What Price Density

A Bloomberg story notes that declines in home prices have hardly been uniform. Thanks to the rising cost of gasoline, things are much worse in far-flung exurbs than they are in closer-in territories. This is one of several factors that could lead, as Christopher Leinberger predicted, to the far-out suburb being the next slum. The trouble of course is that under a scenario like that, high energy costs will disproportionately bite the poor to an even greater extent than they do today.

The solution, as Ryan Avent says, is to build denser communities. We ought to build more transit infrastructure, of course, but it's cheaper to use what we already have more intensively. And, of course, it's more practical to build new infrastructure if there's a reasonable expectation that it will serve intensive development. Beyond that, density also serves to make walking and biking more practical for more trips. And best of all, getting denser could be accomplished mostly through growth-enhancing relaxation of regulatory burdens.

In that spirit, it's worth noticing some stuff about the math of density. Back when I was in college, I never thought of Cambridge as a particularly high-density place -- it's certainly not dominated by skyscrapers or large apartment towers or anything of the sort. But it turns out to have over 15,700 residents per square mile. If DC were as dense as Cambridge, we'd have about a million people living here. And if Fairfax County were as dense as Cambridge, it would fit six million people. And of course if the supply of housing in central cities and nearby suburbs were radically higher, then it would be much easier for people to afford to live in them. Instead, restrictions on the supply of conveniently located housing lead to high prices and the "drive until you qualify" phenomenon that's currently leaving many Americans in deep trouble as they try to pay for fuel.

Comments

In the 1950 census, DC cracked the 800k mark. So once upon a time it was about as dense as Cambridge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.#Demographics

Like many major American cities, it suffered a steep decline between 1960 and 1980.

Posted by freddiemac | June 10, 2008 12:31 PM

I never thought of Cambridge as a particularly high-density place -- it's certainly not dominated by skyscrapers or large apartment towers or anything of the sort.

Someone who was raised in New York City should not be the judge of what a high density area is like. I was raised in Orange County and Cambridge seemed pretty high density to me.

Posted by Mo | June 10, 2008 12:33 PM

What about existing (yet neglected) neighborhoods in American cities? Wouldn't it be just easier to rehab them, instead of building brand new neighborhoods with brand new infrastructure? Ofcourse it's not that simple as it would force America to confront with the multitude of issues that confront the urban slums, but if you can pull it off, it's almost like killing two (huge) birds, with one stone.

Posted by Roman | June 10, 2008 12:34 PM

What percentage of the population in Cambridge is below the age of 18, compared to Fairfax County?

Posted by Will Allen | June 10, 2008 12:38 PM

The trouble with density is that it involves living close to a bunch of other people. And other people suck.

Posted by Spike | June 10, 2008 12:41 PM

Transit isn't everything. Apparently, Cambridge has the highest % of people who walk to work. Improving walkability and bikeability of communities would also be a great, low-cost, short-term solution to high gas prices, and enable greater density in many places that would otherwise have to wait a decade or more for new transit.

Posted by SSJ | June 10, 2008 12:44 PM

growth-enhancing relaxation of regulatory burdens

It's funny how easily one slips into right wing language, isn't it? We can't support policies that promote growth and density, we have to get rid of "regulations" (boo, hiss, scary - ooga booga) to accomplish our ends. You are right on the issue, but your rhetoric can be quote-mined to the point where "even the liberal Matthew Yglesias says zoning is bad so you must let me build a rendering plant next to the Smithsonian". Hyperbolic, I agree, but that is how these things start.

Posted by justawriter | June 10, 2008 12:45 PM

"What about existing (yet neglected) neighborhoods in American cities? Wouldn't it be just easier to rehab them, instead of building brand new neighborhoods with brand new infrastructure?"

Maybe I've just had the fortune to live in two cities (Chicago and Denver) over the past 10 years or so where this has been occurring, but it strikes me that there IS a concerted effort to reclaim bad neighborhoods.

Also, as for the exurbs, there is a bigger reason why price declines have been so extreme there -- a lot more foreclosures. And THAT'S because the sort of people who had to "drive until you qualify" often stopped driving before they comfortably qualified for what they bought.

Posted by Joe | June 10, 2008 12:45 PM

Hey, Central Square! Shout out!

Two related points. I think density allowing a lot of foot-tranport plus extensive public transportation have another social benefit--they improve the employment prospects of people at the "edges" of the labor market, including teens, college students, elders, immigrants and others of the working poor.

In the closer-in parts of Greater Boston, there's a far wider combination of possible housing/transport options for people who don't have cars than in the further out exurbs, allowing people with relatively low incomes to try out for more jobs, switch more easily, and recover from job loss faster.

But even in this dense city, we actually do need more moderately sized- and -priced housing. In Boston and Cambridge a lot of the working class (and artists, social workers and other low paid middle class) are still benefiting from a family-hand-me down effect in housing.

