Urban sprawl is the result of central planning and zoning and therefore libertarians should support smart growth — at least that’s what some supposedly conservative, progressive, and anarchistic bloggers say. This all appears to be a response to James Kunstler’s previously noted rude snub of John Stossel.
Writing for The American Conservative, Austin Bramwell argues that sprawl is “mandated by a vast and seemingly intractable network of government regulations, from zoning laws and building codes to street design regulations.” As a result, “government planning makes sprawl ubiquitous.”
Anarchist Kevin Carson quotes Kunstler’s book, The Geography of Nowhere, as the authority for how planners like Robert Moses forced people to live in sprawl. “Local governments have been almost universally dominated by an unholy alliance of real estate developers and other commercial interests” that insisted on urban sprawl, says Carson.
Progressive Matthew Yglesias describes sprawl as “centrally planned suburbia” and accuses libertarians of being hypocrites because they don’t oppose zoning codes that mandate sprawl. He adds that “People sometimes cite Houston as an example of a libertarian-style ‘no zoning’ city, but this is mostly a myth” (citing a paper that finds that Houston “regulates land use almost as intricately as cities with zoning”).
This is all balderdash and poppycock spread by people who have never carefully studied the history of zoning or how zoning worked before it was hijacked by authoritarian urban planners. These people get much of their information from Kunstler, an excellent writer who focuses on his aesthetic preferences rather than any factual basis for demonizing the suburbs. Despite Kunstler’s rhetoric, it doesn’t take much to show that areas without any zoning or regulation will — if developed today — end up as what planners call “sprawl.”
Zoning was not invented by developers trying to impose their lifestyle preferences on unsuspecting Americans. The idea that realtors and developers could somehow force people to buy houses they didn’t want is refuted by hundreds or thousands of real-estate developments that failed financially because they did not offer what people wanted. Unlike planners who write prescriptive zoning codes, developers who risk their own money are going to make every effort to build things that people want because if they don’t, they themselves will be the losers.
Instead, zoning was invented by homeowners in existing developments who wanted to insure that their neighborhoods would maintain some degree of stability. When zoning was first applied, it was used almost exclusively in areas that were already development. Pretty much those original zones merely reaffirmed the development that was already there. Single-family neighborhoods were zoned for single-family homes; apartments for multi-family; industrial for industry; and so forth.
Single-family homes in Euclid, Ohio.
The Supreme Court’s 1926 Euclid decision was not over vacant land but an existing neighborhood of single-family homes. A realtor wanted the option of building an apartment building in this neighborhood. The court realized that an apartment building could attract higher rents if it were located in a stable neighborhood of single-family homes, but conversely it could reduce the value of the nearby homes.
After the Euclid decision, most American cities zoned their neighborhoods. Planners criticize “Euclidian zoning” because most zones separate housing from other uses. But such separation was the prevailing standard in developments after about 1900, and zoning merely affirmed that standard because most of the land that was zoned was already developed.
Most vacant land in a metropolitan area is outside of city limits under the jurisdiction of county governments, and until the 1960s and 1970s most states did not give counties the authority to zone (some still don’t). As Robert Nelson pointed out in his book, Zoning and Property Rights, when cities or counties did zone vacant land, they generally put it in a “holding zone,” meaning that it was zoned for a low density until some developer saw a market for something else. The developer would then ask the city or county to rezone for the market, and the city or county almost always complied.
In the second kind order viagra online of varicose vein treatment, which is the best treatment option. Men that do all these exercises viagra 50 mg why not look here adequately reach multi-orgasm. The performance can either make or break the health of your generic levitra from canada view over here now heart. The maximum concentration though, visit my page sildenafil from canada is decreased with this meal, but the desired effect is achieved by using this mechanism. People look at these low-density holding zones and charge that they force sprawl. It would be true if the zones were inflexible, but in fact the cities and counties were responsive to market demand: when a landowner or developer came forth with a proposal, the city or county generally reclassified the land into an appropriate zone. NIMBYs who expected that the low-density zones would remain forever were doomed to disappointment, and they often accused city/county commissioners of somehow being in the thrall of the developers. But the developers themselves were just reflecting market demand and city officials did not consider it their job to dictate what kind of homes or other buildings people should build and buy.
