[Durham INC] A new set of arguments on density bringing wealth

[Pat Carstensen]

I've run across 3 discussions in the last couple days about density and job creation.  http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/03/how-skyscrapers-can-save-the-city/8387/http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/opinion/sunday/one-path-to-better-jobs-more-density-in-cities.html
and in the e-mail below.
I'm not sure that the arguments translate from NYC to Durham, and I think the policy recommendations are all wrong, but I think the policy wonks among us should be aware of the ideas floating around out there.
Regards, pat


Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 11:54:25 -0400
From: john.hartz at hotmail.com
Subject: Dismantling Democracy to Fight NIMBYism
To: CONS-TRANS-CHAIRS-FORUM at LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG




The Transport Politic



FYI
 
John Hartz
Columbia, SC




From: The Transport Politic 
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:12 AM
To: john.hartz at hotmail.com 
Subject: The Transport Politic » Dismantling Democracy to Fight 
NIMBYism






  
  
    
      The Transport Politic » 
      Dismantling Democracy to Fight NIMBYism 
 
     
      



  
  
    
      Dismantling Democracy to Fight NIMBYism 
      Posted: 
      06 Sep 2011 10:56 PM PDT
      
      » Ryan Avent’s The Gated City provides insight into 
      the workings of the urban economy, but its proposals to increase the 
      supply of housing in the country’s biggest cities are 
      unreasonable.
      Ryan Avent’s new book, The 
      Gated City, provides one of the most readable summaries of urban 
      economics available; for that alone, the book is more than worth its low 
      price. In highlighting the work of Edward Glaeser among others, this 
      author shows how the density of metropolitan regions can play an essential 
      role in increasing the productivity of workers and expand the economy in 
      general. It is Avent’s quite plausible thesis that the great American 
      suburbanization of the past fifty years contributed to the economic 
      circumstances in which we now find ourselves — with an economy seemingly 
      incapable of growth — because of an inability (or unwillingness) to 
      cash in on the benefits of urban density, which encourages higher incomes 
      and increased productivity.*
      The book’s logic suggests that those who care about improving the 
      American economy must take a stand in favor of densification both of 
      suburbs and inner cities — and against the NIMBYs who would do anything to 
      prevent new projects of virtually any kind from being built anywhere near 
      them, and who are systematically increasing housing costs by limiting 
      supply. The market, the author suggests, is being artificially limited by 
      significant constraints imposed by local groups. “When places like 
      Boston and San Francisco make it hard to build new homes and offices,” 
      Avent writes, “they reduce opportunities and productivity across 
      the country… Our inability to accommodate people in high wage cities… has 
      made America poorer, less innovative, dirtier, and more dependent on 
      scarce fossil fuels than it ought to be. that’s a terrible price to pay 
      for the right to keep neighborhoods from changing with the 
times.”
      These are compelling words, but Avent’s prognosis of a disease that 
      afflicts American cities and perhaps the economy as a whole is followed by 
      a series of potential cures that come across as dogmatic and sometimes 
      even downright undemocratic.
      To fight the problems associated with NIMBYism, Avent proposes a number 
      of ideas: Allowing neighborhoods to “limit development… so long as 
      it’s willing to either buy the land in question or pay the land’s owner to 
      comply;” or providing cities a limited “zoning budget” or “historical 
      preservation budget” that would force political leaders to pick only the 
      most important battles to fight; or requiring developers to throw out 
      offset fees for the “supposed costs of the redevelopment.”
      These, however, are solutions that only an economist — whose vision of 
      society is shaped by monetary costs and benefits — would appreciate. Note 
      Avent’s dismissal of the efforts of the people he berates as NIMBYs, 
      arguing that their efforts require low private costs, which he minimizes 
      as “Just the time to circulate petitions and attend council 
      meetings.” The only thing that would make NIMBYs understand their 
      actions, he seems to suggest, would be forcing neighbors “to buy a 
      property in order to limit development.” In these cynical statements, 
      Avent not only implies that community organizers get their way easily 
      (compared to their hard-working real estate foes) but falls back on a 
