In The Zone

In response to Tyler Cowen's post on zoning I'd say the beginning of wisdom is the simple recognition that if you're hoping for deregulation to allow people to build in a higher-density manner, looking to deregulate Manhattan doesn't make a ton of sense as a first step. Not that Manhattan doesn't have a ton of zoning and other regulations (it does) but it's already pretty damn dense. Even restricting yourself to the NYC area, the things to do would be to permit Manhattan-scale building in all the parts of the outer boroughs that are near Subway stations and create more transit-oriented development near LIRR/MetroNorth/NJTransit stations in the suburbs.

But in general, almost everywhere is overzoned. If you start paying attention to hyper-local politics almost everywhere, you'll quickly see the political economy behind this, namely that zoning rules are often made to be broken. But to break the rules, you need to get a variance. And to get a variance you need to do, well, something to persuade the people empowered to grant variances to give you one. So at the margin, regulators will prefer to make restrictions that are too stringent even according to them and then grant variances that involve sundry side payments rather than simply loosen regulations.

Last, it's always worth saying that if every spot of the planet allowed Sao Paulo levels of density it doesn't follow that such density would actually emerge all across the planet. The density of any given American city is determined by (among other things) the regulatory environment, but the overall density of the country is determined by the birth, death, and immigration rates. If all our major metro areas simultaneously allowed for increased density, the short-term impact on any particular place would be relatively modest.

Comments

Even restricting yourself to the NYC area, the things to do would be to permit Manhattan-scale building in all the parts of the outer boroughs that are near Subway stations

Well, sure. But one thing that needs to be addressed besides zoning laws is litigation reform.

Take, for example, Bruce Ratner's Atlantic Yards project. That's something that's exactly what Matthew is talking about - large, dense housing developments in Brooklyn (replacing smaller, low density housing) right on top of a major transit hub. Of course, the project has been held up by multiple lawsuits over various regulatory matters, and now given the debt markets it is somewhat doubtful that Ratner will go through with the project.

Zoning isn't the only obstacle to high density housing. Even projects that meet zoning requirements can be stopped through litigation.

Posted by Al | April 29, 2008 11:31 AM

Are even the outer boroughs of NYC really in need of greater density? Queens has 20,000 people per square mile. That's a lot more than Philly (11,000) or DC (9,000) or Boston (12,000), or Chicago (12,000) which are relatively densely populated cities.

By contrast, Houston, Texas has 3,700. So does Atlanta. Phoenix has 2,900. Jacksonville has little more than 1,000. Other than Staten Island, which is basically a suburb, the outer boroughs of New York are probably more densely populated than virtually anywhere else in the country, besides Manhattan itself.

Posted by John | April 29, 2008 11:37 AM

Right,

Basically density isn't a function of regulation, as some conservatives has said. One need only look at New York and the book of zoning regulations it has to see that. Density comes from many sources, including supply, demand, and access to outward growth. Atlanta isn't very dense, but Atlanta has made it phenominally easy to simply build someplace further out where there is nothing, and as such growth is low density in most places in metro Atlanta. At this point the only thing that will cause dense infill project in the dirty is 5 bucks a gallon in the next few months. Then people will want to "get smarta with Marta".

Posted by freddiemac | April 29, 2008 11:58 AM

There is no demand for more density in living space. There is no evidence that increased density results in improved quality of life or civic activity, in fact quite the opposite.

It's a made-up issue for developers and their single-issue liberal collaborators to convert green space and air rights into money at the expense of the current residents.

Posted by wellbasically | April 29, 2008 12:00 PM

There is no demand for less density in living space. There is no evidence that decreased density results in improved quality of life or civic activity, in fact quite the opposite.

It's a made-up issue for developers and their single-issue conservative collaborators to convert green space and air rights into money at the expense of the current residents.

Posted by freddiemac | April 29, 2008 12:13 PM

Chicago is basically only dense along the lakefront -- there are massive swathes on the west side of the city that are single family tract homes and in some cases simply deserted wasteland (see here for an example...)

