Yes, unregulated development in Houston contributed to the problem, particularly when it has been very well known that the area is a delta in an area --the Gulf of Mexico -- highly vulnerable to hurricanes. The answer is Infrastructure: we need to invest much, much more into this for our cities. Dikes and floodgates in coastal cities, high-speed mass transit, improved subways, improved sanitation and power infrastructure, less traffic, and, yes, less sprawl. I wouldn't expect this real estate developer cum POTUS to get it, especially since US cities have democrat majorities.
3
I would hate to see San Francisco ruined by a bunch of ugly skyscrapers. As someone else here posted, Paris has great population density but has retained most of its beauty. Mass transportation is much more of a solution here, the example of the Paris Metro being germane. Also, the psychology of housing is a factor. Once upon a time a 1500 square foot home was considered quite substantial: now 4000 square feet is deemed to be a bit tight. We have very few gorgeous cities in this country, and San Francisco is one of them. I would hate to see what makes it so lovely ruined, and a single skyscraper in the wrong place could do just that.
16
Over 4 feet of water was dumped on Houston in a matter of days.
Which city in the US or Europe WOULDN'T flood severely under such conditions? Washington? Boston? Chicago? London? New York? Paris?
As usual, Krugman is railing about something he knows nothing about, and the amen chorus sings from the hymnal.
Which city in the US or Europe WOULDN'T flood severely under such conditions? Washington? Boston? Chicago? London? New York? Paris?
As usual, Krugman is railing about something he knows nothing about, and the amen chorus sings from the hymnal.
9
"San Francisco housing is now quite a lot more expensive than New York housing, so why not have more tall buildings?"
April 18, 1906.
October 17, 1989.
August 24, 2014.
April 18, 1906.
October 17, 1989.
August 24, 2014.
20
When Bloomberg was the NYC mayor promoting rezoning and a building blitz it became obvious that his Urban Vision was little more than a shopping mall and food court for the uber wealthy all under the guise of affordable housing supported by taxpayer subsidies. De Blasio, our current mayor and a "touted" progressive has ratcheted up the development while ignoring the rule of law that underlie these subsidies. De Blasio was under 5 Federal Investigations for pay-to-play until De Blasio's identical evil twin fired the US Attorney in charge of the investigation.
Gone and going are the unique ethnic neighborhoods, neighborhoods that attracted artists because of cheap rents, and neighborhoods that supported an underground creative movement. "More Russian Oligarchs" exhorted Bloomberg "that's what NYC needs." And now Trump, who sounds like a self styled oligarch joins Bloomberg and De Blasio in actively supporting that capitalist toxic brew of business and politics, as citizens watch the demolition of hospitals, libraries, and other pubic institutions.
Trump's character is classic NYC real estate developer: a bully, a tiresome narcissistic egomaniac, a penchant for doing deals on the back of napkins while cavorting with celebrities, government is merely their staff, as greedy as they are cheap, liars, insecure, lawless, arrogant, a sense of entitlement, & etc.. The point is as long as citizens tolerate these grotesque traits our democracy is just window dressing,
Gone and going are the unique ethnic neighborhoods, neighborhoods that attracted artists because of cheap rents, and neighborhoods that supported an underground creative movement. "More Russian Oligarchs" exhorted Bloomberg "that's what NYC needs." And now Trump, who sounds like a self styled oligarch joins Bloomberg and De Blasio in actively supporting that capitalist toxic brew of business and politics, as citizens watch the demolition of hospitals, libraries, and other pubic institutions.
Trump's character is classic NYC real estate developer: a bully, a tiresome narcissistic egomaniac, a penchant for doing deals on the back of napkins while cavorting with celebrities, government is merely their staff, as greedy as they are cheap, liars, insecure, lawless, arrogant, a sense of entitlement, & etc.. The point is as long as citizens tolerate these grotesque traits our democracy is just window dressing,
12
When your life is totally mental gymnastics and high finance, and you don't value watching a cardinal splashing in a bird bath, a half dozen male wood ducks lined up as they swim past you in bright sunlight, walking out your door into a dense woods, you might be content living in an economically segregated apartment building 100 feet, or maybe 500 feet, above the real world.
It is well known that those of us who are the least capable of contributing to society cannot live above 3 stories. They are too disconnected to live in anonymous pigeon coops. It is especially bad for children --think a 10 year old rich kid living 50 stories up.
Only the super rich who use a house in NYC as a hotel and have a camp in the Adirondacks and a beach house in the Virgin Islands, people totally addicted to their computer life, and people suffering from severe dementia can thrive in the isolation of an asphalt jungle.
If we have too many people, say so. But don't expect people with choices to choice a chicken coop or Coop City. Live is too short and too exciting to wear blinders.
It is well known that those of us who are the least capable of contributing to society cannot live above 3 stories. They are too disconnected to live in anonymous pigeon coops. It is especially bad for children --think a 10 year old rich kid living 50 stories up.
Only the super rich who use a house in NYC as a hotel and have a camp in the Adirondacks and a beach house in the Virgin Islands, people totally addicted to their computer life, and people suffering from severe dementia can thrive in the isolation of an asphalt jungle.
If we have too many people, say so. But don't expect people with choices to choice a chicken coop or Coop City. Live is too short and too exciting to wear blinders.
7
I'd like to remind Dr Krugman of this old Yiddish saying:
We make plans and God laughs.
We make plans and God laughs.
5
Paul, I admire you as an economist, but your rants about NIMBYs are tiresome and off-base. You ask why SF can't just go up? Well, here for sure your ignorance shows. In NYC you've got firm bedrock on which to build. In SF you've got unstable muck underlaid by very scary active earthquake faults that will turn that muck to jelly when they pop, which they will. Are you aware there's already one 30+ story residential tower in SF that's gradually tilting sidewise, and that's without any earthquake? So just from engineering and common sense standpoint, your desire to Manhattanize SF is nonsensical. And there are many other reasons as well.
As for your economic arguments about boosting supply, they're nonsense. The entire coastal zone of CA is under "attack" by the wealthy, who can pay anything. There's no conceivable way to boost supply enough to counter this. We must look to non-market solutions for affordable housing in CA. As for your highrising of SF like NYC, it's worked really well for you guys, hasn't it? How else do you explain your half million $$ 200 square foot studio apartments?
As for your economic arguments about boosting supply, they're nonsense. The entire coastal zone of CA is under "attack" by the wealthy, who can pay anything. There's no conceivable way to boost supply enough to counter this. We must look to non-market solutions for affordable housing in CA. As for your highrising of SF like NYC, it's worked really well for you guys, hasn't it? How else do you explain your half million $$ 200 square foot studio apartments?
21
Uh-Oh - I actually agree with Paul Krugman on something.
1
The richest burbs have the smallest police force, go figure.
Stop over populating and thin out the cities.
15
Incredible! The main reason for all this is over population. Get it into your hard head. We are sentencing our human experience to an end that is as much painful as terminal.
There's nothing we can do other than stop everything we are doing and revamp 100% all human planetary activity. Tall buildings? Makes me lough...
Tall buildings in SF? ... Above the St. Andreas fault long time overdue for a shake up!
And to all those that talk niceties about European city life: the continent is undergoing a child reposition rate of 1.6 the max with Italy at 1.2 sentencing its survival in one generation. Therefore they need "immigrants", right? The kind of those ... blowing themselves up in restaurants or running trucks over tourists. We have no choice other than curbing population growth, something that we are unable to do and will never agree to implement. We can't even restrain the deranged Norko midget before blows the planet.
There's nothing we can do other than stop everything we are doing and revamp 100% all human planetary activity. Tall buildings? Makes me lough...
Tall buildings in SF? ... Above the St. Andreas fault long time overdue for a shake up!
And to all those that talk niceties about European city life: the continent is undergoing a child reposition rate of 1.6 the max with Italy at 1.2 sentencing its survival in one generation. Therefore they need "immigrants", right? The kind of those ... blowing themselves up in restaurants or running trucks over tourists. We have no choice other than curbing population growth, something that we are unable to do and will never agree to implement. We can't even restrain the deranged Norko midget before blows the planet.
8
this is an interesting comment. Key questions are:
- what are the economics of building vertically vs. spreading out. I would have thought tall apartment buildings are expensive
- whether people want to live in a tall apartment building vs a house of the same size (or townhouse or twin).
My experience with apartment living was negative: usually an elevator was broken. It smelled like trash where you came in. The ventilation shafts provided a big avenue for neighbors' sounds and smells to infiltrate our space. There were roaches (our neighbor said "they weren't a problem, they were only in the kitchen and bathroom"). Never again.
- what are the economics of building vertically vs. spreading out. I would have thought tall apartment buildings are expensive
- whether people want to live in a tall apartment building vs a house of the same size (or townhouse or twin).
My experience with apartment living was negative: usually an elevator was broken. It smelled like trash where you came in. The ventilation shafts provided a big avenue for neighbors' sounds and smells to infiltrate our space. There were roaches (our neighbor said "they weren't a problem, they were only in the kitchen and bathroom"). Never again.
6
Build up, instead of out. Enforce 50% greenspace. Buildings need to be made taller than the transect, which the developer determines from real estate value. Tall buildings have to happen in order to demand AMPLE PERMEABLE greenspaces between buildings. People have to get over the idea that tall buildings are an ugly form factor. Also considering our solar development, buildings have to at or above the surrounding tree canopy. Tall buildings aren't ugly when there is a tree canopy as a pedestrian ceiling between tall buildings. Building footprints have to be small in order for permeable surface areas to be large. Ducting water away doesn't work when there is no "away" to put the water! Trees and other plants actively soak up, slow, and hold rainwater. It also means having minimum heights for all buildings to avoid wasted impermeable space, from single story, wide roof, large parking lot development. For elevators to become a viable part of the pedestrian transportation system, considering that also all floors must be wheelchair accessible, until we develop less expensive, functional, safe, elevators, buildings, these buildings have to be at least 4 stories in neighborhoods. 1-2 story buildings should be illegal to build in urban areas.
3
Prof Krugman - cities cannot grow forever. How dense can we get? We need to aim for a stable and a regenerative economy to support if. I don't think you have much to offer in this area because you simply don't get what sustainability means.
7
Krugman ignores the elephant in the room--the room on the third floor or higher. It's the automobile . Without a car most Americans cannot even move to perform fundamental tasks for survival . And there is no alternative infrastructure to enable them to abandon their cars. Cities cannot thrive as long as cars are essential for everyone.
When my big city raised son tried to move into his dorm at U of Arizona on the first day we wite for an elevator to take us to his 4th floor room. When the doors opened the lift was full of but there was still plenty room for two more to squeeze in without touching other passengers.but when we tried to get in a handful of the riders angrily stepped out because they didn't want to be so crowded. Nor can Americans even ride escalators. In San Francisco the BART escalators are always jammed up with riders who won't keep right so experienced commuters can run down to catch a waiting train. Take us out of our cars and we're helpless.. and our cities are hopeless.
When my big city raised son tried to move into his dorm at U of Arizona on the first day we wite for an elevator to take us to his 4th floor room. When the doors opened the lift was full of but there was still plenty room for two more to squeeze in without touching other passengers.but when we tried to get in a handful of the riders angrily stepped out because they didn't want to be so crowded. Nor can Americans even ride escalators. In San Francisco the BART escalators are always jammed up with riders who won't keep right so experienced commuters can run down to catch a waiting train. Take us out of our cars and we're helpless.. and our cities are hopeless.
6
Yes Chicago is relatively affordable, and that's great. But the flip side is that in order to turn a profit you can't build with expensive materials that are commonly seen in high end developments in Manhattan. The result is that it's a city full of shabby buildings of mediocre quality.
3
My hometown of Chicago has plenty of poor neighborhoods where expensive housing is displacing the poor. We need a living, minimum wage and good City-funded public education and public transportation. Our Democratic mayor and statehouse are battling our businessman-turned politician Republican Governor. We're working on it but it slow going.
4
"Why Can’t We Get Cities Right?"
Because, in the end, we, in our collective subconscious, simply do not care enough to help ourselves and our heirs make a better world for themselves and their heirs.
Because, in the end, we, in our collective subconscious, simply do not care enough to help ourselves and our heirs make a better world for themselves and their heirs.
4
The higher the buildings go, the less livable a city becomes. I'm disappointed in you, Dr. Krugman. Instead of slapping nasty names onto people who are trying to protect the character of the urban neighbourhoods they and their fellow-citizens love, why not suggest ways to encourage some of that economic growth to relocate elsewhere?
10
3 things about San Francisco housing not mentioned here - can't just 'build up' like NY due to the whole unavoidable issue concerning earthquakes!! Literally, the earth beneath our feet is just different in SF. Also, a personal belief of mine is that there is such beautiful architecture here that folks in CA are more reluctant to just trash a beautiful building (and put up with years of construction) to build new stuff. And, views. Everyone loves their bit of ocean view. I still realize rents are totally out of control, however my daughter and her smart friends find beautiful places to live that do NOT cost $3000 for a 1 bedroom - and her San Fran Salary does make it possible for her to live there in a safe, nice place near Golden Gate park. But it's true that she has no plans to stay once she wants to start a family. Lots that could be done, new housing is needed - no doubt about it. But, earthquakes!!
14
We need to have urban planning done by urban planners, not real estate developers. Lack of affordable housing is one of the big factors demolishing the middle class. Maybe electing a real estate developer president wasn't such a hot idea after all.
3
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair (1878-1968)
5
San Francisco IS SPECIAL so every one wants to live there and demand keeps the price of living HIGH--and it was een that way when I lived there is the 70's. It also keeps the riff-raff out so it's a city with hubris I suppose. I'm not sure that it is a great city--the smell of cheap wine and garlic on the city bus ride or trolley is enough to gag a maggot. It is largely reputation but I don't thinnk it is a place that walks the talk.
For cities in general anyplace with potholes and broken windows isn't going to have good leadership. People want to be elected for all the WRONG REASONS. Fix the city? are you crazy? We got thousands of elected talkers, doers, not so much. There will always be Houstons and places like it. The older I get the more I believe that elected officials are the most useless people on the planet--and that goes all the way to the trump.
For cities in general anyplace with potholes and broken windows isn't going to have good leadership. People want to be elected for all the WRONG REASONS. Fix the city? are you crazy? We got thousands of elected talkers, doers, not so much. There will always be Houstons and places like it. The older I get the more I believe that elected officials are the most useless people on the planet--and that goes all the way to the trump.
2
"Chicago is a huge city with dense development but relatively low housing prices; maybe it has some lessons to teach the rest of us?"
Like what- there's an upside to being forced to live in a city notorious for violent crime, corruption and deprivation?
Like what- there's an upside to being forced to live in a city notorious for violent crime, corruption and deprivation?
4
Denmark experienced horrific flooding some decades ago. They evolved
brilliant engineering projects to prevent it from happening again. Houston
needs to learn from Denmark.
brilliant engineering projects to prevent it from happening again. Houston
needs to learn from Denmark.
3
It is correct to state that "going up" with your buildings is the pragmatic approach in tight, congested urban areas while also leaving more available open area. However, doesn't San Francisco have that pesky problem of the San Andreas Fault to consider? Living on the 25th floor, or higher, in San Francisco would make me very nervous.
5
Krugman's comments may resonate with the state of urban development in many other cities around the world
Sometimes people just need to learn the hard way.
Eventually, the silicon valley bubble will burst, property values will adjust, and then people will be able to afford to redevelop properties to provide denser housing.
Eventually, the people will tire of paying to rebuild repeatedly flooded property, and then cities like Houston will shrink to a sustainable size on higher ground.
Eventually, the silicon valley bubble will burst, property values will adjust, and then people will be able to afford to redevelop properties to provide denser housing.
Eventually, the people will tire of paying to rebuild repeatedly flooded property, and then cities like Houston will shrink to a sustainable size on higher ground.
2
Yes! Paul Krugman nails it again. The three most important takeaways are:
1) This was a disaster brought on by bad policy. Permitting structures on the flood plain without regard to the long term consequences and failure to maintain adequate green space and important wetlands means it's likely to happen again;
2) The unfolding environmental disaster is poisoning the gulf and potable groundwater. This affects our entire population, not just Houstonians, both now and in the foreseeable future. We need the EPA in there today, figuring out what's happened, potential remediation paths, and what we can do on the regulatory front to prevent this from happening elsewhere; and
3) The answers lie not in more regulation, but in better regulation. We need good urban land use policy, based upon sound science and analysis. We cannot allow the real estate developers and industrialists to drive the train. Lobbying on their part and NIMBYism may seem like a good idea good to some folks in the short term, but we need to look out for the interests of all Americans over the long haul.
Keep up the good work Coach K! As we watch the disaster response unfold and the funding debates in D.C., maybe you'll find grist for a future column.
1) This was a disaster brought on by bad policy. Permitting structures on the flood plain without regard to the long term consequences and failure to maintain adequate green space and important wetlands means it's likely to happen again;
2) The unfolding environmental disaster is poisoning the gulf and potable groundwater. This affects our entire population, not just Houstonians, both now and in the foreseeable future. We need the EPA in there today, figuring out what's happened, potential remediation paths, and what we can do on the regulatory front to prevent this from happening elsewhere; and
3) The answers lie not in more regulation, but in better regulation. We need good urban land use policy, based upon sound science and analysis. We cannot allow the real estate developers and industrialists to drive the train. Lobbying on their part and NIMBYism may seem like a good idea good to some folks in the short term, but we need to look out for the interests of all Americans over the long haul.
Keep up the good work Coach K! As we watch the disaster response unfold and the funding debates in D.C., maybe you'll find grist for a future column.
5
They are right this is just a storm that hit. They've been around for 10000 years what's so new about hurricanes?
Paul Krugman has identified correctly the insanity of urban development policy in many American cities.
A few hours ago, I flew back from a Labor Day Weekend visit to San Francisco, where temperatures exceeded 100 degrees Fahrenheit. (Last year, at the same time, I was in San Francisco and froze – which is normal for late August and early September.)
This past weekend, we met with a realtor looking at some condominiums to buy for investment in an underdeveloped East Bay suburb built on landfill thirty years ago. The prices were ridiculously high, except in comparison to some San Francisco houses and condos we had just seen in Pacific Heights, the Presidio and Marina districts and even the Mission District.
San Francisco politicians bow to the wishes of developers just as much as do the Houston politicians, but in an entirely different way.
In San Francisco, wealthy, unaffordable enclaves are packed next to areas of trendy restaurants and shops, creating an odd, adult Disneyworld. Contrary to Paul Krugman's impression, however, there are now finally some new high-rises completed or nearing completion.
In Houston, the politicians allowed any and all development to cater to the petrochemical industry, tossing aside regulations and boring infrastructure considerations like good storm sewers.
Of course, the issue may be irrelevant. Donald Trump's core supporters hate big cities and the people who live in them.
A few hours ago, I flew back from a Labor Day Weekend visit to San Francisco, where temperatures exceeded 100 degrees Fahrenheit. (Last year, at the same time, I was in San Francisco and froze – which is normal for late August and early September.)
This past weekend, we met with a realtor looking at some condominiums to buy for investment in an underdeveloped East Bay suburb built on landfill thirty years ago. The prices were ridiculously high, except in comparison to some San Francisco houses and condos we had just seen in Pacific Heights, the Presidio and Marina districts and even the Mission District.
San Francisco politicians bow to the wishes of developers just as much as do the Houston politicians, but in an entirely different way.
In San Francisco, wealthy, unaffordable enclaves are packed next to areas of trendy restaurants and shops, creating an odd, adult Disneyworld. Contrary to Paul Krugman's impression, however, there are now finally some new high-rises completed or nearing completion.
In Houston, the politicians allowed any and all development to cater to the petrochemical industry, tossing aside regulations and boring infrastructure considerations like good storm sewers.
Of course, the issue may be irrelevant. Donald Trump's core supporters hate big cities and the people who live in them.
2
Urban planning. Who'd have known it was so complicated?
I'm almost always in alignment with Dr. Krugman's observations and conclusions, but today I'm disappointed: This piece is rather fluffy. Cities are the most complex human creation, so don't expect to find simple answers lying around somewhere between Houston, SF, Atlanta and NY.
Suggesting that housing affordability can be solved by stacking people on top of each other completely oversimplifies the myriad factors at play (...seems like China inflicts this on its urban in-migrating populations.) To even slightly move the housing demand curve in SF would require an amount/type that would dramatically change the city's character. It just wouldn't be the same place (which might drive some folks away and induce self-metering of housing costs!)
They only way to affect demand for regions like the Bay area is to reduce the supply of employment. And to do that in any organized way requires developing a coherent national economic policy. But good luck implementing a national plan when states compete against each other using tax breaks to lure large employers. Experiments have been attempted, like Clinton's Empowerment Zones, but their scale is insignificant compared to what's needed.
Trump got one thing right: He knows all politics are local AND regional AND national. To wit, the primal scream from the Midwest for jobs. Now, if we could only get those Silicon Valley folks to occupy some cheap real estate in Detroit...
I'm almost always in alignment with Dr. Krugman's observations and conclusions, but today I'm disappointed: This piece is rather fluffy. Cities are the most complex human creation, so don't expect to find simple answers lying around somewhere between Houston, SF, Atlanta and NY.
Suggesting that housing affordability can be solved by stacking people on top of each other completely oversimplifies the myriad factors at play (...seems like China inflicts this on its urban in-migrating populations.) To even slightly move the housing demand curve in SF would require an amount/type that would dramatically change the city's character. It just wouldn't be the same place (which might drive some folks away and induce self-metering of housing costs!)
They only way to affect demand for regions like the Bay area is to reduce the supply of employment. And to do that in any organized way requires developing a coherent national economic policy. But good luck implementing a national plan when states compete against each other using tax breaks to lure large employers. Experiments have been attempted, like Clinton's Empowerment Zones, but their scale is insignificant compared to what's needed.
