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.

Posted by spencer | February 21, 2008 3:19 PM

the enormous happiness benefits of shorter commutes. Shorter commutes are, of course, facilitated by greater levels of residential density.

What a bunch of bullshit. Talk about starting with the conclusion that cities are the ideal place for everyone to live and working backwards. Then again, this Ezra idiot seems to be the same Ezra idiot who thinks the police don't ask for proof of insurance when they pull someone over.

Off the top of my head, here are several headaches more prevalent in cities that would more than offset the enormous distress of commutes: cockroaches, smaller living space, more crime, more litter, more noise, no backyards for kids to play in, bad schools, constant construction, neighbors live too close, appalling smells, more pollution, more people, no privacy.

This isn't to say living in the suburbs would make all people happier. People will vote with their wallets on a person by person basis.

Anyone (like this Ezra idiot) with a universal, objective answer to happiness/distress caused by city v. suburb v. rural is a terribly foolish ass.

Posted by Shinyk | February 21, 2008 3:22 PM

Sam M,

The geometry of employers moving to the suburbs to be closer to their employees tends not to work out too well. The problem is that while you are moving closer to some employees, you may well be getting no closer to, or actually moving farther away from, other employees.

Now you can hope to do something like move your business somewhere desirable and hope most of your employees move into that same area. But what you are actually doing at that point is basically moving your business to a new town.

Which is usually fine as far as the more moderate density advocates are concerned: you don't necessarily have to seek that higher density in older bigger cities, but can also create it in newer, smaller, towns. Which is part of why the density figures can be so moderate, in fact.

Posted by DTM | February 21, 2008 3:25 PM

> 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.

As was already mentioned above, consider the map to the west of I-294 in Chicago before 1970. Small towns, some suburbs, much farmland, very few businesses. Then look at the map in 1995. Where did the money come from to pay for all those roads, office parks, and especially sewers? There weren't anywhere near enough people living or working there to pay for it - the money had to come from where people _were_ living and working since there was nowhere else.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | February 21, 2008 3:28 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.

What people tell a pollster and what they actually choose to buy are two different things. I suspect a lot of people who say they would prefer "higher density, walkable living" would change their mind when they see what they would have to give up in terms of the space and convenience of typical suburban living. Again, if people really wanted "higher density, walkable living," their voting and purchasing choices would reflect that desire.

The preference for "higher-density, walkable living" seems to be limited mainly to certain young singles and childless couples, and the market satisfies their demand with apartments, lofts, condos and townhouses built in or close to urban centers. But the vast majority of Americans don't want that.

Posted by Mixner | February 21, 2008 3:31 PM

Shinyk, it seems that it is the pro-sprawl crowd who thinks in such dichotomies. There is clearly an oversupply of of housing in the exurbs and a much larger demand for inner-ring suburb and dense spaces than exists.

A girlfriend of mine doesn't have a car and mentioned that when she says this aloud in mixed company, people seem to feel like she's judging them for not having a car. I get the same sense of seething resentment from the pro-sprawl crowd when anyone mentions that they wish there were more pedestrian-friendly development available... it's taken as some kind of personal offense to your lifestyle whenever it's discussed. Look, no one cares what kind of house you live in. However, keep in mind that the number of people who wish they didn't have to live your lifestyle but don't have an alternative exceeds the number of who live in denser, pedestrian-friendly areas and wish they could move to an exurban subdivision.

Posted by Tyro | February 21, 2008 3:31 PM

> What a bunch of bullshit.
>
> Off the top of my head, here are several headaches
> more prevalent in cities that would more than
> offset the enormous distress of commutes:
> cockroaches, smaller living space, more crime,
> more litter, more noise, no backyards for kids to
> play in, bad schools, constant construction,
> neighbors live too close, appalling smells, more
> pollution, more people, no privacy.

That is a 3rd-generation exurbanite's dark fantasy of a city, to be sure. I for one certainly grew up in a city without experiencing any of that[1]. I would be tempted to classify your description as "bullshit" in fact.

Cranky

[1] Except some cockroaches. I have bad news for you exurbanites: cockroaches tend to show up 30-50 years after human settlement of any new area. Chicago's 1st ring suburbs, and some 2nd ring suburbs, have them. They are coming to your exurb! Beware! Fear! Loathing!

Posted by Cranky Observer | February 21, 2008 3:36 PM

It's people like Mixner who allow me to make my occasional parodic comments like, "Burning to death isn't a problem at all. Clearly the free market has determined that burning to death is the optimal market solution!" Mixner is hilariously arguing that a highly regulated process fraught with institutional corruption resulting in levels of unhappiness directly related to the sort of problems created (longer commutes) is exactly what the free market has determined everyone wants! I respect economics as a field of study, but it's people like Mixner who make it seem like an exercise in trivial wankery.

"The invisible hand of the free market has determined that the optimal solution is just coincidentally the very state that exists!" Fascinating.

Posted by Tyro | February 21, 2008 3:38 PM

> Look, no one cares what kind of
> house you live in.

Until my children get drafted to fight for the oil. That might make me care a little. At some point I would like to see a detailed explanation from these pro-sprawl people of _exactly_ how they think the sprawl, the shop-o-plexes, and the Hummer H3s are going to keep operating when the oil really starts to run down.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | February 21, 2008 3:41 PM

Mixner,

"Artificial scarcity" arises when you have demand and the production capacity to meet that demand, and yet something prevents that from happening. In this case, you have demand for high-density housing, and developers who could afford to buy the relevant tracts of land and use it to provide that housing (the "production capacity" in this case). But the zoning regulations prevent those transactions and development from happening. Hence, this is a straightforward case of artificial scarcity.

That may or may not be a "bad thing", of course (that rather depends on your sense of good and bad). But it certainly means those regulations are distorting what sorts of housing supply exists in the market. Of course, that is exactly what zoning regulations are intended to do (not let the market dictate outcomes).

On the democracy point, we seem to agree that prospective residents don't get to vote on what sort of zoning regulations might apply. The obvious implication of that fact is that zoning regulations could indeed be preventing people from getting the sort of housing they would want, despite zoning regulations being "democratic" (at least nominally). That is because until these people become residents, they can't vote to get the land they want, and until they get the land they want, they can't become residents.

Note again that this is not a problem of these prospective residents being unable to afford that land. This hypothetical assumes they (or an intermediary, like a developer) is able to afford the land, and it is the zoning regulations which are preventing that from happening.

Posted by DTM | February 21, 2008 3:46 PM

"Off the top of my head, here are several headaches more prevalent in cities that would more than offset the enormous distress of commutes: cockroaches, smaller living space, more crime, more litter, more noise, no backyards for kids to play in, bad schools, constant construction, neighbors live too close, appalling smells, more pollution, more people, no privacy."

Um, I live in a city. Admittedly Seattle's not a very dense city, as earlier noted, and I'm not in the center of the city, but:
--Cockroaches - No
--Smaller living space - I suppose, but mostly because it's an older house. There's no reason the lot wouldn't support a McMansion.
--More crime - than what? Rural towns? Hah.
--More litter - see above.
--Bad schools - um, no.
--Constant construction - um, no.
--Neighbors live too close - The next house is a dozen feet away. I entertain outside a lot, they do a little. I don't know their names but they seem nice enough, and AFAIK we don't irritate each other. The other side, across from a wooded city right-of-way, is an apartment house, and again I don't know them. My roommates say they throw loud parties, which is what noise ordinances are for.
--Appalling smells - um, no.
--More pollution - not so much in my neighborhood, but probably more than in the mountains. Then again, I grew up in a small town with two paper mills and no gas lines (so everyone heats with woodstoves), so I bet the air quality is much better here.
--More people - um, yes, that's kind of the point of why I'm here.
--Less privacy - than what, everyone in town knowing how much money I make and gossiping about everything possible? Hah.

Even when living in Baltimore, with a much higher density, every rowhouse had a yard. I think rowhouses are fabulous, (not the weird things springing up in Seattle everywhere) and there should be more of them.

