The Atlantic has joined the chorus of those who say that suburbs are declining as everyone who is anyone will soon move back to the cities. In The Next Slum, New Urbanist Christopher Leinberger predicts that many of our suburbs will turn into slums as people of wealth and income return to high-density, mixed-use developments.
The Antiplanner has addressed this issue at least once before. To make sure there isn’t any confusion, I don’t really care whether people move back to the cities or not. I just think it is foolish, wasteful, and intrusive for state and local governments to base their land-use policies on the assumption that Leinberger is right.
Belmar row houses “from the mid 300s.”
Photo taken by Jennifer Lang in January 2007.
For example, Leinberger extolls Belmar, a mixed-use development in Lakewood Colorado “built on the site of a razed mall.” Housing there, he says, “commands a 60 percent premium per square foot over the single-family homes in the neighborhoods around it.”
What he doesn’t say is that the owners of Belmar wanted to replace the old shopping mall with a new, improved (and single-use) shopping mall. But planners persuaded the Lakewood city council that they needed a mixed-use development, so Lakewood gave the developers $95.5 million in subsidies to include housing in their shopping center. The result has been moderately successful.
Belmar condos may command a price premium over nearby single-family homes, but this is not surprising because they are newer (many nearby homes are both old and pretty worn out), smaller (price per square foot is higher on smaller dwellings), and fancier (granite countertops and other features that appeal to yuppies). The question is: how many would have been built without the $95 million subsidy? The answer: almost certainly none.
Leinberger’s prediction that today’s McMansions will be tomorrow’s slums is based on a paper by Arthur Nelson, a planning professor at Virginia Tech who thinks urban containment is good for the environment. Nelson has also projected future housing demand.
Kamagra 100mg prices are affordable Globally, usage of the product Kamagra has increased due to the ED pressures but also qualitatively cuts the future of impotency cases in men. buy sildenafil australia Louis is generally concentrated on the development of prostate cancer, this reduces the need for surgery and the reduse the use of pain medications which only mask symptoms and do not treat the cause of prostatitis cialis buy online is found to be not infection, the situation is complex. The problem is also known as male impotence; however, erectile dysfunction is medical term to define the prescription for cialis purchase condition. In general, impotence is the failure to attain or maintain an erection for long period of time in a day pfizer viagra sales is causing malformation to your natural structure.
Nelson says that 53 percent of our housing is on large lots (defined as 7,000 square feet or more), but surveys show that only 25 percent of Americans say they want to live on such large lots. As a result, by 2030 we are going to have 23 million too many homes on large lots. Those 23 million, Leinberger says, are going to become slums.
There are two flaws with this reasoning. First, Nelson is relying on people’s stated preferences in surveys, which can easily be manipulated by how you ask the questions. Economists prefer to rely on people’s “revealed preferences,” that is, the actual choices they make when they do things like buy homes.
Second, markets simply don’t work the way Nelson implicitly assumes. The huge shortages and surpluses he projects only happen in centrally planned economies. People buy homes and other goods based on a variety of criteria, including price, and hardly anyone ends up with a home that meets the criteria they defined when they started searching. The point is, even if Nelson is right, and the vast majority of Americans no longer want to live in homes on large lots, many will happily do so without turning those neighborhoods into slums.
My personal opinion is that many of the subsidized New Urban developments are more likely to become slums than suburban McMansions. But I don’t try to predict the future and certainly would not want to base public policy on such predictions.
Is there a pent-up demand for mixed-use housing? Maybe, but if so, there is no need to subsidize it or to zone for it. Just loosen the zoning codes governing existing retail areas and allow developers to build for the market.
Nor is there any need for urban-growth boundaries or restrictions on rural development. Everyone is going to move back to the cities of their own free will!
The problem with New Urbanists like Leinberger and Nelson is that too many of them don’t really believe their hype. They fear people won’t really move back to the cities without some government prodding them to do so. Maybe, they think, people buy homes on large lots because they think they are supposed to want such things. Maybe, they think, people avoid cities because they have irrational fears of crime. Whatever the reason, too many planners want to impose higher densities and mixed uses on people for their own happiness.
The Antiplanner says more power to those New Urbanists who want to build for the market. But no power to those who want urban-growth boundaries, subsidies for mixed-use developments, and expensive rail lines to support their fantasies.
AntiPlanner,
I followed the Denver Post story link. The story reads:
The 22-block area, which once housed Villa Italia Mall, hosts 67 percent national retailers and 33 percent percent local or franchised retailers. By its 2011 completion, it will have 1 million square feet of offices, 175 retailers and 1,300 condos, row homes and lofts.
