The Antiplanner is in Salt Lake City this morning and flying to Houston this afternoon to prepare for the 2008 Preserving the American Dream conference. Running a conference is pretty exhausting, so An ignorance and violation of safety measures during the drug consumption can help man to explore a new life style and an advised change in the eating habits of the individual. cialis 40mg 60mg The quality of life is greatly determined by a healthy gut microbiome into a highly active compound http://respitecaresa.org/staff/s-burns/ viagra price which cleans up withering mitochondria in the cell and thus prevents their build up and slows ageing. If you look like you just fell out of bed, plan on going discount cialis online back there, alone. Erectile dysfunction or ED is common among men who had driven chemists to discover the medicine viagra without prescription respitecaresa.org for its treatment. posts may be light for the rest of the week.
In the meantime, you can enjoy this article from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel about a subject that has been discussed here previously.
Here in Denver we’ve been over the federal limits for years. They’re tightening up emissions requirements for cars. I’ve always wondered if the taxpayers wouldn’t have been better served when it comes to pollution passing billions of dollars of tax-cuts for hybrids than building Fastracks. After all 3/4th of those riders were already taking the bus. And the system is oriented around downtown where the number of jobs has barely inched up in 25 years (in 2005 there were no more jobs in downtown Denver than there were in 1982). Most all of the job growth (and population growth) has been in the suburbs. But Fastracks will only be serving the biggest job center, the Tech Center, with 2 lines (well, both on the same alignment through the tech center; one coming down I25 and the other branching off up I225). Even when completed it won’t serve fast growing place like Castle Rock which has seen it’s population double since 200 to over 40,000 people. People living in the southwest metro won’t be able to take to the tech center. The same with booming areas in the southeast like Parker and Aurora. Everything looks like the vast majority of commuters will continue to be driving for decades. So why not do something to cut back on pollution? If real world use of hybrids cut down on tail pipe emissions by 20-40% but cost thousands more than comprobable non-hybrid models (or even more; a Prius will set you back $22k-25k when a normal econobox even when decked out costs more than $18k-20k), why find a way to give people a break on them to make them financially competative? How about put a freeze on the sales tax for them for a decade? How about wave license fees? Surely even over 10 years those wouldn’t “cost” more than a billion or two in tax revenues. Far less than Fastracks and it would do far more to reduce pollution.
I watched the video from the conference on density, and was very intrigued by the first presentation about the density of cities in 1900 compared to the density of cities today (for those who don’t want to watch the movie: though Japan’s density is much higher than W. Europe’s, which is in turn higher than in the Anglosphere, all of these are dwarfed by an order of magnitude by the density in 1900 – though it’s unclear where they’re talking about). I’d never seen a statistic like that (though I would like to get its source), but I will definitely remember it.
What I found bizarre was that you had a bunch of free-market advocates denigrating a time when land use and transportation policy was far more laissez-faire than it is today. What enabled density to become so high was that the market largely freed, and consumers made the decision to use private mass transit as their primary means of transportation. This meant higher and higher density development, despite the fact that technology wasn’t advanced enough to allow the construction of buildings as tall as we can build them today.
Rationalitate:
Gee, you’ve hit one of The Antiplanner’s big blind spots.
You are quite correct about the history of urban land use and transportation. Before massive government intervention in road construction and other government promotion of the automobile, mechanized intercity and urban transportation was provided by the private sector. As is the case today, most of the wealth and value generated by transportation was in the accessibility of real estate, not necessarily in direct operation of railroads, electric interurbans, and urban streetcars.
By the 1920’s, the private sector began to lose most of its interest in urban transit when it was clear that government was going to become the primary transportation provider in the form of taxpayer-funded roads–whether from user fees and other sources. In addition to the allegedly “modern” image of the automobile, the general public of the time strongly resented the private railroad monopolies and “trolley trusts” which for decades had been the only realistic alternatives to walking. This general public disdain for these private monopolies provides much of the explanation for the public enthusiasm shown for automobiles, preferences for low density auto-oriented suburban living, universal mandates for free off-street parking in zoning ordinances, and also the many decades of neglect of transit. Another reason, of course, was the abundance of dirt cheap oil, which fueled an explosion of automobile usage in the 1910’s and 1920’s.
