That well-known fake-news site, the New York Times, has once again published a report claiming that transit hubs are a “growing lure for developers.” The Times published a similar story eight years ago, and the Antiplanner quickly found that every single development mentioned in that story was subsidized with tax-increment financing (TIF) and other government support.
So has anything changed since then? Nope. The first development mentioned in the recent story by Times reporter Joe Gose is Assembly Row, in the Boston suburb of Somerville. Is it subsidized? Yes, with at least $25 million in TIF along with other state funds.
Then Gose mentions Chicago’s Fulton Market, downtown Kansas City, Austin, and Denver’s RiNo neighborhood. Fulton Market just happened to receive at least $42 million in support from the city of Chicago, much of which comes from TIF.
Supposedly a new streetcar sparked a revitalization of downtown Kansas City. But could it be that revitalization was due more to Kansas City’s twenty-four downtown TIF districts?
Gose doesn’t specify a particular neighborhood or development in Austin, Texas. Of course, Austin is one of the fastest growing cities in America, so anything that’s open for development is going to be developed. But not satisfied to let the market work, Austin has heavily bought into the use of TIF districts. Transit is an afterthought in Austin, the city’s rail line being a huge flop that cost way more than expected and now carries fewer than 1,500 round-trips per weekday.
Denver’s RiNo neighborhood–RiNo being short for River North–is growing thanks to at least $44 million on infrastructure improvements in that neighborhood, plus additional TIF funds for special projects.
Gose mentions a $3 million project “in Washington’s fast-growing Capital Riverfront neighborhood.” That’s the same neighborhood that received at least $198 million in TIF subsidies.
Gose also refers to Tysons Corner, which has seen new development since the opening of the Silver Line. What he doesn’t mention is that the developers were perfectly happy to do that development without the Silver Line, but planners wouldn’t let them do it until the Silver Line was built, saying that transportation to the area couldn’t support increased density. The Silver Line didn’t stimulate the development, but it did give Fairfax County an excuse to rezone the area to allow for more development.
Transit serves most neighborhoods in most cities while only a few areas are in tax-increment districts. Is it just a coincidence that all of the examples in the Times article are in TIF districts? Which is more likely: that development is being stimulated by transit lines that carry, in most of these cities, less than 3 percent of travelers? Or that it is stimulated by the TIF and other subsidies? And why doesn’t the Times even hint that government subsidies, not rail transit, just might be the reason why these areas are getting redeveloped?
To answer these questions, Mr. Gose should have looked at transit corridors that aren’t getting huge amounts of redevelopment subsidies, such as Denver’s West light-rail line; Portland’s streetcar line after it leaves the Pearl District (which, according to page 15 of the Portland Development Commission’s latest budget, has so far received $344 million in TIF subsidies); or Green Belt Maryland, which is on the Metro Rail line but hasn’t seen much in the way of new development.
Then Mr. Goes should have looked at redevelopment districts that aren’t on major transit corridors. There are a lot of TIF districts in Columbus, Indianapolis, Omaha, Wichita, and other cities that haven’t spent much on transit but still got redevelopment. What he would have found is that transit hubs without subsidies see minimal new development, while redevelopment districts with subsidies see lots of new development even if they have minimal transit service.
Of course, even TIF doesn’t cause an urban area to grow any faster–and it may cause it to grow slower. All it really does is influence the location of new development that would have taken place somewhere in the area anyway, which is nothing to cheer about unless you are one of the lucky property owners or developers to get the subsidies.
The Times’ 2009 article had been inspired by the 2009 annual conference of the Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU), which has an almost religious love of transit. The most recent CNU conference took place just a few weeks ago, and Joe Gose has cited CNU in his articles before, so I have to wonder if he attended that conference. If so, then maybe he’ll learn that next time he attends a political rally he should try to get a different point of view before reporting the claims made at the rally as facts.
