Houston Densifying Faster Than Portland

The Antiplanner’s faithful ally, Wendell Cox, presents these data (20 KB PDF) on changes in urban density between 2000 and 2007. The density of the Portland urban area grew by 12.4 percent. Meanwhile, the density of the Houston urban area grew by 14.3 percent.

Other relatively unplanned urban areas also had rapid density growth: Riverside-San Bernardino (the least-planned communities in southern California) by 19.5 percent; Atlanta by 17.7 percent; Austin by 16.6 percent; and Las Vegas by 15.6 percent.

There are total seven flavors of Kamagra jelly that you are comfortable with purchase levitra online click here now will boost more self-confidence and your immune system. One such sexual disorder that is ruining a levitra india man s life is erectile dysfunction also known as erectile dysfunction has an effect on 10-25% of middle-aged along with aged guys. In Digestive Problems: Black Musli is effective in the treatment of RRMS and is given by a daily buy levitra online heritageihc.com subcutaneous injection. You can also benefit from free generic overnight viagra shipping to your home. Some of the smallest changes in urban density were in San Francisco (minus 0.4 percent), Boston (1.1 percent), San Diego (2.7 percent), and Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana (3.2 percent). All of these have professed a commitment to become a more compact urban area, but failed to live up to it.

Cox cautions that “These data relate to the urban footprints (land areas) as determined by the US Bureau of the Census in 2000. No adjustment has been made for geographical expansion of urban areas since that time. Thus, the 2007 density figures do not indicate urban area densities in 2007, but rather the density of the 2000 boundaries in 2007.”

Bookmark the permalink.

About The Antiplanner

The Antiplanner is a forester and economist with more than fifty years of experience critiquing government land-use and transportation plans.

46 Responses to Houston Densifying Faster Than Portland

  1. D4P says:

    Some of the smallest changes in urban density were in San Francisco (minus 0.4 percent), Boston (1.1 percent), San Diego (2.7 percent), and Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana (3.2 percent). All of these have professed a commitment to become a more compact urban area, but failed to live up to it.

    Your conclusion doesn’t really follow from the data, in that 3 of the 4 urban areas you cite here became more dense.

    Can we get a definition of “urban footprint”? I’d be curious to know (for example) if it includes undeveloped areas inside growth boundaries. If so, areas (such as Portland) are going to look relatively undense because they contain (e.g.) 20-year supplies of vacant land that count against their density figures.

    It would also be nice to know what happened with respect to geographical expansion of the urban areas. It’s possible (for example) that cities you are criticizing for not becoming much more dense didn’t expand as much as cities that did become a lot more dense, which would be an achievement in and of itself apart from becoming more dense. Without having this information, it’s hard to evaluate the meaningfulness of the information provided here.

    BTW: why isn’t the Antiplanner criticizing areas such as Atlanta and Las Vegas for densifying?

  2. JimKarlock says:

    d4p:because they contain (e.g.) 20-year supplies of vacant land that count against their density figures.
    JK: “20-year supplies of vacant land ” was achieved by zoning for higher density. Build UP, not out.

    Just another idiot planner plan to make housing too expensive for the average person.

    Thanks
    JK

  3. D4P says:

    This post is a good example of the Antiplanner throwing a bunch of potentially-conflicting mud against the wall in hopes that something (it doesn’t matter what) sticks.

    If places like San Francisco, Boston, San Diego, and LA had densified relatively quickly, the Antiplanner would be criticizing them for densifying relatively quickly.

    But here we have San Francisco, Boston, San Diego, and LA not densifying relatively quickly, so the Antiplanner criticizes them for not reaching their goals (even though, as I pointed out above, 3 of the 4 did densify).

    And we also have Mr. Karlock criticizing Portland for making housing too expensive (presumably in part because Portland wants to, for example, preserve farmland), when on Mr. Karlock’s very own website he criticizes Portland for wanting to rezone a farm for housing (http://www.electkarlock.com/).

  4. D4P,

    For “urban footprint” Wendell is using the Census Bureau’s “urbanized area” boundaries. Or rather he is using the population and land area numbers that the Census Bureau itself calculates for those boundaries.

