Do We Have a Choice?

This really irks me... 

"I absolutely believe in choice," said Wendy Danks, director of marketing for the Builders Association of the Twin Cities. And she thinks consumers will choose to buy what they have bought in the past. The advantages of single-family homes -- good prices, good schools, family-friendly yards -- will continue to attract buyers, she said. 

Do we really have a choice?  I don't think so because the price of urban housing is nowhere near the cheap price of sprawl.  This needs to change, and it needs to start with these Builders Associations realizing that they are part of the problem, actually believing there is a choice.

Frank Lloyd Wright the Villain?

There was an interesting Talk of the Nation episode on NPR about a month ago that discusses how Women as consumers are becoming a greater force and how smart businesses are changing to accommodate their needs. Keeping clean restrooms in auto dealerships and pointing to the room number on a sheet instead of saying it out loud in hotels are some of the changes that Paco Underhill writes about in his books that make a huge difference in safety and return business.

In this clip however, he talks about his belief that Frank Lloyd Wright and Henry Ford were the greatest villains of the 20th century in their encouraged suburban development taking us away from the beneficial village community and pushing us to rely too heavily on automobiles and suburban development. It's an interesting listen and while we often think about Hummers as the suburban evil and now folks see them in that way, another thing is houses and their true needs. People often talk about McMansions but do people really need $30,000 Wolf Ranges as well? Likely not but I hadn't thought of these extra issues before. It makes me wonder what else we are McMansioning.

It also makes me think about the flat that my parents had in Rotterdam. It was a very nice place and livable. Everything was available close by and the fridge was smaller than most here given you could get to the store everyday. The washer and dryer were small by American standards but again very efficient. Not everyone really wants to live that way of course but again there is this need to have choices for people such that they can decide how they want their lifestyle to play out.

Click To Play

But even though FLW and his broad acre city plan were something that some think led to a suburban ideal, there were obviously much larger forces at work (which we've discussed in many a post before). So I don't know if I would call him a villain, just someone who saw the car and suburban lifestyle coming before its time. If you had to pick just one villain, who or what would it be? Eisenhower Freeway System? Lending Practices? Zoning Laws?

Markets and Urban Development

I've been meaning to weigh in on the debate (1, 2, 3 and others) from a while ago on zoning restrictions that cause sprawl and the general libertarian argument. Matt, Ryan, and others have been pushing back hard on the idea that suburban sprawl is based on the market.

Basically the argument goes that because the market is not able to balance what people actually want, housing markets such as San Francisco, New York and many city centers to cost much more comparatively to places in the periphery. In addition, home owners don't want to see change. They like things the way they are and become an entrenched entity against any densification seeking to put all new growth somewhere else.

I agree with all of this but also would like to note that markets for density are highly dependent on agglomeration.

If land prices are rising, as they are empirically, firms economize on land. This behavior increases density and contributes to growth.

But what causes land prices to rise, or at least be high enough to support economization and higher densities? I would say that there needs to be a key catalyst, perhaps a major employer moving into an area or a major landowner or government entity focusing energies into a single place. These infrastructure investments increase land value and in turn make new dense developments possible. The demand for this type of living is real, but the ability to supply it can be harder and more locationally dependent than general sprawl.

It's also based on access. Just because someone runs a light rail line to a destination doesn't mean that a market for density is going to magically appear. If we think about where suburban centers pop up, it generally has to do with the transportation network and infrastructure that was set up to support it.

Ultimately the densest places are those that grew up close to where the major employment centers are located or proximate enough to the other largest employment center in the region with access enough to feed on it. Tyson's for example feeds off of the DC metro area and is suffocating. In order to get denser, the infamous edge city has to upgrade its circulation system and throughput. The Silver Line starts to do this and plans for a better grid and streetcar system are in the works.

But sometimes landowners believe their land is worth more than it actually is which stifles density plans as well. For example, in Houston in Midtown along the Main Street Corridor, there are some land owners just holding out for super high density projects that the market can't bear quite yet.

The typical price per square foot for land in the Midtown area grew from $4 per square foot in the early 1990s to more than $50 per square foot in 2006. This is in part due to land speculation fueled by the new light-rail line, with some buyers purchasing land in anticipation of higher land values in the future.

Or burdensome regulations such as parking requirements take the possibility of building higher density out of the mix. Once you get over a certain height, steel instead of wood must be used for construction and costs increase again. But all of this isn't possible if the land values are low or if demand isn't there. Demand typically increases when existing densities exist. But for many cities or station areas, this can be tricky. We can say that there is a demand for denser living, but we also need to know where the market exists to expand the agglomerations that exist, because unlike sprawl, we can't just build into nowhere land.

