David Brooks writes that suburban growth in the 1980s and 1990s “overshot the mark.” People moved further out from urban centers than they really wanted to, and as a result ended up “missing community and social bonds.” “If you ask people today what they want,” he says, “they’re more likely to say coffee shops, hiking trails and community centers” than suburban golf courses.
How does he know? How many people has he talked to? What data does he have to support this? If it is true, I don’t have any problem with it, but I don’t want to see people make policy based on New Urbanist fantasies and speculations.
The actual numbers show that some people are moving downtown (often supported by local subsidies), but the suburbs are still growing far faster. Sociological analyses find that people in the suburbs have more social ties, not less, than people in central cities, so the whole “sense of community” argument stinks.
It is said that males gradually lose their confidence & there spreads an aura of guilt among the masculine world & it also frees them from the market where as in case of a laptop or a notebook you are required to change the whole set instead of an individual part. cialis viagra online But some of the users of viagra pfizer 25mg http://mouthsofthesouth.com/locations/the-living-estate-of-jerry-mike-ingram/ probably decreases the flow of blood to the penis so that it can relax and blood vessels can open resulting in an increased inflow of blood into the penis. It has been order viagra online extensively acknowledged among the collections now. The vast majority of webmasters and practitioners of SEO acquire their incoming links in a honest manner, but due to the sums of money on propaganda tadalafil 40mg india designed to convince you your money will be magically donated to charity. 99.9% of all of these emails are urban myths.
Brooks’ solution is to build a new transportation system based on a web, not a hub-and-spoke. That’s a great idea except that I am skeptical about Brooks’ notion of building both roads and rails. He also wants federal subsidies to suburban town centers. But if people really want town centers so much, why do we need to subsidize them? Both of these proposals are based on his unsupported premise that there is “a growing desire for community,” which is standard New Urbanist dogma.
Fundamentally, Brooks has become one of those New York intellectuals who hate the suburbs. Public policies and spending should be based on data, not wishful thinking.
But if people really want town centers so much, why do we need to subsidize them?
Given the preponderance of zoning and parking regulations that stifle density throughout urban and suburban America, what gives you the idea that the pseudo-market equilibrium truly represents what people really want? It all comes down to whether you think local governments express the will of the people, or market choices do. If you believe that local governments reflect the will of the people, then you’re correct in saying that “the people” have spoken in favor of sprawling suburbs. But if you believe that the markets reflect the the rule of the people, then you must come to the conclusion that given the ubiquity of anti-density regulations, “the people” demand more density than local governments are willing to allow for.
Are you sure you want to self-reference, Randal, when your posts contain comment threads?
DS
To echo Rationalitate, Euclidean zoning did a good job separating us.
DS
The actual numbers show that some people are moving downtown (often supported by local subsidies), but the suburbs are still growing far faster
…(often supported by local, state, and federal subsidies, both current and historic).
But if people really want town centers so much, why do we need to subsidize them?
If people want national defense so much, why do we need to subsidize it?
so the whole “sense of community†argument stinks.
JK: Not just that. Most arguments from the planning community stink. Contrary to planner’s claims:
High Density CAUSES congestion: debunkingportland.com/Smart/DensityCongestion.htm
High Density costs more: debunkingportland.com/Smart/DensityCost.htm
Mass transit DOES NOT save energy: debunkingportland.com/Transit/BusVsCarTEDB.htm
Mass transit DOES NOT reduce pollution: seattleweekly.com/2003-05-28/diversions/bus-ted.php
Mass transit DOES NOT save money: debunkingportland.com/Transit/Cost-Cars-Transit.htm
Europeans are abandoning transit too: debunkingportland.com/Transit/EuroTranistShareLoss.htm
TODs INCREASE congestion (although they may reduce driving)
Light rail DOES NOT REDUCE congestion.
Urban renewal districts MAY NEVER repay their initial incentives.
Thanks
JK
High Density CAUSES congestion
Let’s start with this one.
You seem to be acting as if the universal planning argument is that we should increase densities in order to reduce congestion. I’m not aware of this being a common argument. On the contrary, to the extent that density is advocated for transportation-related reasons, it is typically done so for the purposes of shortening trips (assuming a sufficient mix of land uses) and for making transit more viable.
The analysis you include from debunkingportland shows that, as expected, auto trips decline with density. It also shows that congestion increases with density. What it does NOT show, however, is anything about the length of trips. It’s at least theoretically possible for a relatively short, relatively congested trip to be “better” than a relatively long, relatively uncongested trip. Since the debunkingportland analysis leaves this issue unaddressed, we can’t really draw much in the way of conclusions here.
On a more general level, there’s no such thing as a free lunch, so it shouldn’t be surprising if strategies that make improvements on one variable lead to sacrifices in another.