    The Antiplanner has nothing against densification if it is in response to market forces. It is forced densification that I oppose. Houston’s densification is 99% in response to market forces. Atlanta and Las Vegas are somewhat lower. The point of this post is that Portland gets a lot of publicity for trying to densify, at great cost to its residents, and here Houston is maligned even though it is naturally densifying faster (admittedly from a lower initial density).

  5. D4P says:

    The Antiplanner has nothing against densification if it is in response to market forces. It is forced densification that I oppose.

    But what about forced sprawification (or whatever you want to call the opposite of densification)? I don’t recall ever seeing you criticize land use regulations that promote low-density/single-use/etc. development: you only criticize regulations that promote higher density/mixed use/etc. development.

    Which is ironic given that the overwhelming majority of local government land use regulations in the US promote (and have done so for probably almost a century now) low-density development (see for example, zoning, and especially low-density single-family zoning).

    In your mind, why is OK for government to force low-density development instead of letting “the market” decide? And if you don’t think it’s OK for government to force low-density development, then why do you spend 100% of your time criticizing the type of regulation that makes up 1% (or whatever the undoubtedly low number is) of the development regulations in the US while giving the other 99% (or whatever the undoubtedly high number is) a free pass?

  6. D4P says:

    Houston’s densification is 99% in response to market forces.

    And as to this claim: here’s an article (http://www.planetizen.com/node/109) that discusses some of Houston’s land use regulations that don’t get referred to as “zoning”.

    The author states “Until 1999, the city required all single-family houses to gobble up 5,000 square feet of land…”, and that “minimum lot size requirements were loosened in 1999”.

    In other words, it appears that developers in Houston were allowed to begin building higher densities in 1999, which is interesting to note given Mr. Cox’s finding that Houston densified relatively quickly from 2000 to 2007.

    Are we to conclude that, once Houston de-sprawlified (to an extent) its land use regulations, the market (i.e. consumers) demanded more dense housing…?

  7. Dan says:

    Well, first of all that’s a low bar.

    Second of all, HOU area is similar to the Smart Growth places that the car fetishizers claim they don’t like – that is: remove the Euclidiean zoning and chances are good places will densify.

    Dan

  8. Dan says:

    That’s DS above, of course. More coffee needed.

    DS

  9. D4P says:

    I wonder if the Antiplanner is accidentally highlighting a trend in Houston that would appear to contradict the Antiplanner mantra that low-density development in the US is the overwhelming choice of consumers and that developers in the US are only responding to market demand when they build it.

    The Houston story appears to suggest that government land use regulations (prohibiting density) were the primary cause of low-density development in Houston, and that once the regulations were loosed to allow density, consumers revealed a preference for denser development.

  10. D4P says:

    All of these have professed a commitment to become a more compact urban area, but failed to live up to it

    It’s also worth keeping in mind that

    (1) density is not an end in itself, but rather a means to other goals (you can argue over whether it achieves those goals or not, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s intended to achieve them)

    and

    (2) density by itself (without, for example, mixed land uses) is only part of the picture. Building high-density apartments a long distance from employment/retail centers (for example) isn’t completely consistent with “smart growth” principles.

    With this in mind, we aren’t really looking at the whole picture when we only look at density. If a city is becoming more dense but only with residential development, it may be less consistent with smart growth principles than a city that didn’t densify as much but became more diverse in terms of land uses (for example).

    Mr. Cox doesn’t provide us with information on land use mix and other smart growth related concepts.

  11. hkelly1 says:

    The comment string here gets to the root of the problem with the Cato Institute/Reason Foundation/American Dream Coalition gang:

    They crticize Smart Growth for hindering the free market, but never do we hear a critcism of the laws and codes that mandate single-use sprawl. Now, we have an article that shows densification in Houston, a city with very few land use regulations. The AP admits this is in response to the market. So then where’s the criticism of the minimum lot sizes, maximum footprints, minimum parking requirements, etc., etc., that are the basis of current coding in almost every city and town in the US?

    Basically – why do you only criticize Smart Growth? Why not criticize the status quo, which is land use that creates very low-density sprawl? Houston has shown that without many of these regulations, it will naturally densify by the choice of builders and consumers – so how in the world can you NOT be criticizing traditional sprawl coding?

