Build!

Yes indeed if you oppose building a bigger building on the SW corner of 14th and U (right now there's a rinky-dink one story development there) you're a bad person and desperately need to stop being ridiculous. One of the great things about Washington, DC is that our Metro system is pretty good. And part of the very essence of making a pretty good Metro system viable over the long run is that in the immediate vicinity of Metro stations you're going to want to have big buildings and dense developments. That's just how it works. If you don't have dense development near transit, you can't have viable transit systems.

It's so incredibly frustrating to see time-and-again proposals to hear talk about how Americans "don't want" to live in cities or use mass transit or whatever else and then turn around and see tons of examples of situations where people certainly seem to want to build high-density structures and are confident that others would rent or buy space in the structures. Obviously, not everyone is going to want to live that way, but evidently many more people would like to than are currently allowed to.

Comments

Back in the pre-notability-requirement days I created a Wikipedia entry for YIMBY. After working in property development for a couple of years and watching many friends leave San Francisco for no other reason than housing costs I really feel that few things should be more important to under-30's than ending the insane restrictions placed on urban growth.

The really crazy thing is that many high-rises cost way less per square foot in labor and materials than sub-6 unit buildings, or irregular infills, in addition to being the most efficient use of land.

Our boomer parents will go down in history as the first human society to exile its own children. We have gotten used to the idea that having a place to live should be insanely expensive, but by far the biggest cost in any development is local government (ie, content incumbents) permission to exist in a given place. I would love to hear your thoughts on the studies of Harvard profs Edward Glaeser and Joseph Gyourko, which I think are pretty conclusive to that effect.

Posted by Timon | November 30, 2007 5:22 AM

I've never understood the logic of anti-urban rhetoric either. If people "don't want" to live in cities, why are the cities so full of people? That's what makes them "cities," no? And if the people want to be there, why not spend a little money on helping the cities work well?

Posted by Karl Weber | November 30, 2007 5:48 AM

It is simple supply and demand Matt. The fact that the supply of dense urban housing is limited (probably less than a dozen cities in the US), and enough people desire that sort of living. Thus you see the purchase price rise. Look at Manhattan. The cost of rent in Manhattan is astronomical, because demand far outstripps supply. This alone tells you that people in America want dense urban living in a car free environment. Where can you get that outside of New York? Maybe DC, Boston, and Chicago. Where else?

So really, from my point of view local governments are preventing the free market from shaping housing. The free market dictates that more dense transit oriented urban living should be built, but communities stubbornly build low density car dependent housing.

Posted by freddiemac | November 30, 2007 9:31 AM

Hi density development does not have to mean hundreds of forty-story buildings, designed for luxury use by single people. "Quality of the built environment should not be sacrificied in the interests of efficient development" --see below.

Row houses and four-to-six story buildings are also high density.

The best practice is mixed use and conservation of existing buildings, with input of community, quality of life, lighting, ventilation, and historical factors taken into account.

As I understand it, these at least are the rather mild conclusions of a study of development in (mega-)dense Hong Kong:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/m7043q381r3673k3/fulltext.htmlRecommendations

In response to the findings of the questionnaire survey and the data analyses, numbers of recommendations for improving the environmental sustainability can be made. Before defining the scope of the urban renewal programme, it is suggested conducting a survey to identify total numbers of buildings that can be rehabilitated with reasonable efforts and affordable expenses, and those that should be preserved to retain original positive identity of the renewed area. Once the relevant information has been gathered, the next step will be preliminary design of the renewal proposal.