Yglesias points to the zoning code for Maricopa County, Arizona, arguing that it requires development at single-family densities. He conveniently ignores the fact that chapter 7 of the code provides for multi-family housing with as many as 43 units per acre (p. 87 has an R-5 zone with 1,000 square feet of land per dwelling unit; there are 43,560 square feet per acre). An even bigger omission is the “planned area of development” (elsewhere called planned unit developments) zone in chapter 10, which allows for high-density, mixed-use developments. Every zoning code the Antiplanner has ever seen has included such a zoning option.
Whatever the code says, just reading it offers no idea of how flexible it is. If a significant chunk of vacant land is in one zone, but a developer thinks there is a market for another zone, most cities that haven’t yet fallen into the smart-growth fad will cheerfully change the zone or allow a variance. Obviously, this wouldn’t happen to a single vacant lot in the middle of an otherwise developed area, but would frequently happen to pieces of land that were, say, 100 acres or more. Maricopa’s PAD zone, for example, allows anyone who has 160 acres to build a classic Calthorpian New Urban development.
These homes were built in a suburb of Houston that has no zoning and no land-use regulation, so — according to sprawl critics — this must not be sprawl.
As noted, Yglesias also points to land-use regulation in Houston, which supposedly enforces sprawl. It is true that Houston regulates such things as setbacks and building heights. But it does not regulate uses: you can build a 7-Eleven in the middle of single-family homes or an apartment building in an industrial district. To the extent that Houston has a separation of uses, it is because that is what people want. Convenience stores want to locate on busy streets where they are visible to lots of potential customers, so they don’t often locate in the middle of neighborhoods of single-family homes. People don’t want to live in industrial districts, so you don’t see too many apartments in them.
If you don’t believe Houston is unregulated, just step across the city line into Harris County or any of the eight counties adjacent to Harris County. There you will find virtually no regulation (other than building codes), yet you still find developments with the classic separation of uses and low-density development that planners derisively call sprawl.
This subdivision is in Germany. Does that mean that German laws are also forcing people to live in sprawl?
And if you don’t believe that, take a look at Wendell Cox’s rental car tours of European (and other) cities. Few would argue that Europe has forced people to sprawl, yet Cox shows that European cities are rapidly spreading out with low-density developments that (as Peter Hall says on page 873 of his massive tome, Cities in Civilization) are “almost indistinguishable from [their] counterparts in California and Texas.” (In a more recent article, Cox also refutes the completely undocumented claim that Americans are deserting the suburbs to move back to central cities.)
American cities sprawl because Americans, like people all over the world, prefer to live in single-family homes and like to have a little land they can call their own for gardening, entertainment, and play areas. The automobile made it possible for almost everyone to achieve this dream, where before the auto only the upper classes could do so. As John Stossel noted back in 2006 (when Kunstler had accepted his invitation to be on his show), restrictions on sprawl will destroy “the lives of poor people” because they basically tell “low-income people who want back yards that they can’t have one” (to which Kunstler supposedly replied, “you can’t have everything”).
So which is the appropriate libertarian view? To tell low-income people that they have to live in multi-family housing because social policy has made single-family homes artificially expensive? Or to simply eliminate zoning codes (which, contrary to Yglesias’ claims, every libertarian I know advocates) and let people do what they want (including, if they want, living in high-density developments or low-density developments with deed restrictions providing the stability that zoning once offered)?
Sprawl is not the result of central planning and libertarians need not hesitate in their opposition to smart growth. The real hypocrites are the so-called progressives like Yglesias who claim to care about low-income and disadvantaged people yet support policies that will prevent most such people from ever owning single-family homes.
Instead, zoning was invented by homeowners in existing developments who wanted to insure that their neighborhoods would maintain some degree of stability.
No.
Actually, zoning originated where (usu. industrial) nuisances were required to be separated from residential areas to ensure health, safety and welfare and to limit building height for fire protection and access to light. New York enacted the first formal one in 1916 to protect access to light and air after a high-rise blocked light for neighbors. Euclid merely made it Constitutionally legal to do so in the U.S. Of course, the rich wanted separation too, so they liked the idea of zoning to keep out the rabble and protect their property values. .
Basic, freshman-level stuff.
DS
Exactly Dan. Now you are getting it. Your comments are at the Freshman level. Let the rest of us talk at the Graduate level.
Zoning is just used to keep the “undesirables” out. Try getting a decent apartment building built across the street from single-family homes (which would provide housing to people with less money). Yet, the links I read from ROT tries to make the opposite case: zoning and land-use impacts poor people more negatively — presumably because they can’t own a home because it’s too expensive.