Austin's Trends

There is a lot to like but a lot to reframe in a recent article in the Austin Chronicle. CAMPO, the local MPO is looking to go a different direction with the regional transportation planning they've been doing and has stumbled upon visioning as an acceptable way to move forward. Unfortunately survey respondents are split between what is basically the Envision Central Texas model and the sprawl as usual. But why are they split? Is it because they weren't told the true costs or that they don't mind wasting their money? A telling part of why folks might not have chosen the more sustainable method is the following:

The trends concept is basically a recipe for continued sprawl: It leaves regional development patterns up to current policies and market trends. It assumes that all $2.4 billion worth of projects in the current investment pipeline get built.

Market trends? Since when was sprawl market based? I always assumed it was fueled by a big fat subsidy to home owners through unequal housing subsidies and road subsidies. I must be wrong since the frame is that it's actually the market pushing that direction. The biggest challenge for advocates as shown by this paragraph is reframing the debate. We need to jump on it and own it. We should be the fiscally responsible ones, the ones who care about whether locals get to keep their hard earned money. It's also because shifting demographic and market trends are swinging away from what they used to be.

I do like the idea of allocating 50% of monies to the centers in the region which would go along way towards improving transit ridership numbers and hopefully focusing growth on employment as well as housing. Hopefully they actually build transit into the centers instead of around them. I'd probably focus on that first along with better pedestrian and bike amenities.

But there are many other considerations to deal with. First is affordability. How much does that housing and transportation cost eat up a family budget. How much money is going to be left in the typical Austinite's pocket by this plan? What are the citizens going to get out of it? That determines how the local economy grows. This should be part of the decision making matrix. Too often these decisions are made in silos. Integrate them with housing plans, water plans, employment plans, state plans, school district bonds and every other plan under the sun. How are you going to house your workers affordably? Is it more affordable housing plans or is it allowing greater supply creation? How are you going to provide energy on a smart grid to all these people? How does that work together with transportation? Trolley bus wires? We could go on...

Another is how much money can be saved in terms of infrastructure if you go with the centers plan. If you spend less on sprawl, how much are you going to have in your pocket for other worthy investments? Transform did this in the Bay Area with stunning results. Hopefully we can focus on what people care about, saving money. In the end as Professor Davies always said, if you want to get people to pay attention, "hit them in the pocketbook".

Sunday Night Notes

Long Beach is looking at streetcars
~~~
Quatar has a $22B deal with Deutsche Bahn to build freight, passenger, and Metro rail lines using Siemens technology.
~~~
Having the last train leave at 6:30 is a ridership killer. Commuter rail lines with limited time tables make no sense to me.
~~~
Major developments along the North Corridor Commuter Rail line in Charlotte. My question, will it actually be Transit Oriented?
~~~
Is the housing bust going to actually halt suburbs? I feel like this will be short lived unless something bigger changes.

Open Up Your Eyes

Tonic is one of my favorite bands of all time. And its kind of funny since this was their first song on the radio and in video. Their second song If You Could Only See was probably on your radio every day in 1997. But this video is interesting to me because of the sprawly nature to it. As I look back at it, I try to think about what was going through my head when I saw it the first time. Probably something along the lines of, that would be awesome to skate through these neighborhoods. There's so much space for you and your friends to goof off. It's certainly something you couldn't do on a city street and this neighborhood looks just like any other suburban neighborhood you could find.



Update: Ughh. You'll have to go to youtube to see it. Universal obviously doesn't think that people sharing their videos is a good thing. When are these people going to learn about the internets?

Radical Transformation?

I didn't find this so radical. It's not like this isn't done elsewhere. Perhaps it was just a way to spin the story so folks would read it but I think it's a great look at what job centers that are on the suburban fringe need to start thinking about. They need to become real communities instead of just a place for your computer and brief case.

Some 120,000 people work in Tysons, but only 17,000 live here. "Every morning, 110,000 cars arrive, and they all leave at 5,"

There are plenty of other places just like this in need of a retrofit around the country. It would be nice if they were getting 4 metro stops as well. If the businesses in these types of places see the future and ask for change, it is much easier to retrofit them and build more density than neighborhoods who have vested interests to stay as they are. In any case, check out the article. It's a good one.

