« Fried Rice | Main | Markets in everything: reverse prostitution edition »
How good would the abolition of zoning in New York City be?
Yes, I am opposed to many forms of zoning. Without zoning our cities would be denser, more eco-friendly, cheaper to live in, more able to produce economies of agglomeration, and more immigrants would benefit from American prosperity. Matt Yglesias periodically has good posts on this topic.
More specifically, Manhattan would look more like Sao Paulo, with a true forest of skyscrapers instead of the current puny and indeed embarrassing line-up. Many of these towers would be residential, as they are in Sao Paulo. Many problems of cities, including congestion, would of course become worse. Overall I see the gain as real but a small one, at least relative to gdp.
A key question is what zoning means. Let's say you wanted to set up a shack on the sidewalk and live in it; should that be allowed? How about a modest apartment building but without a water connection? Should Manhattan really become like Sao Paulo? Only in extreme cases would I wish to waive such infrastructure requirements for the housing stock. And if you agree with me on that one, then you don't want to get rid of most zoning either.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on April 28, 2008 at 06:56 AM in Economics | Permalink
Comments
As a libertarian, my view of zoning as a net-positive in the U.S. is an unpopular one. Clearly the costs you mention exist but it has further additional benefits. Local governments are more powerful than people realize in the political process, and zoning plays a big part of that story. Zoning ensures the full capitalization of benefits and costs into the price of housing, which for most families represent their largest store of wealth. So unlike the state or federal level, local voters feel the pain or gain of their policy makers actions. Since amenities or disamenities are capitalized over a very long time horizon (if they announced that 200 years from now a nuclear waste dump would open in Fairfax, your property values would certainly fall), even politicians become far-sighted beyond their typical election cycle. I believe zoning is a big reason why we do not have more state and federal government.
I would strongly recommend "The Homevoter Hypothesis" by William Fischel. A well written book on zoning, property taxes, and housing prices.
Posted by: Justin Ross at Apr 28, 2008 8:05:36 AM
I am totally unfamiliar with zoning in NYC. What is it that keeps residential skyscrapers at bay? It is hard to believe that Trump wouldn't find some way to satisfy this great demand.
Given that Houston doesn't have significant (if any) zoning, why don't we see the dense downtown there?
Posted by: Craig at Apr 28, 2008 8:19:07 AM
Rather than zoning, the point about the water connection seems to implicate building codes, and the point about the shack on the sidewalk seems to implicate basic property rights. It seems like it's important to define what we're talking about here before we can have a meaningful discussion.
Posted by: Tom T. at Apr 28, 2008 8:32:23 AM
Have to take issue with your characterization of the New York skyline as puny and embarrassing, even relative to Sao Paulo:
http://www.emporis.com/en/bu/sk/st/sr/
@Craig: land values in Houston are much lower than in New York. It is still possible to get an empty lot to build on within a 30 minute drive of downtown, or to buy an existing house cheaply within a 15 minute drive. Until the city's Lebensraum is depleted, or until resident's revealed preference for high density living changes (though the west side is fairly dense, and even downtown is dense relative to other urban centers in Texas and surrounding states), Houston will sprawl. (Even high energy costs would have less of an impact in Houston on encourgaing density -- when energy costs are high, that means the Houston economy is doing well and people feel rich enough to commute).
Posted by: mobile at Apr 28, 2008 9:03:41 AM
"Manhattan would look more like Sao Paulo, with a true forest of skyscrapers"
I'm not sure this is the case. I recall learning that the bunching of skyscrapers on Manhattan was dictated by geology. Only some parts of the island would adequately support buildings of those heights.
Posted by: wugong at Apr 28, 2008 9:04:11 AM
Glaeser on the subject: "Home building is a highly competitive industry with almost no natural barriers to entry, and yet prices in Manhattan currently appear to be more than twice their supply costs. We argue that land use restrictions are the natural explanation for this gap."
What keeps residential skyscrapers at bay is the maximum floor area ratio codes, which dictates the average number of floors a zoning unit (usually a building or two) can accomodate. Building tall buildings typically requires paying adjacent propertyholders with short buildings to combine zoning units ("buying air rights").
For comparison with your local property market and building patterns, $2k/month for a studio apartment in an unglamorous part of the city is not a bad price.