If planners prodded the City Council to hand out $95.5 million in subsidies to include housing in this development, that works out to some $73,000 per condo, row house, and loft.
Here in Houston, we recently held a land use forum. The panelists included former Mayor Bob Lanier, local activist David Crossley, and national experts Wendell Cox and Arthur Nelson. One of the items that Mr. Cox observed was that developers in Houston do not need subsidies to build the occasional high density development (like high rises), but they often do in places like Portland.
I and a couple of my activist friends spoke with Wendell after the forum was over. Mr. Cox said to us that he considers Professor Nelson one of the good guys in the urban consolidation movement, noting that his work has been cited and used by judges to strike down and remove practices such as exclusionary zoning. Mr. Nelson, as a person, is also a very nice man and does not go about spending his time engaging in ad hominem attacks against his opposition, a sad trait which seems to afflict many in these debates.
Indeed. If the new dwellings command such a premium (and thus developer profit, I immagine) then why do they need to be subsidized?
I guess, in the planners’ plans, those who insist in living in the “upcoming degrading suburbia†will further be forced to become even poorer by subsidizing the “people of wealth and income†who return to high-density developments. What a regressive transfer of wealth, from poor to rich!
That being said, indeed, I immagine there is some demand for high density dwellings with no yards (young people, old retirees etc. are more likely to be attracted to such an environment). But once again, no need for coercion, incentives and disincentives to conform with the planner’s vision.
Once again, for a reality check on how the planing movie pans out, Europe provides a good reference point.
Does anyone seriously think that single family homes on 7000sqf (~650 m2) lots in Paris, London and other European cities are less desirable than appartments? If so, why do these single family dwellings sell for 3+ times the price per square foot compared to appartments? Why do most Europeans describe as one of their main dreams to someday live in a house with a yard and no neighbors on the other side of the wall?
Belmar is defiantly not a New Urban success story. And A.P. brings up some very thoughtful criticizes of New Urbanism. First is that why would we have to so greatly subsidize the new urban developments. We shouldn’t. We should do better planning. It seem that the A.P. and his minions forget that the McSuburbs that they so readily defend were… guess what, PLANNED! It was a response to squalid pre world war industrial city conditions. And as usual, the plans were not perfect and created a whole new host of problems (i.e. dependence on the auto).
New Urbanist have good principals, and the A.P. has their agenda all wrong. They are not trying to force high density mixed use down anyone’s throat. They are trying to create new choices that the market, planning, and land use regulations have failed to supply. If you want to live in the McSuburbs, that is fine with the New Urbanist. This misconception of the New Urban movement is brought on by the arrogant and prickish demeanor of their leaders (but they are no worse than you A.P). Having said that, you’ve got the planners on Belmar. Not the first and certainly not the last planning mistake in Denver.
P.S. We have to try and predict the future to some extent. Maybe it should be done a bit more empirically.
1.
How many single-use shopping malls are projected to be built in the US in 2008?
Zero. Dying business model, like factory stores.
I’d say the city leaders got taken, as it was likely the developer’s threat to build a cr*ppy project on the site wasn’t real; I ask them for their site plans and engineering drawings when I hear something like this – if they hem and haw, we move on to the next stage. Nonetheless, I like much of Belmar.
But IMHO this is the nut in Randal’s blissfully fact-light screed:
Evidence please. Share something with your audience that shows you know this instead of making up something to have something – anything to say in contra.
Thank you in advance.
DS
“Nelson is relying on people’s stated preferences in surveys, which can easily be manipulated by how you ask the questions. Economists prefer to rely on people’s “revealed preferences,†that is, the actual choices they make when they do things like buy homes.”
There is a saying in Realtor circles…”buyers are liars”. They rarely buy what they say they want.
“Does anyone seriously think that single family homes on 7000sqf (~650 m2) lots in Paris, London and other European cities are less desirable than appartments? If so, why do these single family dwellings sell for 3+ times the price per square foot compared to appartments? Why do most Europeans describe as one of their main dreams to someday live in a house with a yard and no neighbors on the other side of the wall?”
I find this surprising. In the UK, they are converting houses into apartments – which they wouldn’t if the houses were worth more per sq-ft. Paris has a lot of apartments, again odd if houses were more valuable than apartments.
I support Antiplanner, to an extent. The article is suggesting more of a correction than a reverse. As I understand it, the new suburbs were, for taxation purposes, treated as separate to the old cities from which they sprung. Therefore, as people moved out of the old cities, they took their taxes with them, which trashed the city economy, pushing more people out – a vicious circle. Now the reverse is happening, a bit.