Amercan Dream

Says Case of the infamous Case-Shilller home price index:

Case response when asked about the so-called "American Dream of Homeownership"?
"It's largely bulls---." He went on to say, "Rental is better for a lot of people (unless they bought during a boom)."

John King, urban design writer for the San Francisco Chronicle: What about all the starter-home suburbs? Case: I don't know. They're going to stagnate.

Build Near Tram Lines, Cut Sprawl

So says an article in the Age.

A Greater Melbourne Authority could take control of the city's public transport and help push through multi-storey buildings along tram and train corridors, in a bid to stop the suburbs sprawling further.

I wonder if the only thing that can really stop the suburbs is people getting fed up with paying too much for transportation. Anyone know how Toronto and Melbourne compare to American cities the same size? Seems like we can get at least a little glimpse of what we messed up when we ripped our trams out of the ground.

H/T NJH

Quick Sprawling Plug

My buddy Tim at Planetizen co-wrote the kid's book on planning. I think it's doing pretty well except for that demon looking picture in the New York Times. Sorry bud, had to call it out. :)

Now they have put together a DVD on sprawl that features some famous names talking about how it all went wrong. Check out the lineup and watch some previews at Planetizen.

Is This Proof...

that the subsidization of roads to sprawl are costing us a lot of money?

The Federal Highway Administration reported that motorists drove 108 billion fewer miles last year, a 3.6 percent drop from 2007 levels. While significant, this reduction — which has an impact on gasoline tax revenues — is far less severe than the reduction in travel experienced by toll roads across the country. The continued drop in toll road use on well regarded facilities like Orange County, California’s 91 Express Lanes brings into question the long-term sustainability of tolling as a form of revenue collection compared to the more modern gasoline excise tax.

Does This Look Familiar?

I believe it looks like the creation of sprawl. If you wanted this to happen, why are you in the city at all? Why not just move to the exurbs. It already exists like that there. It's another example of the car companies and traffic engineers fantasy that everyone wants a car and everyone can have a car if we just pave the city with lanes to accommodate it. It's just cleverly repackaged as a promo for GPS navigation. Fortunately, we're beginning to think differently about the roll they play.

Sprawl Is Dead! Long Live Sprawl!

What does sprawl mean anymore to anyone? In one day President Obama discusses how important it is to build an interchange and how sprawl is dead. Are those two reconcilable? Only if we define what sprawl is and how it's created. Some on the other side consider streetcar suburbs from the end of the 19th century and early 20th century to be sprawl. They would consider the the Roman Empire to be sprawl.

But we seem to forget that those neighborhoods were made for walking, and recent studies have suggested that the interconnected road networks built by streetcars and before are safer than those built just for cars. This isn't just an issue of the environment, its an issue of public health and safety. But does that lead to a simple definition of the detrimental effects of sprawl?

So what is sprawl? Is it like Larry Flint's magazines? Do you know it when you see it? To my own understanding, sprawl is development that acts as a leach, taking tax base away from central cities and spending it sooner than it can be raised. It doesn't necessarily mean low density alone because that is a part of the market, just not 80% of it. The Fresno Bee also had a story about a study done on farmland preservation in California's central valley. We're losing land fast to endless unsustainable development. But how do we get to sustainable? What is the goal there? 0% net energy usage? Then there is this dependence on oil thing.

Sinn-Frei via Steven B.

But is it sprawl if your house is close to your job, even if you live out the suburbs? I've tried to think of what it is and what it isn't, but I can't seem to pin it down. So if we can't define it, how do we kill it?

OTA Flashback: 1974 Sprawl Report

Thought this report was a bit interesting. It's buried deep in the weeds here but I was flipping through and found it on page 43. From the US Government Printing Office:

Several conclusions and findings are made in this report. The high density planned community consumed 40% less energy than the low density sprawl pattern. In annual terms this means 400 million BTU per dwelling unit in the low density sprawl pattern compared to about 210 million BTU per dwelling unit in the high density planned pattern. The high density planned community cost per residential unit was $21,000 compared to $49,000 per unit in low density sprawl pattern. This is for all community costs prorated.

Water and air pollution are substantially less and water consumption less in the higher density pattern. With 52% less travel time required in the snore(similar?) densely planned community, less accidents and other psychic benefits are described. Gas and electricity use ‘is a function of housing type and structural characteristics: no variation among planned and sprawl communities with the same housing mix is shown." But, ‘significant variation in consumption of gasoline occurs as a result of the differences among community types.. . ." The report concludes that significant energy savings can be attained through greater use of mass transit.