Actually, I guess the debunkingportland analysis does provide some indirect info on trip length. Figure 4 is tough to read, but it appears to show that both person miles and vehicle miles decrease with density.
I’m always amazed that some people find it hard to believe that some people want to live out in rural areas, some like density and everyone else whats to live somewhere in between.
I prefer a drivable neighborhood where we walk for exercise and pleasure not for work and shopping.
I prefer a neighborhood that the zoning is decided by the property owners not the planners.
Good by city life
give me the suburbs
Figure 4 is tough to read, but it appears to show that both person miles and vehicle miles decrease with density.
D4P
Big Deal! With more people you have more congestion, despite the lowers miles.
Reproducing increases congestion too, so I guess we shouldn’t reproduce.
Who decided that “congestion” should be the only criterion for evaluating the effects of density? I guess I didn’t get that memo.
That is why I and many other people prefer to live in a sprawling suburb and not ride transit
That is why I and many other people prefer to live in a sprawling suburb and not ride transit
Your preference is understandable, and has been massively subsidized by all levels of government for many decades now.
In Portland nearly all of downtown is subsidized with urban renewal, historical and tax abatements, and low interest loans.
The Suburbs are not
Downtown Portland’s transit is subsidized by the entire region including the suburbs, that have the same Tri Met system but very poor transit.
The downtown baseball stadium, convention center, symphony, the synyphony hall, tram, streetcars, and most of the events. The sewers being rebuilt in downtown and subsidized.
Suburbs are self supporting compared to cities.
Is it the claim of antiplanners that cities have always been subsidized and suburbs have never been?
This is common in Portland along the street car or light rail
Market Value $1,561,700.00
Assessed Value $8,600.00
Taxes (2008)
Property Taxes $136.52
http://tinyurl.com/7d9wq9
Name comparable subsidies in the burbs
Market Value $1,779,640.00
Assessed Value $8,600.00
Taxes (2008)
Property Taxes $136.52
http://tinyurl.com/9sgjow
Ther are plenty more
Name comparable subsidies in the burbs
Historically speaking, the creation of suburbs (especially after WWII) was massively subsidized (especially by the federal government) through the building of interstate highways, home ownership loan programs, etc. Today, local governments (in cities and suburbs alike) routinely employ “economic development” strategies that include tax breaks, land giveaways, etc.
Highways benefit both cities and the burbs
The same loans were given to people buying in cities and the burbs try again
Highways benefit both cities and the burbs
That’s beside the point, which is that suburbanization wouldn’t have happened on the nearly the same scale that it did without the highways. The suburbs didn’t pay for the highways by themselves.
The same loans were given to people buying in cities and the burbs try again
I don’t think that’s not accurate. The loans were given primarily to “up and coming” neighborhoods that were considered good risks. Most neighborhoods in cities didn’t meet that criterion. That was certainly true of “black” neighborhoods.
Now your nit picking. If you apply the same rules and the cities were not a good risk, that is not subsidizing the burbs more than cities. The same rules apply. If your a good risk you get the loan, if not you don’t.
That’s beside the point, which is that suburbanization wouldn’t have happened on the nearly the same scale that it did without the highways.
D4P
The cities would not have grown on the nearly the same scale if we did not build the highways.
I’m still waiting for the special subsidies only for the burbs
Craig, there weren’t the same rules.
Redlining for mortgages was not made explicitly illegal until the 70’s.
Mortages were denied to innercity neighborhoods (read: black communities). You can’t sell your home if no one can get a mortgage to buy it.
Whatever other subsidies there may have been (and I’m with you in opposing a lot of them), mortgages were not one off them.
OK.
What if the rule is “We will subsidize areas that lend themselves to public transit”?
If you apply the same rules and the suburbs don’t lend themselves to public transit, that is not subsidizing the cities more than suburbs. The same rules apply. If you lend yourself to public transit you get a subsidy, if not you don’t.
Craig,
Are you saying the inner cities grew because of highways? What inner city grew because of a highway? The highway system started in 1956. The very eve of inner city decline.
BTW: There’s a big point we’re missing here. If cities and suburbs are different entities with different funding sources, which seems to be how we’re thinking of them here, then cities are subsidizing themselves. We don’t seem to be talking about whether a given dollar will go to a city or a suburb: we’re talking about what cities do with city money vs. what suburbs do with suburb money. Suburbs are presumably investing in themselves, just as cities are doing the same.
That being said, federal investments DO choose whether to invest in cities or suburbs.
First I oppose all subsidies.
Cities include the downtown and the rest of the city that have done much better then their downtown core.
Maybe the rise of the strip malls and Malls and big box stores, were because the downtown did not plan for what the people wanted. Easy shopping in and near their neighborhoods as the population grew.
Craig,
Are you saying the inner cities grew because of highways? What inner city grew because of a highway? The highway system started in 1956. The very eve of inner city decline
tg
—-
Most cities didn’t die, just their city centers that no longer served their customer base. With out highways, it is difficult to bring services and goods to the market.
