Lawn-Sharing

Back yards are an interesting phenomenon. Most people, even confirmed city-dwellers like myself, see their appeal. Certainly the thing I miss most about my previous DC rowhouse was that it, unlike my current one, had a yard that while very small was definitely big enough to pass some time in and even cultivate some vegetables. But at the same time, in practice people don't utilize lawn space for a very high proportion of the time -- considering how often you're either not at home, or asleep, or watching television and the like the yard is most often standing unoccupied.

Jonathan Zasloff observes that shared yard space (as in according to him a show for kids called Backyardigans or else perhaps Big Love) where several separate single-family homes would converge on a single back yard might be appealing to some people. But of course like a lot of things that might increase residential density with the various positive impacts on affordable housing, transit accessibility, climate, public health, etc. that entails it's generally illegal to build this way.

Photo by Flickr user D'Arcy Norman used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

I'm sure Joe Lieberman, et al., will be all over this one:

Israeli paper publishes Obama's wall note

The Israeli paper Maariv obtains the note Obama left at the Western Wall in Jerusalem and puts a photograph of it on its front page.

The handwriting, beneath the letterhead of the King David Hotel, does appear to be Obama's. Visitors traditionally stick notes of prayer into the wall.

.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | July 25, 2008 1:22 PM

The whole appeal of possessing a yard is that it's yours, and you can tell other people to get the hell out of it, preferably while waving a shotgun.

Posted by Hlem | July 25, 2008 1:25 PM

It's how I grew up in a first-ring suburb. Technically, we didn't share back yards, but in practice we did. The usable yards were pretty small by todays' standards, but because no one had any fences in their back yards, so games of tag, rundown, or indian ball sucked up additional space from neighboring yards as necessary.

Posted by Daniel | July 25, 2008 1:25 PM

It's the post-industrial version of a courtyard. I never understood why planned subdivisions had such large yards, when the main attraction to them seemed to be that your kids would have other kids to play with.

Posted by Luke | July 25, 2008 1:32 PM

This is funny, I totally covet the backyard set up on the Backyardigans.

Posted by steve | July 25, 2008 1:35 PM

Back in the day, my entire street was available for hide n seek and other shenanigans. The couple two houses down had a giant swing set and slide that they let all the neighborhood kids play on and there wasn't a single fence on the entire street. It was one giant play ground with garden in the middle and clubhouses on both ends. The joys of a small town in the 80's

Posted by your it | July 25, 2008 1:36 PM

I love the Backyardigans, except for Austin, who's family put a fence up around their property.

Posted by dwhite10701 | July 25, 2008 1:45 PM

We live in what's essentially a first ring suburb and while backyards aren't shared, ours is part of a multibackyard short cut from one side of things to another. Kid stroll through all the time, and hope a fence to get from X to Y, which I find very pleasing. What's funny is that when I'm not back there, kids pass through without a thought, but if I"m back there there's always a sheepish "hmm, do I need to ask permission?" aura of discomfort. But no one's ever turned back, to my knowledge

Posted by bdbd | July 25, 2008 1:46 PM

I have a 4 and 1 year old...I love the Backyardigans!

Posted by Rich | July 25, 2008 1:46 PM

Next up: Shared kitchens and bathrooms. The ultimate goal, of course, is fully communal housing.

Posted by Mixner | July 25, 2008 1:47 PM

One of the main attractions of my city coop development is that the units are arranged as a large hollow rectangle with keyed gates at each corner. The center is one-third fenced ball court (with a basketball hoop, but also good for kid-sized baseball), one-third playground with sandbox, play structure, swings, and benches for the parents, and one-third quiet garden area (separated by a hedge from the playground). Each unit also has a scrap of yard in back, about 20' square, with a fence and simple latched gate. The Backyardigans would be right at home!

Posted by Hen3ry | July 25, 2008 1:50 PM

My parents have a big hill in their front yard. On snowy days they get a parade of kids asking to sled down the hill. They always said yes.
But not anymore - an adult neighbor joined the sledding and banged into a tree. Somehow dozens of children have managed to avoid hitting the trees for 20 years or more.
This dope informed my parents he had considered suing, but thought better of it.
The yard is fenced now.

Posted by CParis | July 25, 2008 1:51 PM

Either you have a common space (like a park, or a courtyard) maintained by an outside organization within certain rules, or you have the tragedy of the commons. (Not always, but often--as Hlem puts it, you want to choose whether space goes to flowers, or tomatoes, or play equipment.)

I've shared adjoining yards with my neighbor for years, though in practice this means their kids spend all their time over here since we actually have swings, ropes, climber, etc. I wouldn't necessarily extend that to anyone in the neighborhood, and liability is only part of it. We have two tall ropes hanging from the tree; my son swings back and forth around it, turning himself upside down and executing various other tricks: how many common yards would be cool with that? Some, certainly, but one grouch who'd rather my kid remain stationary would ruin it. So I don't see this catching on per se.

In a neighboring town I lusted after the renovated house kitty-corner from an excellent park, which had just enough yard to do this right--a little space to garden as you wish, or eat outside, and the abundant space for football or climbing readily available. That's the model for the new urbanism.

Posted by Deborah | July 25, 2008 1:53 PM

Next up: Shared kitchens and bathrooms. The ultimate goal, of course, is fully communal housing.

Mixner parody or actual Mixner comment? I scratch my head in consternation. I am unable to decide.

Posted by James Gary | July 25, 2008 1:58 PM

Similar phenomenon: a park.

Posted by joe | July 25, 2008 2:00 PM

Similar phenomenon: a park.

Posted by joe | July 25, 2008 2:02 PM

The whole appeal of possessing a yard is that it's yours, and you can tell other people to get the hell out of it, preferably while waving a shotgun.

But this is basically the issue. In days of yore, neighbors knew each other, were friendly with each other, and had a lot in common. These days, that's no longer true. You are less likely to want to share backyards with people you hardly know and who you don't have anything in common with.

Posted by Al | July 25, 2008 2:03 PM

"... it's generally illegal to build this way."

Is this really true? I live in a townhouse condo where the yard is shared. Is this actually illegal most places?

Posted by James B. Shearer | July 25, 2008 2:12 PM

James Gary,

Someone has been stealing my name in another thread, but that comment was mine. In case my point wasn't clear to you: large-scale sharing of backyards is hopelessly unrealistic. People value their privacy. People value having their own space. Matthew may come to value those things more than he does now if he ever marries and has a family.

Posted by Mixner | July 25, 2008 2:12 PM

There's a whole movement out there to what are called "community greens." Baltimore even has a program for it that uses the alleys and very small spaces together to create these areas. There are other examples.

Posted by norge | July 25, 2008 2:19 PM

Small private backyard: small park with playground just across the street. Another small playground 2 blocks up the street.

But then my neighborhood was developed around 1890.

The totally-shared backyard may look great on TV, but I'm pretty sure my neighbours with older kids, or no kids, wouldn't take kindly to my twin 3-year olds rampaging around spreading sand and picking leaves off the plants. Toddlers need fences and gates (and sometimes barbed wire and watchtowers and shackles ...).

Posted by Richard Cownie | July 25, 2008 2:21 PM

Next up: Shared kitchens and bathrooms. The ultimate goal, of course, is fully communal housing.

An army of children with Kalashnikovs and sticks will lead the forced march from the suburbs into abandoned districts of the cities, where shaven-headed exurbanites will labor in urban renewal brigades. Yglesias will lead nightly struggle sessions. It'll be great!

Posted by TheOtherCyrus | July 25, 2008 2:22 PM

Is this really true? I live in a townhouse condo where the yard is shared. Is this actually illegal most places?

I was wondering the same thing. Matthew produces no evidence to support his claim of illegality.

There seem to be a lot of urban legends about zoning laws that are uncritically passed around from one liberal blogger to the next.

Posted by Mixner | July 25, 2008 2:23 PM

There is also the use of fences to confine dogs, which is a big part of why I got my current house. My pooch gets along great with the dog on one side, but horribly with the dogs on the other side. If there was just one big fenced area none of would have been happy.

Posted by Steve French | July 25, 2008 2:24 PM

My 3 year old niece loves the Backyardigans!