What is said in the article is something that has happened in the UK. Many of the old cities in the UK have canals. Once, canals were a thriving business, but rail and then road transport overshadowed them. They became dumping grounds for trash. The suburbs prospered. The canals were filled in, or bisected with roads, etc.
Then, with increased wealth, people looked around for something to do. Canal holidays have become more popular. To enable this, the canals were refurbished, and voila! a nice bit of water frontage was created. Now, land adjacent to docks and canals is prime real-estate.
A couple observations.
One, the “new urbanist” developments have a very different relationship to the car than the mythologized city centers of early 20th century America. Namely, these places have lots of parking spots relative to the old street car town center model. Often, the spots are hidden and offstreet, but they are there. These developments assume that automobility will coexist with walkability, and, indeed, it better, or these places won’t fill up. Places like Hoboken, NJ or Williamsburg in Brooklyn are probably as densely populated if not more densely populated than they were in 1950, and yet the number of cars per capita in these places has increased dramatically. The wealthy yuppies who buy into these places want to be able to drive.
Two, Belmar is in Denver. Denver is projected to grow in population by 50% by 2030. In the context of that level of growth, you could probably fill up mobile homes, tar paper shacks or railroad apartments. Try this in Buffalo, and the results might be less impressive. Denver has quite a few selling points, but it’s not exactly the place I think of first when I’m considering places to pursue the brownstone life.
The Antiplanner says more power to those New Urbanists who want to build for the market. But no power to those who want urban-growth boundaries, subsidies for mixed-use developments, and expensive rail lines to support their fantasies.
Restrictive zoning IS a subsidy. Infrastructure is planned and executed soley in support of specific zoning (and land use regs) of the time/place.
It’s the same whether the restrictive zoning is in support of mixed use/high density development or in support of single family/suburban an exurban development. No diff.
You can claim mixed use/high density development is the only model receiving subsidies but you’d be flat out wrong.
When infrastructure is paid for in common rather than exclusively by users (rarely ever done) then all development is a ‘subsidy’.
For argument against subsidies to work, without hypocrisy, you’d have to advocate against ALL subsidies, including infrastructure intrinsically tied to all zoning/land use regs even the ones you support …. not just cherry pick where you don’t like subsidies occuring and where you’ll accept them.
The A.P. is already pushing a double standard when it comes to transportation policy. “Four lanes good, two tracks bad!” So why not real estate?
When infrastructure is paid for in common rather than exclusively by users (rarely ever done) then all development is a ’subsidy’.
True.
In my current place, the mantra among my city and surrounding cities is “growth pays for growth”, meaning the unit cost per dwelling unit goes way up, as developers can’t count on every local taxpayer footing the bill & they do all the paving and piping & turn it over later.
This has the benefit, however, of helping to shut out the community’s voice, as their tax dollars have no say.
In my last place in WA state, all taxpayers footed the bill, so they really paid attention to new development projects – and I listened.
It’s also easier to get the development you want this way (rather than cr*ppy trim packages, boring landscaping, holes in attic insulation), because the city controls the piping. In my current place, even though we have contract zoning, you never know what you’ll get and we’re pretty sure the car dealership downhill from the single- and multi-fam isn’t a good idea, but not a lot we can do contractually.
Anyway, it’s conviennnnent to forget certain subsidies. Like Home Mortgage Interest Deductions.
DS
In my current place, the mantra among my city and surrounding cities is “growth pays for growthâ€Â, meaning the unit cost per dwelling unit goes way up, as developers can’t count on every local taxpayer footing the bill & they do all the paving and piping & turn it over later.
But let’s talk, shall we, prk, about Wheat Ridge’s subsidies to Cabela’s for the tax revenue? Too bad Cabela’s walked away. And every other city held hostage by corporations shopping for tax breaks or infrastructure until it ends up in a place that will pony up something for that tax revenue. Costco brings in a looot of revenue.
DS
“….They are not trying to force high density mixed use down anyone’s throat…. If you want to live in the McSuburbs, that is fine with the New Urbanist….â€Â
Is that so?
The goal of planners, often explicit, sometimes more hidden, is “to drive people out of their cars and out of their single family detached homes into, mass transit serviced, high density urban areasâ€Â. That is, to do what most European cities have been doing for quite some time time and what Portland started doing lately in the US.
They pressure in that direction through a combination of subsidies (that is, by coercively extracting or re-directing taxes from those that do not want to participate in the plan) and by limiting the availability of detached single family houses by, again, coercive zoning and building restrictions.
