Portland’s regional planning agency, Metro, recently released its 2014 Urban Growth Report, which projects that the region will gain 300,000 to 500,000 new residents between 2010 and 2035. The report suggests that it may not be necessary to expand the region’s urban-growth boundary to house those new residents because people are willing to live in smaller homes on smaller lots.
That’s an extremely distorted view of the future, says Gerard Mildner, an associate professor of real estate finance at Portland State University’s Center for Real Estate. In a paper titled, Density at Any Cost (which was also published in the Center for Real Estate’s quarterly report), Mildner argues that Metro’s report “distorts economic data and will lead the region to make decisions that will harm economic growth.”
Not only will Metro’s vision make single-family housing more expensive, says Mildner, it will increase the cost of rental housing. Contrary to claims that more people want to live in smaller quarters, achieving Metro’s goals will require “multi-billion dollar unfunded mandates on local government to subsidize housing and transportation projects.” Nor will Metro’s plans be good for the environment, since they will just lead a lot of people to move “from our region to places in the southeast and southwest United States where carbon emissions will be higher” because those places require more air conditioning and use more fossil fuels to generate electricity.
Oregon law requires cities and (for Portland) Metro to periodically evaluate whether there is a 20-year supply of available land for housing. But in 1993, Metro persuaded the state legislature to allow it to provide that supply through densification rather than by expanding the growth boundary.
This is the best possible aid for this type of cheap viagra levitra, the effect usually last for about 6 hours. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is one of the major problems faced by lots of names just like Kamagra, Silagra, and Kamagra oral jelly, Caverta, Zenegra, Zenegra, levitra sales online , and Forzest etc. In 2009, the company was found guilty of the largest health care fraud in US history and received the largest criminal penalty for the generic levitra no prescription illegal marketing of four of its drugs namely Bextra, Geodon, Zyvox and Lyrica. Firstly usa cialis you must achieve mental arousal. Metro’s report doesn’t cite Arthur Nelson, the University of Utah planner who doesn’t seem to understand basic economic concepts like supply and demand. But Mildner points out that Metro is capable of misusing those terms without Nelson’s help. Although Metro “uses the words ‘demand’ and ‘supply,'” says Mildner, in fact the “region’s urban growth boundary as paramount. Within [Metro’s planning] model, households and firms must locate within the UGB should any zoning capacity exist, even if that capacity can only be utilized at very high cost.”
Metro proposes to have 64 percent of all new housing be multifamily, while only 36 percent would be single-family. To justify this, Metro has “become fixated on the last five years of building permit data, when the national economy was in crisis, home values deteriorated, consumers lost confidence in homeownership, and the federal government was the dominant supplier of credit, largely for multi-family housing.” This led the agency to produce “an unbelievable housing production forecast.”
Even with overproduction of multifamily housing, increasing land and construction costs will force a 37 percent increase in real-dollar apartment rentals. This does not mean people want to pay such high rents; it only reflects the high cost of such housing and the lack of any alternatives, especially since single-family home prices will rise by 52 percent.
Even at higher rents, Mildner estimates that huge subsidies will be needed to persuade developers to build the high-density housing Metro wants. He estimates that Portland and its suburbs have provided nearly $2.9 billion in subsidies to nearly 89,000 housing units in transit-oriented developments to date, an average of more than $33,000 per unit. At that rate, given an average of 2 people per unit, housing another 300,000 to 500,000 people would cost taxpayers $5 billion to $8 billion more.
No thanks to urban planners, Portland is the microbrewery capital of the United States, which has made it attractive to a lot of young people. But anyone who thinks that Portland planning provides a model for their city or region should read Mildner’s report.
If you knock down a two thousand square foot detached house to build a six thousand square foot multi family building then the price of land as a share of the cost of the new units is higher than if you replace it with twenty thousand square feet of housing. Incremental growth is expensive if you aren’t adding to existing structures but are instead replacing them.
Why does the report assume such high costs for construction? They could be cut significantly with eliminated parking requirements.
There is nothing like no parking to make living, shopping and biking better.
Ten years ago when consultants came from Portland to Contra Costa county in the east San Francisco Bay they discovered that Contra Costa had a stronger urban growth boundary than Portland, higher transit ridership, and higher density. They tried to argue that money could be saved by building less parking only to find that even next to BART stations developers regarded units with inadequate parking as “unsalable” and the cost, at only $20,000 per parking space, low compared to the cost of a condominium at $300,000.
So parking does not cost that much when the cost of the land and increased per square foot cost of a multifamily housing is included.
So Portland can expect much higher housing cost, in multifamily units, many of which are hard to sell because of a lack of parking.
