The Antiplanner » City planning

Category Archives: City planning

What’s Wrong with the 15-Minute City

By | | City planning
8 Comments

“What is the 15-Minute City?” rhetorically asks urban planner Steve Mouzon. His answer: “It’s every city ever built by humans on this planet until a century ago, but with a catchy new name.”

A 15-minute city in the 1920s. Click image for a larger view.

In other words, a 15-minute city is crowded. It is noisy. Living quarters are cramped. Grocery stores are small and high priced. Crime and contagious disease are continuing worries. Income inequality is high and only the wealthy enjoy true mobility; most people are confined to walking. Continue reading →

Collapse or Evolution?

By | | City planning
3 Comments

An article in Salon by anti-capitalist Chris Hedges argues that our civilization is on the verge of collapse. As evidence, he points to the 65 percent decline of the population of St. Louis since 1950.

The city of St. Louis is losing population but the St. Louis metropolitan area is thriving. Photo by David Schwen.

This decline, however, only applies to the city of St. Louis, which is a political entity. The St. Louis metropolitan area, which is an economic unit, has grown by 68 percent in the same time period. Continue reading →

Smart Growth Minneapolis Conflicted over Density

By | | City planning
6 Comments

A Minnesota judge has ordered the city of Minneapolis to do a more thorough environmental analysis before implementing its plan to densify the city by abolishing single-family zoning. Opponents of the plan argued that densification would reduce the amount of permeable land, leading to increased runoff of polluted waters, which would be harmful to, among other things, migratory birds.

Tearing down these Minneapolis homes and replacing them with duplexes or triplexes won’t make housing more affordable. Photo by Michael Comerford.

Those opponents included the Audubon Chapter of Minneapolis, Minnesota Citizens for the Protection of Migratory Birds, and Smart Growth Minneapolis. I can understand the first two, but why did Smart Growth Minneapolis sign on to this lawsuit? Smart-growth advocates are supposed to favor increased densities. Continue reading →

Twelve Ways to Destroy Cities

By | | City planning, Transportation
2 Comments

Kimberly Nicholas, an associate professor of sustainability at Sweden’s Lund University, says that automobiles are killers and offers twelve ways to get them out of our cities. Typically for sustainability advocates, she completely ignores the benefits provided by automobiles as well as ways in which the costs of automobiles could be reduced without reducing driving.

A typical street in sustainable Stockholm. Photo by European Institute for Sustainable Transport.

Her twelve ways include reducing the amount of parking, charging more for parking, closing parts of cities to automobiles, and charge a fee to drive automobiles into city centers. All revenues from such fees, parking, fines, etc., should, in her opinion, go to fund “sustainable transport,” which means any kind of transportation other than automobiles. Continue reading →

Densification Was a Communist Plot

By | | City planning, Housing
7 Comments

Can there be any doubt that one of the reasons why the U.S.S.R. favored high-density apartment buildings for everyone in the Ideal Communist City is that it would be easier to bomb them if ever anyone tried to revolt? And one of the reasons why the communists favored mass transit over private automobiles is that it would be more difficult for people to escape such attacks?

Soviet-style apartment in Mariupol after Russian bombardment has damaged most of them. YouTube video by SkyNews.

After 9/11, we were warned by World War II historian Stephen Ambrose:” Don’t bunch up.” Yet urban planners in the United States, supported by fellow travelers in the Cato Institute and Mercatus Center, successfully persuaded the California legislature to pass laws that will make that state’s urban areas, already the densest in the nation, even denser. The people supporting these laws either have no understanding of history or are deliberately trying to make America more vulnerable to its enemies, or at least easier to control from the top down. Continue reading →

Census Data Confirm Migration from Big Cities

By | | City planning
3 Comments

Eight of the ten American cities with more than one million people lost population in 2020, according to estimates released by the Census Bureau. Note that these are only estimates; not official 2020 census numbers.

Seattle grew in 2020 despite having more than 7,000 people per square mile, but most American cities that dense or denser lost population.