Trump got one thing right: He knows all politics are local AND regional AND national. To wit, the primal scream from the Midwest for jobs. Now, if we could only get those Silicon Valley folks to occupy some cheap real estate in Detroit...
4
I thought "tragedy of the commons" would be popping up somewhere in the column.
Government is supposed to work for the greater common good, but that is often a tricky goal to define. Some people would rather stay the course and risk a flood once in a while: having a back yard can beat access to a public park, and the commute isn't so bad if on weekends you can enjoy open spaces. There's a reason suburbs exist, and it's not only cheap housing. For many quality of life is about more than enduring the daily commute. And many people quite simply love their cars. They love pressing that gas pedal and listening to the radio. Absolut Fahrvergnugen. Clearly you have to get zoning rules right, but as far as pollution, traffic congestion etc, a solution the USA and many developed countries (France, Sweden) still don't get right is public transportation. A few do: UK, Germany, and yet they too love the car.
Government is supposed to work for the greater common good, but that is often a tricky goal to define. Some people would rather stay the course and risk a flood once in a while: having a back yard can beat access to a public park, and the commute isn't so bad if on weekends you can enjoy open spaces. There's a reason suburbs exist, and it's not only cheap housing. For many quality of life is about more than enduring the daily commute. And many people quite simply love their cars. They love pressing that gas pedal and listening to the radio. Absolut Fahrvergnugen. Clearly you have to get zoning rules right, but as far as pollution, traffic congestion etc, a solution the USA and many developed countries (France, Sweden) still don't get right is public transportation. A few do: UK, Germany, and yet they too love the car.
3
Have you heard of earthquakes? 25 years ago it was predicted that a major earth quake in San Francisco would result in 30 feet of glass blocking the streets in the financial district. And many high rises are built on land fill which will liquify. The big one is overdue. Don't let economics ignore common sense.
7
My understanding is that in NYC, plenty of those high-rise apartment buildings are built, but they're bought by Chinese and other investors, and a lot of them have hardly anyone actually living in them. They're just business deals, not made for real people. They block sunlight and play havoc with the lives of the people below, while accomplishing nothing in terms of meeting human needs. Skyscrapers in themselves can't be the answer.
6
Very expensive apartments say $10 million sit empty because those people have a few homes. However, building goes on in Manhattan and Brooklyn where outsized apartment buildings are being erected to increase the housing stock and will cause more congestion and overtax existing infrastructure.
3
If you are for building more high rises in a metropolitan city, you should think of the transportation and other infrastructure issues first. Silicon valley highways are already clogged. We have to prioritize and modernize the public transportation system before building high rises.
8
Please don't single out San Francisco for NIMBY attitudes: your criticism re inadequate production of new housing should embrace the whole region, including all the communities north, south, and east. The City of San Francisco has a higher density of both jobs and housing than the region’s other urban areas. The foot dragging is mostly in suburbs where new non-residential development is typically welcomed but housing to accommodate associated employees is not. “Community character,” often cited by suburban communities as a reason to oppose new residential development, is not the only issue. Since the approval of Prop 13 in 1970, housing has become a less important portion of most cities' tax base, and the fiscal incentive for cities to add housing has declined.
9
Since my college years I've been a proponent of zero population growth. It's been a great disappointment all my life that the world'a population continues to grow. And I ASK WHY?
6
One of the reasons for that growth is because one primitive religion tries to outgrow another primitve religion by denying birth control to its followers. If subsidised vasectomies and birth control pills were as easily obtained as building permits, Houstonians (and other overpopulated urban areas) would be in less of a mess than they're in today.
1
Your first paragraph is sadly probably correct. But I am encouraged by your interest in the need for policy makers to stay tuned in to the issues your have raised and also raised by the commentary.
I have had calls this evening from scientists, who tell me that the Hurricane Irma has reached category 5 wind speeds and is headed toward Florida and will probably bring very foul weather to urban areas on the east coast. Historically there are still a couple of months more to go in the hurricane season.
The misery created by these foul weather episodes is rough and will disrupt the lives of millions and the U.S. economy for years to come.
I think it would be wise for the GOP to take the warming oceans and warming Earth, especially the potential for releasing even more global warming gasses from the thawing permafrost seriously.
I heard a replay of a speech by Vice President Pence that if the US continued to support the Paris Accord on Climate Change it would cost the US millions of jobs. I think he said 6.5 million.
The Administration is not correct and they are taking a huge risk with the health and well-being of Americans and Civilization.
The Administration should support an multi-national effort to instrument and measure the rate of permafrost thawing so we can get a handle on how many years, if any, we have before the emissions "runaway". "Runaway", is the emission rate that continue to warm the Earth even if we totally stop fossil fuel combustion.
I have had calls this evening from scientists, who tell me that the Hurricane Irma has reached category 5 wind speeds and is headed toward Florida and will probably bring very foul weather to urban areas on the east coast. Historically there are still a couple of months more to go in the hurricane season.
The misery created by these foul weather episodes is rough and will disrupt the lives of millions and the U.S. economy for years to come.
I think it would be wise for the GOP to take the warming oceans and warming Earth, especially the potential for releasing even more global warming gasses from the thawing permafrost seriously.
I heard a replay of a speech by Vice President Pence that if the US continued to support the Paris Accord on Climate Change it would cost the US millions of jobs. I think he said 6.5 million.
The Administration is not correct and they are taking a huge risk with the health and well-being of Americans and Civilization.
The Administration should support an multi-national effort to instrument and measure the rate of permafrost thawing so we can get a handle on how many years, if any, we have before the emissions "runaway". "Runaway", is the emission rate that continue to warm the Earth even if we totally stop fossil fuel combustion.
6
The recovery of Houston, if there is to be one, will be a test -- not a drill.
How this massive natural and man=made disaster is handled now and in the short and long term will be the first major test of survival in the United States of America in the 21st Century.
Everything is on the table here. Every subject about life on earth that has been discussed, debated, legislated, argued over, etc. comes into play about whether life as we know it on planet Earth continues. . .or not.
It could just be that life "as we know it" can no longer continue on planet Earth. This is a new paradigm. Other civilizations disappeared -- why not ours. Hurricane Harvey is an event that changes the concept of the United States of America.
This is not Katrina. This is not even Sandy. This is a tipping point and we are already well over the cliff hanging on by shredded tendons.
How this massive natural and man=made disaster is handled now and in the short and long term will be the first major test of survival in the United States of America in the 21st Century.
Everything is on the table here. Every subject about life on earth that has been discussed, debated, legislated, argued over, etc. comes into play about whether life as we know it on planet Earth continues. . .or not.
It could just be that life "as we know it" can no longer continue on planet Earth. This is a new paradigm. Other civilizations disappeared -- why not ours. Hurricane Harvey is an event that changes the concept of the United States of America.
This is not Katrina. This is not even Sandy. This is a tipping point and we are already well over the cliff hanging on by shredded tendons.
6
As a Bay Area resident and Urban Planner with a background in
Seismic Issues I am baffled by many comments related to Earthquakes and resilience in San Francisco. Tall buildings built to modern standards do NOT pose significant risk relative to Earthquakes. Unreinforced single or two story buildings (typical construction pre-1970s) DO. When the next big earthquake strikes high rises Downtown as well new mid-rise buildings built in recent decades will escape unscathed along with their occupants. In contrast the impact will be significant in neighborhoods like the Sunset - given the significant number of 2-3 story "soft story" buildings - garages on the 1st floor housing above in those areas.
In terms of climate change the Bay Area's Mediterranean climate (more or less room temperature year around) results in one of the lowest per capita carbon footprints in the nation - when residents are able to take transit or walk or bike to work. SF does need to continue to build more housing to align with job growth. However, the region's great challenge is in suburbs such as Palo Alto that need to stop hoarding tax dollars from corporate campuses - without providing commensurate housing. Many of the aging corporate campuses built in suburban cities in the 1960s, 70s and 80s provide an opportunity for building new neighborhoods that include housing and amenities as well as jobs - connected to a completed transit system. On this issue, the region lags like every big American metro.
Seismic Issues I am baffled by many comments related to Earthquakes and resilience in San Francisco. Tall buildings built to modern standards do NOT pose significant risk relative to Earthquakes. Unreinforced single or two story buildings (typical construction pre-1970s) DO. When the next big earthquake strikes high rises Downtown as well new mid-rise buildings built in recent decades will escape unscathed along with their occupants. In contrast the impact will be significant in neighborhoods like the Sunset - given the significant number of 2-3 story "soft story" buildings - garages on the 1st floor housing above in those areas.
In terms of climate change the Bay Area's Mediterranean climate (more or less room temperature year around) results in one of the lowest per capita carbon footprints in the nation - when residents are able to take transit or walk or bike to work. SF does need to continue to build more housing to align with job growth. However, the region's great challenge is in suburbs such as Palo Alto that need to stop hoarding tax dollars from corporate campuses - without providing commensurate housing. Many of the aging corporate campuses built in suburban cities in the 1960s, 70s and 80s provide an opportunity for building new neighborhoods that include housing and amenities as well as jobs - connected to a completed transit system. On this issue, the region lags like every big American metro.
15
Let's wait just a few years until nature puts the theoretical strengths of those high rises to the test, shall we? I anxiously await the test of how the Millenium Tower performs in an 8.0 quake, compared to my bolted down solid old timber house in the Sunset.
And in the meantime, please explain how increasing the already dense population density of San Francisco to the levels found in Tokyo, Manhattan, or Shanghai will manage to *reduce* housing prices. Has allowing that kind of density had a downward impact on housing prices in any such city?
Perhaps we should just face the fact that the top few percent of the nearly 8 billion people in the world want a nice apartment in a fancy big city, where they'll have access to their fancy job, and that nothing short of actual socialism, or regular old zoning laws, will stop that? I will vote for regular old neighborhood-preserving zoning laws, if I am given a choice.
It is unfortunate that not everyone who wants to live in this 7 mile by 7 mile plot of land can actually do so; not even most of the people who want to can do so; but such is life.
And in the meantime, please explain how increasing the already dense population density of San Francisco to the levels found in Tokyo, Manhattan, or Shanghai will manage to *reduce* housing prices. Has allowing that kind of density had a downward impact on housing prices in any such city?
Perhaps we should just face the fact that the top few percent of the nearly 8 billion people in the world want a nice apartment in a fancy big city, where they'll have access to their fancy job, and that nothing short of actual socialism, or regular old zoning laws, will stop that? I will vote for regular old neighborhood-preserving zoning laws, if I am given a choice.
It is unfortunate that not everyone who wants to live in this 7 mile by 7 mile plot of land can actually do so; not even most of the people who want to can do so; but such is life.
5
If Paul Krugman asked almost anyone in California why developers in the SF Bay area don't simply build up the answer would likely be earthquakes wouldn't it?
And wouldn't the better answer both in Houston and San Francisco be high speed rail? Japan and Europe may have done it first but South Korea arguably did it best. And now China is going gangbusters while Republicans here continue to block it. Didn't Florida even go so far as to refuse to accept the money Congress approved for high speed rail there?
And wouldn't the better answer both in Houston and San Francisco be high speed rail? Japan and Europe may have done it first but South Korea arguably did it best. And now China is going gangbusters while Republicans here continue to block it. Didn't Florida even go so far as to refuse to accept the money Congress approved for high speed rail there?
1
Millenium Tower, 301 Mission St, San Francisco, CA 94105
Built to current standards and approved by the appropriate authorities in the City of San Francisco.
Built to current standards and approved by the appropriate authorities in the City of San Francisco.
1
Denser housing requires larger apartments for families. In NYC and in Greater Washington, 3 be apartments are hard to find and cost as much or more than a single family home. I loved living in manhattan with 2 babies. Everything was available, and there were great parks, museums, etc. Too bad we couldn't afford something larger.
2
What in the name of God makes Dr. Krugman think that building UP is going to lower rents and make things more affordable? Affordable for who? Your local billionaire? I live in a small city in Westchester where roughly 5000 new apartments are slated to be built. They are building up all right. Height limits appear to be mere suggestions with almost all of these developers asking for "spot zoning" for their "special project".
Trouble is, there is nothing special about them. They are nearly ALL luxury rentals! There is nothing affordable about any of this except the paltry 10% (I think that's correct) that are required to be "affordable". And if the past is any guide, developers will find a way to wriggle out of even building that much affordable housing. Meanwhile, current residents will foot the bill for all the tax abatements...
Municipalities have to develop a better vision for their own future rather than having developers dictate it to them with their collective "vision". After all, when the primary "vision" for a city's future is the amount of money a developer can extract, you will probably end up with a hot mess. We certainly need more insight than a knee-jerk reaction that somehow density creates affordability. Been there, done that. It hasn't worked.
Trouble is, there is nothing special about them. They are nearly ALL luxury rentals! There is nothing affordable about any of this except the paltry 10% (I think that's correct) that are required to be "affordable". And if the past is any guide, developers will find a way to wriggle out of even building that much affordable housing. Meanwhile, current residents will foot the bill for all the tax abatements...
Municipalities have to develop a better vision for their own future rather than having developers dictate it to them with their collective "vision". After all, when the primary "vision" for a city's future is the amount of money a developer can extract, you will probably end up with a hot mess. We certainly need more insight than a knee-jerk reaction that somehow density creates affordability. Been there, done that. It hasn't worked.
10
Correct. Yes, San Francisco and other municipalities need more housing--housing that is affordable and not for those who are well-heeled only. Much of the new housing stock in SF is market rate. How is that going to help the housing shortage when few can pay the exorbitant rents. We need to put the G back in govt, as opposed to the C--corporate, B--big business and WD--wealthy developers, who buy local politicians, to the detriment of ordinary citizens. That has to change if we are going to have urban housing policies that support ALL Americans, regardless of their income.
2
The 40-plus year old nightmare of Proposition 13 is the real cause for our urban problems. We need housing that is currently being occupied by those paying less than $2000 in property taxes a year and they won't move.
I am surrounded by one-person homes that should be available to families of 5-6.
At the same time others are paying $1000-plus per month to rent a pad in a trailer park and rent takes at least half of most renters income..
California has been in denial and the condition of our roads and schools reflect this. Commercial property owners used to contribute 50% of tax revenues. Through tax loopholes that has shifted to 25%. Even Disneyland enjoyed these loopholes with their assessment at $.05 a foot for many years.
Hopefully we can reform at least the commercial property owners and our young people will bring us back to a reasonable, assessed value system as the Boomers die off. It can't happen too soon!
I am surrounded by one-person homes that should be available to families of 5-6.
At the same time others are paying $1000-plus per month to rent a pad in a trailer park and rent takes at least half of most renters income..
California has been in denial and the condition of our roads and schools reflect this. Commercial property owners used to contribute 50% of tax revenues. Through tax loopholes that has shifted to 25%. Even Disneyland enjoyed these loopholes with their assessment at $.05 a foot for many years.
Hopefully we can reform at least the commercial property owners and our young people will bring us back to a reasonable, assessed value system as the Boomers die off. It can't happen too soon!
12
Why does everyone have to live in San Francisco, anyway?
Aren't these vaunted tech companies capable of creating back office, satellite office or work-at-home jobs anywhere else? Maybe nearby--Davis or Sacramento? Or anywhere at all--Anchorage, Fargo, Biloxi? There are plenty of well-qualified people who don't WANT to live in San Francisco, and would happily take a pay cut to avoid it.
We need jobs everywhere, not just San Francisco, New York or Houston.
Aren't these vaunted tech companies capable of creating back office, satellite office or work-at-home jobs anywhere else? Maybe nearby--Davis or Sacramento? Or anywhere at all--Anchorage, Fargo, Biloxi? There are plenty of well-qualified people who don't WANT to live in San Francisco, and would happily take a pay cut to avoid it.
We need jobs everywhere, not just San Francisco, New York or Houston.
12
We are reaching the point where the population growth is working against us. If people cannot recognize this, they have their head in the sand.
The water rationing in CA was a warning sign. People being priced out of the city where they work is another warning sign. These are valid warning signs as any of the many warning signs regarding global climate change.
It seems that our global population growth rate is exponential, but infrastructure is not keeping up at nearly the same pace; land is finite and water is at best finite but at times it is being reduced. This is not a good formula at all.
Our natural birth rates in the US and all of the western world and Japan and S Korea society is relatively low and would actually work for us, and would allow the return of a reasonable standard of living, except the US and the other western countries allow unmitigated immigration, which is the sole cause of population growth across the entire western world. If you solve this problem, cause and effect, most of the other associated problems would also be resolved.
The water rationing in CA was a warning sign. People being priced out of the city where they work is another warning sign. These are valid warning signs as any of the many warning signs regarding global climate change.
It seems that our global population growth rate is exponential, but infrastructure is not keeping up at nearly the same pace; land is finite and water is at best finite but at times it is being reduced. This is not a good formula at all.
Our natural birth rates in the US and all of the western world and Japan and S Korea society is relatively low and would actually work for us, and would allow the return of a reasonable standard of living, except the US and the other western countries allow unmitigated immigration, which is the sole cause of population growth across the entire western world. If you solve this problem, cause and effect, most of the other associated problems would also be resolved.
14
The reason Houston flooded was 52 inches of water, not it's urban development planning practices. That amount of water, anywhere in the country, will cause devastating flooding. Sandy caused serious flooding with much less water a few years back, and the enlightened urban planners in the northeast got wet, too.
Houston has no zoning, but excellent flood control regulations on new construction in that suburban sprawl. Retention ponds dot the landscape wherever there is new construction. The flood control measures just weren't designed for the 800-year flood. They never are, not anywhere in the country, regardless of which brand of politician is in charge. Blame this one on the rain, not the Republicans.
Houston has no zoning, but excellent flood control regulations on new construction in that suburban sprawl. Retention ponds dot the landscape wherever there is new construction. The flood control measures just weren't designed for the 800-year flood. They never are, not anywhere in the country, regardless of which brand of politician is in charge. Blame this one on the rain, not the Republicans.
8
All my sympathies to Houston residents who are victims of flooding. But Houston's proud mantra was and remains cheap housing, so please don't try to contend zoning ever was adequate to the task or that retention ponds were built for all new development. What your neighbor does impacts you and vice versa, and for every responsible home owner there is a developer willing to build "affordable housing" and make a buck doing it without those pesky suggestions.
Keep repeating the "800 year flood" trope if it comforts you. This blinkered denial will set Houston up for more the same catastrophic results next month, next year or in a decade, and Federal money will pay for it, again. So it goes, and that is even sadder than the losses suffered with Harvey.
Keep repeating the "800 year flood" trope if it comforts you. This blinkered denial will set Houston up for more the same catastrophic results next month, next year or in a decade, and Federal money will pay for it, again. So it goes, and that is even sadder than the losses suffered with Harvey.
2
"Houston is experiencing its third ‘500-year’ flood in 3 years. How is that possible?"
www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/08/29/houston-is-experiencing-i...
www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/08/29/houston-is-experiencing-i...
2
Paul, you say "we should encourage construction that takes advantage of the most effective mass transit technology yet devised: the elevator."
How about building outwards from NIMBY cities with maglev trains running at the speed of the Shanghai train - i.e. 250 mph? With such a transit system, small communities up to 150 miles from a large city such as San Francisco would be within easy commuting distance.
How about building outwards from NIMBY cities with maglev trains running at the speed of the Shanghai train - i.e. 250 mph? With such a transit system, small communities up to 150 miles from a large city such as San Francisco would be within easy commuting distance.
7
I can't help but wonder if Texas had accepted the Medicaid expansion from the ACA, could the response by through state's health care system have been more effective?
4
I am confused by your comment. How is the failure to expand Medicaid related to Harvey weather or recovery? I think all the states should have accepted the ACA, created state insurance markets, and expanded Medicaid, but I do not see a big connection to hurricane response and recovery.
3
Inspired by ideas in the Book "Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered," I would love to see companies recognize when a city is too crowded...and choose to go another city.
1
Krugman wrote that " we don’t yet know just how much poison has been released by flooding of chemical plants, waste dumps, and more. But it’s a good bet that more people will eventually die from the toxins Harvey leaves behind than were killed during the storm itself."
This flood is not the first one to flood "chemical plants, waste dumps and more." In addition, there is no documentation that prior flooding of chemical plants or waste dumps caused deaths due to toxins that may have been carried (and diluted) by flood waters. This is not unexpected becasue toxins at waste dumps are usually buried or in containers, while those at chemical plants are in tanks or drums.
Alligators and bacteria however pose a risk to residents in flooded areas.
The Times needs to do a better job ensuring that groundless statements that can be expected to raise concern in resdients superious fears are not
This flood is not the first one to flood "chemical plants, waste dumps and more." In addition, there is no documentation that prior flooding of chemical plants or waste dumps caused deaths due to toxins that may have been carried (and diluted) by flood waters. This is not unexpected becasue toxins at waste dumps are usually buried or in containers, while those at chemical plants are in tanks or drums.
Alligators and bacteria however pose a risk to residents in flooded areas.
The Times needs to do a better job ensuring that groundless statements that can be expected to raise concern in resdients superious fears are not
7
There's more farmland underwater than paved urban areas. What can't rural areas get it right?
10
There is an odd trade-off in some ways. You do proper planting to avoid topsoil runoff, but those same strategies and tactics can result in excessive water retention.
2
Houston's unregulated development might have played a role in exacerbating the damage caused by an unusually severe storm. But San Francisco's entirely man-made housing shortage is due to an excess of wanting to do the right thing on the part of urban planners and regulators. Mr Friedman rightly identifies the NIMBY factor but the traditional reason he seems to have overlooked in this article is rent sustainability.
In NYC, the NIMBY factor has successfully prevented housing that ranges from low cost housing to luxury condos. It has even attempted to prevent development in New Jersey.
The individuals who are suffering in this tragedy must keep being strong. They deserve everybody's help and support from everyone who has the power to do so. Hurricane Harvey has left a huge mark on America and will surely be talked about for year to come.
