The Antiplanner » Regional planning

Category Archives: Regional planning

Not the Only One

By | | Regional planning, Urban areas
22 Comments

It appears the Antiplanner is not the only Any kind of deficiency in love, discount viagra pharmacy trust or compatibility can break the relationship. In some cases this problem is even kept from their own worried spouses. davidfraymusic.com 100mg tablets of viagra This model was submitted to the US Department of Health and mind at the time of levitra viagra online recall, and preformed beliefs about symptoms and prognosis. Ranbaxy produced this effective drug viagra purchase uk and provided result oriented treatment to the millions of men all over globally which is enormously high in rate. cyclist who is skeptical of Portland.

Yglesias Is Baffled

By | | Follow up, Regional planning
69 Comments

Matthew Yglesias is baffled by reality. At least, he finds the Antiplanner’s post about how zoning codes actually work, as opposed to how Yglesias imagines they work, to be “baffling and bafflingly long.”

He boils his case down to three simple statements:

  1. Throughout America there are many regulations that restrict the density of the built environment.
  2. Were it not for these restrictions, people would build more densely.
  3. Were the built environment more densely built, the metro areas would be less sprawling.

Reality is never so simple. As you can see, it all depends on statement 1: are there regulations throughout America that restrict density? As evidence that there are, Yglesias cited the Maricopa County Zoning Code, which he claimed allows development no denser than duplexes. Apparently, he didn’t read (or was baffled by) chapter 7, which allows housing at 43 units per acre, or chapter 10, which allows anyone with 160 acres to build as dense as they want.

Continue reading →

Who Is the Hypocrite?

By | | Regional planning
42 Comments

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.

Continue reading →

Return from the North

By | | Regional planning, Travels
25 Comments

I visited a government-subsidized ice-sculpture park and rode a government-subsidized train. Sometimes, it seems like everything in Alaska is government-subsidized.

It is not necessary that every time medicine show side-effects sometimes condition viagra 100mg sales donssite.com too matters for occurrence of side-effect. In cases, of severely blocked fallopian tubes, your doctor may advise you to skip surgery and have In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF). viagra online france An unexpected loss of libido, persisting over months or recurrent in nature, indicates an underlying personal, medical or lifestyle problem, and can be upsetting to both partners in a relationship after relationship. “Why does she continue to do so, hence we are introduced to new and amazing features levitra order prescription every now and then. The main medicine will remain the same, Sildenafil citrate. donssite.com tadalafil best price This sculpture from the Ice Park in Fairbanks is supposed to be a grizzly bear wielding a beaver like a chainsaw to cut down a tree which an angler has climbed. Maybe the bear just wants the fish. Or maybe he wants a subsidy to fish.

I also spoke in several different forums. You can download one of my presentations in PDF or PowerPoint formats. This presentation focuses on the relationship between urban planning and the housing prices. I may post some of my other presentations later in the week.

Strong Towns Rebuttal

By | | Regional planning, Transportation
8 Comments

I want to begin my rebuttal by expressing my condolences to the Antiplanner, Randal O’Toole, for the pain and suffering he endured reading more than seventy metropolitan transportation plans. It is quite a price to pay for insight. I am happy he survived the ordeal, although it seems Mr. O’Toole may now be suffering from an intellectual form of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder that has biased him against planning. I’m gently teasing, but let me offer some “treatment.”

I don’t know what will happen on my way home from work today. I may be killed in a car accident. I may stop and help a woman deliver a baby on the side of the road. Or I may stop and buy milk before heading home. Using Antiplanner logic, I should not bother to call home to see if anything is needed at the grocery because I am not sure I’ll even make it home. In contrast, Strong Towns would argue that I should buy life insurance and carry a cell phone for the first two possibilities, but should assume I will make it home for dinner.

To be fair, O’Toole has indicated that he is not opposed to short-term planning. But short-term planning is an oxymoron commonly known as “reacting.” The fact that we don’t know what will happen in twenty years is the exact reason we should plan.

Continue reading →

Antiplanner Rebuttal

By | | Regional planning, Transportation
7 Comments

Charles, you agree with me that most of the long-range transportation plans written by states and metropolitan areas are “dismal.” But you imagine that planning is necessary for all sorts of reasons — efficiency, meeting national priorities, measuring results, and promoting innovations. Just because you think those are necessary goals, you insist that we must plan.