Posted by Morfydd | February 21, 2008 3:49 PM

> On the democracy point, we seem to agree that
> prospective residents don't get to vote on what
> sort of zoning regulations might apply. The
> obvious implication of that fact is that zoning
> regulations could indeed be preventing people from
> getting the sort of housing they would want,
> despite zoning regulations being "democratic" (at
> least nominally). That is because until these
> people become residents, they can't vote to get
> the land they want, and until they get the land
> they want, they can't become residents.

I understand Matthew's points about zoning. The counterexample is what is going on on the north side of Chicago, where you have neighborhoods with a nice, reasonably dense, diverse mix of small detached houses (with gardens and even - gasp garages!), 4- and 6-flats, 4-story apartment blocks, and commercial space with small storefronts. Once the neighborhood gets "discovered" a big-time developer comes in, buys up an entire square block, and puts up a 30-, 40-, or even 50-story highrise which completely destroys the livability that created the neighborhood. Is there any balance? Houston would say, no, the property goes to the highest bidder. It is hard to develop a Jane Jacobs-derived argument that contradicts that but the reality on the street is clearly ugly.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | February 21, 2008 3:53 PM

As others have pointed out, zoning laws are extremely un-democratic, for a whole host of reasons. Kinda like the health care thing where individuals have little ability to drive market forces. The important thing about zoning is that it over-regulates aesthetic and programmatic issues (as opposed to strictly safety) and is extremely resistant to flexibility or outright change.

There is nothing wrong with wanting a large yard and being willing to pay the cost (hidden or otherwise). The complaint from proponents of new urbanism is that there is so little variation in density in new development. It is either truly urban or R-20 style 1+ acre zoning with 40' setbacks and ghettoized functions: malls for shopping, assisted living for seniors who can't drive, office parks for workers, schools for kids, specialized places like bars for socializing, etc. Given a choice, some would undoubtedly choose the same model and that's fine. But some would prefer other models with sidewalks (and porches close enough to wave hello), mixed zoning to allow a little market within walking distance or apartments and offices above little main street clusters, places to walk and bike that are not threatened by traffic, etc.

Developers want to build according to zoning so they can avoid compliance hassles. So that's what they build. People can't vote with their pocketbook because they are not really being offered many choices. As someone pointed out, as the end of the cheap oil era puts the squeeze on, things will change. The people touting new urbanism are on the front edge of that change. But it's going to be painful to undo all the building that was done with this one-size-fits-all zoning that we have now.

Posted by Nell | February 21, 2008 3:57 PM

I hope people don't confuse whatever Mixner is doing with real economics.

For example, Mixner is using what appears to be his or her own intuition to decide whether or not there is artificial scarcity in high-density housing. What a real economist would do is look at data like comparative housing prices or occupancy rates. By the way, when economists do that, they find that people are actually paying more for high-density housing, and the occupancy rates are considerably higher. All those are strong indications of artificial scarcity.

Posted by DTM | February 21, 2008 4:00 PM

DTM,

Yes, zoning regulations restrict what can be built in certain locations. This includes, in some cases, high-density housing for which there may be some demand. Calling this effect "artificial scarcity" is not an explanation of why such regulations are a bad thing.

Posted by Mixner | February 21, 2008 4:06 PM

Shinyk, it seems that it is the pro-sprawl crowd who thinks in such dichotomies.

Nope. I'm totally ambivalent on the issue of sprawl.

keep in mind that the number of people who wish they didn't have to live your lifestyle but don't have an alternative exceeds the number of who live in denser, pedestrian-friendly areas and wish they could move to an exurban subdivision.

I don't live in the suburbs. I live in a city. I drive my car about once a month. I like it better than suburban living, but many people don't, evidenced by the fact that they live in the suburbs.

That is a 3rd-generation exurbanite's dark fantasy of a city, to be sure. I for one certainly grew up in a city without experiencing any of that[1]. I would be tempted to classify your description as "bullshit" in fact.

If that's what you genuinely believe, then you've never been poor for any period of time. How nice for you.

The preference for "higher-density, walkable living" seems to be limited mainly to certain young singles and childless couples, and the market satisfies their demand with apartments, lofts, condos and townhouses built in or close to urban centers. But the vast majority of Americans don't want that.

Some sanity at last.

Posted by Shinyk | February 21, 2008 4:06 PM

> If that's what you genuinely believe, then
> you've never been poor for any period of time.
> How nice for you.

Wrong again. I think you at 100% so far.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | February 21, 2008 4:12 PM

Mixner,

You state "Again, if people really wanted "higher density, walkable living," their voting and purchasing choices would reflect that desire." However, I have already demonstrated to you that people's purchasing choices do reflect that. Are you being patently mendacious or are you just an idiot?

Posted by freddiemac | February 21, 2008 4:13 PM

Shinyk, it's not about what the "vast majority" of Americans want. I really don't think that the "vast majority" should be determining how everyone else should live. It's that the demand for one lifestyle exceeds the available housing stock available for that lifestyle. Why is this so difficult for people to comprehend? Why does the fact that (supposedly) the vast majority wishes to live in pedestrian-unfriendly exurbs somehow a "retort" to the claim that there should be more pedestrian friendly, denser environments. Does the shortage of such environments "not count" simply because the vast majority have, due in part to fashionable trends, chosen otherwise. This argument making weird claims about the "vast majority" is a completely meaningless one, because the economy is not a winner-take-all vote.

Posted by Tyro | February 21, 2008 4:15 PM

As others have pointed out, zoning laws are extremely un-democratic, for a whole host of reasons.

Sorry, no one has given a reason why zoning laws and "un-democratic." The claim is absurd on its face. Zoning laws are subject to the political process just like any other laws.

Even when living in Baltimore, with a much higher density, every rowhouse had a yard. I think rowhouses are fabulous, (not the weird things springing up in Seattle everywhere) and there should be more of them.

Then you're pretty unusual. It's not hard to see why most Americans prefer a typical suburban detached house to a rowhouse. Rowhouses tend to be smaller and have fewer rooms. Fewer bathrooms. Fewer bedrooms. Smaller kitchens. Probably no family room. Smaller yards (if any). Smaller garage (if any). Less privacy, less accessibility and more noise, thanks to the shared walls with the neighbors.

Posted by Mixner | February 21, 2008 4:20 PM

Ezra is right; much of this decision-making is irrational for many.

I will put the irrationality of the layout and lack of public transportation in the LA Basin up against that of any of any other region in the country. Here, public transportation is so inaccessible (both in terms of where it is located and when it runs) that one virtually is forced to drive. It's really frustrating. And no one has the will to do anything about it. The voters pass a huge bond, and it gets diverted to balance the budget.

And for those of you who think it doesn't affect you, watch smog maps as the crap we spew (not the stuff out of Hollywood, but the stuff out of tailpipes) blows across the country (right through New Hampshire--sorry!).

Posted by MattD | February 21, 2008 4:20 PM

Mixner,

I have never claimed that artificial scarcity is necessarily a "bad thing".

In fact, let's review the bidding.

Originally, you asked: "What's stopping people from building more densely if they want to?"

Many people answered: zoning regulations.

You replied: "Zoning laws are under democratic control just like other laws."

As we have now discussed at length, that reply on your part was a non sequitur. The fact that zoning regulations are nominally democratic does not in fact imply that they are not stopping people from building more densely than they want to.

I guess what you are now arguing is that maybe it isn't a "bad thing" that people are being stopped from building as densely as they want to by zoning regulations. And personally, I am not inclined to take on the task of arguing from first principles that such regulations necessarily are a "bad thing". But hopefully we have at least now settled the factual issue.

Posted by DTM | February 21, 2008 4:21 PM

I really think that either Mixner isn't reading any of the replies to his comments, or he's not very bright. He keeps throwing around economics terms like "artificial scarcity" without any apparent understanding of what they actually mean. He also thinks the current balance of high-density vs low-density housing refelcts the workings of the free market, when that's demonstrably not the case. And, he doesn't seem to understand supply, demand, and prices. Here's a starting point: the fact that real estate prices are generally much higher in high-density, city-center neighborhoods indicates that demand to live there is higher than the supply of said housing. Therefore, there's an artificial scarcity. Why is this bad? Because it thwarts people from buying the type of home they want. Or, you could argue that it's not bad -- that the benefits of lower density on the whole outweigh the costs (higher prices, etc) of the market distortion. But you can't pretend there's no tradeoff. Well, you can, but then you're either dumb or just being an ass.