Manhattan residents already have long commutes (avg. 30m); the zoning limits push people ever further to the fringes. As pointed out a few days ago, long commutes make people unhappy, while people get used to small apartments. So this has major repercussions beyond measured GDP--both distributionally and in unmeasured consumer surplus.
Posted by: David at Apr 28, 2008 9:13:50 AM
Expanding on wugong's comment above...
Parts of Manhattan are underlain by a granite batholith. It is easy to see where it outcrops, just turn on 3D buildings in Google earth. Elsewhere the island is glacial till and not competent to support skyscrapers.
Houston is entirely underlain by limestone which, while more competent than glacial till, will not support extremely tall buildings. The tallest building in the world will never be located in Houston, sorry.
Posted by: Apikoros at Apr 28, 2008 9:18:19 AM
I should add to the above: that's Manhattan residents. Most of the people who work in Manhattan don't live there (even though many of them would if they could afford it); those living along suburban train lines have 1 - 2hr commutes.
Posted by: David at Apr 28, 2008 9:19:30 AM
Regarding shacks and buildings without water hookups:
Keep the building codes that require that building not fall down, burn down, or otherwise be a menace to their residents or neighbors. So no shacks that lack a working toilet, and no skyscrapers made out of straw.
But get rid of the zoning rules that dictate what can be built where. Replace all that with a law that allows me to sue my neighbor for damages if I could show that my property's value declined because of some change they made to their property.
Posted by: Gavin Andresen at Apr 28, 2008 9:28:26 AM
I accept the argument that zoning can limit density and make cities more expensive. But I seriously have to question if we are giving way too much weight to zoning when other factor are really the driving factor.
Houston is supposedly the prime example of a city with no zoning. But if you compare population or housing density in other cities to that in Houston it seems hard to conclude that zoning is really the culprit. Houston is the 14th largest US metropolitan area, but in terms of population or housing density it ranks around 60th. Population density in LA is 386% of that in Houston. Greater NY is 335% of Houston, Chicago is 218%, Miami is 203%, and even Boston is 170%. Dallas-Fort Worth has a population of 5.2 M compared to 4.7 M in Houston. Yet, population density in Dallas is only 95% of that in Houston. If zoning is preventing density why does Houston with no zoning have a lower population density than Dallas with a larger population and effective zoning? Even Seattle, a very liberal city with a population of 3.5 M has a population density that is only 80% of that in Houston.
If zoning is really a significant factor restricting density, why does data comparing Houston to other US cities not support that thesis.
Posted by: spencer at Apr 28, 2008 9:29:55 AM
@spencer: Pin Point, Georgia is another community with little in the way of zoning regulations, but it should be easy to see why the density there is still very low. When Houston attracts as many residents as New York City currently has, the lack of zoning will help it to become denser.
As I see it the main advantage of no zoning, especially in a boom-bust town like Houston, is the flexibility you get in your land use. Residential land can quickly be converted to commercial/industrial use and vice versa depending on how different parts of the economy are doing. In this context, zoning can be kind of like a restriction on labor mobility, tying up land in unproductive uses.
Of course, another characteristic of Houston is that progressives think it is ugly. I leave it to the rest of you to decide if that is a bug or a feature of no zoning.
Posted by: mobile at Apr 28, 2008 10:05:25 AM
That picture of Sao Paulo is one of the best arguments for zoning I have ever seen. What a nightmare. Does anyone really like sky scrapers? London or Paris are much nicer cities than New York precisely because they have not been conquered (yet) by skyscrapers. And midtown is the most sterile awful part of Manhattan.
Posted by: vanya at Apr 28, 2008 10:10:57 AM
Sorry for the Clintonism, but it depends (as you note) on what your definition of "zoning" is.
First-order zoning -- an area is simply designated "residential," "commercial" or "industrial" -- is not an excruciating libertarian abomination and can be defended, at least in the abstract, as externality-correcting.
Second-order zoning -- height restrictions are the best example -- are less defensible and should be presumed illegitimate (i.e., restrictions should be subject to heightened scrutiny). This is the kind of "zoning" imposed on most of Manhattan.
