Operating in the Black, Government-Style

The director of Metro, Portland’s regional dictator planning agency, offers some insight into how government planners view such concepts as profits, losses, and sales. It is not a lot different from the way soviet managers looked at the same ideas.

Phil Stanford, a columnist for the Portland Tribune, recently commented that Metro’s Oregon Convention Center “has been losing money by the bucketload.” Two years ago, this convention center was the centerpiece of a Forbes magazine article about how cities are losing millions overbuilding their convention centers.

The pretentiously named Oregon Convention Center.
Flickr photo by Premshree Pillai.

Continue reading

Obsessed With Regional Centers

I’ve previously noted (twice, it turns out) research showing that 60 to 70 percent of all jobs in modern urban areas are outside of downtown or other “regional and town centers.” Just as planners in the 1950s through the 1980s were obsessed with “saving downtowns” some fifty years after downtowns became obsolete, planners today are obsessed with town centers several decades after they were really relevant.

Portland politician and Metro council president David Bragdon says that planners don’t dare leave the development of such town centers to “laissez-faire unpredictability.” So he supports “public investment” because “planning means nothing without investment.”

Continue reading

Why Housing Is Expensive

I previously posted about a growing antiplanning movement in Britain and a conference held on the impact of planning on housing prices. Someone sent me a PowerPoint show (7.2 MB) that was given at the conference that graphically demonstrates the problem with finding a place to build a home in England.

Click the image to see a larger picture.

The show is a bit large but worth the download. It was presented by Kate Moorcock Abley, who is affiliated with Audacity, one of the groups that put on the conference. Audacity’s director, James Heartfield, will be speaking at this November’s American Dream conference in San Jose.

Continue reading

Just How Bad Is Sprawl?

Back in 2001, National Geographic published an article on urban sprawl. The magazine included a map that purported to show the extent of sprawl in the U.S.

Click on the map to download a printable pdf.

At the time, I described this map as a deceptivegraphc because it greatly exaggerated the extent of urban development. For example, the map showed that one-third of Vermont was apparently covered with sprawl. In fact, U.S.D.A. data indicated that only 3 percent of the state had been developed.

Continue reading

Peak Tyranny

Someone once told me that loyal opponent Todd Litman, of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, thinks of himself as my nemesis. But I don’t want to be a nemesis to Todd. First of all, he is a nice guy. Second, he is pretty analytical; even if I disagree with his conclusions, I appreciate that he knows his way around a spreadsheet.

If I were to have a nemesis, I would want it to be someone who is really my opposite, someone who relies on exaggeration and over-the-top rhetoric to make his case. Someone like James Howard Kunstler.

Continue reading

Summer Book Reviews #5: The Peter Hall Trilogy

Once upon a time there was an urban planner who traveled around the world and looked at urban plans and discovered they were disasters. For this, he received a knighthood from the Queen.

Sir Peter Hall is a planning professor at University College in London, and he also taught and did research for a time at UC Berkeley. Though he believes in planning, his books provide an excellent case for antiplanners. In fact, whenever I get frustrated with some planner talking or writing about the wonders of planning, all I need to do is read a portion of one of these books to get a breath of fresh air from an objective observer of the profession.

Click on the image of each book to get information about purchasing a copy.

Continue reading

Summer Book Reviews #3: Don’t Call It Sprawl

Rather than the polemics of an activist like Wendell Cox, today’s book is an academic look at the sprawl debate: author William T. (for Thomas) Bogart is dean of academic affairs at York College in Pennsylvania. His book, Don’t Call It Sprawl: Metropolitan Structure in the Twenty-First Century, attempts to analyze cities using data and the latest research.

Though similar in some ways, Robert Bruegmann’s Sprawl: A Compact History was an architect’s view of the sprawl debate. This book is an economist’s view — and (unlike the Antiplanner) not an economist with a particularly libertarian bent.