Posted by too many steves | February 21, 2008 4:24 PM

Once again, I note that Mixner appears to be relying on his or her intuition when it comes to the desirability of rowhouses, as opposed to the sorts of data a real economist would use. For example, in my city, a couple of the existing rowhouse neighborhoods have had the highest appreciation in the last few years, and the most expensive residential developments in the city have featured rowhouses.

Posted by DTM | February 21, 2008 4:27 PM

Once again, Mixner, the issue is not who is unusual and who is not. The issue is why the supply of a certain resource is kept artificially low relative to its demand.

It really doesn't matter that more people prefer X to Y. The problem is that the number of people who prefer Y exceed the supply of Y, while the number of people who prefer X is lower than the supply of X. Your argument is, "the majority prefer X, therefore the needs of those who prefer Y don't count." One could argue that creating more of "Y" is not cost-effective, but then that would mean that resource "Y" was cheap (it is not) or that there would be no need to restrict the ability to create more of resource "Y".

If the demand to live in denser areas is so low, then why to interest groups have to resort to the force of the law to stop it? Your very line of argument seems to buttress the claim that more people want to lve in denser areas.

Posted by Tyro | February 21, 2008 4:28 PM

> If that's what you genuinely believe,
> then you've never been poor for any
> period of time. How nice for you.

I am curious as to what those minimum-1/2-acre suburbs in your area do with poor people. Around here if any poor people manage to make it out there they are rounded up and dumped in the nearest central city.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | February 21, 2008 4:28 PM

The point is, in a free market, we don't have to decide whether row houses are "better" than detatched homes. People can decide for themselves, and the market will generally provide appropriate amounts of each type of home. What we have now is a situation where row houses in urban neighborhoods are (here's that term again) artificially scarce. Developers would build more of them if they were allowed to, because people have demonstrated that they'll pay a lot for them, but zoning rules often include things like mandatory set-backs and lot sizes.

Posted by too many steves | February 21, 2008 4:29 PM

DTM,

I have never claimed that artificial scarcity is necessarily a "bad thing".

Then what was the point of your question...

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?

...if not to suggest that zoning regulations are a bad thing, despite being democratic, because they create "artificial scarcity?"

The fact that zoning regulations are nominally democratic does not in fact imply that they are not stopping people from building more densely than they want to.

But they don't "stop people from building more densely than they want to," if "people" is understood to be the community as a whole rather than just certain individuals within that community.

I guess what you are now arguing is that maybe it isn't a "bad thing" that people are being stopped from building as densely as they want to by zoning regulations.

Yes, I would certainly argue that.

Posted by Mixner | February 21, 2008 4:33 PM

What if I don't want to live in a city? I don't like being crowded, I don't like traffic, I like to drive pretty slow in fact (try that in Atlanta or DC and see what happens)...I like having a yard I can lounge, work and play with my kids in, I definitely don't like crime (which is a misnomer in this argument IMO...some cities have more crime than others, while some have less crime than 'burbs, just depends)I get annoyed when people stand on top of me in the grocery line even (psychological problems, maybe, but that's my gig). I like living in a less crowded and more laid back environment, why should I move to a city that is by definition more densely populated?

However, I know many people want to live in cities, so I'll pose this question...are more densely populated cities sustainable? Sustainable, as in resources used to support that population, environmental damage due to the vast amounts of waste and runoff produced from development, and the logistical situation that more people in the same place generates? I don't think this has been proven through Ezra or Matt's analysis or examination if you will.

Posted by drosz | February 21, 2008 4:39 PM

Once again, Mixner, the issue is not who is unusual and who is not. The issue is why the supply of a certain resource is kept artificially low relative to its demand.

If you want to call the supply of a product or service "artificially low" whenever it is constrained by laws and regulations rather than just market demand, then the supply of all sorts of things is "artificially low"--kiddie porn, toxic pharmaceuticals, child labor--and you're not saying anything important by calling the supply of high-density housing "artficially low."

Posted by Mixner | February 21, 2008 4:43 PM

Again, if people really wanted "higher density, walkable living," their voting and purchasing choices would reflect that desire.

No, the voting by people already in a neighborhood establish market restrictions to prevent people not yet living in a neighborhood from having denser housing to purchase.

A thought experiment for you: let's say that voters in established neighborhoods *didn't* restrict more dense housing from being established there. In other words, property owners were allowed to develop their land to a density they felt the market could bear. If the property owners then continued to build more single-family residences, then that would indicate that restrictions on dense housing were not necessary. But if they *did* build more housing, then that would mean that density restriction would have been a government interference with what people wanted to purchase.

I am not arguing that density should be completely unregulated. What I am arguing is that density restrictions are based on neighbors not wanting to live near people in more dense housing, not on market forces.

Furthermore, how do you explain the fact that housing is more expensive in dense cities? This should be prima facie evidence that the supply of dense housing has not been keeping up with the demand.

It's not hard to see why most Americans prefer a typical suburban detached house to a rowhouse. I know. It's what I prefer, too. Currently I live in a large apartment complex in a suburb. Worst of both worlds! I plan to buy a house in a year or so.

But guess what? Even if the split of people who prefer single-family housing to more dense housing were, say, 85/15, why should that preclude builders from building enough dense housing in dense communities to fill the demand for the 15%?

Posted by Adam Villani | February 21, 2008 4:44 PM

drosz, there are far more opportunities available for people who want to live in an isolated exurb than there are for people who want to live in a pedestrian-friendly denser area, particularly at similar price-points.

What if YOU don't want to live in a city? Well, no one's stopping you, on a middle-income, from buying a home in a subdivision. What if you want to live with a modest amount of space near a downtown with shops? Well, then you're screwed.

It never ceases to amaze me how people who live in exurban SFHs take it so personally when other people express a desire for different development patterns than the ones zoners demand.

Posted by Tyro | February 21, 2008 4:47 PM

By Mixner's unique use of the word "people", people in the United States during WWII were not stopped from leaving the concentration camps they had been herded into, because the politicians who did this to them were elected democratically.

Trying to have a discussion with someone who employs language in this manner is pointless.

Posted by Will Allen | February 21, 2008 4:48 PM

I give up. This is going to give me an aneurysm.

So, how's about them Warriors? Go Baron! Woo-hoo!

Posted by too many steves | February 21, 2008 4:50 PM

Mixner, the difference is that I could explain why access to kiddie porn and toxic pharmaceuticals is kept artificially low. With housing that people actually want and demand? Neither you nor I can seem to provide a good reason why anyone would want to restrict that. The closest you come is claiming that the majority want one thing and thus want to prevent the other group from having what they want. Why denser living is seen by you as something as insidious and kiddie porn is something that makes sense only in your mind.

Posted by Tyro | February 21, 2008 4:53 PM

drosz,

You present an interesting argument. I would ask this question in response: are sprawling suburbs more sustainable?

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/2007/04/11/new_york_plans_green_future/

Turns out that dense walkable cities are super energy efficient. It is more efficient to pack a subway car full of commuters to go 24 blocks than for a single SUV driver to go 24 miles. Because of centralization, food needs to go to only one place rather than be driven by truck to hundeds of disperse locations. Because subways are electric, they can be powered in many ways: nuclear, solar cells, wind, clean coal, or any mix of the above, or any new technology that comes along like harnessing energy from tides. In a car dependent suburb, one needs a combustible liquid, which is produced only a few ways.

Posted by freddiemac | February 21, 2008 4:53 PM

By Mixner's unique use of the word "people", people in the United States during WWII were not stopped from leaving the concentration camps they had been herded into

Unlike Will Allen, Mixner understands that the word "people" has different meanings depending on the context, and that while all democratically-enacted laws obviously restrict the freedom of "people" in the sense of individuals, they nonetheless reflect the will of the people in the sense of democratic government.

Posted by Mixner | February 21, 2008 4:55 PM

This whole argument that very few people (only the childless etc) want to live in the city is demonstrated false by pretty much every city/suburb combo in America.

