University of Minnesota planning professor Richard Bolan has responded to the Antiplanner’s critique of the Twin Cities’ Metropolitan Council’s plan to emphasize high-density housing and discourage large-lot single-family homes. My op ed pointed out that planner Arthur Nelson’s predictions that the demand for single-family homes was declining were based on oversimplified surveys that asked people questions like would they want to live in a “walkable community.”
A lot more factors are at work in people’s housing choices. “Given a choice between a 1,400-square-foot home on a tiny lot in a congested part of town for $375,000 and a 2,400-square-foot home on a large lot in a quiet suburb for $295,000,” my op ed said, “most people would prefer the larger home.” My point was the issues were too complicated for planners to be able to see what people would want 26 years in the future, and since homebuilders can adequately respond to changes in demand, there was no need for central planners to try to predict the unpredictable.
Bolan admits that he’s “not a supporter of Arthur C. Nelson’s report” on future housing demand. But Professor Bolan has his own reasons why central planners should try to determine people’s housing choices in the future: externalities.
“The buyers of the suburban home soon discover that to get to work they must endure 30-40 minutes of traffic congestion each way, so that an hour or more of each wakeful day is pretty much wasted,” said Bolan. “And, of course, moving in congested traffic at 5-10 miles per hour also burdens the community with significant amounts of air pollution (as well as burning gallons of a nonrenewable resource). As time goes on, the suburban homeowner may have problems with septic systems malfunctioning or flooded basements as water resources become contaminated.”
First of all, most of those aren’t externalities. The time to travel to work, home maintenance, and waste disposal are all factors people consider when they make their housing choices.
Second, most of these things aren’t even serious problems anymore. In Bolan’s defense, he is an emeritus professor, so he may not be aware of the fact that the world has changed since the 1960s. Most suburban workers work in the suburbs and don’t spend a lot of time in traffic getting to work; average commute times are well under the 30 to 40 minutes Bolan mentions.
buy sildenafil no prescription http://appalachianmagazine.com/navy/ These all versions contain same ingredient hence all provides effective results. Erection will not be lost for 6 appalachianmagazine.com sildenafil uk buy hours after consuming this pill. Students are familiarized with the ultimate best buy on cialis examination by rewarding specific questionnaires. Most men around the world experience erection problems, which is considered to cialis for order be the most common sexual disorders experienced by millions of men.
Air pollution has been controlled at the tailpipe. The average car on the road is 92 percent cleaner than the average car in 1970, while new cars are 99 percent cleaner than cars made in 1970.
Malfunctioning septic tanks? Somebody better tell the professor that virtually all suburb homes are hooked up to sewage treatment systems, and those that aren’t are due to a conscious decision by planners to deny people services, even if they are willing to pay for them, in order to discourage “sprawl.”
According to Bolan, these imagined negative externalities justify plans to restrict single-family homes and funnel more people into pack-and-stack housing. It never occurs to him that there may be more effective ways to control externalities–sewage treatment plants, catalytic converters, congestion road pricing.
Worse, Bolan never considers that compact cities generate their own negative externalities: unaffordable housing, loss of privacy, noise, far more congestion and more concentrated air pollution than the suburbs, and in many cases higher rates of crime. Sure, you might be able to walk to a grocery store, but if you confine yourself to shopping at stores you can walk to, you will pay more for a limited selection of goods.
Meanwhile, we know that baby boomers aren’t moving out of their homes and into apartments like Nelson and other planners have predicted. Moreover, the Antiplanner’s faithful ally, Wendell Cox, has just published data showing that the percentage of Millennials living in urban cores is declining. More than 80 percent of Millennials live in suburbs or exurbs, and the fastest growth of Millennials is in the outer-ring suburbs and exurbs. This contradicts Nelson’s argument that planners should force more compact development because that is what young people and empty nesters supposedly want.