Bogart shows that urban areas — which he likes to call “trading places” because he sees trade as the main reason people choose to live closely together — are far more complicated that planners understand. Until recently, many planners had a monocentric view of cities; that is, they implicitly assumed that everything revolved around downtown. But that kind of city disappeared in the early twentieth century.

In the last couple of decades or so, planners have discovered the polycentric city, that is that modern urban areas have many job, commercial, and retail centers. For some reason, planners think they have to designate various regional and town centers and then stimulate their growth, as if they weren’t going to grow anyway. Planners then want to connect all those centers with a rail transit system.
If order cialis professional you are having heart related problems, problems in kidneys, Blood pressure are few health conditions in which you should take only when you like to do sex. In the absence of appropriate treatment can increase the chances viagra sample canada of recovery. The medication works with the help of a correct diet, cipla tadalafil price pre-existing treatments and some self control. The most compelling recommended estimations is 100 mg and http://djpaulkom.tv/getting-to-the-bbq-dj-paul-shares-his-cooking-secrets/ levitra no prescription it is not prescribed to take more than one measurement for every day.
But Bogart shows that even the polycentric view of a city is obsolete. Together, the old downtowns and the edge cities/regional and town centers only have about 30 to 40 percent of the jobs in modern U.S. urban areas. That means that planners are ignoring well over half the workers in the region.

For example, advocates of Denver’s FasTracks rail boondoggle bragged that it would put 29 percent of the jobs in the Denver metropolitan area within a half mile of a rail station. But 29 percent is a pathetic number. Since well under half the commuters to downtown ride transit, and even a rail system would not serve other centers as well as downtown, FasTracks will almost certainly never serve even 10 percent of the region’s employees.

I don’t agree with everything Bogart says. For example, he doesn’t see anything wrong with subsidizing 30 to 40 percent of the cost of downtown housing “if that is desired by the city.” Such subsidies may be strongly desired by downtown property owners and developers, but few others in the city are going to benefit.

Nevertheless, I recommend the book to anyone who wants a better understanding of how modern cities really work. We’ve also invited Bogart to speak at the Preserving the American Dream conference in San Jose this November.

Summer Book Reviews #2: War on the Dream

If anyone deserves the title of antiplanner, it is Wendell Cox. Wendell has challenged rail transit plans in Atlanta, Denver, Charlotte, and many other cities. For this reason, he has been called an anti-transit zealot, which is a typical tactic of the rail nuts to assert that anyone who doesn’t favor their particular flavor of transit must oppose all transit.

In fact, Wendell helped plan the Los Angeles rail network, and became a rail skeptic only after those rail lines went way over budget and, when finally built, ended up carrying far fewer riders than predicted. Now he insists that transportation funds be spent cost effectively, which greatly annoys people who think nothing of spending a $200 million a mile on a rail line that will carry fewer people than a $5 million lane-mile of freeway.

Continue reading

Planning and Growth

Fifty-seven years ago, the city of San Jose hired a new city manager, A. P. “Dutch” Hamann, who previously had been a middle manager for General Motors. Hamann had a vision for San Jose and he carried it out with gusto.

Sprawling San Jose.

Hamann had grown up in Orange County and felt there was something wrong with an urban area that did not have an identifiable central city. He could see that the area that would eventually be known as Silicon Valley was growing, and he set out to make San Jose, which calls itself the oldest city in California, the most important city in the region.

Continue reading

Prove It! #1. The Phony Problem of Sprawl

Russians say that Americans don’t have real problems, so they make them up. Urban sprawl is one of those made-up problems.

Since certain loyal commenters often challenge me to prove things, I am starting a new series: Prove It! This series will summarize or link to the best available evidence for common arguments against government planning.

In response to a recent post, one of the Antiplanner’s loyal commenters asked me to prove that the benefits of land-use rules promoting compact development were less than the costs. So my first Prove It will focus on the so-called costs of sprawl. If sprawl really is a made-up problem, then any actions taken to counter sprawl will produce few benefits.

Flickr photo by Craig L. Patterson.

Continue reading