You dont; need to use NY or SF as examples. I live in Portland, OR, 1911 built my 800 sq ft condo in an older part of the city (Nob Hill or NW for those familiar with the area) is worth $280K or so, a 2,300 sq ft, probably built in the 20s single family house 2 lots down is for sale for $695,000 , which seems to be fairly typical. In the suburbs you could by a similar sized newer house for half the price. And don;t argue supply and demand, like virtually every major metro area the population of the city dwarfs the outlying suburbs. If everyone wanted to live in the burbs you'd expect prices their to be soaring while prices in the city tanked, which isn't happening.

Posted by Eric k | February 21, 2008 4:58 PM

Tyro,

People obviously have reasons for supporting zoning laws just as they have reasons for supporting laws against kiddie porn. Several people have already mentioned some of those reasons, such protecting property values and reducing crime.

Posted by Mixner | February 21, 2008 5:01 PM

What if you want to live with a modest amount of space near a downtown with shops? Well, then you're screwed.

Unless you have a foreign passport.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 21, 2008 5:05 PM

Speaking of big city crime, turns out that for transit oriented densely zoned places like New York and Chicago it is way down:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1705342,00.html

Poor sprawly Stockton CA, however, is another story.

Posted by freddiemac | February 21, 2008 5:05 PM

Cranky Observer,

Wrong again. I think you at 100% so far.

So your claim is that you've lived in a poor, urban neighborhood and not noticed: small living spaces, crime, litter, noise, etc? Third time's the charm, you must be blind and deaf (or more likely, lying).

Tyro,

I really don't think that the "vast majority" should be determining how everyone else should live.

I don't see how they are. Whether a family wants or doesn't want to live in an urban setting has no bearing on whether you do or do not follow suit.

Why does the fact that (supposedly) the vast majority wishes to live in pedestrian-unfriendly exurbs somehow a "retort" to the claim that there should be more pedestrian friendly, denser environments.

It isn't a retort. The prevalence of dense environments doesn't interest me in the least. What interests me is it seems many in this thread are taking it as a given that Urban living is objectively better (or happier, as that Ezra fool claims) than any other kind of living and, thusly, more desirable. It is for me. That there are people who could live in an Urban setting and choose not to (despite their sad, depressing commutes and all the myriad traffic stops they face each day, in which the officer never asks for proof of insurance) is proof positive that Urban living is not objectively better. There are rational reasons for that decision, some of which I've listed, most of which don't concern me personally (schools, lack of a big backyard, for instance).

Where someone chooses to live, if he or she has the money to be able to choose, is based on variables and subjective preferences unique to his or her situation. There is no universal, pan-human, objective rule for where is best to live. Better for people to decide for themselves on a case-by-case basis. That's all that I'm saying.

Posted by Shinyk | February 21, 2008 5:05 PM

No, Mixner employs language so dishonestly that he maintains the following would be a truthful assertion.....

"In the 20th century, people in the United States were not stopped from drinking from the public fountains they wished to."

Posted by Will Allen | February 21, 2008 5:06 PM

....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

It's not just you.

And it's a very important point. If you're arguing the time factor of commuting, density means crowds and smaller stores and businesses, longer times doing your daily errands. Higher living costs mean higher labor costs for retail businesses and fewer cashiers and clerks per head.

Commuters spend time commuting. City dwellers spend time waiting in lines. People visiting Manhattan for the first time are mystified by people waiting in lines for movies.

I live in NYC, and I have two brothers who live in LA. Over the laat year we have all had to spend a lot of time at our parents' home in mostly suburban Milwaukee. We all started to save a lot of our errands for our visits to Milwaukee. You can zip into a strip mall there and get a cell phone contract in minutes, you can get to a department store in 10 minutes for underwear and be out in 5 minutes. There are no lines at the Kinko's and the clerks are waiting for you and not worn out. You don't have to search for a clerk at Best Buy, they are all standing around waiting for you. Going to the post office is actually a pleasant experience.

When you go grocery shopping, there are no lines and plenty of cashiers open. What is also being forgotten in this debate is how hard it is to get things like groceries or drycleaning or a new comforter or rug or television home in a mass transit situation. The wealthy in dense urban situations have always used delivery services. Delivery services use energy and cause double and triple parking and gridlock. (The parking tickets given to delivery trucks in Manhattan are a major income producer for the city of New York.) Delivery services, if you work, require having a doorman or maid to receive. The poor in dense urban situations have always spent a lot of time lugging things around, or actually remain poor partly because they have to pay high prices from local small stores for things like diapers and paper towels or spend a lot of time getting them home or spend money having them delivered. If they work and are not at home, deliveries have to go to work, and you still have to lug them home.

I could go on and on. But it's just a question of how you like to use your time: driving back and forth to work, or waiting in lines for the movie and schlepping boxes and bags on the subway and planning your day so exactingly that you are in the right place and right time to get the dry cleaning and not have to check it at the restaurant.

The time saving of not having to commute is highly overrated unless your workplace is also suburban. It's simply a lifestyle choice of how you prefer to spend waiting time.

Posted by artappraiser | February 21, 2008 5:07 PM

Mixner, you could have saved yourself a lot of time by simply arguing that it is an immoral lifestyle choice to choose to live in a dense, pedestrian-friendly neighborhood and that hoi polloi need to be prevented from doing so by the exurban-living.

You did just point blank argue with your last comment that the problem of allowing denser, mixed-use pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods is that it would reduce the demand for exurban subdivisions. It strikes me that MattY's argument is the more valid one, and you're reduced to claiming that anti-mixed-use zoning exists to protect people from themselves, not because that's what would be the best, given people's preferences and the irrationality of development patterns.

Posted by Tyro | February 21, 2008 5:08 PM

I don't want it to sound like I'm taking it personally that people want to live in cities, that's fine with me. I just enjoy mountain life...not necesarily the burbs. And I do agree zoning requirements make further development of denser areas difficult.

freddiemac brings up some good points with which I agree...as far as energy needed for transportation, dense populations carried by energy efficient transportation is a much better scenario than SUVs driving 2 hours at 19 mpg. But I'm talking more about utilities and environmental damage due to high population concentrations. Water resources are definitely a big problem...just think what would happen if Atlanta had a huge growth spurt...again. They're already trying to steal water from Tennessee through a border dispute. Phoenix i having similar problems.

Posted by drosz | February 21, 2008 5:10 PM

People obviously have reasons for supporting zoning laws just as they have reasons for supporting laws against kiddie porn. Several people have already mentioned some of those reasons, such protecting property values and reducing crime.

Yes. There are also a lot of reasons why people might want to *support* more dense housing, too: preservation of open space, return on investment, air quality, accessibility for those who cannot drive, the high cost per resident of building infrastructure in low-density areas, etc. I'm struggling to come up with similar counter-arguments to restricting kiddie porn.

Posted by Adam Villani | February 21, 2008 5:11 PM

Shinyk, once again you're missing the point. While Ezra does make the valid point that due to fashionable trends, people do make decisions that ostensibly are supposed to make them happier but actually do not, another issue here is that regardless of how the majority live, the truth is that the needs and desires of others are being actively thwarted due to malicious zoning that irrationally considers density to be "bad."

As you can see Mixner arguing, here, people who do live in suburban-sprawl environments do seek to prevent those interested in mixed-use, denser living from doing so. You're letting a bizarre, irrational hostility to Ezra get in the way of thinking very hard. We have put many policies in place that constrict the available hosing stock of denser areas for people who would prefer that lifestyle. Your attempt to argue otherwise simply doesn't comport with the facts.

Posted by Tyro | February 21, 2008 5:16 PM

> That there are people who could live in an Urban
> setting and choose not to (despite their sad,
> depressing commutes and all the myriad traffic
> stops they face each day, in which the officer
> never asks for proof of insurance) is proof
> positive that Urban living is not objectively
> better.

Where. Is. The. Oil. Going. To. Come. From.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | February 21, 2008 5:17 PM

Tyro,

I don't believe it's "immoral" to choose to live in a dense, pedestrian-friendly neighborhood.

