More on Sprawl

By way of Marginal Revolution, I'm fortunate to come across a great piece, setting out more eloquently what I was trying to say in the post below. By Jane Galt, it starts thusly:

Perhaps unusually for a Libertarian, I'm sympathetic to the "smart growth" folks. I grew up on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, and I treasure the ability to walk where I need to go, rather than driving every which way. I love public transportation (although, of course, being a Libertarian, I would love it even more if it were privatised.) I'm pretty sure that driving everywhere is the reason that so many Americans are fat, and that rural areas tend to be heavier than urban areas. I dislike the compartmentalisation of our lives that neighbourhoods without sidewalks imply. I prefer shopping on New York's streets to the best-designed mall.

If I had to design my perfect place to live, it would be a townhouse, on a square of similar townhouses that opened up onto a large communal yard where children and dogs could romp. A train station would be no more than a few blocks away, as would shops, schools, and other accoutrements of refined living.

But unlike the smart growth folks, I recognise that this is, to a large extent, a fantasy....

It's one of those read-the-whole-thing things.

Comments

[Abiola Lapite]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I plan to respond at length later, but I think a quick point needs to be made: I am not an advocate of "smart growth" (which I suspect is a euphemism for some sort of planning), nor am I claiming that suburbs wouldn't exist were it not for zoning laws. What I *am* saying is that mixed-use suburbs - in which neighborhood shops existed amongst residential dwellings, where parks and playgrounds were within walking distance, and which had shade-lined boulevards that made for pleasant walking on a sunny afternoon - would make for a healthier, more active, less obese population than America's is today, and that zoning restrictions are directly responsible for the relative absence of such places in the US, especially in post-WW2 developments. Kids shouldn't have to wait for their mother to drive them just to go play baseball at the local park, or to get to a store with the latest issue of a favorite comic book.

The question of what residential density is most desirable is entirely separate from the aforementioned issue, and in fact on that latter point I have no real opinion as such. I do think that it would likely be higher than it is in the USA were the full costs of pollution (and *not* just road building/maintenance) internalized by American car drivers, however. I also wonder just how much of that "public transport" expenditure happens to be in the form of subsidies to Greyhound and Amtrak to keep servicing small communities along unviable routes.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) - GPGshell v3.10
Comment: My Public Key is at the following URL:
Comment: http://www.alapite.net/pgp/AbiolaLapite.txt

iD8DBQFBWrvSOgWD1ZKzuwkRArBCAJ9DfkEkHVV8umeQ1OEDHedkbHUDQQCfW6jP
1dC0eeszTi3JYWjIqwJGavk=
=8lOY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Frank McGahon]

As I understand "smart growth", the aim is to encourage urban development at higher densities and public transport and to discourage/disincentivise car use and suburb development. The methods frequently used include more than just planning and zoning but investment in mass transit, tax incentives for development of "brownfield" sites and various policies to frustrate car use.

I sympathise with the aims of smart growth. There are any number of European cities with great public transport systems and high population densities (alongside well maintained, spacious parks). Barcelona and Lisbon spring to mind. In an ideal world it would be great if American cities could emulate these. The problem is that this is an unrealistic fantasy. It is extremely doubtful that such cities may be "retro-planned" and it is clear that even in cultures more predisposed to tightly packed urban living, the character of such cities is often maintained by considerable regulation and restrictions on property rights, in the city and surrounding countryside. The important point to note is that if you let people live where they want to live, you will see sprawl. Whatever externalities are involved and whatever argument can be made to restrict those choices, any starting point which denies this is doomed to failure.

The problem with "smart growth" is that in pursuit of this chimerical dream, many disastrous policies are pursued - public transport systems are ruinously expensive as (I would hope) we are noticing here in Ireland with the LUAS tram system. There is a significant amount of wishful thinking - if you build it, they will come - invoved with this movement. I have no problem with the type of mixed suburban development to which you refer. Indeed, I am in favour of urban regeneration but any such development ought to be realistic about the likely takeup and if the intention is to make urban living attractive to families such development will have to be car-friendly.