Also note that many of the planners promoting “higher density multifamily housing” live in single family houses. They try to say they are giving people a “choice” when in actual fact they are taking the choices away. After they get their own single family home.
One amusing phenomena is to point out that free parking distorts the market, which planners will readily agree to. Then say that all government employees should pay for their parking. Suddenly, at least in Contra Costa county, planners are explaining why they shouldn’t have to pay to park their cars.
Metro’s posture makes perfect sense once you realize its objectives.
Metro wants: (1) to preserve Metro for its own sake; (2) to increase Metro’s power (3) to arrogantly decide how everyone (except for the rich and politically-connected) must live.
There are many Metro’s around the country using taxpayer $ to control the lives of taxpayers – for our own good, of course.
During the Thanksgiving and Christmas holiday’s, we are spending a lot of time visiting with family and friends. When we do that, lots of parking around that resident, is a factor if we all can visit or not. When I came home Thanks giving night, my usually empty street, was full of my neighbors friends and relatives enjoying each others company during the holiday.
I’m also noticing, that strip malls, stores, bigbox and shopping centers that usually have plenty of parking, are nearly full ,as shoppers go about their business.
Parking is becoming a problem everywhere infill restricts parking, for new developments.
This entire future issue is predicated on a healthy economy. Given the impending currency collapse and the following numbers, does anyone really think they have a clear insight to future demand for housing in Portland?
Federal debt: 18,008,000,000,000
State debt: 1,199,000,000,000
Local debt: 1,911,000,000,000
Personal debt: 16,685,000,000,000
US total debt: 59,482,000,000,000
US unfunded liabilities: 115,822,000,000,000
Federal debt per taxpayer: 153,726
Total debt per family: 729,254
Personal debt per citizen: 52,239
Total unfunded liabilities per taxpayer: 988,700
Just wait until interest rates rise. When this house of cards comes crashing down and the debt has to be restructured, or more likely, monetized, just wait and see what population growth will be and what demand for housing in places like Portland will be.
For an inkling, look at the former Soviet satellites, particularly Bulgaria, right after the collapse of their economic system. Massive inflation. Massive unemployment. Sharp reduction in population growth.
It’s only a matter of time. Meanwhile, central planners keep on planning completely obvious to the coming catastrophe they are responsible for creating.
Well the planners have been planning lots of parking and overbuilt roads, so we’ll be fine in the coming depression, right Frank?
Paul giving a price per spot of 20k simplifies matters. For example, if planners require one parking spot per unit, and the lot can fit twenty units, but surface+one basement worth of parking can only hold 17 cars then adding three more would mean excavating another level, at a cost much greater than 60k. Or reducing the number of units in the building. Excavating a third level would cost even more than the second, the cost per spot increases each floor down you have to go. Parking minimums distort the market. Eliminating them doesn’t mean no parking spots will be built. But it increases the options for private developers, allowing them to build a greater variety of buildings as of right. Why is that a bad thing?
“overbuilt roads”
You’ve obviously never been to Portland or Seattle.
On a related note, it was recently announced that Big Birtha is still stuck in Seattle. A year now. And the pit they’re digging (and throwing taxpayer money into) to get to Bertha is also now stalled due to safety concerns. And the viaduct has consequently sunk an inch.
Central planning at its finest. It’s malinvestments like these that balloon debt and will lead to collapse.
If you’d like to make a serious comment about the coming economic collapse, I welcome it.
awhr, if planners only require one auto apace per unit, there will not be enough parking for their 2nd car or their teenagers car etc. Or their guests while they park their cars in front of their neighbors, adding tension to the neighborhood.
Sprawl not everyone drives, or has kids, or has people drive to their home. For those who do, they can buy parking spots if they need. Detached houses don’t own the street in front of their house, they don’t have a right to that parking. If they want guaranteed spots they can buy offstreet parking too. Why is parking the one area where this blog seems to support planners and government?
Parking minimums are necessary because otherwise residents then try to park on neighboring streets. Much of the parking minimum I have seen is from residents adjacent to high density development not wanting their own street parking used by residents of the high density. As soon as the neighborhood parking fills up then suddenly it is much more difficult to sell condominiums with limited parking.
I am all for the market working, but not if long time residents then find their own neighborhood compromised.
Interestingly, in the peoples republic of Berkeley where I worked ordinances back in 1971 were passed stopping conversion of single family home lots into apartment complexes. This was done because the neighbors found the quality of their neighborhood declined when high density housing was built.
“Sprawl not everyone drives, or has kids, or has people drive to their home.”
