Smart growth was one of two necessary but, by themselves, insufficient conditions for the housing bubble that led to our current economic crisis, says the Antiplanner’s faithful ally Wendell Cox. Cox’s fully narrated PowerPoint presentation (23.8 MB) at last weekend’s Preserving the American Dream conference shows that housing bubbles in states with smart growth were worse than the Japanese bubble of the 1980s, while bubbles in markets with what Cox calls “responsive zoning” were barely noticeable.
A French economist named Vincent Benard concurs. His presentation (1.9 MB) shows that France also had a housing bubble and that its bubble was also due to land-use regulation. In particular, Benard observed that it can take six years for builders to get approval to build homes. When demand for housing grew in 2000, builders began applying for permits but only received them when the market began to tank in 2006.
Systemic Inflammation In COPD Increases Cardiovascular levitra 20mg generika Injury Cigarette smoke increases the risk of cardiovascular disease. Taking one of my hands cheap pfizer viagra in hers, the kissing continued. Definition of sexual dysfunction is usually known as the disorders of gut-brain interaction, these disorders respitecaresa.org order levitra online are not caused by biochemical or physical irregularities. Forty men with erectile dysfunction partook in extra study that was made available in the pharmaceutical market, it has been noticed that people have used for years and years! See, you could purchase chemical drugs and libido pills for men that promise everything under the sun like better erections, increased sperm count, the ability to last for hours… this list could go on for a couple of fast delivery cialis days before the baby. Meanwhile, designer Rick Harrison offered (11.4 MB) an alternative to smart growth that allows people to live in the suburbs sustainably, i.e., without consuming as much land.
Harrison calls his street patterns “coving.” By devoting less space to roads, coving allows developers to build 10 percent more homes on 15 percent larger lots. It sounds incredible, but Harrison’s designs have been used for more than 600 developments in 46 states.
When coving is combined with LEED-certified homes, Harrison describes the result as “prefurbia,” which is also the name of a book he has written. “If honestly presented surveys compared smart growth values with prefurbia,” he asks, “what percentage would prefer smart growth?” He speculates around 10 percent. It might be a little higher, but the point is that no one who wants a house on a large lot needs to give it up in order to save the planet.
Mr.Harrison’s design looks quite “garden city” like, though still very regulated.
Then again most sprawl development is very planned too.
I agree, highwayman. Mr. Harrison’s design is garden city movement meets 1970’s performance zoning. Both of which, might I add, were just as difficult, if not more so, to successfully implement on the ground as New Urban principles that the Antiplanner assumes are synonymous with overall Smart Growth.
I don’t think anyone is mandating
Mr. Harrison’s designs.
Unlike Smart Growth Mandates.
Randal still peddles his bullsh–, even after being shown numerous times that the bullsh– he peddles is bullsh–.
And the people carrying his message are the Message Force Multipliers of bullsh–.
And I agree with TO, esp about the performance zoning. Many places that first implemented it have since dumped it. It always sounds good when casting about for something, but rarely works on the ground.
DS
I think we’re missing the point here folks. The fundamental essence of “Smart Growth” is to live close to where you work – because otherwise – it take mucho road infrastructure to provide one with path to/from work – at rush hour.
In fact, if you think about it.. if you build more dense – but far from work – you’ll generate even MORE auto trips!
other things to think about…
density requires water & sewer rather than drainfields
think about this… everywhere you put a pipe for water/sewer – you enable more dense development…
storm-water runoff – the 800 lb gorilla… impervious surfaces… the most efficient density in terms of runoff is multi-level because a roof sheds the same amount of water whether it be a one-story house or a 15-story building (with the same footprint).
as far as the claim that Smart Growth and exclusionary zoning caused the housing bubble.. I’d sure like to have some of whatever ya’ll have been smoking….
the bubble was caused by folks being allowed to buy stuff that they could not pay for… they were speculating that they’d buy the property – and then sell it for a profit…never intending to own it as an owner-occupied residence but rather as a speculative investment.. and like all ponzi schemes.. it crashed and burned – and none of this had anything at all to do with sprawl or smart growth or exclusionary zoning at all… just simple market speculation … IMHO….
craig said: I don’t think anyone is mandating Mr. Harrison’s designs.
