Thomas Ragonetti has practiced land-use law for more than three decades and taught land-use planning at the University of Denver since 1993. This has led him to the same conclusion as the Antiplanner: “Growth management is inherently an elite or luxury good.”
“The wealthy will always win a bidding war for the most desirable dwellings while the poorer classes end up being squeezed,” Denver Post writer Vincent Carroll explains. “The more extreme the growth management, the farther it will slice up the income scale.”
Rinehart, who serves as the CEO, is the sole medicine popular in donssite.com purchase levitra online almost all countries for providing assured results in the treatment of ED. Comfortable and affordable sitting with tested tool can help you to balance the deficiency and restore the health naturally. buy viagra Erectile dysfunction has nothing to discount viagra do with pre-existing health conditions in this age group of men. Kamagra tablets as well as jellies are a cost effective medicine which is manufactured purposely for the cure of such disease. levitra 40 mg donssite.com
So Colorado has Boulder, one of the nation’s earliest practitioners of growth management, whose housing is more expensive (relative to incomes) than 90 percent of the rest of the country. Most of the 10 percent that is more expensive is in California, most of whose coastal cities having practiced growth management almost as long as (or longer than) Boulder. Of course, the people in these cities mostly regard themselves as “progressive,” meaning they care about poor people — they just want them to live somewhere else.
Zoning & things like “subdivions” are still “growth management”.
As the Highwayman says, as a native of “Coastal California” I can attest to the fact that down zoning was a much bigger problem running up real estate prices long before “growth management” became an official mantra, starting in Petaluma during the 1970’s. Down zoning–e.g., reducing densities, has a huge impact on raising housing prices in California literally decades before “New Urbanism” or “growth boundaries” came along. Of course, The Autoplanner (sic) doesn’t make this very important distinction.
It’s also a pretty foolish comparison because within suburbs, folks almost always segregate by income – they (I guess the “they” is freely operating, market-driven, American-Dream-style builders) don’t put $1.5 million McMansions right next to $200,000 townhouses. The same “You live there, I’ll live here” attitude that the AP accuses Boulder of prevails.
Hkelly1, that’s a good point, then you’d think that things would be a lot more eclectic.
I think everybody is getting too wrapped-up in down zoning or up zoning. Pick a place with outrageous prices like Santa Cruz, California where I spend my youth. The median house price according to the Sentinel is $599,000. Let’s see construction costs for a 1500sqft * $240/sqft = $432,000. Permit ready lots are going for $400,000. So $599,000 is a bargain. Maybe if they opened up those acres of farm land to the west, prices might start to come down. I remember when Fredrick St. had normal houses on it about 20+ years ago. Before I left they bought all the houses and the vacant field near the park to make a gated community. I checked the prices awhile back and they were million dollar places. Why can’t the posters comprehend simple supply and demand. If the price is high, someone is distorting the supply demand curve. I heard that in Springfield, Oregon a nice house cost $80k to build and lot is $10k plus $10k in system development fees. If the same applied in Santa Cruz, I would be building houses right and left to make half a million a piece.
What is this “…simple supply and demand.” of which you write? Some strange new theory? It is Blasphemy! Both supply and demand are, and will always be, controlled and regulated by the state and its enforcers, in this case, the planners.
The ‘elite good’ is bullsh– and Carroll knows it, as he uses only one source instead of many in his op-ed (it was written because Denver is dropping Euclidean zoning soon and replacing with form-based code).
The supply and demand function (which so many fetishize here) allows us to see that there is a high demand for housing that doesn’t look like the typical slapped-up cr*p McSuburb that passes for housing these days.
That is: as soon as a decent neighborhood with nearby walkable services and shops and decent design pops up, many people want to live there. So they bid up prices to live there.
Build more attrractive, walkable places and the bidding stops and everyone can live there (gosh…where have we heard this before, Randal? Where do we hear this…hmmm…where…).
I’ve brought this up numerous times. Of course, this basic reality must be ignored to have an argument. Doesn’t mean it goes away.