In order to establish a vibrant living, business and leisure environment, and to secure an efficient and effective uses of scarce land resources, it is recommended having a proper mix of uses including office, residence, retail, welfare service, entertainment, etc. performing in mutually supportive manner. But bearing in mind that quality of the built environment should not be sacrificed for efficient land use and high density development. Hence, it is proposed to conduct natural lighting and ventilation assessments before finalizing the renewal schemes. Natural lighting assessment is valuable to assess whether ingress of natural sunlight is maximized by passive solar design and efficient energy consumption for artificial lighting and cooling is achieved while ventilation assessment is crucial to determine the effects of the redevelopment proposals on external air movement for achieving a good micro climate and an acceptable macro wind environment, and to promote better layout of building blocks. In addition, traffic impact assessment should be carried out for large scale renewal projects to assess additional traffic generated by the renewal project, and work out workable measures to minimize its loading on existing transportation systems. So as to encourage the construction industry to contribute towards environmental sustainability, the Government can consider providing various forms of incentives e.g., tax reduction, bonus development potential, direct subsidy, etc. when the developments have incorporated designs/installations reducing future consumption of natural resources and/emission of pollutants.

Furthermore, to increase the acceptability of the urban renewal programme, adequate time for reviewing the preliminary proposal design by the local citizens, practitioners and other concerned parties, and necessary amendment and refinement have to be allowed.
8 Conclusion

This study has highlighted the importance of different urban design considerations in achieving environmental sustainability of an urban renewal project. Six critical factors were extracted by exploratory factor analysis on 30 variables produced through a combination of literature review and pilot study. These factors that formed a basis for evaluation of the environmental sustainability of urban renewal projects include “Land Use Planning”, “Quality of Life”, “Conservation & Preservation”, “Integrated Design”, “Provision of Welfare Facilities”, and “Conservation of Existing Properties”.

It is believed that such evaluation of critical factors based on the perceptions of different stakeholders who design, build and use the urban fabric can strengthen the understanding of local developers, urban designers and government officials on the interrelationships between spatial and physical characteristics of an area and its environmental qualities which are very helpful in planning local urban renewal strategies in future.

Of course, to ensure that best practices of urban renewal projects can be established and effective strategies can be prepared for improving project performance in future, further studies should be launched to identify the critical factors for enhancing other sustainable values i.e., economy and social equity, and to verify the applicability and reliability of the factors.
Acknowledgements This study is supported by research grant provided by the Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Posted by Harold | November 30, 2007 9:53 AM

Philly. I live in a neighborhood of 2-3 story rowhouses ~1.5 miles from UPenn and City Hall. I walk almost everywhere.

Posted by Matt B | November 30, 2007 10:11 AM

Yes, the idea that everyone hates cities and public transit is rather badly undercut by the empirical fact that dense cities like NY, San Francisco, etc have astronomical land values -- because there's a huge demand to live there!

Anti-city rhetoric is, I think, a legacy of the industrialization era when cities really were unpleasant places (for 98% of us) with horrific grime, poverty, overcrowding (which is very different than density!), etc.. Today, (some) conservatives continue this distaste for cities because of their awful liberalness, decadence, dark-skinned people, etc..

This bias against cities can be seen in the low priority given to public transportation spending, over-representation of rural areas electorally, and terrible pro-suburban planning practices that discourage dense growth and encourage gobbling up land for sprawling low-dense growth. It's really a disaster, both for the quality of urban life, and environmental issues like global warming.

Posted by gregh | November 30, 2007 10:49 AM

How about some of the issues addressed in this article from the November Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200711/housing

Posted by Joe | November 30, 2007 11:38 AM

It's not so much that people don't want to live in cities, but that they people who already live in the cities don't want more people. My suburban L.A. neighborhood is close enough to urban to have a Red Line subway station nearby, and the new, Mayor-supported proposal to develop the area around the station with a combination of residential and offices and retail is driving my neighbors batty. They have their little slice of near-suburbia with lawns and picket fences, and they don't want their "peace" disturbed by other people who have as much right to live, work, and shop there as they do. NIMBY is a bitch.

Posted by bobbo | November 30, 2007 12:20 PM

In Massachusetts, we have anti-snob zoning (MGL 40B), which, in essence, relieves developers of a municipalities dimensional (density and height) restrictions if the municipality is short of the state-mandated inventory of affordable housing and a proposed development is going to add to the stock.