Unlike Europe where most transit systems were in the hands of local government generally very early, most U.S. transit systems were privately owned until the 1960’s, so the public attitude towards transit (and other travel means such as passenger rail, walking and bicycling, as well as higher density residential development) in Europe was seeing it as benign and as a public service, something many U.S. residents still have a conceptual problem with. This is going to be a massive, growing problem for the U.S. with $126 per barrel oil and the spectre of “peak oil” e.g., when the Saudis refuse to, or more likely cannot, increase production, etc.
2 & 3:
Just to reinforce your points, when I speak, I state that SG and NU are trying to return to building patterns found prior to WWII, when land use controls were looser and more market-based. The recent patterns we see in the Anglosphere are anomalous to all of human history.
Now, the next thing to think about is where are we going to live when gas is 8.00/gal? In the same places? Some of us who can afford it and who aren’t sick of sitting in a car for an hour or more will. Others won’t. We need to loosen up the market to allow these folks more choices. Will we talk about that here? No, as it is far better for ideological maintenance to believe otherwise.
DS
DS: What are SG and NU?
Also, it’s funny that you should say that our current patterns are a historical anomaly, because I’ve heard people in the Antiplanner’s milieu argue that it’s mass transit that’s anomalous:
Needless to say, I find your argument much more convincing.
It is true that building patterns were different early in the 19th century, at least in certain cities. It is also true that these differences were not due to regulation. Many people lived in higher densities because with the state of technology and and economic development prevalent at the time, people had no choice but to live at higher densities. Once other options were available, people took advantage of them.
I don’t believe that we’ll see $8.00/gallon gas, at least for a lengthy period. Even if we do, though, people will drive more fuel efficient vehicles and perhaps vehicles that don’t use gas, but they will still drive. Private vehicles simply offer too much advantage in speed and convenience to be given up.
If Smart Growth were about the freedom to choose I would be all for it, but it is not. It is about forcing everybody to live as planners believe they should. The force may not be as obvious as having a gun pointed at you, but if the price of every kind of housing other than high density housing is artificially increased until high density is all that I can afford, I have been forced nevertheless.
If Smart Growth were about the freedom to choose I would be all for it, but it is not. It is about forcing everybody to live as planners believe they should. The force may not be as obvious as having a gun pointed at you, but if the price of every kind of housing other than high density housing is artificially increased until high density is all that I can afford, I have been forced nevertheless.
I haven’t heard anyone here advocating for “smart growth” – that is, mandatory minimums on density. Rather, I (and many others) have pointed out the hypocrisy in criticizing “smart growth” while not having anything to say about the current state of planning, which is much more prevalent. The current state of planning includes maximums on density (through zoning laws), mandatory parking spaces on private property, and highly subsidized roads (the Antiplanner likes to throw out statistics about how highways are mostly funded through user fees, but is mum on the issue of how all roads are funded, not just the well-used highways).
While you criticize smart growth as being a subtle form of coercion, you say nothing about current practices which are just as coercive.
Your are correct that present zoning etc. does include an element of coercion. However, most of the requirements that you criticize are not a major issue because they only reflect what people would choose in any case. For instance, businesses want parking because it allows easy customer access to their business. I suspect the intent of parking minimums is usually to prevent businesses from depending upon their neighbors parking lots. People generally don’t want their neighborhoods densified, but that could be handled through other methods.
If you truly believe roads are are “highly subsidized” you either haven’t been reading the blog, or you don’t care to know the truth. Roadway subsidies are dwarfed by mass transit subsidies. This difference is even greater if you look at it on a per passenger mile basis.
“Bogart: Essentially, people are willing to trade off the inconvenience of mass transit only if there’s enough speed in return. There was a very short period of time when technologically that was feasible, and it dated from the late 1800s until about 1930.”
That’s not really true. People will pick the best form of transport overall. To pick three examples, both up-to-date. Ferries (transit) are slow, but (obviously) float better than cars (private transport). Airplanes (transit) don’t go door to door, but they are fast and can cover ground that cars (private transport) would struggle with. Elevators (transit) are often more convenient than walking up the stairs (private transport), even if it’s almost as quick or quicker to walk than wait.
That’s before we get to mixing forms of transport.
DS: What are SG and NU…[a]lso, it’s funny that you should say that our current patterns are a historical anomaly,
Smart Growth and New Urbanism.
The built environment patterns of human settlements changed little until after WWII. How humans moved about these settlements changed more, depending upon if you were behind a wall or not, and then depending upon your wealth. The big change in transport for individuals came with the steam engine, then the internal combustion engine. I also offer that with the advent of internal combustion, cities became even more dirty and noisy (despite the efforts of the Social Gospel and other urban reform movements), making the countryside look attractive for more than just readers of Whitman, or admirers of Olmsted or Capability Brown descendants.