"lets go get a snack"

Posted by Napoleon | July 25, 2008 2:25 PM

There is also the use of fences to confine dogs, which is a big part of why I got my current house. My pooch gets along great with the dog on one side, but horribly with the dogs on the other side. If there was just one big fenced area none of would have been happy.

Posted by Steve French | July 25, 2008 2:28 PM

My 3 year old niece loves the Backyardigans!

"lets go get a snack"

Posted by Napoleon | July 25, 2008 2:31 PM

"Matthew may come to value those things more than he does now if he ever marries and has a family."

Oh my god! I'm agreeing with Mixner!!

But he's right, especially about the family. I want to keep my kids in my space where I can do what's necessary to keep them safe (a significant issue with a food allergy). And kids can be really aggravating: I mostly don't want other people's kids too close; sometimes I don't want my own kids too close either :-)

Posted by Richard Cownie | July 25, 2008 2:31 PM

But this is basically the issue. In days of yore, neighbors knew each other, were friendly with each other, and had a lot in common. These days, that's no longer true. You are less likely to want to share backyards with people you hardly know and who you don't have anything in common with.

But Al, if you shared your backyard with your neighbors, you would know them and have something in common with them. One of the reasons people knew each other and were friendlier with each other in the past is that, in old school urban neighborhoods and inner ring suburbs, they were closer together and shared more stuff--shared driveways, shared allies, shared clotheslines, etc. are very common in older middle/working class bungalow communities, for example.

We've built communities along lines intended to isolate nuclear family units in their homes and keep us from ever having to interact with other people, but then the fact that they're strangers becomes the argument for why we have to continue arrangements that keep them that way, and then we wonder why we're lonely, lacking social networks, and isolated.

large-scale sharing of backyards is hopelessly unrealistic. People value their privacy. People value having their own space.

Obviously people value privacy within their homes, but we're talking about backyards here--how much privacy can you ever have in a backyard? If you live on several acres out in the real country you have privacy, but if you live in a typical subdivision with quarter-acre lots, having "your own" yard doesn't give you any more privacy--people can still see and hear everything you do, and your HOA is never going to let you build a fence high enough to make it otherwise cuz it would be hideously ugly. And as for having your "own space"--the deer, rabbits, squirrels, birds, wind, rain and snow will quickly show you who really controls it.

If you want a country-style life, go live in the actual country and recognize that this means giving up the significant economic opportunities that come with living near employment centers.

Posted by flippantangel | July 25, 2008 2:55 PM

So in my neighborhood the houses have small yards, and then there are back alleys where kids sometimes play (which is sorta like shared backyards, although public property), and then there are local public parks with playsets and such. So you can actually have neighborhoods with all of this stuff, and it all serves slightly different purposes.

Incidentally, one of the great things about the parks is there are almost always other kids there for our son to play with. And we personally value that a lot--in our view playing with other kids is both enjoyable and conducive to healthy development, and with the park we don't need to bother with playdates and such ... we just go and we know other kids are going to be there.

Posted by DTM | July 25, 2008 2:59 PM

Back yards are an interesting phenomenon.

Not to 99% of Americans.

Posted by Don | July 25, 2008 3:05 PM

When I was growing up (late 70s/early 80s) we lived next door to a very evil family. The mother once attacked our dog with a rake when it wandered into their front yard.

Anyway, they built this huge, ugly hideous plastic fence around their backyard about 6 feet high. Any time we lost a ball over the fence, we felt like we were descending into the pits of hell and might not make it back out.

Posted by blah | July 25, 2008 3:10 PM

I love the open spaces of Copenhagen courtyards. Quite a bit of semi-private space.

We wouldn't want to mimic one of the cleanest, most-livable cities in the world, though.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 25, 2008 3:15 PM

"flippantangel,"

Obviously people value privacy within their homes, but we're talking about backyards here--how much privacy can you ever have in a backyard? If you live on several acres out in the real country you have privacy, but if you live in a typical subdivision with quarter-acre lots, having "your own" yard doesn't give you any more privacy--people can still see and hear everything you do,

Huh? Privacy isn't just a matter of not being heard or seen, but of exclusive access. And I deny your claim that "people can still see and hear everything you do," anyway. Sure, depending on the particular circumstances, your next-door neighbors may still be able to hear your conversations or see into your hard, but they're much less likely to be able to do that if you're in your own private space separated from them by walls or fences than if they're sharing the space with you. And there are all sorts of other practical concerns with sharing yards, too, such as pets and the safety of children, as others have mentioned.

Posted by Mixner | July 25, 2008 3:15 PM

Sunnyside Gardens, Queens.

A pioneering experiment in housing, it featured rowhouses ringing a block, with common greenspace in the middle. It was built and owned by the City Housing Corporation in the 20s, and was run by them for 30 years. When it was sold off to the residents, they immediately fenced off their tiny, individual yards. Territory-marking is very important to people.

A successor development, Chatham Village, is run as a co-op, and the greenspace is still held in common, making it a beautiful, vibrant, and extremely successful development for the last 75 years.

Posted by JRoth | July 25, 2008 3:35 PM

Who needs a shared yard when you have a cow pasture with sliding hill behind the whole street?

Actually a field that the developer put a few heifers on to qualify for the low ag exemption tax rate, but it worked for us. Added bonus was when the snow and mud ball fights escalated you had an alternative to rocks.

Posted by snoey | July 25, 2008 3:47 PM

Our next door neighbors with a backyard bordering ours are a couple of attractive co-eds.

Oh how I wish we had a communal backyard.

Posted by Joe | July 25, 2008 3:47 PM

For decades, such a common space has existed, hidden in the Berkeley hills. There are certainly rules by which the homeowners must abide but the setting is astonishing. They all share what's truly a private park - swimming pool (both lap- and kid-friendly), tennis court, picnic areas, as well as their own personal "yard."

Posted by Judy | July 25, 2008 3:56 PM

Ah, Mixner, now I'm gonna have to go all Robert Frost on your ass

If I could put a notion in his head:
“Why do they make good neighbours? Isn’t it 30
Where there are cows? But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I’d ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
Something there is that doesn’t love a wall, 35
That wants it down.” I could say “Elves” to him,
But it’s not elves exactly, and I’d rather
He said it for himself. I see him there
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed. 40
He moves in darkness as it seems to me,
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.
He will not go behind his father’s saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, “Good fences make good neighbours.”

Posted by flippantangel | July 25, 2008 3:59 PM

Shared space is good. Private space is good too. You want both. And isn't that what the new urbanism is about ? You want roads *and* bike paths *and* sidewalks; you want shared space *and* private space; you want houses *and* apartments *and* small local shops *and* workplaces all close together, *and* big malls you can drive to.

I guess we're reacting against the McMansion/big lawn/picket fence/big car suburban-sprawl system; but Mixner is correct that we don't want, or need, to go all the way to another extreme.

But then Matthew Y, having been happily raised in NYC, and now living as a young single professional in DC, seems to have had favorable experiences of high-density low-privacy living, which probably color his views. Many feel differently once they're raising a family, and want a bit more space and a bit more privacy (a 2-year-old tantrum would be doubly frustrating with neighbors banging on the ceiling). Even if the inner-city school systems were good, those factors might still drive families to the suburbs.

Posted by Richard Cownie | July 25, 2008 4:00 PM

A quarter acre is actually a pretty huge yard by contemporary standards. Most new subdivisions pack the houses a lot more closely than that. But each house does still have it's own tiny private yard and there really isn't anything wrong with that.

At this point yard size is not really the issue with suburban development. Within a given apartment complex or on a given subdivision street the density is actually reasonable for a residential area. It's the way these various pod developments come together that creates the unsustainable and unwalkable suburban style we all know and tolerate.

20 story condo towers in a sea of parking lots and highways might be dense, but it's not urban. Rows of houses with small yards on interconnecting streets (not in an isolated pod with cul-de-sacs) with pedestrian access to parks, shopping, and so on may not be dense, but it's urban.

And Mixner, zoning laws that favor suburban-style development are not an urban legend. Such laws are in place all over the country with requirements about street width (wide enough for 2 fire trucks to pass at 50 miles an hour), setback requirements, curb cut and driveway requirements, and even laws forbidding front porches wider than a minimal and useless size.

Posted by Rob Mac | July 25, 2008 4:07 PM

Shared lawns might also facilitate babysitting cooperatives, thus making it less of a burden to raise kids, and increasing fertility rates.