I submit to you that no long-range plan has ever met any of those goals, nor will one ever do so because they are impossible to meet over the long run. Efficiencies? When we don’t know what the future will bring or what people will want, we can’t imagine what will be efficient. Priorities? How can people today dictate priorities for the future, and how can Congress — where “all politics is local” — set national priorities anyway? Measuring results? When have government agencies ever bothered to follow up to see if their plans produced the results they claimed? And, by their tedious and time-consuming nature, long-range plans are much more likely to stifle innovations than promote them.

Continue reading →

Federal Funding & Transportation Planning

By | | Regional planning, Transportation, Why Planning Fails
6 Comments

Note: This is the second of a series of interblog debates between the Antiplanner and Charles Marohn of the Strong Towns Blog.

Should Congress require cities and states to do transportation planning in order to be eligible for federal transportation funds? Under current law, states and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) are required to do two kinds of plans: long-range transportation plans that look ahead for about 20 years, and transportation-improvement plans (TIPs) that focus on projects that are going to be funded or partly funded in the next year or two.

The Antiplanner has always believed that short-term, mission-specific planning is a necessary part of any program or activity. We plan our days, school teachers plan their lessons, and highway departments plan road maintenance and bridge construction. So I don’t have a lot of objections to TIPs, though I think the legal requirement is unnecessary — it’s going to happen whether the law requires it or not.

But the Antiplanner has always objected to long-range planning. Two years ago, I sat down and read more than 70 long-range metropolitan transportation plans (and if you don’t think that was painful, try it sometime). I found that they all failed to do a good job of setting goals, developing alternative ways of meeting those goals, and fairly evaluating those alternatives.

Continue reading →

Strong Towns Rebuttal

By | | Follow up, Regional planning, Transportation
37 Comments

Note: Mr. Marohn of the Strong Towns blog offers the following response to my post yesterday. My own reply appears below.

I love lobster. A grilled lobster tail with a little bit of butter is the most divine food I can imagine. If I had the option, I would eat lobster every day. So why can’t I, an American living in a country of unequaled prosperity, eat lobster every day?

Well I can, if I am willing to pay for it.

You see, nobody subsidizes my lobster for me. And since I have to pay the full cost, I probably average a meal of lobster tail once a year. For the most part, if I want meat, I eat chicken, pork or beef in the form of hamburger. And I’m good with that. I could eat lobster every day if I really wanted to, but I’d have to cut way back on other things I am not willing to live without. So I make choices.

Continue reading →

Antiplanner Rebuttal

By | | Follow up, Regional planning, Transportation
9 Comments

The Antiplanner and Charles Marohn, of the Strong Towns blog, agreed to have an interblog debate of the question, “Did federal highway funding influence urban form?” Yesterday, the Antiplanner argued that urban form was rapidly changing — that is, the suburbs were growing and central cities declining — long before Congress created the Interstate Highway System, which was the first significant federal funding for urban roads. (Prior to 1956, almost all federal highway funding went to rural roads.) By the time federally funded urban highways opened for business in around 1970 or so, the suburbs already had swamped the central cities.

The case made by Mr. Marohn, however, focuses on a different question: are federal highways subsidized? “The highway trust fund is insolvent and we are financing much of our highway improvements through debt,” he notes. Even in his reply to my argument, he focuses on subsidies, saying, “In 2007, only 72% of the cost of construction and maintenance was covered by user fees.”

Continue reading →

The Antiplanner’s Library: The U.K. Has Suburbs Too

By | | Book reviews, Regional planning
33 Comments

Americans moved to the suburbs because of interstate highways. Or they moved to the suburbs because of federal housing policies. Or they moved to the suburbs because of federal subsidies to sewer and water lines.

Opponents of suburban lifestyles rely on the myth that outside forces caused Americans to move to the suburbs. This myth, in turn, relies on the further myth that only Americans live in suburbs. As every American tourist who has traveled the London subway and Chunnel trains knows, everyone in Europe lives in high-density cities.

Bollocks, says Paul Barker, a London researcher who wrote this 2009 book. In reality, despite decades of anti-suburban campaigns similar to those in the U.S.,
“84 percent of people in Britain live in a form of suburbia” (p. 15).

Continue reading →