Nonetheless, one can also observe that transport in modern Anglo settlements differs widely today, in terms of mode split and other factors such as enabling infrastructure and the live-work gap.
Lastly, rationalitate, I have much to say about Euclidean zoning and its attendant issues and consequences, and the implicit defense of it here, in order to maintain the status quo (which I suspect validates the ideology and I think elimination of Euclidean zoning is bad for certain ideology maintenance).
DS
“Lastly, rationalitate, I have much to say about Euclidean zoning and its attendant issues and consequences, and the implicit defense of it here, in order to maintain the status quo (which I suspect validates the ideology and I think elimination of Euclidean zoning is bad for certain ideology maintenance).”
— DS
Sorry for my ignorance. Would Euclidian zoning be what is commonly found in major US cities today? So the sort of planning process that allows urban NIMBYs on one hand complain about sprawl and talk about how cool NYC’s / Boston’s / Vancouver’s density is while on the other hand opposing any zoning changes in their neighborhood that would, for example, allow an 8 story apartment building to go up next to the LRT station? Even though they know in general if you don’t go up, you’ve got to go out? And even though they know about the public good and they know the best spot for that sort of density is in a place where it can best utilize transit? Just trying to throw out some examples to get an idea; just curious. Thanks.
Your are correct that present zoning etc. does include an element of coercion. However, most of the requirements that you criticize are not a major issue because they only reflect what people would choose in any case.
Uh, excuse me? That’s absurd. You’re trying to tell me that this was unnecessary, because no one wanted to build on more than half of their property, anyway? I live in an extremely expensive suburb (Philadelphia’s Main Line), and I can guarantee you that if zoning regulations were lifted, a ton of developers would rush in to build very tall buildings. Land here is in very short supply, and very expensive, but the shortage is entirely artificial – there is tons of land that’s zoned residential that could easily fetch orders of magnitude more money if unlimited development were allowed on it. Similarly, even the commercial land could go for much more if developers didn’t have to worry about adding enough parking spots and didn’t have height limits on their buildings.
For instance, businesses want parking because it allows easy customer access to their business. I suspect the intent of parking minimums is usually to prevent businesses from depending upon their neighbors parking lots.
Ridiculous. Of course there are reasons why people would want to put in parking, but if the reasons were enough to get them to do it, then why would you need to force them? There is no way to counter that argument – “the law doesn’t count because people would have done what the law said anyway.” Then why in the hell do they keep passing these laws??
People generally don’t want their neighborhoods densified, but that could be handled through other methods.
??? But those people don’t own their neighbors’ land, so why should they have any say in what happens to it? I personally would like every house within a quarter-mile of me gone so that I can live on a bucolic pasture. Or, better yet, I want a light rail coming up to my house! Why is your demand – “neighbor, don’t run a business out of your home, and don’t build higher than three stories!” – any less absurd than the demands of smart growth advocates? (Answer: it’s not; they’re both equally absurd.)
If you truly believe roads are are “highly subsidized†you either haven’t been reading the blog, or you don’t care to know the truth. Roadway subsidies are dwarfed by mass transit subsidies. This difference is even greater if you look at it on a per passenger mile basis.
Per passenger mile? What does that tell me? Wouldn’t per trip be a better estimator? Environments with cars inherently involve much longer trips. So even if costs per passenger/mile were half, if the density was one-quarter of what it would be, then the actual subsidy for roads, practically speaking, is twice as much as for mass transit. And please, can you give me a statistic that includes subsidies for all forms of roads in the USA? Because the only statistics I’ve seen on this site (which, if you look at the amount of comments that I’ve been posting recently, it’s obviously that I do read!) are for highways. And, last time I looked outside my window, there wasn’t a highway running by my house – there’s a small little road that was paid for out of property, sales, and income taxes!
“People generally don’t want their neighborhoods densified, but that could be handled through other methods.”
I disagree. If they did, why would TODs require subsidies? Why would Lakewood, CO hand over $100 million in subsidies to build Belmar? If the market was demanding that sort of development, why the need for the subsidies?
