8 ms·

I'd like to see a little more from new urbanists than for them to endlessly restate their thesis. Yes, okay, we've now seen the 1,000th reiteration of the idea

I'd like to see a little more from new urbanists than for them to endlessly restate their thesis. Yes, okay, we've now seen the 1,000th reiteration of the idea that dense mixed use residential/commercial developments have a number of advantages. How do we actually get there? Is "just" changing zoning actually enough? Is there a case study? Over what time-frame? With what downsides? NIMBYism isn't a magical spell cast by Satan: it's an organic outgrowth of people's incentives. What is the way around it? I don't believe that then 1,001st reiteration of the advantages of mixed use developments is the answer. What kind of compromises work to keep NIMBYism from obstructing all of these developments?

avn2109 10y ago
This is not directly what you want, but a better statement of the article's fundamental claim is given here: http://newworldeconomics.com/the-eco-metropolis/ http://newworldeconomics.com/the-eco-metropolis/ and the other articles on that site give some ideas about how to make it work.
- mistermann 10y ago
  Thanks for the link, good read. Good to see Mr. Kuntsler is still fighting the good fight, haven't come across him for a long time. > Now, the funny thing is that the New Suburbanists don’t hold any other urban place as an ideal either. They don’t point to a single urban place in the world and say, “yes, this is what I want.” But the fact is, the world has a good selection of functioning, enjoyable, pleasant metropolises. Tokyo is my favorite > My definition of an urban environment is one where it is easier to not own a car than to own one. Totally agree with this, and I simply can't understand why neighborhoods like this are so rare in North America. Tokyo, from what little time I've spent there, strikes me as a near perfect lifestyle, such a high proportion of completely walkable neighborhoods, plenty of green parks, plenty of incredible and cheap places to eat, and all connected by an efficient train system. Granted, population helps a lot in this, but it's certainly not something we could work towards in most places. Vancouver Canada has quite a few neighborhoods that are fairly similar, but the problem with moving forward is the demand for housing is so high such that as soon as something is zoned for building towards this model, the price of the land immediately rises to the point where you practically have to be a millionaire (at least) to buy anything more than 500 square feet. Because of this, this city center is doomed as far as I can tell, but I see no reason we couldn't start building mini-self-sufficient towns like this in the suburbs with the "town centre" surrounding the train station...yet, I'd bet money that we will not for reasons unknown to me.
  - umanwizard 10y ago
    > you have to be a millionaire to buy You don't have to buy property somewhere to live there and most people throughout history have not done so, and as far as I'm aware most continue not to do so now in places like NYC, Paris, Tokyo, etc.
davidw 10y ago
> Is "just" changing zoning actually enough? Is there a case study? Changing zoning and eliminating minimum parking requirements, height limitations and setbacks is a good start. Case studies? Towns in the US before zoning, and much of modern Europe? Politically... it's a much tougher problem. People are used to their 'burbs and feel they have a right to tell other people what to do with their own land. Signing up for organizations like the various YIMBY groups, Strong Towns, and so on is probably a good first step. If you don't have a local YIMBY group - make one!
- mjevans 10y ago
  I want my car. I need my car for when I drive to places NOT in the city. Like visiting family. Make it so I can still store my car (near) my unit. Also that there's a GOOD loading dock so I can get items to/from my unit and transport. This might be a mega-garage at the edge of a city with moving belt people movers and giant commercial promenades that are covered indoor malls /between/ buildings. It might just be more parking under the building out of sight. I also NEED sufficient privacy. I don't want to hear my neighbors slamming the microwave around, food processioning, or cleaning. Nor do I want to hear that idiot above me who thuds around too much. Build it in to the fire and privacy codes that there WILL be walls of sufficient thickness. Make that inner wall a complete full one, no plumbing or electrical/etc. That's where all of the insulation goes. That's the disconnect between units. Then /outside/ of that build the utility / facing wall that isn't for support, it's for finishing and routing of wall items. The roof? I'm not sure how to handle that other than, maybe something similar. Then, what I want, give me a good choice of true high-speed (Ethernet/Fiber) ISPs. Also, what other people want. Do all of the above, but also build in PLENTY of FAMILY sized units. Units with 4+ real rooms and a common area. Also make it easier to sublet within those rooms for friends (this means the inner doors might need locks as well, and should also sound-isolate).
  - davidw 10y ago
    These are all things you can absolutely pay to have under a market-based system. More mixed-use housing does not mean there won't be other kinds of housing. Markets would probably also provide units without all the above and while you may not want to live there, perhaps someone would accept it rather than not be able to live in an area at all.
galdosdi 10y ago
