Market Urbanism - Latest Comments

Re: Thoughts on The Power Broker and Government Roads

Eric — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 05:50:47 -0000

Exactly. Roads and parking require so much area that a car-centered city necessarily has low density and trips are longer. What matters to people is the cost per trip, and cars' lower cost per mile is balanced by a higher number of miles.

Re: NYC Market Urbanism Meetup Sunday, April 21

MarketUrbanism — Sun, 21 Apr 2013 00:11:38 -0000

Update: Per Stephen, we'll meet "outside of Crif Dogs at Driggs & North 7th...it's a specialty hotdog place (very Williamsburg).:

Re: Thoughts on The Power Broker and Government Roads

J B Taipei — Sat, 20 Apr 2013 10:34:19 -0000

Comparing passenger miles between cars and mass transit is misleading, because people who primarily use cars tend to travel more miles, since they walk (and bike) less and the distance of their trips is longer. More revealing would be a comparison of costs per trip. Furthermore, driving infrastructure tends to degrade the walking environment, therefore discouraging the cheapest form of transport.

Re: Thoughts on The Power Broker and Government Roads

Scott Beyer — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 13:51:07 -0000

Nice review of my 2nd favorite book, behind only Jacobs' "Death and Life", which was written in reaction to Moses...

It's spine-tingling to consider not only how his highways destroyed much of NYC, but what would've become of the city had he gotten his way completely. He was planning for a highway that would straddle Canal Street, connecting the Holland Tunnel and Manhattan Bridge; one that would extend into Midtown Manhattan from Queens; and one that would connect these two while streamrolling through Greenwich Village and Soho. This obviously wouldn't be the Manhattan we know today.

It's worse to consider that Moses was a consultant in other cities. He proposed highways that would've flanked the French Quarter in New Orleans; divided Portland's charming eastside; demolished well-functioning neighborhoods in Baltimore; and ram-rodded through ones like Fillmore and Pacific Heights in San Francisco. He had no regard for people or property, nor for the quality-of-life assets, like historic preservation and neighborhood cohesion, that actually make for strong city economies.

Re: Thoughts on The Power Broker and Government Roads

carlmilsted — Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:13:41 -0000

Eminent domain is theft. If we take the Biblical penalty for theft as our guide, then compensation should be double market value, not market value. WIth this as the baseline, landowners on potential routes might put up counter offers at somewhere between their current market values and double in order to get a partial windfall.

Re: Ranking State Land Use Regulations

Scott Beyer — Mon, 01 Apr 2013 11:35:37 -0000

The best example of how freedom ultimately effects the economy is the differences between Virginia and Maryland. Both are geographically and demographically similar, and both border the cash cow of Washington DC. So why is the economy of one rapidly expanding, while the other has one of the nation's worst job-creation records? Just look at their differing business climates and attitudes about freedom, as noted by this study...

Re: Ranking State Land Use Regulations

hamilt0n — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 15:26:57 -0000

I think we're getting to very weird territory on this. People sometimes forget that inland California is more like Texas than it is like Los Angeles. People near the coast call Fontana "Fontucky" for a reason.

If we're going to point out that the less-free places are where "people want to live" we should point out that enormous parts of the desirable coastal states are every bit as much flyover country as South Dakota.

Re: Ranking State Land Use Regulations

LetsGoLA — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 13:57:49 -0000

I want to preface this by saying I'm extremely skeptical of Mercatus' work. For example, is "freedom from tort abuse" 6x as important to an average person as "Occupational and Licensing Freedom"? Or is it 6x as important to a person who wants to make states with strong tort liability look bad? I can't help but think that the weights assigned to different variables are rigged to generate a predetermined outcome. When it comes to land use, "mandated free speech on private property" is basically irrelevant to what we are talking about here, and regulatory taking index and eminent domain are not as important as rent control and residential land use restrictions.

When I look at the map, I go a little xkcd on it. Basically they are telling me that it's hard to build stuff where there's already a lot of stuff built. Duh.