  12. ws says:

    So we can finally say that people are now choosing to live in density, because it is preferable to low-density. I’m glad we got that out of the way.

    Portland can never do right in Antiplanner’s eyes. It’s proven. Damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

  13. gene_weeks says:

    WS- I too am happy to see some are choosing to live in high density and central cities. But US Census data show that virtually all the fastest growing counties in the nation are not suburban anymore but exurban. This is largely because exurbia is also where more jobs are.

    It is hard to believe that such a huge migration is because the government is making us do it.

  14. Dan says:

    But US Census data show that virtually all the fastest growing counties in the nation are not suburban anymore but exurban. This is largely because exurbia is also where more jobs are.

    No.

    Exurbia, by definition, is not where more jobs are.

    ————-

    Arguments from incorrect premises aside, let us remind ourselves of something we have read here many times: the rule of thirds.

    o ~1/3 of folks want more dense, walkable neighborhoods and would move there yesterday if available,

    o ~1/3 want more walkability in their current neighborhoods but wouldn’t necessarily move to a really dense neigbhborhood, and

    o ~1/3 are car fetishists who feel best when everyone is forced to drive everywhere.

    That last part isn’t necessarily true, but some here seem to argue from that premise.

    DS

  15. Mike says:

    DS: I question your (or whomever’s) rule of thirds.

    When I was unmarried and in college, then in law school, etc, I lived near campus within walking distance of everything and enjoyed various aspects of that, and the crowdedness didn’t bother me much.

    Once I got married and became a father, I just wanted my two acres of stay-the-hell-out. The change of perspective was abrupt and sudden, and probably bears study at some point if people hope to understand the internal drive toward the suburbs/exurbs in modern society.

    So which third am I?

    I am no longer the first third, obviously. I was, and it worked for a while, but it won’t work now, so no dice.

    I am not the second third, because frankly, I *don’t* want more walkability in my current neighborhood. Everyone who lives where I live has a car, and we’d rather not have any other foot traffic passing through, thankyouverymuch. Part of the reason we moved to a neighborhood build and designed the way ours is, is to be able to keep “the public” away. Essentially, our private developer created an insulated low-density “living park,” and we who bought the houses chose to consume that product.

    Yet I am not the third third, because I have no problem with people who want to live dense… just don’t force the density on me and those like me. There is a time and a place for walkable living and it’s not for everyone and it’s not necessarily for their entire life. And I doubt I count as a “car fetishist” considering I commute via express bus transit.

    That’s the problem with any Likertesque categorization — unless your scale is absolutely comprehensive, your analysis fractures.

    Credit due to you, though, in noting that the jobs aren’t in exurbia. Indeed, that’s kind of the point of an exurb… the only jobs there are those that serve the bedroom community itself. I don’t know anyone who commutes from town to work in Surprise, Queen Creek, or Maricopa. Conversely, suburbs can be job centers in their own right. There is plenty of professional work to be had in Chandler, Scottsdale, Glendale, and Tempe, even though downtown Phoenix is the governmental and civic epicenter.

  16. Dan says:

    I question your (or whomever’s) rule of thirds

    I am not arguing from anecdote as is common here.

    Rather, I am releating the results of many, many varied and robust surveys taken from numerous places for various purposes over the years. The ~1/3 breakout is the standard, and I merely used a common phrase as a mnemonic device.

    DS

  17. ws says:

    Mike:“Everyone who lives where I live has a car”

    ws: Of course they do because the suburban model only works if people drive a car for everything. If there’s not 5 parking spaces per 1,000 sf retail and other forced and mandated parking regulations; the whole auto-dependent model caves in on itself.

    Your anger against forced high density conflicts with the fact that your low-density lifestyle is also forced. Also, your living preference does not factor in the environmental implications of large-lot homes and a growing population, especially in a water dependent region that you are currently in.

    Growth in the Southwest in particular was contingent on large federal water engineering projects (Colorado River Basin). This is not exactly a free market endeavor, nor is it one that makes sense regarding the arid climate of the SW.

  18. Dan says:

    Growth in the Southwest in particular was contingent on large federal water engineering projects (Colorado River Basin). This is not exactly a free market endeavor, nor is it one that makes sense regarding the arid climate of the SW.