So we come back to the question: Why should regional planning agencies try to control future housing? These agencies were originally created to disseminate federal funds to various parts of their regions, and that might still be a reasonable job for them so long as the feds are handing out such funds. But twenty-five-year plans are beyond their capabilities, so they rely on fads rather than reality and end up doing more harm than good to their regions.
“Why plan housing?”
Because to a government planner, these are the dearest words:
“All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state”
First of all, most of those aren’t externalities.
Like Mr Bolan wrote, [Randal] has clearly been exposed to Economics 101,[but[ not studied much beyond that… more broadly educated economists….
DS
The Antiplanner wrote:
According to Bolan, these imagined negative externalities justify plans to restrict single-family homes and funnel more people into pack-and-stack housing. It never occurs to him that there may be more effective ways to control externalities–sewage treatment plants, catalytic converters, congestion road pricing.
Randal, there is another problem with the transit-oriented nirvanas that are being marketed in much of the United States that usually does not get the discussion it deserves.
Beyond the points you validly raise above, these plans nearly always assume that highway users (in other words, people that drive those motor vehicles that Professor Bolan claims to dislike so much) are going to fund all or nearly all of the capital costs (and frequently a big chunk of the operating deficits) of the rail and bus transit lines proposed to support such land use.
These agencies were originally created to disseminate federal funds to various parts of their regions, and that might still be a reasonable job for them so long as the feds are handing out such funds. But twenty-five-year plans are beyond their capabilities, so they rely on fads rather than reality and end up doing more harm than good to their regions.
I agree and respectfully disagree with the above [full disclosure: I work for such an agency, but do not speak for them here]. I agree that at some point, such plans do get “fuzzy” in the future. But the data that come from such planning processes are useful anyway – and that includes informing plans to build highways and other capital improvements, be they funded by federal, state, local or private dollars (or some combination of same). If the plans, even those that look out 25 or 30 years, are honestly and transparantly developed, then I believe they are a useful thing to do.
“More than 80 percent of Millennials live in suburbs or exurbs, and the fastest growth of Millennials is in the outer-ring suburbs and exurbs. This contradicts Nelson’s argument that planners should force more compact development because that is what young people and empty nesters supposedly want.”
That does not follow. Couldn’t it be that they want live in an urban setting but can’t afford it? Think why urban residences are expensive (hint1: it’s not because evil planners are propping the prices up). (hint 2: supply and ____)
“That does not follow. Couldn’t it be that they want live in an urban setting but can’t afford it? “
In the mind of a planner, the fact that 80% of the population chooses to live in a particular way is not indicative of anything, except that he has secret knowledge that they would all like to live ANOTHER way but it’s just so expensive that planners must continue to subsidize half empty condo’s in downtown until Millenials fess up and admit they all want to live in the Big City.
I see city-haters like Metrosucky just can’t restrains themselves from venting their rage and hate upon those who happen to disagree with them, regardless of the facts.
At least unlike many posters here, The Antiplanner isn’t a hypocrite and moved away several years ago from the cities he doesn’t like to live in; heck, even Bandon, OR, population 3,046, was way too busy for Randal!
Perhaps unlike Metrosucky et al who apparently hate Portland so much but can’t seem to get around to moving out of the area for some reason. Hey, Metrosucky, I know of some trashy burgs in the Mojave Desert where you’ll fit in with the sidewinders and jackrabbits. If you don’t like California, there is always the Arizona side of the Colorado River where they also have Gila Monsters.
I don’t live in Portland, pathetic moron msetty. I live in a Seattle suburb. And your attack is beyond ridiculous (hypocrite???), considering you spout off the mouth about how wonderful the city is BUT live miles away from the nearest town.
I don’t hate the city, I just don’t think planners should rearrange everything to turn all cities in some fantasy Manhattan nirvana. Very (not) clever of you and other planners to pretend the suburbs aren’t even the city; only 500 foot tall towers in Manhattan, where you don’t live, are the city, right microsetty? Do you HATE the city too? Why don’t you live in the city??? Not enough money? Too small dick? Too big anus? Hypocrisy? Please speak up and be heard. Do tell us the reason you are a hypocrite.