EVERYONE has people who drive to their homes, whether it’s UPS, FedEx, USPS, fuel oil delivery, utilities, grocery delivery, police, fire fighters, etc.
“Detached houses don’t own the street in front of their house”
Who else do we know who used to post here all the time going on and on and on about “the street in front of their house”? Hmm?
And of course detached houses don’t own streets. Houses are property; only people can own property. Property can’t own property. The absurdity certainly reminds me of that person who always went on about “the street on front of their house.”
Anyway, maybe people should own “the street in front of their house” so that they are directly responsible for its maintenance; it might be better than the city extorting them for property taxes and then refusing to repave non-arterial roads. No wonder we have some of the worst road conditions in the nation!
“they don’t have a right to that parking.”
Since parking is socialized by city government, they do indeed have a right to use that parking. But perhaps it would be better if they owned that parking and could rent it out to others if they didn’t need it.
“Why is parking the one area where this blog seems to support planners and government?”
This is an unsupported assertion. I think some people here would like planners and government completely out of parking and would prefer individual communities or property owners to make determinations and rules rather than planners and politicians.
Guess I should have read this:
“I am all for the market working, but not if long time residents then find their own neighborhood compromised.”
Rephrased: I’m all for the market working except I’m not, especially not in people’s back yards.
If long-time residents find their own neighborhoods have changed (to use a less loaded word than “compromised”), they are always free to sell their property and find a neighborhood that best suits them.
ahwr, only a small minority, in the single digit, don’t use the private auto in Portland to get around.
It seems the only thing planners are unable to plan for is, parking in Portland, as the city subsidizes density , infill , stack and pack developments.
As they tell us they are preserving our neighborhoods and livability!
If you force people to pay tens of thousands of dollars towards car ownership the marginal cost of owning and operating a car decreases significantly.
Frank detached houses are sold separately from the streets they front. When that changes then they can own the parking spots and be entitled to it. They could use them, rent them out, put up a food cart, a bench, whatever. It would be their property. But it’s not. So they have no right to those spaces. Try to auction off street space though, it would be a good idea.
“they have no right to those spaces”
Try to understand this. As long as government socializes parking and streets, people do have a right to park in front of their house. Or anyone else’s for that matter, despite the rude notes left on my car by Obama supporters.
Sorry Frank allow me to clarify. They don’t have an exclusive right to park in the spaces in front of their property.
As to your comment earlier
“EVERYONE has people who drive to their homes, whether it’s UPS, FedEx, USPS, fuel oil delivery, utilities, grocery delivery, police, fire fighters, etc.”
Firefighters and cops can block the street as they need.
Deliveries should be accommodated by dedicating streetspace to daytime deliveries. At night it can be parking for residents.
For fuel oil (mostly in the NE right?), where the truck has to get close to the building, you can have temporary parking restrictions in front of the building. Easy enough to schedule, just require 24 hours notice so people have a chance to move their cars. How often is that, once a season? Not hard to handle.
Parking supplies can be managed much more efficiently. You could have a private entity do it if you want too. If a private company was faced with more efficient usage of existing parking spaces or building expensive garages I think we know which they’d choose.
Sprawl I thought 14 percent of portland households didn’t own a car, not single digits? Why force them to pay for parking they don’t want to use?
Neighborhoods that do not have cars parked in front of them all day, are much more desirable.
I don’t miss having to pick up the garbage and dirty diapers, that are often left when they drive away, when I lived in a area that did not have enough parking.
ahwr,
14% in the small area of downtown maybe,
but I doubt that is the case for the city of Portland.
Sprawl the 2009-2013 ACS estimates 37,496 out of 250,133 (15%) households have no vehicle available for the entire city of portland. Smaller households are more likely to have no car available, and requiring that they do increases housing costs on a percentage basis much more than in larger units. And in larger units many still only have one car.
Why force people to pay for parking they don’t need and won’t use? This goes for commercial developments too. If they can do without it let them.
I’m not saying put in maximum parking limits, just quit distorting the market and get rid of the minimums.
When new condos or apartments are built and their parking problems spill into the neighborhoods. That is not caused by the few residents that do not have a car.
I lived without a car for a few years, after I bought a detached house. It was not that great near downtown with lots of Portland transit, that was not going, to where I was going, or when I wanted to go there.
But I don’t know anyone that does not need parking for friends, relatives, deliveries or someone working on their property. None of this would be a problem if the planners would stop rezoning areas, without the property owners consent, staking and packing Portland, using taxpayers subsidies to build the developments.
While 97% of Oregon is open space.
Sprawl if you or your friends need parking then provide it on your property. You don’t own the streets in front of your home, you have no more right to those spaces than anyone else.