Third-order zoning -- where any and every alteration, expansion or demolition must be submitted to an unelected board with near-plenary authority to approve or reject the project -- for any reason up to and including the whim and caprice of the board members -- is per se illegitimate, and under any sane jurisprudence such an infringement of fundamental property rights would be an irrebuttable due process violation. (So-called "historic districts" -- of which there are many in New York City -- are the most egregious example.)
Posted by: KipEsquire at Apr 28, 2008 10:13:56 AM
Is there something special about 20 story buildings in Sao Paolo? They all seem to be that height. Is it a "sweet spot" in terms of the cost of height vs cost of land or is there some other explanation? (i.e. regulation, geology, etc.)
Toronto sprawls quite a bit and you can buy a house for $500k within walking distance from downtown (which is very cheap for a major city). Yet they're still building dozens of high rise condos, ranging from 30 or 40 stories right up to several 80 story behemoths. Though a quick eye-balling on google maps looks like we're way more dense than Houston.
Posted by: ramster at Apr 28, 2008 10:29:22 AM
Density in Atlanta is 110% of Houston.
I live in Boston and keep hearing how zoning restricts density.
But when I drive through the older, close in towns and neighborhoods what I see are areas dominated by triple deckers and apartment buildings. Outside of a few parks and/or schools I see no grass. Sure there are very expensive communities 10-15 miles out with very restrictive zoning and 1-2 acre minimum size lots, but in terms of share of total housing, land area, etc., these low density areas are relatively small. It is hard for me to see that zoning is the major factor. Rather, it seems that it is consumer demand. What people want is the classic suburban single house on a grassy and treed lot. Consumers are willing to pay a lot, especially if you include commuting costs in the equation to avoid the high density neighborhoods. This seems to be true in essentially every city. Houston has some of the worse commuting in the country. In Washington people elect to live in the far suburbs rather then close in because they do not want urban density. So is the culprit really zoning rather than consumer demand.
Posted by: spencer at Apr 28, 2008 10:40:23 AM
What would happen to Central Park under a scenario without zoning? Would it even have come into existence? I would view that as a huge loss to the city and its liveability.
Posted by: Martin at Apr 28, 2008 10:41:53 AM
I think the answer to vanya's question is: men.
Posted by: mobile at Apr 28, 2008 10:47:20 AM
As a Sao Paulo resident I want to share a few pieces of information. We don't have real skyscrapers here, unless you believe the sky is so low around here. Most buildings have less than 20 stories, the tallest one has a few over 40 stories, the zoning rules forbid tall buildings and in some neighborhoods, like mine, there can be only a few tall buildings, the remaining must be shorter, up to ten stories. In some areas the zoning allows lots of building, but these areas are still (relatively) few and scattered, there are many neighborhoods without many buildings, IIRC we have 20 miles from north to south and 15 from east to west, so there's plenty of room for areas with tall buildings and areas with thousands of houses.
Another thing to notice is that our zoning laws are extensive, complicated, and always changing, we have many places that allow shops in one side of a street but not the other, there are many places without bars nearby because the zoning forbids it, and such. I think Tyler has the wrong information about zoning laws in Sao Paulo. As a piece of anedoctal evidence I live less than 4 miles from a area with many tall buildings, but in a 1 mile radius there are at most twenty buildings, all up to twenty stories high.
Posted by: Daniel Yokomizo at Apr 28, 2008 10:52:51 AM
Actually Kip, I would consider first-order zoning to be worse than second-order. Reducing the number of mixed use zones is what causes a lot of problems, such as increased crime, polution and creates dead zones in cities. First order zoning causes all sorts of privacy issues, such as, whether your home business is a zoning violation.
Posted by: Mo at Apr 28, 2008 11:03:58 AM
in terms of share of total housing, land area, etc., these low density areas are relatively small. It is hard for me to see that zoning is the major factor. Rather, it seems that it is consumer demand. What people want is the classic suburban single house on a grassy and treed lot. Consumers are willing to pay a lot, especially if you include commuting costs in the equation to avoid the high density neighborhoods.
You're a regular Yogi Berra, spencer. No one wants to live there anymore, there are too many people. Not sure if you've checked, but cost per square foot is much higher in Boston than it is in the suburbs.