Posted by Noah | July 25, 2008 4:14 PM

I think Robert Frost's on my side, "flip."

Richard Cownie,
But then Matthew Y, having been happily raised in NYC, and now living as a young single professional in DC, seems to have had favorable experiences of high-density low-privacy living, which probably color his views.

I'd use a stronger verb than "color." Something more like "massively distort." Once he moves beyond the post-college-student yuppie phase of his life his perspective will hopefully broaden somewhat.

Posted by Mixner | July 25, 2008 4:18 PM

And Mixner, zoning laws that favor suburban-style development are not an urban legend.

Strawman. The claim was that "it's generally illegal" to build housing with shared yards. Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

Posted by Mixner | July 25, 2008 4:22 PM

I'd use a stronger verb than "color." Something more like "massively distort."

+1

It never ceases to amuse me how many of Matt's posts can be summed up as "I was raised wealthy in a big city and now I'm young, single writer in a big city, why doesn't everyone else want the same things as me?"

Posted by AB | July 25, 2008 4:28 PM

""I think Robert Frost's on my side, "flip."

"He moves in darkness as it seems to me,
Not of woods only and the shade of trees."

I don't think so: the narrator of Frost's poem is
against building walls unless he knows just what they're for; it's the neighbor "in darkness" who thinks all walls are a good thing all the time ...
It would be an error to assume that either the narrator or the wall-builder represents Frost's own views exactly - this is poetry, not an essay - but then he's also using "walls" as a metaphor for the lack of human connection and communication, and when you see it from that angle a poet has to be on the side of more communication and fewer barriers.

But then, "Walking in Woods on a Snowy Evening" isn't a plea for better signposting of minor roads, either. Frost's concerns go a bit beyond town planning :-)

Posted by Richard Cownie | July 25, 2008 4:39 PM

It never ceases to amuse me how many of Matt's posts can be summed up as "I was raised wealthy in a big city and now I'm young, single writer in a big city, why doesn't everyone else want the same things as me?"

It's funny that you think the end of your summary in any way follows from its beginning.

"I was raised in a suburb and now I'm raising my kids in an exurb, why doesn't everyone else want the same things as me?"

The last 50-60 years have featured one preferred model of living, especially for families, yet people who adhere to that model get furious should anyone suggest that other models might work at all, much less better.

N.B.: I'm raising 2 kids in a walkable urban neighborhood in a Rust Belt city; it's working quite nicely, thank you.

Posted by JRoth | July 25, 2008 4:40 PM

Richard Cownie,

I agree that all too often, both sides paint this as a battle of extremes, when in fact there is huge middle-ground of more or less continuous options.

That said, the sorts of "new urbanist" neighborhoods you are talking about (and indeed the older neighborhoods they are based on, such as "streetcar suburbs") these days can often be found both within incorporated central cities and outside of them. Indeed, that often depends on how much of the urbanized part of the metropolitan area the central city has incorporated, and that turns out to vary wildly between different metropolitan areas.

Which is actually yet another reason to view the typical city versus suburb pi**ing matches as a distraction, since depending on how the political boundaries are drawn, suburbs can resemble parts of cities, and vice-versa.

Posted by DTM | July 25, 2008 4:42 PM

For what it's worth, I agree with Mixner.

Posted by MS | July 25, 2008 4:47 PM

It's funny that you think the end of your summary in any way follows from its beginning.

It's funny that you think I said it did. Funnier still is that you think anyone is "furious" about the suggestion. All we're saying is that Matt has lived a very different life than about 99.9% of people in the US, and he doesn't seem to understand how much his opinions on housing, transit, etc are clouded by that. He seems incapable at times of understanding the desires of people who did not grow up like he did. For all of his insights he is often very out of touch with your average American. The entire "you don't use your backyard that much, why do you even want it" portion of his post illustrates that pretty clearly.

I'm raising 2 kids in a walkable urban neighborhood in a Rust Belt city; it's working quite nicely, thank you.

That's marvelous, would you like a cookie?

I too live in a walkable urban environment, but I don't claim to know how others would like to live.

Posted by AB | July 25, 2008 5:01 PM

The last 50-60 years have featured one preferred model of living, especially for families, yet people who adhere to that model get furious should anyone suggest that other models might work at all, much less better.

The "fury" exists only in your fevered imagination. Obviously, some people--even some married couples with children--prefer the urban high-density mass transit-oriented "model" over the suburban low-density car-oriented one. But such people seem to be a small minority. Mostly, young childless professionals.

Posted by Mixner | July 25, 2008 5:05 PM

Um, everybody here seems to be discussing something entirely different from what MY wrote. Matt says that he doesn't think zoning laws should prevent houses with shared yard space from being built, and that therefore such laws (which nobody in this thread denies the existence of, although a bunch of you seem to be debating how many there are, for some reason). You are all discussing the question of whether people generally want shared yard space, but that's irrelevant. Obviously some people do (MY, for example), and so either there's some public policy goal that's served by preventing MY from getting what he wants, or there isn't. Whether or not most people in America feel the same way as him has nothing to do with the question at hand.

I'm also enjoying reading people who know nothing about zoning laws accusing each other of not knowing anything about zoning laws, and asserting that the burden of proof lies with anyone who disagrees with them. That gives me an idea! Mixner, here's a time saver for you: from now on, whenever you feel the need to post, just copy and paste the following:

I disagree, and the burden of proof is on you to prove me wrong.

There! Now you don't have to spend any time reading any posts or comments, and the best part is that the substantive impact of your contribution will be entirely unchanged.

Posted by OhioBoy | July 25, 2008 5:15 PM

Edward Glaeser has a recent piece in the New York Sun discussing the reasons why cities like Houston are beating the pants off cities like New York in attracting jobs and people.

Posted by Mixner | July 25, 2008 5:16 PM

I like the concept, and could even support it, but have a few issues with it in practice:

1. Dogs -- shared yards won't work for those of us with pets, unless everyone who has a connecting yard either likes them, or is okay with helping to pick up poop.

2. Mowing -- I live next door to a yutz who, in three years, has completely mowed his yard (all of the front and back at the same time) exactly once. And that was yesterday; I guess when I weedate (or is it weedeated?) his side of the fence line last weekend, he got the hint. Everyone would have to agree to some basic maintenance rules.

3. Privacy -- The reason we currently love and spend pretty much every evening in our yard with our son is because it backs up to a creek, several hundred acres of woods and, beyond that, about 2,000 acres of soybean fields -- not a house. It's quiet. It's peaceful. And I can go out and have a smoke at midnight butt naked if I want to (although never have ... for the good of mankind). Not sure I want to lose that privacy.

Again, I really like the idea (and my son loooovvvesss the Backyardigans), but there are some practical issues that'd need be addressed in any such arrangement.

Posted by Mark D | July 25, 2008 5:23 PM

Ohioboy,

Matt claimed that "it's generally illegal" to build housing with shared yards. Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

Posted by Mixner | July 25, 2008 5:26 PM

Matt has lived a very different life than about 99.9% of people in the US,

Are you talking about anything more specific, or do you just mean by virtue of his having grown up in a heavily urbanized central city? Because somehow I think the number of people in the country who fit that description is more than an order of magnitude higher than 300,000.

Posted by Adam Villani | July 25, 2008 5:27 PM

Way to nitpick and completely miss the point Adam. OK, make it 95%, the point is that Matt's experience is very different from the overwhelming majority of the country. And it is not just the urban environment, the wealth makes a big difference as well. There's more to it than having "grown up in a heavily urbanized central city", somehow I doubt the outlook of someone growing up on the south side of Chicago is the same as someone who grew up in Manhattan going to Dalton.

Posted by AB | July 25, 2008 5:36 PM

OK, make it 95%, the point is that Matt's experience is very different from the overwhelming majority of the country.

I'd say it's a bit more than a nitpick. Most people aren't as privileged as Matt, but attributing an urban lifestyle to only 0.1% of the population greatly marginalizes them, as does Mixner when he overstates his claims of how much demand there is for rail service in the country?

Do most people want to live in single-family houses? Yes. Do most people drive cars to get to work? Yes. But to believe Mixner, there's no point in doing any planning whatsoever for the portion of the population that doesn't fit the suburban lifestyle profile. The urban portion is smaller than the suburban portion, but it's still a significant portion of the population, and you're marginalizing large swaths of the population if you ignore urban issues as being far outside the norm.