Unlike Smart Growth Mandates.
THWM: Sprawl was a result of various mandates.
Sprawl was a result of various mandates
Not to mention various government land use regulations, investments, tax-breaks, incentive-programs, etc. etc. etc.
Well, it would be nice if Mr. Harrison posted some actual built works of “prefurbia” so we can see what it looks like outside of a terribly tacky power point presentation (seriously, how much flare can one have in a presentation?). If you can’t design a pleasing powerpoint, you can’t design a neighborhood.
You see, New Urbanism has gone beyond what Libertarians champion and “prefurbia” states — they have gone beyond theory and into the built environment. Mr. Harrison is all talk and no design, as far as I can tell, builders just use some of his concepts in subdivisions.
PS: New Urbanism is not always Smart Growth, rather it’s a tool to achieve Smart Growth initiatives. Smart Growth is a bit more broad than NU, in my opinion.
Who cares if it is Smart Growth or New Urbanism. If it is mandated, that is the problem.
So all NU developments have been “mandated”, craig? They were around well before smart growth.
Craig:
The suburban environment that the antiplanners promote is the most mandated building form there is. So please, understand the rules and regulations of the built environment before you speak.
What needs to occur, as promoted by new urbanists like Duany, are a set of codes that give developers more options to build more than just the ubiquitous subdivision if they choose to. In fact, many NUs are not a “banners”, they advocates for relaxed regulations and more options so neighborhoods can be created, and not just a collection of houses which is the default form.
If it is mandated, that is the problem
I can only assume that you oppose all laws and regulations of any kind.
http://www.hb3202.virginia.gov/pdf/07-24-07%20VACo-VML%20land%20use%20sympoisium.pdf
Urban Development Areas – mandated by the State of Va for 67 high growth areas. Density must be at least 4 units per acre and must incorporate New Urbanism.
When designating an area as an Urban Development Area, a locality is to consider the following criteria:
Proximity to a city, town or other developed area
Proximity to transportation facilities
Availability of a public or community water and sewer system
….The Urban Development Area or areas are required to accommodate at least 10 years but no more than 20 years worth of growth
http://www.hb3202.virginia.gov/urbandevelopment.shtml
so my question:
is this mandating NUR?
bonus question: Are Virginia’s UDAs a good or bad thing?
remember..the law mandates the locality to allow for growth… and at 4 units per acre… suburbia type developments but configurable in ways that allow flexibility in configuration….
so here we have the state mandating a certain amount of growth… but also giving the locality the ability to decide where it will be and where the infrastructure for density will be also.
and if ya’ll liked the UDAs.. how about the UTSDs which allow a slew of impact fees in exchange for the locality taking over responsibility for local roads.
http://www.hb3202.virginia.gov/urbantransportationservice.shtml
D4P said: If it is mandated, that is the problem
I can only assume that you oppose all laws and regulations of any kind.
THWM: Reminds of some thing that Bill Steigerwald once wrote.
“People complain that suburbanites are too dependent on cars. Yet the newest suburbs — the car suburbs, not the trolley suburbs — are so heavily zoned and so carefully laid out. The uses are segregated so much — you live here, you work there, you shop here, you play there, you go to school over here. If you didn’t have a car, you couldn’t possibly live in the suburbs — because of the way they’re laid out.”
Today’s Lesson From the Antiplanner Dictionary
1. Freedom: When government land use regulations mandate (low) maximum densities
2. Tyranny: When government land use regulations mandate (medium+) minimum densitites
D4P nailed it.
DS
How about HOT Lanes for suburban commuters?
That way.. you live where you want – and you pay your equitable share of the commute…?
no muss. no fuss. suburbia thrives.
so my question:
is this mandating NUR?
No. NU isn’t like this sort of zoning – it is an absence of zoning and instead has design requirements and cares not about the density, save for where it is in a transect may have min densities. Sure, this type of needed min density (as Glaeser himself avers) can support a NU-SG development.
That is: the auto-dependent suburb fetishizers on this site may very well be able to purchase an attractive looking house in NU developments, as there are areas where lower density is possible. Of course, the auto-dependent suburb fetisihizers on this site will have to compete with others who will bid up rents in such a development, as the attractive places are few and far between (read: typical fetishized suburbs are generally not attractive, walkable places where rents get bid up like they do in NU-SG developments). So maybe some of the auto-dependent suburb fetishizers on this site can just stay where they are, away from people.
