6 ms·

>If so many people live in suburbs, it must be because that’s what they prefer, right? But the evidence is to the contrary. This article makes its point from t

by Isamu 8y ago

>If so many people live in suburbs, it must be because that’s what they prefer, right? But the evidence is to the contrary. This article makes its point from the book "Zoned Out" (2005.) Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the argument is that zoning policies make suburban sprawl, not free markets. They argue that if zoning restrictions were lifted and development responded to free market forces, higher density housing would result and more people would prefer that to sprawl. I think that might be true - moderately. You might get a relative increase of higher-density housing. But I think sprawl just represents a long tail of real preferences among the population. It may be relative price, it may be having a yard, it may be the suburban school districts, it can be all kinds of things. And yeah, if people had control, the suburbs wouldn't sprawl forever. It would be just their nice suburban neighborhood and everybody else could be jammed into the city.

tfehring 8y ago
The article seems to support this argument: >In Boston, about 40 percent of respondents said they preferred denser, more pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods, while in Atlanta, just under 30 percent of respondents did so. In the absence of prohibitive zoning laws and other restrictions, the split between urban and exurban properties should converge to align with consumer preferences. Of course, it’s possible that consumer preferences will change if increased urban development results in lower crime, cheaper housing, better schools and transit, etc.
- mc32 8y ago
  Not sure about Atlanta but Boston suburban lots tend to be about half an acre, the ones outside of the 495, closer to an acre. Inside the 128 they do get smallish though. So given those sizes, I’m not surprised people are okay with “more density”.
  - AvocadoPanic 8y ago
    We're just outside the 495, our lot is just under 5 acres. There's a acre minimum zoning requirement in some areas, but most lots in our area are larger.
    - mcbits 8y ago
      Judging by Zillow's map, 5+ acre lots are a small minority of the properties in that area. Probably less than 10%, although 10% could feel like "most" compared to places where it's closer to 0%.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
twblalock 8y ago
> But I think sprawl just represents a long tail of real preferences among the population. It may be relative price, it may be having a yard, it may be the suburban school districts, it can be all kinds of things. And yeah, if people had control, the suburbs wouldn't sprawl forever. It would be just their nice suburban neighborhood and everybody else could be jammed into the city. That's pretty much it. Everyone who lives in a suburb likes a different subset of suburban features, and that all aggregates together to result in the kinds of suburbs we have. It makes sense to consider zoning law to be a reflection of people's preferences rather than a constraint on them. In many cases zoning laws are the result of established homeowners trying to preserve the suburban features they like.
- YokoZar 8y ago
  This logic doesn't square with what we observe in voting patterns. When high rent cities go from majority homeowner to majority renter, the laws start to change to legalize more housing. That doesn't mean renters didn't care for housing when they were a minority, it just means they were efficiently marginalized.
tomtheelder 8y ago
> They argue that if zoning restrictions were lifted and development responded to free market forces, higher density housing would result and more people would prefer that to sprawl. I think this is half true (that zoning regulations have caused a good amount of sprawl) but I think that other posters here are right that the free market may also create sprawl, as it will respond to preferences and cultural biases that may favor sprawl. Really the point of zoning is to prevent that, to guide the market toward development that is in the interest of the common good. Without zoning regulations you tend to get pretty nasty tragedy of the commons effects. Zoning codes shouldn't be overly restrictive, in fact they should be a gentle touch that doesn't interfere with competition very much, but they are often hugely beneficial and guide the market toward a solution that benefits the community at large.
- kraigie 8y ago
  Some of the free market attempts in the UK ended up with Milton Keynes which is pretty much the American auto style roads come first. While others ended up with city of London which is highly walkable and dense being just over a square mile. Cost of land and transit is probably the deciding factors for the free market. Conversely regulation has given more walkable areas (mixed zones, offices, and small retail on the street with residental) so it's not just a case of the amount of regulation but what they say.
exelius 8y ago
I would hold up Houston as the counterexample. It has zero zoning policies whatsoever and is one of the most sprawled cities in the country, and everyone lives in low-density single family ranch homes with huge floor plans and drives an hour to work each way. Developers still basically just plop large single-family residential developments on random plots of land with few ways to stop them. In the absence of zoning, developers will not build denser properties because they’re riskier.
- ars 8y ago
  That's a counterexample to the article, not the person you are replying to, right? In fact that's such a strong counterexample to the article you can basically discount it entirely. > will not build denser properties because they’re riskier. Or because people don't want them. What's riskier about them?
  - graeme 8y ago
    I commented just before you, so you probably didn't see it. But Houston mandates parking minumum, setbacks of houses, very wide roads, and long blocks. Those are all pro-sprawl. My dense, walkable neighbourhood in Montreal would be illegal in Houston. https://marketurbanism.com/2016/09/19/how-houston-regulates-land-use/ https://marketurbanism.com/2016/09/19/how-houston-regulates-...
    - smcameron 8y ago
      Also, nobody wants to walk in Houston. AC is required to survive there.
      - brailsafe 8y ago
        Perhaps if buildings were a bit taller with people and businesses closer, you'd require less walking and it would be spent more in the shade.
        8y ago
ausvisaissues 8y ago
It is also culture that plays a big part. I've lived in very high density housing in Japan (20 floor manshion type apartment) and medium density in US (2 level apartment). Higher density in Japan is much more pleasant due to the culture of being considerate of others. If I have to live in the US, I will choose suburbia for that reason.
- jakecopp 8y ago
  How more considerate? Noise wise?
  - Camillo 8y ago
    Not same person, but yes.
  - ausvisaissues 8y ago
    With noise, with garbage sorting, etc... Japanese people tend to follow all rules, written and unwritten. I guess Americans follow only rules that can be enforced (cf. Uber, Airbnb, etc...) Probably from a culture of rebellion against Britain colonial government... In some cases it is good and in some bad. In Japan there is also no tolerance for the 1% that ruins public spaces for everyone (compare Tokyo subways against San Francisco subways). This allows true public spaces that can be shared by everyone.
    - IWeldMelons 8y ago
      I live in Central Asia, which is poor and people there are not very considerate or tend to follow the rules, yet cities are clean and relatively nice, especially the big ones. The reason why the cities are okay, because the people and especiallt governments know how to live urban life, how to plan properly etc.
- tokyodude 8y ago
  I live in Tokyo and well, I'm not so sure. Maybe you just got lucky or I got unlucky. I've lived in places where they neighboring couple would scream and throw things at 3-4am for 30 minutes every couple of weeks. Lived in a place across the kanda river from the Chou line where the trains were so loud I couldn't hear the TV when they went by. My current place is nice enough but I feel I have to tiptoe all the time which I hate. I want to not have to think about it rather then always have to think about it. Those are not unique to Japan though. My SF apartment had the thinest floors ever and I got all kinds of complaints even though I'm way more aware of the noise I make than most, even going so far as to always watch TV with wireless headphones. Conversely I've lived in apartments designed for noise in Los Angeles where the landlord told me it was okay to run the washing machine 24/7 because the neighbors wouldn't be able to hear it next door as the walls were concrete and doubled with a space between to absorb the sound. I know some of the newer 20-30 floor apartment buildings in Japan are built similarly but I don't currently make enough to live in a place like that, probably $3k-$4k a month for a 2LDK
LeifCarrotson 8y ago
> represents a long tail of real preferences among the population The other problem with this long tail is that (like other long tails of, say, bandwidth or storage utilization) it has a disproportionate effect on the whole. If 60% of, say, 100k people in a metropolitan area prefer to live in urban, high-density housing at 20,000 people per square mile, and 20% prefer to live in low-density suburbs at 4,000 people per square mile, you have 3 square miles of urban housing and 10 square miles of suburbs. And the small number of rural folks on the outskirts who are living the American dream of having their own 40 acres (160 houses per square mile) have an even larger effect on average land usage.