In NYC, the NIMBY factor has successfully prevented housing that ranges from low cost housing to luxury condos. It has even attempted to prevent development in New Jersey.
The individuals who are suffering in this tragedy must keep being strong. They deserve everybody's help and support from everyone who has the power to do so. Hurricane Harvey has left a huge mark on America and will surely be talked about for year to come.
2
For all the posters who are critical of Houston, imagine what would happen to NYC if 40 to 50 inches of rain fell? Superstorm Sandy was a mere pimple compared to Hurricane Harvey.
9
I used to live in Atlanta and I have family in Houston and in Charlotte; I am familiar with the ups and downs of these sprawling fast growth Sun Belt cities. I also grew up in Philadelphia, spent some years in NYC, and now am fortunate enough to own a house in a residential part of LA. A pretty big difference is just that in the fast growth new cities people have little fixed expectation for what kind of neighborhood will emerge, at least not enough to fight over it. Could be apartments, houses, commercial, or whatever. In more established cities - which even LA is compared to Houston - people (including me) buy homes in part because they like the neighborhood and have an expectation that they are not engaged in wrongdoing simply by lobbying to have the neighborhood maintain the same type of land use that drew us in the first place and has been in place for decades. My neighborhood has basically been single family homes on small (1/5 acre) lots since the post WW2 boom here. My neighbors and I are not eager to lose the patterns of daily life that drew us to buy here in the first place. Obviously, I am going to put my own real life preferences for my own neighborhood in front of those of Paul Krugman. To be clear, in an academic sense he is right and I am wrong. But I don't live in an academic sense; I live in Sherman Oaks and I want it to stay Sherman Oaks. That sounds like all American self-government to me.
18
I don't know what the answer is; I do know that liberal L.A and surrounding counties are built on the San Andreas Fault line. How did that happen?
6
Bribery, sometimes known as political campaign contributions, by real estate developers.
This column fails to mention or otherwise address serious negative implications of ultra-dense development. While sprawl certainly has a negative connotation for various reasons, ultra-dense living results in significantly higher stress levels and general unhappiness as well. This often ignored but increasingly understood body of science particular to cities is very important to understand. Simply stuffing people into smaller units in taller buildings is not a solution.
7
You've nailed the challenge in S.F. where millennials are packed into apartments, houses, and condos. The result: extreme congestion caused by more people in more cars, on bikes, using mass transit, and walking. While our far-sighted leaders are now putting more rentable bikes on the road -- there aren't bike-only and pedestrian paths to make traveling through the City safe. I hope that's the next breakthrough
1
Interesting comment on the rental bikes - only if there are appropriate docking stations! These things have taken over sidewalks, lawns, bus stops and just about anywhere else they can be dumped here in Singapore. Navigation has become hazardous!
I lived in SF and Berkeley for 45 years. You, Mr. Krugman, do not know what you are talking about. Developers make claims about affordable housing. It is a scam. They are in it for profit. They don't give a damn about social equality in the housing market. So when you, Mr.Krugman, use the word "NIMBY", you are name-calling a whole lot of people who do have a social consciousness. We just don't like being stepped on and ripped off by planning departments and developers who have zero consciousness about humanity, period.
13
Thirty five years ago Arizona passed The Groundwater Management Act, to this day unique among the 50 states. It requires, among other things, builders to assure a 100 year water supply before they build new homes.
Arizona has banked in underground aquifers FOUR TIMES the amount of water NYC holds in its 19 reservoirs and 3 controlled lakes.
Farms are required to laser level their fields and to replace flood irrigation with drip irrigation.
In the 1970s the citizens of Phoenix voted to tax themselves to buy up about 11,000 sq acres of virgin preserve, some of it as rugged as the Grand Canyon, in north central Phoenix to keep it forever out of the hands of developers.
Standing on a remote trail under a sheer out cropping a thousand feet tall, watching javalina, coyotes and wild hares running about, it is difficult to believe you are in the middle of the 5th largest city in America.
Arizona has banked in underground aquifers FOUR TIMES the amount of water NYC holds in its 19 reservoirs and 3 controlled lakes.
Farms are required to laser level their fields and to replace flood irrigation with drip irrigation.
In the 1970s the citizens of Phoenix voted to tax themselves to buy up about 11,000 sq acres of virgin preserve, some of it as rugged as the Grand Canyon, in north central Phoenix to keep it forever out of the hands of developers.
Standing on a remote trail under a sheer out cropping a thousand feet tall, watching javalina, coyotes and wild hares running about, it is difficult to believe you are in the middle of the 5th largest city in America.
13
While San Francisco has struggled with ways to add new affordable housing, Mr. Krugman shows little regard or interest in the problems it faces. For the first time I find him addressing an issue having seemingly done little or no research. First, the rapid expansion of hightech and internet companies moving into San Francisco has driven up housing prices at a far greater rate than any other city in America. But, the city faces far greater challenges. San Francisco sits on top of a major earthquake falt. Added to that a good deal of the low laying parts of the city are sit on landfill, given to shaking like jelly and liquifiing during an earthquake. Even two story structures can easily collapse and causing devastating fires, as happened during the last big earthquake. A recent high rise, soon after being built, having first gone through all of the strenuous planning and permitting process, immediately began sinking and tilting to one side. Add finally the desire of people in San Francisco not to see this most beautiful of American cities transformed into something unrecognizable, which Mr. Krugman simply dismisses as NIMBYism. San Francisco suffers from difficult, complex housing issues but they address them as vigorously as any city in America.
17
Thanks for the early morning laugh. San Francisco has not vigorously addressed its housing issues, the same way it has not vigorously addressed the homeless problem it has. It has managed to spend an enormous amount of money and time on community comments, community review, community studies, environmental reviews, social reviews, etcetera, but little on building housing.
1
Can you name me another city in America that has built a great deal of housing? I can't. San Francisco has wrestled with its homeless problems for decades. Answers to these problems are difficult and complex. What the city does have is a population that deeply cares and continues to try to solve, what at times seems to be, intractable problems. Building affordable housing can not be left to San Francisco on its own.
1
I thankfully made it through Harvey unscathed. Building on floodplains should be avoided when possible. For a city like Houston, vertical expansion is by far the best option. And in a lot of places, vertical expansion is indeed happening. However, Houston's mass transit system is nonexistent, and without major upgrades to the mass transit system, traffic will be far worse than the 405 in LA.
Paul is spot on today, Mass Transit and vertical expansion of cities are two underutilized, totally necessary urban planning technologies. With the exceptions of New York and Chicago, American cities have almost completely failed to take advantage of them.
As for Texas environmental regulations...good luck.
Paul is spot on today, Mass Transit and vertical expansion of cities are two underutilized, totally necessary urban planning technologies. With the exceptions of New York and Chicago, American cities have almost completely failed to take advantage of them.
As for Texas environmental regulations...good luck.
8
One of the problems with mass transit in "driving" cities is: How do you get TO the mass transit.
LA has a lovely subway, but the stations are too far away to walk to unless you happwn to live right nearby, by coincidence. And then at the other end, how do you get to the building you are going to?
LA has a lovely subway, but the stations are too far away to walk to unless you happwn to live right nearby, by coincidence. And then at the other end, how do you get to the building you are going to?
1
All the more reason why we need to vote in local elections. Planning decisions are made at that level.
8
Ask the Democratic mayors of all those cities. Eradicate Democratic corruption if you want to fix the problems.
4
The lesson Chicago has to teach us is that, if you can make your city unattractive enough to lose a net 900,000 people in 60 years, you can keep housing prices low. This may be a viable strategy after 2070, but not now.
7
Dr. Krugman: Is it possible to move Houston and its related area back away from the coast? Instead of rebuilding exactly where it is now would it not make sense to create a new city center much further inland. If the city is put back where is/was what happens with the next major hurricane in that part of the gulf. I get it that it is really a port city. I understand that the old city was built in such a way as to damage natural drainage. I know from reading the NYT that moving some of the major facilities would be hugely expensive. I do not think Houston should be rebuilt where it is now because this will happen again.
5
In Europe, cities are for people.
In the US, cities are for making profits.
It's that simple.
In the US, cities are for making profits.
It's that simple.
13
Lumping Atlanta together with Houston as a city where "anything goes" is wrong; Atlanta does have zoning.
7
It is bizarre that a Nobel prize winning economist thinks that we should make urban policy based on 500-year long tail events.
If we did, we'd would completely evacuate San Francisco, as the entire population is at high risk of death and economic loss due to earthquakes.
Be it superstorm Sandy that disabled the "well regulated and enlightened" Northeast or the freakish Harvey and 50" or rain over a couple of days, or the massive earthquakes in San Francisco, these events will always be with us.
There is no need to make any major changes in Houston. Fewer people dies due to Harvey than have died in some casino bus accidents in the Northeast. It is tragic, but hardly warrants a change in development policy.
Houston is growing because people like to have space, live in houses with a large dog, own a boat, multiple cars, etc. Vertical/subterranean life, like Mr. Krugman seems to be prescribing (tiny apartment-elevator-subway-elevator-office-elevator-subway-elevator-tiny apartment) is not a life that most Americans want.
If we did, we'd would completely evacuate San Francisco, as the entire population is at high risk of death and economic loss due to earthquakes.
Be it superstorm Sandy that disabled the "well regulated and enlightened" Northeast or the freakish Harvey and 50" or rain over a couple of days, or the massive earthquakes in San Francisco, these events will always be with us.
There is no need to make any major changes in Houston. Fewer people dies due to Harvey than have died in some casino bus accidents in the Northeast. It is tragic, but hardly warrants a change in development policy.
Houston is growing because people like to have space, live in houses with a large dog, own a boat, multiple cars, etc. Vertical/subterranean life, like Mr. Krugman seems to be prescribing (tiny apartment-elevator-subway-elevator-office-elevator-subway-elevator-tiny apartment) is not a life that most Americans want.
6
You realize it's the third 500 year flood in 3 years? Galveston was a growing city too...
Take Toronto for instance, with NIMBY activists like Margaret Atwood and her billionaire croneys stopping development for decades. The resulting extremes of wealth and poverty are all the result of highly-paid planners and Liberal dogooders - very effective and producing the opposite outcome to the one intended.
2
With all due respect, I think there a many more issues to think about as we formulate housing policy than simply how many units we can cram onto a site. Economists tend to focus on the easily quantifiable aspects of urban life, and miss the less measurable, but nonetheless real, qualities which determine whether a neighborhood is a place where you'd want to live. As you are well aware, there are sectors of our economy where we can't count on the market to always arrive at the optimal solution, such as healthcare. So why do you think that simply overriding NIMBY sentiments and letting buildings get as big as they can be would solve the problem? We might end up with acres of towers, such as our 1950s public housing, or Soviet era Plattenbau, or today's Shanghai. Maybe San Francisco would finally have enough housing, but maybe it would cease to be the San Francisco we all love. While I'm willing to follow your prescriptions on the economy or even your government, I wish you'd talk to some architects or urban designers before you issue such sweeping pronouncements.
10
The interstate highway system put the U.S. on a completely different development trajectory compared to Europe's denser cities with better infrastructure. America's highest priced cities mimic European cities: dense, pedestrian-friendly, numerous public transportation options, numerous public parks, etc. In Houston, the city expanded cheaply with its ever expanding sprawl. Sure, living in Houston could be cheap (especially with no state income tax in Texas), but like in many car-centric American cities and suburbs the low cost of living equates with less urban vibrancy. Most Americans unfortunately have traded investment in public infrastructure for depreciation in their personal automobiles.
12
The first question I always ask about this is...where's the example of getting cities right? Of packing lots of people into a small geographic area while still having all the needed services, good transportation, and a diverse housing stock so that the people who deliver necessary services can actually live in the city?
The only formula that seems to work is money, and lots of it. And that's not the answer we want.
The only formula that seems to work is money, and lots of it. And that's not the answer we want.
5
This phenomenon of the two camps being part of the lousy urban growth problem is a poster child for public financing of elections. The biggest campaign contributors to local elected officials are traditionally development interests, and in some political climes neighborhood groups with pull will stymie infill development that could add density close-in where transportation and other infrastructure is already in place or can be upgraded more reasonably and with less of the adverse impacts of sprawl on natural systems.
Quality urban design can make urban densification work well with reduced impacts on compatibility and infrastructure, but it's not a sexy issue for politicians as it requires a lot of political capital, political will and political courage to require it, and the executive aptitude, commitment, talent and funding to make it work. It can be done, but?...
Quality urban design can make urban densification work well with reduced impacts on compatibility and infrastructure, but it's not a sexy issue for politicians as it requires a lot of political capital, political will and political courage to require it, and the executive aptitude, commitment, talent and funding to make it work. It can be done, but?...
4
I don't see anybody talking about the fact that Houston has sunken 10-12 feet in the last 90 years. I think this is the case with most of our coastal cities. Why is this largely ignored?
12
If America truly wants to get cities right, there needs to be less access for automobiles and more alternative transport. As a mental exercise, imagine a city without the streets and parking, the buildings linked by autonomous transport vehicles running fixed routing, on call. Kind of like Uber without the roads and cars, using transit pods and special tunnels, bridges, airways and paths. Think bike paths and walking paths everywhere. Distributed offices supported by very high speed interconnectivity. Cities in the current mode reflect the current technology lagged about 40 years. American cities tore out trolley car rails in the 1940s, and have spent hundreds of millions rebuilding "light rail" in the 1990s to now. The suburban sprawl epitomized by Houston and similar cities reflects an automotive reality that hasn't existed since the 1960s... when self-driving cars are available at an Uber call, why own a vehicle? Then most parking and many roads are less needed, or can be used instead for walkways, bike paths, and pedestrian mall dropoff-pickup points for the self-driving rides. We'll no doubt be building such cities in the 2080s.
5
Love your ideas. Let's get started!.
Krugman's article highlights the problem with development in both extremes. However, I think NIMBY usually comes from fears of infrastructure and open space destruction, not exclusivity.
3
The housing in the bay area is just insane. There are multiple factors, of which Nimbyism is one. Prop 13 doesn't help , if you sell your starter house and move into a large home, your property taxes take a huge jump, so sometimes fixing it up makes more sense. Also lot of real estate people like to get on the city management boards and in act policies that favor the real estate industry at the expense of the people living here.
2
Another factor in San Francisco is the earthquake threat. Who wants to be living on the 50th floor when "the big one" finally hits?
I loved the Underground in London and used it exclusively to get around when I visited there. However, foreign investment has pushed London real estate so high in price that it is difficult for working-class people to afford rents there now.
Denver is a wonderfully vital place to live, but is now so expensive that we chose to move back to Wichita because we could no longer afford the cost of living there when we retired.
I loved the Underground in London and used it exclusively to get around when I visited there. However, foreign investment has pushed London real estate so high in price that it is difficult for working-class people to afford rents there now.
Denver is a wonderfully vital place to live, but is now so expensive that we chose to move back to Wichita because we could no longer afford the cost of living there when we retired.
3
Oh, San Francisco is growing upwards alright. The city is a maze of construction sites, cranes are everywhere lifting slabs of concrete ever higher to make expensive condos for the minions of tech and finance. San Francisco is building up, as the Professor suggests, but it's cannibalizing all of its amenities to do it. Public parking lots, wholesale markets, playing fields, tennis clubs and the like are all becoming things of the past to make way for ever higher concentrations of the well-off. Meanwhile the city isn't requiring the investment in public needs, things like new schools, police and fire stations, and housing for those who would work there. Nor are they upgrading the transit infrastructure fast enough to meet the needs of residents, relying instead on fantasy projections of an UBER future where all will be in their autonomous taxis, while the reality of "ride-sharing" tech has flooded the streets with gypsy hacks watching their GPS instead of other drivers, double-parking, clogging the streets and further compounding an already miserable situation.
Oh yeah, San Francisco is growing up alright.
Oh yeah, San Francisco is growing up alright.
10
In municipal and regional planning, you'll often hear the term "highest and best use" thrown around regarding zoning. It's a loaded phrase. The real question is "highest and best use" for whom?
8
It's a term co-opted by development interests and property rights advocates of a "free market." Your question is the crux of the matter.
2
You won't hear that term espoused by municipal and regional planners. It's a real estate value appraisal term that is co-opted, indeed "loaded" as you say, as a jingoism for real estate development and property rights advocates for an untrammeled "free market," i.e., a Houston.
1
The zoning or land use planning problems of Houston and San Francisco are different. San Francisco minimizes skyscrapers because of many reasons. One of those reasons is its susceptibilty to catastrophic earthquakes.
6
I write this from Taipei, home to what was formerly the world's tallest building, and another region prone to earthquakes. Nearby Japan also shows that building tall in such areas is feasible if the will exists.
4
Why can't we get cities right?
(1) Believe in perpetual, linear growth.
(2) Greed.
(1) Believe in perpetual, linear growth.
(2) Greed.
6
"But it's a good bet that more people will eventually die from the toxins Harvey leaves behind than were killed during the storm itself."
This is pure speculation and an otherwise sour note in a good article.
This is pure speculation and an otherwise sour note in a good article.
Hence the descriptor "good bet". Sour? How? It's a reasonable comment on the human tendency to attend to the spectacular and ignore the mundane.
2
I can't believe that this article doesn't once mention the almost total lack of integrated metropolitan planning, and that the little planning that exists is built around roads and cars. The problems of the SF Bay Area go way beyond nimbyism within the city itself. And the Houston metropolitan area has grown anarchically, in the absence of any serious regional planning (horrors - communism). Money decides what goes where. Build or extend a road, sell off the land on either side to the highest bidder who decides what to put there, all only accessible by car. What a nightmare. What an ugly, impractical "city". Why has employment been densified in the Bay Area but not housing? Why so little public transportation? Putting busses on thousands of congested miles of roads designed to optimize development profit will not solve the problem.
7
NYC has been building up , up, and up and that hasn't made housing more affordable. As for Chicago, we have nothing to learn from them. If housing is affordable, it's because who would want to live there? It's the murder capital of the country, the weather is brutal, and the government is corrupt. Housing is always expensive in desirable areas, that's why housing is cheap in West Virginia. Nobody wants to be there.
8
Rx for America: More, better education. And more respect for experts. People who are themselves more willing to invest their own time and effort gaining a higher quality of knowledge -- on any subject -- are much more often inclined to hold experts in esteem. Shoddy results are the lot of sloppy students. Notice how in so many schools now, even the word "students" has been banished, replaced by "learners." The reason? "Study" implies effort, focus, attention and time expended. "Learning" is something that can happen haphazardly, almost on the fly. "We all learn from our mistakes." Yes: and we also Study Hard to Prevent Mistakes from ever happening in the first place. This is not the first big American flood or storm. Neither was Katrina. Neither was Sandy. Neither was Andrew. Read about the 1938 New England hurricane. We are not learning from experience, because we are not studying. We are not planning. We are not investing in basic infrastructure: even the boats, the humble vaporetti or water taxis of other countries, the kinds of built-for-purpose barges that could be used much more efficiently for rescues. It's time to stop doing things by the seat of your pants, USA. The Dutch are way ahead of us with flood-prevention technology. Yes, it costs. But failure to safeguard costs much, much more!
9
Two words that during the last campaign you stopped uttering: income inequality. US cities are built and designed for the rich, not the quality of life of all. From healthcare to education, transportation, decent employment and housing, being poor or middle class in the US is quickly becoming a miserable existence. I'll pass for now.
7
And while geography — the constraint imposed by water and mountains — is often offered as an excuse for the Bay Area’s failure to build more housing, there’s no good reason it couldn’t build up
Apparently Mr. Krugmam has never heard of earthquakes. I believe 1906 was the last time SF got leveled due to one. Odds are much better with a 500 year flood.
Apparently Mr. Krugmam has never heard of earthquakes. I believe 1906 was the last time SF got leveled due to one. Odds are much better with a 500 year flood.
I guess you never heard of structural engineering. Highrises exceeding 50 stories (approx 500 ft) and taller are common here in Los Angeles, earthquake central. I have work on many. We have had many earthquakes and almost all tall buildings survive without significant damage. The "big one" will come someday but science knows that and builds accordingly to mitigate damage and loss of life.
Top notch public transit is a big part of the solution to reducing density in urban areas. The Los Angeles and socal area in general are well on our way to have a high quality intermodal public transit system combined with autonomous vehicles that will ease residential density, roadway congestion and improve quality of life in the urban areas
Top notch public transit is a big part of the solution to reducing density in urban areas. The Los Angeles and socal area in general are well on our way to have a high quality intermodal public transit system combined with autonomous vehicles that will ease residential density, roadway congestion and improve quality of life in the urban areas
4
I totally over-looked the whole earthquake issue! But I guess I'm in good or, rather, "noble" company.
Speaking of earthquakes, when we returned to Wichita we purchased earthquake insurance due to the number of quakes now caused by the fracking being done by the oil and natural gas (methane) drilling being done extensively in Oklahoma. A totally new phenomenon we never had to deal with when we grew up here in 50s and 60s.
2
It seems to me that Houston came through this Hurricane a lot better than New Orleans did in Katrina. In fact, the front page of the Times shows how resilient the city and its people are. It looks like Houston is a pretty good model for disaster survival - its certainly far better than was New Orleans.
4
The recovery is expected to cost over 100 billion dollars and toxic waste is everywhere and flooding was as extensive as it was bays of Houston's lack of regulations. The people there might be admirable but the city itself is a terrible role model.
3
I agree. This article really feels like sour grapes -- it almost seems as if Krugman is unhappy with how well Houston has coped.
1
Dear Red States,
The future of America is in our cities. I encourage you to develop the cities in your states. Indianapolis is a great example of a successful and growing great city in a red state. Denver is a similar example in a purple state.