Posted by: Mo at Apr 28, 2008 11:09:03 AM
Paris and London are great precisely because they haven't been taken over by skyscrapers?? Ever try to rent an apartment in London? Even a few years ago, when the US$ was almost worth something, the rents and real estate prices were absurd. In the parts of town where "real"/working people live, you see many cute little three and four story houses. They look historic. But living in them is often miserable - ancient appliances, shared bathrooms (!!), rat infestations, rotting walls. And of course the rents are still sky high.
For an example of a beautiful city with highly dense residential towers, look at Vancouver.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0f/Vancityskyline_cropped.jpg
I was just there this weekend, as a matter of fact. One can rent new construction studios in excellent locations for C$1200. The city is a happening place, very fun.
Posted by: Mercutio.Mont at Apr 28, 2008 11:10:34 AM
It's not zoning, which is usually pretty benign (except in exurbs, where land is often zoned rural out of spite), but planning commissions who are to blame here.
In Seattle, for example, it's now nearly impossible to get a new condo or apartment complex built without ground-floor retail (whether or not it's in a neighborhood where this makes sense), and most neighborhoods tend to have height and parking restrictions. It was only a few weeks ago that the city declared a former Denny's restaurant, abandoned for two years and previously slated to be a monorail station (heh heh heh) a historic landmark because otherwise somebody was going to tear it down and build condos there.
Big cities have become nice, safe places to live again and now everybody who moved to the suburbs is moving back. Go figure.
Posted by: Sean at Apr 28, 2008 11:38:29 AM
Nobody's linked to Ed Glaeser's fantastic paper on this yet? http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/glaeser/files/Manhattan.pdf
Mercutio.Mont:
That's only the downtown core of Vancouver. Venture anywhere beyond that and zoning bylaws are insane - 75% of Vancouver is still zoned for single-family housing. That said, I do like what we've done with downtown.
Posted by: Reilly at Apr 28, 2008 11:43:07 AM
"In Washington people elect to live in the far suburbs rather then close in because they do not want urban density."
I would imagine that DC's horrid public schools and high housing prices relative to Fairfax, Loudon, etc. have much more to do with it.
Posted by: Colin at Apr 28, 2008 11:43:39 AM
In Chicago, zoning provides substantial income for the city's alderman, if you know what I mean.
Posted by: jorod at Apr 28, 2008 11:54:19 AM
mo --- yes the price per square foot is higher in the city.
That is exactly my point, that other things account for the differences and zoning is a very minor issue that accounts for very little of the differences.
Thanks for agreeing with my argument.
You to Colin. You are right, but I was really thinking of the close in VA & MD. suburbs rather than DC itself.
But again, thanks for making my point that zoning is a minor issue.
Posted by: spencer at Apr 28, 2008 12:01:28 PM
Spencer: it's not a minor issue. Read Glaeser's paper on Manhattan, he estimates that regulations inflate housing prices by 50% there (and he proposes that 20% would be the ideal). I'm going to trust a very prominent urban economist on this one.
It's not the only thing that accounts for the differences, but it really is significant.
Posted by: Reilly at Apr 28, 2008 12:48:16 PM
Spencer: it's not a minor issue. Read Glaeser's paper on Manhattan, he estimates that regulations inflate housing prices by 50% there (and he proposes that 20% would be the ideal). I'm going to trust a very prominent urban economist on this one.
It's not the only thing that accounts for the differences, but it really is significant.
Posted by: Reilly at Apr 28, 2008 12:49:26 PM
While Houston does not have zoning that mandates the separation of uses, it does have minimum site area requirements -- i.e., density limits. It also has setback requirements and minimum street widths that are anti-density.
Spencer, I'm not sure what density metric you are using. In order to compare apples to apples, you should look at the density of urbanized areas. Under this metric, Houston is slightly below the median for large metropolitan areas. Atlanta, however, is an outlier at the bottom -- its urbanized area is much less dense than that of other major metropolitan areas.
Personally, I think that the best measure of density is "perceived" or "weighted" density, where you weight density by, say, census tracts. That is, if a census tract has 10% of the population, its density counts for 10% of the total. This gives a more accurate description of the density at which the average person lives. (I've calculated weighted density for the 32 largest metro areas + Austin and Honolulu at http://austinzoning.typepad.com/austincontrarian/2008/03/weighted-densit.html)
Posted by: AC at Apr 28, 2008 12:50:23 PM
Spencer, have to agree with other commenter's that don't think zoning is a minor issue. I would submit that DC zoning laws -- and the height restrictions in particular -- account for much of the high housing prices that we see.