The issue with land use in America is pretty fundamental and universal: we only have one mode of development, sprawl, that is able to proceed at a pace fast enough to accommodate growth. And in places like California, sprawl mode is running into geographical limits like 10,000 foot mountains, as well as practical limits of tolerable commute distance. The fast-growing sprawl areas in LA now - the AV, Adelanto, Murrietta, Perris, etc. - are a good 60-80 miles from downtown, so transportation time and cost often negates the cheaper housing. Compare that to DFW, Austin/San Antonio, or Houston - you can go 20 miles from downtown and be at the edge. So sprawl is happening more quickly in Texas because it fundamentally makes more sense. The relevant question is: when Houston reaches the geographic extents of Los Angeles, is it going to be easier to densify Houston than it is to densify LA? My suspicion is no: people in SFRs in Cinco Ranch will prove to be no different than people in SFRs in Orange County.

I will say that it seems to me that MA/NY/CT are on another level when it comes to land use restrictions and NIMBYism. Your generic sprawl being built in Los Angeles is actually pretty dense - on the order of 4-6 DU/acre. Contrast that with the two-acre zoning of many MA, CT, and NY towns. Somewhat humorously, Deval Patrick gets accolades from some progressives for promoting a plan that would encourage developments of 4 DU/acre near transit stops.

(Note: the regulatory environment for sprawl in CA may not be great, but it's still probably easier than infill and densification. Despite what the CA doomers and TX boosters would have you believe, CA is growing; in fact, the combined LA/IE added more people than any other US metro last year. And though prices in CA are higher in general, I can easily find you a new suburban tract house for not much more than in TX. Difference is it will be 75 miles out, not 20.)

Re: Ranking State Land Use Regulations

Emily Washington — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 12:01:12 -0000

Yes, I think in large part land use reg is driven by local policymakers' NIMBY bases who haven't influenced policy as much in less developed states. I'd be interested in learning more about Louisiana historical land use policy though, as a state with some of the country's oldest cities. Maybe it has remained a low-regulation state because its cities' growth rates slowed before zoning became common?

Re: Ranking State Land Use Regulations

Dan Keshet — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 11:30:34 -0000

Is there any possibility that the "freest" places simply haven't codified laws because, in part, they don't need to? Here in Austin, TX, the state legislature is starting to take an interest in restricting development in Austin (see, e.g. http://www.austincontrarian.co... on the heels of many proposals for large buildings along the main commercial strip. If nobody had ever proposed building large buildings, there'd be no reason to pass a law prohibiting them.

Re: Many Market Urbanist Elements in DC’s Zoning Rewrite

Emily Washington — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 13:20:07 -0000

Thanks, I hadn't seen that post. I also thought this was an interesting article on the weird trend of planting trees on skyscrapers: http://www.slate.com/articles/... Another idea for "greening."

Re: Many Market Urbanist Elements in DC’s Zoning Rewrite

Marc — Thu, 14 Mar 2013 20:16:15 -0000

I agree with you on the GAR and think it's a symptom of the contemporary preoccupation with "greening" the city by ruralizing (i.e. suburbanizing) it, which is a uniquely - and futile - American preoccupation that actually goes all the way back to Olmsted.

The Old Urbanist is also quite critical of the GAR:
http://oldurbanist.blogspot.co...

Re: Developer size and development patterns

LetsGoLA — Tue, 12 Mar 2013 14:31:47 -0000

I don't have personal experience in terms of trying to get a project through, but it has been a hot issue. The director of planning basically proposed increasing the pain put on developers or putting a moratorium on development because they couldn't keep up with the flow of applications (http://la.curbed.com/archives/... ) but thankfully it looks like they will address the issue by expediting some projects (http://santamonica.patch.com/a... ).

I live in LA proper now but lived in SM during the last election cycle, and development was the main issue in local elections. I got a lot of election mailers for city council and planning commission urging me to vote for candidates who would put the brakes on development, endorsed by the usual coalition of environmental groups that claim to support smart growth (e.g. Sierra Club) and NIMBY groups with nebulous titles (e.g. Santa Monicans for Smart Growth).

Re: Developer size and development patterns

Emily Washington — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 21:50:22 -0000

Great comment. Do you have experience in Santa Monica development?

