“Implementation of Plan Bay Area will require the demolition of more than 169,000 single-family detached homes, or one out of every nine such homes in the region, according to table 2.3-2 of the draft environmental impact report. Any earthquake or other natural event that resulted in this much destruction would be counted as the greatest natural catastrophe in American history.”
The Antiplanner would like to think this is one of the better opening paragraphs that I have written in some time. My complete comments on Plan Bay Area are now available for download.
In reviewing my previous post on this subject, my friend MSetty made the good point that Plan Bay Area planners put that 169,000 home figure in terms of a change in demand. Although 56 percent of Bay Area households live in single-family detached homes today, by 2040 only 39 percent will want to, so say the planners.
I respond to this in my comments by saying,
Many customers prefer to buy these drugs online saving themselves the embarrassment of walking to the neighborhood pharmacy with a prescription for sildenafil prescription them. Your physician viagra uk without prescription will probably be the one particular to determine whether you should continue making use of the pill or not. In addition, people with diabetes should also avoid drinking coffee or tea before going to respitecaresa.org cheap viagra no rx bed. There viagra pills in canada is a vicarious quality of living through another person and always feeling neglected.
Table 2.3-2 uses the term “demand” to imply that, by 2040, people won’t want those 169,000 single-family detached homes. This, however, betrays planners’ lack of understanding of fundamental economic concepts such as demand. Demand is not a point and cannot be expressed as a single number such as 1,365,900 (the number of single-family detached homes that the DEIR says Bay Area residents will “demand” in 2040). Demand is a line that shows the various quantities of something that people would buy at various prices. If the government artificially makes something very expensive, then the quantity that people will demand at that price will be low. But this doesn’t mean, as the DEIR implies, that public preferences for single-family detached homes have changed.
Japan is one of the most crowded countries in the world, and also has an aging population that planners would predict would prefer living in multi-family housing. Yet 55 percent of Japanese households live in single-family detached homes. In order to fit 30 percent more people inside of more restrictive urban-growth boundaries, Plan Bay Area planners know they have to reduce the share of Bay Area households living in single-family detached homes to just 39 percent, or 16 percent less than Japan. So they use the subterfuge of “demand” as an excuse to do so.
The reality is that, if housing were more affordable, a far greater share of Bay Area residents would prefer single-family detached homes. The fact that Plan Bay Area proposes to subsidize densification of priority development areas shows that planners understand that, even at the Bay Area’s unaffordable housing prices, the demand for high-density housing is not sufficient to support the densification required by the plan.
The Antiplanner doesn’t deny that some people like to live in high-density, mixed-use developments. However, Plan Bay Area’s claim that more than 60 percent of the households in an American metropolitan area will no longer want to live in single-family detached homes by 2040 is simply not believable.
It is very revealing to me that apartment dwelling appears to be mandated for new residents, not for persons residing there now in single-family detached (and maybe even attached) dwelling units.
At the “Plan Bay Area Meetings” it appears that most people who already have their own single family home are quite happy to force other people live in multi-family units. Just keep asking the planners what they live in and they will explain that, yes, they live in a single family home, but we need to give people “choices”. Apparently meaning “choice” is forcing more people to live in high density housing. It also appears that most peoples definition of “urban sprawl” is houses built past their own home.
paul wrote:
At the “Plan Bay Area Meetings” it appears that most people who already have their own single family home are quite happy to force other people live in multi-family units. Just keep asking the planners what they live in and they will explain that, yes, they live in a single family home, but we need to give people “choices”.
The analog to the above is dozens of people showing up at a public meeting (haven gotten to the meeting location in single-occupant vehicles) to state their strident opposition to a proposed new highway or highway improvement project, because other people should be taking transit.
Apparently meaning “choice” is forcing more people to live in high density housing. It also appears that most peoples definition of “urban sprawl” is houses built past their own home.
Agreed. It’s also called “pulling up the drawbridge” as soon as a person gets themselves settled in a (usually suburban) neighborhood (sometimes it’s a lower-density part of a central city jurisdiction).
However, Plan Bay Area’s claim that more than 60 percent of the households in an American metropolitan area will no longer want to live in single-family detached homes by 2040 is simply not believable.
Then you’ll want to refute the source material. Give Chuck Nelson a call, see if he still stands behind his projections, then write it up.
DS
Has there been a study done on what type of housing planners live in? How many advocate density but live in SFHs? Would be interesting to know.
Wow nice big house, in the NW that is called a McMansion, honestly. But where is all the mixed use high density that Dan is so very fond of? Maybe it’s like his arguments, we have to accept the mixed use is there simply because Dan says so, even if our own eyes, and the numbers, say otherwise.
So if 60 percent of the people “will not want to live in single family detached homes”, why does the government need to do anything? When 60 percent of the people prefer a Big Mac over a Whopper, does the government need to take action?
Dan is right that planners don’t make the decisions, but I hope the planners in SF tell the politicians that government doesn’t need to plan to get ahead of market changes, and certainly doesn’t need to spend huge amounts of money on a projection.
1. How do these planners know what a significant percentage of anybody wants 30 years from now, when they don’t even know what a significant percentage of anybody wants 5 years ago when it’s well documented and surveyed?
2. Wasn’t Portland’s Mt. Hood Freeway cancelled based on a similar percentage of housing stock being demolished? I guess it’s okay to do that when it’s “smart growth.”
I do enjoy those who claim planners want to cram everyone into tiny boxes, yet live in large boxes themselves. It is useful and convenient for some to promulgate that hokum, surely.
DS
I do enjoy those who claim planners want to cram everyone into tiny boxes, yet live in large boxes themselves. It is useful and convenient for some to promulgate that hokum, surely.
As I have said, our eyes deceive us. What we see in Frank’s link above is really an expertly disguised mixed-use, high density development. For surely, a smart growth advocate such as planner boy would not practice “do as I say, not as I do”.
As I have said, our eyes deceive us. What we see in Frank’s link above is really an expertly disguised mixed-use, high density development. For surely, a smart growth advocate such as planner boy would not practice “do as I say, not as I do”.
Look again, MS. Dan tattled to the teacher and the photo–which had no identifiable information, like street names–has been removed along with a substantial portion of my comment. Anyone is capable of finding Dan’s resume (which includes his home address) and finding a satellite image of his mini McMansion and discovering the details of the dwelling on the Arapahoe County parcel viewer.
As long as Dan keeps spewing the same hypocrisy wrapped in rhetorical flourishes, I ain’t going nowhere.