The post-WWII through 60s rise in home ownership brought houses into many blue collar families that are still being passed down, rented to or shared with family. Young workers without that support are often the ones driving almost to New Hampshire when they try to acquire a place of their own.

Posted by lizkdc | June 10, 2008 12:46 PM

SSJ,

I'd add that walking can produce health benefits. I'd be curious to see if the rates of obesity are any higher or lower in Cambridge vs generic car centric Atlanta suburb.

Posted by freddiemac | June 10, 2008 12:47 PM

Transit isn't everything. Apparently, Cambridge has the highest % of people who walk to work. Improving walkability and bikeability of communities would also be a great, low-cost, short-term solution to high gas prices, and enable greater density in many places that would otherwise have to wait a decade or more for new transit.

Posted by SSJ | June 10, 2008 12:55 PM

And yet Cambridge is one of the most heavily-regulated real estate markets in the country.

I hope, Matt, that this will give you pause in your endless repetition of the simplistic equation, "Zoning == Bad Cities, Unregulated Development == Good Cities"

The Libertarian mistake is to think that, since bad governance leads to bad results, the solution is to eliminate governance. In fact, the solution is to improve governance. We know what works - cities like Cambridge, health care like the VA, disaster relief like Clinton's FEMA. The conservative and libertarian trick is to harm these successful models, then claim that good governance is impossible.

Posted by JRoth | June 10, 2008 1:24 PM

In general, relaxing density restrictions will ease housing prices. But, a couple notes:

Creating more socialized infrastructure, whether transit or roads, disperses development. High densities create demand for transit, not the other way around, at least in the bigger picture. Transit creates demand to locate near the stations, but not elsewhere. This is because as commuters are diverted from roads, congestion subsides, allowing people to drive from further distances.

So, if density is the goal, I would privatize highways & parking to allow tolls, while putting the breaks on construction of new public highways & parking prior to building new expensive transit.

Building densely has higher construction costs per unit as land costs are dispersed among more units, so density doesn’t necessarily equal affordability for those who live densely. However, higher density where there is high demand, releases pent up demand in less desirable areas. Thus, overall affordability improves for a city as a result of the additional supply.

By the way, Cambridge is definitely the most development-unfriendly place I've ever lived. It would be much more dense without all the NIMBY activists trying to stop any kind of progress. I'm glad to be gone from that place.

Posted by Market Urbanism | June 10, 2008 1:32 PM

Well, actually, density does not seem to have that much to do with apartment complexes or really tall buildings. It's mostly dependent on little yard space in a residential area and no huge parks. In Chicago, if you look by zip codes or voting districts, the densest areas are the almost purely residential zones on the north side where the yards are small (if they exist at all) and nearly every building is a house, three-flat, or a storefront with apartments over it. Those districts are almost 30-50% denser than the areas near downtown with far taller buildings and bigger apartment complexes, because downtown also has a lot more land space devoted to pure office buildings and large parks.

So yeah, I'd see Cambridge as closer to those north side neighborhoods than an urban downtown or any sort of large-yard suburb, which would imply pretty high density.

Posted by Po-Mo Polymath | June 10, 2008 1:47 PM

Right -- when I lived in Somerville I often heard it said that Somerville was the densest municipality in the United States. I think that turned out not to be true. But you can definitely get a pretty high density without verticality as long as you devote almost every square foot of land area to housing.

Posted by JSE | June 10, 2008 1:51 PM

About the rehabilitation of "bad" neighborhoods:

Here in Boston, I know many young people and yuppies who are moving to Southie in droves. That neighborhood has a lot of old, blue-collar flavor but if you look inside many of the semi-rundown buildings you'll find refurbished new condos selling for $$$, across the street from older housing with seniors and lower blue collar types. And the whole area is serviced by several subway stops and many bus routes.

P.S. why do i have to type in my fake email address just to post? That seems really unnecessary.

Posted by Erik | June 10, 2008 1:52 PM

All this might sound convincing on its face, but things are actually a bit different, at least in Europe: I live in Central London, population density is very high, while both prices and traffic (the tube and the congestion charge notwithstanding) are insane. Also, density figures can be highly misleading, since for instance Westminster is totally cramped, but doesn't have such a high density because of all the offices and other business taking up space.

Posted by novakant | June 10, 2008 1:52 PM

Commercial real estate makes more sense for far flung suburbs. Warehouse space has been climbing in price due to sprawl and those buyers would pay more for the real estate than slum dwellers.

Plus low income people from urban environments aren't just going to up and leave for the country. That's a cultural shift to a much greater degreee than the economic shift cause by gas prices.

Posted by MSB | June 10, 2008 2:02 PM

"Maybe I've just had the fortune to live in two cities (Chicago and Denver) over the past 10 years or so where this has been occurring, but it strikes me that there IS a concerted effort to reclaim bad neighborhoods."