We never learn do we.

Inertia

For energy. And for development patterns. How do you stop a moving freight train with your bare hands?

The Green Facade Falls Hard

We knew he was faking after all of those cuts to transit funding, but give me a freakin break. The Governor plans to circumvent the new California Sprawl law to build highways. This is not green. This is not any color close to green. It's the new black death.

Now, according to sources in the state legislature, the Schwarzenegger administration is proposing to waive all greenhouse gas and pollution restrictions for large transportation and flood projects as part of the "economic stimulus" package proposed for the legislature's special session, convened last week.

Under the administration's proposal, any transportation project funded "in whole or in part" with bond funds would be exempt from comprehensive environmental reviews. That would include most new roads and freeway expansions, which will facilitate millions of new car and truck trips, adding tens of thousands of tons of planet-warming carbon dioxide and other pollutants to the atmosphere.

Friday Night Linkfest

Siemens will hire 200 workers in Sacramento to build light rail cars.
~~~~~~~
Strip malls offer an opportunity to change our development paradigm. The Oregonian:

Strip malls offer a particularly keen opportunity. Look past the big box stores, Nelson said, and you have large, flat, well-drained, developable space linked to existing infrastructure. Broad rights-of-way allow easy access. There is space enough to bring in tracks for light-rail trains or streetcars. They are perfect for much denser, mixed-use developments in which people can live, work, shop and eat, he said.

~~~~~~~

Ask Barack Obama to focus on smart transportation investments. T4America.
~~~~~~~

No light rail? Empty commercial space. Denver Post:

New office buildings opening in southeast Denver are leasing well as long as they're next to a light-rail stop. Developer John Madden's Palazzo Verdi, which has direct access to the light-rail line, is 100 percent leased to Ciber and Newmont Mining. The building opens next week.

But Shea Properties' Maroon V, which does not have direct access to light rail, is sitting vacant. The building opened before Shea's Village Center Station, which is under construction along the rail line and is fully leased. Wireless-service provider Cricket and Shea will occupy the building.

~~~~~~~
Follow the Yellow Brick Railroad for Fort Knox.

~~~~~~~
The question should be: Do you really want to speed up traffic?

Sprawl Spreads in Switzerland

It's not just here. And it's not just auto dependent. But it's just as expensive.

"In 1935, city limits were clearly identifiable," wrote the Science Foundation. This is no longer the case, and many urban areas snake into valleys and along transit routes.

I also imagine a 20 year moratorium on growth would not go over so well here. Though I think here it's called a growth boundary.

Researchers are proposing benchmarks to limit urban sprawl. In August 2008, a coalition of environmental organisations submitted more than 110,000 signatures to the government in support of a 20-year moratorium on new growth.

Governator Signs Sprawl Bill 375

Curbed LA has coverage of what other people are saying. I hope to read up on it some more and give my own views soon.

Roads Unpaid For

I often wonder why there is a double standard. Many critics of the Portland Streetcar point to its success as a function of subsidies for developers. There are some projects in the Pearl that have gotten tax breaks, but let's remember that Homer Williams didn't have to upzone his property from 15 units per acre to over 100. 30% affordable housing and parks were also provided. So while there were breaks, there have also been benefits.

But on the other side, there are roads that are built into no-where because of expected future demand. There are very few cars traveling there at the time, but its expected to grow. So why the double standard? Why say that building a rail line to support future density is worthless while turning your head when a road is built to support future sprawl. One is enabling infrastructure waste and the other efficient development. Especially at a time with increasing energy costs and a need for alternatives.

The blog bleeding heartland covers a local example of this in Iowa.

On a related note, this past Saturday 1000 Friends of Iowa organized a "tour de sprawl" in northern Polk County as part of its annual meeting. The bus tour took us through several areas in the corridor being considered for a four-lane beltway in northeast Polk County.

It is incredible to realize that Congressman Leonard Boswell will be seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding for this road project. A very small number of people would benefit (primarily developers who are buying up farmland near the beltway's path).

Meanwhile, valuable farmland could be lost and irreplaceable natural areas such as the Moeckley Prairie could be threatened.

The opportunity cost of spending hundreds of millions on a new road heading north from Altoona and then east to I-35 would be enormous. Traffic flows do not justify this project through sparsely-populated rural areas, especially when gasoline is expensive and many Americans are seeking alternatives to driving.