In the post WWII era, factory jobs were predominant. Many factories located in cheap rural areas and thrived. Those days are behind us. The coastal cities have recovered from the blight of the 1980s, and have embraced their new opportunities. You, in the Midwest and Rust Belt, can do this as well.
The cities are where the good American jobs of the future already are, and will continue to grow. The Red States can successfully attract companies and good jobs to their cities. Don't get left behind. Just do it.
The future of America is in our cities. I encourage you to develop the cities in your states. Indianapolis is a great example of a successful and growing great city in a red state. Denver is a similar example in a purple state.
In the post WWII era, factory jobs were predominant. Many factories located in cheap rural areas and thrived. Those days are behind us. The coastal cities have recovered from the blight of the 1980s, and have embraced their new opportunities. You, in the Midwest and Rust Belt, can do this as well.
The cities are where the good American jobs of the future already are, and will continue to grow. The Red States can successfully attract companies and good jobs to their cities. Don't get left behind. Just do it.
3
Paul Krugman may have a Nobel Memorial Prize in economics, but his understanding of urban economics and planning is limited. While he gets Houston right, he gets everything else wrong. The reason housing prices in San Francisco and the Bay Area are expensive has less to do with regulation and more with other factors at work, which are too complex to enunciate here.
3
Love PK. PK usually right. PK very brilliant, but this time he forgot that one sentence saying that no major city could survive a couple or 3 feet of rain without massive damage. Best to spend many dollars repairing one of our largest cities and to spend zero time blaming the victims
1
So that whole personal responsibility thing is a gag? That's what I thought.
2
Has anyone mentioned the fact that a substantial portion of Manhattan & Brooklyn real estate is actually a bank account for the world's wealthiest people? The properties stay empty 95% of the year and radically distort all real estate values. The owners are unknown, as the properties are purchased via shell companies in secrecy. See this shocking NY Times article https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/nyregion/the-hidden-money-buying-up-n...
And thanks to the NY State 421A tax abatement program gifted to NYC developers, these billionaire property owners pay lower taxes than Trump. Consequently, the teachers, nurses, & firemen pay outsized taxes to support infrastructure for these billionaires. We can't get our cities right until we get our policies right, and that requires publicly funded elections. End pay to play, the sooner the better!
And thanks to the NY State 421A tax abatement program gifted to NYC developers, these billionaire property owners pay lower taxes than Trump. Consequently, the teachers, nurses, & firemen pay outsized taxes to support infrastructure for these billionaires. We can't get our cities right until we get our policies right, and that requires publicly funded elections. End pay to play, the sooner the better!
12
People don't live in Brooklyn? Where do all the hipsters come from/go to?
1
Hipsters (who populate Brooklyn these days) aren't teachers, nurses and firefighters! Hipsters are suckling pigs to Wall Street's VCs..
Meanwhile, small towns all over America are emptying out and dying. I've seen houses on double lots sell for $3,000 at auction where I live. But it's a vicious cycle. Nobody wants to live here because there is nothing to do, but people can't afford to live in exciting towns. Too bad we can't get creative, innovative people to fill these small, dying towns. The towns would become more interesting and the housing would be affordable.
11
Until now, there’s been much less evidence of second thoughts about unmanaged development in red states, but Harvey may serve as a wake-up call.
Perhaps as well Mr. Krugman is unaware of a thing called the LA Basin in perhaps the bluest of all blue states, California. The sprawl from its unmanaged development spreads as far south as Mexico and east until the Mohave Desert just won't let it go any further, otherwise Phoenix would be an LA suburb.
Perhaps as well Mr. Krugman is unaware of a thing called the LA Basin in perhaps the bluest of all blue states, California. The sprawl from its unmanaged development spreads as far south as Mexico and east until the Mohave Desert just won't let it go any further, otherwise Phoenix would be an LA suburb.
4
As Prof. Krugman (and any reader of history) knows, until the Industrial Revolution, all transport was by horse or by water, so all major cities were built either on the coast or on rivers. Absent some type of consideration of both meteorological and geologic realities, we can expect to see more of the same; and our FEMA resources will be increasingly strained bailing out cities.
Why in the world would a homeowner or business want to rebuild in the same place, and then wait for the next major hurricane? In the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy, New York bought up many homes that had been severely damaged, and required that homes being renovated be elevated. If people want to live on the water, the consequences should not always be the responsibility of the American taxpayer.
Why in the world would a homeowner or business want to rebuild in the same place, and then wait for the next major hurricane? In the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy, New York bought up many homes that had been severely damaged, and required that homes being renovated be elevated. If people want to live on the water, the consequences should not always be the responsibility of the American taxpayer.
6
Build up and up and up, yet watch the prices go up as well. Adding capacity in densely-populated urban areas will lead to micro-apartments in the sky -- another version of "less for more." Rats crowded in a cage. You go ahead and live there (and by the way I'm curious, do you Mr. Krugman need to take an elevator to get to your residence?).
7
As time goes by, I am struck by how willfully and blatantly ignorant the New York Times is with respect to everything it covers. This article misses even the basics about Houston, and in doing so puts yet another dent in your newspaper's banged-up credibility.
8
Please do enlighten us with further commentary.
5
Urban planning/land use is important, but so is population planning.
5
"Urban planning/land use is important, but so is population planning."
The U.S. (like much of Europe and Japan) is at or below replacement levels in fertility rates. We do not have a problem with increasing population; rather our problem is with flat birth rates of native-born Americans, an aging population, no economic growth, and bankrupt pensions and social security.
If Mr. Trump succeeds in halting immigration, the U.S. economy will flat line like Japan did 20 years ago.
The U.S. (like much of Europe and Japan) is at or below replacement levels in fertility rates. We do not have a problem with increasing population; rather our problem is with flat birth rates of native-born Americans, an aging population, no economic growth, and bankrupt pensions and social security.
If Mr. Trump succeeds in halting immigration, the U.S. economy will flat line like Japan did 20 years ago.
4
@ MidtownATL: Although Japan's declining population has resulted in an economic slowdown and an ageing population, it will actually benefit the country in the long-term - environmentally and economically.
When it comes to long-term population management and planning, Japan is doing what all the other countries should be taking note of.
This Ponzi like mentality that it's always beneficial to continue adding to our population base is myopic to the point of suicide.
When it comes to long-term population management and planning, Japan is doing what all the other countries should be taking note of.
This Ponzi like mentality that it's always beneficial to continue adding to our population base is myopic to the point of suicide.
5
Michael,
Thanks for your interesting thesis. I saw your similar response on another comment. There is certainly some truth than the assumption of continuous growth is a ponzi scheme.
I do think that it is beneficial to the U.S. to continue to grow, in part through immigration in the near term. We can remain competitive in the world, beyond Japan and Europe, for a few more years by doing this. That said, I agree with you that we need to take this opportunity to figure out what a future with lower economic growth (and related population growth) looks like, and how to manage this for the benefit of the American people. Japan has not figured this out over the last two decades; hopefully we can contribute. Thank you for your thoughts.
Thanks for your interesting thesis. I saw your similar response on another comment. There is certainly some truth than the assumption of continuous growth is a ponzi scheme.
I do think that it is beneficial to the U.S. to continue to grow, in part through immigration in the near term. We can remain competitive in the world, beyond Japan and Europe, for a few more years by doing this. That said, I agree with you that we need to take this opportunity to figure out what a future with lower economic growth (and related population growth) looks like, and how to manage this for the benefit of the American people. Japan has not figured this out over the last two decades; hopefully we can contribute. Thank you for your thoughts.
2
When we walk around near the ballpark in San Francisco we do so with some trepidation. The buildings are getting higher and higher and we wonder whether that's because the science of. building in an earthquake zone has progressed so significantly in the last thirty years or whether the greed and hubris in our society has overwhelmed our critical thinking ability. We're not trained in architectural science. But we are pretty experienced in dealing with the consequences of the ignorance and greed that permeate our time. and we suspect those factors are more responsible than science in the proliferation of the towers in San Francisco.
5
Urban population density can be greatly reduced by utilizing public transit to outland areas of any metropolitan location
You need a good transit network to start. Not common, and non-existent outside the eastern seaboard. No BART and CTA do not count, they don't access enough spaces or provide enough variety of pathways.
It takes a long time to hash out good science, and even longer to convert that into well thought out technologies. Greed takes almost no time at all. What we're seeing here in SF is just another gold rush; it is certainly not the triumph of architecture, technology, economics, and urban planning over the inevitable forces of nature. I absolutely guarantee it.
2
I'm a huge fan of the column, but there is a somewhat misleading statement in this one - the "outsized pollution footprint". Houston's high level of air pollution specifically refers to ground level ozone, which is mostly due to the combination of hydrocarbons in the atmosphere from petroleum refining and intense sunshine. While ozone can promote asthma exacerbations, it has nowhere near the serious effects of particulates on long-term pulmonary and cardiovascular health, in which Houston is relatively low.
3
Each city is unique. I don't know why you'd want to cram more people into the earthquake-prone bay area. For Houston--get the development out of the 500-year flood plain, but again--why cram more people into this hurricane-prone area? The megalopolis does not do well when disaster strikes.
8
Why can't get urban policy right? The answer is simple - there's money to be made.
The consequences are irrelevant to the developers. Profit is what matters.
The consequences are irrelevant to the developers. Profit is what matters.
9
Great common-sense view of the problem. But maybe a bit too simple?
The solution is obvious but nobody sees it. People are working the work jobs: become a hedge fund manager, a news anchor, casino owner, a professional sports player or a movie star. Making 10 to 200 million a year these problems will largely disappear.
4
If you REALLY want terrible housing, get yourself an elite-led bureaucracy that builds houses and assigns them according to party rank. You'll grow to love concrete with lots of drafts and nonexistent HVAC. The washer and dryer will be great once the crew to install the electrical connection needed for them decides you've paid or threatened them enough.
Besides, nobody really needs more than a thousand sq. ft. now, do they?
Besides, nobody really needs more than a thousand sq. ft. now, do they?
3
I seldom post, but the nearsightedness of the Mayor of Houston struck me telling people they would be safe if they just stayed home. A few days before any rain fell, I happened to post that I thought people should try to get out... I was shocked by the vitriol that comment engendered... the sad part is that some of those comments may have come from those who were later caught in the flooding. It is always safer to leave and then come back if there is no problem...
2
Mass evacuation poses its own dangers. There is often no 'good' option
3
the storm was predicted well in advance, evacuation could have happened over many days.... If you wait til the rain comes I totally agree with you
Dumb article ...I have lived in Houston for 40 years and the climate has changed . When the weather channel uses a new color to describe a rainfall that's has never occurred then maybe looking for fault in houston is too easy. Sure houston is not perfect but when old neighborhoods that were built in the 60's start to flood with no new development then the cause is not obvious .
I like to how many cities can survive like houston after 50 inches have fallen
NY? LA?
I like to how many cities can survive like houston after 50 inches have fallen
NY? LA?
4
Easy out.
3
It's not Red vs. Blue. Texas is a VERY large state, and Houston is tucked (almost) in the corner.
Also, with the amount of heavy industry and petrochemical in Houston, you'd be a fool to put everything in a small area (like a chemical plant in a residential neighborhood).
Much of the industry in Houston necessitates building along the coast. You simply can't have this many refineries inland, and chemical companies need distillates that would not be easily accessible far from the refineries.
Stacking people in high-rise buildings in the center of town would mean no room for cars. When the next hurricane hits, how do you evacuate without a car, when the next major inland city is over 100 miles away?
Many things can (and should) be improved in Houston. Major flood-control projects are decades overdue. However, making a more population-dense city center is just about the worst-possible "solution" I can imagine.
Also, with the amount of heavy industry and petrochemical in Houston, you'd be a fool to put everything in a small area (like a chemical plant in a residential neighborhood).
Much of the industry in Houston necessitates building along the coast. You simply can't have this many refineries inland, and chemical companies need distillates that would not be easily accessible far from the refineries.
Stacking people in high-rise buildings in the center of town would mean no room for cars. When the next hurricane hits, how do you evacuate without a car, when the next major inland city is over 100 miles away?
Many things can (and should) be improved in Houston. Major flood-control projects are decades overdue. However, making a more population-dense city center is just about the worst-possible "solution" I can imagine.
1
Mr. Kaufman has it wrong. The primary reason for lower housing prices in Houston is actually quite simple. Ample supply of land.
5
The crisis of housing costs in American cities is much more than a matter of building more housing. Short-term rentals (Air B&B) are taking affordable housing out of the regular housing market; addiction-rehab and sober-living businesses are flocking into residential neighborhoods, converting them to institutional settings, in addition to creating problems of incompatibility and homelessness.
Foreign capital seeking a secure investment is driving housing prices upwards. In some communities such as Costa Mesa, California, many hundreds of high-density condominiums have been built in the past few years. None cost less than half a million dollars, most around $800,000.
Lower-income families are doubling up in small apartments, some renting a single room for an entire family with children. Homelessness is a huge and growing problem.
No one city or county can surmount these problems alone, regardless of easing development standards and shortening processing time for permits. The state is shirking its duty, putting burdens on cities and counties and then claiming it has done its part.
Foreign capital seeking a secure investment is driving housing prices upwards. In some communities such as Costa Mesa, California, many hundreds of high-density condominiums have been built in the past few years. None cost less than half a million dollars, most around $800,000.
Lower-income families are doubling up in small apartments, some renting a single room for an entire family with children. Homelessness is a huge and growing problem.
No one city or county can surmount these problems alone, regardless of easing development standards and shortening processing time for permits. The state is shirking its duty, putting burdens on cities and counties and then claiming it has done its part.
10
Dear Mr. Krugman, So sad to see you arguing that San Francisco, which has been building preciptously for the past 5 or so years, benefiting developers tremendously if not renters, should grow taller and taller into another Manhattan. Citizens must draw the line. Your vaunted solutions are no solutions at all.
8
Its because we were never meant to live like this. We are a cave people who with the advent of patriarchy got into chastity belt architecture.
2
Houston's unregulated development might have played a role in exacerbating the damage caused by an unusually severe storm. But San Francisco's entirely man-made housing shortage is due to an excess of wanting to do the right thing on the part of urban planners and regulators. Mr Friedman rightly identifies the NIMBY factor--for sheer elitism this wins top prize--but the traditional reason he seems to have overlooked in this article is rent stabilization. And, of course, San Francisco's over regulation will provide no magic amulet if the San Andreas fault acts up.
In NYC, the NIMBY factor has successfully prevented housing that ranges from low cost housing to luxury condos. It has even attempted to prevent development in New Jersey (LG ELectronics). The reasons for NIMBY generated shortages which are served up with side of sanctimony range from: the shadow will ruin the park next to me or the view will be spoiled or grocery prices will go up and my poor neighbor will be unable to afford his groceries. The real reason: "I want my property value to go up" is never mentioned.
In the past, Mr Krugman squarely blamed rent control for San Francisco's woes, right here in the NYT. At the end of the article he even remarked bitterly, "So now you know why economists are useless: when they actually do understand something, people don't want to hear about it." Sadly he has chosen to stay silent today. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent-affair.html?...
In NYC, the NIMBY factor has successfully prevented housing that ranges from low cost housing to luxury condos. It has even attempted to prevent development in New Jersey (LG ELectronics). The reasons for NIMBY generated shortages which are served up with side of sanctimony range from: the shadow will ruin the park next to me or the view will be spoiled or grocery prices will go up and my poor neighbor will be unable to afford his groceries. The real reason: "I want my property value to go up" is never mentioned.
In the past, Mr Krugman squarely blamed rent control for San Francisco's woes, right here in the NYT. At the end of the article he even remarked bitterly, "So now you know why economists are useless: when they actually do understand something, people don't want to hear about it." Sadly he has chosen to stay silent today. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent-affair.html?...
2
New York no longer has any NIMBYISM. Our beloved mayor, Bill DeBlasio has forced zoning changes in every single borough INCREASING heights of buildings and leading to over-crowded streets and transit. A few new developments include a pitiful few "affordable" apartments, but most don't. They are for the rich only.
ALL the new buildings, in every borough, are built for the rich. So, while the city's quality of life is ruined (cf. Central Park shadows), Virtually NO affordable housing results. More buildings, which Krugman recommends, cause more and more parts of the entire city to grow more and more unaffordable.
Fortunately, unlike the Bay Area, New York has close-in parts of the outer boroughs that are affordable in New Jersey, Long Island, Rockland, even parts of Westchester. Fortunately, these areas, for the most part, have excellent public transit. Only 10% of Manhattan workers enter by private car.
My feeling is: Enough with the rezoning. All it produces are profits for developers, and more housing for the rich.
As for the Bay Area, I don't know what the solution is, but any new housing in SF will be only for the rich.
ALL the new buildings, in every borough, are built for the rich. So, while the city's quality of life is ruined (cf. Central Park shadows), Virtually NO affordable housing results. More buildings, which Krugman recommends, cause more and more parts of the entire city to grow more and more unaffordable.
Fortunately, unlike the Bay Area, New York has close-in parts of the outer boroughs that are affordable in New Jersey, Long Island, Rockland, even parts of Westchester. Fortunately, these areas, for the most part, have excellent public transit. Only 10% of Manhattan workers enter by private car.
My feeling is: Enough with the rezoning. All it produces are profits for developers, and more housing for the rich.
As for the Bay Area, I don't know what the solution is, but any new housing in SF will be only for the rich.
America builds too loosely. We don't really need a lawn that you barely have time to mow or back yards we don't spend much time on. Some home owners have acres of land for just their ego. American ego is so big just like our houses that are mostly empty or filled with trash. I like cozy apartments where I don't have to spent time cleaning and maintaining all the time. I always live on the 2nd floor. Why do we even need houses with just one story? You don't get any views except maybe your neighbors windows. If we had more 2nd story houses with the same amount of area without excessive yard space, we could build more homes. No apartments have more than 3 stories here unless in cities. In cities it's no more than 5 unless it's in downtown area. It's a stupid way to build crappy sprawling units that only serve a few people. But looking at the obesity rates in America, most people can barely walk, so stairs in their homes wouldn't work I guess.
1
(Continued -- I hit "submit" prematurely)
[2]. NIMBYism is a narrow-minded and uncharitable way of characterizing anti-development views. Some people move to an area because its ambience -- green space, unobstructed views, good schools, sense of community, etc. -- suits them. Few real estate developers give a damn about these things, especially when there is money to be made by building denser (and often less attractive) developments. And often, in desirable locations, building more densely merely increases the number of "unaffordable" or not-terribly-"affordable" housing units, while burdening school systems and adding to traffic congestion. Liberals shouldn't be so easily seduced by developers who mouth liberal pieties.
This is not to deny that there are severe problems that need, somehow, to be addressed. But, to paraphrase our President, it's complicated.
[2]. NIMBYism is a narrow-minded and uncharitable way of characterizing anti-development views. Some people move to an area because its ambience -- green space, unobstructed views, good schools, sense of community, etc. -- suits them. Few real estate developers give a damn about these things, especially when there is money to be made by building denser (and often less attractive) developments. And often, in desirable locations, building more densely merely increases the number of "unaffordable" or not-terribly-"affordable" housing units, while burdening school systems and adding to traffic congestion. Liberals shouldn't be so easily seduced by developers who mouth liberal pieties.
This is not to deny that there are severe problems that need, somehow, to be addressed. But, to paraphrase our President, it's complicated.
You might think that your love for "ambience -- green space, unobstructed views, good schools, sense of community, etc." is an unselfish, noble attachment. Others might find you to be just as avaricious as the property developer you so despise. The market incidentally places a premium on what you call ambience: its called property value.
You are basically saying your specific attachments (to things) are beautiful and deserving of respect and are a reason more housing should not be built. At least the developer's love for the color green will generate more housing units.
Who is being narrow minded now?
You are basically saying your specific attachments (to things) are beautiful and deserving of respect and are a reason more housing should not be built. At least the developer's love for the color green will generate more housing units.
Who is being narrow minded now?
3
There have got to be dozens of California native species living in the tiny backyard of my tiny 1923 San Francisco home, many of which are endangered. On the other hand, I can assure you, there is no shortage of condominiums. Yes indeed, I am attached to these 'things' we call native species, and I could not care less for endless condominiums. Make what you will of that. How about let's call it Native (species) In My Backyard.
Don't worry, a generation or two after I'm gone, it will be all squalid condos. Hopefully my potential descendants will not have squandered their profits on surviving the apocalypse...
Don't worry, a generation or two after I'm gone, it will be all squalid condos. Hopefully my potential descendants will not have squandered their profits on surviving the apocalypse...
You misunderstand me. I love nature too and beautiful things like art and sculpture. All I am saying is that it does not make me a better person. Maybe a luckier person as long I can enjoy it, but not better. Everything we do is at the expense of something else. Let us not elevate our aesthetics to the level of morality. And if your argument is that preserving endangered natural species is a higher calling, then consider that vast regions of the world (i.e. the future San Franciscos) will be condemned to perpetual backwardness if we pause the march of progress. We can certainly do it, but the humans who lose out might have a thing or two to say to you.
Imagine how the species in your backyard would have thrived if in 1923 someone decided to leave your neighborhood pristine and undeveloped.
Imagine how the species in your backyard would have thrived if in 1923 someone decided to leave your neighborhood pristine and undeveloped.
There is an invisible hand at work in both the San Francisco and Houston models. If San Francisco makes it impossible for working and middle class people to live near their jobs, those people will be looking for satellite cities that can offer them jobs as well as cheaper accommodation. Some will just look for other urban areas. Eventually, the shortage of labour will necessitate a rethinking. As for Houston, the costs of commuting - particularly from the decreasing number of unpolluted areas - will rise to the point where working and middle class people can't make ends meet. When going to work stops making economic sense. either the urban design has to be rethought or you have a core city surrounded by favelas.