Posted by Adam Villani | July 25, 2008 5:50 PM

It's funny that you think the end of your summary in any way follows from its beginning.

It's funny that you think I said it did. Funnier still is that you think anyone is "furious" about the suggestion. All we're saying is that Matt has lived a very different life than about 99.9% of people in the US, and he doesn't seem to understand how much his opinions on housing, transit, etc are clouded by that. He seems incapable at times of understanding the desires of people who did not grow up like he did. For all of his insights he is often very out of touch with your average American. The entire "you don't use your backyard that much, why do you even want it" portion of his post illustrates that pretty clearly.

I'm raising 2 kids in a walkable urban neighborhood in a Rust Belt city; it's working quite nicely, thank you.

That's marvelous, would you like a cookie?

I too live in a walkable urban environment, but I don't claim to know how others would like to live.

Posted by AB | July 25, 2008 5:01 PM

=================================================

I much agree. I am reminded of Matt's post (last week) where he asserted that money spent on housing was a waste of resources as housing isn't "productive" we don't get anything from it. If I'd had time to comment I would have suggested that he move into a cardboard box under an overpass so he could feel better about not wasting resources

I think most commenters here who talk about the pleasures or benefits of living a suburban lifestyle are fine with people living in cities if they want. They just get tired of hearing self-righteous urbanites lecture them on their moral failings. Different strokes for different folks only seems to roll one way.

Posted by Campesino | July 25, 2008 5:59 PM

Adam V,

people aren't as privileged as Matt, but attributing an urban lifestyle to only 0.1% of the population greatly marginalizes them, as does Mixner when he overstates his claims of how much demand there is for rail service in the country?

Another vague and unsubstantiated accusation. Do please quote the statements of mine where you think I have "marginalized" people in this way, and show us your evidence of the demand for rail service that you believe justifies your accusation.

But to believe Mixner, there's no point in doing any planning whatsoever for the portion of the population that doesn't fit the suburban lifestyle profile.

I have never even vaguely suggested that we should do "no planning whatsoever," either in dense urban areas or sprawling suburban ones. Try responding to what I actually write, rather than to your ridiculous caricatures of my statements.

Posted by Mixner | July 25, 2008 6:07 PM

If you go on Google Earth and check out the rows and rows of tiny Victorian terrace houses in London, you'll see that you can easily have your private little strip of garden combined with incredibly dense housing and all of that pretty close to the centre. If you're living smack bang in the middle of the city like I do, that would get kind of expensive, but that's what we have these huge shared gardens called parks for.

Posted by novakant | July 25, 2008 6:44 PM

Well, I think you could kinda lay off Matt here, because there are over 60 comments and nobody has mentioned 'cohousing', which is essentially what Matt is talking about, although apparently he doesn't know it either.

Cohousing (or co-housing) you can google, it's a form of social movement. Co-housing usually involves shared laundry machines, a shared kitchen with regular meals, and separate houses.

Other ways of approaching the same problem are condominiumizing, or forming a limited partnership. Or you could have a trust or non-profit handle ownership issues. It all depends on what problem you're trying to solve. One way to look at it is that it's very similar to houses that look out on a shared golf course (sometimes a shared private airstrip).

It's hard to know what Matt thinks might be illegal or against zoning here. My own feeling is that probably he just reads too much of that libertarian crap.

Incidentally, the houseboats in Seattle, and presumably elsewhere, usually share backyards, which of course are water. Sound travels really well over water, so people try to get along! Strange to say, they usually seem to be more successful than other neighborhoods with "good fences".

The whole thing is at once a very old form of community (village green and all that) and a very advanced form of community. This dualistic paradox, however, does not violate the First Law of Mixner Being Clueless.

Posted by serial catowner | July 25, 2008 8:36 PM

Re: If you go on Google Earth and check out the rows and rows of tiny Victorian terrace houses in London, you'll see that you can easily have your private little strip of garden combined with incredibly dense housing and all of that pretty close to the centre.

You don't have to go overseas to find that. We have such a place in Baltimore, a row house with a narrow back yard in the rear, then a garage that opens out onto the street behind us. The yard has a high fence on both sides giving it the feel of an old-fashioned courtyard, an effect I rather like. And contra Matt the fact that you spend rather litle time in the yard doesn't mean you aren't using it. If you have a garden there, or pets that spend part of the day there, then the yard is being used. For that matter, most of us spend rather little time in our bathrooms, but I doubt we'd dispense with them in the interests of denser living.

Re: Edward Glaeser has a recent piece in the New York Sun discussing the reasons why cities like Houston are beating the pants off cities like New York in attracting jobs and people.

Houston (and Dallas) may have cheap housing now, but how long will that last? The same was once said about LA and Miami, two sunbelt cities that now among the pricier places to live. For that matter, Tampa, Atlanta and Las Vegas are seeing their cost of living escalate too. I have no doubt that as Houston fills up it too will follow that path.

Posted by JonF | July 25, 2008 9:01 PM

Houston (and Dallas) may have cheap housing now, but how long will that last?

Unless New York hollows out dramatically, housing in Houston and Dallas will probably be cheaper indefinitely.

The same was once said about LA and Miami, two sunbelt cities that now among the pricier places to live. For that matter, Tampa, Atlanta and Las Vegas are seeing their cost of living escalate too.

Housing in all of those places is cheaper than in New York, and likely to remain so indefinitely, for the fundamental reasons Glaeser explains in his piece.

Posted by Mixner | July 25, 2008 9:10 PM

JonF, that's not really true. Houston and Dallas have both grown tremendously over the past decade-plus with very little inflation in real estate prices. I assume it's because they build a lot and demand is allowed to equal supply. But some places are just more suseptible to both boom and bust, L.A., Miami, and Vegas among them.

Posted by too many steves | July 25, 2008 9:14 PM

Just to add a few actual facts to this conversation:

According to the Census, from 1990 to 2000 the population in the largest 69 urbanized areas grew faster than the population of the country as a whole, and indeed the population growth in those urbanized areas made up about 2/3ds of the U.S. population growth in those ten years.

Now urbanized areas are defined by the Census basically with respect to density, not according to political boundaries. So, these urbanized areas included both incorporated central cities and parts of the suburbs. But these facts shed some light on the claim that Americans are fleeing denser areas--turns out the opposite is true.

Posted by DTM | July 25, 2008 9:15 PM

DTM,

According to the Census, from 1990 to 2000 the population in the largest 69 urbanized areas grew faster than the population of the country as a whole,

Er, the Census Bureau classification of "urbanized areas" includes the sprawling suburban-style cities of the south and west that consist of mile after mile of low-density McMansions and strip malls and that have very limited public transportation. The Census Bureau data also shows that the vast majority of "urbanized" growth is occurring in low-density, sprawling cities of this kind, rather than in the old-style cities of the northeast.

But these facts shed some light on the claim that Americans are fleeing denser areas--turns out the opposite is true.

Americans, and American jobs, are fleeing high-density, transit-oriented "urbanized" areas for low-density, car-oriented "urbanized" areas. That process has been going on for decades.

Posted by Mixner | July 25, 2008 9:26 PM

Mixner,

The Census defines urban areas largely according to density. So while it is true that cities in the south and west have urban areas, and they are growing rapidly, that just shows your characterization of growth patterns in those cities is inaccurate.

Take, for example, Phoenix, the fastest growing metro area in the top 20 between 1990 and 2000. In 1990, the Phoenix urbanized area had a population of 2,006,239 distributed over 741 square miles, for a density of 2,707 people per square mile. By 2000 the Phoenix UA had a population of 2,907,049 in 799 square miles, for a density of 3,638. Incidentally, that about 900,000 new people packing into the increasingly dense Phoenix UA made up about 90% of the growth of the Phoenix Metro Area as a whole.

Or take Las Vegas, the fastest growing metro area of any size between 1990 and 2000. In 1990 the Las Vegas UA had 697,348 people in 231 square miles, a density of 3,018. By 2000 the Las Vegas UA had 1,314,357 people in 286 square miles, a density of 4,597. By the way, that was good for #7 by UA density rank in the U.S., and again that was almost 90% of the growth in the Las Vegas metro area packing into this increasingly dense urban area.