The way I see it, rehabilitation is a different animal from gentrification. Ofcourse just about any decent sized city has seen some gentrification over the past 10 years. However, when you look at cities on the whole, the amount of gentrification that's taken place is really a drop in the bucket compared to the sea of slums that exists in many American cities (ofcourse there are exceptions like San Fran and NYC, but that's mainly the function the prices in good areas getting out of control).

By rehabilitating neighborhoods, I mean making them attractive to middle class residents. It would require a federal intervention to deal with the crime and school problems, but at least where I live (Philly), there is housing stock (in many cases quite impressive) to support a couple hundred thousand extra residents, if only people were willing to move back in. I'm sure that's the case in many other non-superstar cities accross the country.

Posted by Roman | June 10, 2008 2:18 PM

The Libertarian mistake is to think that, since bad governance leads to bad results, the solution is to eliminate governance. In fact, the solution is to improve governance. We know what works - cities like Cambridge, health care like the VA, disaster relief like Clinton's FEMA. The conservative and libertarian trick is to harm these successful models, then claim that good governance is impossible.

Few consider the "People's Republic" of Cambridge as a shining beacon of good governance. There is an affordability crises in Cambridge (and Boston) as a result of the oppressive, NIMBY-influenced regulation. Many of my far left DUSP friends at MIT would agree that Cambridge is NOT a good example of "successful models".

If you could just wave a magic wand and "improve" governance, I would agree with you. But, "good governance" is interpreted differently by all people.

Posted by Market Urbanism | June 10, 2008 3:00 PM

One thing I'd like you (or anyone) to address is how children factors into all this. I'm not being snarky - I'm genuinely curious.

I'm a fairly recent new father, and density creates much bigger tradeoffs when you have small children. It's easy to say "walk to the park more," etc. but that's a lot harder than it sounds. Plus, there's the issue of neighbors. We lived in a fairly dense yuppie part of dc and houston but had to move b/c of neighbor issues (both them disturbing us and our children disturbing them).

Maybe you've addressed this elsewhere but that's an issue I'd like to hear more about in the density debate (and I'm sympathetic to your position on that, by the way)

Posted by publius | June 10, 2008 3:09 PM

Do you or anybody you know have any children?

Posted by Steve Sailer | June 10, 2008 3:31 PM

"The way I see it, rehabilitation is a different animal from gentrification. Ofcourse just about any decent sized city has seen some gentrification over the past 10 years. However, when you look at cities on the whole, the amount of gentrification that's taken place is really a drop in the bucket compared to the sea of slums that exists in many American cities (ofcourse there are exceptions like San Fran and NYC, but that's mainly the function the prices in good areas getting out of control)."

Look at what has been happening on the south side of Chicago since the late 90s in neighborhoods like Bronzeville, Inglewood, North Kenwood, even Hyde Park and Kenwood proper -- you've absolutely seen slums redevloped for middle class settlement (mostly African-American -- maybe Chicago's unique in this respect that it has a big enough upper middle class black community).

"I'm a fairly recent new father, and density creates much bigger tradeoffs when you have small children. It's easy to say 'walk to the park more,' etc. but that's a lot harder than it sounds. Plus, there's the issue of neighbors. We lived in a fairly dense yuppie part of dc and houston but had to move b/c of neighbor issues (both them disturbing us and our children disturbing them)."

Publius, I think Matt has written about this before, but "more dense" does not mean "everyone lives in a two bedroom apartment." Most people still will live in a single family home -- it's just that you'll have ten homes per acre instead of five, houses will be a little smaller, and housing footprints will be a LOT smaller.

When we lived in Chicago, we lived in a single-family detached house about 4 miles south of downtown in a very safe neighborhood. We had a decent yard, a garage, and about 2700 sq ft (albeit spread over three levels). We currently live on a property that is three times as big, and other than being able to play frisbee with the dog in the backyard, there really hasn't been a change in our lifestyle. Well, we spend a lot more time outside because the Denver weather is a lot nicer, but how we spend that time hasn't changed.

Posted by Joe | June 10, 2008 3:43 PM

Nice picture of Central Square in Cambridge. From that angle, you can't see all the alcoholics passed out in the plaza above Central Square station.

Posted by Joel | June 10, 2008 3:57 PM

JSE: Cambridge actually has a fairly good mix of retail, housing, and commercial buildings (with probably 99% of the industrial buildings now forming office complexes or condos). In fact, the least dense part of Cambridge (the Torrey Road/Brattle Street area) is actually the most housing focused.

Where I grew up (Inman Sq/Area 4 neighborhood) we had a a fairly high percentage of restaurants, bars, convenience stores, mom and pop hardware stores, and small-scale office space nearby. We also had little to no yard area and three public parks within a 3 block radius.

On a down note, the bus service could be a lot better in Cambridge, which is probably why you see the high walking numbers. Often three or four lines will pass near someone's house, but they would never think to use it b/c the service is too irregular -- hence the price premium for living next to an actual T stop!