Seattle, Portland, whatever. Doesn’t undermine my point.
So, Metrosucky, why are you a city-hating hypocrite, even if you claim not to be?
You’re a hypocrite because you apparently make a living in an urban environment, but also hate said urban environment. As I said, The Antiplanner is clearly someone
I don’t live in San Francisco, Oakland, or Berkeley because far too many people want to, thus bidding up the price of housing beyond what is affordable, and leading to a huge shortage of affordable, walkable urbanism not only here and almost everywhere. What part of the market mechanism don’t you understand, city-hater?
…As I said, to finish my sentence above, The Antiplanner is clearly someone who is not a hypocrite, even if he is a city-hater. At least he had the ability to move to a rural burg consistent with his beliefs. Modern internet technology, e.g., working remotely for CATO et al also helps.
And, yes city-hater Metrosucky still hates on Portland.
Hell, Metrosucky is too chickenshit to let us know who he really is, going by the obvious city-hating handle of “Metrosucks.” Last time I looked, “metro” means “city” or “urban” and “sucks” is an epithet used by those who hate something that, well, “sucks” like apparently cities and most if not all things urban.
I don’t hate cities. I don’t want Manhattan everywhere. Planners like to create a bogus straw man where if one doesn’t love Manhattan, they “hate cities”. Thousand Oaks is every much as city as San Francisco. I understand due to the convenience of your facetious arguments, you pretend that only downtown counts as “urban”, but I never visit downtown Seattle.
Every Manhattan advocate sounds just like you, a big fat hypocritcal liar. I’ve heard it all now from these thugs:
“I prefer to have a yard”
“It’s too expensive”
“my wife won’t let me”
An entire newspaper ARTICLE (not editorial) was written on the hypocrisy of people like you, and the weak excuses they spew forth:
Do As We Say, Not As We Do
Smart growth’s biggest boosters still love suburban living
And so on and so forth. Very weak. If you are such a successful planner consultant, you should be able to buy into a condo in Novato or Santa Rosa, much less San Francisco. BUT, guess what, we find YOU as far away from the city as possible. Might as well live on the side of Mt Shasta.
You are sad and pathetic msetty, no one is fooled by your bullshit excuses.
And btw, not only are you a shit-eating hypocrite, you are stupid, too. The METRO in my moniker refers to the despotic regional government in the Portland area. For someone so well versed in government bullshit and terminology, this should have been obvious to you. It has nothing to do with how I feel about cities (I happen to like cities, which may come as a huge surprise to a moron like you).
Folks, must we get in to a flame war loaded with expletives?
metrosucks, I generally agree with you (and was able to infer long ago that the metro part of your posting handle refers to Portland Metro, and not (for example) to the Washington, D.C. regional transit system (WMATA, or Metro for short), even though there’s a Facebook page called Unsuck DC Metro (hey, maybe there should be a Unsuck Portland Metro or Unsuck Tri-Met)). But I don’t think you do your cause any favors by using that sort of language (and I understand full well your passion).
msetty, I appreciate your contrary postings here. But I don’t see why you bring up Randal’s choice of where to live (or, for that matter, the housing choices of metrosucks). I think both can make that decision without any help from anyone here.
For the record, I am not the moderator, and nobody asked me to post this.
Metrosucks, you obviously are a moronic city hater because you can’t distinguish between Manhattan and everywhere else in urban America. I guess you think downtown Seattle is too much like Manhattan so you hate it as well.
I repeat, you also prove your idiocy, and cowardliness, by hiding behind an anonymous Internet identity. The word “Metro” can apply to many things, not just the regional government in Portland.