    Not to mention subsidized electricity, and the invention of machines that cool structures and pump water (that use said electricity) so that expansion into deserts was made possible. Oh, and that many years ago the BOR was sure technology was a solution to the arid southwest and started trying to expand forests to bring moisture to the SW. And that these political decisions were made during a time of high precipitation…and and and.

    Surely the ideologically pure eschew such grandiose gummint projects and instead live in areas not needing subsidized infra…

    DS

  19. Mike says:

    DS, if you make a sweeping generalization, then contrary information, anecdotal or not, is sufficient to nullify your argument.

  20. Mike says:

    Also an FYI, the CAP provided the water needed to develop much of Arizona, but the Phoenix area drinks from an immense groundwater reservoir, one sufficient to withstand another 25 to 100 years of expansion of the metro area, depending which geologist you ask. We were in good shape before the CAP canals were ever built to tap into the Colorado River supply. Tucson, on the other hand, will ticket you if you water your lawn on the wrong day of the week. They are an example of where CAP has been more relevant…

  21. Mike says:

    ws: What about my low-density lifestyle was “forced?” All I had to do was stay where I was if I did not specifically desire to live low-density. When I decided I did want to live low-density, a private developer had a product already in place to offer me, and it suited my wants at a price I agreed to pay. Not a lot of force involved in that equation, sir.

  22. ws says:

    Mike:

    Low density in suburbs is per planning and city codes (usually clustered for whatever density is planned). The developer was just building within the framework of the city’s zoning plan. Forced low density is no different than forced high density – that is what I meant.

    Unless you’re in some unincorporated area, then this is generally the case.

  23. Dan says:

    Mike:

    Huh? Have you ever had a rhetoric class?

    DS

  24. Dan says:

    The CAP also diverts Colo River water for PHX drinking water. And recharge and nitrification from ag in addition to depth make hoping for fossil water salvation problematic at best. So it is subsidized water for AZ to drive more demand for air conditioning.

    Sheesh.

    DS

  25. t g says:

    Mike,

    CAP recharges Phoenix groundwater. It’s. That. Simple.

    – a tucson hydrologist

  26. Mike says:

    DS: Yes, I already said the CAP sends water to the Phoenix area, but it doesn’t have to, because groundwater is already there. From what the CAP website will show you, the route is mostly a simple result of the geography involved in conveying the water through to Tucson, etc. It appears most of what they use on the way through goes to agriculture, little of which is within metropolitan boundaries.

    In any event, CAP should never have existed. As you say, it is government subsidization, and that redistributes wealth. This state could have done just fine without it. It was a political power play decades ago, and ought to have been private then and ought to be privatized now. I take it your home state has no federal pork and never did? Teach and reveal, that we might bathe in your example.

    BTW, what exactly is “fossil water salvation” and why do you assume it is a desirable outcome? The phrase didn’t ring a bell, so I Googled it, and so far it appears you’re making stuff up. Just wondering.

  27. Mike says:

    t g:

    Nice to hear from another Arizonan, even if you are in Wildkitten country. 🙂

    Obviously yes, that is one of the things it does. If you’re really a Tucson hydrologist, and I’m going to assume in good faith that you are, then you know that’s not even close to being the end of the story. But since I’ve let myself be turned off topic a good ways at this point, I’ll just leave the issue alone.

    Since the original blog post was on densification in spite of planning versus in accordance with planning, what do you make of Tucson anyway? It seems like anyone moving into the area that has any choice in the matter buys a house in Marana or Green Valley, not Tucson proper, even though Tucson itself houses the overwhelming share of amenities, and even though the commute is pretty brutal down there. It’s not like buildout is saturated, either. I don’t want to assume without facts in evidence that Tucson proper is overregulated, but the development pattern ever since the suburbs broke off seems consistent with that.

  28. ws says:

    t g:“CAP recharges Phoenix groundwater. It’s. That. Simple.

    – a tucson hydrologist”

    ws: The aqueduct project is not the natural recharge source for Arizona’s aquifers, right? Isn’t it just diverting water from outside sources into recharge zones?

