5 ms·

Interestingly, Strong Towns published an article a bit more than a week ago about why mandating ground-floor retail is also not the best way to go: https://www

by del82 9y ago

Interestingly, Strong Towns published an article a bit more than a week ago about why mandating ground-floor retail is also not the best way to go: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/1/8/mixed-up-priorities-for-mixed-use-buildings https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/1/8/mixed-up-priori...

davidw 9y ago
He's one of the Market Urbanism ( http://marketurbanism.com/ http://marketurbanism.com/ ) guys, so a bit more on the libertarian edge of things, but it's a good point in any event: cargo cult urbanism is probably better than "suburban experiment" urbanism, but flexibility and adaptability are even better. Edit - one of the really cool things about the growing movement that - broadly - includes YIMBY's, Market Urbanists, Strong Towns and so on is that it really crosses the ideological spectrum. For instance, this quote: "Reforming local land use controls is one of those rare areas in which the libertarian and the progressive agree. The current system restricts the freedom of the property owner, and also makes life harder for poorer Americans. The politics of zoning reform may be hard, but our land use regulations are badly in need of rethinking." From https://www.brookings.edu/research/reforming-land-use-regulations/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/reforming-land-use-regula... Edit 2 if you're interested in Strong Towns, it's a pretty cool group, with Slack ( https://www.strongtowns.org/discussion-board/ https://www.strongtowns.org/discussion-board/ ) and local groups that are starting to form: https://www.strongtowns.org/local/ https://www.strongtowns.org/local/
- closeparen 9y ago
  Pretty sure progressives are strongly aligned on opposition to any housing construction unless it’s specifically set aside for low-income residents, and are okay with low density zoning as an anti-gentrification measure. YIMBYism is more center-left than progressive.
  - davidw 9y ago
    It's kind of a grab bag. Some people get it, some don't. Same on the right - some are aghast at the idea of poor people moving into their neighborhood, others are more "ok, freer markets, that's cool!".
  - beat 9y ago
    It's more complicated than that. The recent Minneapolis mayoral race had housing policy as a major issue, and Minneapolis is nothing if not progressive. Affordability and gentrification are interrelated, but so is quality. I live in a relatively low-density neighborhood of mostly 80-110 year old houses. Lately, we're getting new development in the form of cheap older rentals being torn down, and large-for-the-lots (typical lots are 1/10 acre) new houses being built. These new houses are considerably more expensive than neighborhood average. My above-average house is worth about $300, but a new house two blocks away just sold for $475k before construction was completed. So I have concerns. On the other hand, that new house replaced a run-down rental. A lot of these old houses simply have worn-out bones and will never be good again. Left on their own, they'll contribute to the neighborhood drifting "bad", with cheap rentals. And developers? There's no money in building "affordable" housing. They'll build upscale if they can, because it's much more profitable. What do I want? A better neighborhood, yes, but one where the people who already live here can continue to afford to live here.
    - davidw 9y ago
      There was an article on this very subject the other day: http://www.sightline.org/2018/01/18/every-month-portlands-infill-rules-arent-changed-the-city-looks-more-like-this/ http://www.sightline.org/2018/01/18/every-month-portlands-in...
      - beat 9y ago
        Thanks, that was a really interesting read!
    - tbihl 9y ago
      Well, building today's affordable housing has never been a goal anyone aspires to. We're building 2040/2050's affordable housing: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/8/1/how-luxury-housing-becomes-affordable https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/8/1/how-luxury-hous...
    - zjaffee 9y ago
      Jane Jacobs, one of the historical thought leaders behind modern urban planning, discusses in her book (The Life and Death of American Cities) how thriving neighborhoods have a mix of cheap old real estate and expensive new real estate. The old real-estate allows for places like dive bars, and general affordable housing to exist, where new buildings house chain stores, high end boutiques, and allow the neighborhood to grow to match current demand from new residents. The key issue here is that this cycle works best in the long term, but can cause pain in the short term. Additionally, if the new housing doesn't match the complete incoming demand for the neighborhood, the prices of the old units rise as well furthering displacement. In turn, she advocated for the removal of zoning, for as it stands right now, there is an extreme demand for housing in neighborhoods that are zoned in such a way that restricts their density from matching the demand in addition to pushing commercial activity to fixed locations where prices will always be high due to demand to living within walking distances to stores.