Finally, it wasn't just south and west cities with urban areas increasing in population--every urban area above 500,000 in 2000 had been growing since 1990, except New Orleans (and that was largely a redefinition issue).

So, Mixner, it turns out your assertions about population patterns and density are just wrong. What a surprise.

Posted by DTM | July 25, 2008 9:51 PM

Oh, and I forgot to mention:

Overall, the population of the top 68 urban areas had increased from 120,149,973 people in 39,369 square miles for a density of 3,052 in 1990 to 141,060,524 people in 44,414 square miles for a density of 3,176. And again that represents about 2/3ds of the population growth of the United States in this time. So again, about 2/3ds of the new people in the United States were packing into these urban areas, and overall these urban areas were increasing in density.

Again, so much for Mixner's assertions.

Posted by DTM | July 25, 2008 9:58 PM

DTM,

As usual, you are pretending I made statements I never did make and then responding to your fabricated statements rather than to my actual statements.

You also seem to be thoroughly confused about population density. There is no contradiction between an increase in density within a particular "urbanized area" and a general shift in population from higher-density "urbanized areas" to lower-density ones. To take your example of Phoenix, the population density of the Phoenix "urbanized area" has been increasing as previously vacant areas of land have been developed, but it is still much lower than the population densities of the "urbanized areas" in the northeast that Americans have been fleeing for places like Phoenix.

The population density of Phoenix could never remotely approach that of the old, dense northeastern cities without tearing down essentially the entire existing housing stock and road network in Phoenix and rebuilding the city from scratch. Ditto for Houston, Las Vegas, Dallas, San Antonio, Albuquerque and Los Angeles. Within each city, there may be small pockets of high-density development, but barring some completely radical transformation of land-use policy there will never be anything remotely like another Boston, Washington, Chicago or New York.

This is why no sunbelt city has a subway (except for the tiny one in central LA), or is ever likely to get one. They simply don't have the concentration of people and infrastructure needed to support a subway. The only way of providing even remotely cost-effective mass transit in these cities is with buses, and even buses aren't competitive with cars for the vast majority of trips for the vast majority of people.

Posted by Mixner | July 25, 2008 10:31 PM

And it just occurred to me to see where the most dense UAs in 2000 were located. We have:

#1 Los Angeles (6720 people/square mile)
#2 San Jose (5439)
#3 New York (5309)
#4 San Francisco (5298)
#5 New Orleans (5102)
#6 Honolulu (4660)
#7 Las Vegas (4597)
#8 Miami (4407)
#9 Fresno (4003)
#10 Denver (3979)
#11 Chicago (3914)
#12 Salt Lake City (3847)
#13 Sacramento (3776)
#14 Phoenix (3638)
#15 Riverside-San Bernardino (3434)
#16 San Diego (3419)
#17 Washington (3401)
#18 Portland (3340)
#19 San Antonio (3257)
#20 Detroit (3094)
#21 El Paso (3080)
#22 Houston (2951)
#23 Dallas (2946)
#24 Baltimore (2868)
#25 Philadelphia (2861)

So yeah, no cities in the South or West on that list.

Posted by DTM | July 25, 2008 10:34 PM

Er, DTM, before you go any further, you need to provide links to the sources of your numbers.

If you're not just making them up, that is.

Posted by Mixner | July 25, 2008 10:39 PM

Hah, it turns out I anticipated Mixner's latest dodge.

Mixner, you are just flat out wrong. Not that I expect you to ever admit it.

Posted by DTM | July 25, 2008 10:40 PM

Mixner,

All these numbers come from the 2000 and 1990 Censuses. I am getting them from this secondary source:

http://www.demographia.com/db-ua2000compare.htm

If you think they are in error, feel free to factcheck:

http://www.census.gov/

Posted by DTM | July 25, 2008 10:49 PM

DTM,

Mixner, you are just flat out wrong.

You keep saying this, but mysteriously fail to identify the particular statement or statements of mine you're referring to.

Quote the statements of mine that you claim to be "just flat out wrong."

Posted by Mixner | July 25, 2008 11:12 PM

Re: Housing in all of those places is cheaper than in New York, and likely to remain so indefinitely, for the fundamental reasons Glaeser explains in his piece.

NYC is in a class by itself: the largest city (and metropolitan region) in the US, and the second largest, after Mexico City, in North America. Using it as a "typical" example of anything except of a true megalopolis, is absurd. Like London, Moscow, Tokyo etc. NYC will always have expensive housing. Meanwhile my point still stands: once-"cheap" cities have ceased to be so with time. The very fact that a city is seen as a desirable place to live means that lots of people move there, escalating the cost of living. You know: supply and demand. It's happened to LA and Miami (neither of which are which are remotely affordable any more!) it's happening elsewhere in the Sunbelt, and it will happen to Houston, Dallas and San Antonio, unless something happens to them that makes them very undesirable places to live.

Posted by JonF | July 25, 2008 11:31 PM

Mixner,

Sure, here is a sampling of just a couple of the recent things you have said that turn out to be wrong:

"The population density of the Phoenix 'urbanized area' has been increasing as previously vacant areas of land have been developed, but it is still much lower than the population densities of the 'urbanized areas' in the northeast that Americans have been fleeing for places like Phoenix."

"The population density of Phoenix could never remotely approach that of the old, dense northeastern cities without tearing down essentially the entire existing housing stock and road network in Phoenix and rebuilding the city from scratch. Ditto for Houston, Las Vegas, Dallas, San Antonio, Albuquerque and Los Angeles. Ditto for Houston, Las Vegas, Dallas, San Antonio, Albuquerque and Los Angeles. Within each city, there may be small pockets of high-density development, but barring some completely radical transformation of land-use policy there will never be anything remotely like another Boston, Washington, Chicago or New York."

The truth is that the Phoenix UA by 2000 had a higher density than three of the four city-UAs you named (Boston, Washington, and Chicago, although not New York). It was also higher than other northeastern UAs such as Baltimore and Philly.

You also mentioned Las Vegas, whose UA is ranked even higher by density (#7), and Los Angeles, with the highest density UA of them all.

Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio, on the other hand, were still a bit behind Washington and Chicago, but already ahead of Boston. Albuquerque is kinda a random example, but for what it is worth it is #33, also ahead of Boston.

Posted by DTM | July 25, 2008 11:32 PM

By the way, seeing these urban area population and density numbers sheds a little light on some things that would otherwise be mysterious. It turns out Phoenix is building a new light rail system. Dallas is expanding its light rail system. Houston is expanding its light rail system. Denver is expanding its light rail system. Salt Lake City is expanding its light rail system. And so on.

Why? Because these cities have growing urbanized areas that are already pretty dense, and getting denser. Not so much a mystery then, but a good example of how certain people are rather out of touch with what is actually happening.

Posted by DTM | July 25, 2008 11:55 PM

DTM,

All these numbers come from the 2000 and 1990 Censuses. I am getting them from this secondary source: http://www.demographia.com/db-ua2000compare.htm

Your confusion here is that you are citing population density values for statistical units that are too large to be relevant to the housing and infrastructure densities that determine whether mass transit and "walkable communities" are practical or cost-effective.

For example, the population density of the New York--Newark, NY--NJ--CT "urbanized area" is less than that of the Los Angeles--Long Beach--Santa Ana "urbanized area" (5,409 for New York versus 5,801 for Los Angeles). But as everyone knows, New York has a vast rail transit system, including one of the largest subway systems in the world, while Los Angeles has very little rail by comparison.

So why doesn't rail make sense in LA, if its density is higher than New York's? Because of the vastly different variations in density within each "urbanized area." Manhattan, for example, has over 70,000 people per square mile. Brooklyn has 35,000. The Bronx, 32,000. These vast concentrations of people within the New York "urbanized area" are what create "walkable communities" and allow New York to support a very dense mass transit system that just wouldn't work in Los Angeles. Or Phoenix. Or Houston. Or Las Vegas. Or Albuquerque. Or San Antonio. Or Dallas. Or Riverside-San Bernadino. Etc., etc.

Posted by Mixner | July 25, 2008 11:57 PM

DTM,

The truth is that the Phoenix UA by 2000 had a higher density than three of the four city-UAs you named (Boston, Washington, and Chicago, although not New York). It was also higher than other northeastern UAs such as Baltimore and Philly.