Even if that were true, at some point, rental units would not go away because there would still be a demand for the poorest of the poor. Now, people need to ask themselves where that housing is acceptable to occur in a city? Off to the side, far, far away from single-family homes?
Up until 1998, Houston had a minimum lot size mandate of 5,000 sf. Much of Houston was already built by then, and apparently the minimum 5,000 sf lot size still applies to many suburban areas in Houston. Houston still has a litany of parking requirements, too. Setback requirements are huge too, scoffed at by ROT in this article, because setbacks can be used for curb-cuts and parking lots which go against promoting walking (unless someone thinks that cars cutting across the curbs is good for getting people to walk).
Houston is not some libertarian fairy land. The logic that Houston = free-market; therefore the sprawl contained in its boundary = preference is completely bogus. Yes, some people like sprawl, but many others, given the choice of a walkable, inner ring suburban neighborhood (with single family homes, apartments, etc.) would choose that over the typical subdivision crap hole any day of the week.
I know people’s preference because people pay more $ to live in old homes in traditional neighborhoods. The market speaks clearly on this.
On to other things:
Per the Stossel 20/20 link: “Think about shared public property, like public toilets. They’re often gross. Public streets tend to get trashed. Earlier I mentioned how people litter on public lands, and think about what you share at work. The refrigerator where I work is disgusting — filled with food that’s rotten. I found cottage cheese that was more than a year old. It’s because it’s shared property.”
ws: More libertard logic (not to be confused with libertarian, please don’t get offended). I’ve *never* been in a messy private bathroom. Nope, never (except for the one I threw up all over, or the one where I went into the restaurant as a non-paying customer and accidentally clogged their toilet). Oh yeah, and feel free to check out my so called “private” refrigerator, it will make the 1 year old cottage cheese look tasty.
And I completely agree that certain things are best in private hands. I don’t want to strip away people’s right for private property. I don’t want some Maoist farming ideology to plague our food source. But that doesn’t mean I want to be a giant pick about it and use aspects of life that failed when they were “commons” as fuel to privatize everything. Let’s be moderate here.
Stossel has to be one of my least liked libertarian characters. Could he be anymore snarky? I really do dislike him with a passion.
“Downzoning” is the word of the day. Libertards, please learn what this word actually means, and the massive impact it has had in California and elsewhere–e.g., orders of magnitude more than “Smart Growth” or “New Urbanism” so far.
My reply to The Antiplanner is this link:
Zoned Out: Regulation, Markets, and Choices in Transportation and Metropolitan Land Use
http://www.amazon.com/Zoned-Out-Regulation-Transportation-Metropolitan/dp/1933115157.
‘Far-reaching and paradigm shaking… Levine forcefully argues that the current framework in which both suburban sprawl and possible reform strategies are debated is badly skewed.’ Urban Affairs Review ‘Jonathan Levine forcefully demonstrates as groundless the belief that compact development must prove its transportation and other benefits before it is permitted as legitimate.’ Anthony Downs, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution ‘Few books can show us something new in the well-explored territory of transportation, land use, and smart growth. Zoned Out … does just that.’ Planners Library Newsletter, American Planning Association
Product Description
Researchers have responded to urban sprawl, congestion, and pollution by assessing alternatives such as smart growth, new urbanism, and transit-oriented development. Underlying this has been the presumption that, for these options to be given serious consideration as part of policy reform, science has to prove that they will reduce auto use and increase transit, walking, and other physical activity. Zoned Out forcefully argues that the debate about transportation and land-use planning in the United States has been distorted by a myth-the myth that urban sprawl is the result of a free market. According to this myth, low-density, auto-dependent development dominates U.S. metropolitan areas because that is what Americans prefer.
Jonathan Levine confronts the free market myth by pointing out that land development is already one of the most regulated sectors of the U.S. economy. Noting that local governments use their regulatory powers to lower densities, segregate different types of land uses, and mandate large roadways and parking lots, he argues that the design template for urban sprawl is written into the land-use regulations of thousands of municipalities nationwide. These regulations and the skewed thinking that underlies current debate mean that policy innovation, market forces, and the compact-development alternatives they might produce are often “zoned out” of our metropolitan areas.