by Isamu 8y ago

tfehring 8y ago

The article seems to support this argument: >In Boston, about 40 percent of respondents said they preferred denser, more pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods, while in Atlanta, just under 30 percent of respondents did so. In the absence of prohibitive zoning laws and other restrictions, the split between urban and exurban properties should converge to align with consumer preferences. Of course, it’s possible that consumer preferences will change if increased urban development results in lower crime, cheaper housing, better schools and transit, etc.

mc32 8y ago
Not sure about Atlanta but Boston suburban lots tend to be about half an acre, the ones outside of the 495, closer to an acre. Inside the 128 they do get smallish though. So given those sizes, I’m not surprised people are okay with “more density”.
- AvocadoPanic 8y ago
  We're just outside the 495, our lot is just under 5 acres. There's a acre minimum zoning requirement in some areas, but most lots in our area are larger.
  - mcbits 8y ago
    Judging by Zillow's map, 5+ acre lots are a small minority of the properties in that area. Probably less than 10%, although 10% could feel like "most" compared to places where it's closer to 0%.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

twblalock 8y ago

> But I think sprawl just represents a long tail of real preferences among the population. It may be relative price, it may be having a yard, it may be the suburban school districts, it can be all kinds of things. And yeah, if people had control, the suburbs wouldn't sprawl forever. It would be just their nice suburban neighborhood and everybody else could be jammed into the city. That's pretty much it. Everyone who lives in a suburb likes a different subset of suburban features, and that all aggregates together to result in the kinds of suburbs we have. It makes sense to consider zoning law to be a reflection of people's preferences rather than a constraint on them. In many cases zoning laws are the result of established homeowners trying to preserve the suburban features they like.

