Dense

Two important posts from Ezra Klein, one on the enormous environmental benefits of even modest increases in residential density, and one the enormous happiness benefits of shorter commutes. Shorter commutes are, of course, facilitated by greater levels of residential density.

What's particularly astounding about this stuff, in my view, is that fixing the problem would hardly require some totalitarian density police to come around and force us to all live closer together. Instead, the main step we would need to take would simply be to allow people to build more densely if they want to. As a secondary measure, scrapping or limiting the tax code's weird and destructive subsidy of big houses would do some good. Everything Ezra mentions aside, I would also note that it's my observation that people (at least in the heavily-populated bad weather regions around the great lakes and the northeast) seem to systematically overestimate the amount of time they're going to spend in their yard.

Comments

On the other hand, as someone living in the DC area, you must be aware of the absurd lengths that people will go to have that single-family dwelling with a yard -- like all those folks who commute daily to DC from West Virginia! Here in the Seattle area, lack of developable space (partly zoning, mostly mountains) has put a premium on living "close-in," which has driven housing prices in the city beyond the reach of the middle-class, while making small fortunes for those of us lucky enough to have bought homes here in the past. The real solution to this housing/transportation crunch is to stop further polulation growth in this country -- which would also have very salutary effects on the environment, including our disproportionate contribution to global warming.

Posted by Traven | February 21, 2008 12:35 PM

Looks like denser may even be preferable for developers in Bethesda these days.

Posted by MattF | February 21, 2008 12:36 PM

Needless to say, that was supposed to read, "...further population growth."

Posted by Traven | February 21, 2008 12:36 PM

Having a yard you don't use is like buying books you don't read -- there's a psychic benefit just in possessing it (them).

Posted by Delicious Pundit | February 21, 2008 12:38 PM

as a resident of the "heavily-populated bad weather regions around the great lakes" who has a fairly short (15-20 minutes) commute, I would say that you dont necessarily have to spend time in your yard to enjoy having one.

Posted by Capt Howdy | February 21, 2008 12:39 PM

as a resident of the "heavily-populated bad weather regions around the great lakes" who has a fairly short (15-20 minutes) commute, I would say that you dont necessarily have to spend time in your yard to enjoy having one.

Posted by Capt Howdy | February 21, 2008 12:40 PM

as a resident of the "heavily-populated bad weather regions around the great lakes" who has a fairly short (15-20 minutes) commute, I would say that you dont necessarily have to spend time in your yard to enjoy having one.

Posted by Capt Howdy | February 21, 2008 12:41 PM

oops

Posted by Capt Howdy | February 21, 2008 12:42 PM

"fixing the problem would hardly require some totalitarian density police"

That's too bad, because "Totalitarian Destiny Police" would be a pretty sweet name for an agency, or at least a division within DHS.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | February 21, 2008 12:42 PM

Instead, the main step we would need to take would simply be to allow people to build more densely if they want to.

What's stopping people from building more densely if they want to?

As a secondary measure, scrapping or limiting the tax code's weird and destructive subsidy of big houses would do some good.

What weird and destructive subsidy? Do you mean the mortgage interest deduction? The value of that subsidy depends not on the size of the house but on its price and the way it is financed.

If people wanted more higher density housing, we'd have more higher density housing. They don't want it. You may want it, but your preferences are not the preferences of Americans in general.

Posted by Mixner | February 21, 2008 12:45 PM

Pretty much spot on, but I think you are forgetting the absurd lengths people will drive to get away from black people. I have seen this to be true in Detroit and other rust belt cities.

Posted by freddiemac | February 21, 2008 12:45 PM

Always nice to hear a Democrat, or a Republican, for that matter, clearly state that a problem might be alleviated somewhat by limiting the degree to which citizens are prohibited by law from doing that which they might prefer to do, if only their government hadn't stopped them.

Posted by Will Allen | February 21, 2008 12:45 PM

I would say that you dont necessarily have to spend time in your yard to enjoy having one.

**

on the other hand it is snowing like hell right now and being able to walk home would not be a bad thing.
still, the short trip is worth it even if I slide around a bit.
having said that I came here from LA where I had friends who literally spent more time commuting than working.

Posted by Capt Howdy | February 21, 2008 12:48 PM

"I would also note that it's my observation that people (at least in the heavily-populated bad weather regions around the great lakes and the northeast) seem to systematically overestimate the amount of time they're going to spend in their yard."

Spoken like a true New Yorker.

If you have a dog or a kid, a yard is a virtual necessity. Otherwise, you spend hours a week going to the park to find a safe place to play outside. And don't get me wrong -- I like parks. But being required to go every single day (sometimes twice a day) is an enormous pain in the ass.

Plus, if you have a yard, you don't need to have as nice of a house for entertaining purposes -- you just have people over in the back.

Though if you don't have a dog and a kid, then a yard really is superfluous. But, as Matt seems to often forget, the majority of people in this country have one or the other (and many have both).

Posted by Joe | February 21, 2008 12:48 PM

"oops"

Pazuzu made you triple-post?

Posted by Fred | February 21, 2008 12:49 PM

Traven, truthfully, a lot of preferences when it comes to housing are based on trends. For middle aged people in the 60s and 70s, it was considered the pinnacle of advanced housing amenities to have electric stoves and wall-to-wall carpets.