DS
MSetty wrote:
> As the Highwayman says, as a native of “Coastal California†I
> can attest to the fact that down zoning was a much bigger
> problem running up real estate prices long before
> “growth management†became an official mantra, starting
> in Petaluma during the 1970’s. Down zoning–e.g., reducing
> densities, has a huge impact on raising housing prices
> in California literally decades before “New Urbanismâ€Â
> or “growth boundaries†came along. Of course, The
> Autoplanner (sic) doesn’t make this very important
> distinction.
Mr. Setty, the two often have gone hand-in-hand.
Clearly that was the case in my native county (Montgomery County, Maryland), where roughly a third of its land area was placed in a so-called Agricultural Preserve long before anyone heard of Smart Growth or New Urbanism or Transit-Oriented Design. The results were predictable – prices of existing homes increased, affordable new single-family homes have pretty well vanished, and even attached single-family homes (e.g. townhomes) are very expensive.
All for what?
All for what?
Um…for acting on the will of the people to preserve farmland and open space?
Just a guess.
DS
Dan: “Build more attrractive, walkable places and the bidding stops and everyone can live there (gosh…where have we heard this before, Randal? Where do we hear this…hmmm…where…).”
No builder is going to want to saturate their own market, so the only way this will happen without some government artifice is for competing builders to enter the fray. The only way THAT will happen is for the enterprise to remain projectably profitable.
Government artifice drove growth of those McSuburbs in the 2000s (expansionary monetary policy) and look at the mess that resulted. There was monetary contraction in the 1970s and sky-high interest rates, and yet suburbs still grew… but more deliberately and with less volatility.
There is a perfect object lesson if one looks at current and past maps of the Phoenix area, for example, with something of an “archaeological eye.”:
Before World War II, the Phoenix area was primarily agrarian. The arrival of cheap, effective air conditioning after the war sparked the growth that followed.
In the 1960s, Phoenix proper grew out to its current east-west boundaries, annexing and absorbing villages like Cartwright, Alhambra, and parts of Paradise Valley. Phoenix’s adjacent suburbs, Tempe, Mesa, Scottsdale, and Glendale, grew from flyspeck villages to small towns. Growth planning was minimal.
In the 1970s and 1980s, Tempe, Mesa, Scottsdale, and Glendale grew substantially into suburbs, with Scottsdale and Mesa quadrupling in size. (Interestingly, this led to a debacle in January 1980: growth ahead of planners’ projections led to a furious scramble to build access via cut-rate contracting, which left the city with shoddy bridges that were obliterated in a 100-year flood.) Phoenix completed terminal expansion to the south, abutting the Gila River Indian Reservation. The far-flung suburbs, Peoria, Chandler, and Gilbert, grew from flyspeck villages to small towns. Growth planning remained minimal.
In the 1990s, Tempe, Mesa, and Glendale approached terminal expansion and began infill. Peoria, Chandler, and Gilbert exploded with growth, adding population exponentially. Phoenix absorbed Laveen and Maryvale; Mesa absorbed Lehi. Phoenix and Scottsdale grew northward into the open desert. Distant exurbs Surprise, Queen Creek, Avondale, Buckeye, and Maricopa grew from flyspeck villages into small towns. Growth planning finally came into effect, halting Phoenix and Scottsdale from continuing to expand northward into the desert and largely ending the annexations by the other suburbs.
In the 2000s, Phoenix and all its primary suburbs achieved terminal expansion and a population of 3.8 million pending further infill. The exurbs exploded into burgeoning cities with the housing bubble of 2003-2007. Maricopa grew from 3,500 people to 45,000 people. Buckeye grew to the point where it controls almost as much land area as Phoenix itself. But the housing bubble popped, and the exurbs sharply contracted. Those exurbs didn’t have the history and density to withstand sharp population contractions, so entire neighborhoods in Queen Creek, Maricopa, and Avondale are virtual ghost towns now.