If the people why did the citizens of Minneapolis fight a proposed 13 story building in Uptown (Lagoon and Hennipen) tooth and nail? Why did people in NW Denver fight to have over 100 acres of land rezoned from r-2, allowing for multi-unit housing, to r-1 (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/may/05/downzoning-blues/)? Why do so many cities and mature suburbs have people fighting scrapes; scrapes that frequently involve taking out an existing single family home to build a duplex, tri or quad? Seems like some people want these but many do not.
Though you can have tax loop holes for other kinds of development too, you’ll have jursidictions competing for industrial zones.
Rationalitate…â€ÂUh, excuse me? That’s absurd. You’re trying to tell me that this was unnecessary,….
I can guarantee you that if zoning regulations were lifted, a ton of developers would rush in to build very tall buildings….â€Â
A side point…
Certainly, if your neighborhood were the only one to withdraw from mandated low density, it would certainly fill up with high density projects pretty soon. However, if things were liberalized across the board and thus any demand for high density were spread out across the country then I doubt that there would be so much demand for high density, that every urban area becomes high density.
If every low density neighborhood in America were filled with 4-5 story appartments, the US population would have to grow to 4 times the population of China in order to occupy all the dwellings available.
Why would Lakewood, CO hand over $100 million in subsidies to build Belmar? If the market was demanding that sort of development, why the need for the subsidies?
You need to look at the subsidies. Are they subsidizing things that developers don’t want to pay for, such as parking garages, consistent architecture and materials, particular roadway sections, amenities? I’m not defending subsidies per se, I’m questioning the rationale behind the knee-jerk.
And wrt West Highlands and Sloans Lake neighborhoods, a lot of these scrapeoffs are McMansions as well, crappifying the character of the neighborhood as much as the duplex on the corner**. The Market (TM) is building these structures. If you are advocating the NIMBYism in this case when you decry it in others, then you need to step back and reconsider your position.
Lastly, let me point out that while I seemingly disagree with Ettinger on every issue, his point in 15 is essentially mine as well.
DS
** To me, extra crappifying it as the GF and I like it in that area and will soon start making offers on houses thereabouts.
If every low density neighborhood in America were filled with 4-5 story appartments, the US population would have to grow to 4 times the population of China in order to occupy all the dwellings available.
Given that over half of Americans live in the suburbs, and given that these suburbs are served largely by roads that are not paid for with user fees, if land use and transportation were liberalized, living in these places would become a whole lot more expensive. This is likely where the bulk of the new population in cities/inner-suburbs (which would quickly densify) would come from. Suburban housing prices would plummet – it wouldn’t be pretty, but creative destruction as described by Schumpeter is a necessary force in a market economy. This is the main reason that I think what I’m calling for is entirely out of the question within our lifetimes in America. That having been said, we need to admit this disturbing truth to get to a place where we can begin to dismantle the auto-welfare state and return the country back to its market roots.
However, if things were liberalized across the board and thus any demand for high density were spread out across the country then I doubt that there would be so much demand for high density, that every urban area becomes high density.
All areas would not densify. Faced with the choice of densification in new exurbs and far-out suburbs and experiencing the same density in an already-established city/inner-suburb, people would likely abandon the really far-out sprawl and move back to the city. And like I said, this is not a minor point: cities would fill up with the roughly 150 million Americans who leave the suburbs/exurbs. Because what’s the key to real estate, anyway? Location, location, location. And once you take away the artificial cheapening of low density patterns from the suburbs, all you’re left with is a shitty location.
1st”Why would Lakewood, CO hand over $100 million in subsidies to build Belmar? If the market was demanding that sort of development, why the need for the subsidies?”
“You need to look at the subsidies. Are they subsidizing things that developers don’t want to pay for, such as parking garages, consistent architecture and materials, particular roadway sections, amenities? I’m not defending subsidies per se, I’m questioning the rationale behind the knee-jerk.”
Knee-jerk? I don’t get it…. I’m saying why $100 million to be able to build it? Why wouldn’t the developers just go ahead and build it on their own without the subsidies if the demand is there?