Posted by dbt | April 29, 2008 12:15 PM

There is no demand for more density in living space.

Very true. No one wants to live in dense neighborhoods. They are too crowded and competitive bidding for space drives up rent and real estate costs which no one wants to pay.

Posted by Tyro | April 29, 2008 12:16 PM

There is no demand for more density in living space.

Yogi? Is that you?

Posted by Al | April 29, 2008 12:20 PM

"'There is no demand for more density in living space.'

Very true. No one wants to live in dense neighborhoods. They are too crowded and competitive bidding for space drives up rent and real estate costs which no one wants to pay."

which is why no one lives in Manhattan and the rents are cheap.

idiots.

many of the reasons why people want to live in Manhattan are partially due to its density. and it'd be a heck of a lot more expensive if it wasn't so dense.

Posted by Nathan | April 29, 2008 12:21 PM

Part of what attracts people to an area are the zoning laws, particularly if they're buying, not renting. Yeah, I know a few people who like to live "out in the country, where you don't have the government on their backs", but then they end up complaining about their neighbors' extensive collection of dead cars and fondness for loud parties.

Part of what draws people to the city/suburbs is knowing that they can expect certain standards of behavior and housing, and that those standards will be enforced by an external authority.

Posted by MikeT | April 29, 2008 12:22 PM

Really? The thing that the Bergen stop on the F line needs, that Carroll Gardens needs, that Park Slog needs, that Fort Greene needs, that Eastern Parkway needs is some 50 or 80 story skyscrapers? Thank god you're not the mayor. Ever live in midtown, a place full of the "Manhattan-scale" building you want to permit near every subway stop in all the outer-burroughs?

Absurd.

Posted by atl | April 29, 2008 12:27 PM

Really? The thing that, say, the Bergen stop on the F line needs, that Carroll Gardens needs, that Park Slope needs, that Fort Greene needs, that Eastern Parkway needs, is some 50 or 80 story skyscrapers? Thank god you're not the mayor. Ever live in midtown, a place full of the "Manhattan-scale" building you want to permit near every subway stop in all the outer-burroughs? Turns out Midtown, with the kind of development you want to allow near all of New York's 468 subways stations, isn't a great neighborhood to raise a family in. Good luck with that plan.

Posted by atl | April 29, 2008 12:30 PM

Cities have been losing population for decades. There is a desire for cheap housing sure. But it's not the same as density.

Really, the density folks have a fantasy neighborhood that looks like Charlestown, Massachusetts, with a little train station, but it's not Manhattan.

Posted by wellbasically | April 29, 2008 12:41 PM

Really, the density folks have a fantasy neighborhood that looks like Charlestown, Massachusetts, with a little train station

Charlestown is actually part of the city of Boston.

wellbasically/freddimac, it is clear that there is more demand for denser living communities than there is supply, within a given metro area.

Many people seem to view the free market as an explicitly unifying enterprise: that there is a selection of goods whose desireability is clear, from least desireable to most desireable. Actually, what happens is that many goods (like housing) have different values to different people, and some of those goods are in shorter supply compared to the number of people who find those goods desireable. Trying to argue that there is no demand for denser development patterns when, obviously, such communities are some of the most highly demanded signifies a sort of mental break. However, I have encountered many people who simply regard their own possessions and preferences as *the best ones*. It's a psychological rationalization that a lot of people do to themselves, in part as a means of justifying their own desires and in part due to a desire to believe that everyone around them is jealous of their lifestyle.

Posted by Tyro | April 29, 2008 12:56 PM

I didn't say there was no demand for cool things. That's not the same as a demand for density. And I live in a city. I'm just realistic about the good and bad of it, and I know how sleazy developers use do-good liberals to make money off government giveaways.

There are many more nice places to live that do not have city-level density. Should those people dense up to meet your idea of the sustainable community? They won't, and they will fight it with lawsuits. The people in the city would fight too if they had the money for the lawyers.