First I oppose all subsidies
The land we now call “The United States of America” probably wouldn’t have existed if not for huge government subsidies. Killing natives and taking their land isn’t free. Plus, it’s not as if water, sewer, electricity, flood protection, fighting off the British, etc. etc. etc. were paid for only by user fees.
It seemss a little disingenuous to live in a massively subsidized country but claim to oppose subsidies.
I oppose subsides and you take it to the extreme, again
——-
Killing natives & fighting off the British
d4P
——–
How about showing me all the subsidies for the burbs that were using different rules than in the cities.
AP: “The actual numbers show that some people are moving downtown (often supported by local subsidies), but the suburbs are still growing far faster.”
Like Vancouver, BC. I hear their downtown is massively subsidized. All the new high rise developments receive payments of development cost charges, amenity contributions, and are payed to provide additional density. Its crazy…wait a minute…I think I may have that reversed…
I oppose subsides and you take it to the extreme, again
What is it about Killing natives & fighting off the British that doesn’t count as a government subsidy? Government made massive investments to create what you now call “freedom”. As the popular saying goes, freedom isn’t free.
How about showing me all the subsidies for the burbs that were using different rules than in the cities
I don’t understand your focus on rules.
Another development next to Portland light rail.
Year 2008
Improvements $9,882,840.00
Land $1,726,200.00
Real Market $11,609,040.00
Exemptions $9,882,840.00
Assessed $1,542,040.00
http://tinyurl.com/9uyayd
Another tax special rule for transit oriented developments, that we don’t see for auto oriented suburbs.
What is it about Killing natives & fighting off the British that doesn’t count as a government subsidy? Government made massive investments to create what you now call “freedomâ€Â. As the popular saying goes, freedom isn’t free.
d4p
—–
I find it interesting when you can’t come up with any special tax breaks, for the suburbs, you change the subject.
I find it interesting when you can’t come up with any special tax breaks, for the suburbs, you change the subject
First of all, the subject is government subsidies. Identifying some government subsidies (however “extreme”) doesn’t really constitute a change of subject.
Second, you can Google “Walmart subsidy” and get a good example of the kinds of subsidies that governments (many of them “suburban”) give to private corporations in the form of free/reduced-price land, infrastructure assistance, property tax breaks, etc.
I haven’t had any problem posting 3 this morning
Good for you. In this case, it’s not worth my time to do something you can do yourself. You apparently have Internet access, and I doubt Google is blocked on your server.
The reason I have not had any problems is there are so many it’s hard not to find them .
I’m gonna go ahead and guess that subsidies for lightrail stations and the like in Portland get a lot more news coverage than subsidies to Walmart in Sarahpalintown, USA.
But here’s a little teaser for you:
Over the past few decades, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has grown from a regional discount store operator into the world’s largest retailer. In fact, with annual revenues of $285 billion, it is the world’s largest corporation. It has more than 3,500 stores throughout the United States and another 1,600 abroad. Its profits last year were more than $10 billion.
Until recently, it was not widely known that this wealthy company’s aggressive U.S. expansion has frequently been financed in part by taxpayers through economic development subsidies. In 2004 Good Jobs First produced the first national study of the subject, documenting more than $1 billion in such subsidies from state and local governments to Wal-Mart; the actual total is certainly far higher, but the records are scattered in thousands of places and many subsidies are undisclosed.
http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/corporate_subsidy/walmart.cfm
Craig, here’s one subsidy that basically created the development patterns you enjoy: zoning. Despite what you have claimed, zoning was created by… planners, not the property owners, for the public health (separating heavy industry from residences), and that wasn’t until 1910’s/20’s. Property owners saw a goldmine with zoning as an artificial guarantee on their investments (no more having to deal with that pesky market [not government] changing their supported land use against their will). Property owners, especially influential developers, have since turned zoning into a complex bureaucratic nightmare that makes natural, market-driven development (as most older city neighborhoods are) virtually impossible to create, legally (even in smaller, older, rural towns that developed prior to modern conventional zoning, it’s a huge ordeal to create anything like this). And when developers are able to cut through the red tape, which, yes, usually requires a lot of city staff time to work through and causes substantial time delays and resource utilization (both of which I’m sure just thrill investors…) which cities can arguably subsidize necessarily (as it’s their own fault to begin with), the demand for it is so high that the prices fly through the roof, outpricing many metro dwellers to the suburbs as their only option, whether they want it or not (many do, many don’t, many don’t care).
To be fair: subsidies to Walmart don’t necessarily represent subsidies to suburbs. However, in my experience, Walmarts don’t typically locate in dense, urban areas. They typically locate in small towns or fringe areas where land is relatively cheap.
I’m oppose to corporate subsidies, were these given to WalMart for developing in the suburbs ( only)or anywhere?