In debunking the market myth, Levine articulates an important paradigm shift. Where people believe that current land-use development is governed by a free-market, any proposal for policy reform is seen as a market intervention and a limitation on consumer choice, and any proposal carries a high burden of scientific proof that it will be effective. By reorienting the debate, Levine shows that the burden of scientific proof that was the lynchpin of transportation and land-use debates has been misassigned, and that, far from impeding market forces or limiting consumer choice, policy reform that removes regulatory obstacles would enhance both. A groundbreaking work in urban planning, transportation and land-use policy, Zoned Out challenges a policy environment in which scientific uncertainty is used to reinforce the status quo of sprawl and its negative consequences for people and their communities.
I’d say Levin nails the problem with the way zoning is practiced in the U.S. right on its head…
…not that my point will stop the teeth-knashing by those on this blog who believe The Antiplanner’s fantastic spin on the topic–actually, the teeth-knashing should prove entertaining.
Rather than attacking me or my ancestry (OK, I’m trolling in my last post!), I’d rather see a “take down of Levine’s book by someone who has actually READ it. I have yet to see any credible debunking of his work.
It’s surprising how some did not seem to understand O’Toole’s many points.
Are some of you focusing on a few trees, rather than the forest?
And then, not even realizing the different plants in the forest & the various animals, with different needs?
The market, huh? It’s not formed by desire?
People really like guidelines, especially the ones about speed limits & drugs.
If it just wasn’t a “requirement” to have a nice 0.5 acre or 1+ acre lot. Those are not really nice.
Regs are made for various reasons: protection, efficiency, LOS, exclusion, inclusion, consistency, variety, diversity, homogeneity, competition, monopolistic, safety, etc…
One cannot generalize, accurately to say that “this” is because of “that”.
It’s rather ridiculous to claim that suburban zoning offers one, or just a few choices.
It’s almost hilarious that housing was built because of what policy dictated, rather than what many consumers wanted. Do some really think that the premium choice for a large majority is Manhattan or SF? For some yes; that’s partially why housing there is very expensive. That type of living is not enjoyed by many. These high-density coalition people seem to want to coerce all to live like that.
Why should all live densely? The whole country can live at SF density (16,000) in an area the size of San Bernardino County (20,000 sq.mi.).
At Honk Kong’s density, the country could live in an area the size of the NYC UA.
Okay, so people don’t really like nature & their own yards?
And, would rather live with 100s of others in one building, where you hardly even see neighbors, light, flora, fauna, etc. And it costs more, with less floor area?
Right.
People were fooled, by zoning.
The statists need to tell people what they really want & how to behave.
A few specific observations:
Without a certain level of parking, people overflow elsewhere to park or just do not return, and w/inadequate road infrastructure, congestion results. SG just exacerbates unwanted conditions.
Look at the exodus from cores, starting in the 50s. People preferred more space & driving, & didn’t care about walkability & transit. That is true globally, for a large portion of each region.
The suburbs have many ranges of zoning types (up to 50 DU/acre). To believe the claim of zoning created suburbs, one would think that there are only houses with big lots.
One big cost of construction is usually ignored by these theoreticians: multi-level parking, at 10-25 times surface only parking. Why is this relevant? People like cars & to have density, multi-level parking is needed. That is certainly not the only disincentive for people to exist in crowded conditions.
“I know people’s preference because people pay more $ to live in old homes in traditional neighborhoods. The market speaks clearly on this.” -WS
Last I checked the supply of 1890 queen anne victorians isn’t increasing…… maybe supply has more to do with it than demand?
Scott said: The market, huh? It’s not formed by desire?
People really like guidelines, especially the ones about speed limits & drugs.
If it just wasn’t a “requirement†to have a nice 0.5 acre or 1+ acre lot. Those are not really nice.
Regs are made for various reasons: protection, efficiency, LOS, exclusion, inclusion, consistency, variety, diversity, homogeneity, competition, monopolistic, safety, etc…
One cannot generalize, accurately to say that “this†is because of “thatâ€.
It’s rather ridiculous to claim that suburban zoning offers one, or just a few choices.
THWM: You still don’t get it Scott.
ws said: Zoning is just used to keep the “undesirables†out. Try getting a decent apartment building built across the street from single-family homes (which would provide housing to people with less money). Yet, the links I read from ROT tries to make the opposite case: zoning and land-use impacts poor people more negatively — presumably because they can’t own a home because it’s too expensive.
Even if that were true, at some point, rental units would not go away because there would still be a demand for the poorest of the poor. Now, people need to ask themselves where that housing is acceptable to occur in a city? Off to the side, far, far away from single-family homes?
