4 ms·

The main obstacle to building upwards in American cities is the illegality of it. It's zoned, and coded and regulated to death, and can only be done in a small

The main obstacle to building upwards in American cities is the illegality of it. It's zoned, and coded and regulated to death, and can only be done in a small portion of the land around. Suburban sprawl, meanwhile, remains actively subsidized. So if your high rise builders are hobbled, OF COURSE more sprawl will be the only way to address increasing demand.

arbuge 10y ago
Source? I suspect that building say 200 apartment units requires similar red tape whether done vertically or horizontally.
- ocschwar 10y ago
  Visit strongtowns.org and citylab.com among other sites.
jseliger 10y ago
Tokyo is also never mentioned in the article: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/023562e2-54a6-11e6-befd-2fc0c26b3c60.html http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/023562e2-54a6-11e6-befd-2fc0c26b3c..., but it should be.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  The example of Tokyo undermines GP but actually confirms TFA. Lots of medium-rise buildings, extending to the horizon in all directions. The excellent transit makes the situation (only) somewhat bearable. Commute times are inversely proportional to income, up to a point.
- WildUtah 10y ago
  There are eight megacities of 10MM or more people in the first world. Some of them sprawl, others allow reasonable densities in newly built neighborhoods. Reasonable density, in this case, means 100 or more, about what you get from building 2-3 stories, allowing buildings with very small setbacks, not requiring excessive parking, and allowing retail and commercial uses to mix in neighborhoods. Most highly desirable San Francisco neighborhoods are built at such density but such building is illegal in America. Here they are, in order of inaccessibility and unaffordability to the middle class. 1. New York (Sprawls) 2. London (Doesn't) 3. Los Angeles (Sprawls) 4. Paris (Doesn't) 5. Tokyo (Doesn't) 6. Mexico City (Doesn't) 7. Seoul (Doesn't) 8. Osaka (Doesn't) San Francisco sprawls and matches the high end of the list. Not much evidence for the op's thesis.
  - cardiffspaceman 10y ago
    Excessive parking: Two areas of San Diego have lots of restaurants, bars and clubs. There is also lots of "free" parking attached to some of the businesses in these areas. This parking is not available to the visitors to the restaurants, bars or clubs, which surprisingly have less parking. One bar I frequent has four parking spaces and way more than 16 chairs to sit on inside. The free parking is restricted to patrons of the business the spaces are attached to. If all the parking was paid parking, it would tend to be in reach of multiple businesses so one could pick up some Tums after a meal at a restaurant without first moving the car. I have daydreamed about reforming parking and adding in short hop buses like the jitneys that Atlantic City had for a few years, so you go to the dense business district, visit many businesses from one parking spot.
antisthenes 10y ago
And the illegality comes from NIMBYs, who want all the benefits of the city with none of the downsides, but only for themselves of course.
buckbova 10y ago
Downtown high-rise condos are always way more costly than the equivalent size condo 20 miles out. Build a bunch of three story condos out on some cheap land and you don't even need an elevator or parking garages because there's room for covered outdoor parking. Build a high rise and you have all sorts of cost with putting something 20 stories high. Just the materials cost more. It also takes longer to break ground and build.
- TulliusCicero 10y ago
  If the condo twenty miles out is in the middle of nowhere, it may not be any cheaper, once you factor in the cost of building out infrastructure there and providing public services further out. Often times these things are subsidized though, so Americans don't realize how expensive things actually are. A good example is when someone in a rural area is outraged when the cable company says it'll cost a couple grand to wire up their house that's a ways off from any main road. Like, did you think that stuff was just free?
  - ghaff 10y ago
    Not outraged at all. Plus I have my own septic, I pay for trash service, I pay for plowing, I pay for a propane tank and oil.
  - antisthenes 10y ago
    > If the condo twenty miles out is in the middle of nowhere, it may not be any cheaper, once you factor in the cost of building out infrastructure there and providing public services further out. Often times these things are subsidized though, so Americans don't realize how expensive things actually are. That's the textbook case of privatizing the profits and socializing the losses. The infrastructure you're talking about will be built by the city/state and the costs borne by everyone who lives up to the point of that condo 20 miles out. When things are not subsidized, the developers only end up building luxury condos in urban areas, which is the case for most large metro areas right now.
    - TulliusCicero 10y ago

arbuge 10y ago

Source? I suspect that building say 200 apartment units requires similar red tape whether done vertically or horizontally.