You dense people, therefore, are allied with some of the sleaziest people in the world, against city residents. Hope it feels good.

Posted by wellbasically | April 29, 2008 1:08 PM

Jonathan Levine makes the point about zoning restrictions in his book Zoned Out(1), which I agree are too stringent, but I agree more with Yglesias that developers can generally build what they want anyway. Side payments (bribing, er, campaign contributions) add to the cost of doing business and can't be good for democracy, but one assumes they are a relatively small share of total cost rather than the dominant make or break factor.

Is there really a market for higher density living that is not being met? I suspect not, as cities are in general depopulating and have been for the past 50 years. Rather I think there is a market for new housing, which is provided more at the edge of the region than the center because greenfield development is cheaper than brownfield. This is discussed some in the book: Planning for Place and Plexus: Metropolitan Land Use and Transportation

One could think of zoning laws as one of the bundle of property rights that people buy when they acquire property, i.e. the right to regulate your neighbors. While the initial imposition of zoning may have been a taking, since that time (and most property has changed hands multiple times since zoning was first in place), it has become an expectation that is priced into the value of land.

(My review of Zoned Out is
David Levinson (2006) Zoned Out: Regulation, Market, and Choice In Transportation and Metropolitan Land-Use - Jonathan Levine
Growth and Change 37 (3) , 492–494 doi:10.1111/j.1468-2257.2006.00333_2.x http://nexus.umn.edu/Reviews/Levine.pdf )

Posted by David M. Levinson | April 29, 2008 1:19 PM

Matt is making some basic errors here. The fact that zoning codes are voluminous and hard to read does not mean that "almost everywhere is overzoned". Most documents that need to stand up in a court of law are voluminous and hard to read.

Matt offers no evidence that "almost everywhere is overzoned" because there isn't any. On the other hand, every major city has architectural remnants reminding us that at one time that city was underzoned.

Can the zoning process go terribly wrong? Of course it can! And the most likely reason for this happening is the intervention of large financial interests that Matt would be happy to see operating without any regulation at all. This is where Matt really needs to take a break, and do a walking tour of the Five Points neighborhood of New York, with some historical accounts of what the area was like with no zoning and extremely high density.

Frankly, I'm somewhat dumbfounded that any literate American can even imagine that the megalopolis of the third world could serve as a blueprint for the future- a trend of thought that I suspect is much more likely to result in our consulting the floorplans of the Neanderthals in the not-too-distant future.

On the macro scale the results are thoroughly unambiguous. Western Europe, more tightly 'zoned' than any other region of the world for over 600 years, is obviously the best-positioned region of the world to meet the energy crisis we're in. On some topics Matt needs to do more reading and less writing.

Posted by serial catowner | April 29, 2008 1:21 PM

Jonathan Levine makes the point about zoning restrictions in his book Zoned Out(1), which I agree are too stringent, but I agree more with Yglesias that developers can generally build what they want anyway. Side payments (bribing, er, campaign contributions) add to the cost of doing business and can't be good for democracy, but one assumes they are a relatively small share of total cost rather than the dominant make or break factor.

Is there really a market for higher density living that is not being met? I suspect not, as cities are in general depopulating and have been for the past 50 years. Rather I think there is a market for new housing, which is provided more at the edge of the region than the center because greenfield development is cheaper than brownfield. This is discussed some in the book: Planning for Place and Plexus: Metropolitan Land Use and Transportation

One could think of zoning laws as one of the bundle of property rights that people buy when they acquire property, i.e. the right to regulate your neighbors. While the initial imposition of zoning may have been a taking, since that time (and most property has changed hands multiple times since zoning was first in place), it has become an expectation that is priced into the value of land.

(My review of Zoned Out is
David Levinson (2006) Zoned Out: Regulation, Market, and Choice In Transportation and Metropolitan Land-Use - Jonathan Levine
Growth and Change 37 (3) , 492–494 doi:10.1111/j.1468-2257.2006.00333_2.x http://nexus.umn.edu/Reviews/Levine.pdf )

Posted by David M. Levinson | April 29, 2008 1:22 PM

If all our major metro areas simultaneously allowed for increased density, the short-term impact on any particular place would be relatively modest.