    Mike:“In any event, CAP should never have existed. As you say, it is government subsidization, and that redistributes wealth. This state could have done just fine without it. It was a political power play decades ago, and ought to have been private then and ought to be privatized now. I take it your home state has no federal pork and never did? Teach and reveal, that we might bathe in your example.”

    ws:Most of the growth in the SW was contingent on these projects, states probably would not endeavor in such extravagant infrastructure w/o federal backing. Vegas didn’t boom until Hoover, and I’m going to surmise Phoenix wouldn’t have boomed unless CAP was built.

    Mike:“Yes, I already said the CAP sends water to the Phoenix area, but it doesn’t have to, because groundwater is already there.”

    ws:I am going to go out on a limb and say that the groundwater available to the people of Phoenix would never support the population it has now. Remember, if CAP is recharging a lot of PHX current groundwater – that is just diversion of water from other bodies and other states. I can’t think of two bigger projects than Hoover and CAP regarding water infrastructure.

    I do not have the data, but I pretty sure that whatever Phoenix’s historic groundwater levels were at – that it would not support the type of development or population of PHX or any other city in Arizona.

    “By the 1960’s, most of the city’s water was drawn from the ground, and the surface would sink when the water table dropped too far.”…”One study suggested that water conservation, high density “smart growth,” and the reduction of outdoor water uses could reduce wasted water by up to 77 percent.”

    http://www.amnh.org/sciencebulletins/bio/v/sprawl.20050218/

    My points pertaining to density and Phoenix are very relevant. This is not an OT post, but density and limits of outward growth of cities in arid climates is a huge planning issue.

  29. the highwayman says:

    ws said: Mike:“Everyone who lives where I live has a car”

    ws: Of course they do because the suburban model only works if people drive a car for everything. If there’s not 5 parking spaces per 1,000 sf retail and other forced and mandated parking regulations; the whole auto-dependent model caves in on itself.

    THWM: Forced parking mandates were bad from the begining.

    Also if Mike, wants to live on a two acre lot that’s fine, though he shouldn’t obstruct those that want more travel & living options in their areas.

  30. Mike says:

    ws: I do not have the data, but I pretty sure that whatever Phoenix’s historic groundwater levels were at – that it would not support the type of development or population of PHX or any other city in Arizona.

    Mike: In isolation, theoretically correct. But there are other contingencies that affect the equation. For example, the Roosevelt Dam, built almost a century ago, impounded the Salt River for flood control purposes and artificially restricted the water supply in the same alluvial conduit that was filling the Phoenix aquifer in the first place. Built and expanded at considerable cost, the dam has been a double-edged sword, not nearly the home run that Hoover has been for Vegas, but ultimately functional. If private landowners and private industry had been left to find another solution to flood control in those early days of Phoenix’s development, they might not have resorted to blocking off the very river that served as the area’s original water artery. We can only speculate.

    Also, you’re no doubt aware that the Phoenix area has grown at an incredible pace over the last half-century. I’m not sure it would have been such a loss to rely on a private watershed solution and “only” grow at a more “normal” pace. Again, we can only speculate, yet the reality of the matter falls upon the cost-bearers for the project — the taxpayers. When are they going to “get theirs?”

    A government can plan or do just about anything with the land under its control, but whether the economic impact justifies the plan is another matter. For example, today the state of AZ might not be dead broke and getting broker if it had not footed the bill for the Regional Freeway System in 1985 with state dollars. (No other U.S. metropolis has nearly the freeway mileage Phoenix has with as few federal dollars involved, proportionately). Naturally, voters approved, so the government had carte blanche. The freeways drove growth, resulting in a gusher of tax collections, so in that sense they “worked” and were worth paying for “on our own.” Unfortunately, in their infinite wisdom, our government planners, instead of banking the spoils and being prepared for a rainy day, just found ways to spend it all as fast as it came in. Now that times are leaner, we’re finding that the cupboard is empty, not full the way it was supposed to be by us not having had to borrow from the feds to build three-digit spurs and loops off I-10 or I-17.

  31. t g says:

    Mike,

    I’ve been doing hydrology for land development in Tucson for (only) two years.

    I don’t want to go too far off topic here, but I agree with Dan in that it would not be possible to continue the present scale of development in Maricopa and Pima without those existing federally subsidized water projects.