I think that a similar Smart Growth law should be in effect, that a developer should be relieved of density limits in proximity to transit stations. Transit is a state resource that provide a benefit to cities and towns. The state should be able to mandate that its resource doesn't get squandered by anti-density laws and processes.

It's not enough to promote Smart Growth with incentives. It's time to mandate it.

Posted by Sean | November 30, 2007 12:22 PM

I live in a city, near a subway, and favor cities and high density development -- of predominantly under four-storey buildings, mitigated by parks and other open public spaces. I am against development that predominantly benefits real estate developers and construction companies, whether McMansions or limitless numbers of closely packed together 40-storey-and-up one-bedroom luxury condominiums in the city.

I also would like to see a lot more investment in public transport. Here in NYC there is very little public transportation within boroughs (other than Manhattan) or from borough to borough.

Hi-rises are not benign. They are among the biggest contributors to global warming and polluting emission, not to mention light pollution, a dreadful scourge. Hi-rise living is not good for mental or social health, either.

And finally, the manufacture of concrete is also highly polluting as I understand it.

According to the LAT:

Developing a hotter L.A. High-density development can create 'urban heat islands' that may add to global warming. By Ali Modarres September 9, 2007 Los Angeles' accelerating quest to create centers of higher population density -- especially downtown, in Hollywood and in Mid-Wilshire -- may be on a collision course with California's crusade to slow global warming by reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. And the potential trouble comes from an unlikely source -- buildings.

High-density development is usually considered environmentally friendly if it occurs near subway, rail or bus lines, and people can abandon their cars to get around. But unless people actually do take advantage of public transit and reduce their energy consumption, the environmental costs may outweigh the benefits.

One effect of high-density development that can potentially increase energy consumption is a phenomenon known as the "urban heat island." This is principally caused by the construction materials -- brick, concrete, asphalt, stone and other substances -- used most often in building central cities. Because these materials retain heat and cool slowly, they raise the ambient air temperature and make central cities a few degrees warmer than rural and suburban areas. For instance, the temperature difference between Phoenix and its outlying areas can be upward of 10 degrees. The difference is even more pronounced at night because rural and suburban areas have fewer buildings, less concrete and asphalt and more vegetation, and thus cool faster.

Packing taller residential buildings closer together to increase density, without making room for significant areas of green space, such as parks or shaded plazas, only worsens the effect.

This is not an earth-shattering revelation. Researchers have known about the effect of the urban heat island on ambient air temperature for more than 100 years. More recently, however, heat-island studies of such cities as London, Athens, Tokyo, Beijing, Phoenix and Los Angeles have not only shown the problem worsening but have documented the rising level of energy consumption associated with it. The greater the density and the less green space nearby, the more severe the urban heat island can become.

Current research does not suggest that urban heat islands directly contribute to global warming. But they may be a factor in another way. The amount of greenhouse-gas-producing energy needed to operate buildings -- heating, cooling and lighting them -- makes up a significant portion of our overall energy consumption. Any phenomenon that increases the urban heat island effect -- such as more high-density development without consideration for green space and energy efficiency -- could potentially result in still-higher energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, primarily because of the greater use of air conditioning.

Just how much energy do buildings consume?

According to the Energy Department's 2006 Building Energy Data Book, 39% of primary energy in the U.S. is consumed in buildings, accounting for 38% of annual carbon dioxide emissions. In addition, 68% of all energy consumed in residential buildings -- houses, apartment buildings, condo towers and so forth -- goes for heating (space and water), cooling and lighting. This energy consumption produces 66% of carbon dioxide emissions of all U.S. residential buildings.

Higher-density development, because it might worsen the urban heat island effect, could increase such energy consumption, especially the amount of energy used to cool high-rise apartment and condo complexes.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-modarres9sep09,0,6650654.story?coll=la-sunday-commentary

Posted by Harold | November 30, 2007 1:46 PM

Harold,

The article you reference makes dodgy use of statistics. "Buildings" is a catch all term that includes both high and low density buildings. How much more energy do high density buildings use? That is not stated in the article. However, given that NYC is one of the greenest cities in America, it is doubtful that the heat island effect isn't anything more than a scare tactic from Pulte.