Yes, in the short-term, but over the long run, development patterns would shift drastically in every region. Once restrictions are removed, more people would be able to locate closer to workplaces, while employers would locate closer to quality employees. High-level employers would still choose dense cities due to agglomeration, and NYC could accommodate more of these firms with higher density.

Not every place would be denser. In fact, places that are not as accessible to business would naturally remain less dense. People who telecommute and retirees could still live in low-density areas very affordably. Also, location-flexible industrial firms would still find affordable land, and lower wage employees could live more comfortably near these firms since location-sensitive housing needs are met elsewhere.

For most areas, the density vectors spreading from business districts would be steeper. It would be more dense in the CBD and transportation accessible areas. There would be sprawl elsewhere, since worker's location needs would be more effectively satisfied closer to their jobs. Overall, it would naturally tend towards higher overall productivity. Add in a more-free market for transportation, and productivity gains would be greater.

Posted by marketurbanism.com | April 29, 2008 1:28 PM

"the cities are depopulating" meme is, of course, out of date. some are, some (see NYC for starters) are seeing strong population growth.

as for the others, places that have no reason to live (Buffalo, Detroit) are in decline. places that are managing to reinvent themselves (Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee) have a shot.

Posted by Nathan | April 29, 2008 1:45 PM

wellbasically, all I said was that the demand for density outstrips its supply, as anyone familiar with the process of apartment hunting can tell you.

It really doesn't matter to me that more people demand widget A than demand widget B. What's important to me is that there are not nearly enough of widget B being produced to fulfill the demand.

Posted by Tyro | April 29, 2008 1:57 PM

Its a good thing cities have been depopulating for the last 5 decades… we're down to 35,000 per sq. mile here in Brooklyn!

I wonder how many of the developers who are building out along the subway lines would be interested in chipping in to defray the cost of the new infrastructure upgrades we're going to need. If it turns out that the answer is 'none', then I think those of us who are going to be stuck with the bill should maybe get a say in the rate of, quality of, and type of growth. We can call this mass negotiation 'zoning'.

If it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg, carry on as you will. If it does either of those things, you'll have my full attention. I reserve the right to object.

Posted by sleepy | April 29, 2008 2:24 PM

Cities that progress will lose population. They will attract hippies who want to be able to bike to the cafe and rich people who gut big houses with small yards. Cambridge Massachusetts is a good example, and they have a really tough zoning system.

The way to get cheap housing is to make it possible for people to move out of cheap housing so it becomes available. They way to do that is to have economic policies which help people become rich.

Posted by wellbasically | April 29, 2008 2:24 PM

Tyro,

Was my snark too veiled? I disagree with the mendacious posts by wellbasically. As we've seen over the past few years, some dense cities have gained in population, some have lost, and some have remained static. Of course the biggest winner is New York City, which is also the most reliably transit oriented. Another small winner is Chicago, also very transit oriented. A big loser is Detroit, which is about as far as you can get from New York transit-wise. Other cities, like Boston, have stabilized and are somewhere in between in terms of transit. So what can be determined? That there is a great demand for a transit oriented city that is dense. There is now a demand for walkable neighborhoods, good mass transit, and some level of density that goes with it. People don't want pure density, but the positives that go with density.

Posted by freddiemac | April 29, 2008 2:31 PM

"The way to get cheap housing is to make it possible for people to move out of cheap housing so it becomes available."

No, the way to cheap housing is to either increase the supply of housing, or decrease the demand.

Example A)the city of Detroit has an abundant supply of cheap housing. This is a result of demand destruction in the city, which leaves far more supply of housing than demand.

Example B)Las Vegas has a lot of cheap housing because they built way more houses than were necessary, and even though the population continues to rise in sin city, home prices are crashing.