Yes, there are people in metro-dc who will go out to West Virginia in search of an acre of land and a home with a cathedral-ceilinged "great room." I'm sure they think this is just great. So does the kid wearing baggy pants with his boxer shorts sticking out.

Realistically, though, the real reason most people end up in more far-flung parts of the DC area is because not enough housing stock is built to keep up with demand created when jobs move into the area. However, the truth is, if no one were interested in living in denser neighborhoods like bethesda with SFH on smaller plots, then all of us could easily pick up a great deal. As it is, those sorts of neighborhoods are in such high demand that few of us can afford to live there.

Gentrification will create more of a political constiuency for better infrastructure in dense neighborhoods, and the ability of the wealthy to live in close-in, walkable suburbs will likely create a long term trend of middle-class home buyers demanding these sorts of living spaces for themselves in their desire to imitate the affluent.

Posted by Tyro | February 21, 2008 12:49 PM

Mixner, go ahead and try to put up some multifamily housing on a lot not zoned for it, and you will receive an education as to what is preventing people from building more densely, even when they want to.

Posted by Will Allen | February 21, 2008 12:50 PM

Mixner,

What stops dense building is not demand, but zoning laws that are influenced by low density builders like Toll Brothers and Pulte. As evidence, one need only look at the sky high demand for dense zoning in cities with density like New York and Chicago, and contrast that with the low demand for low density in places like Stockton California and Detroit.

Posted by freddiemac | February 21, 2008 12:50 PM

Exactly right.

That said, as someone who recently traded a short commute from urban, high-density living for a longer communte from suburban, lower density living, I think there's more to be said for yards than you are getting.

Posted by Al | February 21, 2008 12:50 PM

If you have a dog

**

or three like me.
the comment about getting away from black people is sort of funny.
that never actually entered my mind. and if it did I guess I would need to commute farther since I have black people on both sides of me.

Posted by Capt Howdy | February 21, 2008 12:53 PM

Conspicuously missing in the Ezra series is the one on enormous happiness benefits from increases in residential density.

Has MY ever had a yard? Has he ever used a lawn mower or owned power tools? I bet the closest Matt's ever come to yard work is that time he went picking apples. I'm just saying, if you don't want a yard, it's probably because you are only half of a real man.

Posted by Just Karl | February 21, 2008 12:54 PM

I think I underestimated the amount of time I'd be spending in my yard. Unfortunately, these extra hours were spent mowing, cleaning up fallen branches, raking leaves, etc.

So now I don't have a yard or a car, have a much shorter commute (a 1-mile walk), and am much happier.

Posted by gustav | February 21, 2008 12:54 PM

Pazuzu made you triple-post?

**

I guess. I have done this before and I only clicked once.

Posted by Capt Howdy | February 21, 2008 12:55 PM

What's stopping people from building more densely if they want to?

Ever hear of zoning?

Posted by Antid Oto | February 21, 2008 12:56 PM

"If people wanted more higher density housing, we'd have more higher density housing. They don't want it. You may want it, but your preferences are not the preferences of Americans in general."

Matt's and Ezra's point is not that people don't want lower density housing. It's that are brains are not hardwired to be able to compare the costs and benefits of (1) the tangible, affordable house that you are standing in when househunting and (2) the mental hardship associated with driving two hours a day, 250 days a year, for years at a time.

It's the same reason that savings rates are absurdly low, or why people run up a credit card balance on going out to eat. Given a tangible item in the here and now, humans are really, really bad at properly assessing the cost of the item that must be paid in the future, especially if payment is in installments.

Posted by Joe | February 21, 2008 12:56 PM

Capt Howdy,

They don't call it "white flight" for nothing.

Posted by freddiemac | February 21, 2008 12:57 PM

"What's stopping people from building more densely if they want to?"

Zoning that mandates minimum lot sizes, very low density unit-per-acre requirements, etc, and local planning commissions that can't say no to NIMBY homeowners who are against every type of development, but especially high-density residential.

Posted by too many steves | February 21, 2008 12:57 PM

Yards of course come in a variety of sizes. The modest increases in density Ezra discusses are based on 13 homes per acre for new builds (raising the national average density to 9 homes per acre). 13 homes per acre actually allows for small yards--not enough for each homeowner to host their own football games, but enough for dogs, playsets, and backyard parties.

Posted by DTM | February 21, 2008 12:57 PM

The real solution to this housing/transportation crunch is to stop further polulation growth in this country

This is not a fundamental solution. A population could be distributed in multiple, small, dense cities or in multiple, diffuse, large cities. If you can change the number, area and density of cities, you can accomodate more or less population. Obviously, global warming will always track per capita, but I don't really think population belongs in this particular discussion.

Mixner, go ahead and try to put up some multifamily housing on a lot not zoned for it, and you will receive an education as to what is preventing people from building more densely, even when they want to.

To be fair, the problem is that people don't want to live next to people who are willing to live in multifamily housing. It's not an expression of how people want to live. It's an expression of how they want their neighbors to live.

Posted by mpowell | February 21, 2008 12:58 PM

I find yard work a very zen sort of thing.
some people dont get gardening. I love it.

Posted by Capt Howdy | February 21, 2008 12:59 PM

What's stopping people from building more densely if they want to?