Posted by: Colin at Apr 28, 2008 12:56:56 PM
Neither of the examples given to support the necessity of some zoning regulations (shack on the sidewalk, apartment without water) really makes the case, in my view, even if one conflates building codes with zoning laws.
The apartment without water would be less valuable than similar apartments with water, but not dangerous -- let the market decide.
The shack on the sidewalk is prohibited without any zoning laws, for the same reasons that one cannot construct a house in the middle of Central Park in New York, or in someone else's yard.
A stronger argument (for building codes) would be an apartment with inadequate structural strength, but this problem, like the shack, is addressed through other channels. Market forces encourage owners to build structures that will last (and hence provide income for decades rather than for months). Liability law provides the "stick" that complements the market "carrot."
Posted by: Bald Idiot at Apr 28, 2008 12:57:46 PM
Houston effectively has zoning - people always get this wrong. They have parking requirements; they have minimum lot sizes; they have nearly everything that results in suburban sprawl.
What they DON'T have are strict use-based zoning codes (you can, it is purported, open up a convenience store in the middle of a neighborhood - if you could somehow satisfy the parking requirements).
Posted by: M1EK at Apr 28, 2008 1:04:02 PM
Many of Manhattan’s skyscrapers are much taller than typical Sao Paulo skyscrapers. This is mostly because of the rock that lies under Midtown and Downtown. On the rest of Manhattan island the soil is less friendly to skyscrapers, rendering tall buildings less economical (but not impossible). Nonetheless, restrictive zoning prohibits denser development in almost all areas of Manhattan.
The restrictions are mostly created to cater to NIMBY activists who are afraid of too many people moving to their neighborhood, using more parking spots, making sidewalks more crowded, blocking views, and altering the “character” of their neighborhood. These activists have been granted property rights over their neighbors’ land. Of course, this restricts creative destruction, and prevents entrepreneurs from increasing supply to meet the market demand. Shortages arise as a result of the density restrictions coupled with a limited stock of developable land.
On top of all that, bureaucracy creates barriers to entry for new development. Part of this is due to the fact only well-connected developers are able to work city hall to get favorable zoning, and subsidies that others could not. This raises the price of land to a level that only developers who can work the system can afford, flushing out wannabes that would build more housing and office space. Zoning restrictions, bureaucratic delays, and barriers to entry in NYC create a shortage of housing and office space, drive prices though the roof, and forces people to migrate to the outer boroughs and suburbs to find an affordable place to live.
Without density restrictions, Manhattan would still be very expensive due to the higher construction costs of denser development. However, if developers were allowed to meet the market demand, a greater “forest of skyscrapers” would arise. Higher land costs would be absorbed by more units, which would help keep rents in check.
Posted by: marketurbanism.com at Apr 28, 2008 1:17:01 PM
I think that a more interesting though experiment in libertarian land use would be what if you eliminated zoning in Manhattan and got rid of government-financed roads/subways. Zoning laws are only one part of the distortional effects of the city government: a much bigger one is the road infrastructure outside of Manhattan (roads outside of Manhattan are complementary goods to roads inside Manhattan), and the road infrastructure inside Manhattan. My guess is that what would happen is that the newly privatized/homesteaded roads would quickly be converted into high-rises with maybe room for a one- or two-lane road. In the short term, roads would become extremely expensive, until some hotshot who bought a whole avenue would pay to put in a subway/tram/bus system. He would then benefit from the increased accessibility, and other owners of strips of land would do the same. Eventually you'd have extremely dense development with only pedestrian walkways and mass transit. I don't really see any place in the Manhattan market order for private automobile transportation. In the short term there might be some market on Manhattan and in the surrounding burrows, but soon economies of scale/density would take over and all five boroughs would approach the density of present-day Manhattan.
Posted by: Stephen at Apr 28, 2008 1:24:53 PM
Consumers are willing to pay a lot, especially if you include commuting costs in the equation to avoid the high density neighborhoods.