4
Walking around Manhattan lately I have noticed how many storefronts on the upper east side avenues have for rent signs in their windows. This is also occurring in the West Village and Soho. In the West Village along Bleecker Street, many designer shops popped up and were able to afford the rents. Once the rents became exorbitant the clothing sales did not keep up with increased rents. The real estate owners were left with empty lots and have not been able to rent these high-cost buildings.
This is also occurring with some apartments in the city. They have had to reduce rents or they remain vacant. They got greedy and the people were not going to give in. The outer boroughs became more popular than ever. Tenants would rather have a longer commute than be cheated by a landlord.
The only people who can afford the city today are the wealthy and the middle class are being forced to relocate. It does not seem to be changing anytime soon.
This is also occurring with some apartments in the city. They have had to reduce rents or they remain vacant. They got greedy and the people were not going to give in. The outer boroughs became more popular than ever. Tenants would rather have a longer commute than be cheated by a landlord.
The only people who can afford the city today are the wealthy and the middle class are being forced to relocate. It does not seem to be changing anytime soon.
8
Up here in Vancouver Canada high rises have not solved the housing expense problem. Cost of a two bedroom condo: $ 1 million. And what happens to those high rises when the West Coast version of Harvey happens. the 9.0 rip?
6
There are a lot of mid-western towns and cities that have been more or less abandoned that could be developed rather than adding more density in a few "pretty places". In the digital age it makes sense in so many ways.
6
Yes, yes, yes. Try the Iron Range of MInnesota--brilliant schools, low property taxes, and infrastructure in place to support triple or quadruple the current population.
1
For those of you who prefer single family houses, you don't have to give this up to support good urban development practices.
Quarter acre lot houses are sufficiently dense to support public transportation. Most people will walk half a mile to transit to get them to work, and transit is effective when it is predictable as compared to the stress and variability of freeway congestion.
A better suburban development pattern is to build single family homes within a half mile of a "town center" with transit. The town center would include local amenities, such as a small grocery, CPA office, dry cleaner, some restaurants, etc. The transit would take you to major job centers (as an alternative to freeways). There would also be some multifamily homes (townhomes, condos, apartments) closer to the town center.
Read Andres Duany (New Urbanism). Read Jane Jacobs. This is entirely doable in the U.S. today. And you don't even have to give up your yard or your car. You just wouldn't need to drive as much, especially during rush hour.
The streetcar suburbs in pre-war America largely got this right. And many of those neighborhoods have seen a revival in popularity today (even if the streetcar tracks have been ripped up).
Large urban centers are also important. But good development practices don't require everyone to live in high rises. We just need to depend on our cars a little less, especially for commuting to and from work during peak hours.
Quarter acre lot houses are sufficiently dense to support public transportation. Most people will walk half a mile to transit to get them to work, and transit is effective when it is predictable as compared to the stress and variability of freeway congestion.
A better suburban development pattern is to build single family homes within a half mile of a "town center" with transit. The town center would include local amenities, such as a small grocery, CPA office, dry cleaner, some restaurants, etc. The transit would take you to major job centers (as an alternative to freeways). There would also be some multifamily homes (townhomes, condos, apartments) closer to the town center.
Read Andres Duany (New Urbanism). Read Jane Jacobs. This is entirely doable in the U.S. today. And you don't even have to give up your yard or your car. You just wouldn't need to drive as much, especially during rush hour.
The streetcar suburbs in pre-war America largely got this right. And many of those neighborhoods have seen a revival in popularity today (even if the streetcar tracks have been ripped up).
Large urban centers are also important. But good development practices don't require everyone to live in high rises. We just need to depend on our cars a little less, especially for commuting to and from work during peak hours.
8
Sorry, but the elevator is not a sufficient solution. Take a look at the monstrosity that is Toronto, where as soon as a giant condo building goes up, another is built which cuts off the first one's view. And the streets still have 19thc infrastructure, complete with trolleys running down the center of streets and totally impeding the flow of traffic. The only real long-term solution, aside from mass transit, is for urban areas to redistribute, so that major corporations move or diversify into some of the older, shrinking urban centers that desperately need redevelopment. In other words, planning on a much larger scale.
3
Oriflamme:
With all due respect, it is clear, prior to making your comments, you did little, if any, homework on the subject. The infrastructure in Toronto, unlike most American cities, is going through a long-term multi-billion dollar upgrade including an upgraded union station(1 BILLION), a new multi-billion dollar bus station, new modern streetcars, extended subway and LRT lines(currently under construction)and further downtown redevelopment of several acres of new parkland. Among many others, many of the highrises you refer to are purchased by "empty nesters" whom have chosen to leave the "burbs" and live and sometimes work in what is a "vibrant" downtown core, dispense with their cars and either walk or take transit to their destination. It is better for people's health anyway. That is what growing, successful cities do. For starters, look around the world.
19th century? I am afraid when it comes to your ideas, in your case, they seem to still occupy that point in time.
With all due respect, it is clear, prior to making your comments, you did little, if any, homework on the subject. The infrastructure in Toronto, unlike most American cities, is going through a long-term multi-billion dollar upgrade including an upgraded union station(1 BILLION), a new multi-billion dollar bus station, new modern streetcars, extended subway and LRT lines(currently under construction)and further downtown redevelopment of several acres of new parkland. Among many others, many of the highrises you refer to are purchased by "empty nesters" whom have chosen to leave the "burbs" and live and sometimes work in what is a "vibrant" downtown core, dispense with their cars and either walk or take transit to their destination. It is better for people's health anyway. That is what growing, successful cities do. For starters, look around the world.
19th century? I am afraid when it comes to your ideas, in your case, they seem to still occupy that point in time.
1
deus2, A $12 diesel train ride to Pearson airport might sound modern to you but it sounds downright 19th century to me, if not in a literal sense. Toronto has 2 subway lines that serve a small fraction of the population. That may compare well to some urban US monstrosities like Houston but it has a 40 year transit deficit that won't be overcome by 1 or 2 LRT lines nor a mere billion dollar makeover of union station (why???). Empty nesters don't account for the city's condo boom, RE speculation and Chinese money do. I know this from a very personal perspective so don't try whistling Dixie to a blues master!
1
One way to combat NIMBYism is to have land use decisions made at the state or regional, not neighborhood, level. That way, all interested parties in, say zoning and permitting to allow new housing or increased housing density, can have a say. In many cases, only neighborhood property owners have a say. And they have an incentive - keeping property values high - to refuse new construction. But if all people with an interest in increased housing, such as those who work in an area, might work in an area, commute through the area, or the other residents of the region who want affordable housing had a say, it would be easier to approve new construction.
1
Interesting concept but won't work ( see USSR central planning, or D.C. for that matter). Centralizing decision-making to a distant location, with people tied only loosely to the subect at hand, insulated behind their office doors and pretty much free to follow textbook-formulas written by tenured university grandees -- results in almost zero accountability to citizens as a whole. Would YOU want your property and neighborhood governed in such a way?
its all about making money, any restrictions on land use costs money and profit God forbid
Urban planning is an art form, but places like Houston it does not exist
Urban planning is an art form, but places like Houston it does not exist
6
If you want to get any development/building right, you have to build it with nature in mind. Housing needs to be smaller and compact, leaving more natural land. This means that people have to start thinking big in how they look at nature. Big houses are nice, but they are waste in this day and age. Why not live in compact houses with enough rooms for everyone but that provide eco-friendly amenities? Why do working people look to throw themselves into huge loans for huge houses? Compact housing and smaller pricing.
There cannot be separation between nature and construction. Any new development must take environment/nature into account as well as weather patterns to maximize benefits for all concerned.
Getting things right means looking for collective good for all concerned: residents, nature and builders.
There cannot be separation between nature and construction. Any new development must take environment/nature into account as well as weather patterns to maximize benefits for all concerned.
Getting things right means looking for collective good for all concerned: residents, nature and builders.
4
To be honest, this blue state resident is tired of subsidizing red states with republican leadership where the motto seems to be no taxes and no regulation. I believe the federal government should, and I hope will (in spite of the fact that the entire Texas Republican congressional “pack" voted against helping Sandy victims) help the residents of Houston recover. But what does recovery mean?
I just read the Times piece about various sections of Houston and how those areas are dealing with Harvey. All of the residents are determined to “rebuild” or “stay put.” Understandable, as a home owner myself--where and what else can they do? Of course, many of these people endured flooding in 2015. And they will be flooded again. I honestly don’t think we the people should have to continue to bail them out if their political leadership refuse to accept that changes must be made. The people of Houston should have to pay a special bayou tax that would be based on the value of their home each year. That money should be put into an account that would then be used to shore up their levees or bayous. That way, maybe, they can at least mitigate what is sure to be a continuing and growing problem since they have allowed so much unrestricted growth and since their governor and legislature, not to mention their congressional representatives all seem to feel no need to prepare for climate change.
I just read the Times piece about various sections of Houston and how those areas are dealing with Harvey. All of the residents are determined to “rebuild” or “stay put.” Understandable, as a home owner myself--where and what else can they do? Of course, many of these people endured flooding in 2015. And they will be flooded again. I honestly don’t think we the people should have to continue to bail them out if their political leadership refuse to accept that changes must be made. The people of Houston should have to pay a special bayou tax that would be based on the value of their home each year. That money should be put into an account that would then be used to shore up their levees or bayous. That way, maybe, they can at least mitigate what is sure to be a continuing and growing problem since they have allowed so much unrestricted growth and since their governor and legislature, not to mention their congressional representatives all seem to feel no need to prepare for climate change.
6
Think of the unique situations that resulted in the duck-billed platypus, gooneybird or even some of the odd creatures that inhabit the depths of the ocean. Yes, cities are organisms that evolve and will continue to evolve in unique ways.
Back in college some 40 years ago I did an independent study on the cultural effects of the automobile and came to the conclusion that our cities are horribly inefficient and because of the way they've developed, they will either adapt or die. At that moment in history, in the midst of the cold war, I realized that one of the reasons we built cities around the automobile was, at least in our naivety, we might be able to survive a nuclear attack by dispersing people.
But being a young man at that time, I also realized that if you wanted a 'city' to be efficient, you had to design it that way from the get go. In my old age, I've about concluded we won't do that until circumstances overwhelmingly favor abandoning our existing cities due to flooding, pestilence, poison air or civil unrest.
Personally, I'm betting on the NIMBY cities surviving if we can avoid flooding. The reason is they were typically based on the pre-automobile development pattern based on walking places, which is efficient. Beyond that, new cities will be built around a renewable power source that powers the key industry. People will live in towers employing the most efficient form of transportation known to man - the elevator.
Back in college some 40 years ago I did an independent study on the cultural effects of the automobile and came to the conclusion that our cities are horribly inefficient and because of the way they've developed, they will either adapt or die. At that moment in history, in the midst of the cold war, I realized that one of the reasons we built cities around the automobile was, at least in our naivety, we might be able to survive a nuclear attack by dispersing people.
But being a young man at that time, I also realized that if you wanted a 'city' to be efficient, you had to design it that way from the get go. In my old age, I've about concluded we won't do that until circumstances overwhelmingly favor abandoning our existing cities due to flooding, pestilence, poison air or civil unrest.
Personally, I'm betting on the NIMBY cities surviving if we can avoid flooding. The reason is they were typically based on the pre-automobile development pattern based on walking places, which is efficient. Beyond that, new cities will be built around a renewable power source that powers the key industry. People will live in towers employing the most efficient form of transportation known to man - the elevator.
2
Dr. Krugman identifies a central problem for communities large and small in many industrialized countries. How do you frame the questions and debate so that at least people are willing to debate the issues in an open and respectful manner. Currently in my community there is a development that could compromise the natural springs that service a trout hatchery that services 70 lakes supporting a 100 million dollar a year tourism industry. Those who are opposed are labeled as the NIMBY crowd whereas the NIMBY'S try to prevent development that is only in the financial interests of the developers leaving the taxpayers to pay for "issues" arising from the development such increased maintenance and infrastructure, not to mention possible civil suits related to environmental losses. Yes development should proceed but only if it is done in a fiscally prudent manner. Sometimes higher buildings is the most prudent when it involves cost to taxpayers or does permanent damage to the environment.
It must be nice to be in Canada. Here NIMBYs oppose everything because they don't want change. That wind farm ten miles offshore...that might sully the view on a cloudless day. That streetcar or light rail line...that might bring "those people" (i.e. The Poors) around/through the area and they don't want the acknowledgement that those type of people exist. That five story middle class condo building out on the main road...that might disrupt the "neighborhood character", whatever that is supposed to mean.
2
Can't necessarily agree with the assessment. SanFrancisco is fairly dense, at least as much as Paris. But if by SF you mean the greater Bay Area, then I can agree. Indeed the area needs more and denser housing and has more than enough room to do it. On the other hand it lacks sufficient transportation infrastructure. Once you build up, you can't move people except by an mass transit system, which the Bay Area lacks. Even now there is resistence to transportation infrastructure. That would require massive expenditures on land whose prices you rightly pointed out is very expensive. What it really need is an extensive subway system that connects all the various urban centers and the current train.
1
San Francisco proper was, last time I checked, the most densely populated city in CA by a factor of about 5, and the most densely populated county in CA by a factor of nearly 20. Demographic trends may have changed this, but basically it is still a rather tight city. I have always vehemently disagreed with those who wish to turn this small city into midtown Manhattan or Tokyo. That's just too much.
Look to Canada and Australia for cities done right. Toronto and Vancouver, Sydney and Melbourne are great models for American cities. Build cities based on light rail in the city center and regional rail that serves outlying areas. Maintain greenbelts and regional parks that give definition between the urban core and suburban cities. Most importantly, protect 25 to 75 percent of the housing stock under the housing authorities that own and run (unlike American public housing authorities) a mix of subsidized AND at market housing units so it can generate revenues to constantly invest in its housing stock. Thriving and resilient cities is the source of national wealth and well-being. Housing is at the heart of that and we should not let the crushing vagaries of the free market nor the cruelties of bureaucrats who manage poor people take charge.
5
Ok I can't speak to the US but the 2 most expensive markets in Canada are no model to emulate. Note that Vancouver is 50% more expensive than the biggest market, Toronto. And Sydney? Talk about affordability, talk about infrastructure? I'm Canadian and I wouldn't leave Paris for any of them.
2
Thank you for this comment! I hope this mini-masterpiece gets read by people who can make a difference.
Can't speak for Melbourne but as an American Sydneysider, Sydney is certainly not the model you want to follow. The train system revolves around the CBD, so getting from say, the NW to the SW takes forever because you have to go east through the city and back to the west. All the good jobs are concentrated in the central core too, so trains and traffic are a nightmare during peak hours. And housing prices? Similar to San Francisco in terms of affordability.
1
San Francisco's planners may want to avoid building upward because of earthquakes. Nobody wants a scene like they had in 1906 that possibly would take down high rises and cause huge numbers of fatalities. Seat belts wouldn't help in that case.
What I don't understand is why, why, don't business developers locate new development in less pricy stateside locations, instead of either developing in the priciest cities they can find or sending the work offshore? For 30 years, I've thought that failure constitutes bad business decisions. There are a lot of safe cities to develop in, and have some population growth in, a lot of cities that have or could attract well-qualified job applicants.
What I don't understand is why, why, don't business developers locate new development in less pricy stateside locations, instead of either developing in the priciest cities they can find or sending the work offshore? For 30 years, I've thought that failure constitutes bad business decisions. There are a lot of safe cities to develop in, and have some population growth in, a lot of cities that have or could attract well-qualified job applicants.
1
California is easily the toughest and most regulated area on the planet to develop raw land. A decade or two can pass before all the regulatory hurdles and legal challenges are out of the way. California is probably our most lawyer-filled and socialist state, at least on this side of the coming bankruptcy.
2
Cities are defined by transportation and resources -- problem is that as circumstances change, the built environment doesn't. The process to walk away from the areas that no longer make sense towards something that does, today, is a slow process. And because real estate is the foundation of fortune for many, relinquishing an investment just isn't going to happen. Moving everything to places secure and sustainable needs a society far richer and wiser than the one we all have to work with. Why are building codes so behind the times... look around and ask who would sacrifice their personal wealth to make a better decision. So we have to wait for those folks to die off and their heirs and assigns to stop caring before changes are possible. Is this suboptimal? Sure it is. But that is just human nature. And why, IMHO, catastrophic climate change is inevitable.
2
I don’t share Mr Krugman’s love for the tower block and the elevator — the giant glass towers that are being constructed in our cities are soulless, expensive to run and detrimental to the streetscape. In polls of Britons, tower blocks are consistently the least popular form of housing.
I think we can find an answer to this current housing problem by looking back to the Victorian period — during the rapid urbanisation of England, city planners built thousands of terraced houses for textile workers to live in. It should be noted that this massive construction was heavily regulated — The 1858 Local Government Act ordered that a street of terraced houses should be at least 11 m wide, with houses having a minimum garden at the rear of 14 m2, and various other building codes set regulations on lighting, drainage and so on. These neighbourhoods are often more dense than 1960s brutalist estates, yet terraces today are one of the most popular forms of housing in England, and in North London will often change hands for around £1m. Correct me if I am wrong, but I suspect that terraced houses are also one of the most popular forms of housing in American cities; I suspect that few Bostonians would choose an apartment in a nondescript high-rise over one of their famous terraced townhouses!
I think we can find an answer to this current housing problem by looking back to the Victorian period — during the rapid urbanisation of England, city planners built thousands of terraced houses for textile workers to live in. It should be noted that this massive construction was heavily regulated — The 1858 Local Government Act ordered that a street of terraced houses should be at least 11 m wide, with houses having a minimum garden at the rear of 14 m2, and various other building codes set regulations on lighting, drainage and so on. These neighbourhoods are often more dense than 1960s brutalist estates, yet terraces today are one of the most popular forms of housing in England, and in North London will often change hands for around £1m. Correct me if I am wrong, but I suspect that terraced houses are also one of the most popular forms of housing in American cities; I suspect that few Bostonians would choose an apartment in a nondescript high-rise over one of their famous terraced townhouses!
6
There's more housing in the Bay Area than there has ever been. The problem is not a housing shortage - the problem is too many people. In some countries the population growth is caused by high birth rates, but in other countries such as the U.S. it is caused by high immigration rates. In the 1960's we had 200 million people in the U.S., and now we have about 320 million. How high does that number have to get before we say enough - 500 million? 1 billion? We don't need more housing. We need less people.
11
Please stop with the Malthusian nonsense about population. Your comment is the epitome of NIMBYism: "The U.S. is full. Everyone else go away." The developed world (including us) has at- or below-replacement level fertility rates. We have aging populations, with bankrupt pensions and social security. Unlike the rest of the developed world, the U.S. has historically been a nation of immigrants. Immigrants are an asset, not a liability.
See my previous comment here on Malthus:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/04/opinion/houston-harvey-infrastructure...
See my previous comment here on Malthus:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/04/opinion/houston-harvey-infrastructure...
6
The U.S. is full, and so is the planet. Each country needs to take steps to limit its population. For most third world countries that means family planning. For developed countries that means limiting immigration. Yes, immigrants can be an asset, but population growth is a liability, and immigrants add to population growth. The planet is my backyard, and I don't like to see it trashed by too many humans. I agree with your previous comment that cars are a big part of the problem, but even without cars the planet doesn't need more consuming people. I also agree with a previous comment from Michael (from Ottawa?) that population growth is a Ponzi scheme that requires more and more people to pay for pensions and social security payments. How many more billions of people do we need in this country or on the planet before we say enough?
1
Portland seems to get it right. It overrides nimby opposition to infill (I know that from personal experience with a house I own), allows high density apartments and commercial on heavily-trafficked corridors, and has high-rise housing downtown. In fact, it's likely to be overbuilt in apartments soon, good for tenants but not for developers, who are likely to take a hit in the short term but good for the city in the longer view. Ironically, there was a Forbes column on Houston v. Portland which got it wrong, portraying Portland as restrictive when in fact, for all its progressivism and environmentalism, is very permissive on infill development. https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbeyer/2017/04/12/houston-or-portland-w... Perhaps a model--a pro-development environmental city, encouraging walkability, bicycling and density. I can't speak for Houston, but walkable it's not.
3
The problem with cities in northern California is not San Francisco. Rather, it is the car-dependent suburban sprawl and office parks of Silicon Valley.
If the tech billionaires of Silicon Valley had vision and a social conscience, they would have built their new office spaces in downtown areas (including Oakland), or in other transit-accessible areas. I'm looking at you, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and Tim Cook.
If the tech billionaires of Silicon Valley had vision and a social conscience, they would have built their new office spaces in downtown areas (including Oakland), or in other transit-accessible areas. I'm looking at you, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and Tim Cook.
10
Smaller homes and high speed rail are what's needed. Asians and Europeans worked this out some time ago.
11
If prices of San Francisco real estate are rising fast, and out of reach of huge numbers of people, the obvious solution would to build more cities more like San Francisco. Not to wreck the existing San Francisco with ugly out of scale high rises. Dr. Krugman, otherwise a normally astute observer of the US economy, has apparently fallen hook, line and sinker for the oldest yet now again trendiest deception in the fast buck greedy developer bag of tricks.
6
The vote of people with a backyard in cities like New York and San Francsico should be deluted by merging the inner cities with itheir suburbs, when it comes to husoing decisions. The externalities just do not coicide now with prsent day city borders.
1
The answer to Krugman's question is simple. Why can't we get cities right? because Democrats run them.
4
"Why can't we get cities right? because Democrats run them."
Yet American cities are thriving today. They are where the good jobs are, and people want to live in them. The problem with our cities is that they are too desirable; they are victims of their own success.
Contrast that with the former Mayberrys and rural America. Sadly, these places are the new dystopian hell holes - disinvestment, drug addiction, everyone wants to leave. These areas are largely governed by Republicans.
Yet American cities are thriving today. They are where the good jobs are, and people want to live in them. The problem with our cities is that they are too desirable; they are victims of their own success.