Most of the existing zoning laws in cities and other communities across the country.

If people wanted more higher density housing, we'd have more higher density housing.

Except for existing laws against it and planning ideas that held sway for at least the first 2/3 of the 20th century, and also the evidence shown by the relative cost of housing in densely-populated vs. less-densely populated areas.

Housing density is one of those odd situations in which conservatives find themselves advocating to keep market restrictions out of a knee-jerk reaction against the liberals in urban areas, and in denial of the vast entrenched network of government regulations and subsidies that allow for suburban sprawl.

Posted by Adam Villani | February 21, 2008 1:01 PM

I spent most of the first 25 years of my working life living stacked on top of other people in cities like NY, LA, Boston, etc. picking up dog crap twice a day.
never again.
yards for me.

Posted by Capt Howdy | February 21, 2008 1:03 PM

"Pretty much spot on, but I think you are forgetting the absurd lengths people will drive to get away from black people."

Is that anything like the absurd prices people like Matt's father will pay to keep their kids out of mostly-black schools?

Posted by Juan | February 21, 2008 1:04 PM

"The modest increases in density Ezra discusses are based on 13 homes per acre for new builds (raising the national average density to 9 homes per acre). 13 homes per acre actually allows for small yards--not enough for each homeowner to host their own football games, but enough for dogs, playsets, and backyard parties."

Yikes. I love my quarter acre of land. My smallish house is in the very corner of it (no front yard), so we have this ginormous back yard to play frisbee with the dog, chase the toddler, etc.

And the best part is that it is in a ritzy neighborhood of Denver, but because the house is older and not particularly posh (2300 sq. ft, but almost half of that is a finished basement), we paid less than people are paying for a new townhome or condo in worse areas. Heck, if we ever wanted, we could probably build a new house for $600k or so in construction costs, and then sell everything for just north of $1 million.

Posted by Joe | February 21, 2008 1:05 PM

Yes, mpowell, and being so concerned regarding how other people live, to the point that you will petition your government to prevent those people from living, by your estimation, in too small of a space, is mostly a very bad thing.

Posted by Will Allen | February 21, 2008 1:07 PM

"What stops dense building is not demand, but zoning laws that are influenced by low density builders like Toll Brothers and Pulte."

Or neighbors and the local schoolboard, who bear the externalized costs for high-density buildings in a low-density zoned area.

Matt, there are plenty of places where land for high-density housing is already available. They're call "cities." If urban living is so terrific, why do people leave?

Posted by Helter | February 21, 2008 1:07 PM

What stops dense building is not demand, but zoning laws that are influenced by low density builders like Toll Brothers and Pulte.

Zoning laws are under democratic control just like other laws. In areas where zoning laws prevent high-density housing, that's most likely because people living in those areas don't want high-density housing.

As evidence, one need only look at the sky high demand for dense zoning in cities with density like New York and Chicago, and contrast that with the low demand for low density in places like Stockton California and Detroit.

What sky-high demand?

Matt's and Ezra's point is not that people don't want lower density housing. It's that are brains are not hardwired to be able to compare the costs and benefits of (1) the tangible, affordable house that you are standing in when househunting and (2) the mental hardship associated with driving two hours a day, 250 days a year, for years at a time.

I think what people say they want and how they actually behave regarding what they want is probably a much more reliable guide to what they truly want than Matt and Ezra's opinion about what they truly want.

Of course, there are also other ways of reducing commuting times than higher-density housing, such as increased use of telecommuting and flexible work schedules.

Posted by Mixner | February 21, 2008 1:08 PM

I should give a shameless plug for the person who runs the blog Ann Arbor Is Overrated who has chronicled over the past few years the absurd lengths residents will go to in order use zoning laws to prevent denser, multi-family dwellings in a city that would otherwise be a natural choice for such pedestrian-friendly, multi-use density.

Posted by Tyro | February 21, 2008 1:09 PM

I should also point out that, as far as the yard discussion goes, yards are not necessarily part of the density equation. Dense does not necessarily equate mid-town Manhattan. Dense can be a condo with a community garden or greenspace. You can live dense and have a yard.

Posted by freddiemac | February 21, 2008 1:10 PM

My wife and I actually were leaning towards buying a downtown condo when we moved out of our apartment a few years ago. Ultimately we did buy a single-family house in South Minneapolis with a modest yard. I knew the deal-breaker would be when we had a kid, as we did a couple years later. Not only would it be a pain to shepherd him to somewhere nice outdoors (okay, it's been like 20 below zero for the last two months, but work with me), but his occasional 3 am crying jags wouldn't endear us to our neighbors.

We're definitely in the target market for high-density living, but I'm very glad we have an "inner city" where we can still easily enjoy outdoor life. As gustav correctly notes, it's mostly yardwork, but hey, you're still getting some fresh air.

Posted by Chilly | February 21, 2008 1:10 PM

I am not entirely sure it is fair to blame excessive commutes on people having trouble processing the tradeoffs.

In a lot of cases, you have a person working a job with little or no housing near that job that their income can support. So, these people have to live farther away from their job than they would like. And it turns out the only infrastructure around with the capacity to carry these people to their jobs is highways. Indeed, even if there are a few light rail lines around, these days the homes near the train stations may still be too expensive for many people.