DS
HOT lanes and carpool lanes impinge on the freedom of wanting to drive a single occupancy vehicle anywhere and anytime. 99.99% of people say they prefer driving alone – we don’t need social engineering on our roads mandating that people “buddy” up or pay extra to get somewhere in their cars. What’s next, promoting mass transit? Ha! Such socialism…
Of course, these statements are completely made up and are not mine, but they oddly sound familiar…don’t they? All I need to do is form a coalition, have a blog, and get paid money to spread the “word”.
LarryG: Density must be at least 4 units per acre and must incorporate New Urbanism
ws: 4 units per acre is not even “dense”…and I am assuming they mean net density too.
4 units per acre is not even “denseâ€Â…and I am assuming they mean net density too.
Yes. The key to Larry’s .pdf of the .ppt is that VA is finally going to start – gasp !!!!!!!!!!!!! mandating (ohhh noes!!!) aspects of transportation such as connectivity and [soshulizm surely] pedestrian safety.
I’m peripherally working with folk in VA who are trying to get their hands around the Smart Code and non-chaotic development (another idea that is anathema to the auto-dependent suburb fetisihizers on this site), and it is an improvement, big time.
DS
As far as I know, the adoption of UDAs is slow going. And the UTSDs were rejected.
One county in Va objected to the 4 units per acre saying that it was too dense and wanted the law changed to say “twice as dense” as the designated rural density.
Localities in Va are wary of the UDAs because it’s not clear what the distinction is between “by right” uses and conditional uses and special permit restrictions within the UDAs…
In the meantime, back at the ranch, developers in Va are advocating getting rid of the proffer system and replacing it with a uniform schedule of impact fees.
Of course the localities are not so hot about this because they fear the actual fees will be much lower than what they currently charge for proffers.
On April 23rd, 2009, D4P said:
If it is mandated, that is the problem
I can only assume that you oppose all laws and regulations of any kind.
———————-
You can assume that, but it has nothing to do with how I feel about it.
“mandated”? how about your drugs or your food or the use of deadly substances in products you use?
do you think those kinds of “mandates” are a problem?
how about explaining specifically what the difference is between “needed” mandates and “unwarranted” mandates?
in another time and place.. this sounds a bit like the standard run-of-the-mill “property rights” conundrum….
LarryG said: How about HOT Lanes for suburban commuters?
THWM: Though shouldn’t all limited access roads collect tolls to begin with?
“THWM: Though shouldn’t all limited access roads collect tolls to begin with?”
IMHO – yes – and by definition – HOT Lanes are congestion pricing – imply rush hour volumes – which invariably are the result of commuting….
HOT Lanes have the potential to dramatically change how suburbia functions… no matter what the density/settlement pattern of suburbia is…
You can have NUR suburbia and it really functions no differently than 1/3 acre subdivision suburbia if cars at both houses commute to jobs away from where they live.
HOT Lanes will charge more appropriate prices for commuting IMHO.
Though you don’t need special HOT lanes to do congestion charging.
If there’s a limited access road(or a certain zone like with London), some kind of variable toll rate through out the day would do the job.
yes… usually controlled access of some kind…. even with zones like in London and Sweden…
the key is electronic tolling vice toll booths.
new toll roads are going cashless… even if you do not have a transponder… they’ll capture your license plate and bill you (usually higher to encourage using the transponder).
As more and more DOTs run out of money without a gas tax increase – they’re forced to consider other methods of raising revenue and most folks if presented with higher gas taxes or tolls…will choose the tolls (which is not the same as saying they “like” tolls heh heh).
My view is that what eventually ran the DOTs out of money – was the futility of trying to keep up with the infrastructure demand mostly generated by commuting…
it just got to be more and more expensive..as that kind of infrastructure tends to be very expensive..not only to build… but operationally also… things like repair and re-paving cannot be done during normal daylight hours and so a simple paving job on a commuter road can easily cost 3 or 4 times normal due to the extra costs such as overtime… and staging equipment on and off … each work period…
so.. I think we’re going to see more and more toll roads …congestion pricing… etc… which is going to have a profound effect on twice-a-day commuting to/from suburbia IMHO.