Are you Mixner posting under a different name?

Posted by freddiemac | April 29, 2008 2:38 PM

I cannot help but think that wellbasically is too stupid to understand general principles of the real estate markets or markets in general.

We just can't reason with him, and the concepts of market value and relative supply vs. demand are completely impenetrable to him.

I'll try one more time: wellbasically, if you paid attention to the Cambridge housing market, you would have noted that cheap housing became expensive as more people moved in and outbid each other for space. To compete within this market, formerly cheap housing stock was renovated and upgraded to make it more attractive to big-spending buyers, of which there was a greater supply. Similar patterns existed in South Boston over the last 10 years, as well.

Posted by Tyro | April 29, 2008 2:49 PM

Almost all cities, even New York, are seeing population declines citywide. However, growth in the high density areas such as Manhattan and downtown Chicago has been phenomenal.

This trend is dominated by young professionals and empty-nesters, but look around these areas and you'll see a lot strollers. It is clear, there certainly is demand for density.

Posted by marketurbanism.com | April 29, 2008 2:57 PM

A couple random thoughts:

(1) I'm not sure there is a lot of demand for density per se. However, there is indeed a lot of demand for things like a variety of shops and restaurants within walking distance of one's home, rapid public transit links to the local employment centers, proximity to major arts, sports, and entertainment venues, and so on. In other words, density is associated with certain amenities that people desire.

And, of course, I agree the proof is in the pricing: the price per square foot in many dense neighborhoods tell you density is in fact positively correlated with some set of things some people want when it comes to their housing, and the recent relative runup in those prices suggests there probably is an artificial scarcity of such housing.

(2) I think it is important to note the marginal energy and environmental efficiencies of buildings start diminishing as you add more floors, and that there are certain inefficiencies that are increasing as you add more floors, such that at a certain point the inefficiencies of adding another floor to a building may outweigh the efficiencies. Indeed, this can come about as soon as you would have to start using elevators to serve the higher floors (elevators are themselves costly, and they roughly correlate with the point at which you have to start adding signficantly more capacity to HVAC systems, significantly increasing the strength of the structure, and so on). And even with respect to neighborhood efficiencies, you can still get things like "walkable" neighborhoods, a pretty effcient public transit system, and so on at the density rates associated with townhouses and "low-rise" apartment buildings (indeed, you can get all that at even lower densities, such as those consistent with detached homes on small lots).

That is part of why you rarely see highrises outside of central urban areas (and sometimes virtually on top of light rail stations)--it is only when comparable land is truly scarce that it makes sense for people to pay for the increasing marginal inefficiency of highrises. And all that is why I agree a truly "free market" (free from both zoning restrictions and distorting subsidies) would not mean everyone eventually living in Manhattan-style housing. Rather, I suspect much lower densities would remain the norm, with prices per square foot also remaining somewhat higher once you get to highrise situations (since ultimately those highrise prices have to reflect the inefficiencies associated with highrises).

Posted by DTM | April 29, 2008 3:46 PM

um, NYC is not declining in population.

"New York City is home to more than 8 million people, accounting for about 40% of the population of New York State and a similar percentage of the New York metropolitan area, home to about 20 million. Over the last decade the city has been growing faster than the region. Demographers estimate New York's population will reach 9.7 million by 2025."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_York_City

Posted by Nathan | April 29, 2008 4:22 PM

DTM,

I agree to a certain extent, though I think that sometimes these conversations can have a low signal to noise ratio due to different definitions of the term "dense". I don't really have a good metric of where density begins and ends, just musing that not having one leads to perhaps some ideas not properly transmitted.

Posted by freddiemac | April 29, 2008 4:30 PM

Thanks for correcting me, Nathan. I think I got misled by a recent job growth stat.

Posted by marketurbanism.com | April 29, 2008 4:37 PM

And, of course, I agree the proof is in the pricing: the price per square foot in many dense neighborhoods tell you density is in fact positively correlated with some set of things some people want when it comes to their housing, and the recent relative runup in those prices suggests there probably is an artificial scarcity of such housing.