OK, so now these people are basically forced to have a long driving commute in order to get an affordable home. Thanks to the fact that area goes up with the square of radius, it also turns out there is little marginal expense to them adding a yard onto this home.

Then along we come and blame them for making the choice to have a yard instead of a shorter commute. But in many cases, that really wasn't the nature of their choice.

Posted by DTM | February 21, 2008 1:11 PM

Traven's point about Seattle and housing prices is a little misleading--he seems to imply that geographical constraints have forced Seattle into dense development, when Seattle is not a particularly dense city (roughly 7,000 per square mile, less dense than SF, LA, Chicago, Baltimore, DC, Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, Buffalo). One could make a compelling case that the high cost of housing in Seattle is due more to the fact that roughly 70% of the city is set aside for single family housing (thus limiting supply) than it is due to any legislatively or geographically driven density. In fact, it seems a poster city for Yglesias' point about zoning holding back denser development.

Posted by Damon | February 21, 2008 1:13 PM

Gotta love Mixner-- it's not a government intrusion in creating the sort of housing people want to live in, it's a democratic process by which we prevent other people who want to build and live in denser (or smaller) dwellings from living in those communities!

The government is good when it engages is forced banishment of economic and lifestyle classes of which the zoning activists disapprove!

Posted by Tyro | February 21, 2008 1:15 PM

Mixner,

The sky-high demand is evidenced by the price of urban real estate in those areas, which is, in fact, sky-high.

Also, "zoning laws are under democratic control" is true in a technical sense, but it looks pretty false if you've ever closely followed your local zoning board or city council. It might look like "democratic control" when 100 people show up to stop a development, but don't forget, those are just the 100 people who don't have anything better to do than go to the planning commission meeting.

Posted by too many steves | February 21, 2008 1:16 PM

Democracy is overrated when it gets to the point that 50.1% of the population in empowered to tell 49.9 % of the population that they can't have a duplex or triplex on 7500 square foot lot. God save us from democrats who just know how people should live their live, right down to telling a minority that they aren't taking up enough space.

Posted by Will Allen | February 21, 2008 1:17 PM

"I think what people say they want and how they actually behave regarding what they want is probably a much more reliable guide to what they truly want than Matt and Ezra's opinion about what they truly want."

You miss the point. I don't think anyone would argue that people who want to live out in the far suburbs/exurbs don't really want to do that. The point is that the human bring is not properly equipped to undertake the cost/benefit analysis when comparing a tangible house that one is considering buying in the here-and-now, with the future cost of commuting long distances every day. We just can't accurately assess the value of the latter.

To put it slightly differently, let's say you asked someone on a particular day how much they would pay to cut their commute time by 80%. Multiply that sum by the number of days the person commutes a year. Add on gas and car wear-and-tear for the year. My guess is that the ultimate "commuting" charge far outweighs the benefits of living in a far suburb/exurb, measured by either how much something closer would cost, or by how much the person would need in order to trade his/her lower density housing for something more dense.

Posted by Joe | February 21, 2008 1:17 PM

In fact, Detroit leads Michigan in new housing starts and closings lately. The price of gas and re-investment in the city appears to be driving people back into the city.

Posted by yoyoyo | February 21, 2008 1:18 PM

Instead, the main step we would need to take would simply be to allow people to build more densely if they want to.

What's stopping people from building more densely if they want to?

The neighbors. Here in our neck of the woods there was a plan - really revolutionary for the typical suburban pattern of development here - that would have put 3,000 homes, plus commercial, on little more than 300 acres. The entire idea was both to facilitate the type of livability Matt and Ezra address, and to save farmland.

But guess what? The neighbors hated the idea, and ultimately got the township supervisors to scrap it. Because density, whatever it's merits, is perceived to foster (and probably DOES foster) a greater concentration of traffic, and thus gridlock. Those who live in a nearby McMansion on a half-acre say - maybe correctly - that the construction of newer, denser development will impact their property value. And the whole thing is just deemed "out of character" for the typical suburban setting.

Posted by Gil Smart | February 21, 2008 1:18 PM

Matt, there are plenty of places where land for high-density housing is already available. They're call "cities."

Cities have obstacles to higher density housing also. Ask any developer in NYC who wants to put up a large new project - say Bruce Ratner, who wants to tear down some very low density housing in Brooklyn and build thousands of units of much higher denisty housing. The zoning obstancles and lawsuits have taken years so far, and there still isn't a shovel in the ground.

Posted by Al | February 21, 2008 1:21 PM

Joe,

Somewhat obviously, as yards scale up, there is more and more you can do on your own land as opposed to shared land (e.g., a public park). And also obviously, the desire to do any particular activity on your own land varies with the person. So, it is perfectly reasonable for you to value your yard if you value being able to do a relatively large-scale activity like dog frisbee on your own land. But if your dog is lazy (or you are), then maybe relegating dog frisbee to the local park would make more sense.

Posted by DTM | February 21, 2008 1:21 PM

Mixner,

You asked "What sky-high demand?"

http://money.cnn.com/2007/07/02/real_estate/record_sales_in_new_york/index.htm

Posted by freddiemac | February 21, 2008 1:23 PM

Dense can be a condo with a community garden or greenspace. You can live dense and have a yard.

"Community garden." Ugh!