[razib]

The important point to note is that if you let people live where they want to live, you will see sprawl.

i loved in portland, OR, for a year, where many of the things you are talking about have happened. the density of the city is high, the 'blocks' are smaller than a typical city, mass transit is massively subsidized.

and frankly, many people do move their, they are just a particular type of person, young people (usually unmarried) willing to sacrifice the possibility of home ownership and maximum earning power for 'quality of life.' i don't know if these are long term residents, but they exist.

i also have visited houston, and it has a different sensibility (to understate), the young people who move their want to earn the most money and live the cheapest (and possibly own a home) and sacrifice quality of life.

that's what's great about the USA, it's a big country.

[Frank McGahon]

I think it would be more accurate to say that the Portland-ers and Houston-ites probably have different ideas about what constitutes "quality of life".

My main point, by the way, is not to argue that sprawl is cool (although I don't think the "problem" is as acute as is often made out), rather that the notion that sprawl is an "unnatural" consequence of certain government policies and that if left to their own devices people would spontaneously erect nice tightly laid out cities similar to those which arose spontaneously in the pre-car era is just wishful thinking.

[razib]

well, sprawl is also easier in the southeast even outside of gov. restrictions as opposed to much of the west. fewer mountains and no overwhelming issues with water allocation.

[Abiola Lapite]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

"that sprawl is an "unnatural" consequence of certain government policies and that if left to their own devices people would spontaneously erect nice tightly laid out cities similar to those which arose spontaneously in the pre-car era"

I don't know who's made such a claim, and it strikes me as a bit of a straw man. Saying that residence patterns would be *denser* without zoning restrictions is not at all the same thing as saying that new cities would spontaneously take on the form of European conurbations dating back as far as the Roman Empire.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) - GPGshell v3.10
Comment: My Public Key is at the following URL:
Comment: http://www.alapite.net/pgp/AbiolaLapite.txt

iD8DBQFBXYk6OgWD1ZKzuwkRAgQrAJ4sMxfWW6wlo4qZtcGlrcJovDQiEACeIZdV
e97zVp6eMeWJ26d0xfPWjYI=
=WIQE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Frank McGahon]

Well, part of the reason I wrote the post in the first place was because you implied that sprawl was a consequence of government regulation and invited the reader to infer that the absence of such regulation would see, let's just say, "unsprawl". My view is that sprawl generally is a reflection of people's revealed preferences under a free market and that less regulation tends to see more sprawl, not less.

[Abiola Lapite]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

"you implied that sprawl was a consequence of government regulation and invited the reader to infer that the absence of such regulation would see, let's just say, "unsprawl""

I don't agree with that characterization of things. I did imply that the extent of the sprawl we see today is largely a result of restrictive zoning regulations, but nowhere did I impute that lifting said regulations would magically undo what's already been done: you're simply putting words in my mouth when you say so. If I said that a failure to depose Saddam in 1990 led to hundreds of thousands of unnecessary Iraqi deaths, would that somehow "invite" the reader to think those dead people could be brought back from the grave were he gone?

"My view is that sprawl generally is a reflection of people's revealed preferences under a free market and that less regulation tends to see more sprawl, not less."

And that is just what needs demonstrating. Where is the evidence in support of it? Simply citing Paris isn't enough, as nearby London's population has actually been increasing over the last 20 years. One must also isolate the effect of demographic changes: if we assume that building above a certain height will cost more than building further from the city centre, all it would take for sprawl to occur would be the total population to keep rising, so this in itself isn't so much evidence of revealed preference as people's budgetary constraints.