Whatever pricing you're referring to here, it isn't proof of anything about the overall demand for higher densities or the amenities you describe. The overall trend of the last half century has been towards lower densities. As real incomes rise, more people can afford cars and bigger homes. That tends to reduce densities. As employment becomes more oriented towards service and knowledge workers, the need for fixed commutes declines. That also tends to reduce densities. As retailing shifts towards large brick-and-mortar stores, online purchasing and home delivery, the demand for shops within walking distance of homes declines. That also tends to reduce densities. The fact that there is some demand for high density communities, and that there may even be some areas in the country where such demand currently outstrips supply, does not alter the fact that the overall trend has been, and is likely to continue to be, towards lower densities.

Posted by Mixner | April 29, 2008 4:42 PM

Rich people (who do not use public transportation) are moving into Manhattan. Working class and middle income folks cannot afford rents in Manhattan and many parts of Brooklyn - that's why govt is concerned about losing firefighters, teachers, police officers, etc to suburbs of Long Island, NJ, Westchester.

Posted by CParis | April 29, 2008 6:01 PM

Hmm, apparently the longer a comment thread continues, the more the certainty of the appearance of Mixner approaches a value of 1....

Posted by serial catowner | April 29, 2008 6:07 PM

Of course the biggest winner is New York City, which is also the most reliably transit oriented. Another small winner is Chicago, also very transit oriented. A big loser is Detroit, which is about as far as you can get from New York transit-wise. Other cities, like Boston, have stabilized and are somewhere in between in terms of transit. So what can be determined? That there is a great demand for a transit oriented city that is dense. There is now a demand for walkable neighborhoods, good mass transit, and some level of density that goes with it. People don't want pure density, but the positives that go with density.

I guess the possibility that people are moving to New York and Chicago mainly for reasons that have little or nothing to do with walkable neighborhoods, mass transit and "some level of density" has never occurred to you. Reasons like career opportunities, social and cultural attractions, and family ties (especially important for new immigrants, who constitute a huge share of New York's and Chicago's populations).

The list of fastest-growing metropolitan areas in the United States is overwhelmingly dominated by sprawling, low-density southern and western cities with little in the way of mass transit or "walkable neighborhoods." Places like Houston, Phoenix, Las Vegas, San Bernadino, Riverside, Atlanta, San Antonio, etc. Whatever is attracting people to New York and Chicago, it doesn't seem to be the buses and trains.

Posted by Mixner | April 29, 2008 6:07 PM

Sure, it's not the buses and trains themselves. But it's the lifestyle goods that those things permit that attract people. I know many New Yorkers who like the feel of the streets, who are willing to sacrifice thousands of dollars a year for that feel

Having said that, people who like that sort of thing tend to move here, so I don't think New York is so much evidence of a general preference as it's evidence of a selection bias. There are only about four or five cities where you can live this way, so even a minority of people liking this lifestyle can cause things to go out of control here.

Posted by AlanC9 | April 30, 2008 12:13 AM

Sure, it's not the buses and trains themselves. But it's the lifestyle goods that those things permit that attract people.

What "lifestyle goods" are those? And how do you know that that is what attracts them, rather than career opportunities, family ties, or other things? New York is an international center for finance, fashion, publishing, advertising, the arts, and many other fields, and attracts many ambitious young people for that reason. It also has a huge immigrant population. I think almost 40% of New York residents were born in a foreign country. That makes it a huge magnet for immigrant family reunification.

The fact that the vast majority of population growth in America is occurring in low-density places with little mass transit (at least in comparison to New York and Chicago) suggests that Americans in general do not value transit very highly. It seems more likely that most people who move to places like New York and Chicago do so in spite of its high population density rather than because of it.

Having said that, people who like that sort of thing tend to move here, so I don't think New York is so much evidence of a general preference as it's evidence of a selection bias.