Wrong.

United States and Puerto Rico -- Metropolitan Area
GCT-PH1. Population, Housing Units, Area, and Density: 2000

Population per square mile:

Phoenix: 223.1
Washington: 794.5
Boston: 1,034.1
Chicago: 1,322.0

You also mentioned Las Vegas, whose UA is ranked even higher by density (#7), and Los Angeles, with the highest density UA of them all.

Also wrong:

Las Vegas: 39.7
Los Angeles-Riverside--Orange County: 482.2
Los Angeles--Long Beach: 2,344.2

Posted by Mixner | July 26, 2008 12:12 AM

Mixner,

First, once again I seem to have anticipated your next dodge.

Second, it is a bit amusing for you to be complaining about the size of my statistical units, see as how you like to quote metropolitan area statistics, which of course are larger than urbanized areas.

Third, you ask, "So why doesn't rail make sense in LA?" Well, it does. LA has a light rail system, and it is the third-most ridden light rail system in the United States.

Fourth, you have provided no reason to think densities as high as those found in New York City proper are somehow necessary for walkable neighborhoods, viable rail projects, or so on.

And none of this rescues your former claims about trends. Yes, the whole country isn't on its way to becoming Manhattan in the near future. But it turns out Americans aren't fleeing density either, but actually are still preferring urban areas, and as a result we Americans are gradually making our fastest growing urban areas more dense.

Posted by DTM | July 26, 2008 12:15 AM

Mixner,

And I am still lapping your dodges.

To repeat, I am highly amused you complain about using statistical units as large as urbanized areas, and then try to swap in larger units, namely metropolitan areas.

Anyway, UA is short for "urbanized area". So you can't disprove my claims about urbanized areas with data about metropolitan areas.

And lest you try to rewrite history again, here is what you said above:

"The population density of the Phoenix 'urbanized area' has been increasing as previously vacant areas of land have been developed, but it is still much lower than the population densities of the 'urbanized areas' in the northeast that Americans have been fleeing for places like Phoenix."

So this statement was just wrong, and you can't save it by citing metropolitan area statistics instead.

Posted by DTM | July 26, 2008 12:22 AM

DTM,

By the way, seeing these urban area population and density numbers sheds a little light on some things that would otherwise be mysterious. It turns out Phoenix is building a new light rail system. Dallas is expanding its light rail system. Houston is expanding its light rail system. Denver is expanding its light rail system. Salt Lake City is expanding its light rail system.

The light rail systems in those cities provide (or will provide, in the case of Phoenix) only a minute fraction of all passenger-miles of travel in the cities they serve. They are completely swamped in passenger-miles by cars, and in miles of coverage by highways.

In fact, all light rail systems combined in the United States provide only 1.7 billion passenger-miles of travel per year. Highways provide 4.9 trillion passenger-miles. In other words, for every mile Americans travel by light rail, they travel almost 3,000 miles by car. Light rail isn't just a small component of our transportation system, it is a negligible one.

Posted by Mixner | July 26, 2008 12:28 AM

By the way, at this point I really feel like I am stomping on a helpless puppy.

Anyway, here are some numbers involving Phoenix.

As noted above, in 2000 the Phoenix UA had a population of 2,907,049 in 799 square miles, for a density of 3,638 people/square mile.

The Phoenix MSA has a population of 3,251,876 in 14,573 square miles for a density of 223.

So what happened going from the UA to the MSA is that you added about 345,000 additional people, or under 11% of the total, living in about 13,800 square miles, or about 95% of the total.

So of course doing that throws the average density number way off. But when it turns out that about 89% of the population is living in about 5% of the MSA, then suddenly you get a clearer picture of why Phoenix is building a light rail system (hint, it isn't necessarily for the 11%).

Posted by DTM | July 26, 2008 12:37 AM

And yet again I lap Mixner.

Those Phoenix numbers suggest why one should treat Mixner's passenger-mile arguments with a huge grain of salt. For example, it is entirely possible that in addition to throwing off the density numbers, those 11% living in 95% of the Phoenix area are also running up a lot of passenger-miles. But while giving new local transit options to the other 89% living in only 5% of the area may not displace many passenger-miles, it could be getting a lot of passengers where they need to go (e.g., somewhere else in that 5% of the MSA where most of the people live).

Posted by DTM | July 26, 2008 12:43 AM

One word: underground.

Then the entire above ground world becomes a park - or farms - or, well, parking lots (or helipads for flying cars).

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 26, 2008 12:48 AM

DTM,

Second, it is a bit amusing for you to be complaining about the size of my statistical units, see as how you like to quote metropolitan area statistics, which of course are larger than urbanized areas.

One of your endless misunderstandings is your consistent failure to recognize that different statistical units are relevant to different kinds of comparison. For the reasons I explained, "urbanized areas" are simply not appropriate for comparisons related to the feasibility of mass transit or "walkable communities" other than in very broad terms. You have to look at smaller levels of population and infrastructure granularity to make that kind of determination.

Third, you ask, "So why doesn't rail make sense in LA?" Well, it does. LA has a light rail system, and it is the third-most ridden light rail system in the United States.

It is arguable whether even LA's existing, very limited rail system makes sense. In any case, that system is minuscule compared to New York's, reflecting the fact that New York is vastly more suitable for rail despite its lower "urbanized area" density. The subway portion of the LA Metrorail system carries less than 2% of the daily riders of the New York subway. And the entire LA Metrorail system, including the subway and the Blue, Green and Gold light rail lines, carries only about 4% of the daily riders of the New York subway. And New York has a huge commuter rail system in addition to its subway.

Fourth, you have provided no reason to think densities as high as those found in New York City proper are somehow necessary for walkable neighborhoods, viable rail projects, or so on.

They don't necessarily have to be "as high" as New York's. Again, within even low-density cities there may be small high-density pockets or corridors that can support something like what you call "walkable communities" and very limited rail services. The point you consistently fail to grasp is that these places are just tiny specks within an ocean of low-density McMansions and strip malls.

Yes, the whole country isn't on its way to becoming Manhattan in the near future. But it turns out Americans aren't fleeing density either,

No, Americans are absolutely fleeing density. They are fleeing it in droves. That's why all the real growth is occurring in sprawling new car-oriented cities like Houston and Phoenix, while old dense transit-oriented cities in the northeast are being abandoned.

Posted by Mixner | July 26, 2008 12:52 AM

Mixner,

Just so you know, I really do feel like this is bordering on sadism at this point. So, you can have the last word if you want it. And please feel free to make up facts, lie about what I have said, or try any other dodge as you see fit.

Posted by DTM | July 26, 2008 12:55 AM

DTM,

Anyway, UA is short for "urbanized area". So you can't disprove my claims about urbanized areas with data about metropolitan areas.

Your claims about "urbanized areas" are irrelevant, for the reasons I explained. "Urbanized area" population density tells you virtually nothing useful about the suitability of a city for mass transit or "walkable communities" because it simply doesn't capture the relevant density information to a fine enough level of granularity. And you haven't even provided any Census Bureau data for "urbanized areas," anyway. Just a link to some no-name website that claims to present Census Bureau data. I gave you a direct link to the Census Bureau population density data for MSAs.

By the way, at this point I really feel like I am stomping on a helpless puppy.

Good one. At this point, you must really know what it feels like to be waterboarded.

Posted by Mixner | July 26, 2008 1:03 AM

DTM,

But while giving new local transit options to the other 89% living in only 5% of the area may not displace many passenger-miles, it could be getting a lot of passengers where they need to go (e.g., somewhere else in that 5% of the MSA where most of the people live).

Ha ha ha ha ha! According to you, that "5% of the area" consists of 800 square miles and has a population of just under 3 million people.

Phoenix's shiny new light rail system will consist of a single line covering just 20 miles. Its projected, and probably optimistic, estimate of daily boardings is about 30,000. Since most riders will be making roundtrip journeys, the number of unique daily riders is probably only half that--about 15,000. Thus, the projected daily use is a whopping one Phoenician out of every two hundred. One half of one percent of the population. Gee, that sure is "a lot."

Posted by Mixner | July 26, 2008 1:24 AM

The belief that something will go on forever can be accurate when confined to a narrow subject -- e.g. Mixner's capacity to bullshit, bluster, lie, pontificate about the future as if it were the past, and whine like a spoilt child. In the real world, trends do not last forever, especially when the circumstances that sustain them no longer exist.