What it comes down to is this: given the choice between living in two housing developments with the same house sizes, but in which one of them has tree-lined, pedestrian friendly sidewalks, local parks, neighborhood stores for small amenities, etc, and another development without all of these things, I find it impossible to believe that most people would choose the latter, and it is a fact that local and state government restrictions have had a major hand in depriving people of such a choice throughout America. Try walking around, say, Washington's Germantown someday, and tell me that the people living there would have happily foregone such facilities were they consulted beforehand. That people say they are happier living in the suburbs than in the city centre doesn't imply that the suburbs in which they live are ideal even in their own eyes, only that they chose the best of the options available to them.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) - GPGshell v3.10
Comment: My Public Key is at the following URL:
Comment: http://www.alapite.net/pgp/AbiolaLapite.txt

iD8DBQFBXeEuOgWD1ZKzuwkRAn8TAJ9rraiwP3d64/voIssDui3Q4jb6PwCgiHuZ
s3GKdHmkR3mWgrC3XM+As1c=
=+rEM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Frank McGahon]

What it comes down to is this: given the choice between living in two housing developments with the same house sizes, but in which one of them has tree-lined, pedestrian friendly sidewalks, local parks, neighborhood stores for small amenities, etc, and another development without all of these things, I find it impossible to believe that most people would choose the latter, and it is a fact that local and state government restrictions have had a major hand in depriving people of such a choice throughout America.

You're really begging the question here. It is of course true that if you offered people a choice between the first and the second they will choose the first, that is because the first is the same as the second with added value at no extra cost. The relevant question is: are people prepared to pay extra for this? You assume that the reason such (expensive) items as parks etc. aren't provided is because of zoning restrictions. Leaving aside the fact that it is implausible in the extreme that any local government would refuse to permit a developer to provide these added features it is at least equally likely that people aren't prepared to pay a premium in sufficient quantities for such "public goods".

Look: I personally prefer tighter densities, parks, playgrounds, "public space". My commute to work is seven minutes. I never drive on holidays. My closest experience of the "sprawl paradigm" was visiting my mother in law in Kissimee, Florida: you had to drive to get anywhere. She is happy living there, but I wouldn't like it. My superficial impression is that zoning/planning restrictions are significantly lower there than, say, Ireland. I don't think it's a coincidence that house prices are significantly cheaper in (midland) Florida than Ireland - a brand new 2,000 square foot detached house on a half acre site could be picked up for about $150,000. Here in Dundalk, that would barely get you a terraced house in a council estate of about 800 square feet - there are few supply restrictions worth talking about.

My suspicion is that this is a circle which cannot be squared. You can either favour deregulation and some kind of sprawl will be the outcome, or you can favour tighter densities and "public goods" such as parks, playgrounds etc which will tend only to be provided under a regulated system - typically permission for a development will be granted subject to contributions to such public goods.

[Abiola Lapite]

"The relevant question is: are people prepared to pay extra for this?"

Well, if communities like Seaside (FL), Celebration (FL) and South Village (NC), or even good old Scarsdale (NY) are any indication, the answer would seem to be an emphatic yes. In fact, were it otherwise, apartments in the center of any metropolis would be cheaper than houses in the suburbs, which isn't the case in any major city I'm aware of.

"You assume that the reason such (expensive) items as parks etc. aren't provided is because of zoning restrictions."

This isn't just an assumption on my part, it is the law in much of the United States. It isn't hard to find examples of what I'm talking about via Google, and I've been doing just that over the past week (now all I have to do is find the time to write it all up.)

"it is implausible in the extreme that any local government would refuse to permit a developer to provide these added features"

Implausible to *you* maybe, but as I've said, this has very often been the law in the US, and you yourself could confirm it if you bothered to do a little checking.

"it is at least equally likely that people aren't prepared to pay a premium in sufficient quantities for such "public goods"."

How much extra does it cost to plant trees on sidewalks? How much does it cost to create two lane roads rather than 6-lane highways one can only cross at mortal risk? I fail to see how one incurs an expense in not requiring homes to be set back by 30 feet within lots, or not mandating that no more than X percent of a lot may be used for a home, or not insisting that porches should be at the back and garages in front; these are all things that are being done right now, because of the very zoning restrictions you find implausible.

"My suspicion is that this is a circle which cannot be squared."

The thing is, intuition is rarely a good basis on which to make such judgements. It is better to try to gather actual evidence for against it, and the evidence I've come across thus far simply doesn't back up your suspicion that lifting zoning restrictions would lead to even more sprawl than there otherwise would have been.