You did just point blank argue with your last comment that the problem of allowing denser, mixed-use pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods is that it would reduce the demand for exurban subdivisions.

I didn't say any such thing. I suggested that allowing high-density housing to be built in suburban communities can lower property values and increase crime. Those are two of the reasons why people support zoning laws that restrict building in this way.

Posted by Mixner | February 21, 2008 5:18 PM

Everyone here seems focused on commute times but there are many other advantages to living in a dense city. I like to drink, I never have to worry about how I am going to get home, I can walk or take a cab. Snow is expected tomorrow, does not affect me in the least as I can get to anything I want to without driving. There are many many more restaraunts within 15 minutes of me then there are in the suburbs. My commute, while it is about 45 minutes, 30 of them are spent with me sitting down reading the paper and not having to worry about paying attention. I don't have to spend a couple of hours of my weekend maintaining a yard or paying for someone else to do it.

Posted by nathaniel | February 21, 2008 5:19 PM

Mixner,

First, I think it is important to recall the distinction between the normative and the descriptive. "Bad thing" is a normative term. "Artificial scarcity" is a descriptive term, and therefore "artificial scarcity" not necessarily a "bad thing". But just because "artificial scarcity" is a descriptive term doesn't mean it is unimportant--it is important to have accurate descriptions of the world.

Second, you state: "But [zoning regulations] don't 'stop people from building more densely than they want to,' if 'people' is understood to be the community as a whole rather than just certain individuals within that community."

Well, what are you defining as "the community as a whole"?

In this case, we presumably are talking about prospective residents who are lawfully permitted to be in the relevant area and to own property in that area. They want to buy property in that area (either directly or through a lawful intermediary like a developer), and the current property owner wants to sell that property to them.

But I take it you are defining these people as being outside the "community as a whole" prior to carrying out their desired transaction. And while it is true they can't vote on the zoning regulation in question, but why should that be the relevant definition of "community as a whole"? Note that if zoning regulations were decided on the state or federal level, these people might well be part of the relevant electorate.

Now you might then reply to me, OK, but doesn't state law trump local law? And doesn't federal law trump state law? So isn't there a sense in which these people have participated in putting these zoning regulations in place by not trumping them at a higher level?

And actually, I would agree. In the end, I would view zoning reform as something that needs to be carried out at a higher level. And I think it is incumbent on those who think we should have zoning reform to make such a case to their fellow citizens at that higher level. But I don't think the citizens at that higher level should assume the people at the lower level are necessarily doing what is in the collective interests of the community as defined at the higher level.

And in many cases, I think the people at the lower level are not acting in the interests of the broader community when making zoning regulations. Which is pretty much the point a lot of people are trying to make.

Posted by DTM | February 21, 2008 5:21 PM

drosz,

Atlanta is an interesting example. Is Atlanta an urban city or suburban? I've been to Atlanta, and despite having MARTA, it is mostly a suburban place. The city proper only has 500k people, quite small compared to Chicago and New York. I guess the question is are 500k people in Georgia more damaging to the environment if they all live together in a big city or if they spread out in a suburb? I don't think how they live makes a difference in terms of water usage, though one might think that city residents use less water on account of having less lawn to make green. I think of this issue as not so much being about city/suburb but of region. People shouldn't really live in a desert in any great numbers. So L.A. is in some ways unsustainable be it sprawly or dense. Same with Phoenix. Chicago has abundant water, on the other hand.

Posted by freddiemac | February 21, 2008 5:23 PM

Yes. There are also a lot of reasons why people might want to *support* more dense housing, too: preservation of open space, return on investment, air quality, accessibility for those who cannot drive, the high cost per resident of building infrastructure in low-density areas, etc.

People who think zoning laws should allow high-density housing for those reasons or any other reasons are free to vote in accordance with those beliefs.

Posted by Mixner | February 21, 2008 5:25 PM

I find Mixner's comments fascinating in a "can't-look-away-from-the-car-accident" sort of way.

Posted by Tyro | February 21, 2008 5:30 PM

DTM,

It's hard to extract any kind of coherent position or argument from your latest rambling post. Are you advocating the elimination of zoning laws altogether, so that anyone may build any kind of housing (or any other type of building) whereever they like? Or are you saying that you think all zoning laws should be federal, on the grounds that "prospective residents" of any community may currently live anywhere in the country? Or what?

Posted by Mixner | February 21, 2008 5:32 PM

Large number of people can live a desert without overstressing water resources terribly, IF the city had water pricing which reflected it's market value from the time the city reached any considerable size, thus driving development in a manner which put a value on water conservation consistent with what purchasing water cost.

Of course, no such city or state in the desert prices water in this way.

Posted by Will Allen | February 21, 2008 5:33 PM

You're letting a bizarre, irrational hostility to Ezra get in the way of thinking very hard. We have put many policies in place that constrict the available hosing stock of denser areas for people who would prefer that lifestyle.

No, I'm not. Reread this Ezra idiot's post. He doesn't say anything about zoning restrictions. He claims universal "happiness benefits" to Urban living, a position that is as myopic as it is ridiculous. That's my only issue.

Posted by Shinyk | February 21, 2008 5:34 PM

If you think that zoning laws are democratic, try changing them. When was the last time your entire community got together, reviewed the existing laws (and had their implications explained with drawings and charts), offered alternatives and then given the opportunity to vote on them. Some rare communities actually do this but in general, the laws are on the books, they are arcane, and there are entrenched politics and special interests that make any kind of change unbelieveably difficult.

Posted by Nell | February 21, 2008 5:35 PM

As I implied above, people need to be very cautious about extrapolating from the convenience of daily life in NYC or LA to daily life in all higher density neighborhoods. Some Manhattanites and Angelenos might find this surprising, but there are many neighborhoods in the United States where people can walk to local restaurants and shops and not have to get reservations or wait in long lines. And labor costs are not necessarily higher because a lot of these neighborhoods actually have affordable housing near more upscale housing for the people working entry level jobs, and in fact those people may actually be saving on commuting costs.

Posted by DTM | February 21, 2008 5:35 PM

Where. Is. The. Oil. Going. To. Come. From.

Gee, I don't know. Where is the oil going to come from to get food to those urban areas?

Posted by Shinyk | February 21, 2008 5:39 PM

Mixner,

Your apparent confusion stems from the fact that up until now I have been primarily interested in describing the problem, not proposing a specific solution to the problem. So, that is why if you were looking for such a proposal, you couldn't find one.

Personally, I am skeptical of one-size-fits all solutions to these problems, so I am not inclined to offer one here. I will mention, however, that some people have suggested making more of these decisions at least at the county level, sometimes as part of a broader city/county integration efforts. I think this is a promising idea.

Posted by DTM | February 21, 2008 5:45 PM

Shinyk,

Actually, the distribution of goods is another area in which cities typically are more efficient. This can be a confusing topic because sometimes people contrast farmers living off the land (in which case there is no distribution at all) with non-farmers living in cities. But if the contrast is non-farmers living spread out versus non-farmers living together in a city, it turns out to be more efficient for the farmers to deliver their goods to the latter.

Posted by DTM | February 21, 2008 5:50 PM

Where is the oil going to come from to get food to those urban areas?

That's the thing. Before cheap oil, there were cities and villages and farmland surrounding them, there has never been suburbia w/o cheap oil. Now that we've chewwed up all the farmland with low-density suburbia, how do we go back when the oil runs out?

Posted by Nell | February 21, 2008 5:52 PM

I notice that Shinyk capitalises 'Urban'.

That's curious, and perhaps revealing.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 21, 2008 5:54 PM

Actually, the distribution of goods is another area in which cities typically are more efficient (than suburbs).

I'll buy that. I was responding to a dumb question from some jackass who claims poor neighborhoods feature less crime and huge living spaces, and that we're so low on oil that suburbs are going to cause us to run out.

Posted by Shinyk | February 21, 2008 5:57 PM

I will mention, however, that some people have suggested making more of these decisions at least at the county level, sometimes as part of a broader city/county integration efforts. I think this is a promising idea.

Why? I would have thought that shifting zoning power away from city governments and towards county governments would be likely to produce zoning laws that are more conducive to sprawl, not less.