Posted by Muxmer | July 26, 2008 2:07 AM

Oh, come on, this is just absurd. To wit:

DTM quotes urbanized area statistics.
Mixner complains that UAs are too big to be used to gauge suitability for mass transit.

This is actually true. UA density tells you something, but it does cover areas too sparsely-populated to be served by subways.

However, Mixner then counters with the stats for Metropolitan Statistical Areas. MSAs are even bigger than UAs and are even less suitable to determine whether an area is suitable for mass transit.

Just to pick an example, Los Angeles's MSA covers vast swaths of nearly-unpopulated mountains and deserts that have no bearing on the transit suitability of the urbanized area. Phoenix and Las Vegas, too, have MSAs far bigger than their UAs.

Your inability to understand common, basic statistical units used by the Census Bureau leads me to conclude that you have no clue about what you're talking about.

Posted by Adam Villani | July 26, 2008 5:11 AM

Re: I assume it's because they build a lot and demand is allowed to equal supply.

You reach a point when you can no longer built: land is finite after all, and distance becomes a factor. New York City's metro area could, in principle, expand all the way to Albany, but it doesn't and won't. Eventually Houston will reach the natural size limits that technology and human preferrences impose and at that point its cost of living will begin to mount. Again: See Las Vegas. As for boom and bust Texas is certainly not exempt from such cycles. The 1990-91 recession hit the state and its real estate sector especially hard.

Re: Americans, and American jobs, are fleeing high-density, transit-oriented "urbanized" areas for low-density, car-oriented "urbanized" areas.

Americans (other than retirees) go where the jobs are. I moved from Ohio to Florida because I couldn't find a job in the former and got one in the latter. I moved from Florida to Baltimore just recently because my employer closed our Florida office and relocated a remnant of us up here. Employers locate their facilities where it's convenient and economical for them to be; in many cases that will some reasonably dense urban area, though not necessarily downtown. How many employers are relocating to Pierre SD or Elko NV? By the way, I would not call any major urban area "low density". That's an abuse of language. Low density is the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, or the west Nebraska prairie. Sunbelt cities are quite dense. I've driven in some painfully snarled traffic in a few of them, and at least in Florida high rise (and high price) condos are fairly common

Re: But it turns out Americans aren't fleeing density either, but actually are still preferring urban areas, and as a result we Americans are gradually making our fastest growing urban areas more dense.

Mixner fantasizes that people are fleeing "density" per se. They aren't. What people are fleeing is crappy climate and crappy economies. The former began with retirees who are not tied to jobs: they began the exodus to places like Tampa and Phoenix to escape northern winters. Eventually their children and grandchildren began to arrive looking for work as successive recessions hollowed out the economy of the Rustbelt. The process is ongoing today, although there's also some reverse migration: people leaving Florida (hurricanes, stratospheric insurance costs and housing prices) for the Carolinas and Tennessee.

Posted by JonF | July 26, 2008 7:53 AM

By the way there's an interesting little piece on AOL's home page right now which claims that Houston is the 8th most expensive city to live in-- cheaper than NYC, (#1), LA, Chicago and Miami, but pricier than Boston and Washington.

Posted by JonF | July 26, 2008 12:32 PM

And the entire LA Metrorail system, including the subway and the Blue, Green and Gold light rail lines, carries only about 4% of the daily riders of the New York subway.

Mixner: You haven't provided any information about the capacity of the LA Metrorail. My impression is that it's very, very lightly used relative to its capacity. If so, LA Metrorail's ridership could expand by several orders of magnitude before capacity constraints begin to significantly weaken performance -- taking the system's ridership to, perhaps, 12-15% of the New York subway's. And that's without any further expansion of the rail network. With future expansions, it's not hard to envision the LA Metrorail of mid century serving a ridership that is, say, a quarter or a third of the current size of the NYC subway's. That would still be a much smaller system than New York, but at such levels LA would nonetheless be a major player in transit. I don't see how any serious person can argue that such a transit ridership expansion in Los Angeles isn't a good thing. Would you really prefer to send all those people back into their cars, burdening LA's congested road network to the point of system collapse? Let's not forget, much of the impetus behind the construction and expansion of transit systems like LA's is the negative spillover from crowded highways (and not the spike in gasoline prices). That's not going away, and in fact will worsen if fuel prices decline. Moreover, the heavily light-rail dependent LA system could be (and is being) emulated in other sprawling sunbelt cities. (I agree that the days of building catastrophically expensive heavy rail subways in America for better or worse are likely over for the foreseeable future).

It's not only latte-drinking urban hipsters who should be cheering on the expansion of transit systems in America. Traffic jam-weary suburban commuters should be (and increasingly are) demanding the same thing.

Posted by Jasper | July 26, 2008 1:18 PM

Next up: Shared kitchens and bathrooms. The ultimate goal, of course, is fully communal housing.
Posted by Mixner | July 25, 2008 1:47 PM

It's interesting that Mixner can't consider a design concept without first deciding if it is politically correct.

It must be sad to live that way. "Geraniums? In the window box? You mean RED geraniums? No way, man. Ooooohhhh, no. I know where THIS is going."

Posted by joe from Lowell | July 26, 2008 1:26 PM

Thus, the projected daily use is a whopping one Phoenician out of every two hundred. One half of one percent of the population. Gee, that sure is "a lot."

These, of course, are initial projections based on current development patterns. Highways are vastly overbuilt for the existing demand in the area, too, and are often derided at "roads to nowhere" when they are first built. That used to be the nickname of Route 128 outside of Boston. You've probably heard of Route 128, and not because of the scenic views of farmland.

Major regional transportation systems, whether they be highways or transit, are designed to taking into account, and to influence, future growth patterns.

It's well-established that building transportation systems channels the region's growth into areas with good access to that system, whether we're talking about transit stations or on-ramps.

People like Mixner, who prefer sprawl-style development and are happy to force others to live that way, too, see the way highway-building has driven development into an auto-intensive sprawl pattern, recognize that focusing further transportation spending on that model with further entrench his preferred development pattern, but couch their arguments purely in terms of responding to existing demand.

Posted by joe from Lowell | July 26, 2008 1:34 PM

Wow, Mixner really really hates it when people don't want to live the way he does. Bizarre.

In NYC's Park Slope, most blocks are row houses, on 20x100 lots, with different kinds of brownstones fronting them. For decades, people have fenced off their back yards. Interestingly, on some blocks parents with adjacent yards are coming together and saying "hey, would you be cool with pulling down your fence and kind of creating a mega-yard? You know, so the kids can basically run from one person's yard to another."

One stretch of Park Slope has 20 houses in a row that have done this--that's a play space about 400' long by 30' wide, accessible through the houses.

From what I've heard, the people doing it really enjoy it.

Posted by anonymiss | July 26, 2008 2:14 PM

Adam Villani,

This is actually true. UA density tells you something, but it does cover areas too sparsely-populated to be served by subways.

Well done. Now see if you get this through DTM's thick skull. I'm sure he'll be back in a few days making the same ridiculous claim that Americans are "embracing density" on the grounds of increases in UA density.

However, Mixner then counters with the stats for Metropolitan Statistical Areas. MSAs are even bigger than UAs and are even less suitable to determine whether an area is suitable for mass transit.

Er, you need to read more carefully. I never claimed that MSA density tells you anything about whether an area is suitable for mass transit either. I cited the Census Bureau MSA data to rebut DTM's claims about the relative population densities of Phoenix and Las Vegas vs. other cities.

Posted by Mixner | July 26, 2008 2:54 PM

Jasper,

Mixner: You haven't provided any information about the capacity of the LA Metrorail. My impression is that it's very, very lightly used relative to its capacity. If so, LA Metrorail's ridership could expand by several orders of magnitude before capacity constraints begin to significantly weaken performance -- taking the system's ridership to, perhaps, 12-15% of the New York subway's. And that's without any further expansion of the rail network. With future expansions, it's not hard to envision the LA Metrorail of mid century serving a ridership that is, say, a quarter or a third of the current size of the NYC subway's.