[Frank McGahon]

Perhaps the difficulty is that "sprawl" is a rather vague term. It is possible that we are talking at cross-purposes here. The zoning restrictions you refer to may have some effect on the particular aesthetic character of some suburbs but do not in themselves generate the low densities. The defining characteristic of "sprawl" for me is low density housing spreading out from urban centres. What sprawl offers the consumer is larger cheaper houses with spacious gardens from where to commute to work or to shops (most likely to be big box retailer of malls). Two factors make houses cheaper:

1) Land is cheaper - as you spread out from a city in a circle, the further you are from the city, the more land there is. This supply, if not restricted by green belt planning restrictions, reduces prices for development sites.

2) Building is cheaper on green field sites than "brownfield" sites as there are considerably less difficulties involved.

The thing is, intuition is rarely a good basis on which to make such judgements. It is better to try to gather actual evidence for against it, and the evidence I've come across thus far simply doesn't back up your suspicion that lifting zoning restrictions would lead to even more sprawl than there otherwise would have been

That's a rather facile rhetorical trick. The only reason I use the word "suspicion" is to be careful not to make explicit sweeping "judgments". I know how resistant you are to arguments from authority so I have deliberately avoided using a formulation like "in my professional opinion" but this is a subject on which I am not ignorant. I don't claim to know every single building ordinance in the US, and my point is not to argue that such regulations have no effect on the specific character of american suburbs but there are far better explanations of the general trend of low density sprawl across varying regulatory regimes and indeed in other countries (the salient difference I can see is the relationship between cost of motoring* and extent of sprawl) . It's not exactly rocket science, once you have the car, low density housing offers significant advantages over high density living.

My point is a simple one: if you want a liberalised regulatory regime you will have to live with some kind of sprawl. If you want "smart growth", you will need lots of planning regulations.

Oh and by the way:

In fact, were it otherwise, apartments in the center of any metropolis would be cheaper than houses in the suburbs, which isn't the case in any major city I'm aware of.

Not that it really is germane to the point because I don't suggest that urban apartments ought to be cheaper, as I point out above land and building costs are lot more expensive in urban centres, But it is the case in the very city in which you reside - I'll swap you an apartment in Tower Hamlets for a house in Muswell Hill any day!

* If you want some kind of government regulation to blame for sprawl, low fuel taxes are a more plausible target.

[Abiola Lapite]

"That's a rather facile rhetorical trick."

No it isn't. You made an assertion, without anything in the way of evidence to back it up, and I pointed out that your "suspicion" or even "professional opinion" is hardly enough to settle the argument, especially in a country in which you yourself aren't living or practicing.

"but there are far better explanations of the general trend of low density sprawl across varying regulatory regimes and indeed in other countries (the salient difference I can see is the relationship between cost of motoring* and extent of sprawl) . It's not exactly rocket science, once you have the car, low density housing offers significant advantages over high density living."

And I say that you haven't established the truth of this, beyond saying that "it's not exactly rocket science", which is a facile rhetorical trick. I've been reading papers from Brookings, Cato, the Urban Land Institute and several other organizations on this one issue over the last week, and if there's one thing that's become clear, it is that sprawl is a difficult issue, far more difficult than you let on here. To ignore the details of the numerous fiscal and regulatory measures that impinge on the issue in such an offhand manner is to simply refuse to engage in debate.

If low-density living is always so preferable, why are people flocking to the sorts of "New Urbanist" developments I mentioned earlier? Why is "gentrification" ever a meaningful term to use? Why are property prices in San Francisco's Nob Hill, London's Knightsbridge and all of Manhattan south of 110th street so outrageously high? That housing at the center of a city costs more to build is no reason why it should sell for more, unless we subscribe to some mutation of the Labor Theory of Value; if there were no demand for such housing, supply would have to fall until a clearing price was reached, but the steep price of property in city centres proves that people are willing to pay a lot more for smart townhouses in high-density cosmopolitan areas than they would for McMansions on the outskirts of town.

"But it is the case in the very city in which you reside - I'll swap you an apartment in Tower Hamlets for a house in Muswell Hill any day!"