For god's sakes, just let property owners do what they want with their property (within limits of safety). If they want to keep it empty or a small 1 family house, let them, and don't let their neighbors or city government bully them into building larger. If they want to build (or sell to someone who will build) a large apartment building, let them do that too. You'll gradually get more density and less traffic this way over time, assuming that's what people want (and if it's not, they'll get what they want instead) The root of the problem is the impulse to be disgusted by your neighbor's choices, and wishing to harness violent force (government rules) to force your neighbor to conform to your wishes. Enough already.
- mjevans 10y ago
  Sure, but also TAX the property based on it's /potential/ value. A land owner close to where the city is now shouldn't be able to squat on that land at the cost of the opportunity it can provide to the neighborhood(s) around it.
  - wozniacki 10y ago
    Please elaborate. Should we also TAX vacant or idle storefronts that seem to have zero foot traffic any given hour of any given day? (SF seems to have dozens of those every city block. One wonders if those are some kind of fronts for illicit activities. They seem to never change ownership even with skyrocketing rents for office space nearby.) Should a street level business that serves a large number of residents, get TAX BREAKS? Like a grocery store that vends fresh produce as opposed to a boutique book store that specializes in first editions? Should they also get favorable lease terms, mandated by the city? Should businesses that, by nature, serve out of town-ers be forced to move to designated neighborhoods? Should empty storefronts be forced to take up tenants who could serve the needs of the residents? Is TAXING even the solution to any of these problems?
    - mistermann 10y ago
      It's probably very complicated, but I would answer yes to many of these questions. I think it would be worthwhile investigating a model where every home has a mini-grocery with affordable prices within 2 blocks of every home in these neighborhoods - and to achieve affordable prices, there may have to be some tax breaks involved, with some accompanying price limits on "staples" (bread, milk, etc). Difficult, yes; impossible, no; worth it, I think so.
nosuchthing 10y ago
Incentives for density. California has a loophole in property tax which facilitates hording and speculation (evaluation only occurs at time of purchase, not annually reevaluated), this is why there's still so many empty lots and empty buildings in metro areas. Reevaluate property tax / land value tax each year along with sensible zoning and development permits. Attend your local town hall meetings and offer counter arguments against NIMBYs and real estate leaches.
jzwinck 10y ago
For cities you might look to Singapore. Many people find that owning a car is not necessary when the externalities are priced in. Singapore's Certificate of Entitlement system partly rectifies this using an open auction. The current price for a 10 year registration is about 35k USD. Some people still own cars but at least they think twice, and often share one per family. And not having so many cars per capita means non-luxury businesses must cater to public transit users. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_Entitlement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_Entitlement
- ghaff 10y ago
  Singapore in general is probably the best example of what a wealthy urban benevolent dictatorship looks like. Their Single City Gallery (basically their urban planning museum) is a must visit for anyone interested in that sort of thing. Whether that's a desirable or practical model for a US city, I'll leave to others.
  - umanwizard 10y ago
    Singapore is not a dictatorship by any means. It is listed as a "flawed democracy" by the Economist: the same qualitative rating they give to the United States.
    - dangjc 10y ago
      The Singapore government controls all the major press outlets and sues political opponents into bankruptcy. A single party has won every election since independence. The US has flaws, but in a completely different way from Singapore.
bane 10y ago
Simple, apply money. Ungodly amounts of money. An example, Tyson's Corner, VA was developed over the decades as a car friendly tangle of office parks and commercial shopping. It has something like 160,000 parking spaces with a population under 20,000. The area is in the beginning of a major 40 year redevelopment plan that will cost a nontrivial percentage of a trillion dollars. https://www.washingtonian.com/2015/03/29/the-audacious-plan-to-turn-a-sprawling-dc-suburb-into-a-big-city/ https://www.washingtonian.com/2015/03/29/the-audacious-plan-...
- ghaff 10y ago
  One of the last times I was there, I remember I was staying in some hotel and could literally see the shopping center with the restaurant I was planning to eat in across the road. I had to get in my car because there was no way to safely cross the single road between where I was and where I wanted to get to.
graeme 10y ago
The description I heard of the Japanese zoning system seemed pretty good: zones increased in terms of noise and irritants. In, say, zone 1, you could have low rise houses, but no commercial centers. But in the commercial zone, you could have houses. So the zones set an upper bound but not a lower bound. More info: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12325992 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12325992 So you could start with the commercial zones and simply allow them to become mixed use. And for new developments, you could authorize mixed use cases. In a lot of areas they're currently forbidden, even with no existing residents.
averagewall 10y ago
How do we get there? Hop on a plane to China. Nearly any city there is high density mixed use.
Pxtl 10y ago
Pay off the neighbors. The benefits of intensification are city wide and not local, so create a local benefit.