YokoZar 8y ago
This logic doesn't square with what we observe in voting patterns. When high rent cities go from majority homeowner to majority renter, the laws start to change to legalize more housing. That doesn't mean renters didn't care for housing when they were a minority, it just means they were efficiently marginalized.

tomtheelder 8y ago

> They argue that if zoning restrictions were lifted and development responded to free market forces, higher density housing would result and more people would prefer that to sprawl. I think this is half true (that zoning regulations have caused a good amount of sprawl) but I think that other posters here are right that the free market may also create sprawl, as it will respond to preferences and cultural biases that may favor sprawl. Really the point of zoning is to prevent that, to guide the market toward development that is in the interest of the common good. Without zoning regulations you tend to get pretty nasty tragedy of the commons effects. Zoning codes shouldn't be overly restrictive, in fact they should be a gentle touch that doesn't interfere with competition very much, but they are often hugely beneficial and guide the market toward a solution that benefits the community at large.

kraigie 8y ago
Some of the free market attempts in the UK ended up with Milton Keynes which is pretty much the American auto style roads come first. While others ended up with city of London which is highly walkable and dense being just over a square mile. Cost of land and transit is probably the deciding factors for the free market. Conversely regulation has given more walkable areas (mixed zones, offices, and small retail on the street with residental) so it's not just a case of the amount of regulation but what they say.

exelius 8y ago

I would hold up Houston as the counterexample. It has zero zoning policies whatsoever and is one of the most sprawled cities in the country, and everyone lives in low-density single family ranch homes with huge floor plans and drives an hour to work each way. Developers still basically just plop large single-family residential developments on random plots of land with few ways to stop them. In the absence of zoning, developers will not build denser properties because they’re riskier.

ars 8y ago
That's a counterexample to the article, not the person you are replying to, right? In fact that's such a strong counterexample to the article you can basically discount it entirely. > will not build denser properties because they’re riskier. Or because people don't want them. What's riskier about them?
- graeme 8y ago
  I commented just before you, so you probably didn't see it. But Houston mandates parking minumum, setbacks of houses, very wide roads, and long blocks. Those are all pro-sprawl. My dense, walkable neighbourhood in Montreal would be illegal in Houston. https://marketurbanism.com/2016/09/19/how-houston-regulates-land-use/ https://marketurbanism.com/2016/09/19/how-houston-regulates-...
  - smcameron 8y ago
    Also, nobody wants to walk in Houston. AC is required to survive there.
    - brailsafe 8y ago
      Perhaps if buildings were a bit taller with people and businesses closer, you'd require less walking and it would be spent more in the shade.
      - 8y ago

ausvisaissues 8y ago

It is also culture that plays a big part. I've lived in very high density housing in Japan (20 floor manshion type apartment) and medium density in US (2 level apartment). Higher density in Japan is much more pleasant due to the culture of being considerate of others. If I have to live in the US, I will choose suburbia for that reason.

jakecopp 8y ago
How more considerate? Noise wise?
- Camillo 8y ago
  Not same person, but yes.
- ausvisaissues 8y ago
  With noise, with garbage sorting, etc... Japanese people tend to follow all rules, written and unwritten. I guess Americans follow only rules that can be enforced (cf. Uber, Airbnb, etc...) Probably from a culture of rebellion against Britain colonial government... In some cases it is good and in some bad. In Japan there is also no tolerance for the 1% that ruins public spaces for everyone (compare Tokyo subways against San Francisco subways). This allows true public spaces that can be shared by everyone.
  - IWeldMelons 8y ago
    I live in Central Asia, which is poor and people there are not very considerate or tend to follow the rules, yet cities are clean and relatively nice, especially the big ones. The reason why the cities are okay, because the people and especiallt governments know how to live urban life, how to plan properly etc.
tokyodude 8y ago
I live in Tokyo and well, I'm not so sure. Maybe you just got lucky or I got unlucky. I've lived in places where they neighboring couple would scream and throw things at 3-4am for 30 minutes every couple of weeks. Lived in a place across the kanda river from the Chou line where the trains were so loud I couldn't hear the TV when they went by. My current place is nice enough but I feel I have to tiptoe all the time which I hate. I want to not have to think about it rather then always have to think about it. Those are not unique to Japan though. My SF apartment had the thinest floors ever and I got all kinds of complaints even though I'm way more aware of the noise I make than most, even going so far as to always watch TV with wireless headphones. Conversely I've lived in apartments designed for noise in Los Angeles where the landlord told me it was okay to run the washing machine 24/7 because the neighbors wouldn't be able to hear it next door as the walls were concrete and doubled with a space between to absorb the sound. I know some of the newer 20-30 floor apartment buildings in Japan are built similarly but I don't currently make enough to live in a place like that, probably $3k-$4k a month for a 2LDK

LeifCarrotson 8y ago

> represents a long tail of real preferences among the population The other problem with this long tail is that (like other long tails of, say, bandwidth or storage utilization) it has a disproportionate effect on the whole. If 60% of, say, 100k people in a metropolitan area prefer to live in urban, high-density housing at 20,000 people per square mile, and 20% prefer to live in low-density suburbs at 4,000 people per square mile, you have 3 square miles of urban housing and 10 square miles of suburbs. And the small number of rural folks on the outskirts who are living the American dream of having their own 40 acres (160 houses per square mile) have an even larger effect on average land usage.