Posted by freddiemac | November 30, 2007 2:10 PM

for complete article go here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/11/nyregion/11carbon.html

Buildings Called Key Source of City’s Greenhouse Gases --By DIANE CARDWELL-- Published: April 11, 2007 -- Correction Appended

Laying the groundwork for a plan to reduce the production of greenhouse gases in the city, the Bloomberg administration released a study yesterday showing that New York’s roughly 950,000 buildings are responsible for a vast majority of the city’s carbon dioxide emissions.

In sharp contrast to the national average of about 32 percent, the city’s buildings are responsible for 79 percent of the greenhouse gases produced by the city and are being cut each year, according to the study, conducted by the city’s Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability. Transportation systems, including mass transit, cars and trucks, are responsible for most of the remaining 21 percent of the emissions, which are considered a major factor in global warming.

The release of the inventory marked the first concrete step in Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s ambitious effort to set the city on a greener path as it plans for the addition of one million residents by 2030. In December, Mr. Bloomberg outlined goals to help guide the city’s growth in a more environmentally sound way, including reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent.

“Even though New Yorkers already generate less than a third of the carbon emissions that the average American does, we can and we must do more,” Mr. Bloomberg said in announcing the results of the study at a news conference in Lower Manhattan.

Officials said that the inventory was a critical tool in understanding the sources of the city’s emissions so that they could better devise strategies to reduce them. Still, they declined to provide details on how they would accomplish their goals, saying that the mayor would reveal his proposals on Earth Day, April 22.

“We know that we have to dramatically rethink the way we work with buildings,” said Daniel L. Doctoroff, the deputy mayor who is overseeing the 2030 plan. “We know that on-road vehicles produce 18 percent of carbon emissions from this city. We have to deal with that problem if we are going to reach the 30 percent reduction.”

Mr. Doctoroff said later that he had expected buildings to produce closer to 60 to 70 percent of the total, meaning that vehicles account for a smaller part of emissions in the study than officials originally estimated. Even so, many environmental advocates and business leaders say that it will be nearly impossible to ease traffic congestion, which has both environmental and economic consequences, without enacting some sort of pricing restrictions in the busiest parts of the city.

.....
The report did offer some clues to approaches the city might pursue. According to the report, which broke out a separate analysis of government emissions, the city has already managed to reduce its emissions by roughly 446,000 metric tons a year. Its efforts have included using cleaner fuels, buying energy-efficient equipment, planting street trees and increasing the use of alternative fuel and hybrid vehicles.

That, the report said, shows that these methods are effective and support “similar actions across the private sector.”

Based on 2005, when the city’s total greenhouse gas emissions were 58.3 million metric tons, officials said that New York was responsible for 1 percent of the country’s emissions, putting it on a par with countries like Portugal and Ireland. But the report noted that its levels were relatively low when measured per capita, coming in at 7.1 metric tons per person, well below San Francisco, at 11.2 metric tons, and the national average, at 24.5.

The report said that this is because less energy is needed to heat, light, cool and fuel buildings in the city because they are more densely packed and homes are below average in size. In addition, the city’s public transit system allows fewer New Yorkers to drive.

Mr. Bloomberg also announced that the city would play host to a meeting about climate change in May, with mayors from more than 30 of the world’s largest cities, including London; Paris; Tokyo; Moscow; Istanbul; and São Paulo, Brazil. The meeting is being organized by the Partnership for New York City, a business group, and the Clinton Climate Initiative, a project of the William J. Clinton Foundation.

Correction: April 13, 2007

Because of an editing error, an article on Wednesday about a study showing that New York’s 950,000 buildings are responsible for a vast majority of the city’s carbon dioxide emissions referred incorrectly to those emissions. According to the city’s Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability, the volume of greenhouse gases produced citywide is rising — not being cut — each year.