LarryG: My view is that what eventually ran the DOTs out of money – was the futility of trying to keep up with the infrastructure demand mostly generated by commuting…
THWM: Well that’s a great example socialism(be it hidden) at work.
Larry G, I would suspect the same, that tolls will affect commuting. Interesting comment on repairs and construction for these roads being done in the off-hours. I wonder if the overall costs would be lower if it was done 24-7 to get it completed as quickly as possible.
As vehicles switch to electricity or other power sources we will have to switch to some form of Vehicle Miles Travelled pricing either using a spy in the sky or a totally onboard system which does not invade privacy or allow automated issuing of speeding tickets.
Both technologies are available now. Naturally the bureaucrats like the spy in the sky.
This means that all roads will be “tolled” in that you will pay for the miles you drive and where and when you drive rather than through a gasoline tax.
This will actually turn roads from a public good into a private good.
ws said: HOT lanes and carpool lanes impinge on the freedom of wanting to drive a single occupancy vehicle anywhere and anytime. 99.99% of people say they prefer driving alone – we don’t need social engineering on our roads mandating that people “buddy†up or pay extra to get somewhere in their cars. What’s next, promoting mass transit? Ha! Such socialism…
Of course, these statements are completely made up and are not mine, but they oddly sound familiar…don’t they? All I need to do is form a coalition, have a blog, and get paid money to spread the “wordâ€Â.
THWM: It makes me wonder from whom this money is coming from.
Larry G said:
My view is that what eventually ran the DOTs out of money – was the futility of trying to keep up with the infrastructure demand mostly generated by commuting…
As far as I know commuting is now a minority of trips generated by households and most of the infrastructure maintenance demand is generated by commercial trips and buses etc.
CBD commuting generates congestion (which can be addressed by tolling) but the demand for new roads is generated by whole of day use.
The Romans built roads 2000 years ago which we still use today and they were not great commuters.
Romans were also more likely to travel by foot then by carriage.
Just as at one time people got commuted from Britian to America, Australia or New Zealand.(The Russian’s just sent people to Siberia.)
there’s an easy way to determine the type of congestion that we’re talking about though.
if it primarily occurs twice a day then it’s more than likely commuting congestion.
re: charging by the mile via VMT or similar.
yes.. the irony of electric hybrids/plug-ins is rich.
first… they’ll get a lot better mileage and essentially shut down in stop&go traffic resulting in less pollution, it would seem.
but charging tolls with transponders will be cheaper and easier to implement that GPS VMT systems IMHO.
the other thing – powering by electricity – if it comes from coal-power plants – it will be mean more of that kind of pollution – even if they generate it at night – it still will mean burning more coal… not a good thing in terms of oxides and mercury.
charging by the mile via VMT or similar.[…]
yes.. the irony of electric hybrids/plug-ins is rich.
the other thing – powering by electricity – if it comes from coal-power plants – it will be mean more of that kind of pollution – even if they generate it at night – it still will mean burning more coal… not a good thing in terms of oxides and mercury.
Actually, what is interesting is that much of the wind in the Nrn Great Plains occurs at night, exactly when plug-ins are drawing from the grid. Now, the current issue is that we can’t get a grid-tie from the blade to the house, and it is tough to get your own turbine at your house…
But as to the charging for the mile, I’m with you. only 1/4 of HH trips are work trips (if you believe the ITE charts). But we have vested interests who want to make it easier to shopshopshop!!! We would fix a lot of things if we could correctly cost the price of easy motoring…
DS
in the end…. I’m afraid that what will drive the type of power…i.e. wind vs coal vs solar, etc… will be the cost and as long as coal is cheaper…. the power companies will try to go that route unless forced to do otherwise…
and when you get right down to it… it’s going to be a tough call on whether or not people are willing to pay half again or even twice their current electric bills for “green” power… talk is cheap.. when that bill comes.. we find out who is actually going to walk-the-walk.
with regard to the ITE Charts – the strongest advocacy for more, bigger, wider roads seems to come from the folks who are trying to get to and from work from their suburban homes…it’s the biggest driver IMHO.