Up until 1998, Houston had a minimum lot size mandate of 5,000 sf. Much of Houston was already built by then, and apparently the minimum 5,000 sf lot size still applies to many suburban areas in Houston. Houston still has a litany of parking requirements, too. Setback requirements are huge too, scoffed at by ROT in this article, because setbacks can be used for curb-cuts and parking lots which go against promoting walking (unless someone thinks that cars cutting across the curbs is good for getting people to walk).
Houston is not some libertarian fairy land. The logic that Houston = free-market; therefore the sprawl contained in its boundary = preference is completely bogus. Yes, some people like sprawl, but many others, given the choice of a walkable, inner ring suburban neighborhood (with single family homes, apartments, etc.) would choose that over the typical subdivision crap hole any day of the week.
THWM: For that matter, suburban trains are not hostile to suburbia.
prk166:
There’s more to inner ring suburbs than Victorian homes that range all the way up to homes built in the 40s. I understand the point about supply that you’re trying to make, but the market still shows that people prefer these homes vastly over tract homes. Not only are people paying more for them, they are paying way more for them. People still pay and arm and a leg (and a toe) to live in these types of homes with bad plumbing and many fixes needed to be done to them.
There’s still decent supply of traditional neighborhood homes, and the demand is right there, too.
I’ve been a reader for some time and enjoy the information but haven’t posted.
I’ve had it with the City of Cincinnati and their land policies. I’m heading up a group that is taking about 500 homes out of the city and in to a home rule township. I going to track the progress using a blog format and hope that in the future, more people choose to leave Ohio cities. We have a mayor determined to build more parks and a street car system. But not on my dime.
You don’t use any parks at all? No kids that use a baseball field for their games?
I am sick & tired of ugly sprawl.
I got so mad I even took pictures of some of the worst sprawl around Portland. I mean, would live in those dumps if the government didn’t force them?
http://www.portlandfacts.com/smart/sprawl/sprawl3.htm
Thanks
JK
It’s not so simple. Use google earth and go to “cincinnati, oh great american ball park”. Back the elevation out to 10,000 ft. The city wants to spend 150 million on parks between the to stadiums.
Currently, from the right of Great American Ball Park to the top edge of your screen, the whole area along the river is already parks. You can draw a 3 mile radius on the Ohio side of the river from the ball park and in that area is dozens of parks, playgrounds and nature preserves.
Also, in that view of the center of the city, the mayor wants to build a street car loop for 200 million. The planed loop connects nothing with nothing but the mayor believes people will come from all over to ride the street car and the city will be flush with cash. And the planned route loops through one the highest crime areas on downtown.
It’s all pointless waste that the taxpayers will be paying for, for the next several decades. We know it. The two stadiums were to be paid for with a temp tax increase until they became profitable. They didn’t and the tax became permanent and now the city wants another tax increase because they are losing even more money on the stadiums.
The area between the stadiums, before development, used to generate $2 million a year for the school district. The city destroyed all that wealth and has been paying the school district the 2 million a year from its general fund.
In the 30 year of being in the area, the city has been run by liberals that keep coming up with hairbrain scheme to revitalize downtown. Every scheme has failed and cost taxpayers billions.
It’s time to get out.
Michael, streetcar lines were already there, so don’t complain about government undoing the damage they did!
I prefer to live in a area of single family homes in a low density area. With a big yard of my own to Garden, BBQ, play with my kids.
I have lived in the city and don’t really like living within walking distance of stores restaurants and higher densities with transit nearby and commuted by bike. Done that! My things had to be chained down or locked away, so they would not walk away.
Sprawl is just a low density area that “I” prefer. I’m tired of people telling me it is bad when “I” know how much I love it.
I’m tired of people telling me it is bad when “I†know how much I love it.
I’m tired of people telling you that people tell you it is bad.
What is bad is when people state everyone wants to live in a McSuburb. That is bad.
DS
#14 There’s a rail history fan here in Cincinnati and has a map of all the passenger lines that were in SW Ohio. The government has a lot of undoings.
For UAs, roughly 2/3 of the people live in the suburbs.
Who says that “all people want to live in suburbs”?
Another wrong generalization, Dan.
On the opposite, people don’t claim that all are anti-suburb.
There are many people who are anti-low density ant-car. Many of them are hypocritical.
What is strange is that people living in medium or low density & expect transit to come to them.
Parking Requirements of Houston:
http://library.municode.com/HTML/10123/level4/CODE_C26_AVIII_D2.html#CODE_C26_AVIII_D2_s26-492
Those parking requirements along a simple commercial strip will spread things out so far, walking won’t even being to occur. Now combine the oven effect of asphalt in Houston, the multiple curb cuts, lack of street trees along these roads and what do you get? People driving to every destination.