There see to be two basic memes here. One is the claim that the will of the American people regarding housing choices and housing regulations has been systematically thwarted for decades. The other is the claim that the will of the people regarding housing, as expressed in their statements and actions, does not reflect what they really want, because when it comes to housing they are hopelessly irrational actors whose behavior does not reflect what they truly desire.

Neither claim is remotely plausible, and no serious evidence has been produced to support either of them.

Posted by Mixner | February 21, 2008 1:25 PM

Will higher density really lead to shorter commutes? I see the logic, but on the other hand higher density equals more traffic. I live in an apartment-y neighborhood in the city two miles away from work, but it's a 45 minute bus ride home during rush hour. Most of that sub-3 mph action is because of all the other apartment people in the neighborhood clogging up all the streets as they drive home and look for parking. Living in a dense close-in neighborhood may make your commute shorter in distance, but all the density around you may make the commute longer time-wise.

Posted by George W | February 21, 2008 1:26 PM

Just to make this concrete, 12 houses per acre roughly amounts to a 60 foot by 60 foot lot (or 30x120, etc.)

Posted by vorkosigan1 | February 21, 2008 1:26 PM

yoyoyo,

I have a hard time believe that "Detroit leads Michigan in new housing starts and closings lately." This is due to the fact that Detroit is one of the leading foreclosure hotspots in the country. Who would ever build in a city with far more housing supply than demand? I've been to Detroit, and it is a fairly low density city with few amenities. Do they even have a grocery store there? Because for a few years there were no grocery stores or movie theaters in the city of Detroit.

Posted by freddiemac | February 21, 2008 1:27 PM

I would note that given the disaster that Chicago's public transportation is currently, I could move 10-15 miles out of the city and take Metra and have a shorter commute than I frequently do now from my home two miles away. Yes, I do walk to work a lot, but this is an issue for us in considering where to end up long-term. A shorter commute could actually be the location further away from the city.

Well that and schools.

Posted by Dariaclone | February 21, 2008 1:28 PM

Low-density development in this country has been a direct effect of transportation technology, specifically very cheap petroleum. this is what permits exurban sprawl, endless subdivision construction, two hour commutes (and not along rail lines, either, but in all directions), and other things like factory farming, long-range distribution of food and products, big-box retail, etc.

As gas gets more expensive, the trend will reverse, and people will no longer be able to maintain current development and living patters. This shift has already begun in boom-sprawl areas like Texas, Arizona, Nevada, California, etc.

Inevitably, residential patterns will contract (as will physical patterns of agriculture, distribution, etc.)

Zoning laws will be changes as this pressure increases.

Barring some magical Sci-Fi invention that will allow for the same individual mobility like we have come to depend on since the 50's and the same parterns of production and distribution of food and other goods, American society will inevitably contract back to patterns more closely resembling tradition towns, cities and villages, or at least shrink back to the more arterial (rather than evenly dispersed) patterns tied to rail and river and coastal transport.

It will happen.

Posted by cereal | February 21, 2008 1:29 PM

13 units per acre?

The next time they're in NYC, Matt and Ezra should hop on the ferry to Staten Island and see what the effects of their plans might be.

Posted by GthK | February 21, 2008 1:29 PM

I'll let you folks on the coasts ratchet up density. I moved to New Mexico to get away from that. I'm currently finding my town of 2000 feels overrun. I prefer my nearest neighbor to be out of earshot (maybe a half mile.)

Posted by ratfink | February 21, 2008 1:30 PM

Mixner,

You claim "Of course, there are also other ways of reducing commuting times than higher-density housing, such as increased use of telecommuting and flexible work schedules."

Prove it. Prove that telecommuting and flexible schedules have reduced commute times. I don't believe it, nor have I seen any evidence that it is true.

Posted by freddiemac | February 21, 2008 1:30 PM

Mixner's whole argument makes no sense. So what if zoning regulations are under democratic control? Does that somehow imply that those regulations are not creating artificial scarcity relative to demand for high-density housing? Of course not.

In fact, the only way this argument would make any sense at all is if the people who could hypothetically live in the as-yet-unbuilt housing were given an equal vote during the process of making the zoning decisions that led to their housing not being built. But of course they don't get a vote, because they are not yet residents there.

Or I guess it would make senze if zoning decisions were done on a state or maybe even federal level, in which case most of the potential residents would have a say. But I can guess what Mixner would have to say about that idea.

Posted by DTM | February 21, 2008 1:31 PM

I'll let you folks on the coasts ratchet up density. I moved to New Mexico to get away from that. I'm currently finding my town of 2000 feels overrun. I prefer my nearest neighbor to be out of earshot (maybe a half mile.)

Posted by ratfink | February 21, 2008 1:31 PM

Mixner, I believe your error is in thinking that there is a monolithic "will of the people". This often the case with those that overrate democracy, which is a means of discouraging diversity in thought and living practices, albeit not one as efficient as dictatorships.

Posted by Will Allen | February 21, 2008 1:36 PM

The question is, ratfink, how would you feel if one of your neighbors, maybe a mile away near the corner store, decided to split up his property and build a few houses on it?