  - nkoren 9y ago
    Are you from San Francisco? I've noticed that "Progressive" has taken on an extremely weird meaning there, which is contrary or at least orthogonal to how it's used everywhere else in the world. Nowhere else that I know of is opposition to urban infill development billed as "progressive".
    - nostrademons 9y ago
      It's non-uniform there, which is a little weird because "progressives" in the Bay Area are arguing strongly for more infill development while other "progressives" are arguing strongly against new development. I think it's because San Francisco was "progressive" back in the 60s, which means that there's been time for the past couple generations of progressives to become entrenched NIMBY's with a vested interest in the status quo while still maintaining their "progressive" identity. It's a very weird yet oddly lovable city.
      - wahern 9y ago
        IME it's because SF homeowners have created a narrative that says any new development threatens (and can only ever threaten) rent control. There are many theories--induced demand, Ellis Act evictions, destruction of rent-controller properties--but the narrative is the same. Therefore, if you're worried about protecting the security of renters (who constitute about 2/3 of residents) and especially low-income renters then unless you know any better the predominate political narrative is to oppose new development. The narrative is deeply entrenched. For example, the narrative says (among other things) that new development destroys rent controlled properties as any building newer than 1995 is exempt from rent control under state law. But rather than lobby to change the state law to make it easier to expand rent control (i.e. some sort of quid pro quo--expand rent control at the same pace as new development so total rent-controlled units stay the same) people just reflexively oppose new development. Because homeowners have co-opted the disparate opposition groups, the potential for compromise and novel solutions is stonewalled and never communicated through normal channels (community groups, neighborhood papers, ballot initiatives, City Hall backrooms, etc). All the voters know is to oppose development. Full stop.
      - 9y ago
jstarfish 9y ago
I think some cities (suburban Atlanta, for one, probably the city in Kentucky from TFA as well) have the "if you build it, they will come" approach to mixed-use development, which is just backwards. It doesn't work if you throw up isolated pockets of mixed-use buildings in the suburbs that one still has to use a car to traverse. I feel especially bad for entrepreneurs that open places like bakeries or restaurants in these islands. Those are the sorts of places you draw passerbys in with colorful window displays and hunger-inducing smells. People whizzing by in their cars aren't enticed by either as they speed by. These places all close shop within a year or two, and we end up with empty retail shops on the ground floor for years.
Eridrus 9y ago
I also found this article really interesting: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/11/27/the-paradox-of-persistent-vacancies-and-high-prices https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/11/27/the-paradox-o... I'd heard this argument before that places are kept vacant to justify loans, but no-one had mentioned the key point that these buildings are financed with 3-5 year loans that need to be constantly refreshed, which makes the charade make more sense.
philipodonnell 9y ago
#2 and #3 seem reasonable, but are largely out of the local government's control and both are chicken-egg situations. If it was the most profitable use of the space to do mixed retail then developers would, but its not, so they don't. But the city wants mixed use retail because its better for the citizens, and they have the legal authority to force developers to make slightly less money in exchange to improve the city for its citizens, just as they do with any other taxes, so I don't see why they shouldn't. #2 and #3 (and probably #1) should then follow? #1 is a cop-out. We can't require mixed use retail because none of our developers (who are experts at residential leasing) will admit to having the expertise to do mixed use retail leasing. Its not that different nor is it rocket science.
zjaffee 9y ago
Much of this is the result of high retail rental prices where there are no vacancy taxes to push property companies to rent out their units. The key issue here is that in rapidly gentrifying neighborhoods, the term on most retail leases is too long, where property owners know that if they wait it out, they will eventually find a tenant willing to pay a high premium on the space. If they were willing to offer the space to a dive bar for 1000 a month, they would have no problem finding a tenant. The issue is they are asking for far more than that, where they only want tenants such as boutique stores or restaurants that are relatively clean.
dx034 9y ago
You can see that in parts of London. If you have more retail-only space than demand, the area quickly deteriorates. It's much better to have some retail space mixed with offices. That allows to react more flexibly to changes in demand.