Posted by Mixner | February 21, 2008 6:12 PM

I notice that Shinyk capitalises 'Urban'. That's curious, and perhaps revealing.

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean, but,

I capitalize 'urban' when I'm talking about the particular peculiarities of a specific lifestyle (apartments, taxis, buses, activity) this Ezra person claims is such an objective and universal cause of happiness.

I tell you this in case, in your noticing, you didn't notice that I only capitalize 'urban' when I use the word 'living' after it and leave it lower case in just about any other situation.

Posted by Shinyk | February 21, 2008 6:15 PM

True, Atlanta is bit of a different style of city. But the 500K is actually just within the metro area, the burbs there constitute a huge population who live off the same resources. So you might be able to add a million or more...I could be wrong though and I'm being lazy and not looking it up.

The sprawl actually is a huge problem which supports your contention that a denser population in the center city would be beneficial and the long commute times into the city is definitely not sustainable.

Someone said earlier that water resources wouldn't be problem if the proper price controls were in place, so that might be a way to work that problem out, I'll concede that one. By the way, I'm just trying to point to the fact that with a larger denser population comes big costs that might outweigh the benefits.

Runoff is a huge problem for the environment, the more built the environment, the more damage, at an exponential rate, is done...hmmmm, so actually denser populations might help that too...hehe...so now that we've worked that out...

On to energy consumption or utilities, there would have to be a change in energy generation and supply I would think. I do know there are many pretty exciting alternatives being developed, but as we all know it'll probably take quite awhile to develop and implement these. Electricity generation might be a problem as well. I don't know much about electrical grids so I'm just stating a concern about that one.

I just think an influx of people into center cities might be as difficult to sustain as the burbs at the moment. With a surge in population to provide for, a city might struggle to expand its services in an efficient and effective way.

Posted by drosz | February 21, 2008 6:19 PM

a specific lifestyle (apartments, taxis, buses, activity) this Ezra person claims is such an objective and universal cause of happiness.

Well, that's a capitalised Strawman.

'Urban' with a capital U is a euphemism for 'black'. I think it's a silly euphemism, and don't use it. Since you didn't make it at all clear why you were capitalising 'urban', I drew an inference. If it was incorrect, mea culpa.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 21, 2008 6:21 PM

> Gee, I don't know. Where is the oil going to
> come from to get food to those urban areas?

Gee, I dunno. Maybe we could rebuild those electrified train lines that delivered food to large US cities before there were internal combustion vehicles?

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | February 21, 2008 6:30 PM

Shinyk,

Fair enough. For what it is worth, I agree that proponents of new urbanism can sometimes go a little far with their rhetoric insofar as they imply things like that these sorts of communities are "universally" better than the alternatives.

On the other hand, I also think an increasing number of people, including some people with children, are starting to think the advantagesof higher-density communities may outweigh the disadvantages (not all people, just more than before). I also think it is somewhat obvious that persistently higher oil prices would in fact accelerate this trend, as would persistently higher concern over a number of different environmental issues.

Again, I don't think all this means that suburban living is about to be entirely abandoned, but there could be a noticeable shift in the balance. Indeed, I think it has already begun.

Posted by DTM | February 21, 2008 6:32 PM

drosz,

Atlanta is interesting. There are over a million in the "metro area", but the city itself only 500k, which is the only part that is densely zoned and walkable, and really only parts of the city iself at that. So in effect, Atlanta supports the argument against sprawl. Metro Atlanta is sprawly and car dependent, there are no other ways to navigate as it is unwalkable, unbikeable, and MARTA doesn't go there. I'm not sure that the water problems are related to sprawl and development, but metro Atlanta is mostly low density.

Posted by freddiemac | February 21, 2008 6:36 PM

Mixner,

First, I think it is important to understand that this isn't necessarily a city versus county issue. Indeed, the central city may have just as many zoning regulations creating artificial scarcity of high-density housing as any other municipality in the county.

Second, you seem to be assuming that people outside the central city are less concerned about sprawl than people in the central city. Actually, those are often the people most concerned about sprawl, since they are the ones dealing with congestion and other such problems. And many of these people may actually recognize that loosening zoning regulations on higher-density housing may help address these problems. But since zoning is being done locally, it creates a NIMBY problem. If instead zoning reform could be done county-wide, people in these localities may be less concerned that their particular municipality will experience a disproportionate share of any resulting negative effects from the necessary reforms.

Third, keep in mind that higher-density housing is only part of the picture. For example, many of the benefits only become realized when various services, including police, fire, public transit, and utilities, are organized to make optimal use of the higher-density patterns. Municipalities often are in no position to unilaterally make those sorts of changes, but the county may be. That is particularly true in cases where the county and central city have moved toward greater intregration of those services already, which is why these zoning reform efforts can be tied into that general sort of effort.

Posted by DTM | February 21, 2008 6:54 PM

Re: 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

Assuming you do not want to have major acreage, there's no reason you can't have a single family house and small yard in a city. Most cities have housing like that: it may front on the sidewalk and even adjoin the house next door, but in the back there's a small yard, big enough for a vegetable garden, a grill and some chairs (and nowadays maybe a hot tub). Why do people assume that city life=apartments? Most US cities are full of single family homes. Of course there are problems with the housing stock being decrepit, the neighborhoods being crime-ridden, the infrastructure being deteriorated, and the schools sucking. That's why most people don't want to live there. But if you could overcome those problems (tall order I know!) I suspect many people would be happy to have a house (house, not apartment) in the city. One caveat though: many (most?) people no longer work in city centers. NYC and DC are exceptions these days. Many businesses, even significant ones, have long since fled the city center for spacious office parks out on the beltways.

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

I'm with you on that. Just spent the last four weekends either traveling or entertaining out-of-town company. Last night I went out back to watch the eclipse and realized how much I'd missed getting my hands dirty (I live in S. Florida; yard work is a year round thing) I told the neighborhood cat who was visiting that I'll even enjoy cutting the grass this weekend.

Re: 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.

Where would they put it? Even when I went to college there fifteen years ago Ann Arbor was already very much build-up, except on the outskirts where you can indeed find lots of apartment buildings. I hope no one wants to tear up the city's excellent park system along the river and replace it with tenements!

Re: 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.

Perhaps a larger problem is that jobs tend not to stay put. Either you change jobs (perhaps involuntarily given the nature of our economy where employees are treated like yesterday's newspapers) or your office packs up and moves somewhere else after the five year lease is up.

Re: 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.

Not sure about that. Here in S Florida the commuter rail stations are often in some pretty seedy neighborhoods. Trains are noisy after all, and housing values near them reflect that.

Re: Before cheap oil, there were cities and villages and farmland surrounding them, there has never been suburbia w/o cheap oil.

Depends what you mean by "suburbia". Certainly nothing like the current sprawl, but most cities had a small ring of suburbs surrounding them 100 years, often served by streetcars. Dearborn MI comes to mind as an example, and I'm sure anyone who lives near an older city can cite similar examples.

Posted by JonF | February 21, 2008 7:00 PM

The MID puts homeowners and landlords on the same level. The landlord, as a businessman, can deduct the interest as an expense. The homeowner, as an individual, cannot. Which means that it would make more sense to create a corporation and then lease your home to yourself, or some other tax avoidance strategy, or just rent. Much easier to just allow the MID.

Posted by bjk | February 21, 2008 7:11 PM

DTM,

First, I think it is important to understand that this isn't necessarily a city versus county issue.

Well, you're the one who proposed giving more zoning power to county governments as a possible solution to the "problem" of suburban sprawl.

Second, you seem to be assuming that people outside the central city are less concerned about sprawl than people in the central city.

Seems plausible to me. Most of the people who seem to have a big problem with sprawl are the ones who live in or close to urban areas because they prefer that kind of living. The people who actually live in the suburbs seem to generally like their big houses and two-car garages and backyards, and don't want to give them up for someone else's idea of good living.

Again, I don't think all this means that suburban living is about to be entirely abandoned, but there could be a noticeable shift in the balance. Indeed, I think it has already begun.