Are you talking about Boston? That doesn't sound right. Priced a Back Bay condo lately?
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at Apr 28, 2008 1:55:19 PM
Priced a house in Concord recently?
How do either compare to a triple decker in South Boston?
How much would the price of a Back Bay condo fall if you removed zoning?
Probably not much.
I have read Glaeser's paper and have issues with it.
Posted by: spencer at Apr 28, 2008 2:10:20 PM
Specifically, Coldwell Banker looked at a 2,200-square-foot house with 4 bedrooms, 2 1/2 bathrooms, a family room and a two-car garage. The neighborhood - a more subjective measure - is one "typical for corporate middle-management transferees."
This priced Boston at $1.2 Million and in Wellesley at the same $1.2 M
Posted by: spencer at Apr 28, 2008 2:22:27 PM
Houston may not have a zoning ordinance, but development is controlled via deed restrictions and numerous municipal land-use ordinances, all enforced by the city. So this notion that land use in unregulated in Houston is completely false.
I'm an urban planner and see the disconnect between official plans ans zoning by-laws/ordinances. The Official Plan for the city I work for encourages, among other things, public transit and compact development. But our zoning by-law requires that each use provide a minimum amount of parking. Shouldn't the by-law require a maximum amount of parking if the intent is to encourage transit or more compact development?
The same Official Plan encourages a diversity of dwelling types and more compact/dense residential areas, yet the majority of the residentially zoned areas are zoned for single-family houses on lots with a minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet with generous front yard setbacks along roads with generous rights-of-way. What was that about diverse dwelling types and compact development?
Zoning by-laws/ordinances are about one thing: the status quo.
Posted by: Vincent Clement at Apr 28, 2008 2:24:55 PM
I seriously doubt that eliminating D.C. height restrictions would cause the price of housing in Mclean to fall.
My density data is from Census for standard metropolitan areas.
Posted by: spencer at Apr 28, 2008 2:49:30 PM
I think discussing zoning as good or bad is a false dichotomy similar to discussing more open borders is. It depends on the circumstances. In a more perfect world, one that we might be able to achieve, perhaps open borders would be great. Were there not security issues and externalities such as sudden shifts in political climate and stability of rule of law, open borders might be a big win.
There may be better systems of incentives than the current zoning laws -- that we will be able to design at the point of a more enlightened, wealthier society. For now, we are simply stuck with the need of examining the cost-benefit tradeoffs one zoning law at a time.
Posted by: infopractical at Apr 28, 2008 3:03:29 PM
Is it true that Sao Paulo has no zoning?
Posted by: David Sucher at Apr 28, 2008 3:13:15 PM
Btw, prohibitions on building shack on the sidewalk have nothing to do with zoning but with the fact that sidewalks are public right of way.
Posted by: David Sucher at Apr 28, 2008 3:15:58 PM
In case anyone is interested in the geologic aspects of Manhattan Island, an excellent guide can be found at Hofstra's web site
Posted by: apikoros at Apr 28, 2008 4:14:21 PM
I'd say Hong Kong is the best example of a "forest of skyscrapers", but that happened precisely because of zoning. Agricultural land can't be rezoned for residential or commercial purposes and rezoning underutilized industrial land is prohibitively expensive. The resulting scarcity of land for commercial and residential use means most new construction is of skyscrapers, even in the suburbs.
Now, I'm a big fan of that. I'd love to live in an apartment on the 60th floor, but I'd say most Americans would rather live in a single-family home and have their own backyard.
Posted by: Bob Hall at Apr 28, 2008 5:12:05 PM
It's funny, here in England the libertarians complain that our cities are too dense and don't sprawl enough, and blame regulations, while the Conservative (ie supposedly free market) candidate for Mayor of London has campaigned on a promise of stopping skyscraper construction.
I'm surprised nobody has pointed out the main reason why New York City is so dense: because it was built before the car became widely available. Cities built in the automobile age tend to be low density, Houston being an example, but close the subway down and NYC would stop working. The important point here is that urban form is path dependent: once an area starts out low density it's very hard to fund the mass transit that makes high density possible. So if you want cities to be able to densify you probably need some anti-sprawl or pro-density regulations built in from the start.
Posted by: Jim at Apr 28, 2008 5:29:25 PM
None of those are skyscrapers (150m or taller) they're simply "high rises".