The presence of so much unused capacity in the LA metrorail system illustrates how wasteful the system is. What matters with respect to whether a rail system makes sense in practical and economic terms is demand. Unless there are massive increases in population and infrastructure densities along the routes served by the LA metrorail system, the system will never run remotely close to capacity. And there's no evidence that such increases in density are remotely plausible. Los Angeles is a car city. Even its bus system, which goes to far more places than metrorail, struggles to attract riders.

I don't see how any serious person can argue that such a transit ridership expansion in Los Angeles isn't a good thing.

Er, why do you think it would be "a good thing?" Transit is slow, uncomfortable, inconvenient and inflexible. For the vast majority of trips, cars are much, much better.

Would you really prefer to send all those people back into their cars, burdening LA's congested road network to the point of system collapse?

All what people? The LA metrorail system provides only a tiny fraction of LA's transportation needs. It's a drop in the ocean compared to cars. Its ridership consists mainly of people who for some reason are unable to drive, because of low income, age, disability, disqualification, etc. They're not riding it because they like it, but because they have no effective alternative.

Posted by Mixner | July 26, 2008 3:12 PM

"It's hard to know what Matt thinks might be illegal or against zoning here. My own feeling is that probably he just reads too much of that libertarian crap."

This is actually rather plausible.

Posted by James B. Shearer | July 26, 2008 3:37 PM

joe from lowell,

These, of course, are initial projections based on current development patterns.

Even the Phoenix Metro authority is projecting an increase to only 50,000 daily boardings in a decade, which translates to maybe 25,000 unique daily riders. Even that is less than 1% of the current population. Its share of passenger-miles will be even lower. And the Metro authority's projection is probably optimistic. And Phoenix's population will probably have increased significantly over the same period. And in ten years, the average passenger vehicle is likely to be significantly more fuel efficient and significantly cleaner than today's average vehicle. Under no reasonable assumptions is the Phoenix light rail system going to serve more than a minscule fraction of the city's transportation needs.

Highways are vastly overbuilt for the existing demand in the area, too, and are often derided at "roads to nowhere" when they are first built.

Huh? Please show me your evidence that highways are "vastly overbuilt" in the area?

It's well-established that building transportation systems channels the region's growth into areas with good access to that system, whether we're talking about transit stations or on-ramps.

Then you should have no trouble demonstrating that allegedly "well-established" assertion with evidence.

The experience of Portland, the city that has most aggressively pursued transit expansion of the past two decades, contradicts your claim. To the extent that Portland's investment in light rail stimulated "transit-oriented development" at all, it was only through massive subsidies and restrictive zoning. And even then, it has essentially been a failure. As noted here:

Ten years [after Portland's first light rail line opened], city planner Mike Saba sadly reported to the Portland city council, “we have not seen any of the kind of development— of a mid-rise, higher-density, mixeduse, mixed-income type—that we would’ve liked to have seen” along the light-rail line. City Commissioner Charles Hales noted, “We are in the hottest real estate market in the country,” yet city planning maps revealed that “most of those sites [along the light-rail line] are still vacant.”

The evidence also suggests that Portland's light rail and streetcar systems have actually increased congestion in the city, by taking road space away from cars and by disrupting traffic flows by giving signalling priorities to railcars over passenger cars at intersections.

Posted by Mixner | July 26, 2008 3:43 PM

I cited the Census Bureau MSA data to rebut DTM's claims about the relative population densities of Phoenix and Las Vegas vs. other cities.

You still don't get it. MSAs follow county boundaries. County boundaries, particularly in the Southwest, can extend far beyond anything remotely resembling their central city. MSAs are chosen to include the entire region associated with a city. In doing so, they include a lot of area that's so non-urban it's practically uninhabited.

Take Los Angeles-Riverside-OC. This includes all of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura Counties. This is a good unit of study for a lot of social and economic purposes where what you're looking for is total population. What it's not good for, though, is geographically-based studies, which is what you're doing when you're looking at the density over the entire MSA.

Take a look at a map of Southern California to get an idea of what I'm talking about. The Census Bureau included all those counties because that way all of the cities that contribute to the economy of greater L.A. are included. So San Bernardino, Anaheim, Riverside, and Ventura are all included, along with the remainder of the counties that contain these cities.

But the county lines in California haven't changed in more than a century. San Bernardino County stretches all the way to the Nevada border and is nearly twice as large as Massachusetts. Riverside County stretches all the way to the Arizona border. Thus the L.A. MSA includes all of Joshua Tree National Park and the Mojave National Preserve. It also includes the Angeles National Forest, San Bernardino National Forest, and most of the Cleveland National Forest. It includes Santa Catalina Island and San Clemente Island. A lot of the rest of the land is sparse BLM land. You can drive for hours within the L.A. MSA seeing only a handful of small towns with nothing but desert and an occasional gas station inbetween.

This has nothing to do with the density of "Los Angeles" per se. All it means is that the city is surrounded by a bunch of sparsely-populated land that happens to be in the same counties as much larger cities.

Posted by Adam Villani | July 26, 2008 4:04 PM

You still don't get it. MSAs follow county boundaries. County boundaries, particularly in the Southwest, can extend far beyond anything remotely resembling their central city. MSAs are chosen to include the entire region associated with a city. In doing so, they include a lot of area that's so non-urban it's practically uninhabited.

No, you don't get it. For the second time, I never said MSA population densities tell you anything useful about infrastructure- and transportation-related densities. The point is that "urbanized area" population densities don't either. And yet DTM appeals to UA population densities to support his absurd claim that Americans are "fleeing" low-densities for high-densities. Apparently, he seriously believes that cities like Houston and Phoenix are "more dense" in some meaningful way with respect to the feasibility of transit and "walkable communities," than cities like New York and Washington.

Posted by Mixner | July 26, 2008 4:28 PM

Re: Transit is slow, uncomfortable, inconvenient and inflexible. For the vast majority of trips, cars are much, much better.

This is tarring with a broad brush. I rode the Tri-Rail train in Florida most days to work. The time it took to get to work (or back home) was comparable to the time it took to drive the route, but with serious delays being less common on the train than on the freeway. There was also absolutely nothing uncomfortable about the train. Inflexible I will grant you: the train kept to its own schedule nor could it take me on errand-running (hence I usually drove at least day a week). Once gas hit $3 it was however more economical. And I wasn't the only person who felt that way, as we went from half-empty train to almost full trains despite a doubling of the number of trains in service during peak hours.

Posted by JonF | July 26, 2008 4:50 PM

JonF,

I wonder if you'll ever manage to realize that your personal experiences do not tell us anything about what is true in general. This doesn't apply just to transit, but to everything else too.

Posted by Mixner | July 26, 2008 6:19 PM

Re: I wonder if you'll ever manage to realize that your personal experiences do not tell us anything about what is true in general. This doesn't apply just to transit, but to everything else too.

Um, think again: you utter vast generalities which you present as universal truths. Well, a single counter-example disproves a universal. And IMO personal experiences are al ot more relaible than vague statsitics ("lies, damn lies and statistics", to quote Mark Twain). All knowledge derives ultimately from personal experience.

Posted by JonF | July 26, 2008 7:52 PM

JonF,

Um, think again: you utter vast generalities which you present as universal truths.

Jesus wept. Yeah, that must be why I said "For the vast majority of trips..." rather than "It is universally true that..."

What's truly hilarious is that you even quoted my "vast majority" qualifier, and yet you still pretend that I was making a claim about a "universal truth." Was this a deliberate misrepresentation, or did you just not even read the text of mine you quoted?

Posted by Mixner | July 27, 2008 12:36 AM

Good ol' Mixner.

He googles around until he can find one single example to contradict an obvious and well-documented point (in this case, looking at one statement about one time period and one light rail in one city to pretend that development does not follow transportation infrastructure), and then, without the slightest bit of self-awareness, chastises another commenter for using anecdotal evidence to refute a statement he made.

Posted by joe from Lowell | July 27, 2008 12:46 PM

joe from lowell,

Still waiting for you to show that it is "well-established" that building a transit system "channels the region's growth into areas with good access to that system." You haven't produced even a single example of this, let alone anything remotely justifying your "well-established" claim. I don't doubt that transit sometimes stimulates some development, but the effect seems to be very small, and does not have a meaningful effect on overall housing or transportation patterns.

Posted by Mixner | July 27, 2008 3:46 PM