Posted by dan k | June 10, 2008 4:17 PM

Fact of the matter is that most American cities are still well below their peak populations (usually sometime in the 1950s). So if people want to live in dense, transit oriented neighborhoods, there is plenty of room. The stigma and the concrete problem connected to city living obviously have to be dealt with. My point is that it's not as if the only option is to build "new urbanist" developments in the suburbs, there are plenty of existing neighborhoods that already fit that model.

Posted by Roman | June 10, 2008 4:21 PM

Instead, restrictions on the supply of conveniently located housing lead to high prices and the "drive until you qualify" phenomenon that's currently leaving many Americans in deep trouble as they try to pay for fuel.

I couldn't agree with you more, Matt.

But if we were serious about greater density, we'd come to the conclusion that this translates into building much more housing. In urban areas that's going to mean almost all multi-family housing, including plenty of fairly large -- i.e., high rise -- properties (hopefully well-designed ones). And if we're serious about building lots more housing, we've essentially got to eviscerate local zoning power over housing construction. I'm not talking about abolishing all local zoning control completely -- commercial development needs, I think, a significant degree of local input and control. But housing is different. Housing is a staple like food or clothing. We wouldn't stand for government policies that radically increase the price of these items, but that's exactly what we do when it comes to shelter.

By the way, none of this means we couldn't have well-thought out and even elaborate housing regulations that deal with health and safety issues, aesthetics, the environment, traffic flow, lot sizes, set back requirements, etc. It just means that such regulations would be set at the state level. And then, if your particular plot of land qualifies, for, say, a two hundred unit building, you'd be allowed to build it, and your oh-so-altruistic neighbors -- you know, the ones who are concerned with the neighborhood's "character" and "aesthetic" -- wouldn't be able to do anything about it.

Allowing the housing industry to respond to market demand by, you know, actually building (horror of horrors!) a lot more housing units, is the only way we're going to realize any substantive increases in the densities of our communities. I fear that everything else -- government tax incentives or this or that bit of tinkering -- is nibbling around the edges.

Posted by Jasper | June 10, 2008 4:25 PM

I hope, Matt, that this will give you pause in your endless repetition of the simplistic equation, "Zoning == Bad Cities, Unregulated Development == Good Cities"

It depends on what you mean by all these terms. Cambridge is an interesting, vibrant and convenient place to live -- and that's largely because it's very densely populated, and so it enjoys the amenities that flow from density. But it got dense because during an earlier era, wrong-headed (albeit well-intentioned) restrictions on the construction of housing mostly didn't exist.

And of course now, with demand for urban housing soaring because of various economic trends (including, of course, energy prices), Cambridge, Massachusetts is now insanely expensive. Yes, it's nice, but all this terrific zoning makes it extraordinarily difficult for working families to actually live there.

Not all zoning is bad (a place like Cambridge gives us examples of that). But zoning (and NIMBYistic restrictionism in general) that makes it artificially expensive to supply that staple of life known as shelter is bad (a place like Cambridge gives us examples of that, too).

Posted by Jasper | June 10, 2008 4:44 PM

Jasper,

Why do you think a substantial increase in housing is required? The article delineated a massive overbuild in supply in the exurbs, and as was pointed out earlier most cities have much more supply than demand. I think that in much of America there is more housing supply than demand. It was only that demand in new areas could be artificially propped up. With the increase costs of gas, these artificial home values can no longer be propped up, and the whole rotten house of cards is falling. Plain and simple I don't see demand being high enough to require large buildout in most places.

Posted by freddiemac | June 10, 2008 4:46 PM

I don't think a town has to be all that dense to be walkable. After all, in 1900 just about every small town in America was walkable because . . . no one had cars. How dense was Plano, Eugene or Noblesville back then?

Indeed, one thing I always point out to the people back in Indiana who are shocked and awed that a small town boy like me could spend his adult life in Nuuuu York City is that the "main street" in my neighborhood is pretty much the way Main Street in my home town used to look: two and three story brick and stone buildings all in a row. Brooklyn didn't change, but my home town got hollowed out and all the businesses are set in asphalt pads along the highway.

Oh, and I have a kid (another on the way) and think raising him in the city is the biggest advantage I can give him. But then, unlike Steve Sailor, I'm not afraid of black people.

Posted by jlw | June 10, 2008 5:04 PM

freddiemac:

Why do you think a substantial increase in housing is required.

Because increasing density means accommodating more people, which in turn means more housing units.

The article delineated a massive overbuild in supply in the exurbs

I didn't read the article and I'm talking about cities, not exurbs.

I think that in much of America there is more housing supply than demand.

I don't dispute this, but I happen to know that in "much of America" (ie., the more centrally located parts of our more desirable, economically vibrant metro areas) the opposite situation applies.

With the increase costs of gas, these artificial home values can no longer be propped up, and the whole rotten house of cards is falling.