There is a new, large residential development near the Greenbelt Metro now. As far as I know, despite it’s proximity, there is no pedestrian connection to the station. Thanks to the swamps in that area and the design of the station/parking lot, pedestrian access (even from the neighboring apartment complex) is quite a hike. As far as development in that area, you might want to look at the police reports for that area as another factor impacting development. Another funny thing, the area just outside the station is a huge transit-dependent area. Large crowds as the bus stops, multiple, multiple stops – practically a whole station at the mall.
The New York Times article is a textbook case of how to write something that feels good but fails to make a serious argument about most nothing at all. For example “Such trends give transit-oriented developments an edge over traditional suburban office parks when companies are searching for space, real estate experts say.”. An edge? How much is this edge worth? Who benefits? The public? The developers? What was the cost to create this edge? Lots of things said that have little to no actual meaning to them.
The JLL report is interesting. They’re largely in the building management business so have some incentive to encourage people to invest in office buildings and hire them to manage them. The more expensive the space, the more they make.
The report has it’s limitations. Class A office space – the highest rent office space – commands a premium. According to a recent CBRE report it’s about $11 sq ft in “CBD vs Suburban”. JLL doesn’t break out the class A, B and C office space by those categories. And we don’t know what cities they’re looking at. Is it just the top 5, 10 or 15 office markets in the US? Did they include the 2nd and 3rd tier markets, too?
At the core of it, it’s a textbook “no shit, sherlock” situation. Proponents are claiming that higher office rates correlate with transit access. No shit sherlock. Class A office space has more amenities. Compare office properties with the same amenities, adjust pricing to reflect land values and VIOLA! the price differences disappear.
Personally, I say let them run around bragging about how they’re spending tax payer money to make their cronies rich.
Mr. O’Toole, as for Mr. Gose, I wouldn’t hold my breath. He’s what legacy media is overran with today, he’s a writer, not a journalist. He has an ideology and has made it the focus of his life to sell the world on his ideology.
The other way of looking at more or less the same finds is that it’s the suburbs that are the diamond that people want
http://www.nreionline.com/office/suburban-office-markets-gain-popularity
Suburban Office Markets Gain in Popularity
Employers are attracted to suburban office markets because rents for class-A space there tend to be nearly half those of central business districts (CBDs).
HTML a href attribute:
Suburban Office Markets Gain in Popularity
Suburban office parks gain in popularity………..why, cause you have to live in the city. Millennials are aging too which means by their late 20’s the city is beginning to lose it’s exuberance. The fact is that suburbs are overwhelmingly superior method to raising families and children. The older you get the more conservative you become, not necessarily republican on the ballot box but more steady.
Or as Gavin McInnes summed it up
10 Reasons why you should move to the suburbs.
1: It’s like the eddie murphy sketch, no hassle
2: Virtually nobody is gay, gays are less than 1% of the US population, they’re 10-30% of major cities. So you don’t have to worry about their incessant whining. Google Histrionic personality disorder; they thrive off getting your attention and if they don’t get it they’re as mean as any frustrated straight person.
3: Children are appreciated. In the city children are looked at with disdain. They’re symbolism for responsibility and no longer consecutive partying. Instead they focus their attention on your dog like it’s a mercedes or a designer purse. Happiness pervades the suburbs and happiness is gauged by how much they like kids.
4: Nobody has tattoos except the dumbass teens: If you’re thinking of getting tribal tattoos, just get yourself a T-shirt that says, “I appropriate other cultures cause I have no imagination” instead. It will be infinitely cheaper and a whole lot less embarrassing to be seen in public with. When I was a kid I wanted a tattoo, then when I was old enough to get one without parental permission my opinion on tattoos changed when I saw the weirdos who get them. Tattoos they start off fun then it’s the generations of wrinkled, middle aged masses who’ve aged and outlived the subculture clique that made them fucking get it in the first place. If you’re gonna get a cultural or ethnic tattoo, have the genealogy to back it up. Tattoos are lame, an the removal industry is now a 1 billion dollar business, a 440% increase since 2007. Tattooing has lost it’s aww factor. Tattooing was once the niche of far flung cultures with little contact with the Western world, it was those groups infact that brought tattooing to Western society, Tattoos were for veterans, ethnic groups and still surviving tribal societies, today tattoos are the new spray on tan. Todays tattoos are modern western society’s coping mechanism, the wimpy wannabes that lack the awesome scars from adventures, punch ups, vehicular testing activities, miscommunication events with feral fauna and a myriad of assorted high stimulus but potentially life threatening scenarios that the genuinely exhilaration addicted display on their biological trophy cabinet.?