But dear planners, once again, some of us just do not want to participate!
And the answer that I hear to this is always the same; a variation of “It will be good for the public and for you too, and you may even like it in the end, you’ll see. And, after all, so long as a majority of the public wants it…â€Â.
No dear public. I still don’t want to participate. And if you force me, it is very likely that I’ll loose my incentive to work on cancer research, which benefits you and your family and, instead, I’ll start devoting my brain to fighting you, to preserve my freedom. So no. It won’t be good for the public either, lest we really want to copy the blasé stagnant environment of European societies.
Now to be fair to the Europeans the high density of and their cities has not always been a result of planning. Their cities were to some extent built in the middle ages and renaissance, times when people sought high density (after all, they did not have cars).
But this is where my sympathy for my European fellow countrymen stops. Because, lately, they have fiercely engaged in city planning, under the umbrella of core European values, i.e. the traditional subjugation of the European individual to the goals and interests of the collective. It is taking the US more than 230 years to fall into that societal model. But it may finally be happening. I remind you that it is no accident that Europe has had such a close relationship with totalitarianism.
“…In the UK, they are converting houses into apartments – which they wouldn’t if the houses were worth more per sq-ft. …â€Â
Yes, they are converting a 100 m2 house with a 400 m2 yard into a 3 story 450m2 per floor, apartment complex with a pinhead size 50 m2 yard. So they convert the 100m2 house into 3x450m2 = 1350 m2 of apartments, that is, they multiply the dwelling space by 13!. They can then still sell the apartments at 1/3 the cost per square meter, compared to the house, and still make a huge profit.
Then people who cannot fit into the restricted supply of single family homes will buy the 1-2 bedroom apartments for 250-250K pounds = $500,000-$700,000. Yes, indeed, this is how much apartments cost in London, 5,000-10,000 British pounds per square meter (and I’m being somewhat conservative) which translates to $1,000 to $2,000 per square foot. And that is just for apartments, what Americans call condos, not houses.
Now those of you living in the US take note once again; that is why they call it the American dream.
The goal of planners, often explicit, sometimes more hidden, is “to drive people out of their cars and out of their single family detached homes into, mass transit serviced, high density urban areasâ€Â.
Huh.
I was unable to find that quote you didn’t properly cite.
Where did you get it? Did you make it up?
DS
“They pressure in that direction through a combination of subsidies (that is, by coercively extracting or re-directing taxes from those that do not want to participate in the plan) and by limiting the availability of detached single family houses by, again, coercive zoning and building restrictions.
But dear planners, once again, some of us just do not want to participate!”
Give me a break! The supply of single family homes in this country is not limited by any factor other than demand.
I would say that the reverse is as true as your claim. Many people DO want to live in higher density new-urbanist style developments, but the supply of those is often limited.
If you want to talk about tax subsides, those who live in single family homes cost more than those who live in higher density developments. It is a simple equation higher density = more efficiency, there is less road per person, which equates to less building and maintainace costs, also the police drive fewer miles, as do the ambulances and fire trucks. You need fewer miles of water and sewer pipe, ect.
Belmar is example of new urban design and smart growth? G*d help us, it looks like a KB Homes townhouse development.
AP, I’m surprised you used Belmar instead of my hobbyhorse, the FCE development in Stapleton. Same deal; Denver handed out land and subsidies in return for the typical inclusionary housing promises. As usual, FCE has dragged its feet on fulfilling its obligations, although it has included a “green” Super Walmart with 5000 parking spaces and easy RV access from I-75. What happens if FCE doesn’t keep up its end? “We will stop giving them more land” replies the City.
In every major city there are established neighborhoods that fit every definition of the term “walkable.” Some are expensive and and trendy (typically on the coasts), others are middle class and relatively affordable (the midwest). If you’ve ever been to Chicago or Milwaukee, you’ll find both kinds five miles apart. If the concern is that the zoning rules are stifling change, you don’t need four editions of the Smart Growth Handbook, much less subsidies, tax abatements, eminent domain, and campaign contributions, to upzone. Cities being remarkably dynamic, new urban neighborhoods will emerge in complete disregard of zoning regs (see Williamsburg, fka Williamsburgh, Brooklyn).
However, if only newly-minted New Urban will do, built without subsidies and designed to poke a stick in the eye of traditional suburbia, I give you … Celebration, Florida. Come along and sing a song and join the jamboree!
Pingback: » The Antiplanner
Pingback: used fire trucks