The most onerous one:
b. Bar, club or lounge (including outdoor decks, patio and/or seating areas) 10.0 spaces for every 1,000 square feet of GFA and outdoor decks, patio and/or seating areas
Don’t drink and drive…but provide 10 parking spaces per 1,000 sf, including patio areas.
I think Jack Daniel himself wrote that code.
Even with a supposed lack of zoning, these parking regulations will churn out the most mundane sprawl possible.
I prefer to drive everywhere when running errands, especially if I’m picking up things that are hard to carry. I love to walk in sparsely or unpopulated areas. One of my favorites places in on a unnamed place on the Oregon coast which when I stay down there is a 15 mile drive to it from the place I stay at.
I prefer to walk or ride a bike for fun not necessity. In a low density or sprawling area without traffic signals and lots of cross streets.
That’s how the market (TM) plans! Jack Daniels lobbies the electeds for favorable terms!
DS
I have yet to see any credible debunking of his work.
Take a look at this review from the journal Growth and Change. It calls into the question the veracity of the book’s hypothesis regarding property rights and the weakness of the evidence the author provides in support of his arguments.
I have also read the book and share many of its criticisms.
There are parking guidelines to avoid lack of spaces.
There are formulas, that estimate % of drivers & customers/area.
It is known that people like to drive, so spaces are provided.
Businesses lose customers if there are not sufficient spaces.
Parking spillover can result too.
Excess gas is also used in driving around.
Extra driving can occur too, when people go to elsewhere to park & do business.
Most businesses cannot have enough sales from just walkers.
For one thing, many products are cumbersome or impossible to carry very far.
Scott:“It is known that people like to drive, so spaces are provided.”
ws:People like to drive or people drive because they have to? Let’s not conflate the two like you are. I like to drive to the coast, go hiking in, etc., it doesn’t mean I want to drive for every last aspect of my life. If I am cooking and need a stick of butter, that doesn’t mean I want to go and hop in the car and waste a bunch of gas vs. walking 5 minutes to my destination for a simple item. All in all, it would take about the same time.
I simply have to drive for most trips to the grocery store because it’s impossible to otherwise.
Scott:Most businesses cannot have enough sales from just walkers.
For one thing, many products are cumbersome or impossible to carry very far.
ws: Many products, or most? Nobody said anything about getting rid of parking all together. It doesn’t matter if a business wants to provide fewer parking spaces anyways — they won’t get a loan from the idiot banks because somehow, the banks know what people want too.
Most of us “have” to work. What a shame.
For those who want to walk 5 minutes to a store, why did they move farther away?
It’s ridiculous to think that a grocery or other retail should be 1/3 mile away from most residences.
People don’t “have” to go to the places that they drive, but cars offer the best option, by far.
Transit is widespread for only a few areas, so if that’s what a person wants, then move there.
Scott, why did they move farther away? Because low commute times cause central city real estate to be bid up relative to property on the fringe. Some people must invest their leisure time in commuting for their low income/wealth prohibits them from buying property 5 minutes from the grocery store. At least that’s what happens in my fantasy world, clearly not the real world where the high demand for suburban living drives up its prices.
Scott, you’re looking at current conditions of the suburbia landscape as evidence for promotion of the status quo, without regards for the reasons why the status quo is that way in the first place.
It’s just like Randall with his statistical “analysis”. He points to the 4 trillion or so passenger miles as evidence that people are driving, therefore we should continue expanding driving mobility. There are many people who contribute to those miles (me included) when given an adequate amount of options, would choose other modes if they were available to them.
But our transportation policy is not reflecting any such nature where all modes are operating on the same level and all modes are paying their cost, and all land-uses are reflecting their intended purposes.
People will take the most convenient mode of transportation that suits their needs. Nobody is going to drive to get a loaf of bread if they can easily walk to the store 5 minutes instead (and save gas and get exercise, too). The larger issue is, through exclusive zoning, that grocery store can’t even take root next to residences in the first place.
No, it has to be in front of a football field sized parking where people need to dodge traffic and scorching heat, and walk an extra distance because of the spread out nature of the store created by parking spots that will never get used — just to arrive at their destination.
The end result, as shown by Houston’s onerous parking standards is by default, suburbia.