5: There’s Riffing. people will talk about everything and anything. It’s a monoculture, not segregated but voluntary congregation. And people seem cheerier.
6: Kids have opportunity to explore, with one negative, the kids lack grit and fortitude. They avoid confrontation and tend to cry more. City kids were always the tough ones………..but that’s changing thanks to college now all the kids are full blown hypersensetive SJW’s.
7: Most part, the schools are great. In the city you have two options, public school or private, public they learn to fight, deal drugs and get patted down by security guards. private schools, utopia but expensive. Not in the suburbs, all the schools mostly tend to do well and everyone can spell, add, read and write.
8: Cycling isn’t a hassle in the suburbs I don’t need a helmet; I’m not an idiot whose gonna bonk my head going 2-3 miles per hour, downside you do have to cycle further and worse they dress like freakin Lance Armstrong, They value UnderArmour more than Dolce and Gabbana. In the city you can be hit by a garbage truck, a cop car, a rich douches BMW or an immigrant who still hasn’t mastered the art of reading signs. In the suburbs you can get hit, roll across the hood and probably walk it off in 10 minutes.
9: The Silence is deafening. It’s unbelievably quiet, in the city you yell to talk over others or cause you cant get a signal. Not in the suburbs, in suburbia you yell when it’s time to come in for dinner. Which this contributes to the utter peacefulness.
10: No Classism. Unlike say Britain where you might notice a certain inflection and mockingly say “Oh Lord look what the cat dragged in”. Not in the suburbs, rich people and middle class people and even poorer people congregate frequently cause their kids are in the same school district. So no classism, unless you put up the wrong garden ornament.
And these I added just as my observations
11: No crime…………at least not statistically significant crime unlike my hometown of Baltimore where despite all the worthless liberal mayors who say they’ll take a stance on crime, they have a murder a day.
along with #10, That’s why I laugh every time I hear people say blacks could rise out of the ghetto if whites would just quit oppressing them. The ghetto is a manifestation of their endorsed thug culture and the democrats have been subsidizing that and making it possible for generations.?
12: We love our police. nuff said.
13: You can leave your car outside, unlocked, with the windows down and nobody cares.
14: The vast majority of people in the suburbs understand that you need to work for what you want in life.?
15: We don’t get our moral lessons from Hollywood. Portraying suburbia as a morally hypocritical, empty, boring, sick place is nothing new for Hollywood elites. Just watch the 1999 Oscar winning film “American Beauty” depicted suburbia as the home of closet homosexuals, pedophiles, druggies, adulterers and adulteresses – in short, the heartland of repression and hypocrisy. Hollywood slaps labels on suburbia because the elites detest the 1950s. They feel that today’s suburbia attempts to imitate a time when suburbanites largely shared communal bonds and values. The clean streets and clean lifestyles of “The Dick Van Dyke Show” and “Leave It to Beaver” deeply offend liberal elites. The 1950s weren’t paradise (segregation was a profound moral blot), but they weren’t as morally corrupt as any of the decades since. The 1960s brought individuality for individuality’s sake; the 1970s brought national malaise; the 1980s slowed the process of moral decay but began the mass consumerism society; the 1990s were a pale imitation of the 1960s. There’s nothing wrong with aspiring to the kind of cleanliness, neighborliness and communal moral unity that existed in the 1950s………..and then of course everyone in Hollywood buys a place in the burbs……..the most exclusive burbs where they have steady access to drugs, parties, booze, hookers and sexual paraphernalia. Oh hollywood, one minute you’re accepting your award for best……….whatever. The next you’re OD’d lying face down in a pool of your own ejaculate (and probably somebody elses) with your Oscar used to sodomize yourself.