Posted by Tyro | February 21, 2008 1:36 PM

Mixner,

The zoning process has been proven to be entirely un-democratic. The cities that foot the bill for new housing have no say over what sort of housing is built. For example, all the new roads, sewer lines, and schools for the Chicagoland suburbs were paid for by tax money from the city of Chicago. Yet Chicagoans were not allowed to vote on what sort of developments came about in the developing suburbs. This is true of all suburban developments, and this wasn't always the way it was. Up until the post-war era cities were allowed to grow organically and annex surrounding suburbs that developed because of population overflow from the core city. This change has caused the death of equity in a number of cities in America.

Posted by freddiemac | February 21, 2008 1:37 PM

Yes, mpowell, and being so concerned regarding how other people live, to the point that you will petition your government to prevent those people from living, by your estimation, in too small of a space, is mostly a very bad thing.

I think you misunderstand my aim here. I'm identifying some of the reasons why zoning, which is a very local phenomenon, could be preventing people from living they way they want to. I think home ownership and locally funded schools do quite a bit to drive people's concerns with their neighbors, and I think we'd be better off dumping both. People in houses don't want apartment complexes nearby b/c it could depress real estate value (their investment) and depress funding for local schools (b/c it depresses real estate values). Those are real and valid concerns, even if they are pernicious.

Posted by mpowell | February 21, 2008 1:37 PM

It's an enormous myth that there is no demand for higher density, walkable ("new urbanist" if you want) living. As others have noted, astronomical land values in places like Manhattan are ample evidence of this. Also, according to research cited in this article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/subprime

about 30% of Americans would prefer to live in such a community, 30% prefer to live in standard car-dependent suburbs, and 30% of Americans are somewhere inbetween. Yet only 8% of our housing stock is in high density, walkable neighbourhoods. Add in the fact that energy-intensive lifestyles are environmentally unsustainable and increasibly financially unsustainable, as well as the explosion in single-person and childless households and migration back to the city is looking like a pretty good bet. Communities that are forward-looking and investing in public transit and smart growth strategies are going to have huge competitive advantages if these trends pan out.

Posted by greg | February 21, 2008 1:39 PM

George W,

It is certainly the case that at a certain point, higher density can cause congestion problems of the sort you describe. The standard answer is to increase commuting capacity in non-land-intensive ways. That usually means public transit of some sort. And it sounds like your neighborhood is ripe for an upgrade in its public transit system.

Posted by DTM | February 21, 2008 1:41 PM

High density living in close proximity to work sounds like the promotion for a concentration camp or an army barracks, to me. Join the Army, son! Have you read about the benefits in happiness we offer?

Posted by Just Karl | February 21, 2008 1:43 PM

"Cities have obstacles to higher density housing also."

Al, I wouldn't disagree with that at all. Redevelopment can be a pain in the butt, but it does happen. The far west side of Manhattan has seen huge growth from what I can determine, and fitting all those new apartments into the city's existing infrastructure is likely to be easier than demanding that suburban zoning be prohibited.

What developers like about suburban multi-family units is that they can build 5, 10, 20 homes on a smallish lot, and then sell by pointing out how nice the existing neighborhood is. They then dump the costs of dealing with the additional citizens on the town, which has to build more schools, hire more police, deal with more crowded roads, etc.

Posted by Helter | February 21, 2008 1:45 PM

Helter, those costs can be captured with building permit fees, as opposed to zoning which explicitly bans such development.

Posted by Will Allen | February 21, 2008 1:55 PM

Somewhat OT, but there is still the question I notice of "why don't people with kids live in higher density areas?" ... oftentimes, the flight of families with children to the 'burbs is blamed on racism. Which may sometimes be a factor ... but thinking about my latest trip to the NYC area, let me add time as a factor.

Is it just me or doesn't everything seem to take longer in the city? You don't save that much time on a commute (taking the subway from Queens to Brooklyn takes almost as long as a long commute in the 'burbs) ... and it seems to me that basic things like shopping for food or going to Target to return duplicate wedding gifts takes much longer in the city than it does in the 'burbs.

This is fine when no kid is involved, but kids also take a lot of time. When you start having a activity that, as a single person living in a less dense suburb would take all of 1.5 hours (getting out of bed, showered, feading yourself and going to the store) take 2+ hours because of fighting crowds, it's bad enough ... but then add to that an additional 1+ hours to get the toddler ready? That just becomes too much!

It really is sometimes quicker to live in the 'burbs!

Posted by DAS | February 21, 2008 1:56 PM

High density living in close proximity to work sounds like the promotion for a concentration camp or an army barracks, to me.

??? This statement is bizarre. Have you always had a job a 30 minute drive from an isolated exurb? Most everyone I know tended to live in a denser area before they had kids, getting a yard and a bigger space in exchange for a longer commute and a certain level of additional isolation from their community and social network.

I have a commute now, but I never felt like I lived in an "army barracks" when I used to walk half a mile to my office from my relatively dense residential city neighborhood.