The two exceptions, Phoenix and San Antonio, both have fewer than 3,000 people per square mile, while the cities that lost population all had densities more than 3,000 people per square mile, and most were well over 5,000. (We don’t yet have accurate 2020 densities, so I’m using densities from the 2010 census.) Continue reading →

How San Jose Held Up Google for $200 Million

By | | City planning, Policy brief
7 Comments

Last month, the San Jose city council approved a plan for Google to practically double the size of downtown San Jose. The plan allows Google to build up to 7.3 million square feet of office space, 4,000 to 5,900 housing units, 1,100 hotel/extended stay units, and half a million square feet of retail or cultural space on 80 acres of land located just west of downtown. The site is immediately adjacent to the San Jose train station, which serves commuter trains, light rail, and Amtrak.

Click image to download a four-page PDF of this policy brief.

According to city planning documents, this is exactly the kind of development San Jose was looking for in this area, one which (according to a staff presentation) would “create a vibrant, welcoming, and accessible urban destination consisting of a mix of land uses and that are well-integrated with the intermodal transit station.” Yet in order to get the project approved, Google had to put up $200 million for various special interest groups who were protesting the plan. This may actually have the perverse effect of discouraging future development in the city. Continue reading →

Don’t Be Like [Insert City Name Here]

By | | City planning, Regional planning
17 Comments

Emily Badger, who is fast becoming the Antiplanner’s favorite writer at the New York Times, has an article this week about how cities are trying not to be like certain other cities. Seattle doesn’t want to be like San Francisco; San Francisco doesn’t want to be like Manhattan. Kansas City doesn’t want to be like Denver.

“You don’t want to become Manhattan (too dense), Portland (too twee), Boston (too expensive), Seattle (too tech-y), Houston (too sprawling), Los Angeles (too congested), Las Vegas (too speculative), Chicago (too indebted),” says Badger. Too bad she had to spoil it by including Houston, which (as she pointed out in a previous article) many people think is the model other big cities should follow.

Part of the problem is that people just don’t like big cities. The same Gallup poll that found that more Americans of all age groups would rather live in rural areas than big cities also found that more Americans of all age classes would rather live in a suburb of a big city than in a big city itself, and that more Americans of all age classes except 18-29 year olds would rather live in a small town than a big city (and among 18-29 year olds the difference was only 1 percent). People dislike big cities because they tend to be more congested, impersonal, and crime-ridden than small cities or suburbs. Continue reading →

Seattle About to Implode

By | | City planning, News commentary, Urban areas
8 Comments

As the Antiplanner noted last week, Seattle is the only major city whose transit ridership grew in 2017 because the city has concentrated nearly 300,000 jobs in its downtown area. Yet, as noted earlier this week, Seattle transit ridership is starting to decline. That decline may may rapidly accelerate if the city council approves a proposed so-called “head tax” on all businesses that earn more than $20 million a year, which basically means Amazon and a few other companies.

The proposed tax would charge employers 26 cents per hour that each employee works in the city, or about $500 per full-time employee per year. For Amazon, which has something like 40,000 jobs in Seattle, the tax would amount to around $20 million a year — more than a quarter of total head-tax revenues — for the first couple of years, then go up to $30 million a year. The revenues from the tax would be used to provide affordable housing for homeless people.

Amazon was so perturbed by this that it halted construction on a new office tower it was building in downtown Seattle and threatened to pull all of its employees out of another existing building. When Seattle city councillor Kshama Sawant held an outdoor press conference, laid-off construction workers disrupted the meeting with shouts of “no head tax.” Despite this, members of the city council insist they will approve the tax. Continue reading →

Denver Mayor Demonstrates Insanity

By | | City planning, Transportation, Urban areas
4 Comments

As Albert Einstein didn’t say, “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.” Someone points out that this is actually the definition of perserveration. Whatever you call it, Denver Mayor Michael Hancock is doing it.

“Shockingly, 73 percent of Denver commuters drive to and from work in cars by themselves,” says Mayor Hancock. So, he plans to serve the people by working to “dedicate more travel lanes as transit only and make bus service more accessible to everyone.”

Hancock is behind the times, as the share of Denver commuters who drive alone to work hasn’t been 73 percent since the early 2000s. According to census data, it was 71 percent in 2000, but grew to 74 percent in 2006 and was 76 percent in 2016. Continue reading →