    Regarding natural surface waters recharging the groundwater: two hundred years ago this was indeed substantial. Rainwater runoff was intercepted and slowed by greater flora and more porous soil, but ranching (and ultimately urban-suburban development) decimated the plants and compacted the earth. Before ranching, flows were conveyed as sheet flow, wide swaths of shallow water. After ranching and its ecological effects, the increased runoff (note: not more rain, but more runoff on account of the increased impermeability of the land) caused erosion and subsequently channelized the valley. (Another side note: this is how we Americans effectively stole water from the O’odham – we diverted and concentrated it)

    So hydrologically and hydraulically speaking, the horse is out of the barn. Surface water would not adequately recharge the aquifer because runoff is now contained within channels.

    Additionally, there seems to be a lot of doubt that the Assured Water Supply component of the Arizona code has enough teeth to make it meaningful. As much of the west relies on hydrologically remote basins to provide local groundwater recharge (Tucson and Phoenix are recharged by snowmelt from central Wyoming), water will be a federal concern for our lifetime.

  32. Dan says:

    BTW, what exactly is “fossil water salvation” and why do you assume it is a desirable outcome? The phrase didn’t ring a bell, so I Googled it, and so far it appears you’re making stuff up. Just wondering.

    Your argumentation is weak. Puerile thrashing around is AM radio tactics. I suspect your local community college has a rhetoric or argument class. Nonetheless,

    ‘Fossil water’ is what is being drilled for when you go down 1000 ft to tap groundwater. ‘Salvation’ is what you imply if the CAP goes away and they drill fossil water to maintain growth.

    Not sustainable.

    ———-

    This is not an OT post, but density and limits of outward growth of cities in arid climates is a huge planning issue.

    Yes.

    Some ideologies refuse to believe in ecological limits, instead preferring to wish they weren’t there.

    DS

  33. t g says:

    Mike,

    Dan’s poetic reference to “fossil water salvation” is about the fantastical notion there are grand reserves of perched water in the underground supply. That the theory is promoted (and happily accepted ) is testament to the dwindling access the world has to drinking water.

    I haven’t heard of this being spun here, but if the play The Rainmaker at all accurately reflects human nature…it won’t surprise me if a PR firm is soon promoting fossil waters in Arizona on behalf of a mining operation.

  34. Mike says:

    DS: Weak though you may claim, my argumentation was based on a simple fact: I Googled for the phrase you used, and nothing came up. What conclusion do you usually draw when that happens?

    Now I see you were mixing your phrases. Fair enough. Part of effective communication is making sure people understand what you are synthesizing so that you are clear, concise, and understandable.

    t g: Thanks for your further commentary. I think that, if we’re actually disagreeing, it’s a question of type versus degree. I don’t consider it unacceptable for growth to have to wait for a private-sector solution. In this case, as you noted, the public-sector solution (or the public-sector augmentation of the solution) is already bought and installed. There is no reason that should eliminate privatization as a step toward improving the economic equation. I appreciate the technical information; in my approach to legal work, I always try to “get the science right” so that the remainder of the analysis is based on something factual and demonstrable. (I am an analyst for the state government.)

  35. Dan says:

    my argumentation was based on a simple fact: I Googled for the phrase you used, and nothing came up.

    This lack of Googleable phrase is an indicator of nothing, and the constructed premise was used as an attempt to refute my assertion of segmented preferences.

    Had you a better grasp of argumentation you’d have recognized this error and your argument from anecdote. Your reliance on this false italicized premise continues (hence my CC recommendation). Get the ‘science’ right on the segmented preferences and your constructed “issues” (sweeping generalization) fall away.

    —–

    Now.

    Back OT and speaking of sweeping generalizations, we are back to HOU and its lack of Euclidean single-use zoning; this lack is allowing wider market choices that apparently are leading to densification (altho I haven’t checked Cox’s numbers, which I have found to be fudged in the past).

    Get rid of antediluvian zoning laws and people have more choice. And many will choose denser, more walkable neighborhoods. There is no reason to oppose this. None.

    DS

  36. t g says:

    Mike wrote the public-sector solution…is already bought and installed. There is no reason that should eliminate privatization as a step toward improving the economic equation.