Tellingly, expanding under almost complete laissez-faire conditions, it took the initial suburbs 20 years to do what the far-flung suburbs did in 10 under mild planning restrictions, and what the exurbs did in around six years under somewhat heavier restrictions. “Heavier” being relative, of course: Arizona is no Texas, but still does stand among the more lenient states with regard to sprawl limitations.
There was a feverish surge in demand to snap up what was left of exurban space when the closer cities reached terminal expansion under the current laws and political boundaries. How much better off would those exurban areas have been if the existing suburbs had been able to continue expanding and absorb them? Would the trackless wastes of Maricopa be nothing more than a fixer-upper southern fringe of Chandler? Would the “methtropoli” of Avondale and Goodyear be more stable, like their absorbed neighbor Laveen (now a Phoenix “neighborhood”)? We’ll never know, but we can speculate.
DS
We hear so much about walkable communities. Give us some examples. Do high density residents walk more? I am not so sure?
LG
lgrattan:“DS We hear so much about walkable communities. Give us some examples. Do high density residents walk more? I am not so sure?LG”
ws: Yes, we can be sure. There’s plenty of information out there. This report, conducted in Atlanta by GDOT, G.I.T. and University of British Columbia concluded that people in denser traditional neighborhoods walked more, traveled shorter distances (DVMT), and coincidentally were less obese than low density sprawl so called “neighborhoods”.
http://www.act-trans.ubc.ca/smartraq/files/GDOT_final_report.pdf
The surveys and study persons were very thorough. It’s long but some good information regarding the correlation of density, urban form, land-use and subsequent travel behaviors.
(About 26 MB, btw)
There is, LG, a tool out there, walkscore, that Realtors are using now to help market their properties and the WSJ covered it. Recently noted by CEOs for Cities was what I said above, people pay more for a good they want (pent-up demand due to lack of supply). As for specific walkable communities, here is one list for you. I think there is a limit on hyperlinks else I go into spam queue…
And higher-densities walk more. Besides Randal having already provided that evidence himself with links to spreadsheets that show this, it is basic knowledge and I’ve discussed this here numerous times. VMTs are lower in higher densities, TPDs are lower. Walking is greater.
DS
spam queue again…
DS
The whole Denver Post article reveals the general attitudes that average Americas have. They don’t like “sprawl” but willingly choose to live in it, they are concerned about global warming and the environment, they hate traffic but don’t want to walk anywhere or invite commercial development near them and they get irate at any other families moving into their nook of the suburb because it ruins their views and brings traffic.
Mostly, people who move into their homes in the suburbs want their surrounding environment to stay as it is for eternity. People who live in the city – while often preservationists – are accepting of diverse buildings, new construction, and a dynamic landscape.
I really find the “suburbia crowd” to be the biggest NIMBYs out there.
I don’t think you can generalize about urban or suburban people. Housing is a big decision, and people look at their financial situation, their likes/dislikes, their job, where their friends and family live, etc.
I have lived in both very urban, suburban, and quasi-rural areas, and I liked all of them at that time of my life. I will probably change again as I get older or my family changes.
That is why I think it is important to have choices, and why I am skeptical about government deciding where I should live.
I think it is important to have choices, and why I am skeptical about government deciding where I should live.
Absolutely. Which is why Denver is eliminating Euclidean zoning to give more choices than cookie-cutter single-use areas.
And one wonders why partisan columnists in the Post and elsewhere are against more choices!
DS
Borealis:“That is why I think it is important to have choices, and why I am skeptical about government deciding where I should live.”
ws:I think we can all agree about choices, but is our current development trends of the last 50 years really choice or just default? I truly do enjoy varying densities and urban forms within a metro area, but there are certain rules that developments – even single family houses – conducted under.
I think rural living sounds nice – I don’t wish to tell them how to live. I also understand why people live in the suburbs, I simply think that post WWII suburbs (not streetcar suburbs) are particularly wasteful, resource intensive, and downright ugly (I know this because you will never see suburbia developments EVER on any historical registry).
