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.
The city’s plan, observes Smart Growth Minneapolis, will increase water pollution, air pollution, soil erosion, congestion, and safety hazards for pedestrians and cyclists. The group also notes that “people of color and poor communities [will] bear the brunt of likely negative outcomes — from gentrification and increased heat zones to flooding and air and water pollution.”
This sounds like something I might write. In fact, I did. In The Best-Laid Plans back in 2007, I pointed out that the National Marine Fisheries Service says that, to protect fish, no more than 10 percent of any undeveloped area should be rendered impermeable by paving it or covering it with new buildings. Only developments of one home per acre or less could comply with this guideline. Minneapolis is already denser than that, but increasing the density and further reducing permeable land is going to increase the negative effects on watersheds.
Because it wasn’t an environmental issue, the lawsuit didn’t argue about gentrification or the effect of density on housing prices. But that’s a key issue, as Smart Growth Minneapolis realizes, because high housing prices were the justification for abolishing single-family zoning. As I’ve previously argued, tearing down single-family homes, which is the kind of housing most people want to live in, and replacing them with apartments, which most people don’t want to live in, will only make single-family homes more scarce and less affordable.
In 2010, Minneapolis had 7,088 people per square mile. By 2020, this had increased to 7,962. If higher densities reduce housing costs, as planners claim, then this 12 percent increase should have seen Minneapolis become more affordable. Instead, according to Zillow, median home prices grew by 53 percent while Census data show median family incomes growing by only 8 percent, meaning the city became significantly less affordable.
It’s tempting, of course, to make a snide argument that Smart Growth Minneapolis supports density only if it is somewhere else. But the real problem is that the group seems to suffer from fuzzy thinking.
“Increased density can be part of the solution or part of the problem,” it says. This implies that some ways of increasing density are good and some are bad. The reality is that, in a motorized nation such as the United States, the congestion, housing, and environmental costs of any increases in density above about 3,000 people per square mile are greater than the benefits. At nearly 8,000 per square mile, Minneapolis is already the densest city in the Midwest outside of Illinois, so it would be better off reducing its density than increasing it.
“The reality is that, in a motorized nation such as the United States, the congestion, housing, and environmental costs of any increases in density above about 3,000 people per square mile are greater than the benefits.”
Which countries are “motorized nations”? Countries with motors in them? Where is the 3000 people per square mile as a maximum of benefit/cost coming from?
Did those apartments get more affordable?
Thanks
JK
Tearing down these Minneapolis homes and replacing them with duplexes or triplexes won’t make housing more affordable….
But splitting a mcmansion that doesnt sell into two affordable houses is good. The McMansion is obsolete…they cost 1000 aminth to heat and power they have poor insulation. They cook up in summer and roast in the winter….
Designer marianne cusato presented..for Build magazine
The New Economy Home 1.0
is designed to be efficient to both build and to maintain over time. The small and simple footprint is based on standard dimensional lumber to minimize cutting on site. Plumbing fixtures are grouped in centralized locations to simplify plumbing installation and reduce consumption. The building envelope and construction details merge the latest technologies in green building with common sense details that maximize the value of sun and water, while minimizing the load they place on the mechanical systems. Every set of plans comes with a full materials list and product specifications.
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2010/10/17/magazine/17KeySmallHouse/17KeySmallHouse-t_CA0-articleLarge.jpg
The 2.0 project called “project Gable side”
https://www.mariannecusato.com/neh-20-gable-side-
At around 1,700 square feet, it was the size of the average American home built in 1980. Since then, new houses have on average grown by more than 40 percent, as dens have expanded into great rooms, and tubs and sinks have multiplied. “Houses got too big, because people were chasing investment gains and there was cheap money, and the industry responded by building houses that were too large. When the housing market sank said super-homes became financial tombs.
I like these New economy homes.
This is an excellent idea. When you look at the current real estate market there is a desperate need for single family starter homes.
This highlights an understudied and fundamental problem with density. Simply stated above a certain point density starts incurring costs, either environmental, economic, or social that bring into question other efficiencies. Runoff and the need to process huge amounts of storm water are one but there are many others. For example its likely easier to manage utilities in the suburbs than in dense urban areas. Also we have to consider congestion. In one of the Antiplanner’s posts about Portland he mentioned that people re driving less in PDX than other cities. However, this does not consider energy used in traffic and idling. Arguably it may be more efficient to have more vehicle miles and less idling. The other big consideration here is self sufficiency and infrastructure costs. Having for example a zeroscaped yard that absorbs all of your run off in the long term is much cheaper than maintaining a waste water runoff treatment facility. Etc. Especially outside of cities planning should consider these types of built in low tech solutions since they are fundamental sustainable. The other part of this is aside from the technical. Maybe the smart growth advocates are starting to question whether they really want to live in what they advocate or maybe they figured out that certain types of investors are just seeking rents out of this type of planning.
”
The McMansion is obsolete…they cost 1000 aminth to heat and power they have poor insulation. They cook up in summer and roast in the winter….
” ~lazyreader
For modern single family homes with decent construction & following code in Minnesota, they’re likely using half the energy as the homes you in the old homes in MPLS even though they have thrice the space.