I don't dispute this, either. But where are all these people going to live? In many urban areas (Seattle, LA, SF, Boston, NYC, Chicago, DC, etc.) increased demand for housing in more centralized areas -- especially near solid public transportation links -- is likely to send prices skyrocketing absent policies that enable developers to more fully respond to this increased demand. But in much of America (especially in these desirable, economically vibrant, blue state metro areas), we give people with a vested financial interest in housing supply restriction -- AKA our neighbors -- substantial veto power over what gets built. In other words, folks who get richer the scarcer housing gets (because they already own one) have the power to create scarcity.

You're right that this ain't a problem out in the increasingly shabby exurbs where nobody wants to live anymore. But it's a big problem in kewl neighborhoods where sensible people do want to live.

Posted by Jasper | June 10, 2008 5:19 PM

Publius - as your children grow older, you'll find that density is your friend. Little children are happy playing in your yard, but as they get older they'll want to go to their friends' houses. If they walk to school they can walk to their school friends' houses on their own- if they take the school bus, you or your wife will have to drive them. And they'll have baseball or soccer practice and games - they can get there on their bikes, or you can drive them. And as they get older, they'll have play practice and music lessons and after-school clubs and study groups and parties and swim meets and the movies. They can ride their bikes, or you can drive them. Then, when they're 18, they can get around as they have for the past ten years - or, you can buy each one of them their own car.

Talk to people with teen and pre-teen kids in the burbs. You'll find that at least one parent, and maybe both, spends most of his or her free time as a chauffeur.

Posted by Bloix | June 10, 2008 6:05 PM

Jasper,

You say "In many urban areas (Seattle, LA, SF, Boston, NYC, Chicago, DC, etc.) increased demand for housing in more centralized areas -- especially near solid public transportation links -- is likely to send prices skyrocketing absent policies that enable developers to more fully respond to this increased demand."

Remember that Chicago's peak population was 3.6 million in 1950. Today it is at 2.8 million. Logically Chicago can absorb almost a million people. Many other urban areas are in a similar predicament: Cleveland, Detroit, Boston, Minneapolis/St Paul, etc. Heck, even Atlanta is shy of its peak population. So I don't think it will take much development to make some of these old cities absorb the population from the exurbs, even those with a relatively robust mass transit. NYC is a great exception, given that it is now at peak population. Some other cities are also at peak, like L.A. and the Texas cities, but they seem to be exceptions.

Posted by freddiemac | June 10, 2008 6:13 PM

Note the use of the word "we", which is apparently a euphemism for Mr. Yglesias' personal tastes.

Because he likes the ides of other people commuting by foot/bike, he arrogantly decides, as spokesman for the "poor", that "we" should impose his "solutions" on them and on everyone else.

Setting aside the issue that "poor" people (to the extent that they exist at all in metropolitan areas) are not in the exurbs, but are instead in the ring surrounding the central cities -- there is a lack of regard for the preferences of people who have to make location decisions for themselves.

Some people enjoy lots of neighbors, public transit, and being within walking distance of shopping. Other people prefer fewer neighbors, less noise, and fewer cockroaches. Who is anyone to decide what these things are worth other than those who have to live there?

Reliance on the government to sort things out has resulted in a mess. America is littered with abandoned central cities crawling with vagrants and criminals, congested roads, dangerous transit systems (when they're not on strike), and millions of people making distorted housing decisions based on monopoly school districts, rent regulations, insane real estate taxes, politically determined zoning codes, and much else that the planners, thinkers, and other experts have offered as "solutions".

The solution, Mr. Yglesias, is to decide for yourself where and how you wish to live, and let others do the same.

Government really is the problem.

Posted by Bill Nelson | June 10, 2008 6:25 PM

Note the use of the word "we", which is apparently a euphemism for Mr. Yglesias' personal tastes.

Because he likes the ides of other people commuting by foot/bike, he arrogantly decides, as spokesman for the "poor", that "we" should impose his "solutions" on them and on everyone else.

Setting aside the issue that "poor" people (to the extent that they exist at all in metropolitan areas) are not in the exurbs, but are instead in the ring surrounding the central cities -- there is a lack of regard for the preferences of people who have to make location decisions for themselves.

Some people enjoy lots of neighbors, public transit, and being within walking distance of shopping. Other people prefer fewer neighbors, less noise, and fewer cockroaches. Who is anyone to decide what these things are worth other than those who have to live there?

Reliance on the government to sort things out has resulted in a mess. America is littered with abandoned central cities crawling with vagrants and criminals, congested roads, dangerous transit systems (when they're not on strike), and millions of people making distorted housing decisions based on monopoly school districts, rent regulations, insane real estate taxes, politically determined zoning codes, and much else that the planners, thinkers, and other experts have offered as "solutions".

The solution, Mr. Yglesias, is to decide for yourself where and how you wish to live, and let others do the same.

Government really is the problem.

Posted by Bill Nelson | June 10, 2008 6:26 PM

Note the use of the word "we", which is apparently a euphemism for Mr. Yglesias' personal tastes.