avn2109 10y ago

This is not directly what you want, but a better statement of the article's fundamental claim is given here: http://newworldeconomics.com/the-eco-metropolis/ http://newworldeconomics.com/the-eco-metropolis/ and the other articles on that site give some ideas about how to make it work.

mistermann 10y ago
Thanks for the link, good read. Good to see Mr. Kuntsler is still fighting the good fight, haven't come across him for a long time. > Now, the funny thing is that the New Suburbanists don’t hold any other urban place as an ideal either. They don’t point to a single urban place in the world and say, “yes, this is what I want.” But the fact is, the world has a good selection of functioning, enjoyable, pleasant metropolises. Tokyo is my favorite > My definition of an urban environment is one where it is easier to not own a car than to own one. Totally agree with this, and I simply can't understand why neighborhoods like this are so rare in North America. Tokyo, from what little time I've spent there, strikes me as a near perfect lifestyle, such a high proportion of completely walkable neighborhoods, plenty of green parks, plenty of incredible and cheap places to eat, and all connected by an efficient train system. Granted, population helps a lot in this, but it's certainly not something we could work towards in most places. Vancouver Canada has quite a few neighborhoods that are fairly similar, but the problem with moving forward is the demand for housing is so high such that as soon as something is zoned for building towards this model, the price of the land immediately rises to the point where you practically have to be a millionaire (at least) to buy anything more than 500 square feet. Because of this, this city center is doomed as far as I can tell, but I see no reason we couldn't start building mini-self-sufficient towns like this in the suburbs with the "town centre" surrounding the train station...yet, I'd bet money that we will not for reasons unknown to me.
- umanwizard 10y ago
  > you have to be a millionaire to buy You don't have to buy property somewhere to live there and most people throughout history have not done so, and as far as I'm aware most continue not to do so now in places like NYC, Paris, Tokyo, etc.

davidw 10y ago

> Is "just" changing zoning actually enough? Is there a case study? Changing zoning and eliminating minimum parking requirements, height limitations and setbacks is a good start. Case studies? Towns in the US before zoning, and much of modern Europe? Politically... it's a much tougher problem. People are used to their 'burbs and feel they have a right to tell other people what to do with their own land. Signing up for organizations like the various YIMBY groups, Strong Towns, and so on is probably a good first step. If you don't have a local YIMBY group - make one!

mjevans 10y ago
I want my car. I need my car for when I drive to places NOT in the city. Like visiting family. Make it so I can still store my car (near) my unit. Also that there's a GOOD loading dock so I can get items to/from my unit and transport. This might be a mega-garage at the edge of a city with moving belt people movers and giant commercial promenades that are covered indoor malls /between/ buildings. It might just be more parking under the building out of sight. I also NEED sufficient privacy. I don't want to hear my neighbors slamming the microwave around, food processioning, or cleaning. Nor do I want to hear that idiot above me who thuds around too much. Build it in to the fire and privacy codes that there WILL be walls of sufficient thickness. Make that inner wall a complete full one, no plumbing or electrical/etc. That's where all of the insulation goes. That's the disconnect between units. Then /outside/ of that build the utility / facing wall that isn't for support, it's for finishing and routing of wall items. The roof? I'm not sure how to handle that other than, maybe something similar. Then, what I want, give me a good choice of true high-speed (Ethernet/Fiber) ISPs. Also, what other people want. Do all of the above, but also build in PLENTY of FAMILY sized units. Units with 4+ real rooms and a common area. Also make it easier to sublet within those rooms for friends (this means the inner doors might need locks as well, and should also sound-isolate).
- davidw 10y ago
  These are all things you can absolutely pay to have under a market-based system. More mixed-use housing does not mean there won't be other kinds of housing. Markets would probably also provide units without all the above and while you may not want to live there, perhaps someone would accept it rather than not be able to live in an area at all.

galdosdi 10y ago

For god's sakes, just let property owners do what they want with their property (within limits of safety). If they want to keep it empty or a small 1 family house, let them, and don't let their neighbors or city government bully them into building larger. If they want to build (or sell to someone who will build) a large apartment building, let them do that too. You'll gradually get more density and less traffic this way over time, assuming that's what people want (and if it's not, they'll get what they want instead) The root of the problem is the impulse to be disgusted by your neighbor's choices, and wishing to harness violent force (government rules) to force your neighbor to conform to your wishes. Enough already.