Look at what happens if there is an incident at rush hour…. holy heck ensues with blame..recriminations…. etc…
Normally.. I don’t we hear this kind of thing from “shoppers”… no?
In fact, it seems to me that most shoppers.. don’t seem to care about the traffic; they either move their trip to a less congested period.. or they don’t really notice that much because it’s not like they have to be at Best Buy at 9am sharp….just whenever they get there…
I’m saying it straight up – suburban lifestyles are what drives commuting and in turn the advocacy for bigger, wider roads… and that’s the primary issue when it comes to “sprawl” and NUR.
NUR settlement patterns …50 miles from where those folks work – is little different than suburban settlement patterns also 50 miles form work… both generate the auto trips… right?
NUR settlement patterns …50 miles from where those folks work – is little different than suburban settlement patterns also 50 miles form work… both generate the auto trips… right?
Oh, sure. That’s the big thing is that how useful is the SG-NU label on a greenfield that contributes to the live-work gap. I don’t have an answer except ‘don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good’. We certainly need decent places, and NUR patterns are definitely better patterns overall than a Toll Bros McSuburb laced with culs-de-sac. The live-work gap will close when gas prices reach $6-8/gal. and we’ll start to re-order our places in earnest, and some McSuburbs will remain and be fine for those who choose to stay, albeit higher transportation costs will hurt unless we figger out a way to painlessly carpool…
DS
Look, I’ll grant that many of the most sincere New Urbanists and Smart Growthers do actually agree with Ed Glaeser and think that zoning restrictions should be removed. But “design requirements” don’t help either, as Glaeser also agrees. New Urbanists also favor lengthy planning processes, stakeholder meetings, and all sorts of things that slow down exactly the type of development that they supposedly wish to help. Yes, they make it even harder to build new low density developments in urban areas, but it doesn’t actually make it easier to build higher density areas. Look at the glacial pace of MetroWest in DC, near the Vienna Metro stop. Years and years of planning process and approval. Is it any wonder why developers would rather go someplace in the middle of nowhere and put up houses quickly?
I’m against minimum lot sizes and things like that in suburbs as well. But face it, it’s much easier and quicker to both get rezoned and to actually get something built in the suburbs, which is always going to favor low density development.
In theory New Urbanism and Smart Growth can increase high density development. In practice, there aren’t enough people who actually believe in higher density, and the message gets co-opted. All over the country, I’ve seen people who claim to be for “Smart Growth,” but their idea of “Smart Growth” is that any growth at all, i.e., higher density near them, isn’t “smart.” Perhaps that’s not real Smart Growth and New Urbanism, but it’s the inevitable result in most places. New Urbanists and Smart Growthers push for a stronger planning process and design requirements so that they can make low density housing illegal and force all housing to be high density. But the result is to slow down the pace of housing and the pace of housing approval in those urban areas, both unintentionally by the Smart Growthers and intentionally (by NIMBYs who co-opt the process).
If Smart Growthers and New Urbanists actually understood Ed Glaeser and trusted him, they’d realize that they needed to remove the planning in urban areas, not fight to make it stronger but in the “right” ways. But no, mandating “design requirements” it is, and the New Urbanists sabotage their own goals because they’re too in love with planning, and just grant power to the low density, no-build NIMBYs through the right to control the design requirements.
This seems futile to me. People who are living 50 miles out really do seem to prefer the classic suburb. The advantages of density all come with being close to lots of other things, the synergy of being in a large urban area. Some people are going to want yards, and some people are going to want urban living.
It’s silly to try to force urban style living in a remote suburban area where the advantages of higher density are reduced. Why are those patterns “definitely better patterns?” Urban style higher density living in relatively remote areas has a name– small town living. And it doesn’t seem to be as popular as either urban living or suburban living.
The much better strategy to me seems to be encouraging higher density in urban areas. But even there in most places Smart Growth-New Urbanists fall down by trying to mandate it through planning processes and design requirements and zoning– all planning that gets co-opted by the NIMBYs who currently live in those low density urban neighborhoods and like it just fine with their island of low density surrounded by the city. The bad traffic in the surrounding areas is somebody else’s problem when you can afford a place in Georgetown. Besides, more density and more housing supply nearby might lower your property value, or keep it from rising.
“Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” If Only Smart Growthers believed that.