“You don’t own the streets in front of your home”
At last we know that ahwr is the highwayman!
Frank how do you jump from my support of keeping a public resource available to the public and not reserving it for private parties to thinking I advocate violence?
ahwr you are proposing the developments without parking, own the streets, because they don’t provide enough parking for their developments.
The highwayman lives!
30 years ago the population center for children living in the City of Portland was in the Rose City Neighborhood located in NE Portland. Now the population center for children is a little south of Tualitin, Oregon – 15 miles south. Why have families with children chosen to move out of the Urban center, the supposedly most desirable place to live in the region? The population of children has stayed pretty stable, over the years, even though the overall population has grown considerably, but why have families chosen to leave the city center? Could it be the decline in the schools? Could it be the traffic congestion? Expensive housing, that offers poor value for the dollar? Could it be that the City of Portland isn’t a suitable place to raise children? Could it be that the promises of the Metro, Urban Growth Boundary, Public Transit haven’t delivered the Utopia that was promised?
Sprawl: If they want guaranteed parking they should have off street spots. Same for new and existing residents.
ahwr
New developments do not own the street and should not impose they lack of planning for parking, on the neighborhood they are moving into.
Our coastal community in San Diego is now becoming subject to what I am learning is “densification” that is seemingly part of a larger plan playing out in numerous locales. Thank you for you website and insight describing the realities of smart growth. I suspected slick marketing terms being bantered about are not nearly as noble as they sound. So far I have figured out the marketing double speak for One Paseo:
GREEN = $$$$ for developers and cities,
INCREASES PROPERTY VALUE=all houses and rentals nearby will become even more unaffordable, You will get less for more. Drives up the price of housing which will benefit me if I should decide to flee.
CONNECTED=the imaginary buses and imaginary light rail that are mere ideas scheduled for decades out do not exist, meantime will provide a small shuttle service for employees and everyone else need to drive cars to this non-connected destination.
WALKABLE =once you get there BY CAR you can walk around spending your money in urban fauxtopia created to leverage the locally affluent for upscale retail sales. I can’t wait to walk 2 miles and cross 9 fast moving lanes of traffic to get a cup of coffee and a taco and a boutique bauble. P.S. Anyone in San Diego knows the best upscale shopping is Fashion Valley or Southcoast Plaza
VIBRANT=the critical mass of retail and leasing space to make it mega profitable. I want to puke every time I hear vibrant.
COMMUNITY = you will be right on top of each other whether you like it or not. This lovely little haven has building heights and density never seen in our area and is completely our of character. It’s been described for those who would like to live a pseudo urban lifestyle in what is otherwise an eco-sensitive reserve and cherished beach environment. There is the village and prisoner towers for those inside the project and the rest of us will be in traffic prison just outside of it.
ECO-friendly=We have no transit, so the quaint new Main Street we’ve been told we NEED will require our real connected main street be widened to 9 lanes of 45-50 mph speeds with additional traffic lights to accommodate all the cars that will be required to reach this new un-connected destination. There will still be congestion of course, pollution and 27,000 more car trips per day. Not to mention the I-5 connects right nearby so this will add to the near stand still that occurs daily. Neighboring areas are and should be worried that people will traverse the roads paralleling the freeway during peak hours. This is no light matter and will affect tens of thousands in the neighborhood and north/south commuters on the 5.
BIKE & PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY = Hope you manage to make it across the street! Not more than a handful of our larger community are in walking distance and only experienced cyclists navigate our already 6 lane road.
LIVE, WORK, PLAY=Not really. The office workers will make enough money to afford to live outside the compound. The retail employees will not be able to afford to live in the prison “towers”. As for play, anyone that lives there will certainly venture out in their car to the beaches and non-contrived localities in the area.
COMMUNITY FEEDBACK=We have already all been paid off – top/down. These meetings are to make you feel warm & fuzzy & heard. Marketing insincerity and the process has left a terrible taste in my mouth. Even if this project were downsized appropriately, which would be acceptable, still not sure I would want to utilize it.
For all of this smart growth, we are being told we will have FINALLY HAVE A HEART when we were just fine heartless, a Trader Joe’s (ugh), a bowling alley, a few eateries, and probably a Banana Republic (which should probably be the actual name of this monstrous affair). As a county that is not known for being fiscally responsible, I have no doubt that this going to be a big oopsie later on.
Look forward to learning more from your blog and thanks for letting me vent. If this trend continues, not only will this affluent not reward fauxtopia with my hard earned money, I may well just leave San Diego and possibly even California. I have the flexibility of doing that thankfully.