Posted by: Andrew at Apr 28, 2008 5:29:59 PM
Does a discussion about government planning of road systems have any effect in defining the look and feel of a city?
I mean if the government is building two, three, four lane roads throughout the city it usually means big box retailers, lots of single use development, residential only areas, and gated communities. The kinds of development that are far too prevalent in modern America and the kind of growth that makes a place uninteresting.
Arent these the fundamental aspects of a great town or city
1. mystery-the idea that you cant clearly understand every aspect of the city and what lies next. Sort of how you feel when you walk around lower Manhattan.
2. Mixed use-the ode to Jane Jacbos. The commercial businesses on the first floor and the apartment tenants living above. The idea that many types of social and economic activities can be accomplished in the same place. That a space can allow humans to accomplish a variety of tasks.
3. Im pretty sure green spaces have always been considered a plus in the development vernacular.
4. a There There-something that has been sorely missing in the world of non-mixed use, big government road development.
-The bad guys in the development story in my view are the politically connected developers, the politicians making the road design and construction decisions, and the NIMBY crowd who are generally just plain wrong.
-I see a moderate libertarianism as the most rational rout to developing more interesting and useful places.
Posted by: john pertz at Apr 28, 2008 9:44:12 PM
Jim's right, US libertarians oppose zoning because it doesn't allow density, and then UK and Australian right-wingers use the same "arguments" to oppose zoning because it doesn't allow sprawl.
I say, follow the money.
US libertarians and right-wingers also seem to think that Americans move to the suburbs for the houses, when they are most likely doing it for the schools, and to escape perceptions of inner-cities as crime zones.
I say, wait till those overpriced tract homes in the Nevada exurbs get foreclosed on and boarded up. Then we'll see a cruddy crime nest.
Posted by: dug at Apr 29, 2008 12:47:01 AM
Does anybody live in Sao Paulo who doesn't have to for his job? Doesn't everybody who can afford it live in Rio?
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Apr 29, 2008 1:40:07 AM
In fact New York is already denser than Sao Paulo, see my post below:
http://debasethis.blogspot.com/2008/04/zoning-so-paulo-and-density.html
Posted by: spencer (a different one) at Apr 29, 2008 4:31:03 PM
spencer,
I think I misunderstood your point. Sorry.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at Apr 29, 2008 5:43:43 PM
i think some people are confusing zoning with building codes. building codes deal with how something is built, such as requiring proper running water and sewers.
Zoning relates to what can be built- i.e. skyscrappers.
As for the idea that the market should 'decide' how much less an apartment is worth without running water- well thats a building codes issue. And should we similarly let the market 'decide' how much less an apartment is worth with substandard wiring? Thats not just a building codes issue- thats a death trap.
Posted by: Aaron at Apr 30, 2008 12:19:27 AM
What about people's interests and desire on living in these congested cities? I understand the difference between individual and social optimums, but in the long term, both will coincide. Those who see a city as too congested for the benefits it offers will not go to it, and, in due time, those who do not like the congestion will move out.
Having too many zoning laws is bad because it lowers the supply of homes available, which raises prices. One real estate firm estimated that a home on a quarter-acre in Houston that costs $152,000 in Houston would cost over $300,000 in Portland, OR, $900,000 in Long Beach, CA, and over one million in San Francisco. If you had the same zoning laws in all of these areas, I bet the prices would be much closer after ten years.
Regardless, the fear about cities getting denser is over-exaggerated to me. The reason why cities seldom spring up anymore and the reason why people spread out to the suburbs in the 20th century is the car. People have always been willing to go as easy transportation will allow them to go without restricting their ability to get everything they need. So before the car, all people could do was walk, which meant people needed to get together in cities. When the train came along, people went to the Midwest because it was less dense. When transportation to and colonization on the moon becomes easy, people will go to the moon because it will be less dense.
Don't you think that with a widespread concern of congestion that individuals themselves will dislike congestion and work to avoid it?
Posted by: Daniel Reeves at Apr 30, 2008 6:54:18 PM
What's all the fuss about Manhattan? Everyone lives in Brooklyn now.
Posted by: Ziggurat at May 2, 2008 10:10:28 AM