Ah, but I live in the dead center of said city, not terribly far from Samizdata HQ in fact, and round my environs at least, a poky little studio would pay for a nice little semi-detached in Kent! While we're at it, I'll also note that the ongoing gentrification of Brixton shows that even formerly notoriously undesirable addresses can go upmarket.

[Frank McGahon]

No it isn't. You made an assertion, without anything in the way of evidence to back it up, and I pointed out that your "suspicion" or even "professional opinion" is hardly enough to settle the argument,

Actually I didn't make an assertion I voiced a reasonable suspicion - that if you are concerned about sprawl, deregulation is going to be an insufficient response. Nothing you have said remotely contradicts this. I don't claim to explain every single aspect of sprawl and nowhere do I claim that sprawl is desirable in itself, nor that it is the only possible way for a city to develop. It is untenable to point up successful urban environments as "proof" that the market favours this type of development over sprawl. If this were truly the case we wouldn't be having this discussion. The fact is that sprawl is a continuing trend. It is your assertion which is harder to maintain. You make the explicit point that regulation leads to sprawl. I'm happy to agree that certain aspects of sprawl are related to such regulations but my point is that nobody is forcing people to live in suburbs and that this is a revealed preference which is not too difficult to explain.

If low-density living is always so preferable, why are people flocking to the sorts of "New Urbanist" developments I mentioned earlier?

If you are going to just compare numbers your argument is doomed to failure. People might be flocking to such developments but they are flocking in even greater numbers to the 'burbs. In any case, that's not the point. I don't maintain that low density living is always so preferable. My point is narrower and simpler than that - there is a housing market which caters to various types of demand and there is a demand for low density living. That there is also a demand, (particularly for those without children) for urban living doesn't negate that point. Your assertion that people who do live in the suburbs are somehow forced to do so by regulation and that otherwise they would be happy to live in the city is harder to defend. For this to be tenable you would have to show a zoning regime which was a) more restrictive in sprawling USA than less-sprawl-inclined Europe b) more restrictive as you head out of the city. This is an inversion of the truth.

Why is "gentrification" ever a meaningful term to use? Why are property prices in San Francisco's Nob Hill, London's Knightsbridge and all of Manhattan south of 110th street so outrageously high? That housing at the center of a city costs more to build is no reason why it should sell for more, unless we subscribe to some mutation of the Labor Theory of Value;

Not so, I specifically mentioned the cost of land which is to do with supply and demand. Also, the fact that it is more expensive to build in brownfield sites impacts on profitability of developers, reducing the "supply" of new houses in urban areas. In any case, my point was to do with how suburban housing can be cheaper and better value for people who a) have young families, b) already drive a car. Most of the "advantages" of urban living for the childless are disadvantages for families.

if there were no demand for such housing, supply would have to fall until a clearing price was reached, but the steep price of property in city centres proves that people are willing to pay a lot more for smart townhouses in high-density cosmopolitan areas than they would for McMansions on the outskirts of town.

But I don't maintain there is no demand for such housing, I just maintain that the demands for urban living and suburban living may both be explained easily enough without respect to the varying zoning/regulatory regimes. Occam's razor suggests that the auxiliary zoning-causes-sprawl argument is redundant.

While we're at it, I'll also note that the ongoing gentrification of Brixton shows that even formerly notoriously undesirable addresses can go upmarket.

I don't deny that, and everywhere I am careful to separate my own preferences. When I lived in London, I never lived outside Zone 2. In Dublin, within the canals. I prefer urban environments myself. I'm just not going to collude in the notion that, however neatly it fits with a general antipathy to government regulation, sprawl may be explained by regulations and without any reference to the demand which drives this development.

The reason I mentioned London is that it is certainly not the only counter example to your suggestion that "it isn't the case in any major city" that inner city apartments are cheaper than houses in the suburbs. It would be some stretch if this "rule" were true - almost every major city has at least one undesirable inner city area. A better example would have been Detroit where you could probably pick up an entire inner city block for the price of a large suburban house!