Because he likes the ides of other people commuting by foot/bike, he arrogantly decides, as spokesman for the "poor", that "we" should impose his "solutions" on them and on everyone else.

Setting aside the issue that "poor" people (to the extent that they exist at all in metropolitan areas) are not in the exurbs, but are instead in the ring surrounding the central cities -- there is a lack of regard for the preferences of people who have to make location decisions for themselves.

Some people enjoy lots of neighbors, public transit, and being within walking distance of shopping. Other people prefer fewer neighbors, less noise, and fewer cockroaches. Who is anyone to decide what these things are worth other than those who have to live there?

Reliance on the government to sort things out has resulted in a mess. America is littered with abandoned central cities crawling with vagrants and criminals, congested roads, dangerous transit systems (when they're not on strike), and millions of people making distorted housing decisions based on monopoly school districts, rent regulations, insane real estate taxes, politically determined zoning codes, and much else that the planners, thinkers, and other experts have offered as "solutions".

The solution, Mr. Yglesias, is to decide for yourself where and how you wish to live, and let others do the same.

Government really is the problem.

Posted by Bill Nelson | June 10, 2008 6:27 PM

"Some other cities are also at peak, like L.A. and the Texas cities, but they seem to be exceptions."

And Seattle, Portland, Denver, Phoenix, Albuquerque, etc. etc. etc.

Western cities are generally at peak population. That's because a ton of people from the Northeast and Great Lakes are moving there.

Posted by Joe | June 10, 2008 6:40 PM

Do you or anybody you know have any children?

I assume this is teasing the cities=crime and crappy schools line of reasoning. Trouble is, it just ain't so. First of all, crime doesn't work like it does in the movies. Most crime is local and personal. Random violent crimes are rare, and getting rarer. We tend to overestimate the probability of violent crime because it is easy to recall examples. News stories don't say "so-and-so was killed in a robbery attempt in Crappington Heights. In other news, 375,000 city residents didn't get murdered."

There's really no such thing as a "city" neighborhood, anyways. There are good and bad neighborhoods in every city where crime levels are just about on par with similar neighborhoods in the suburbs and out in the country. Class is the best predictor.

Same for schools. The high school a few blocks from my city apartment is one of the best in the the state. In any event, urban schools suffered when rich folks white flighted it out to the burbs. Should a number of them return, city schools will get better.

If you want to do something good for your kids, move to the city and have them walk places. The number one cause of death and injury for anybody under 40 is automobile accidents. Seriously, you owe it to your kids in more ways than one.

Posted by RoboticGhost | June 10, 2008 6:41 PM

Ramping up urban density was one of the aims of the Livingstone London mayoralty under the banner of "urban renaissance" as developed by the Richard Rogers Partnership.

Posted by Naadir Jeewa | June 10, 2008 7:39 PM

re: This is one of several factors that could lead, as Christopher Leinberger predicted, to the far-out suburb being the next slum. The trouble of course is that under a scenario like that, high energy costs will disproportionately bite the poor to an even greater extent than they do today.

Hurt the poor how? The poor generally live either in inner cities or in remote rural areas-- and generally often own homes (yess I am generalizing quite a bit I know). The folks who live in McMansion-land are the middle and often upper middle class, the ones who didn't want to look at people who Aren't Like Them (was: White Flight, now: Flight From Immigrants) and who want to make sure their children never rub elbows with the hoi polloi. Also, I have to wonder if McMansion Land has been especially hard hit simply baceuse its prices were the most over-inflated during the bubble, and the price of gas has little to do with it.

Re: After all, in 1900 just about every small town in America was walkable because . . . no one had cars.

As I've said before, even many 50s and 60s suburbs were quite walkable if the definition of "walkable" is a modest one of "Can walk to many (but not all) places".

Posted by JonF | June 10, 2008 8:49 PM

Bill Nelson:
"poor" people (to the extent that they exist at all in metropolitan areas)

Wha????

Posted by Adam Villani | June 11, 2008 12:00 AM

We'll get a lot more denser housing if there's a lot more demand for it. There's no serious evidence of such demand. Anecdotes about particular communities are not evidence of general patterns. The dramatic fall in house prices in far-flung suburbs is a result of the real estate bubble and an overreaction to recent rapid increases in gas prices, not a change in long-standing trends and preferences for big houses and car travel.

Posted by Mixner | June 11, 2008 12:54 AM

What happens when you ignore the price-density principle?

To cite the "drive til' you qualify idea," have a look here.

If you would like to see an example, take a drive out to Aurora Illinois (about 50-55 min west of downtown Chicago), just across from the Aurora Airport. A planned community was started there about 18 months ago. The area is partially wooded, partially agriculture and in general an attractive landscape. Formerly productive corn fields and farm homes were turned into sculpted grounds with paved streets, sewer, and water supply. By my own estimation it would suit 100-120 homes with a typical subdivision lay out. Right now there are 6-8 homes that are complete or nearly complete with no further building in progress.