Right.

Posted by Mixner | April 30, 2008 12:32 AM

The reason that more people don't move to Manhattan is that they can't afford to.

•••

Btw, Matt, you really ought to define what you mean by "overzoned."

As a standard term of art in planning or real estate development it suggests that an area allows too much building mass (by some standard.) By your context I think you mean "under-zoned" or "overly restrictive zoning."

Posted by David Sucher | April 30, 2008 1:51 AM

wellbasically,

Are you assuming government policy has no effect on demand? Seems to me that massive subsidies to sprawl might just shift the "demand" a wee bit. An awful lot of this sprawl development seems to spring at the cloverleafs on those, you know, *subsidized* freeways. And folks in the old part of town are being charged above-cost utility rates in order to subsidize new hookups in the suburban developments. So if we had a free market with everybody operating on their dime, and no real estate developers on the taxpayer tit, we might have greater density as a result of market incentives.

Posted by Kevin Carson | April 30, 2008 1:57 AM

wellbasically,

Are you assuming government policy has no effect on demand? Seems to me that massive subsidies to sprawl might just shift the "demand" a wee bit. An awful lot of this sprawl development seems to spring at the cloverleafs on those, you know, *subsidized* freeways. And folks in the old part of town are being charged above-cost utility rates in order to subsidize new hookups in the suburban developments. So if we had a free market with everybody operating on their dime, and no real estate developers on the taxpayer tit, we might have greater density as a result of market incentives.

Posted by Kevin Carson | April 30, 2008 1:59 AM

wellbasically,

Are you assuming government policy has no effect on demand? Seems to me that massive subsidies to sprawl might just shift the "demand" a wee bit. An awful lot of this sprawl development seems to spring at the cloverleafs on those, you know, *subsidized* freeways. And folks in the old part of town are being charged above-cost utility rates in order to subsidize new hookups in the suburban developments. So if we had a free market with everybody operating on their dime, and no real estate developers on the taxpayer tit, we might have greater density as a result of market incentives.

Posted by Kevin Carson | April 30, 2008 2:03 AM

Mixner,

First, as many people have tried to explain to you over time, it doesn't matter what the "overall demand" for dense neighborhoods might be, or what neighborhoods Americans like "in general", if by that you mean taking some sort of national average across all the many diverse preferences of people in America (which is a pretty foolish thing to do). Rather, the relevant point is that there is high (and today often unmet) demand for such neighborhoods among SOME Americans. And the fact that some other Americans feel differently about these neighborhoods simply is not particularly relevant to the discussion we are having.

Second, you need to take your chicken-and-egg logic back one more step. Why exactly are cities still important cultural, financial, and so on centers? That wouldn't be true without all the people living in those cities, so this actually proves my point: whether or not density per se is important to people, a lot of people living in the same area creates the sort of community a lot of Americans want to live in. Of course, it is fair to point out that not all these attributes are "lifestyle" attributes (e.g., some are economic), but the general point remains the same.

Third, I think your basic problem is that it somehow offends your sense of Americaness to admit that some Americans actually like anything but sprawling suburbs. Well, get over it. Some Americans do indeed like sprawling suburbs. But some Americans don't, and instead like cities, or intermediate options like "streetcar suburbs" and "new urbanist" developments. And your insistence on averaging out the prefences of all Americans as if we were one homogenous mass just obscures this basic truth (that not all Americans have the same preferences when it comes to housing).

Fortunately, there is no inherent reason why different Americans can't get the housing options they want (subject, of course, to their ability to pay for it). Which of course is the truly American result--not to insist on all of us living the same way, but rather to accomodate our different preferences.

Posted by DTM | April 30, 2008 7:31 AM

Mixner,

By the way, to turn your chicken-and-egg logic around:

You are arguing Americans "in general" like the things that are associated with suburban sprawl. But how do you know that? Why couldn't it be the case that many of these Americans are selecting what I might call the "sprawl lifestyle" because of the massive subsidies for things like highway and utility buildouts, and because of the various regulations which are making other options artificially scarce, and therefore artificially expensive? In other words, just as you claim with cities, couldn't it be the case that some people are opting to live in sprawl communities despite not actually preferring them on their own merits?