Regarding Portland, its inner-suburbs are less dense than the city core, but they add diversity and choice to the city. You can also build condos right next to single family homes in certain areas…Can you do that in la-la land?
Dan:“And one wonders why partisan columnists in the Post and elsewhere are against more choices!”
ws:Yep, and just ask those people who want to live (or do live) in the elitist Country Club area if they’d care if a private developer or private property owner wanted to put in a high density apartment (section 8 of course) next to their homes. No need for an elitist government restrictions, you have the elitist dictating things right there.
“I know this because you will never see suburbia developments EVER on any historical registry…”
It’s not on the national register, but the Smithsonian is working on acquiring a 1949 ranch model house from Levittown, New York, the first mass-produced suburb.
So much hatred of suburbs by the urban elite. Not only has this elite group chosen not to live in suburbia, they want to make that choice for you, too!
Dan replied to me:
> Um…for acting on the will of the people to preserve farmland
> and open space?
>
> Just a guess.
(1) It’s never been put to a popular vote in the county.
(2) Farmland? Seems not. Even in my small state of Maryland (only 24 county-equivalent units of government), Montgomery County ranks far behind many of its peers in every category that the Census of Agriculture quantifies. Piedmont “viewsheds” are not farms.
(3) Open space? Nope, as it is closed off to the public. My notion of “open” space is usually not owned by private landowners.
Frank:“It’s not on the national register, but the Smithsonian is working on acquiring a 1949 ranch model house from Levittown, New York, the first mass-produced suburb.”
ws:Levittown might be on some historical registry some day for its historical significance as being the first – and I think it should be. Certainly there will be historical preservation of the housing typology that I loathe to some degree or another, but the reasons for the preservation should be noted. And I do like some 1950s-1960s Americana architecture – I don’t wish to do away with it.
What I’m trying to say is that what we have built and continue to build for housing is generally speaking not going to be something we wish to protect in the future. I think that’s a shame and a waste of resources.
Homes and even whole neighborhoods from almost any time period before 1945 have received historical recognition. Here’s a test, try tearing down an 1890s Victorian home (let’s assume you own these homes before doing so). Now try to demolish a 1940s ranch home. What do you think will draw more public outrage? (Even though one is 50 years older, try the same thing on an 1940s Art Deco building, and you’ll get the same reaction).
WS wrote:
> I think rural living sounds nice – I don’t wish to tell them how to
> live. I also understand why people live in the suburbs, I
> simply think that post WWII suburbs (not streetcar suburbs)
> are particularly wasteful, resource intensive, and downright
> ugly (I know this because you will never see suburbia
> developments EVER on any historical registry).
Emphasis added above
Rock Creek Woods Historic District
Care to reconsider your assertion above?
As I mentioned above, the subdivision – in this case Rock Springs – is being preserved for what they meant and their historical/societal impact and the people behind the development. In the case of Levittown, which I mentioned will someday end up on a historical registry (which it deserves to), will be preserved mostly for it’s impact on America than its impact on design alone. Certainly architecture is more than just design alone, but I am speaking in design terms.
Is the example being preserved for the homes and neighborhood’s architectural designs? A little bit from what I can gather, the homes sound interesting, but really it’s much more than that according to the link’s description. It seems more about the individual behind the plan. I’m also curious, if this place is so great, why is there not a better picture displaying the appeal of the place? All I see is a road and some cherry trees.
Are you really convinced that suburbia will have more homes and neighborhoods on preservation lists than previous architectural periods and movements in the US? I partially recant my statement and extreme exaggeration, but my overall sentiment strong.
Why should anyone care whether a city dweller thinks the suburbs are attractive architecture? Tens of millions of people have decided the suburbs are the most attractive solutions to their housing needs. The best reason to keep government out of housing decisions is to prevent people from imposing their design preferences on other people.
Well look at how not too long ago there was “That 70’s Show” along with movies for “Transformers” & “G.I.Joe”, these are cultural things that only go back past 40 years.