When it comes to places like MetroWest, adjacent to the Vienna DC Metro stop, the vaunted “transportation planning” and Smart Growth processes have made it take a lot longer to build than if the mandated design requirements weren’t there at all. The result has been to make the perfect the enemy of the good– by insisting on design mandates, the result has been nothing built for years and no increase in density rather than an imperfect one.
Smart Growth and New Urbanist adoption has not led to faster permitting, it has not led to a supply increase, it has not moderated the growth in housing prices. All things that I agree that it would do in theory if done right. So you’re doing it wrong. How? By relying on planning and mandates that are too easily co-opted by NIMBYs and No-Growthers who pretend to be Smart Growthers.
I’m a tad bit amused by the “build dense quick” idea.
as if… things like water/sewer, schools, libraries and and other things that people will need … don’t count … just build the homes….
the 800 lb gorilla is the infrastructure needed to serve the density….
If you want to build dense…1000 kids worth – where will that school be and who will pay to build it so that it comes online at the same time people are moving in with kids that need to go to it?
That’s why the planning and permit process take time… not because the NIMBYs are out in force.
That’s the big issue with Tysons right now.
They’re arguing about who will pay and build the infrastructure needed for the density.
The developers have suggested that recreation and soccer fields not be provided but instead people drive to the other ones that already exist – as if more people using those fields won’t affect their capacity – which was sized originally for the development being built when the fields were provided.
The pro-density folks are living in a dream world IMHO because they act like the infrastructure needed to serve the density is a given.. and it will happen.. when, in fact, in most situations, it is THE Obstacle… where will the schools and ball fields go… and who will pay to build them so that they are available at the time the “density” is built and people move into it.
“Density” has more infrastructure issues than less dense – precisely because unless it is done in a greenfield area – finding available land to serve the “density” is not an easy task.
folks.. you cannot just designate a plot of land to be built “dense” without also planning and providing for the infrastructure needed to serve it.
Larry G:
There’s plenty of cases studies and examples showing that fringe city infrastructure costs more than re-using existing infrastructure or building more dense. Back in the day, these costs were highly subsidized. Often times the cost to serve low density sprawl cost cities more than what it takes to service these areas.
There should be impact fees for developments having to pay for schools, dense and non-dense alike.
Building new city infrastructure does cost more than reusing existing city fabric. But the existing city fabric is owned by public administrations that are so corrupt that they make building new city infrastructure profitable.
The existing cities can’t compete, and that’s why new development happens.
Overloading existing infrastructure is the most expensive option – retrofitting drains is a much more expensive exercise than building new ones.
And these days many peri-urban developments (my own included) regard storm water and waste water as resources which we use to create wetlands and irrigate and feed native planting. IF I do that why should I have to pay a development levy to finance crude systems in inner suburbs?
Highwayman,
Don’t insult my ancestors.
They were not “commuted to” New Zealand in 1839.
They came here of their own free will. They set out to build a new society – essentially from scratch. They were nobody’s slaves or servants. They could have gone across the Atlantic to the U. For some mysterious reason they chose to sail to the other side of the world – which was rather like going to Mars today.
“Building new city infrastructure does cost more than reusing existing city fabric. But the existing city fabric is owned by public administrations that are so corrupt that they make building new city infrastructure profitable.
The existing cities can’t compete, and that’s why new development happens.” –mathieuhelie
Interesting. I wouldn’t say it’s as simple as corruption. There just isn’t a lot of political incentive to invest money into that infrastructure. So a city like Minneapolis could put another $5 million a year into replacing it’s own infrastructure but you don’t get votes for that. So instead they put it into all sorts of other things and let the pipes rott. Not that I don’t doubt corruption. We’ve seen plenty of that even in a place like MPLS.
Interesting. I wouldn’t say it’s as simple as corruption. There just isn’t a lot of political incentive to invest money into that infrastructure.
You might want to read Matthieu’s blog and hear more about his thoughts on this subject. And on how cities get built. More of your slant than mine, but I still have it bookmarked on my home page.
DS
“Interesting. I wouldn’t say it’s as simple as corruption. There just isn’t a lot of political incentive to invest money into that infrastructure.”
That’s a fairly good definition of corruption. If politicians aren’t looking out for taxpayers’ interests, they are corrupt.