Really? It would feel like a concentration camp or an army barracks to you if you had a small home within a few miles of where you worked? You mean you've ALWAYS lived the way you do now? Sounds like you had a misspent youth. :)

Posted by Tyro | February 21, 2008 1:58 PM

freddiemac,

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080215/BIZ/802150373

http://www.metromodemedia.com/devnews/detroithousing10.aspx

"Sales of residential and condominium units in Detroit nearly doubled in January, compared with the same month a year ago, and the region overall got a nearly 15 percent bump, according to real estate data firm Realcomp.
The city of Detroit led the gainers, posting a 45.5 percent increase in the month, with 736 closings.
Seven Realtors who deal primarily in downtown Detroit area property said they have enjoyed some of their recent best sale months in December and January. Sales of houses and condominiums in Detroit jumped by a 33.9 percent in December 2007, compared to December 2006. No other market in the Metro Detroit area came close to that kind of increase last year, according to Realcomp."

It's true that the Detroit market has an oversupply of homes. But this is the crucial point: It has an oversupply of homes that are undesirable (some are located far from jobs, too big, no urban feel, suburban sprawl... and some of the oversupply is in neighborhoods that are simply far too gone for people to be moving back to them). These housing starts are generally in the downtown/midtown area that offer proximity to cultural institutions . And these are the types of residences that have generally not been available to the American public.

And yes, there are grocery stores in the City of Detroit. Are there nearly enough? No. There are three in Detroit that I would go to: La Colmena on Vernor in SW, Mike's Fresh Market on 7 Mile and Livernois and one on 7 and Gratiot. Still need a movie theater, though.

Posted by yoyoyo | February 21, 2008 2:04 PM

yoyoyo,

Thanks for the links, I was unaware of this. I only have seen stories about the record foreclosures in the D.

Posted by freddiemac | February 21, 2008 2:07 PM

Prove it. Prove that telecommuting and flexible schedules have reduced commute times. I don't believe it, nor have I seen any evidence that it is true.

I'm not too sure about the issue of flexible work schedules, but why would anyone need to prove that telecommuting reduces commuting times? Isn't it obvious that walking from one's bedroom to one's basement office makes for a shorter commute than driving somewhere?

Posted by Jasper | February 21, 2008 2:11 PM

Jasper, arguments in favor of telecommuting invariably result in something like, "yes, commute times have gotten worse, but they'd be even worse if it weren't for telecommuting." I'm sure that the advent of flex-time workschedules and telecommuting has reduced the number of cars on the road that would otherwise be there, but the problem is that other factors have probably more than outweighed those effects.... not to mention that the number of telecommuters just isn't that high and never will be.

Posted by Tyro | February 21, 2008 2:15 PM

Jasper,

That would only be true if enough people could telecommute to offset car growth. I have seen no evidence that commute times have decreased anywhere. Thus telecommuting seems like a fraud in the context of commute times.

Furthermore, Mixner has repeatedly asked for proof of what amounts to common knowlege. This time the burden of proof lies on him, since he made the silly claim.

Posted by freddiemac | February 21, 2008 2:16 PM

"... it's my observation that people seem to systematically overestimate the amount of time they're going to spend in their yard."

And it's my obseervation that people who move to cities sytematically overestimate the amount of time that they will spend at the thrater, and the amount of "diversity" it will add to their circle of friends. So?

"Shorter commutes are, of course, facilitated by greater levels of residential density."

Well, that's one way. The other way--the way that's actually happening in a lot of places--is for businesses to leave the city and head to the suburbs, closer to the workers. In a lot of metropolitan areas, the major growth is in suburb-to-suburb commuting. But of course, you don't need to notice that if the goal is to bash suburbanites as stupid and selfish.

Posted by Sam M | February 21, 2008 2:21 PM

I've always heard that greater density doesn't actually reduce commute times. As much as we might like this to be true, people have a tendency to modify their lifestyle according to the transportation options available. People will generally commute for 30 to 60 minutes to get to work--whether by taking the subway across NYC or by driving back and forth from the suburbs in Atlanta (or more likely, from one suburb to another).

That's not to say that allowing greater density in development isn't a social good. I'm a strong believer. But we need to stick with the arguments that back us up.

As for telecommuting--my commute most days is the 30 second walk from my bedroom to the office in the other room, so my commute is definitely on the short side. Whether there's been a noticeable aggregate effect of telecommuting on commute times I have no idea. The flip side for me is that I have to drive from North Florida to Atlanta about once a month. But even if you spread my drive time over the whole month it still comes out to an average commute of 30 minutes a day. Not too bad.

Posted by Rob Mac | February 21, 2008 2:23 PM

I'd personally prefer a minimum of 10 acres per lot, not 10 house per acre. The ideal density is to not be able to see the neighbor's house from yours.

Posted by PSP | February 21, 2008 2:27 PM

DAS,

It obviously depends on the city quite a bit. New York is obviously a very big city, and it may well take more time to do some things there. But in the walkable neighborhoods in many small-to-medium cities, commutes are indeed quite short, local shopping is convenient and quick, and so on.

In my experience, the two big concerns for families looking at those neighborhoods are safety and schools. But convenience actually ends up being in their favor.

Posted by DTM | February 21, 2008 2:29 PM

"Community garden." Ugh!

As a silly glibertarian boy, Mixner just can't conceive of such things. That's why he's all for telecommuting and flex-time. It means he doesn't have to come into contact with the glibertarian hell that is other people. It is simply a projection of his own social phobia into doctrine.

That Mixner also considers his own solipsistic perspective worthy of extrapolation to everybody else is, let's say, curious.