    I just finished a few months of researching the O’odham (thus the earlier note). Historically they conducted agriculture on the floodplain with little to no diversion or retention structures. When the runoff became channelized, and the O’odham were corralled on the rez, they lost their access to their traditional waters. I can’t see how this wouldn’t be common for all the poor under an increase in the privatization of water.

    I agree that a free-trading-market for water could be efficient in allocating water to those who could afford it (which might improve water conservation and ecological concerns in general), but it could also be devastating to those cities who couldn’t afford it. It would not be like the car market or even the housing market. Where one can rent an apartment in an expensive housing market, or buy a used car instead of a new luxury one, there are no alternatives to drinkable water. I have seen nothing in human nature that would make me think the resultant social upheaval of entire cities going dry would be avoidable let alone worthwhile.

    The result of privatization: Wyoming and Colorado would detain their spring’s entire snowmelt and charge to the highest bidder. The coast would build desalination plants when its price equals the river water. Tucson would wither. There’s be no more demand for natural runoff and the Colorado would flow free to Mexico. Habitat restoration. Hmmmm, Mike’s an environmentalist. Hippie.

  37. Mike says:

    This lack of Googleable phrase is an indicator of nothing, and the constructed premise was used as an attempt to refute my assertion of segmented preferences.

    DS, the degree of mental gymnastics you undergo just to avoid admitting that the simplest, most obvious conclusion was a perfectly valid one to draw is astounding. You just keep on keeping on, buddy. Occam is rolling over in his grave, but ultimately reality will have its way with you:

    Get rid of antediluvian zoning laws and people have more choice. And many will choose denser, more walkable neighborhoods. There is no reason to oppose this. None.

    This is a mischaracterization of what’s really happening. Lift all zoning restrictions and, while many may indeed choose density, I predict that most will choose sprawl. Evidence for this can be found in the occurence of, well, sprawl. It wouldn’t be an issue if it wasn’t happening. You seem bound and determined to believe that the evil capitalists are making dense zoning impossible. A true capitalist wouldn’t zone at all, and any dense development that served a market need and was financially viable could occur unimpeded. That is, by the way, the position I take. Density is fine. Just don’t force it down the throats of those who aren’t interested.

    t g:
    The result of privatization: Wyoming and Colorado would detain their spring’s entire snowmelt and charge to the highest bidder. The coast would build desalination plants when its price equals the river water. Tucson would wither.

    That is one possible range of outcomes. I would suggest that there would be much more adaptation occurring on a private basis. Your knowledge of hydrology and mine of water law meet at the issue of detention of WY/CO snowmelt: there are instruments in place already that would not allow this to occur in that manner, and even in the absence of such instruments, there are equitable interests that downstream states possess and can expect to rely upon. This is part of the reason why the Glen Canyon Dam and Hoover Dam release the amounts of water they do at the frequency they do.

  38. Dan says:

    Evidence for this can be found in the occurence of, well, sprawl. It wouldn’t be an issue if it wasn’t happening.

    This is yeet another false premise, as 99% of parcelization is done under Euclidean single-use zoning with minimum lot sizes.

    This continuing pattern and the puerile thrashing is a clear indicator, son.

    DS

  39. t g says:

    Mike,

    I was discussing the great unspeakable the other evening with a friend (the topic of A*o*t*o* – funny how it looks less threating a subject when you remove every other letter; *b*r*i*n). Anyway, I was arguing for father’s rights, apparently an issue that was not of great concern in the sixties when the current lines were drawn. She felt I was arguing absolutely against abortion – no exceptions. The point being:

    I like market competition. I’m Hayekian, I believe we need to tap disperse knowledge. But I also believe there are some minimum protections that need to be estalished. I presumed a privatized market would be absolute. If equitable instruments were maintained, I’d be much more agreeable.

    Many posts and comments here seem to confuse the government making production decisions (the original concern of the Libertarian – and the now terrifying reality with GM) with the government making regulatory decisions. I’ve yet to figure out where that leap came from in the history of the Vienna school of econ.

  40. t g says:

    Regarding the last post: the rambling intro lines were meant to show that in response to Mike I had made the same absolute interpretation as my friend had of me: free markets = NO government, which I thoroughly disagree with. I don’t trust any of you to be nice. And I have no intention of maintaining the stockades myself. Therefore, government = more free time to drink with my girl.