My question is this, what will the developer do to maintain this site and make it profitable and how will the current occupants react to the fact that they are now living in a virtual ghost town? I give them credit if they stay and wait out the current cycle, but what if they don't? This area is accessibly only by expressway (the nearest train line is several miles away with no buses etc to reach it). The land is no longer valuable for agriculture and the infrastructure will be aged and stigmatized by the time the next real estate cycle kicks in.

I am sure this is not the only scenario in the US where this has happened, but the question is what is the fair and best solution for the overall community, homeowners, and the developer who all ignored this principle?

Posted by DBM | June 11, 2008 2:57 AM

"How dense was Plano, Eugene or Noblesville back then?"

Eugene? Pretty dense, according to this map:
http://www.sightline.org/maps/animated_maps/Eug_historic_gif

Eyeballing it, I'd say it looks less than 3 miles across at the widest -- you could walk across it in an hour.

Posted by C | June 11, 2008 5:22 AM

A couple random comments:

First, as far as excess supply of urban and semi-urban housing is concerned, I think one has to distinguish coastal cities like New York, Boston, SF, DC, and so on from post-industrial interior cities. It is the latter which have a lot of excess capacity in historic denser neighborhoods (the coastal cities used to have it too, but much of that capacity was absorbed in the last decade or so). So what I suspect we may see happen over time is people moving back to these interior cities, reversing some recent trends.

By the way, interestingly that may be going on while the same metro areas are also losing population in the exurbs, which means some of the overall metros may continue losing population even as the city proper gains. For example, in my post-industrial interior city, the latest estimates are that the city proper is indeed gaining population, even while the surrounding area is still losing population, reversing a relative trend that had been in effect since about 1950.

Second, rehabilitating existing housing stock in "dense" neighborhoods and building new "dense" housing can often be done in the very same area, thanks to the "infill" process. Again using my post-industrial interior city as an example, many former industrial sites in close proximity to (or actually within) relatively dense neighborhoods have recently been redeveloped into residential or mixed-use complexes. And in fact one of these (extremely popular) new developments specifically markets itself as being modeled on the (extremely popular) historic neighborhoods nearby.

Which is a roundabout way of suggesting that if you consider not just the existing housing stock, but also the availability of suitable infill sites, these post-industrial interior cities REALLY have a lot of excess capacity. And as I have noted, at least in my area it looks like we are well into the process of making use of this excess capacity ... but judging from former population numbers, and even accounting for today's smaller households, we are still nowhere near running out of capacity.

Finally, we are raising a family in a former "streetcar suburb" in this city. Personally, we love the lifestyle. We use our little backyard for tossing a ball or filling up the kiddie pool. We then walk to the local park to play with the neighborhood kids on the big playsets. And we then stop off at the local restaurants as we walk back home (where lots more neighborhood kids can be found), and so on. All of that strikes me as very family-friendly.

The quality of the public schools are probably the biggest issue for parents in the area, but not surprisingly as people like us are now moving back into these neighborhoods, they are finding ways to get the schools they want. For example, of course there are private schools, but recently a new charter school was started in our neighborhood, which basically means the local residents found a way of getting their taxes spent on the sort of school they wanted to see in the neighborhood.

Posted by DTM | June 11, 2008 7:11 AM

Remember that Chicago's peak population was 3.6 million in 1950. Today it is at 2.8 million. Logically Chicago can absorb almost a million people. Many other urban areas are in a similar predicament: Cleveland, Detroit, Boston, Minneapolis/St Paul, etc. Heck, even Atlanta is shy of its peak population. So I don't think it will take much development to make some of these old cities absorb the population from the exurbs...

Freddiemac: I'm well aware that many cities are well below peak population. But do you think all those housing units have been sitting around empty these past for or five decades, just waiting to absorb all the high-gas-price refugees? In the United States hundreds of thousands of units of housing are demolished every year. Moreover, residential buildings that still exist but that have been vacant for many years are costly to renovate. So expensive, in fact, that often doing so is not cost effective (or else the renovations are so elaborate and all-encompassing that costs are comparable to new construction). In addition, household sizes are smaller these days, so any expansion in population requires more housing units that would have been required fifty years ago to accommodate the same numbers.

Obviously things vary from place to place. I'd imagine it's easier to get things built in Detroit, say, than in Boston. But by and large those cities where people most want to live are also the places where nimbyistic housing supply restrictionists have the sharpest elbows; I believe their presence, and their political power, is one of the chief impediments blocking the density dream.

Posted by Jasper | June 11, 2008 10:55 AM

Some people enjoy lots of neighbors, public transit, and being within walking distance of shopping. Other people prefer fewer neighbors, less noise

One of these groups of people has a large number of housing options at low prices on the fringes of metropolitan areas, and one of these groups of people are faced with higher prices and fewer available options. So which sort of community do you think that MattY should be advocating the construction of more of?