Contrast that with the former Mayberrys and rural America. Sadly, these places are the new dystopian hell holes - disinvestment, drug addiction, everyone wants to leave. These areas are largely governed by Republicans.
7
It may not be exactly accurate to dismissively say that the height restrictions on San Francisco buildings is just about "politics." Perhaps there is a relationship between "politics" and the "will of the people."When I visit the city, I find a sense of neighborhoods, the light and sky and fog overhead, and many fabulous views to the Pacific ocean. All that would be blotted out by more high-rises. Why does the author think the elevated Embarcadero freeway was torn down after the big earthquake? The character of the city, and it does have character, would be destroyed if the neighborhoods get taller and taller (not to mention the impacts on traffic and public transit). There may be more to SF height restrictions than politics—perhaps even wisdom, respect for people's street-level experience, and a deep regard for the beauties of its fabulous location.
4
A long time ago Jane Jacobs described the problems and solutions to urban life. If even a fraction of her recommendations were implemented, our cities would be much more livable. I wager that when Houston is rebuilt, it will duplicate what existed before the flood, but even more so, as money will dictate the rules again.
Our cities and suburbs are monuments to failure. We have not built the modern transit systems that the whole country badly needs. Affordable housing is an illusion that inspires much political talk but pitifully small results.
The middle class is being hammered with low wages, rising prices, and a growing sense of despair. Anger led to the election of Trump, and hopelessness is leading to the ever-growing use of heroin and other narcotics as an anodyne to 21st century America.
We need to redesign the cities, suburbs and exurbs to create a more positive life for the hundreds of millions of Americans who are living in and close to poverty, who need a sense of community, and who need to feel that our children's future will be a happier place than our dismal situation.
Our cities and suburbs are monuments to failure. We have not built the modern transit systems that the whole country badly needs. Affordable housing is an illusion that inspires much political talk but pitifully small results.
The middle class is being hammered with low wages, rising prices, and a growing sense of despair. Anger led to the election of Trump, and hopelessness is leading to the ever-growing use of heroin and other narcotics as an anodyne to 21st century America.
We need to redesign the cities, suburbs and exurbs to create a more positive life for the hundreds of millions of Americans who are living in and close to poverty, who need a sense of community, and who need to feel that our children's future will be a happier place than our dismal situation.
6
I'm sympathetic to Prof. Krugman's themes, but two things in this article bother me.
[1] I agree thatcHouston's land use (non-)policies are terrible, but I question the catechism about flooding and the amount of pavement. Sure, lots of pavement exacerbates runoff and potential flooding -- but surely the extent and rapidity of the deluge would have overwhelmed even better-designed cities. Even sponges are limited in their capacity for soaking up water. Note that virtually all cities from Rockport to the Louisiana border were inundated.
Moreover, Houston's problem may have been partly topographic and partly due to development of wetland areas, even where there was considerable unpaved area.
[1] I agree thatcHouston's land use (non-)policies are terrible, but I question the catechism about flooding and the amount of pavement. Sure, lots of pavement exacerbates runoff and potential flooding -- but surely the extent and rapidity of the deluge would have overwhelmed even better-designed cities. Even sponges are limited in their capacity for soaking up water. Note that virtually all cities from Rockport to the Louisiana border were inundated.
Moreover, Houston's problem may have been partly topographic and partly due to development of wetland areas, even where there was considerable unpaved area.
1
Does Krugman really want San Francisco to look and feel as dense as Kowloon? Building up is not going to help housing costs in SF unless or until the city becomes so unrecognizable that people won't want to live there. Even if, miraculously, SF could emulate the density of Kowloon, the costs of housing might be expected to drop only a third and that would not be enough to allow lower wage people a chance.
3
Reductio ad absurdum does not an argument make. Especially when one is incapable of seeing the forest (US urban planning) for the trees (SF, Houston).
1
Is Krugman as stupid as he appears to be? The "anything goes" philosophy to city regulation is the reason for "vulnerability to disaster" caused by an unprecedented storm that dumped more than four feet of water on Houston. Really? How does this idiot keep his job at the NYT? Oh yes - it's the NYT.
5
Unprecedented yet predicted. Who'da thunk?
2
I've lived in the Bay Area for 17 years. I've never seen the housing supply as short as it's been in the last year or two. I'm not complaining. My two story townhouse, with a small wooden deck and 1900 sq ft inside could probably sell for $850k, plus or minus. And I'm 35 miles and at least 90 minutes from SF.
Having grown up in Wisconsin, these prices are nuts. A common refrain out here, and it's true for me, is that I couldn't afford to buy the house I'm in now.
But there is very little area to develop out here. High rises might be an answer, but a brand new high-rise condo development in SF on the Embarcadero, where a 1000 sq ft condo goes for well over $1 mil, has literally sunk 6 inches on one side. The high-rise is on unstable land fill, something true of most developments in the city itself.
Elevators are a great way to commute if you don't have to leave home to work, but that's not a common or even desired practice. The high-rises in SF, aside from post-construction woes, allows thousands of more people to live in SF. But access to the Bay Bridge and GG Bridge has not and cannot expand. The result, choking and obscene gridlock in the city.
I'll still take SF over Houston. Eventually a price must be paid for over development, and Houston has realized that the price is high, and not measured in dollars, but in lives.
Having grown up in Wisconsin, these prices are nuts. A common refrain out here, and it's true for me, is that I couldn't afford to buy the house I'm in now.
But there is very little area to develop out here. High rises might be an answer, but a brand new high-rise condo development in SF on the Embarcadero, where a 1000 sq ft condo goes for well over $1 mil, has literally sunk 6 inches on one side. The high-rise is on unstable land fill, something true of most developments in the city itself.
Elevators are a great way to commute if you don't have to leave home to work, but that's not a common or even desired practice. The high-rises in SF, aside from post-construction woes, allows thousands of more people to live in SF. But access to the Bay Bridge and GG Bridge has not and cannot expand. The result, choking and obscene gridlock in the city.
I'll still take SF over Houston. Eventually a price must be paid for over development, and Houston has realized that the price is high, and not measured in dollars, but in lives.
4
Tokyo has many tall buildings in a seismically active area so earthquakes alone don't stop the construction of high rises. San Francisco is at the end of a peninsula where the soil is roughly one third sand dunes, so that may be part of the challenge within the city limits. The East Bay probably could build more affordable housing though.
As someone who left San Francisco precisely because I was tired of the commute vs. high rents I'm interested to see how Democrats deal with this issue of NIMBYism vs. claiming to value workers rights and equal opportunity. This has been an issue for many years now and I've not seen progress on creating affordable housing to go along with urban areas that have the best job markets.
As someone who left San Francisco precisely because I was tired of the commute vs. high rents I'm interested to see how Democrats deal with this issue of NIMBYism vs. claiming to value workers rights and equal opportunity. This has been an issue for many years now and I've not seen progress on creating affordable housing to go along with urban areas that have the best job markets.
7
Half Moon Bay, a bedroom community to Silicon Valley, has a history of blocking development. A 200-acre track, zoned for mixed development, was approved after 20 years of legal battles for 60 Mc Mansions and over 100-acres of open space in a county that is over 80% undeveloped. A proposal to build affordable housing was spontaneously opposed by a group who called themselves “Resist Density”. The average home price here is over $1,000,000.
Environmental organizations, e.g., the California Sierra Club, the Committee for Green Foothills, and the California Coastal Commission, have opposed public infrastructure improvements as growth inducing. An underfunded sewer district formed out of several small agencies has allowed the system to decay to the extent that hundreds of thousands of gallons of untreated sewage now leak into the ocean during wet weather events. Instead of passing a bond to fix this problem, they are currently suing each other instead. A member of the California Coastal Commission several years ago claimed that preventing adequate public infrastructure as a barrier to growth was a legitimate policy goal.
Democracy cannot succeed if we are unwilling to compromise. Laissez-faire regulation and blind NIMBYism have created political polarization, over-priced and inadequate housing as well as environmental disaster. Krugman today is spot on.
Environmental organizations, e.g., the California Sierra Club, the Committee for Green Foothills, and the California Coastal Commission, have opposed public infrastructure improvements as growth inducing. An underfunded sewer district formed out of several small agencies has allowed the system to decay to the extent that hundreds of thousands of gallons of untreated sewage now leak into the ocean during wet weather events. Instead of passing a bond to fix this problem, they are currently suing each other instead. A member of the California Coastal Commission several years ago claimed that preventing adequate public infrastructure as a barrier to growth was a legitimate policy goal.
Democracy cannot succeed if we are unwilling to compromise. Laissez-faire regulation and blind NIMBYism have created political polarization, over-priced and inadequate housing as well as environmental disaster. Krugman today is spot on.
8
Since San Francisco has suffered from devastating earthquakes in the past, would "building up" be a good idea? --Just asking here. Maybe somebody with more knowledge about these things might have input.
7
I very much respect the acumen of Dr. Krugman, but an expert on the San Francisco Bay Area he isn't.
People move here for the high paying jobs (especially in the tech industry) this region offers. Our area has already been overbuilt for its geography and public transportation, leading to major quality of life problems. And unlike New York or other Eastern urban centers, jobs aren't clustered in one area. We have three major urban centers plus Silicon Valley, spread over a huge geographic spread that makes effective movement of labor difficult. High rises are not the obvious answer.
As it is throughout our entire country, anti-tax fervor, particularly Proposition 13, has prevented a sensible level of public investment that would make an even greater population increase manageable.
Dr. Krugman should know better than to offer overly simplistic answers to problems he doesn't fully understand.
People move here for the high paying jobs (especially in the tech industry) this region offers. Our area has already been overbuilt for its geography and public transportation, leading to major quality of life problems. And unlike New York or other Eastern urban centers, jobs aren't clustered in one area. We have three major urban centers plus Silicon Valley, spread over a huge geographic spread that makes effective movement of labor difficult. High rises are not the obvious answer.
As it is throughout our entire country, anti-tax fervor, particularly Proposition 13, has prevented a sensible level of public investment that would make an even greater population increase manageable.
Dr. Krugman should know better than to offer overly simplistic answers to problems he doesn't fully understand.
7
I lived in Houston for 6 years and survived Tropical Storm Allison by sitting on my kitchen counter with two cats for about 12 hours with 32 inches of water engulfing my house. My neighborhood had never previously flooded. I now live in northern California and have been informed that my previous house flooded again (and worse) in Harvey. There are landscapes that should never been developed...much of Houston is one of them. The Harris County Flood CONTROL District's name says it all. I still have family and many friends and former colleagues in Houston, and my heart aches for those who have been victims. But, I also have to say that this was very much a self-inflicted wound.
14
Looking for a happy medium between SF and NYC? Try Vancouver BC. Lots of downtown high-rise apartments/condos, bicycle lanes a metro and a walkable environment. And if the luxury flats weren't prey to the money laundering industry, the prices might even be sensible.
2
Vancouver is too expensive to live in for too many reasons I could list here.
And btw also too darn boring for one simple reason (see above).
And btw also too darn boring for one simple reason (see above).
1
@James Pawley
Vancouver is Hong Kong West. High rise development exploded after the 2010 Winter Olympics cleared an underutilized industrial area and Hong Kong reverted to the People's Republic, which flooded Vancouver -- actually all Canadian metro areas -- with a tidal wave of rich HK Chinese who took advantage of Canada's offer to allow in anyone bringing a boatload of cash. I think it was a $500,000 entry fee.
Nervous wealthy Chinese (which some think is redundant), who send their progeny and assets overseas in case the Communists start reading Lenin along with their Marx and Mao, prefer real estate to gold, gems or hedge funds.
I remember visiting Vancouver decades back and encountering immigration booths staffed exclusively with White Canadians. When I last visited Vancouver, I counted 17 of 30 immigration booths staffed by young Chinese-Canadians who spoke with a Canadian accent and ended their sentences with "eh."
I also recall that half the towering forest of high-rise condos sat empty, a dual citizenship pied-a-terre awaiting a prospective cultural revolution V. 2.0.
But no question, the best dim sum anywhere can be found in Vancouver's metro area. But parking's hard because of the ubiquitous Lamborghinis, Maseratis and Ferraris favored by the scions of rich Hong Kong families.
Vancouver is Hong Kong West. High rise development exploded after the 2010 Winter Olympics cleared an underutilized industrial area and Hong Kong reverted to the People's Republic, which flooded Vancouver -- actually all Canadian metro areas -- with a tidal wave of rich HK Chinese who took advantage of Canada's offer to allow in anyone bringing a boatload of cash. I think it was a $500,000 entry fee.
Nervous wealthy Chinese (which some think is redundant), who send their progeny and assets overseas in case the Communists start reading Lenin along with their Marx and Mao, prefer real estate to gold, gems or hedge funds.
I remember visiting Vancouver decades back and encountering immigration booths staffed exclusively with White Canadians. When I last visited Vancouver, I counted 17 of 30 immigration booths staffed by young Chinese-Canadians who spoke with a Canadian accent and ended their sentences with "eh."
I also recall that half the towering forest of high-rise condos sat empty, a dual citizenship pied-a-terre awaiting a prospective cultural revolution V. 2.0.
But no question, the best dim sum anywhere can be found in Vancouver's metro area. But parking's hard because of the ubiquitous Lamborghinis, Maseratis and Ferraris favored by the scions of rich Hong Kong families.
2
re: "We should have regulation that prevents clear hazards, like exploding chemical plants in the middle of residential neighborhoods, preserves a fair amount of open land, but allows housing construction."
"We don't need no stinkin' regulations for anything, ever!" - Every conservative, always.
"We don't need no stinkin' regulations for anything, ever!" - Every conservative, always.
4
Harvey was big thanks to Climate Change but what if Hurricane Irma and the tropical depression forming off Mexico combine and head to Houston?
I'll take earthquakes over hurricanes any day!
I'll take earthquakes over hurricanes any day!
1
Krugman's article makes a statement on the forest, and half the comments focus on the trees he cites to illustrate extremes...
Now there's the real problem, folks. It's (the) US.
Now there's the real problem, folks. It's (the) US.
2
This is your worst column ever. Your basic assumption is that everyone should want to live in New York City.
People who have lived in San Francisco for 20 years should have some control over the ambiance of the city.
Additionally, I should not have to pay for the profits of developers. You neglect to mention clean water in your rant. You want to build high-rises in San Francisco. Great. First convince developers to provide a new source of fresh water so that my water rates don't go up and so that my water is not rationed. And, no, they don't get to dam Yosemite to do it.
The problem is not getting cities right. A lot of people don't want to live in compact dense cities, and they shouldn't be forced to.
People who have lived in San Francisco for 20 years should have some control over the ambiance of the city.
Additionally, I should not have to pay for the profits of developers. You neglect to mention clean water in your rant. You want to build high-rises in San Francisco. Great. First convince developers to provide a new source of fresh water so that my water rates don't go up and so that my water is not rationed. And, no, they don't get to dam Yosemite to do it.
The problem is not getting cities right. A lot of people don't want to live in compact dense cities, and they shouldn't be forced to.
7
Agreed. I live in the Bay Area as well, in the East Bay. We've seen massive high-rise condos going up south of the Embarcadero. One building has already sunk 6 inches. And freeway access hasn't changed.
Adding more of this is not an answer. There's not a lot of land here for development. Even $1 mil plus single family homes are within 20 feet of the house next door. We aren't going to build more freeways and we don't need more people.
The trade offs are obvious, in SF, Houston, everywhere. One common policy to address all major cities is silly, and uninformed, like this column.
Adding more of this is not an answer. There's not a lot of land here for development. Even $1 mil plus single family homes are within 20 feet of the house next door. We aren't going to build more freeways and we don't need more people.
The trade offs are obvious, in SF, Houston, everywhere. One common policy to address all major cities is silly, and uninformed, like this column.
Then why move there?
2
Unless you have incredible wealth and can afford to buy a home here in Nor Cal (assuming you can find one), this isn't a good place to move to. Yeah we have great weather and an abundance of nearby natural resources to enjoy (Yosemite, Tahoe, Carmel) but everything is expensive. I won't be retiring here, unless I come into an extra mil and can pay off my mortgage.
2
Krugman's everlasting refrain: " Why cant you do (anything) right ?"
3
It's the global warming, stupid. The global warming.
4
I agree that we need to build up, but 6 or 8 stories would provide substantial improvement in the housing supply. However, as for building more tall buildings, I disagree and offer as my argument the settling and tilting of the 58 story Millennium Tower in San Francisco which was built on landfill and has been settling since it was finished. Currently, the building has settled 16 inches and the top is 12 inches out of plumb. Consider what is likely to happen if an earthquake strikes. Here is a link to a report by CBS News.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-franciscos-leaning-millennium-tower-see...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-franciscos-leaning-millennium-tower-see...
7
Clearly, the obsession with urban sprawl creates TWO large problems: it is a drain on resources and it makes people FATTER!
2
Two very good solutions are better public transport and public housing. The challenge with the latter is to persuade the population that it needs to be spread out; so that all neighorhoods have some public housing. Having 'the projects' all in one area is very unhelpful. A good example of successful public housing is Vienna, a growing city rated among the most liveable in many surveys.
3
I think the success of Viennese "Gemeindebau" was heavily tied to the long reign of their social democratic political party and the communal spirit that helped them weather their post-war hardships. Applying this model to todays' standards for living, i.e. not sharing bathrooms, telephones, etc. and not having extreme destitution and suffering in recent memory, while having a more ethnically diverse population unwilling to fully assimilate, is giving different results. If today's Gemeindebau are better than the projects in the US it's probably related to the more intact family and cultural identities of its residents and the stronger, state social net that doesn't leave these people to fend for themselves - but not the design and civil planning of the housing, itself. Whether or not these social programs will continue to reap benefits is the big question. While we can learn much from this situation, we wouldn't want to try to transpose a social system from one place onto another.
1
It's true that this was more of a man made disaster. But rising sea levels will flood our coastal cities. There won't be enough money to protect them all. What do think will happen if a CAT 5 hits Miami dead on. The only solution is to kill off the flood insurance program and let the private lenders force rebuilding inland with adequate flood controls. The private lenders aren't going to put their money at risk. Neither will the private insurance companies. Let the market sort it out.
9
Is Dr Krugman serious as he confidently declares that the elevator is the most mass effective technology yet devised? Does Dr Krugman realize that whenever a crisis situation arises from a natural disaster to terrorism the first thing that's automatically shut down is the elevator??
Next week is the 16th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attack against the World Trade Center. On that fateful day the elevators in One and Two World Trade Center shut down right away. It's too terrifying to contemplate that there were thousands of terrified workers racing down 70+ flights of stairs hoping they could make it to safety before the buildings collapsed into heaps of rubble.
Elevators aren't the answer to what's ailing the cities after disaster strikes. They only make a bad situation worse.
Next week is the 16th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attack against the World Trade Center. On that fateful day the elevators in One and Two World Trade Center shut down right away. It's too terrifying to contemplate that there were thousands of terrified workers racing down 70+ flights of stairs hoping they could make it to safety before the buildings collapsed into heaps of rubble.
Elevators aren't the answer to what's ailing the cities after disaster strikes. They only make a bad situation worse.
6
Can human beings control everything -- even a once in a Thousand Years natural event like *fifty* inches of rain? Should we organize our lives around once in a Thousand Years disasters? Is it reasonable to assume that what is considered once in a Thousand Years now will still be considered that in 500 years? Seriously when we get to pondering something that may happen once in the next thousand years I wonder if we do not need to "get a life".
A thousand years is a really long time. We're talking about 1000 a.d. if we roll back the clock and the next 1000 years is going to bring changes we cannot even fathom (at all).
Let's say we plan and build now for something that may not happen for a thousand years -- efforts are going to be pretty stale and antiquated in say . . . I dunno 50 years?
We cannot control everything and plan for every possible contingency.
The points here about urban planning are certainly valid but attaching the conversation to Harvey . . .eh.
A thousand years is a really long time. We're talking about 1000 a.d. if we roll back the clock and the next 1000 years is going to bring changes we cannot even fathom (at all).
Let's say we plan and build now for something that may not happen for a thousand years -- efforts are going to be pretty stale and antiquated in say . . . I dunno 50 years?
We cannot control everything and plan for every possible contingency.
The points here about urban planning are certainly valid but attaching the conversation to Harvey . . .eh.
1
Problem being you're (intentionally?) distorting what a 1000 year event really is. What if another 1000 year event happens in next month? You can't exclude it , because it's the language used, not the science.
Luddite?
Luddite?
2
The language used was used by scientists . . .Luddite?
It's interesting that the people who are anti-regulation are also often the same people who spout inane slogans like "Freedom isn't free." Damn right it isn't. THEIR freedom to continue to build without regard to consequences is going to cost US billions.
4
I may be wrong here, but doesn't San Francisco have a law governing the height of high rises, due to possible geological tremor activity?
1
I don't know about the laws in SF but it's easy to see from the skyline that high rises are at least permitted in some cases. Higher than William Penn, even!
What seems more likely is that areas like Palo Alto or Menlo Park would prefer not to have 20 story apartment buildings all along University, although there are some close to the 101, and that's due to possible impacts to values of the exclusive houses already there.
What seems more likely is that areas like Palo Alto or Menlo Park would prefer not to have 20 story apartment buildings all along University, although there are some close to the 101, and that's due to possible impacts to values of the exclusive houses already there.
3
Ahem! Mr. Krugman forgot one key reason people don't build up on the Left Coast - earthquakes! Many cities have building code restrictions for building height because of concern of destruction by other forces of Mother Nature than hurricanes. Another significant thing is the lack of urban transport generally for Houston. By contrast the Bay Area has BART and other mass transit. One way to help cities is to spread employment beyond them into smaller hubs and decentralize opportunity. I'm no urban planner, but you have to look at the dynamics at play in a particular place. Sensible development means planning for mother nature, population growth, business needs and transportation options.