by del82 9y ago

davidw 9y ago

He's one of the Market Urbanism ( http://marketurbanism.com/ http://marketurbanism.com/ ) guys, so a bit more on the libertarian edge of things, but it's a good point in any event: cargo cult urbanism is probably better than "suburban experiment" urbanism, but flexibility and adaptability are even better. Edit - one of the really cool things about the growing movement that - broadly - includes YIMBY's, Market Urbanists, Strong Towns and so on is that it really crosses the ideological spectrum. For instance, this quote: "Reforming local land use controls is one of those rare areas in which the libertarian and the progressive agree. The current system restricts the freedom of the property owner, and also makes life harder for poorer Americans. The politics of zoning reform may be hard, but our land use regulations are badly in need of rethinking." From https://www.brookings.edu/research/reforming-land-use-regulations/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/reforming-land-use-regula... Edit 2 if you're interested in Strong Towns, it's a pretty cool group, with Slack ( https://www.strongtowns.org/discussion-board/ https://www.strongtowns.org/discussion-board/ ) and local groups that are starting to form: https://www.strongtowns.org/local/ https://www.strongtowns.org/local/

closeparen 9y ago
Pretty sure progressives are strongly aligned on opposition to any housing construction unless it’s specifically set aside for low-income residents, and are okay with low density zoning as an anti-gentrification measure. YIMBYism is more center-left than progressive.
- davidw 9y ago
  It's kind of a grab bag. Some people get it, some don't. Same on the right - some are aghast at the idea of poor people moving into their neighborhood, others are more "ok, freer markets, that's cool!".
- beat 9y ago
  It's more complicated than that. The recent Minneapolis mayoral race had housing policy as a major issue, and Minneapolis is nothing if not progressive. Affordability and gentrification are interrelated, but so is quality. I live in a relatively low-density neighborhood of mostly 80-110 year old houses. Lately, we're getting new development in the form of cheap older rentals being torn down, and large-for-the-lots (typical lots are 1/10 acre) new houses being built. These new houses are considerably more expensive than neighborhood average. My above-average house is worth about $300, but a new house two blocks away just sold for $475k before construction was completed. So I have concerns. On the other hand, that new house replaced a run-down rental. A lot of these old houses simply have worn-out bones and will never be good again. Left on their own, they'll contribute to the neighborhood drifting "bad", with cheap rentals. And developers? There's no money in building "affordable" housing. They'll build upscale if they can, because it's much more profitable. What do I want? A better neighborhood, yes, but one where the people who already live here can continue to afford to live here.
  - davidw 9y ago
    There was an article on this very subject the other day: http://www.sightline.org/2018/01/18/every-month-portlands-infill-rules-arent-changed-the-city-looks-more-like-this/ http://www.sightline.org/2018/01/18/every-month-portlands-in...
    - beat 9y ago
      Thanks, that was a really interesting read!
  - tbihl 9y ago
    Well, building today's affordable housing has never been a goal anyone aspires to. We're building 2040/2050's affordable housing: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/8/1/how-luxury-housing-becomes-affordable https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/8/1/how-luxury-hous...
  - zjaffee 9y ago
    Jane Jacobs, one of the historical thought leaders behind modern urban planning, discusses in her book (The Life and Death of American Cities) how thriving neighborhoods have a mix of cheap old real estate and expensive new real estate. The old real-estate allows for places like dive bars, and general affordable housing to exist, where new buildings house chain stores, high end boutiques, and allow the neighborhood to grow to match current demand from new residents. The key issue here is that this cycle works best in the long term, but can cause pain in the short term. Additionally, if the new housing doesn't match the complete incoming demand for the neighborhood, the prices of the old units rise as well furthering displacement. In turn, she advocated for the removal of zoning, for as it stands right now, there is an extreme demand for housing in neighborhoods that are zoned in such a way that restricts their density from matching the demand in addition to pushing commercial activity to fixed locations where prices will always be high due to demand to living within walking distances to stores.
- nkoren 9y ago
  Are you from San Francisco? I've noticed that "Progressive" has taken on an extremely weird meaning there, which is contrary or at least orthogonal to how it's used everywhere else in the world. Nowhere else that I know of is opposition to urban infill development billed as "progressive".
  - nostrademons 9y ago
    It's non-uniform there, which is a little weird because "progressives" in the Bay Area are arguing strongly for more infill development while other "progressives" are arguing strongly against new development. I think it's because San Francisco was "progressive" back in the 60s, which means that there's been time for the past couple generations of progressives to become entrenched NIMBY's with a vested interest in the status quo while still maintaining their "progressive" identity. It's a very weird yet oddly lovable city.
    - wahern 9y ago
      IME it's because SF homeowners have created a narrative that says any new development threatens (and can only ever threaten) rent control. There are many theories--induced demand, Ellis Act evictions, destruction of rent-controller properties--but the narrative is the same. Therefore, if you're worried about protecting the security of renters (who constitute about 2/3 of residents) and especially low-income renters then unless you know any better the predominate political narrative is to oppose new development. The narrative is deeply entrenched. For example, the narrative says (among other things) that new development destroys rent controlled properties as any building newer than 1995 is exempt from rent control under state law. But rather than lobby to change the state law to make it easier to expand rent control (i.e. some sort of quid pro quo--expand rent control at the same pace as new development so total rent-controlled units stay the same) people just reflexively oppose new development. Because homeowners have co-opted the disparate opposition groups, the potential for compromise and novel solutions is stonewalled and never communicated through normal channels (community groups, neighborhood papers, ballot initiatives, City Hall backrooms, etc). All the voters know is to oppose development. Full stop.
    - 9y ago