I have lived next to a grocery store and now live a mile or so away from a grocery store. I prefer to be far enough away that if I need something at a store, I can easily drive.
I rarely need to just pick up milk or butter because I have a pantry, refrigerator and freezer to stock up and store the necessities. If I do need something at the store, most of the time, I stop on the way home from work. And because I’m driving, I have many choices such as Fred Meyers, Walmart, Safeway, Albertsons, Winco, Costco, Cash & Carry and others.
Choice = lower costs and more lost leaders.
“What is bad is when people state everyone wants to live in a McSuburb. That is bad.”
What exactly constitutes a “McSuburb” Dan? And I always find it fascinating the soft bigotry that comes from the urbanite gentry who talk down to everyone who doesn’t live in a loft or doesn’t foam at the mouth at their hatred over a big box store or hates the fact the mega grocery store forced out the “mom and pop” corner store.
“I rarely need to just pick up milk or butter because I have a pantry, refrigerator and freezer to stock up and store the necessities. If I do need something at the store, most of the time, I stop on the way home from work. And because I’m driving, I have many choices such as Fred Meyers, Walmart, Safeway, Albertsons, Winco, Costco, Cash & Carry and others.
Choice = lower costs and more lost leaders.”
Gee sprawl, that sounds like you like to *save* TIME and MONEY..what a concept!
tg, The point was people locating their residence farther than 1/3 mile from retail, not from the CBD. Less than 20% of people in an UA work in the CBD anyway. There are plenty of retail spots in suburbs & there is usually residential zoning adjacent. If a person wants to walk to stores, then locate in an area that has them.
ws & others. The overwhelming idea is that the suburbs “just happened”, regardless of developers figuring out wants, and then people were just coerced to move there & not to high density. If high density had the many advantages that are believed, they would not have been left in droves & non-core cities would develop densely.
How about driving to stores & trunk spaces? That is very convenient. Supermarkets need about 20,000-40,000 potential consumers within reach. When there are small food stores, there is much less selection & higher prices & often limited parking.
Transit used to be the only option. People have gradually chosen cars over a century. As well as moved away from walking to places. There have been many benefits with that greatly increased mobility.
Modes should pay cost? Transit needs to triple. Roads need about another $0.50/gallon.
A drive/walk example: In Tucson, each of the 4 different places that I lived, had a Walgreens, 0.08 to 0.3 miles away (grocery at 3). I drove, rather than walked the 1 to 7 minutes. And I’m a healthy, fit guy. My average grocery purchase is over $100 (just me). I don’t buy just a few things. Plan Ahead! Jeez.
So, every square mile of residential land should have 3 convenience stores?–For people making occasional purchases which they neglected on the “big shop”?
Stores cannot survive with that low of sales.
ws said, “People will take the most convenient mode of transportation that suits their needs.”
Exactly, cars are most convenient for 90%+ of the time. And many who take transit, would rather have a car & live in low density. If you want transit, then live near a popular station. TODs are more expensive, partly because of the multi-level parking. Usually, there are not that many stores around, because of limited customer, partly because of parking costs.
BTW, for cities above 100,000, there are only 8 for which there are more than 1/3 of households being car-less. And there are only 33, with <20% having no cars.
Most people choose cars & being able to walk to many places from most places is very implausible. Most of the people in the rest of the world likes cars better too, but have less income & have higher densities.
You guys really need to learn more about history, development & economics (particularly spatial aspects), among other subjects.
You guys seem to want everything without related items. A 5' 9" person cannot be a jockey. Water cannot be dry.
You cannot have single-family units with much walkability, even at the disgusting 10 DU/acre.
You cannot have plenty of parkland & millions of sq.' of residential & commercial, in many places. There is Central Park & Golden Gate Park, but that will cost you. Personally I wouldn't live there if rent-free.
Live in high density for access to many places. Why is that hard to realize? Less than 7% of the US live at densities above 10,000.
Even in standard suburbs, there are many residential locations where one can walk to many stores. Choose there.
Texas is pretty much devoid of high density. Choose elsewhere. Although, there has got to be multi-family dwellings near retail, in many places. I would guess there are even houses, adjacent to strip malls. In fact, I'll bet on it, for any UA.
Austin is the only big city in Texas that has housing prices above the national average.
It's also the only big city that has been actively pursuing smart growth.
Is it worth it? Doubtful.
Several years ago, Michael Dell was thinking about moving his company, because of congestion–Austin has been neglecting roads. Whatever was spent on LRT would handle many more passenger-miles if used for freeway-lanes.
ws, Houston is low density (you say suburbia). So what? What's your point?