Got any evidence of this? The median size of new housing has been steadily increasing for decades. At the same time, average household size has declined, so housing space per person has increased at an even higher rate than house size. Apartments and condos have been getting bigger too. Car ownership rates have also been increasing. I see no serious evidence that Americans are moving towards a higher-density housing model rather than the reverse.

Posted by Mixner | February 21, 2008 7:31 PM

Gee, I dunno. Maybe we could rebuild those electrified train lines that delivered food to large US cities before there were internal combustion vehicles?

And deliver all the steel with which to build those ficititious tens of thousands of miles of coal-powered, ahem, electrified train lines with our fictitious electrified 18-Wheelers. I get it.

On the other hand, I also think an increasing number of people, including some people with children, are starting to think the advantagesof higher-density communities may outweigh the disadvantages (not all people, just more than before).

Anywhere anyone decides (for themselves) is a better place to live is fine by me.

Posted by Shinyk | February 21, 2008 7:32 PM

> And deliver all the steel with which to build
> those ficititious tens of thousands of miles of
> coal-powered, ahem, electrified train lines with
> our fictitious electrified 18-Wheelers. I get it.

Shinyk,
Why don't you just go ahead and admit that you have never read or studied any history of cities or heavy industry in the 1860-1920 time period before there were individually-owned internal combustion vehicles or much in the way of oil in our society.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | February 21, 2008 8:09 PM

I just ran the density numbers for all the locales I've lived in. The inner ring Milwaukee suburb I grew up in has 6,500/mi2, slightly more than the city itself (and the population was almost 50% greater during the baby boom). Of course it has no industry and the commercial district is tiny, but there's also hardly anything taller than two stories, too. The standard lot size is 1/9 acre and the streets are at rigid right angles with no cul-de-sacs sucking up space.

Of the 8 addresses I've had, only Berkeley clocks in higher, at 9k/mi2. Philly and Raleigh are pikers at 4.2k and 3.5k, respectively.

Density and modest yards for kids are not at such great conflict.

Posted by Matt B | February 21, 2008 8:40 PM

Does anyone else find it annoying that Mixner consistently insists on evidence from others but presents his own straight-from-his-ass, panglossian just so stories with nary a link or cite?

Posted by DMonteith | February 21, 2008 9:37 PM

Nobody seems familiar with the reality of zoning, which doesn't have a whole lot to do with what actual people, current or prospective residents, want.

My state rep is a lawyer for real estate developers. The adjacent state senator *is* a real estate developer. No, there's no hope for turning them out. This is a 70% Republican area, and the developers seem to own the GOP. And so as far as the eye can see, one suburb blends into the next, and McMansions (ugly, cheaply built, expensive) are rising on every ridgeline so you can't avoid seeing them. And that's what we're zoned for: 1+ acre/house and big box malls. Oh, and factory farms, which have big money and their own state legislators. Kind of cute when the exurban McMansionville discovers a bacon factory farm next door.

The local zoning commissions don't have much in the way of actual power.

Posted by Joyful Alternative | February 21, 2008 10:10 PM

As others have pointed out, land development is one of the highly regulated sectors of the economy, so it's not necessarily true that urban sprawl is the product of market forces. The best argument I've seen that the dominance of low-density, auto-dependent development is the product of excessive land-use regulations rather than market forces is Jonathan Levine's Zoned Out:

http://www.rff.org/rff/RFF_Press/CustomBookPages/Zoned-Out.cfm

http://planningresearch.blogspot.com/2006/02/blog-review-jonathan-levines-zoned-out.html

Posted by Peter H | February 21, 2008 11:07 PM

Does anyone else find it annoying that Mixner consistently insists on evidence from others but presents his own straight-from-his-ass, panglossian just so stories with nary a link or cite?

Not too much. Pitiful, perhaps. He's so desperate to impress McMegan that he's adopted her silly method of argumentum ad rectum.

Before cheap oil, there were cities and villages and farmland surrounding them, there has never been suburbia w/o cheap oil.

Well, London's Metroland comes to mind. But Metroland is what I'd consider fairly high density housing, by comparison with the suburban and exurban US.

Strip away the Utopianism of the New Urbanism, and you have an argument about appropriate, sustainable development that addresses issues of home, community and needs. If you're living in a log cabin in the mountains with a wood-burning stove, more power to you. If you want a 3000 sq. ft. Tyvek sprawlhouse built on a clearcut ridge lot, and a strip mall within a 10m drive, then you should really go fuck yourself.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 22, 2008 12:12 AM

Why don't you just go ahead and admit that you have never read or studied any history of cities or heavy industry in the 1860-1920 time period before there were individually-owned internal combustion vehicles or much in the way of oil in our society.

Does that history provide evidence of an inverse correlation between poverty and crime, another inverse correlation between income and housing size, that the existence of US suburbs will soon make every drop of oil disappear, or any of the other nonsense you've been claiming?

No, you've probably just moved on to advancing some wacko theory about abandoning the automobile in favor of horses. Good luck on your quest.

Posted by Shinyk | February 22, 2008 3:11 AM

Mixner,

As others have noted, you seem to be relying an awful lot on your intuition to answer what are fundamentally empirical problems, while at the same time asking others for concrete evidence.

In any event, we have recited many of the reasons to believe demand for higher-density housing is increasing relative to demand for lower-density housing. Again, I can attest that in my city, the highest appreciation rates recently have been in higher-density neighborhoods and developments. Similar patterns have occurred in other cities recently. I might note that many of these homes are quite large by square footage--you can build large homes on the lots allowed at the density rates we are considering. Also, it is quite easy to have one or two car garages on such lots.

More generally, I really think you are stuck in an unfortunate "large cities versus suburbs" paradigm. Higher-density housing is possible outside of large cities--for example, it can be found in what once were called towns or villages. Indeed, in my metro area the suburbs experiencing the highest appreciation rates are also relatively high density, with traditional village-style steet plans and walkable "downtowns". I haven't done the math, but I strongly suspect these suburbs satisfy the density rates we are considering here.

Finally, I really think your intuition is wrong on another subject as well: people in the suburbs are not uniformly unconcerned with sprawl. Indeed, as I pointed out, and you did not address, it is people in the suburbs who are bearing the brunt of sprawl-related issues such as congestion (you pointed out the upsides of suburban living without addressing these issues at all). Accordingly, I see no reason to assume, as you apparently do, that people who prefer suburban living would be uninterested in coordinated efforts to deal with problems such as congestion on a county-wide basis.

And that is fundamentally why I disagree with your apparent conclusion that a democratic solution to these issues is impossible. There is no fundamental reason why people who share different preferences when it comes to things like the housing cannot get together and work out a plan that will allow each of them to have the sorts of housing they would prefer with a fair allocation of the costs of the necessary public goods. It is true there is good reason to believe that the democratic process is not yet achieving that result, but I also think there is good reason to believe that is largely because of a lack of coordination at the correct level of government.

Indeed, I think you implicitly acknowledged this above when you used the phrase "community as a whole". Problems like congestion and the artificial scarcity of certain kinds of housing demonstrate that things like zoning and transportation decisions are being made without the whole relevant community participating in those decisions. The logical answer to such a problem is to expand the decision-making process to this broader "community as a whole". And that is the gist of things like city-county integration. And all that should be pretty obvious, and not that problematic, if you can get over the notion that somehow people who prefer cities and people who prefer suburbs cannot coordinate their activities in a mutually-satisfactory way.

Posted by DTM | February 22, 2008 8:19 AM

DTM,

In any event, we have recited many of the reasons to believe demand for higher-density housing is increasing relative to demand for lower-density housing.

I asked for evidence. No one has produced any. As I said, the evidence from changes in housing size, household size and the rate of car ownership indicates that Americans are seeking lower density housing, not higher density. The average size of a new single-family home has almost doubled over the past 30 years, even as the average number of people in each house has declined.

The high rate of inflation in real estate prices in certain cities reflects the relatively fixed supply in those locations constrained by geography and the increase in population, not a demand for higher-density housing. There are lots more wealthy people, including wealthy foreigners, competing for a relatively fixed supply of housing in places like Manhattan and San Francisco, which is why values in those locations have increased so dramatically. New housing in these areas tends to be luxury, high-rise apartments and condos for the wealthy, not high-density housing that is affordable to the middle-class. These are niche markets that are not representative of American housing in general. The basic demographic story of American cities over the past half century has been the mass evacuation of cities by middle- and lower-income Americans for the suburbs, where they can afford bigger and better housing.