And your sense of “branding” is stupid and ineffective, too. You live in some hellhole of a Seattle suburb but vent your hate and anger on the Portland regional government!!?? Disconnect, there, twerp. Your city hating would have made more weird sense if your hatred was of King County Metro Transit, like its buses got in your way once in a while. But you've proven yourself to be such a pinheaded moron to make that connection clear. I presume you drive everywhere, but not in places where King County Metro buses get in your way, I suppose, so you don't hate them as much as Portland's Metro government?
By the way, Metrosucky, you’re no “Big Don.”
Big Don was a denizen of some Seattle suburb in early Internet daze circa 1995-2004, whose biggest themes were “hating Tacoma” and calling light rail “loot rail.” Big Don also always readily admitted that he was also a city hater, in addition to hating Tacoma and light rail. Don also had a sense of humor, and was always amusing and fun to argue with. Unfortunately, I think he’s either died or in a nursing home now.
As I said, Metrosucky, you’re no Big Don, who was a credit to the dark side of city haters.. Alas, you’re just a humorless punkass and ultimate a nothing.
CPZ, you might note that “Metrosucks” keeps calling me a hypocrite because I can’t afford to live in San Francisco (or most of the nice small towns in Marin, either). In this sense, where Randal and Metrosucks live is relevant. I don’t fault or criticize Randal for living where he does–for one thing, he’s very suited to being out in the countryside–so Metrosucky shouldn’t fault me for where I live, an outcome of some circumstances beyond my control (e.g., like everyone else during the Great Recession. So what else is new?)
As for flamewar, Metrosucks also suffers from the delusion that people who don’t agree with him, like myself, Dan and a few others here, are somehow morally suspect, e.g., “evil” or “elitist” planners, because they happen to like cities and urbanism, and realize that government has a legitimate responsibility in what some academics call “governance.”
For the record, I believe much of what passes for government planning during the past century has been a failure, especially things like “urban renewal.”
On the other hand, planning and funding of infrastructure is an essential and legitimate governmental function, even if the implementation of residential and commercial development is most effectively left to the private sector. And regardless of what the anti-urbanists claim, the growth and development of suburban America after World War II is THE case study of the power and effectiveness of government, even if turns out totally wrong-headed as I believe it is.
Of course, for my trouble, city haters like Metrosucks and others here call me a moral midget and moron for stating what I’ve concluded from the evidence. It’s also clear they can dish it out but can’t take it, like all aspiring (if failing) bullies.
And for the record, Metrosucky, you don’t intimidate me and I’m not going to shut up. If you have a rational argument, I will respond in a civil manner. When you throw mud, I’m throwing rocks.
Behold ladies & gentlemen. What we have here is the prototypical density advocate, screaming about how unfair it is that most people choose the suburbs to raise their kids and live in, how it must all be an enormous conspiracy by DR Horton and the Koch Brothers, and how everyone would only move to Manhattan like locations if prophets like msetty could break thru the sprawl propaganda and show them how wonderful the City really is.
Anyone who doesn’t want their entire metro area transformed into a Manhattan type dystopia is ridiculed as a “city hater”. The goals of smart growth are intentionally obtuse and vague, so as to hide the profiteering objectives of the numerous contractors and government agencies lined up at the trough. The opponents are denigrated and treated as sub-human.
All the while, the greatest smart growth proponents tirelessly berate us from their large suburban spreads, with nary an apartment building in sight. Hypocritcal??? No, it’s just personal circumstances you see! Nothing to see here!
metrosucks wrote:
All the while, the greatest smart growth proponents tirelessly berate us from their large suburban spreads, with nary an apartment building in sight. Hypocritcal??? No, it’s just personal circumstances you see! Nothing to see here!
There is more than a nugget of truth here. In Washington, D.C. and some of its suburbs, the loudest advocates for Smart Growth (especially densification and “protection” of low-density “rural” (read: “hobby farm”) areas live in single-family detached homes, often in those very same “protected” areas.
msetty wrote:
On the other hand, planning and funding of infrastructure is an essential and legitimate governmental function, even if the implementation of residential and commercial development is most effectively left to the private sector. And regardless of what the anti-urbanists claim, the growth and development of suburban America after World War II is THE case study of the power and effectiveness of government, even if turns out totally wrong-headed as I believe it is.