As for “parking garages, consistent architecture and materials, particular roadway sections, amenities” I don’t get the point. Again, if the market demand for that particular architecture was there, for those type of materials, for that specific sort of roadway and other amenties, why the need to subsidize it? Just local government in the back pocket of the developer? Maybe so but then why don’t we see the same sort of development go into Aurora’s Smoky Hills or Superior (near Boulder) or Windsor(Greeley/Loveland/Ft.Collins). Those are different markets for a Belmar-type development. So why wouldn’t some other developers not go ahead with it elsewhere if the demand for it existed?
rationalitate: “Given that over half of Americans live in the suburbs, and given that these suburbs are served largely by roads that are not paid for with user fees, if land use and transportation were liberalized, living in these places would become a whole lot more expensive.â€Â
Let’s assume you’re correct for a moment…
So basically, you’re saying that the remaining minority of city dwellers subsidizes the suburbanite majority. And that these subsidies are so substantial that, if these subsidies were ever removed, housing in the suburbian majority would become so expensive that suburbanites would abandon them en masse.
So, your argument is that the subsidy not only exists, but that it is also massive. Massive enough that even when the inherrent wastefulness of government redistribution is accounted for, the net effect is still a significant artificial cheapening of housing in the suburbs? I find that hard to believe!
While I cannot possibly know all the details of how city dwellers might possibly subsidize suburbanites (given the maze of government’s intervention into the free market) I do find hard to believe your hypothesis. I can see how a suburbanite who only rides a bicycle may provide a mild subsidy to another suburbanite in his same neighborhood who chooses to drive (local road maintenance, road related police activities as you mentioned). But how does a city dweller subsidize a suburbanite to the massive extent that you claim, as to make his otherwise expensive housing, cheap?
Sure enough, when government seriously interferes with the market (as may be more the case in Europe) then everybody ends up subsidizing everybody, while government and its bureaucracy take a cut for providing mostly inefficient redistributive services while at the same time government employees extol and propagandize the virtues and value of regulation and redistribution.
However, in this particular case, I still suspect that most of the subsidies are flowing from suburbanite to city dweller. Tell me where you see subsidies going the other way, and I would be glad to put them on my undesirable subsidies list.
I’m saying why $100 million to be able to build it?
Because cr*ppy-looking surface lots cost ~ 2k a stall whereas garages cost ~24-33k.
I don’t get the point. Again, if the market demand for that particular architecture was there, for those type of materials, for that specific sort of roadway and other amenties, why the need to subsidize it?
In most cases in most places developers will do the cheapest thing. The cheapest thing is not consistent materials, signage, etc across an area.
DS
Rationalitate is talking about an economic game of chicken or who will blink first. Also even from a automotive perspective indoor parking tends to draw a further client base than out door parking despite it’s high up front cost. Much as LRT draws more clients than BRT and is cheaper to operate.
LRT does not cost less to operate than BRT. LRT’s operating costs may be less on a per passenger basis. Annual operating costs don’t include the up front capital costs incurred to build the project. LRT’s up front costs are commonly 3 times more than BRT.
A good example is from a few years ago. A study was done on the Central Corridor in Minnesota. The route would connect the 2 downtowns & the University of Minnesota. It would have a tunnel at the UofM. Both BRT and LRT would use this tunnnel, they’d both serve essentially the same route and they’d both have separate right-of-ways. BRT’s cost to build was $240 million and LRT’s was $820 million. That is LRT cost over 3 times as much to build. That would’ve been a $580 million savings up front for BRT. The estimated annual operating costs were, IIRC, $38 million for both.
LRT on the Central Corridor would carry more passengers. And with annual operating costs being the same, it would cost less to operate on a per passenger basis. But that’s only if you throw out that extra $580 million up front. Spread that cost over 30 years, about the life of a line, and you’re adding about $20m a year to the costs of operating.
“I don’t get the point. Again, if the market demand for that particular architecture was there, for those type of materials, for that specific sort of roadway and other amenties, why the need to subsidize it?”-me
“In most cases in most places developers will do the cheapest thing. The cheapest thing is not consistent materials, signage, etc across an area.”
That’s the thing, they’ll do the cheapest thing…. but only if it sells. They’ll do what the market will let them get away with. So where is that actual market-based demand for these things? In a way, I don’t care that much about things like Belmar. I just don’t understand why people claim their’s this huge demand for them and yet I see the developers taking huge subsidies for them.
Then again, compared to where I live in the city, TODs and developments like Belmar strike me as “urban lite” or “faux city” or something like that. You go live in some “dense” spot that’s plopped down out in the middle of no where. You have have a couple chain bars and resteraunts withing stumbling distance, and because chances are you don’t work downtown you live a lot closer to work but still drive instead of taking transit. Well, not that bad but I don’t get the appeal for them.
Back in the Air Again?
Ok.
Why drink and drive. When you can smoke and fly!