We'll get a lot more denser housing if there's a lot more demand for it. There's no serious evidence of such demand.

That explains why home prices in Bethesda, MD are so cheap compared to Germantown and Frederick. Bizarre that Mixner doesn't realize that the neighborhoods he claims there's no "demand" for are always consistently more expensive than the unwalkable neighborhoods that were overbuilt and can be picked up for a song. Mixner, it is quite clear that even if more people want widget A than widget B, there is certainly a greater demand for widget B than is available, much like in the same way you can walk into a car dealership and drive off with a Honda Accord the same day, but for other cars, there's a long waiting list and a bidding war if you want one. You inability to understand the basics of economics is, unfortunately, a common feature among the rabid libertarian fundamentalists such as yourself.

Posted by Tyro | June 11, 2008 11:55 AM

Tyro, you're forgetting supply. Economic geography depends on a simple fact of geometry: the area of a circle is pi(r)squared. A circle drawn 7 miles around the corner of 16th & K Streets NW has an area of about 154 square miles. Downtown Bethesda is on the edge of that circle. Go out another 7 miles, to Rockville, and the area of the circle is about 615 square miles - 4 times as much available land. Drive another 7 miles, to Gaithersburg, and the area of the circle is 1385 square miles. And on to the new subdivisions south of Damascus - 28 miles from downtown - the area within the circle is 2462 square miles.

Not to mention that much of the close-in land is not available for residential construction, while almost all the outlying land is farmers' fields.

So by increasing the distance from downtown four-fold, from 7 miles to 28, you increase the available land 16-fold. The increase in supply leads to much lower land prices as you move out from the center. Costs of the commute can be set off against the lower cost of housing. The true limiting factor is commuting time, which becomes a constraint over one hour (one way) and an absolute limit for most people as you approach ninety minutes.

So you can't conclude that "more people" would prefer to live close-in in smaller dwellings than prefer to live farther away in larger dwellings. All you can conclude is that the number of people who will pay a premium to live in a smaller dwelling, close-in, is high enough so that the premium exists, given the much more limited supply of close-in land.

Posted by bloix | June 11, 2008 1:09 PM

Tyro, you're forgetting supply. Economic geography depends on a simple fact of geometry: the area of a circle is pi(r)squared. A circle drawn 7 miles around the corner of 16th & K Streets NW has an area of about 154 square miles. Downtown Bethesda is on the edge of that circle. Go out another 7 miles, to Rockville, and the area of the circle is about 615 square miles - 4 times as much available land. Drive another 7 miles, to Gaithersburg, and the area of the circle is 1385 square miles. And on to the new subdivisions south of Damascus - 28 miles from downtown - the area within the circle is 2462 square miles.

Not to mention that much of the close-in land is not available for residential construction, while almost all the outlying land is farmers' fields.

So by increasing the distance from downtown four-fold, from 7 miles to 28, you increase the available land 16-fold. The increase in supply leads to much lower land prices as you move out from the center. Costs of the commute can be set off against the lower cost of housing. The true limiting factor is commuting time, which becomes a constraint over one hour (one way) and an absolute limit for most people as you approach ninety minutes.

So you can't conclude that "more people" would prefer to live close-in in smaller dwellings than prefer to live farther away in larger dwellings. All you can conclude is that the number of people who will pay a premium to live in a smaller dwelling, close-in, is high enough so that the premium exists, given the much more limited supply of close-in land.

Posted by bloix | June 11, 2008 4:28 PM

We environmentalists in Northern California who have resisted this "high-density and Transit-Oriented-Density TOD" politically for decades, formalizing what is essentially a local political party called "Residentialists" understand what a huge fraud density is, for many complicated reasons, the principal one being that it is not possible to replicated pre-automobile era land use patterns on a land map of post automobile era economics, where the American dream is still to have unrestricted travel in autos and single family homes.

No-one takes the bus. People in our community average 15-17 auto trips per day. If you are lucky enough to take the train to work, then you have 13-15 remaining auto trips.

The Texas Transportation Institute data makes clear that congestion correlates directly with population and city size, meaning that auto traffic just gets worse, not better, with urban density, which 1.) wastes fuel, and 2.) wastes people's time.

For all its vaunted "progressive" transit policies, Portland Oregon fares no better than a city of similar size, Cincinnati, in congestion and wasted fuel per passenger mile.

The Census bureau statistics show that America *is* getting more dense, and that the worry about excessive suburbanization is largely mis-stated and distorted. Much of this comes from our brother environmentalists who have a more Sierra club radicalism which simply wants to herd people off of the land, and which overstates the "sprawl" phenomena.

There are many surprising results that come from the actual data and I suggest that people stop inventing personal fantasies using "common sense" and instead visit the existing data bases to prove or disprove assertions about density and carbon footprints, mobility, congestion etc.

Posted by Paulc | June 14, 2008 11:08 AM