Posted by Harold | November 30, 2007 3:43 PM

If I remember correctly, the Reeves Center was specifically placed where it was in order to stimulate growth and development along U St - specifically at the 14th and U core. It's unbelievable that now that it is actually happening that it is being opposed.

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | November 30, 2007 3:45 PM

Many people want to live in or near big cities because that is where the jobs are (so highest paying, biggest variety, etc.). Some of these people actually like cities so live in them, but some prefer instead to live in the suburbs and just work in the city.

Basically, people are attracted to cities because that is where the money is. It is not that cities have inherently some kind of attractive built environment. (Although Paris does, at least inside the Peripherique. Unfortunately London does not, except in the odd spot.)

In England poll after poll has shown the majority of people prefer to live in suburbia or rural areas. On the other hand, young people often prefer cities because they are more likely to meet a partner there than elsewhere. (They might put it differently, by saying there are more nightclubs, etc., but it amounts to the same thing.) Unfortunately, bloggers tend to be young people, and haven't yet realised that young people are not typical of the population as a whole.

And although many urban planners believe that taller buildings are somehow "better" (under various criteria), are these same people going to say that we should all be living in 120 storey tower blocks, or are they going to claim that there's a magic storey count above which you should not go, or are they just going to accept reality and understand that height is only one consideration when evaluating whether a building makes sense.

Funnily enough, most (but not all) people are conservative about their built environment and don't like to see it change. You should see the hysteria engendered in England whenever *any* new housing development is proposed. Of course a convenient side effect of this conservatism (well, convenient for these people) is that it entrenches the privilege of the propertied class.

But there should be some rules, including zoning rules. Otherwise anyone can just come into your neighbourhood and wreck it. Whether the zoning rules make sense is another question.

(The zoning rules in large parts of England do not make sense. On one side of an arbitrary boundary called the Greenbelt, land is worth circa ten thousand dollars an acre, and on the other side several million dollars an acre. It has caused lots of corruption whereby plots of land are magically moved from one side of the border to the other. Indeed, the one and only significant incident in the current Labour Party funding "scandal" is exactly of this type.)

Posted by wab | November 30, 2007 4:04 PM

"Basically, people are attracted to cities because that is where the money is"

If that is true then why is real estate in Manhattan so much more expensive than real estate in Brooklyn? The numbers don't correlate. Maybe money is attracted to cities because that's where the people are? Seems more logical to me.

Posted by freddiemac | November 30, 2007 4:22 PM

ummmm. . . the metro in DC is terrible. Everything about is is terrible. It never comes, shuts down at midnight, and goes nowhere you want to go.

So no, it's not "pretty good"

Posted by Bucky | November 30, 2007 5:14 PM

Real estate values are high because there are strong financial incentives to speculate. The system is rigged in favor of big developers and the consruction industry. It does not make for a healthy quality of life or for good schools that serve everyone.

Germany, with its more regulated market, discourages real estate speculation.

Posted by Harold | November 30, 2007 5:35 PM

One fear cancels another

Many folks where I live (Reston, VA) are up in arms about high density projects planned as a response to the Metro line that will soon (hopefully!) be running through our little non-town. "There's already too much traffic on our streets!", they shout. I like to counter with a prediction, that seems, if anything, too modest, that gas will be $5 a gallon in five years, and $10 in ten years; after which I ask whether the traffic problem in ten years is likely to be that there's too much of it, or too little of it, way out here in Reston, 20+ miles from the center of the metro area. It seems to me that dense developement, proximity to a Metro, and ways to get to the Metro that don't involve burning gas, are the three things that we will need in ten years if there is to be a non-ghost-town here in Reston. In ten years, we'll be looking, not for new roads, but to transform some of the roads we already have into pathways for bikes and electric scooters to the Metro stop and associated stores, and most of the people now trying to shout down these dense developements will be trying to move into one of them.

Posted by Glen Tomkins | December 1, 2007 2:19 PM