Portland would have Walmarts in and near downtown if the planners didn’t block them
Portland would have Walmarts in and near downtown if the planners didn’t block them
Maybe, maybe not. Walmart likes cheap land with many acres of parking and relatively easy access for cars. Downtown areas don’t typically lend themselves very well to that.
we have had big fights in Portland with Walmart trying to move into or near downtown
“Craig,
Are you saying the inner cities grew because of highways? What inner city grew because of a highway? The highway system started in 1956. The very eve of inner city decline.”
It depends on what you’re measuring –> pure population? wealth? median household income? total number of jobs? number of jobs created?
The decline started long before that…. but was it really anything new? This sort of stuff was going on internally in most cities. Old inner cities are full of neighborhoods, many of which were at the time they went in essentially “suburban” development for their day.
But it’s a good point to bring up. That decline lead to a butt ton of urban renewal funds being doled out by the Feds in the 1960s. And where did that get those cities? How does Brooks propose his modern day doling out of Federal funds to build these suburban downtowns won’t end up being as unsuccessful as the urban renewal movement of the 1960s?
I fully agree there is a need for more non-central city freeway capacity and transit corridors that connect people with jobs (that is, don’t serve downtown). The trick is how does one get them built? If these new federal subsidies that our grandchildren will be paying are dolled out similar to how they are now, the projects will tend to continue to fall victim to politics and follow the old hub and spoke pattern serving the central city downtown.
we have had big fights in Portland with Walmart trying to move into or near downtown
If elected officials wanted it to happen, I have a hard time believing “planners” could stand in their way.
http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/corporate_subsidy/walmart.cfm
D4P, thanks for the link. While Wal-mart deserves the flack all of retail really deserves it. A big part of the problem is different cities get in pissing matches over retail development(s). The problem is that for the region as a whole retail is a neear zero sum game in the near term. They end up doling out a lot of tax breaks for what tend to mostly be poor paying jobs that if they didn’t locate in one spot would be just a few blocks away w/out the subsidies (location, location, location).
That is, the cities essentially end up fighting over the same whore. IIRC a few years ago Utah recognized this and revised their state laws over TIFFs and such to try to reduce the problem. Whether the new retail development went into Murray or South South Lake the area as a whole would benefit from it. And if TIFF was used, it was just shifting some activity for 5-10 years until a new retail development in the city next door popped up using TIFFs.
Anyway, ya, it’s a mess that needs to be addressed. TIFFs could do some good in theory. The problem is politicians tend to abuse them and hurt the cities as a whole just to try to show off that they they’re doing something.
A big part of the problem is different cities get in pissing matches over retail development(s). The problem is that for the region as a whole retail is a neear zero sum game in the near term. They end up doling out a lot of tax breaks for what tend to mostly be poor paying jobs that if they didn’t locate in one spot would be just a few blocks away w/out the subsidies (location, location, location)
You’ve just summarized one of the primary rationales for “regional planning”. The Twin Cities in Minnesota have a regional tax base sharing program that has been found to reduce (though not eliminate) the motivation for this kind of inter-jurisdictional competition.
In addition to tax breaks, locales also have been known to loosen their environmental standards in order to attract businesses.
“Downtown Portland’s transit is subsidized by the entire region including the suburbs, that have the same Tri Met system but very poor transit.” -Craig
The rest of the surrounding suburbs have sub-par transit because it costs more to service the low-density inefficient land-use patterns with good transit. There’s still bus service but the bus service is increasingly expensive as you their routes need to be extended (in distance and number of buses. More buses = more drivers. More drivers = annual salary + benefits) to service the same amount of people as compared to a well-designed neighborhood – which can support a timely bus service, light rail and street cars.
BRT, light rail, and even larger articulated bus services into these further out neighborhoods is simply not feasible. Suppose these aforementioned suburban cities wanted to opt out of METRO and Tri-Met and wanted to fund their own mass transit – they would probably be funding the same poor, inefficient bus service at about the same price.
Economically it does not make sense to pay for a better bus service in the surrounding suburbs. You’d be on here whining anyways even if they did pay for more timely mass transit.
Just checked out the Portland Trolley Chronology. Quite interesting.
A few points that piqued my interest:
Why were these companies able to exist as private entities? Yes, several went out of business, but they were quickly bought up after failure. In fact, private rail gave way to private buses; rail didn’t return for 30 years, and then it was socialized rail.
Were these early companies subsidized? Or were they truly private, profit-making ventures? Was a more technologically advanced and cost-effective invention (the motor coach) the cause of rail’s demise? Were earlier rail companies able to profit because they were more efficient than modern socialized transit?
Just asking because the whole debate in these dozens of comments seems to be about subsidies. There are in fact 56 instances of the word “subsidy” or its variant on this page.
Suggested reading please.