Borealis said: Tens of millions of people have decided the suburbs are the most attractive solutions to their housing needs. The best reason to keep government out of housing decisions is to prevent people from imposing their design preferences on other people.
THWM: I don’t like this, yet on flip side you want to impose limiting policy too.
Borealis:“Why should anyone care whether a city dweller thinks the suburbs are attractive architecture?”
ws:It’s not about city dwellers, there’s plenty of nice suburbs worthy of preservation. My arguments are with suburbia.
The issue isn’t about attractiveness, it’s about what humans value design wise. It is my contention that there will a reasonable void in historical registry regarding “suburbia”. Yes, many things will be preserved, there’s some neat stuff out there. But, if you believe this like I do, what does this (unproven fact) say about the lifestyle that many people enjoy in the US? If we are building things not worth saving, what’s the point?
CPZ:
(1) Yet it is a law.
(2) Conservation reserves often are written to be able to convert to working forests, ag, etc.
(3) Open space is open. Just because land is not converted doesn’t mean it is useless.
Not finding widespread outrage on a Lexis-Nexis or BH search. Surely there is outrage amongst the 2%, but whaddya gonna do?
DS
The best reason to keep government out of housing decisions is to prevent people from imposing their design preferences on other people.
Agreed. Making the market wider than only allowing low-wattage developers slapping up their boring cookie-cuttered cr*p will automatically raise the bar and help eliminate much of the cr*p that passes for dwelling units.
DS
. .late to the program….
“Growth management” has many facets, obviously.
The basics can include a rough “template” on where various land uses go, & the infrastructure necessary for the population (dwellers, workers & shoppers etc.) including roads (& transit, if dense enough).
Within that, zoning is partially used to separate some uses, to prevent interfering or disturbing others. Are haphazard & random densities, uses, prices wanted?
Distinction is needed for clarification: that currently happens for areas from [generally] 1/8 a sq.mi. to 2 sq.mi., within city limits, right?
Sure, there is mixed use, in cores or clusters, & larger homogeneity in really low densities. To be without zoning, do people think that types & purposes will be vastly alternating for every few acres?
Look at the market process: Will a builder create something new, which is out of place? Sure, that happens to some degree, but customers/leasees/buyers are needed for a desirable product.
Major point is: zoning does not discourage anarchy in land use; or there would not be be chaos otherwise. Gov is still needed (&wanted) for some basics. An overwhelming gov, w/an attitude & directive of: “do this, there, only, like this, with my constraints, & behave my way†is not desired, right?
Another point, is that zoning does not have to be used for growth “restrictions,” driving up prices, via S&D, & going against persons’ wants). Zoning that “stops” land uses (UGBs) is not under original intent or the basic purpose [of zoning]. It prevents adjacent use, not separating, potentially incompatible uses. In many metros, UAs end at hillsides or farms.
BTW, those markets, w/avg or lower housing prices, don’t just end, but trail off. (Get it?)
So, why should residential areas end at a higher elevation or agr use? Housing does not interfere w/what’s beyond. Keep in mind, that the land is privately owned & those owners would often like to sell, to provide more land for others (more value/usefulness). It is strange how that is dis-allowed; it is unConstitutional (eminent domain–taking land for public use, albeit partial).
Conclusion: it’s not a binary (one or other) choice, re: growth management. There are many aspects: where & how much. It should be obvious, the reasons for, the most restrictive & priciest market, the SF Bay Area. BTW, for its 9-County, 7,000 sq. mi. area, about only 10% is urbanized/built. Imagine if expansion was allowed: better prices. A rub is: existing homeowners will lose their illusory value (still, after the recent big drop) & realized that they should not have bought anyway.
Hey: planning & socialism has its advantages, until you run of others’ money & counter their desires.
The best reason to keep government out of housing decisions is to prevent people from imposing their design preferences on other people.
THWM: Why bother having a federal or state governments.
Let’s have city states instead.