What's needed, I think, is a way to get beyond the misplaced assumptions of what constitutes higher-density living. It's wrapped up in a half-century of cultural and political acclimatisation to the Moden American House, in terms of its land use, layout and building materials.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 21, 2008 2:35 PM

I'll agree with Rob Mac. There seems to be an "iron law of commute times." If you attempt to live close to work, traffic or other commute issues will intrude until such time that the commute becomes just what you can barely tolerate. Alternately, you will buy a home that is just far enough away from your workplace that your commute is barely tolerable.

On that note, I should add that I do a reverse commute into my exurban workplace. I would prefer to live closer, but there are no suburbs nearby that have walkable, dense, mix-use areas close to public transportation. The entire corridor where i live is a rather continuous sprawl. It's not that there aren't denser apartment or townhouse complexes -- there are -- it's that such complexes aren't placed near any type of main street, since strip malls tend to be the commercial construction of choice.

Posted by Tyro | February 21, 2008 2:36 PM

Um, pseudonymous in nc, I don't know what makes you think Mixner is any sort of libertarian. He (or she) is the one arguing that restrictive zoning represents the "will of the people," and defending the majority's right to tell a property owner he can't build 12 units to the acre. That's the anti-libertarian position here.

Posted by too many steves | February 21, 2008 2:40 PM

"If people wanted more higher density housing, we'd have more higher density housing."

Ah, yes. The invisible hand makes the correct allocation of resources every time.

But there many hidden subsidies favoring sprawl. Free new highways and wide, smooth surface streets. Telephone, electric, gas, phone, water, sewer, cable and mail service that cost the same no matter how far you live from your neighbor. Miles and miles of free busing for your children to the free new schools built to accomodate your new house on what used to be a farmer's field. Free new parks and playgrounds for your family and your dog. All guarded by free police and fire services provided from newly built stations and firehouses.

People in high density housing are chumps who subidize distant low-density neigherhoods. Because low density housing is subsidized, there is more of it than a free market would provide.

Posted by Bloix | February 21, 2008 2:40 PM

about 30% of Americans would prefer to live in such a community, 30% prefer to live in standard car-dependent suburbs, and 30% of Americans are somewhere inbetween. Yet only 8% of our housing stock is in high density, walkable neighbourhoods.

Exactly. Laws restricting the market have reduced the supply of one type of housing relative to the demand, which has, in turn, driven up the price of higher-density housing.

Nobody's recommending that the entire country be built at a high density. If you want 10 acres per lot, there are many rural areas around the country just like that.

So, are conservatives interested in the free market, or are they interested in imposing their lifestyle values on others?

Posted by Adam Villani | February 21, 2008 2:56 PM

DAS, it depends on exactly where in the city you live. I live in the East Village; there, I can get to two different supermarkets faster than my dad can get to one in his suburban town. I can reach the Union Square retail center on foot faster than he can reach the same stores in a car. And so on. He can get to Target faster than I could, for whatever that's worth.

But for much of the rest of the city this isn't true, not by a long shot. Most of Queens gives you all of the disadvantages of the city without any of the advantages.

Posted by AlanC9 | February 21, 2008 2:57 PM

DTM,

So what if zoning regulations are under democratic control? Does that somehow imply that those regulations are not creating artificial scarcity relative to demand for high-density housing?

Hard to say without a clear definition of "artificial" scarcity. Also, if you're suggesting that this "artficial" scarcity, whatever it's supposed to be, is a bad thing, you should probably explain why you think that.

In fact, the only way this argument would make any sense at all is if the people who could hypothetically live in the as-yet-unbuilt housing were given an equal vote during the process of making the zoning decisions that led to their housing not being built. But of course they don't get a vote, because they are not yet residents there.

Another incomprehensible argument. Obviously, you have to live in a city (or county or state) to be eligible to vote on any of its laws and regulations, whether they're zoning laws or anything else. Prospective future residents don't count.

Posted by Mixner | February 21, 2008 3:02 PM

Bloix,

But there many hidden subsidies favoring sprawl. Free new highways and wide, smooth surface streets. Telephone, electric, gas, phone, water, sewer, cable and mail service that cost the same no matter how far you live from your neighbor. Miles and miles of free busing for your children to the free new schools built to accomodate your new house on what used to be a farmer's field. Free new parks and playgrounds for your family and your dog. All guarded by free police and fire services provided from newly built stations and firehouses.

Obviously, none of those things are free. If you're suggesting that people who live in high-density housing tend to subsidize people who live in low-density housing, I invite you to produce evidence to support that claim. I very strongly doubt it's true.

Posted by Mixner | February 21, 2008 3:10 PM

Is it just me or doesn't everything seem to take longer in the city?

I don't know about NYC, but the exact opposite is true in my city. In the 'burbs, I had to drive 25 minutes to get *anywhere* worth going. Now I can walk to plenty of bars, restaurants, and other amenities. But then again, while I do live in one of the densest Census block groups in St. Petersburg, I also realize that St. Pete is not all that dense on the absolute scale of density. It's just big enough, and just urban enough, to meet my needs without overwhelming me.

People in high density housing are chumps who subidize distant low-density neigherhoods.

Maybe so, but I enjoy my life a lot more now that I moved inward from those distant low-density neighborhoods. If the price of that is subsidizing people in Sprawlburbia, well, I can live with that.