3
More density needs more infrastructure. The SF bay area is lacking the schools, roads, and services to support more density. Without those, adding more people just destroys the quality of life for those already living in an area. The bay area lacks the money to support the improvements in part because of Prop 13 that limits property taxes.
2
The reason that Houston has less than a third of the population of NYC but takes up the same amount of land is due in large part to the fact that 1. NYC is made up of islands so building as far as the eye can see was not an option and 2. the reason for those apartment buildings is because they are in close proximity to subway lines, a factor that does not exist in Houston.
And the fact is that in all cities in the western US people live exclusively in houses, as buildings towers for people to live in makes no sense. And the suggestion that cities leave large areas of land empty (and have the population all live in towers with no front or back yards) so that in the case of a one in a hundred year storm that happens to score a direct hit on the city is ludicrous. If they should take such an event into account it would be allot cheaper to build wider pipes in the sewer system.
The bigger point however is that even if leaving large areas open and having the population living in towers could have prevented one aspect of the damage (the bodies of water which caused most of the damage by flooding still would have flooded) the sight of a city with cheap land as far as the eye can see but with its residents living cooped up in towers would seem straight out bizarre.
This weirdness would only be topped by the explanation of why they chose to live this way. And that is in case something that is statistically very unlikely to happen occurs they will be protected,
And the fact is that in all cities in the western US people live exclusively in houses, as buildings towers for people to live in makes no sense. And the suggestion that cities leave large areas of land empty (and have the population all live in towers with no front or back yards) so that in the case of a one in a hundred year storm that happens to score a direct hit on the city is ludicrous. If they should take such an event into account it would be allot cheaper to build wider pipes in the sewer system.
The bigger point however is that even if leaving large areas open and having the population living in towers could have prevented one aspect of the damage (the bodies of water which caused most of the damage by flooding still would have flooded) the sight of a city with cheap land as far as the eye can see but with its residents living cooped up in towers would seem straight out bizarre.
This weirdness would only be topped by the explanation of why they chose to live this way. And that is in case something that is statistically very unlikely to happen occurs they will be protected,
2
infrastructure decay + irresponsible developers + blind authorities + unconscious population + vision less urban designers = man made disaster.
7
We've had 40 years of Republican led tax cuts, mostly for the rich, which has devastated our infrastructure and prevented us from building up to date infrastructure. We've also had 40 years of stagnated wages for all but the wealthy. Our train systems are stuck in the early 20th century. Our mass transit systems, where they exist, are in dire need of updates. Our roads and bridges are in disrepair. And now Republicans are trying to pass more tax cuts for the rich, deregulation of every industry, the destruction of the EPA, more fossil fuel development, destroying worker protections and unionization, and destroying any semblance of universal healthcare. Republicans have no interest in the lives of Americans, except for those who have more money than they know what to do with. Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better, if ever they do.
15
......Wall Street Casino attached to pretending to be politicians are the ones to blame for your well described catastrophe.
1
My city has been cited because it has no affordable housing. Citizen have asked to convert their pool house or guest houses into rental units. However attached areas cannot be rented out. This doesn't make sense at all.
1
The American city, reflection of Yosemite, reflection of Rushmore, reflection of National Parks, peaks so rusty and serene....
Humans are such animals. So revealed in their collective behavior. It's so astonishing regardless of political, economic change over the centuries how humans admire mountains, how they carve their faces in them, carve their faces into stone, turn stone into faces, how they build castles, skyscrapers, how they replicate the most attractive to self forms of natural environment on chosen pieces of ground, often near rivers, which results at end in "City", and how for all their movement, action, in a mathematics, a geometry, a behavioral pattern which is flexible, which they call free, how aspirational and conducive to all politically (democracy), just results in towering structures and arguments about holes, nesting places in structures befitting ravens.
Approaching the city is the approach to a place such as Yosemite. You long for the tallest building, it must be yours or at least you must live in the heights of it. And always there are too many people, just too many struggling, camping, finding a place on lower quarters. All bureaucracy, all invention, all art, science, politics, economics seems to aspire to a more efficient method of organizing the human, but the result is still before the eye in stone, the city, and every person at heart wants a nest above and to be a bird flying above it all, a raven, a falcon, but certainly no ordinary pigeon.
Humans are such animals. So revealed in their collective behavior. It's so astonishing regardless of political, economic change over the centuries how humans admire mountains, how they carve their faces in them, carve their faces into stone, turn stone into faces, how they build castles, skyscrapers, how they replicate the most attractive to self forms of natural environment on chosen pieces of ground, often near rivers, which results at end in "City", and how for all their movement, action, in a mathematics, a geometry, a behavioral pattern which is flexible, which they call free, how aspirational and conducive to all politically (democracy), just results in towering structures and arguments about holes, nesting places in structures befitting ravens.
Approaching the city is the approach to a place such as Yosemite. You long for the tallest building, it must be yours or at least you must live in the heights of it. And always there are too many people, just too many struggling, camping, finding a place on lower quarters. All bureaucracy, all invention, all art, science, politics, economics seems to aspire to a more efficient method of organizing the human, but the result is still before the eye in stone, the city, and every person at heart wants a nest above and to be a bird flying above it all, a raven, a falcon, but certainly no ordinary pigeon.
Economists tend to see everything as a game of supply and demand; I wish it were that simple.
Issues of urban growth and housing affordability are way too complex to be settled in a short column. Houston may lack official zoning, but it is not an unplanned, unregulated city. It has infrastructure planning (e.g., who decided where those clogged highways were built?) and quasi-zoning under different names (see https://urbanedge.blogs.rice.edu/2015/09/08/forget-what-youve-heard-hous.... San Francisco is tightly regulated, but relaxing height standards won't make new housing affordable to the cleaner who is competing with the coder. Putting more units in tall buildings doesn't make them more affordable; it enables more well-to-do people to concentrate in a given area.
Why can't we get urban policy right? For different reasons. The first reason among many is that cities are extremely complex systems in which millions of people make individual decisions that cannot properly be anticipated and in which planning decisions therefore always have unintended consequences. Another is that urban policy-making, like all policy-making, is driven by many interests, fears, prejudices and other preferences that prevent us from making better decisions.
But there are some basics we can get right. Regulating development in hazardous areas is one. Don't build in flood planes, or if you do, build in ways that enable buildings to survive.
Issues of urban growth and housing affordability are way too complex to be settled in a short column. Houston may lack official zoning, but it is not an unplanned, unregulated city. It has infrastructure planning (e.g., who decided where those clogged highways were built?) and quasi-zoning under different names (see https://urbanedge.blogs.rice.edu/2015/09/08/forget-what-youve-heard-hous.... San Francisco is tightly regulated, but relaxing height standards won't make new housing affordable to the cleaner who is competing with the coder. Putting more units in tall buildings doesn't make them more affordable; it enables more well-to-do people to concentrate in a given area.
Why can't we get urban policy right? For different reasons. The first reason among many is that cities are extremely complex systems in which millions of people make individual decisions that cannot properly be anticipated and in which planning decisions therefore always have unintended consequences. Another is that urban policy-making, like all policy-making, is driven by many interests, fears, prejudices and other preferences that prevent us from making better decisions.
But there are some basics we can get right. Regulating development in hazardous areas is one. Don't build in flood planes, or if you do, build in ways that enable buildings to survive.
2
SFH NIMBYism - especially from upscale neighborhoods who also usually oppose the forms of transit necessary for the sort of concentrated housing that may bring down prices but render the automobile impractical - is certainly a problem in the SF Bay Area, where vast tracts of metro land are still occupied by SFH. But Krugman leaves out of the picture the fact that much high-rise condo and townhouse construction is dependent upon "investors" - i.e. absentee landlords looking for rents and RE speculators - quickly taking the inventory off the hands of the developers. The developers in turn have intimate connection to the liberal "blue state" Democrats who monopolize city government in places like SF. The absentee "investors" have no interest in paying higher property taxes, of course.
The only real solution is the complete public provision, including financing, planning and construction, of housing affordable to the lower 80%. That means getting rid of the present system of absentee "investors", private developers and liberal politicians who all profit from the present system. Alas the last are Krugman's political comrades!
Otherwise, public subsidies that might push out the "investors" will only flow into the pockets of the developers and their political supporters. They will have no incentive to build affordable housing, so such subsidies will only benefit the upper 20% as usual. Nor will housing purchase subsidies guarantee the transport system required.
The only real solution is the complete public provision, including financing, planning and construction, of housing affordable to the lower 80%. That means getting rid of the present system of absentee "investors", private developers and liberal politicians who all profit from the present system. Alas the last are Krugman's political comrades!
Otherwise, public subsidies that might push out the "investors" will only flow into the pockets of the developers and their political supporters. They will have no incentive to build affordable housing, so such subsidies will only benefit the upper 20% as usual. Nor will housing purchase subsidies guarantee the transport system required.
We do not get cities right because we do not think of ourselves as parts of a community. We treasure our individual or neighborhood freedom as if either of these were not part of a larger metropolitan area. Both unrestrained development and NIMBYism damage and weaken the larger area and create insoluble problems for it, and these problems return in perfectly foreseeable ways to haunt and bedevil the individuals and communities that did not foresee them. Long commutes, traffic jams, and children unable to afford to live in the communities they grew up in turn the sought good life bittersweet.
But we are addicted to thinking of ourselves as rugged individuals, pioneers who can always find a new frontier where we are free to do what we want. The original pioneers were not free to do what they wanted with their property until they got rid of the people who were already there, who had different relations to the land. But that fact did not enter into their self-conception, just as the end of the open frontier and our interconnectedness on one small planet does not enter into ours and the ultimate expression of that interconnectedness -- global heat pollution -- is ignored as a hoax.
But we are addicted to thinking of ourselves as rugged individuals, pioneers who can always find a new frontier where we are free to do what we want. The original pioneers were not free to do what they wanted with their property until they got rid of the people who were already there, who had different relations to the land. But that fact did not enter into their self-conception, just as the end of the open frontier and our interconnectedness on one small planet does not enter into ours and the ultimate expression of that interconnectedness -- global heat pollution -- is ignored as a hoax.
6
My neighbor didn't flood so someone at least for this hurricane did their job and managed to get funding for it. Mayor Turner said he needed 137 million for additional flood control projects. When is Houston going to get the money. The problem is there's projects and studies going on all over the country an d they are never openly discussed. I assume politicians want us to believe they are taking care of business when they are in power and the party isn't.
Every one knows NYC is so much better than Houston. It's been around for almost 400 years. Now if you can stop complaining about the subway and what "they" are doing in Brooklyn and Queens.
Every one knows NYC is so much better than Houston. It's been around for almost 400 years. Now if you can stop complaining about the subway and what "they" are doing in Brooklyn and Queens.
"And while geography — the constraint imposed by water and mountains — is often offered as an excuse for the Bay Area’s failure to build more housing, there’s no good reason it couldn’t build up." Whoa, Dr. Krugman, wait a minute. No good reason? I can think of one. It's the thing that flattened San Francisco to the ground in 1906, leading in turn to a deadly and devastating fire. The reason not to build up in San Francisco is similar to the reason not to allow uncontrolled sprawl in a flood plane -- there's something out there bigger and badder than we are, and we've gotta treat it with respect.
14
That was once true, perhaps, but today in Tokyo there are over 40 buildings taller than 600 feet. There are engineering solutions for tall buildings in earthquake regions but presumably there are costs as well.
3
The growth rate of US cities, recently surging past their suburbs, has now reversed for nearly all of the nation's 50 largest cities.
There are many reasons for this, including cost of cities, millennials forming families and wanting bigger homes and better schools and job creation in the suburbs.
Not everyone wants to live in a high-rise condominium tower, nor do they want a lengthy commute.
Blue cities in red states are growth magnets.
There are many reasons for this, including cost of cities, millennials forming families and wanting bigger homes and better schools and job creation in the suburbs.
Not everyone wants to live in a high-rise condominium tower, nor do they want a lengthy commute.
Blue cities in red states are growth magnets.
5
It was very impressive how the Texan politicians and people reacted to the Harvey Hurricane as compared to the Katrina Hurricane. Who can ever forget the countless pictures of thousands of people outside the Louisiana Astrodome stranded for days without getting assistance from the city. What about the dead bodies and especially the one of the dead woman covered over by a blanket and ignored.
Houston, a large city with over four million people, was far better prepared for housing their flooded victims and taking them into shelters then was New Orleans. We saw on television the first responders and volunteers who were out in force rescuing people from their homes on a daily basis. Neighbor assisting neighbor, rescuer saving victims no matter their race and people putting their lives on the line so others would not die. Food was in ample supply as water for those staying at the shelters. Looting was rare as compared to Katrina and the Texans were serious in punishing those involved.
Governor Greg Abbott must be given a tremendous amount of credit for helping in this effort. He was busy at work getting out there and assisting his city in the effort to get people to safety and shelters. He must have gotten very little sleep yet he never looked fatigued. Other politicians should also be given a hand of applause including Mayor Turner.
President Trump must also be given credit in his efforts to aid the survivors of Harvey. His visit should not go ignored.
Houston, a large city with over four million people, was far better prepared for housing their flooded victims and taking them into shelters then was New Orleans. We saw on television the first responders and volunteers who were out in force rescuing people from their homes on a daily basis. Neighbor assisting neighbor, rescuer saving victims no matter their race and people putting their lives on the line so others would not die. Food was in ample supply as water for those staying at the shelters. Looting was rare as compared to Katrina and the Texans were serious in punishing those involved.
Governor Greg Abbott must be given a tremendous amount of credit for helping in this effort. He was busy at work getting out there and assisting his city in the effort to get people to safety and shelters. He must have gotten very little sleep yet he never looked fatigued. Other politicians should also be given a hand of applause including Mayor Turner.
President Trump must also be given credit in his efforts to aid the survivors of Harvey. His visit should not go ignored.
3
Texas don't need no stupid zoning laws as long as we got megachurches to give us gawd.
14
In Tampa we are almost surrounded by water (albeit with no beaches) and development continues at breakneck speed, especially with our new angel and hockey team owner Jeff Vinik calling the plays. After buying up most of downtown which surrounds his arena, moving the university medical school closer to the Tampa General Hospital (on an island downtown) getting permission to tear up and reconfigure roads for his chiller plant, builders are thronging in to build more high-rises, 'some even with dog parks on the roof!' (but no alternative energy). Most construction companies have a token license while most work is done by the barely educated. Who is in charge?
4
From the Conscience of a Liberal, you’d think on Labor Day, we might get a column discussing the plight of the employed person in the US.
How about this:
“Outsourcing to China Cost U.S. 3.2 Million Jobs Since 2001” ... www.usnews.com... Causing wage erosion for US workers.
U.S. lost 5 million manufacturing jobs since 2000 - Mar. 29, 2016—MONEY.CNN.
We might get some discussion on how the safety net, retraining and education needed to stem US downward mobility is not in the mainstream of US politics. Why not, in the 'world's greatest democracy?
Or how the fall in union membership has affected millions of non union members, reducing pay and benefits. How retirement is impossible or insecure for multi millions of working people.
How the ratio of CEO vs average worker pay has soared compared to past decades, higher than other capitalist nations. How the US is one of the few democracies with no national policy on family leave and sick leave and how that burdens citizens.
How our middle class financial security is behind that of other capitalist democracies. They all have lower cost universal health care from the 20th century.
It’s Labor Day 2017. Parades aren't enough.
How about this:
“Outsourcing to China Cost U.S. 3.2 Million Jobs Since 2001” ... www.usnews.com... Causing wage erosion for US workers.
U.S. lost 5 million manufacturing jobs since 2000 - Mar. 29, 2016—MONEY.CNN.
We might get some discussion on how the safety net, retraining and education needed to stem US downward mobility is not in the mainstream of US politics. Why not, in the 'world's greatest democracy?
Or how the fall in union membership has affected millions of non union members, reducing pay and benefits. How retirement is impossible or insecure for multi millions of working people.
How the ratio of CEO vs average worker pay has soared compared to past decades, higher than other capitalist nations. How the US is one of the few democracies with no national policy on family leave and sick leave and how that burdens citizens.
How our middle class financial security is behind that of other capitalist democracies. They all have lower cost universal health care from the 20th century.
It’s Labor Day 2017. Parades aren't enough.
7
No mention of the fact that Houston is built on swamp land in the first place. I liken it to building a major city on the side of a volcano that is known to be active. But the developers make tons of money.
9
"Why Can’t We Get Cities Right?"
Because the developers and their lawyers and the politicians are all so close geographically that influence peddling, graft, and corruption thrive, like gonorrhea in a third world whore house.
Think of it as unprotected incest, where protection would be regulation, oversight, transparency, and accountability.
Because the developers and their lawyers and the politicians are all so close geographically that influence peddling, graft, and corruption thrive, like gonorrhea in a third world whore house.
Think of it as unprotected incest, where protection would be regulation, oversight, transparency, and accountability.
2
It's a mistake to think of New York as a NIMBY city. It's run by developers who get their way most of the time erecting schlock and thoughtless buildings wherever they want. This is becoming a big issue where I live in Bed Stuy. The beautiful historic architectural fabric is being ruined by shoddy construction and the Landmarks Preservation Commission does not care one iota.
It's not just about building tall buildings. It's about building the right way and finding innovative solutions. Maybe SF is prepared for that, but NYC is not.
It's not just about building tall buildings. It's about building the right way and finding innovative solutions. Maybe SF is prepared for that, but NYC is not.
3
Paul,
You make a few good points, but, you are well out of your depth on a complex issue with many variables. Stick to stuff you know better.
Cheers,
You make a few good points, but, you are well out of your depth on a complex issue with many variables. Stick to stuff you know better.
Cheers,
5
It's time to colonize Wyoming.
1
Does Carson have a view on this? Ha. Ha. Ha.
3
Adapt or die. Greedy America can only focus on more profit. Time to reap what you have sown.
We need to build more land through landfills. We used to do it all the time before. This is a map of the original map of the Boston shoreline superimposed on today's boundaries. It's pretty wild how much we added.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UnuGnNHVQqg/Uuvs05N98DI/AAAAAAAADvA/c_hkGW-6p4...
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UnuGnNHVQqg/Uuvs05N98DI/AAAAAAAADvA/c_hkGW-6p4...
Trump's propensity for lying has an underlying cause - malignant narcissism.
Please read psychologist John Gartner's Salon article:
What Donald Trump's tweets reveal about his mental health
Please read psychologist John Gartner's Salon article:
What Donald Trump's tweets reveal about his mental health
From my deck on my fifth floor I could count at one time 6 cranes busy putting up housing. There is another going up that will block part of my view of the mountains. Some where I heard there were 47 cranes here, in Seattle I hear it is another third. Some places are growing.
In Denver we are busy building housing and mass transit.
And here we are severely constricted by water, or the lack thereof.
In Texas a state law stipulates that cities and counties cannot put fire codes in place as it will inconvenience their fertilizer plants that like to explode every now and then. See West, TX.
I have been around land developers my entire life. They will wring every last cent from every last square inch of real estate, consequences be damned.
We the People had better wake up and take back at least a portion of our Nation before it is lost forever.
In Denver we are busy building housing and mass transit.
And here we are severely constricted by water, or the lack thereof.
In Texas a state law stipulates that cities and counties cannot put fire codes in place as it will inconvenience their fertilizer plants that like to explode every now and then. See West, TX.
I have been around land developers my entire life. They will wring every last cent from every last square inch of real estate, consequences be damned.
We the People had better wake up and take back at least a portion of our Nation before it is lost forever.
5
How about some mammoth high rises directly on the San Andreas Fault?
1
Overpopulation. Seriously.
3
Seriously, not?
Low rises (4 to 7 floors) can do a lot single family homes can't, without all the downsides of high rises.
Consider it.
Regards.
Low rises (4 to 7 floors) can do a lot single family homes can't, without all the downsides of high rises.
Consider it.
Regards.
3
well, our love affair with our cars is a big part of the problem. when I moved to Toronto, I thought about giving up my car registration and insurance were more expesive, parking was difficult to find. I could go whereever I needed on public transportation or by foot.but I couldn't give it up.
44
Those extreme commutes might be less crazy if we had decent public transportation. But even in this period of extraordinarily low interest rates we cannot get the GOP to contribute to the national good and build decent infrastructure.
The idea of a car-based city is exactly the problem. Twelve-lane highways and vast lagoons of parking are incredibly wasteful uses of increasingly valuable urban land. And they encourage the people of a city or its suburbs to not really be there at all, instead speeding through it in what amounts to a recliner in a bubble with an engine -- no messy encounters with people you don't know or might even disagree with, just in and out, back to the suburb-within-a-city that you call a neighborhood, and home. Building actual places again would do wonders for us in more ways than even Krugman discusses, and fortunately we have a few good examples of how to do it here, and many brilliant people advocating for it.
3
One cannot miss what one never had. I've never owned a car. Everything is accessible by foot, public transportation or taxi. My job relocated so now I have to walk uphill a bit - and have taken off about 13 pounds since. I may not get out of town much to see the open countryside as much as I'd like. But I do see the smaller things, flower gardens, cats sunning themselves on the driveway, the "hello" from a friendly dog. And more savings than I'd have had otherwise. So I'm not complaining. But I concur with you about the larger addiction being a real problem. The problem too is the rest of the developing world wants to follow suit. Ugh.
This article misses the point. Trying to control nature and weather is nothing other than pretend fantasy social constructs of the radical left. Ideologues use these policies to retain power, control. BTW, some charlatans even become wealthy doing so. See Al Gore. As long as people live in nature, they will always be at risk from (indifferent) nature.
12
It would be marvelous to be able to control the weather, but until that's possible, how about trying to do a better job mitigating potential flood hazards -- such as paving over an entire city like Houston -- that subsequently require billions of taxpayer dollars to remedy after the flooding occurs?
