those are the contractors that Buildzoom addresses as its audience, and the website is flattering their sensibilities. They like a supply chain that involves suburbs with lots of cookie-cutter mini-mansions. Easy to commodify and sell, and someone else can worry about the commuting headaches.