Higher-density housing is possible outside of large cities--for example, it can be found in what once were called towns or villages.

Yes, it's obviously possible, but it's not what people are actually voting for and buying. They are voting for and buying vast, sprawling suburbs and exurbs, not high-density village-like communities.

Posted by Mixner | February 22, 2008 12:20 PM

Mixner,

First, my city is neither NYC or SF, and as a matter of fact is one of the many industrial cities that has lost population since 1950 or so (although much less rapidly over the last few years). And yet here too the existing neighborhoods with the highest appreciation recently have been high-density neighborhoods, and a lot of money is being put into developing more high-density housing.

Moreover, much of that housing in my city is currently affordable for the middle-class, although it is true that the relatively high appreciation rates are gradually making it less and less affordable, at least in the nicest neighborhoods. But again, what that suggests is not a lack of demand. Just the opposite, it suggests an artificial scarcity.

In fact, to the extent you are concerned more about the middle class more than wealthier people, you should in fact be concerned about the fact that the middle class is being squeezed out of this sort of housing. Unless you are somehow assuming the middle class and the more wealthy have radically different housing preferences--but why would that be?

Second, at this point I would think we would have been able to move beyond your simplistic assertions about what people are voting for and buying. To summarize what we went through above, all too often the people looking to buy housing in an area are not being given the chance to vote on what will be available for them to buy in that area. So, they are unable to express their preferences through the either the political process or their buying decisions. Hence, we cannot assume the outcome of those processes is reflecting their preferences, and the price data confirms that it is not.

And I honestly don't get why all this is so hard for you to understand.

Posted by DTM | February 22, 2008 3:12 PM

DTM,

And yet here too the existing neighborhoods with the highest appreciation recently have been high-density neighborhoods, and a lot of money is being put into developing more high-density housing.

As I said, new housing in cities tends to consist of luxury condos and apartments for the wealthy, not high-density housing for middle- or lower-income groups. Higher prices for existing stocks of higher-density housing in urban areas reflects greater competition arising from increased wealth and population growth, not greater demand for such housing among Americans in general.

To summarize: You have not produced one iota of evidence that Americans seek higher density housing. All the evidence of the past several decades--mass defections from cities to suburbs, dramatic growth in average house size, decline in average size of household, higher rate of car ownership, endless new road and highway construction projects--overwhelmingly shows that Americans prefer bigger houses in lower-density communities built around cars and roads serving highly distributed commercial and business districts to smaller houses in higher-density communities built around pedestrian areas and mass transit serving compact urban centers.

Posted by Mixner | February 22, 2008 4:08 PM

Mixner,

I know what you said. You just happen to be wrong about my city, and many other cities: middle-class people are in fact able to afford many of the homes in most of the popular high-density neighborhoods in my city, and in fact are the people currently causing the appreciation. Just to give you an idea, in my city we are often talking about $100,000 homes recently rising up to $200,000, or $150,000 homes recently rising up to $300,000. At current mortgage rates, these are very much middle class prices.

Now it is true that if this continues much longer, these homes will start to get out of reach for much of the middle class. There are in fact a few neighborhoods like that already (e.g., where $350,000 homes are now $700,000), and more on the cusp. Again, though, if you actually cared about the middle class as much as you imply, you would view this as a problem--why if there are all these people willing to pay isn't there more supply?

However, I am gathering you just aren't really interested in learning about this issue, despite your claims to the contrary. But it doesn't really matter, because the rest of the country is starting to pay attention. In particular, I happen to know that in my city, the major developers have noticed all this, and they have been working hard to get more high-density projects approved, and they are breaking ground as we speak. And I know this is happening in many other cities as well.

So, whether you believe it is happening or not, it is in fact happening.

Posted by DTM | February 22, 2008 4:33 PM

DTM,

I know what you said. You just happen to be wrong about my city, and many other cities: middle-class people are in fact able to afford many of the homes in most of the popular high-density neighborhoods in my city, and in fact are the people currently causing the appreciation.

I don't know why you keep saying this. It doesn't contradict anything I have said, and it is not evidence of increasing demand for higher-denisty housing among Americans in general. You haven't produced any evidence whatsoever of such a demand. And you keep ignoring all the evidence I have cited that overwhelmingly demonstrates a preference for bigger housing in low-density suburban and exurban communities to smaller housing in higher-density urban and neo-urban communities. The market for high-density, urban-style housing communities is almost entirely restricted to yuppies and the wealthy. Ordinary Americans overwhelmingly prefer the sprawling suburbs and exurbs. This has been the trend since at least the end of World War II.

Posted by Mixner | February 22, 2008 4:58 PM

you keep ignoring all the evidence I have cited

You keep using that word 'evidence'... fill in the rest of the quotation, silly glibertarian boy.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 22, 2008 6:46 PM

Mixner,

I haven't ignored your points. But we have already gone through the reasons why your supply-side data is not indicative of demand under conditions of artificial scarcity. Conversely, you really do seem to be ignoring my responses to your claims.

Specifically, originally you claimed there was no demand for high-density housing, and now you are claiming this demand is "almost entirely restricted to yuppies and the wealthy."

Now prima facie, this makes no sense. Why would only "yuppies and the wealthy" want such housing, but not other people? Why would having more money to spend on housing magically transform people's preferences in this way?

Moreover, I just gave you specific pricing data from my city which handily demonstrates this market segment is not limited to "yuppies and the wealthy". So not only is your suggestion theoretically implausible, but it is also controverted by the empirical evidence.

But I will halt this conversation here. That is because I have noticed a pattern with you. Specifically, you often demand that people give you certain sorts of information and evidence. But on the occasions in which people have done so, you have not thanked them, nor even really acknowledged their efforts on your behalf. And typically, your subsequent posts show no indication that you have considered in any way the information or evidence that you demanded and received.

So, it seems to me these demands on your part on not sincere. Rather, they appear to be some sort of rhetorical device on your part, and if in fact people comply with your demands, you simply ignore their efforts. Under those circumstances, I guess I don't see the point in doing any more on your behalf.

Posted by DTM | February 22, 2008 10:38 PM

DTM,

But we have already gone through the reasons why your supply-side data is not indicative of demand under conditions of artificial scarcity.

You haven't produced any evidence whatsoever that the supply is inconsistent with the demand, just unsubstantiated and wildly implausible assertions. Where is your evidence that even a significant minority, let alone a majority, of those tens of millions of people who have been buying big houses in sprawling low-density suburbs over the last thirty or forty years would have preferred smaller houses in higher-density, urban or urban-like communities instead? Evidence, please.

Specifically, originally you claimed there was no demand for high-density housing,

I never said there is no demand at all. There is a small demand, and the supply of high-density housing is commensurately small.

Why would only "yuppies and the wealthy" want such housing, but not other people?

Is this really so difficult for you to understand? Yuppies are less likely to be married, and less likely to have children, so large houses with features like family rooms and multiple bathrooms and backyards and swimming pools and garages are much less valuable to them than to older, married couples with children. Yuppies also tend to place a higher value on the social and cultural amenities offered by urban areas and cities, and are willing to sacrifice housing size and quality in order to live in such areas.

Moreover, I just gave you specific pricing data from my city which handily demonstrates this market segment is not limited to "yuppies and the wealthy".

You didn't give me any data, just a handful of numbers that you could have pulled out of your ass, for all I know. What is your city?

Posted by Mixner | February 22, 2008 11:16 PM

I really don't know why I can't leave this alone, but I feel compelled to point something out to Mixner: the fact that the price of urban homes is high and getting higher IS evidence of increased demand. It's evidence that demand exceeds supply. You can say it's all yuppies or something, but that doesn't change the fact that more people want high-density urban housing than are able to buy it, therefore, the price goes up.

It's not like this is college level econ 101. This is first-day high-school econ.

Posted by too many steves | February 22, 2008 11:22 PM