I recall very well that new suburban subdivsions were often advertised as “well-planned” by the (private-sector) developers like Levitt & Sons, who were putting up the single-family detached homes on greenfield sites in counties from Long Island, New York to Virginia.
Of course, for my trouble, city haters like Metrosucks and others here call me a moral midget and moron for stating what I’ve concluded from the evidence. It’s also clear they can dish it out but can’t take it, like all aspiring (if failing) bullies.
I do not consider myself a city hater, but I have no desire to live in a large municipality like New York City, Baltimore [city] or the District of Columbia – mostly because I perceive that it’s a lot of expense and hassle to reside there.
Cp, one thing msetty doesn’t know is that I used to live in the country, 40 miles from downtown portland and 10 miles from the closest store. I absolutely hated it and moved as soon as I could. The fact that msetty continues living where he does suggests to me that he really likes it, but admitting this would damage his smart growth shilling.
People like him should be thought of as glorified lobbyists, providing the cover for government agencies to foist unpopular planning follies on us.
I am interested in the questions that the planners ask to get the “data” they seek.
I think the Antiplanner is spot on when he brings up the issue of trade offs. Everybody wants walkable. But everybody wants everything that is nice. If the questions were phrased: do you value walking to shops? Do you value nice stainless steel appliances? Do you value a spacious bathroom? Do you like nice wood floors? Would you like nice neighbors or crabby neighbors?
What do you think people will answer? No- I want non-walkable and crappy appliances?
Ideally I would like a rural retreat where I can walk to shops and- this is true- I would get to have a pony.
Walkable/urban-rural with a pony. Now- having said this- who cares. You asked me what I want- not what I can afford. Dream vs. reality.
For many people, the attainable goal is a reasonable priced single family home with 1.5 baths, not a planner’s fantasy land of a cargo bike and a tiny house.
“Sure, you might be able to walk to a grocery store, but if you confine yourself to shopping at stores you can walk to, you will pay more for a limited selection of goods.”
Not only that, but you will be walking to the grocery store all the time. I drove to the market today and it took three trips from the car to bring everything in the house. Considering that I was only carrying stuff about 50 feet, I carried a lot more on each trip than I would have if I was walking from my home to the store. I figure the stuff I bought today would take five trips at least, if walking any distance at all.
Suppose it takes 10 minutes to walk to the store. Even if you know what you want when you get there and the checkout lines aren’t long, you’re looking at devoting 30 minutes to shopping, nearly every day. Who wants to do that? Not me. I’ll continue to drive and make one stop a week, thankyouverymuch.
Comrades, be calm.
It is time for one more five year plan, and this time beloved comrade planners, it will work.
For when the brilliance of New Soviet Man is truly set to work planning perfect futures for the proletariat, failure is not possible.
Why is it that the planners never seem to follow up and ask the people who live in the “planned” developments if they are happy, and like what had been planned for them? I suspect that those who advocate for planning have zero accountability for the mistakes and assumptions that have proven to be just plain wrong, so the situation continues to get worse for all being corralled into this infill development because nothing is learned from those mistakes. The “planners” continue to look at numbers but get a big fail for not engaging, and listening to, the people to learn if they made the proper assumptions.
It drives me nuts when somebody “academic” writes that people choose houses without thinking about the commute, or driving costs, or distance to stores, or everything else that people of course think about when deciding where to live. I suppose that issue could have been true with the first suburbs, but how many generations ago was that?
One aspect of housing that does not get enough attention is that the more neighbors you have, and the closer they are, the more likely it is you will get an obnoxious neighbor. And it only takes one obnoxious neighbor to make a neighborhood not worthwhile for a couple dozen other families.