jstarfish 9y ago

I think some cities (suburban Atlanta, for one, probably the city in Kentucky from TFA as well) have the "if you build it, they will come" approach to mixed-use development, which is just backwards. It doesn't work if you throw up isolated pockets of mixed-use buildings in the suburbs that one still has to use a car to traverse. I feel especially bad for entrepreneurs that open places like bakeries or restaurants in these islands. Those are the sorts of places you draw passerbys in with colorful window displays and hunger-inducing smells. People whizzing by in their cars aren't enticed by either as they speed by. These places all close shop within a year or two, and we end up with empty retail shops on the ground floor for years.

Eridrus 9y ago

I also found this article really interesting: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/11/27/the-paradox-of-persistent-vacancies-and-high-prices https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/11/27/the-paradox-o... I'd heard this argument before that places are kept vacant to justify loans, but no-one had mentioned the key point that these buildings are financed with 3-5 year loans that need to be constantly refreshed, which makes the charade make more sense.

philipodonnell 9y ago

#2 and #3 seem reasonable, but are largely out of the local government's control and both are chicken-egg situations. If it was the most profitable use of the space to do mixed retail then developers would, but its not, so they don't. But the city wants mixed use retail because its better for the citizens, and they have the legal authority to force developers to make slightly less money in exchange to improve the city for its citizens, just as they do with any other taxes, so I don't see why they shouldn't. #2 and #3 (and probably #1) should then follow? #1 is a cop-out. We can't require mixed use retail because none of our developers (who are experts at residential leasing) will admit to having the expertise to do mixed use retail leasing. Its not that different nor is it rocket science.

zjaffee 9y ago

Much of this is the result of high retail rental prices where there are no vacancy taxes to push property companies to rent out their units. The key issue here is that in rapidly gentrifying neighborhoods, the term on most retail leases is too long, where property owners know that if they wait it out, they will eventually find a tenant willing to pay a high premium on the space. If they were willing to offer the space to a dive bar for 1000 a month, they would have no problem finding a tenant. The issue is they are asking for far more than that, where they only want tenants such as boutique stores or restaurants that are relatively clean.

dx034 9y ago

You can see that in parts of London. If you have more retail-only space than demand, the area quickly deteriorates. It's much better to have some retail space mixed with offices. That allows to react more flexibly to changes in demand.