Imagine doubling population in Houston. That would be terrible. Congestion would be incredible. QofL would greatly deteriorate.
About any "newer" big city has density below 5,000.
It's basically the older cities above that, with their old, decrepit structures, looking like the third world in many places. If people wanted density, that would have happened in the newer cities.
The city of LA & the UA are about 7,000 ppl/sq.mi. Actually the least sprawling (by density).
I live within walking distance of a grocery store but I am so scared of crossing the busy intersection to get there that I drive there anyway. I even bought a little cart to bring my groceries home in but after a near-miss in the intersection I decided to go back to packing the groceries in my trunk.
Spokker said: I live within walking distance of a grocery store but I am so scared of crossing the busy intersection to get there that I drive there anyway. I even bought a little cart to bring my groceries home in but after a near-miss in the intersection I decided to go back to packing the groceries in my trunk.
THWM: Now that’s kind of ironic, then you need tell your municipality about the problems with pedestrian safety at this intersection.
I’m thankful for many big box stores and strip malls for saving me time and money and placing stores that I need, close to where I live, with plenty parking.
I live within walking distance of a grocery store but I am so scared of crossing the busy intersection to get there that I drive there anyway. I even bought a little cart to bring my groceries home in but after a near-miss in the intersection I decided to go back to packing the groceries in my trunk.
Note how Spokker wisely declines to offer pdestrian safety solutions, in order to avoid the dim-bulb umbrage from the usual suspects ignorantly claiming congestion will be increased.
DS
Pingback: Yglesias Is Baffled » The Antiplanner
It’s Orange County, CA so I don’t anybody will listen to my pedestrian safety suggestions.
They have some safety features in the richer areas, ironically where few people walk. They need them in the poor areas where I live because people walk out of necessity and some are getting hurt here.
prk166: “Last I checked the supply of 1890 queen anne victorians isn’t increasing…… maybe supply has more to do with it than demand?”
Either way, if the supply is not sufficient to meet the demand, why are developers and homebuilders not building more styles people want to meet the demand? No, you can’t time-travel back to 1890 to build Queen Anne Victorians, but you can build in a similar fashion – street networks, corner stores, pleasant/similar architectural patterns, etc.
One of my standard slides in my presentations is a side-by-side of a street ca. 1890-1920 and a newer one from about 5-7 years ago. Same pattern. And the new neighborhood is in very high demand.
DS
“There’s more to inner ring suburbs than Victorian homes that range all the way up to homes built in the 40s. I understand the point about supply that you’re trying to make, but the market still shows that people prefer these homes vastly over tract homes. Not only are people paying more for them, they are paying way more for them. People still pay and arm and a leg (and a toe) to live in these types of homes with bad plumbing and many fixes needed to be done to them.
There’s still decent supply of traditional neighborhood homes, and the demand is right there, too.”
–WS
What are they paying more for? The home? The land?
And where is there proof that more is being paid for them?
Bland exurbia
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/12671-10th-St-S-Afton-MN-55001/2218460_zpid/
Bland Suburbia
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2399-Heath-Ave-N-Oakdale-MN-55128/2253774_zpid/
Good St. Paul neighborhood (Summitt)
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/976-Osceola-Ave-Saint-Paul-MN-55105/2036233_zpid/
Inner Ring Suburb
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1145-Stryker-Ave-Saint-Paul-MN-55118/1689629_zpid/
I don’t see where the overwhelming price differences are. Is there something that I’m missing?
The real problem is the claim that some high prices on some niche products means that the entire market wants to spend that kind of money for that sort of product. Yes, some people are willing to spend $350k to live on a 3,800 sq ft lot in a 1400 sq ft. house that’s 107 years old, without central air, etc, etc.
Or maybe it is as simple as a matter that price shows what everyone wants. But if it’s simple as price, then what people want are more communities like North Oaks where the median housing price is $750,000 compared to the $215k.
The real problem is the claim that some high prices on some niche products means that the entire market wants to spend that kind of money for that sort of product.
That would indeed be a problem if that in fact were the claim. Fortunately it is not.
Or maybe it is as simple as a matter that price shows what everyone wants.
That would indeed be a valid indicator if true. It is not. There is no monolithic or homogeneous ‘want’.
The literature is quite clear in addressing the incorrect implicit assertions.
DS
Pingback: Freedom of Choice and Mobility » The Antiplanner