ocschwar 10y ago
Visit strongtowns.org and citylab.com among other sites.

jseliger 10y ago

Tokyo is also never mentioned in the article: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/023562e2-54a6-11e6-befd-2fc0c26b3c60.html http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/023562e2-54a6-11e6-befd-2fc0c26b3c..., but it should be.

jessaustin 10y ago
The example of Tokyo undermines GP but actually confirms TFA. Lots of medium-rise buildings, extending to the horizon in all directions. The excellent transit makes the situation (only) somewhat bearable. Commute times are inversely proportional to income, up to a point.
WildUtah 10y ago
There are eight megacities of 10MM or more people in the first world. Some of them sprawl, others allow reasonable densities in newly built neighborhoods. Reasonable density, in this case, means 100 or more, about what you get from building 2-3 stories, allowing buildings with very small setbacks, not requiring excessive parking, and allowing retail and commercial uses to mix in neighborhoods. Most highly desirable San Francisco neighborhoods are built at such density but such building is illegal in America. Here they are, in order of inaccessibility and unaffordability to the middle class. 1. New York (Sprawls) 2. London (Doesn't) 3. Los Angeles (Sprawls) 4. Paris (Doesn't) 5. Tokyo (Doesn't) 6. Mexico City (Doesn't) 7. Seoul (Doesn't) 8. Osaka (Doesn't) San Francisco sprawls and matches the high end of the list. Not much evidence for the op's thesis.
- cardiffspaceman 10y ago
  Excessive parking: Two areas of San Diego have lots of restaurants, bars and clubs. There is also lots of "free" parking attached to some of the businesses in these areas. This parking is not available to the visitors to the restaurants, bars or clubs, which surprisingly have less parking. One bar I frequent has four parking spaces and way more than 16 chairs to sit on inside. The free parking is restricted to patrons of the business the spaces are attached to. If all the parking was paid parking, it would tend to be in reach of multiple businesses so one could pick up some Tums after a meal at a restaurant without first moving the car. I have daydreamed about reforming parking and adding in short hop buses like the jitneys that Atlantic City had for a few years, so you go to the dense business district, visit many businesses from one parking spot.

antisthenes 10y ago

And the illegality comes from NIMBYs, who want all the benefits of the city with none of the downsides, but only for themselves of course.

buckbova 10y ago

Downtown high-rise condos are always way more costly than the equivalent size condo 20 miles out. Build a bunch of three story condos out on some cheap land and you don't even need an elevator or parking garages because there's room for covered outdoor parking. Build a high rise and you have all sorts of cost with putting something 20 stories high. Just the materials cost more. It also takes longer to break ground and build.

TulliusCicero 10y ago
If the condo twenty miles out is in the middle of nowhere, it may not be any cheaper, once you factor in the cost of building out infrastructure there and providing public services further out. Often times these things are subsidized though, so Americans don't realize how expensive things actually are. A good example is when someone in a rural area is outraged when the cable company says it'll cost a couple grand to wire up their house that's a ways off from any main road. Like, did you think that stuff was just free?
- ghaff 10y ago
  Not outraged at all. Plus I have my own septic, I pay for trash service, I pay for plowing, I pay for a propane tank and oil.
- antisthenes 10y ago
  > If the condo twenty miles out is in the middle of nowhere, it may not be any cheaper, once you factor in the cost of building out infrastructure there and providing public services further out. Often times these things are subsidized though, so Americans don't realize how expensive things actually are. That's the textbook case of privatizing the profits and socializing the losses. The infrastructure you're talking about will be built by the city/state and the costs borne by everyone who lives up to the point of that condo 20 miles out. When things are not subsidized, the developers only end up building luxury condos in urban areas, which is the case for most large metro areas right now.
  - TulliusCicero 10y ago