Re: Developer size and development patterns

LetsGoLA — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 17:15:46 -0000

Any large development is going to have one PM and therefore the entire project will have the same thematic elements. IMHO this is the most underappreciated issue in city development. I've commented on it at places like Streetsblog and Atlantic Cities without getting any response. The essence of the problem is:

1 - it's no coincidence that the majority of America's best loved urban neighborhoods, the ones that show the fine-grained fabric that people talk about, all predate zoning. Today, owners of small parcels can't pay the ante to get into the game. Impact fees, the need for zoning variances, permitting, etc. Things like zoning variances, conditional use permits, and environmental impact reviews are hassles for a large developer. For someone who owns an SFR and would like to build some ADUs or put up a small apartment building, they're an insurmountable barrier.

2 - what hasn't dawned on many people yet is that the type of urban development they want to see is impossible under the current zoning and permitting scheme. Even if small property owners could afford to overcome the regulatory hurdles, the city zoning/permitting infrastructure wouldn't be able to move fast enough, because cities don't have the resources to apply that level of scrutiny to so many projects. For example, Santa Monica's planning department recently slowed down development because they couldn't keep up with all the applications.

So not only is the price system a better way, it's the only way.

Re: Developer size and development patterns

Emily Washington — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 12:20:23 -0000

I agree that issues 4 and 5 that you point out are the primary concerns and contribute to banal development in ways that are not visible to residents unless they carefully follow the development process. As you've said, larger developers may be less likely to take risks, and by selling the entire site in one deal, the city and federal governments have introduced a conservative bias. Additionally, this deal like many large deals in DC, includes tax incentives for both the developer and tenants, making it more difficult for smaller developers to compete.

Re: Developer size and development patterns

benjaminhemric — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 20:07:12 -0000

Interesting and thought provoking post!

My initial reaction is that, as you seem to point out, there are five factors of interest in this case, which I would categorize and number as follows: 1) amount of single-ownership of property; 2) size / wealth of the landowner; 3) type / form of landowner (public corporation?); 4) government policy re sale of government property (as one unit, or smaller units); and 5) amount of government involvement (e.g., tax abatements, etc.) in a development, especially if it's a large development sponsored by a large corporation.

Off hand, factors [1] and [2] don't seem necessarily problematic to me. If a large landowner wants to buy a large piece of property and develop it as he or she sees fit, that might work out well or badly -- but it's a market decision nevertheless (unless the gov't treats it as a too big to fail situation). Also, owning a large piece of property allows the landowner to capture / retain positive externalities, perhaps making that developer more marketplace adventuresome.

More problematic, it seems to me, is that [3] a large landowner that is a public corporation might be more more conservative in general and more likely than not to favor large chains, etc., in particular.

Most problematic, so it seems to me at the moment, are [4] and [5]. In most instances, I think it's important that government try to avoid favoring large corporations or land owners and try as much as possible to break things up into small pieces (as there's an inevitable tendency for things to consolidate as time progresses anyway). And it's also very problematic, as you point out, when such developments get various forms of government assistance / aid, which they seem to often do -- especially when it's a large singly-owned piece of property owned by a large company.

Benjamin Hemric
Fri., Feb. 22, 2013, 8:05 pm

P.S. -- Interestingly, Jane Jacobs seems to praise large landowners, at least in limited instances, as developers of mixed use neighborhoods in one of the chapters (perhaps, even, the chapter on the self-destruction of diversity) of "Death and Life of Great American Cities." She discusses how one landowner who happened to own many properties along 8th Street, the main local shopping street, helped preserve diversity by purposely avoiding the destructive multiplication of the most profitable uses (one of which was, in those days, restaurants) by seeking out other uses (that, while not being able to pay top dollar, were nevertheless somewhat viable on a high rent street).