  41. Mike says:

    t g:
    Ah. You won’t hear me advocating the abolition of government; that’s no real solution. It is a proper purpose of government to protect its citizens from force or fraud, including the upholding of a water rights contract. (In the interest of fair disclosure, I am an Objectivist.) Indeed, I wouldn’t trust anyone else to “be nice” any more than you would, not without knowing the force of law protected my rights and interests in the matter.

    DS: This continuing pattern and the puerile thrashing is a clear indicator, son.

    Your reply is ad-hominem (v:”son”) and does not promote any substantive discussion.

    I know this is the Internet where we’re all NASA test pilots with black belts in karate, but you should consider that the possibility does exist that I am (1) older than you, (2) more educated than you, or (3) both, instead of simply assuming (4) neither. It shouldn’t matter in the context of a substantive discussion, and I honestly don’t care, but you brought it up, so here we are.

    You rarely engage ROT in a substantive discussion here without ad-hominem and/or misdirection, so I expect you to extend no such courtesy to me. I’m sure you would never characterize your approach as anything like “puerile thrashing,” but I’m sure other readers can draw their own conclusions.

  42. prk166 says:

    “It is hard to believe that such a huge migration is because the government is making us do it.” -gene_weeks

    It could be in many ways. Look at new housing stock in core cities. For example, just up the street from me one needs to be ready to shell out $350k+ along with $300-400 / month in housing association fees for @ 1400 sq ft of living space. And no this isn’t downtown.

    There are many reasons for this. One I would assert is that it took this project over 5 years before it could actually start selling. And much of that time is due to government. So it’s not just minimal lot sizes, R-1 zoning, et al. that are influencing this growth but also other regulations that add a lot of risk (ie time) to a project in areas already relatively developed.

    I don’t doubt that many people want to have 5 acres and live 15 minutes from work. The question is how to go about quantifying the tens if not hundreds of factors that affect the different pluses and minuses people weigh when making a decision on where to live.

  43. Dan says:

    Son, you don’t even know the definition of ad hom. Give it up. You can’t make it work.

    DS

  44. John Thacker says:

    They crticize Smart Growth for hindering the free market, but never do we hear a critcism of the laws and codes that mandate single-use sprawl.

    Strange, I do see such criticisms from them. Here’s an example right here, where Randall is praising the areas that have less regulation and have deregulated, like Houston, and have densified.

    Smart Growth is already dumb because it’s planning. It’s even dumber because it almost always doesn’t work. Smart Growth builds around empowering various stakeholders and local zoning and regulation, all with an eye towards forcing density. But the local stakeholders always have NIMBY reasons to oppose density near them, in their neighborhoods, even if they support it elsewhere. They want less traffic immediately near them, more parking, less change in their neighborhood’s culture. It’s those nasty developers and banks that would like more density and less parking– more housing on less land means more money. The tactics chosen by Smart Growth inevitably empower institutions that are then captured by opponents of growth and density. It’s ridiculous.

    Portland can never do right in Antiplanner’s eyes. It’s proven. Damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

    They’re damned if they do. The problem is that all they do is do. If they would don’t some time, they’d be praised. Less doing, less planning.

  45. ws says:

    John Thacker:

    Randall (and Cox) have gone out of their way to critique New Urbanism to no avail, even though it was founded on getting rid of ridiculous codes and regulations that dictate the built environment. Duany time and again has stated to be against banning sprawl codes, but rather been in favor of promoting alternative options to sprawl regulations.

    Even though they proclaim to be “pro choice” in regards to development, it is complete smoke and mirrors.

    Why should O’Toole be concerned if a private development wants to slow traffic, create walkable spaces, or create a denser than usual neighborhood? It’s one thing to criticize a top-down planning mandate of smart growth, but another thing completely when ROT’s supposed “free-market” stance makes criticism of a simple NU development – and then makes transparent arguments that are clearly pro-sprawl and pro-automobile.

    Free-market my you know what.

  46. the highwayman says:

    O’Toole and Cox get paid to produce bull shit.

    Just think about the whole hate/fear factor involved here about people having other travel options.

Leave a Reply