Smart Growth on Steriods: Sick Cities

Smart growth on steroids, or the radical densification policy of California,  was the subject of my recent commentary in The Wall Street Journal — “California Declares War on Suburbia”  (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303302504577323353434618474.html?mod=rss_com_mostcommentart). Regional transportation plans in the San Francisco Bay Area, the Los Angeles area and the San Diego area seek to force the vast majority of new residents in future decades into multi-family housing. Under the state’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction law (Assembly Bill 32) and its companion urban planning law (Senate Bill 375), it will be nearly impossible to build new detached housing. This is despite the fact that 80 percent additions to the housing stock in California’s major metropolitan areas was detached between 2000 and 2010.

It was bad enough when misnamed “smart-growth” policies simply sought to ban building beyond the urban fringe (where the city meets the country). The result was as predictable as the effects of an OPEC oil embargo. When developable land is embargoed, its price goes up. How much it goes up is anyone’s guess, because prices cannot be accurately predicted in a manipulated market. In the case of oil, it can be expected that speculators will enter the market seeking a quick profit. It is no different in residential land (and housing), where the was much more speculative activity in the bubble states of California, Florida, Arizona and Nevada (so designated by New York Federal Reserve Bank reserve), and of course there were substantial house price increases.

The amazing thing about this is that underlying housing demand was low in the worst of the bubble states, California. During the bubble, more than 1,000,000 residents moved to other states (California kept growing because of immigration and the excess of births over deaths). By comparison, in Atlanta, Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston (and for that matter Indianapolis, Columbus and Kansas City), there was net immigration, yet housing prices stayed within historic norms. By the time the peak hit, prices in California metropolitan areas were from double to nearly quadruple historic norms.

Now, however, the urban planners want to limit construction to areas that are close to rapid transit stops, and at densities five or more times consumer preferences. Rather than quarter or fifth of an acre lots, planners intend that nearly all new housing will be at 20, 30 or even 40 to the acre. Naively, they assume that this will encourage people to use transit more. Yet, even their own plans don’t show any such impact. In San Diego, the share of travel on transit would rise from less than 2 percent now to less than 4 percent in 2050, despite spending more than half of the highway and transit money on transit. Thus, spending up to 25 times transit’s share of the market returns only the most modest transit ridership increases.

The higher densities are likely to lead to more intense traffic congestion, consistent with the association between high densities and intense traffic congestion around the world. The irony is that the higher the share of travel on transit, the worse the traffic congestion. This is because transit ridership is high only where there is high density, but the transit use does not reduce demand enough to compensate for the larger density of cars.

Urban areas are justified by economics. People have moved to them to have better lives. Raising the price of housing (unnecessarily) and slowing down commuting (because transit is much slower) could work against urban areas that implement such policies and drive people elsewhere. This is evident, already, in the San Francisco Bay area, Los Angeles and San Diego, where growth has slowed to a trickle — places where the net-outmigration is greater even than that of former migration laggards Pittsburgh and St. Louis.

—–

Also see: California Declares War on Suburbia II: The Cost of Radical Densification

http://www.newgeography.com/content/002781-california-declares-war-suburbia-ii-the-cost-radical-densification

Comments (11)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Virginia says:

    Excellent point.

  2. brian says:

    Those are all very good points. There are too many things wrong with smart growth policies. The reality is, data from urban U.S. areas shows that people on average have shorter travel times going to work in less dense urban areas.

    There is also the aspect of this involving the cost-of-living for people in urban areas. People in urban areas tend to face higher costs from taxation due to infrastructure costs (among other things). Combine that with increased air pollution and more limitations on property rights, it’s no wonder many cities have rejected smart growth policies in favor of allowing more naturally occurring suburbanization.

    I might be able to see smart growth policies work in a futuristic world where there are flying/floating transport vehicles and all sorts of other neat stuff that would reduce costs on individuals and families, minimize environmental impacts, dramatically improve land use, etc. Maybe someday, but at present it just seems that the suburban world is so much more pleasant than most dense urban environments.

    http://www.popsci.com/node/46221

  3. Hello are using WordPress for your site platform? I’m new to the blog world but I’m trying
    to get started and create my own. Do you need any html coding expertise to make your own blog?
    Any help would be really appreciated!

    My page: comment creer un blog

  4. Hi there mates, its wonderful article regarding cultureand
    fully defined, keep it up all the time.

  5. Hi there, after reading this amazing piece of writing i am too glad to share
    my familiarity here with colleagues.

  6. Hey there, I think your site might be having browser compatibility issues.
    When I look at your blog site in Chrome, it looks fine but when opening in Internet Explorer, it has some overlapping.
    I just wanted to give you a quick heads up!
    Other then that, great blog!

    My homepage Deer Hunter 2014 Hack Ifunbox No Jailbreak

  7. Unfortunately, there are generally more and more men focused on their
    penis size while theirs are generally perfectly regular.

    If you are around the fence concerning TokyoTube Porn or any type of other japoneses porn website then you definitely have to research more.
    The easy availability of pornography is usually blamed as among the major
    reasons for this craze. The sight of male porn stars will
    make a man mistakenly feel that he could be held to a high regular japanese
    porn which in fact is surely an intense.

    My weblog: brazzers accounts

  8. Hey, I think your website might be having browser compatibility
    issues. When I look at your website in Chrome, it looks fine but when opening in Internet Explorer,
    it has some overlapping. I just wanted to give you a quick
    heads up! Other then that, fantastic blog!

  9. Hi it’s me, I am also visiting this website regularly, this website is genuinely pleasant and the visitors
    are in fact sharing nice thoughts.

  10. Thanks for every other magnificent article. The place
    else could anyone get that type of info in such an ideal manner of writing?
    I have a presentation subsequent week, and I’m at
    the search for such information.

  11. I believe everything posted made a bunch of sense.
    But, consider this, suppose you added a little content?
    I am not saying your content is not good, however suppose you added
    something that grabbed people’s attention? I mean Smart Growth on Steriods: Sick Cities
    | Clearing the Air | NCPA.org is a little boring. You might glance at Yahoo’s home page
    and note how they create news headlines to get
    viewers to click. You might add a video or a picture or two
    to get readers interested about what you’ve got to say.

    In my opinion, it might make your blog a little bit more interesting.

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.