These days, however, the street is REALLY down in the dumps -- I couldn't believe my eyes when I walked down it a few weeks ago for the first time in a long time. But, I'm not sure if single-ownership of a large part of the street (which is still true today, but by a different single-owner) is part of the problem or part of the solution. Although it must be said the single-owner did seem to be somewhat less enlightened than the particular owner mentioned by Jacobs, the real problem, so it seems to me, is a drastically changed downtown environment. When 8th Street was booming, there was no SoHo (which is nearby), no lower Broadway / NoHo (which is even more robust in terms of the kinds of stores / theaters / restaurants that used to be on 8th Street); the nearby Ladies Mile, which was at one time a big department store shopping district that is again popular today for "big box" chains, was mostly sweatshops; the far West Village (near where Jacobs lived) was not booming the way it is today; Union Square was not nearly as trendy as it is today; and the Lower East Side was poor and catered to an entirely different market. So 8th Street today really has an immense amount of competition that it didn't have in the good old days.

P.P.S. -- But, of course, Jacobs also severely criticizes another type of large landowner -- the urban renewal developer -- especially with regard to to governement-aided, monopolistic commercial centers. It's almost easy to overlook this, though, because mixed uses are usually so pathetic in such developments you really don't even think of them as mixed use.

Re: Developer size and development patterns

OctaviusIII — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 12:07:16 -0000

Yeah, of course. Any time you have a large organization planning a neighborhood it ends up sterile. The hope is that, over time, the first tenants - like Chipotle - give way to more nuanced and interesting tenants. That would require years and years of waiting, but it could happen.

Re: Terrorism and cities, then and now

whiteknuckled — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 12:10:02 -0000

Weren't there actually federal guidelines in the original National Interstate and Defense Highways Act governing the distance of the new ring road interstates from the city centers, or did I imagine that? I thought I remembered reading that they were often sited at the distance they were as to be out of range of a direct hit on the city center to still facilitate evacuations...

Re: A Moral Case for More Immigration

Scott Beyer — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 03:06:00 -0000

Nevermind the economic benefits of high-skilled immigrants, which are evident. There is a moral argument for immigration that libertarians can get behind. It is is the belief that, while national borders are important, it should not mean the governments enforcing them should have arbitrary locks on who goes in/out. Of course it's their role to protect citizens from the bad apples. But if a free human agrees to enter a country, follow its laws, pay taxes, and contribute postively to society--aka most high-skilled AND low-skilled immigrants--why should bureaucrats dictate her fate?
And in response to Srijit: jobs are not "finite." Population growth produces growth in demand and production, and in the economy. Hence, job growth also.

Re: A Conversation about the Commonwealth of Belle Isle

James Brazos Cole — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 00:57:52 -0000

I'll revoke my US citizenship if they will drop the $300,000 initial payment.

Re: Randal O’Toole: “If you didn’t have those suburban restrictions, you wouldn’t have that pressure for density in DC”

Scott Beyer — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 17:57:34 -0000

It's funny how Randal proposes deregulation in one area, but not the other. You know, I think there's one bias that really defines him concerning land use. It is not conservatism or libertarianism. It is that he simply doesn't like cities. If you read between the lines of "The Vanishing Automobile", he is always complaining of the "traffic" and "congestion" of places like downtown Portland, and sneers at "planners" who want to increase density there. But when it comes to subsidizing sprawl, he makes nothing of it. So why, again, does he speak at dinners for the Cato Institute?

Re: A Trial of Zoning

SPZ2 — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 21:10:50 -0000

The conflict between the revised flood elevation requirement and zoning height limitations was resolved by an executive order issued January 31st suspending zoning height limits for buildings damaged in the hurricane:

http://www.nyc.gov/portal/site...

It was issued immediately after FEMA released revised flood elevation maps for NYC that are necessary for a homeowner to actually know how high they will have to raise their home. Until then they wouldn't have had the information necessary to undertake the project anyway. So I guess you could draw the conclusion the system works.

As far as your example of a business wishing parking requirements didn't exist, I'm not sure how to respond except to point out that regulations happen to have benefits, as well as costs.

Re: A Conversation about the Commonwealth of Belle Isle

John McDonnell — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 09:50:36 -0000

No they want to be a US territory like the Virgin islands.

Re: A Conversation about the Commonwealth of Belle Isle

Miles Bader — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 08:51:54 -0000

Are these people going to give up their U.S. citizenship...?