Of course, from long experience I know you are not about to hold your own assertions to the same standard as you hold other people's assertions. But I wanted to point out that if you were actually being logically consistent, it should be easy for you to understand why consumption patterns are indeed not necessarily a good indicator of fundamental demand.

Posted by DTM | April 30, 2008 7:43 AM

This post kind of muddles together the ideas of density and deregulation. As atl points out, Midtown is dense but incredibly unpleasant to live in, but it got that way because of, not despite, zoning regulations. And as Al (unintentionally?) suggests, being too quick to assume that dense development is good leads to atrocities like the Atlantic Yards project (and Ratner's previous Metrotech Center which deadened blocks of downtown Brooklyn).

Posted by tps12 | April 30, 2008 8:41 AM

DTM,

First, as many people have tried to explain to you over time, it doesn't matter what the "overall demand" for dense neighborhoods might be, or what neighborhoods Americans like "in general", if by that you mean taking some sort of national average across all the many diverse preferences of people in America (which is a pretty foolish thing to do).

Of course it matters. Our national transportation and land-use policies should be (and are, and will continue to be) based on what Americans in general want, not what a small number of high-density-plus-mass-transit fanboys like you and Matthew Yglesias want.

Second, you need to take your chicken-and-egg logic back one more step. Why exactly are cities still important cultural, financial, and so on centers?

You mean cities in general, or old-style, high-density cities like New York? Phoenix and New York are both cities, but their population densities and layouts are very different. So I'm not sure what the point of the question is.

That wouldn't be true without all the people living in those cities, so this actually proves my point: whether or not density per se is important to people, a lot of people living in the same area creates the sort of community a lot of Americans want to live in.

It depends what "a lot of people living in the same area" means, exactly. For at least half a century, Americans have displayed an overwhelming preference for low-density cities and population centers over high density ones. Our new cities and developments look like Houston and Phoenix. They don't look like Manhattan. As I said, it seems unlikely that even most of the people moving to Manhattan are doing so for the high density and mass transit. You may like living in a small, cramped apartment and having to rely on transit to get around, but the overwhelming majority of people don't seem to.

Posted by Mixner | April 30, 2008 2:02 PM

DTM,

You are arguing Americans "in general" like the things that are associated with suburban sprawl. But how do you know that? Why couldn't it be the case that many of these Americans are selecting what I might call the "sprawl lifestyle" because of the massive subsidies for things like highway and utility buildouts, and because of the various regulations which are making other options artificially scarce, and therefore artificially expensive? In other words, just as you claim with cities, couldn't it be the case that some people are opting to live in sprawl communities despite not actually preferring them on their own merits?

This nonsense again. Yeah, for 50 years, all across the country, dark and mysterious forces have consistently thwarted the will of the American people, forcing them to live in big houses with a yard and a car in the driveway, when they would obviously much rather live in a small eurohovel and get around by bus and train.

You need to let go of your conspiracy theories.

And by the way, what you call highway "subsidies" are in fact mostly a form of user fee. Roads and highways are primarily funded by the people who actually use and benefit from them, through gas taxes, vehicle taxes, tolls and other such funding mechanisms. The more you use them, the more you pay.

Posted by Mixner | April 30, 2008 2:11 PM

I want to clarify something. I really don't know what's driving immigration to NYC. But the vast majority of people I personally know here prefer urban living to suburban living, without regard to any issues such as professional advancement. For that matter, I know a lot of people who would prefer to live in the city but simply can't afford it.

I guess they could all be outliers, and the overwhelming majority of New Yorkers really would live in the suburbs if they could only stand the commute. I just don't find this at all plausible, especially given the weak countereveidence.

Posted by AlanC9 | April 30, 2008 9:04 PM