      solution that allows no role for actual democracy, in which public 
      contestation or conflict plays a role in the decision-making discourse at 
      the political level.
      Ironically, this effort in favor of more density is admirable, as is 
      the author’s sense that much of the battles NIMBYs fight are grounded in 
      the fact that “the haves are reluctant to share with the 
      have-nots.” It is hard to fault Avent for developing clever 
      approaches to a difficulty that has probably only gotten worse over the 
      past few decades.
      Avent’s argument in favor of the value of increasing densities is 
      solid; he demonstrates that there are significant productivity and income 
      gains that flow from metropolitan areas with people in more concentrated 
      living conditions. And there are significant progressive values 
      that are lost without that density: “When Americans ration access to 
      economically dynamic places with high housing costs, it isn’t the rich 
      that suffer most. It’s the middle- and low-income households who must 
      accept long, costly commutes or move elsewhere.”
      But are the people who live in gentrifying neighborhoods simply 
      expected to accept that a market logic suggests that their neighborhood 
      needs to change and that they can prevent a new project only by 
      putting up millions of dollars they do not have to buy the land? 
      Is the market the right decision-maker when it comes to the shape, 
      structure, and economic composition of a city neighborhood? The Gated 
      City asks us to assent.
      It is this unsentimental approach that bedevils the urban planning 
      profession in general, so frequently incapable of being able to relate to 
      community members, despite claiming to represent their interests. Avent 
      argues in favor of increasing density,** a reasonable campaign, but can 
      only propose being able to do so through methods that subvert non-economic 
      claims to the city.
      Ultimately, though experts like Avent or myself or our readers may know 
      that densification can bring significant benefits and that many of those 
      gains can only come after a reduction in neighborhood opposition, 
      attempting to work out these problems through market-based means is a 
      non-starter. How can we as urbanists both promote more density 
      and do so in a manner that does not disenfranchise the people who 
      have the biggest stake in the matter? It is this dilemma that Avent’s book 
      does not resolve, but it is the question that remains a fundamental 
      difficulty for the urban planning profession in general.
      All this said, Avent’s pinpointing of the opportunity possible through 
      the development of new zones is right-headed. His examples of Canary Wharf 
      in London and La Défense outside of Paris (two huge business districts 
      outside of the traditional downtowns) are indeed excellent examples of 
      places where very significant growth can be concentrated around a variety 
      transportation options and yet far enough from existing zones of activity 
      that NIMBYism as a concern will be limited. It is perhaps unsurprising 
      that the largest efforts to bring middle-income housing to New 
      York, Chicago, 
      and San Francisco are 
      being pursued on brownfields, not within existing neighborhoods.
      * For transportation, the externality benefits of agglomeration are 
      particularly relevant since they can be used to support the business case 
      for a project. Famously, the high costs of the London Crossrail project were in 
      part justified through the use of a cost-benefit analysis 
      that showed significant personal income benefits from, in short, bringing 
      people closer together to one another.
      ** Avent’s comparisons between cities that show that more dense 
      ones generally perform better in terms of income are illustrated at a 
      metropolitan-wide scale, not a local one. Low regional densities may be 
      cause for increasing densities in individual neighborhoods, but Avent’s 
      book does not show that local-scale density affects regional productivity 
      or income. So the argument has its limitations.
      


  
  
    You 
      are subscribed to email updates from The Transport Politic 
To 
      stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe 
      now.
    Email 
      delivery powered by Google
  
    Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 
60610
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe from the CONS-TRANS-CHAIRS-FORUM list, send any message to:
CONS-TRANS-CHAIRS-FORUM-signoff-request at LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG

Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp

To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see:
 http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20110907/4ae4d05c/attachment.html>