mjevans 10y ago
Sure, but also TAX the property based on it's /potential/ value. A land owner close to where the city is now shouldn't be able to squat on that land at the cost of the opportunity it can provide to the neighborhood(s) around it.
- wozniacki 10y ago
  Please elaborate. Should we also TAX vacant or idle storefronts that seem to have zero foot traffic any given hour of any given day? (SF seems to have dozens of those every city block. One wonders if those are some kind of fronts for illicit activities. They seem to never change ownership even with skyrocketing rents for office space nearby.) Should a street level business that serves a large number of residents, get TAX BREAKS? Like a grocery store that vends fresh produce as opposed to a boutique book store that specializes in first editions? Should they also get favorable lease terms, mandated by the city? Should businesses that, by nature, serve out of town-ers be forced to move to designated neighborhoods? Should empty storefronts be forced to take up tenants who could serve the needs of the residents? Is TAXING even the solution to any of these problems?
  - mistermann 10y ago
    It's probably very complicated, but I would answer yes to many of these questions. I think it would be worthwhile investigating a model where every home has a mini-grocery with affordable prices within 2 blocks of every home in these neighborhoods - and to achieve affordable prices, there may have to be some tax breaks involved, with some accompanying price limits on "staples" (bread, milk, etc). Difficult, yes; impossible, no; worth it, I think so.

nosuchthing 10y ago

Incentives for density. California has a loophole in property tax which facilitates hording and speculation (evaluation only occurs at time of purchase, not annually reevaluated), this is why there's still so many empty lots and empty buildings in metro areas. Reevaluate property tax / land value tax each year along with sensible zoning and development permits. Attend your local town hall meetings and offer counter arguments against NIMBYs and real estate leaches.

jzwinck 10y ago

For cities you might look to Singapore. Many people find that owning a car is not necessary when the externalities are priced in. Singapore's Certificate of Entitlement system partly rectifies this using an open auction. The current price for a 10 year registration is about 35k USD. Some people still own cars but at least they think twice, and often share one per family. And not having so many cars per capita means non-luxury businesses must cater to public transit users. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_Entitlement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_Entitlement

ghaff 10y ago
Singapore in general is probably the best example of what a wealthy urban benevolent dictatorship looks like. Their Single City Gallery (basically their urban planning museum) is a must visit for anyone interested in that sort of thing. Whether that's a desirable or practical model for a US city, I'll leave to others.
- umanwizard 10y ago
  Singapore is not a dictatorship by any means. It is listed as a "flawed democracy" by the Economist: the same qualitative rating they give to the United States.
  - dangjc 10y ago
    The Singapore government controls all the major press outlets and sues political opponents into bankruptcy. A single party has won every election since independence. The US has flaws, but in a completely different way from Singapore.

bane 10y ago

Simple, apply money. Ungodly amounts of money. An example, Tyson's Corner, VA was developed over the decades as a car friendly tangle of office parks and commercial shopping. It has something like 160,000 parking spaces with a population under 20,000. The area is in the beginning of a major 40 year redevelopment plan that will cost a nontrivial percentage of a trillion dollars. https://www.washingtonian.com/2015/03/29/the-audacious-plan-to-turn-a-sprawling-dc-suburb-into-a-big-city/ https://www.washingtonian.com/2015/03/29/the-audacious-plan-...

ghaff 10y ago
One of the last times I was there, I remember I was staying in some hotel and could literally see the shopping center with the restaurant I was planning to eat in across the road. I had to get in my car because there was no way to safely cross the single road between where I was and where I wanted to get to.

graeme 10y ago

The description I heard of the Japanese zoning system seemed pretty good: zones increased in terms of noise and irritants. In, say, zone 1, you could have low rise houses, but no commercial centers. But in the commercial zone, you could have houses. So the zones set an upper bound but not a lower bound. More info: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12325992 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12325992 So you could start with the commercial zones and simply allow them to become mixed use. And for new developments, you could authorize mixed use cases. In a lot of areas they're currently forbidden, even with no existing residents.

averagewall 10y ago

How do we get there? Hop on a plane to China. Nearly any city there is high density mixed use.

Pxtl 10y ago

Pay off the neighbors. The benefits of intensification are city wide and not local, so create a local benefit.