3
"Trying to control nature or weather is nothing other than pretend fantasy...of the radical left"
Straw man or simply guilty projection?
*eyes roll*
Straw man or simply guilty projection?
*eyes roll*
2
"Trying to control nature and weather is nothing other than pretend fantasy social constructs of the radical left."
What are you talking about?
We can't control the weather. So why are people building in a flood plain?
Caveat Emptor.
What are you talking about?
We can't control the weather. So why are people building in a flood plain?
Caveat Emptor.
3
Given San Francisco's experience with destructive earthquakes, it might be more sensible to locate major corporate headquarters in more distant and more safe locations and build tall apartment buildings (and well-designed conditions) there. Whatever the rent cost (and I lived in SF when rents were very affordable), maybe not everyone who wants to live there should do so.
Besides, the more congested that hilly city, the less attractive location it will be to visit. Can't have that lovely cake and eat it too.
Doug Giebel, Big Sandy, Montana
Besides, the more congested that hilly city, the less attractive location it will be to visit. Can't have that lovely cake and eat it too.
Doug Giebel, Big Sandy, Montana
2
Building tall buildings in San Francisco is an expensive proposition. We have earthquakes. Bad ones. Building up is a possibility in some areas, but the seismic engineering takes money. If every unit has $250-500,000 in "hidden cost" for seismic resistance, that's one reason new condo units, are always "luxury". Nor is SF transportation remotely up to the task of adding more people.
Further down the Peninsula there are lots clear for building, but again they are on hillsides that need $1/2 M in retaining walls and seismic engineering. A 1-2 story is earthquake resistant, and cheap to build, but not on a land + foundation cost of $1M. The full hourly rate of a carpenter in SF is $100/hour, BTW.
Further down the Peninsula there are lots clear for building, but again they are on hillsides that need $1/2 M in retaining walls and seismic engineering. A 1-2 story is earthquake resistant, and cheap to build, but not on a land + foundation cost of $1M. The full hourly rate of a carpenter in SF is $100/hour, BTW.
1
Dr Krugman, as always your editorial highlights an important issue but we can't begin to deal with it without considering the fragmented power over land use as well as the dependence of local municipalities on local land use decisions for major parts of their funding.
Cities add jobs - which they need to generate taxes. But with the exception of a very few places, they do not have to consider where people will live, and in particular where, given what jobs pay, where people will be able to afford to live.
Until we loosen local control and change the structure by which cities are financed, this will not end.
SF is building up. You need only go downtown to see the large amount of housing construction. And despite mandates around funding more affordable (in the Bay Area what is considered affordable is not necessarily for working class families, given the extent to which even upper middle class households are stretched by housing costs), the over wheming majority of what is being built is expensive.
Cities add jobs - which they need to generate taxes. But with the exception of a very few places, they do not have to consider where people will live, and in particular where, given what jobs pay, where people will be able to afford to live.
Until we loosen local control and change the structure by which cities are financed, this will not end.
SF is building up. You need only go downtown to see the large amount of housing construction. And despite mandates around funding more affordable (in the Bay Area what is considered affordable is not necessarily for working class families, given the extent to which even upper middle class households are stretched by housing costs), the over wheming majority of what is being built is expensive.
Others have given good comments about building in San Francisco, but I feel they bear repeating to emphasize the poor quality of Dr. Krugman's reasoning regarding housing costs in San Francsico. The City of San Francisco is small in area, dangerously prone to deadly earthquakes, and served by dwindling stocks of water for it's growing population. In addition, it is a city of small neighborhoods with individual character and historic buildings. Taller buildings are being built, but the sinking and tilting of one brand-new high rise is emblematic of the problems. I am usually a fan of Dr. Krugman's thinking, but he struck out hugely on this article. I would also say that I agree with commenters who have noted that policies that encourage limitations on population growth are hugely important to the survival of the human species.
6
An interesting article, but no mention of green cities, no mention of making cities walkable and relatively (or completely) car-free, little mention of building large scale mass transit systems and keying development to these, no mention of using local alternative technologies to power cities. A far more radical vision is needed in a warming world.
6
Good analysis! In Austin we have more of the NIMBYist problem going on, driving up rent and home ownership prices beyond the reach of low to middle income residents. But the City's strict laws on water quality retention ponds being built adjacent to developments may help to lessen our risk for flooding events like Houston just experienced.
Missing from the neoclassical economist's account of troubles: economic rent.
The pursuit of rent by the rentiers is what dominates "planning" (or in Houston's case, "non-planning"). Most of what we see is an excuse to hand billions to the plutocrats who do land speculation.
In Houston, there is no planning, but in California, despite a law that requires local jurisdictions to submit plans, there is no requirement to follow those plans. As a consequence, the "plans" created are typically designed-to-fail, and working as designed.
Why? So the speculators can buy outlying ag land at a few thousand dollars an acre and, after getting the entitlements (that's what they're called) to develop, sell it to builders for 50 - 100 times as much.
In Germany, the developers must sell the land to the local authority at the ag land price, then buy it back at the upzoned price. Developers get none of the "unearned increment" (i.e. economic rent). So Germany has world-class infrastructure, free college even for foreigners...etc. Why even the arts budget for just the City of Berlin exceeds the National Endowment for the Arts for the U.S. of A.
But the plutocrats get their payday. Land speculation, and now stadiums are just rackets to line the pockets of the oligarchy running this place. Lack of affordable housing is simply an acceptable side effect to them.
Now, it's not (as Frank Lloyd Wright used to say) "Form follows function." It's "Form follows finance."
The pursuit of rent by the rentiers is what dominates "planning" (or in Houston's case, "non-planning"). Most of what we see is an excuse to hand billions to the plutocrats who do land speculation.
In Houston, there is no planning, but in California, despite a law that requires local jurisdictions to submit plans, there is no requirement to follow those plans. As a consequence, the "plans" created are typically designed-to-fail, and working as designed.
Why? So the speculators can buy outlying ag land at a few thousand dollars an acre and, after getting the entitlements (that's what they're called) to develop, sell it to builders for 50 - 100 times as much.
In Germany, the developers must sell the land to the local authority at the ag land price, then buy it back at the upzoned price. Developers get none of the "unearned increment" (i.e. economic rent). So Germany has world-class infrastructure, free college even for foreigners...etc. Why even the arts budget for just the City of Berlin exceeds the National Endowment for the Arts for the U.S. of A.
But the plutocrats get their payday. Land speculation, and now stadiums are just rackets to line the pockets of the oligarchy running this place. Lack of affordable housing is simply an acceptable side effect to them.
Now, it's not (as Frank Lloyd Wright used to say) "Form follows function." It's "Form follows finance."
7
Mr. Krugman needs to look closely at Portland, Oregon's urban growth boundary which prevents urban sprawl. While rents and real estate can be expensive within the boundary, they are not stratospheric like SF. Our city density is growing, and while growing pains exist (traffic, incomplete mass-transit), voters also just approved a large bond to build more low-income housing. Transit improvements are ongoing and biking as a commuting choice is increasingly popular.
5
People, particularly in red states, need to get over the idea that bureaucrats, whether they be federal, state or local, are gluttonous leeches whose sole objective is to stifle innovation and deprive them of their freedom. There is a reason for regulations, whether they be environmental, financial, labor or govern land use. I personally know that a lot of these "bureaucrats" are talented dedicated and hard working men and women who believe passionately in, and have good reason for writing the regulations they enforce. Yes, innovation is good, But the results of excessive deregulation, whether it be in the form of financial crises, or environmental catastrophes are all too plain to see.
7
Important article and good viewpoint, but weak on content. Maybe someone who is more informed about this issue could write about it with more original points than "more elevators". I think it's important to recognize that the corruption surrounding real estate development involves TWO parties (or more). Besides the developers, government officials may also act irresponsibly and unethically.
4
There is plenty of literature out there on this subject: websites, books, magazine articles. Try Googling it. You'll get a flood of choices. The point of Krugman's column was to point out the problem, not provide in depth analysis.
2
You're right. But what is this "google" you speak of?
Sure, there's no shortage of information on the subject. I just had the impression that Krugman, himself, hadn't digested much of it - yet felt empowered to tell us all about it or, as he says, "what we need to know". I guess it's an arrogance issue. Content-wise, IMO, this one is on the level of a high school paper article. If he spent less effort on denigrating Trump and more on conveying solid information we would all be better off.
Sure, there's no shortage of information on the subject. I just had the impression that Krugman, himself, hadn't digested much of it - yet felt empowered to tell us all about it or, as he says, "what we need to know". I guess it's an arrogance issue. Content-wise, IMO, this one is on the level of a high school paper article. If he spent less effort on denigrating Trump and more on conveying solid information we would all be better off.
1
Krugman's proposed policy - just build more high-rises - is simplistic and doomed to fail - whether or not his buildings get built. In many older cities, infrastructure is stretched to the limits and will not support the addition of massive new housing developments. The Federal government is actively against mass transit and (despite noises to the contrary, has actually cut back on infrastructure spending under Trump). So why would residents of any city advocate adding large new flows of traffic to gridlocked streets and sewage to inadequate disposal systems?
5
Mr. Krugman,
I'm a San Francisco native, now priced out of the city. In the time I've known the city it's gone from a population low of 680,000 to its current high of 850,000, within a fixed geographical area. It's small, barely 49 square miles with ZERO possibility for additional area. It's already incredibly overcrowded, with overstressed public transport and utility networks. Increased density within the city limits is NOT going to solve long term planning issues.
What could solve them is not a better planned city (though there is always room for improvement) but rather REGIONAL and STATE level planning. Instead of trying to cram more people into S.F. the state should be creating policies that encourage employment opportunities OUTSIDE of S.F., not just in the suburbs, but in other parts of the state entirely. Fresno, Modesto, Bakersfield... The state should be building transport and communication networks to tie these under-developed cities into S.F. and L.A., so that they can develop their potential.
I also wanted to point out that there has been major improvement in issues such as air and water quality in our major cities, including S.F. and L.A. over the last few decades. There are some things we ARE doing right and we need to take note of that so that we realize what works and keep doing it.
Trying to stuff another 150,000 people into the S.F. city limits is going to do nothing to improve it's air and water quality, nor the stresses on its transportation systems.
I'm a San Francisco native, now priced out of the city. In the time I've known the city it's gone from a population low of 680,000 to its current high of 850,000, within a fixed geographical area. It's small, barely 49 square miles with ZERO possibility for additional area. It's already incredibly overcrowded, with overstressed public transport and utility networks. Increased density within the city limits is NOT going to solve long term planning issues.
What could solve them is not a better planned city (though there is always room for improvement) but rather REGIONAL and STATE level planning. Instead of trying to cram more people into S.F. the state should be creating policies that encourage employment opportunities OUTSIDE of S.F., not just in the suburbs, but in other parts of the state entirely. Fresno, Modesto, Bakersfield... The state should be building transport and communication networks to tie these under-developed cities into S.F. and L.A., so that they can develop their potential.
I also wanted to point out that there has been major improvement in issues such as air and water quality in our major cities, including S.F. and L.A. over the last few decades. There are some things we ARE doing right and we need to take note of that so that we realize what works and keep doing it.
Trying to stuff another 150,000 people into the S.F. city limits is going to do nothing to improve it's air and water quality, nor the stresses on its transportation systems.
23
One reason for sprawl in many states is the property rights of the people who sell land to developers. There is a tension between the right of property owners to sell their land for the "highest and best use," and the collective need for land-use planning. Most public-policy disputes boil down to a question of where individual rights end and public interest begins. Land use is no different.
5
Although I consistently enjoy Krugman's writing, on this one he does not have perspective to really offer that much. Lots of people don't want to live in a place like the five boroughs. Trying to remake places into that model is just as bad as the LA model which brought us cities like Houston. I'm an Angeleno by birth and I can illiterate the pluses and minuses of the city. The biggest minus was classing the freeway system as the primary transit system for everyone after the Second World War. That's what Houston and most newer cities have done.
But all the parallels Dr. Krugman makes about the Bay Area and New York, etc. come across as provincial. Yes, provincial, from a New Yorker. New Yorkers often express a belief that New York's answers apply to everyone. Boston seems to be doing just fine without them, as an example.
But all the parallels Dr. Krugman makes about the Bay Area and New York, etc. come across as provincial. Yes, provincial, from a New Yorker. New Yorkers often express a belief that New York's answers apply to everyone. Boston seems to be doing just fine without them, as an example.
If they don't want to live in the 5 boroughs (read cities) why move there?
1
There are lots of models of urban development that do not involve New York style development. Houston would be say 180 degrees from New York in terms of sprawl. I think you completely missed the point of my letter;
Vancouver, BC builds tall and thin with lower buildings meeting the street. The sky can still be seen, views are reasonably available; and the active street level remains humane. International investment is taxed. Seems to be working.
https://markspitzerdesigns.wordpress.com/category/vancouver/sustainable-...
https://markspitzerdesigns.wordpress.com/category/vancouver/sustainable-...
3
Vancouver has the most expensive real estate in the world when calculated as a ratio of average home price to average home wage.
13
There is ONLY ONE reason we don't get it right. Greedy developers who only care about getting the next building up as big as they can, making the money and then flipping it when the tax shelter aspects expire.
Take away all the tax incentives, prevent them from contributing to local elections and you might get someplace. Others it will never change.
And I used to work for the Mayor of New York
Bruce Kirschenbaum
Take away all the tax incentives, prevent them from contributing to local elections and you might get someplace. Others it will never change.
And I used to work for the Mayor of New York
Bruce Kirschenbaum
16
Mr. Bruce:
1. I'm delighted to know that you're no longer part of the problem.
2. Which NYC mayor? John Lindsey?
1. I'm delighted to know that you're no longer part of the problem.
2. Which NYC mayor? John Lindsey?
1
Re San Francisco. Regardless of the Nimbyism problem, the standard residential building lot is 25x100. In wide sections of the city, there's no real place to build up, either.
1
ZIRP made savers poor and speculators rich!
Until a few years ago, when corporate America recognized that the DFW Metroplex was a bargain, we called ZIRP, "The Noo Yawk Roll Up" and Dallas "Fly Over Country"
Immigration, and foreign monies seeking a safe haven in the $USD have kept the bubble afloat. The stock market appears to be machine driven another reason for speculating in real estate. But, IMHO bubbles burst. Where will we go from there?
Until a few years ago, when corporate America recognized that the DFW Metroplex was a bargain, we called ZIRP, "The Noo Yawk Roll Up" and Dallas "Fly Over Country"
Immigration, and foreign monies seeking a safe haven in the $USD have kept the bubble afloat. The stock market appears to be machine driven another reason for speculating in real estate. But, IMHO bubbles burst. Where will we go from there?
3
Maybe I'm missing something, as I usually do with Mr. Krugman. Houston's problem is not unrestricted development, but a giant hurricane that languished for five days. Pretty sure that would flood just about any city. But Krugman is always good at making the facts fit his theories.
2
Cue theme music from The Twilight Zone.
1
Quite the opposite of Krugman's examination maybe the problem isn't the storm, but the magical belief it won't happen despite the history and prgnostics?
That in fact is the literal definition of insanity.
That in fact is the literal definition of insanity.
1
The so called NIMBYs are often right (go back and read Jane Jacobs, Mr. Krugman).
Capitalism and private property are major reasons why US can't get citied right, as well as the Neoliberal war on all things public, common space and communitarian.
Capitalism and private property are major reasons why US can't get citied right, as well as the Neoliberal war on all things public, common space and communitarian.
2
Jane Jacobs was rightly opposed to Robert Moses' plans to bulldoze the West Village for a freeway, and to raise entire blocks for monolithic redevelopment that would have killed the street-level human-scale life of the city.
By contrast, many NIMBYs today are opposed to infill development, any mix of land uses (like shops or offices within walking distance of homes), and to multi-family homes in monolithic single-family neighborhoods. Jane Jacobs would be horrified by this.
NIMBYism today is largely about, "I got mine, everyone else go away. I'm pulling up the ladder." Sounds a lot like the Republican Party.
By contrast, many NIMBYs today are opposed to infill development, any mix of land uses (like shops or offices within walking distance of homes), and to multi-family homes in monolithic single-family neighborhoods. Jane Jacobs would be horrified by this.
NIMBYism today is largely about, "I got mine, everyone else go away. I'm pulling up the ladder." Sounds a lot like the Republican Party.
1
Thank you, President Trump, for doing a much better job of responding to Hurricane Harvey than either of your to predecessors in the White House could have done.
Had Hillary won, she'd only now be choosing the highest bidder to get rescue efforts going as he staff decides who aspect of the hurricane relief os the best place to divert money to her brother's company.
America's best President of the Century is a refreshing alternative to the sad disease of large, single-party city governments. Houston being in Texas has prevented it from falling into the chaos bin that New York City, Baltimore, the still-upright part of San Francisco, Philly, St. Louis, L.A., Washington, D.C. and Atlanta have settled into.
There's still hope for Houston, but American can't do cities well at all because the schools in these one-party cities only function to protect the politically important teachers' unions and Democrats can never stop using elective office to enrich themselves.
Had Hillary won, she'd only now be choosing the highest bidder to get rescue efforts going as he staff decides who aspect of the hurricane relief os the best place to divert money to her brother's company.
America's best President of the Century is a refreshing alternative to the sad disease of large, single-party city governments. Houston being in Texas has prevented it from falling into the chaos bin that New York City, Baltimore, the still-upright part of San Francisco, Philly, St. Louis, L.A., Washington, D.C. and Atlanta have settled into.
There's still hope for Houston, but American can't do cities well at all because the schools in these one-party cities only function to protect the politically important teachers' unions and Democrats can never stop using elective office to enrich themselves.
2
If the cities you named (at least SF, NYC, DC, and ATL) are so bad, why do so many people live in them and continue to move to them?
5
Thank you for the levity. Hilarious!
3
san francisco has been in a permanent housing crisis since 1849. houston seems to be where it is, because galveston is where it is, and we all know what happened to gaveston. people don't learn. that's the real point.
4
More tall buildings right between the San Andreas and the Hayward fault is just what we need. For a vertical Harvey, that is.
5
And the dysfunction plays on as the Texas Governor refuses to use the State's "Rainy Day Fund" to help rescue his own state's people who have been damaged by this monster storm and the flooding it has caused.
6
Earthquakes
1
My God Paul says socialist solutions are the way to go! NOT IN THIS CAPITALIST COUNTRY!
1
Socialist, as in Blue state bailout money for red state irresponsibility?
7
Like the old saw that women are paid x% of what men are paid, and that differential is a screaming injustice, the blue state bailout meme is a huge oversimplication. It was created by liberals out of defensiveness, but doesn't stand up to rigorous analysis.
I would add one more city to the Houston-San Francisco mix: London.
With the gop/trump getting it's way with regulations and the environment, and counterleadership running around like chickens with their heads cut off doing nothing, what we will get is buildings like the one in London the world watched burn down, filled with people. After all, the cladding on that building was made in America. Those who bought the gop bought it so that they could do things like that here by taking down regulations and packing committees, organizations not to mention congress and state legislatures with men more interested in personal gain than stewardship of the people they represent and affect. It's not NIMPYism, its the rule makers who make rules for everybody else but not them that is the problem.
Then again, there was the World Trade Center.
Building up is a good idea but not without the requisite research and safety measures. The absence of the EPA in Houston shows just how little effort would be put into safety until we rid our government of the modern gop, trump and his followers are quashed, and we can build having the voices of all Americans having a say in the rules.
With the gop/trump getting it's way with regulations and the environment, and counterleadership running around like chickens with their heads cut off doing nothing, what we will get is buildings like the one in London the world watched burn down, filled with people. After all, the cladding on that building was made in America. Those who bought the gop bought it so that they could do things like that here by taking down regulations and packing committees, organizations not to mention congress and state legislatures with men more interested in personal gain than stewardship of the people they represent and affect. It's not NIMPYism, its the rule makers who make rules for everybody else but not them that is the problem.
Then again, there was the World Trade Center.
Building up is a good idea but not without the requisite research and safety measures. The absence of the EPA in Houston shows just how little effort would be put into safety until we rid our government of the modern gop, trump and his followers are quashed, and we can build having the voices of all Americans having a say in the rules.
3
"Chicago is a huge city with dense development but relatively low housing prices; maybe it has some lessons to teach the rest of us?" This is true Paul. Statistics don't lie but they can obscure the bigger picture. When you look at median home prices Chicago does look like a comparative bargain. But there are two Chicagos. Chicago epitomizes the income equality that plagues the US as a whole. There are the prosperous neighborhoods on the North side with a blend of well renovated nineteenth century brownstones, architecturally interesting pre-war apartment buildings and beautiful new high-rises and townhouses. These neighborhoods have good schools, parks, restaurants and shops. These neighborhoods are much less affordable than the home price statistics would imply. The other Chicago--'Chi-raq' as it has been called is much less expensive. The South and West side neighborhoods are decaying. These neighborhoods are infested with violent gangs, poor schools and the poverty that stems from lack of opportunity. Paul you probably wouldn't want to live in Chi-raq but you find a house pretty cheap.
8
EXACTLY!!
It's the macro economy, Stupid.
Econ 101, Professor Krugman. Supply and Demand.
The supply of land is finite. They ain't making more of it. Our little planet has been the same size for billions of years. Some of the land, like Antarctica, Siberia and the Sahara, is not very attractive - now.
The demand for land increases every day. Humans zoomed from a billion to seven or eight billion in a blink of the geological eye. Judging from population densities, we like to pack into tiny areas and call them cities. Some of these cities are pearls. Some of these "cities" are glorified slums.
Why don't we humans build cities right? Well, for one thing, we are not ants or bees. For another thing, in spite of the hubris of many in high places, we are not the masters of the universe.
Econ 101, Professor Krugman. Supply and Demand.
The supply of land is finite. They ain't making more of it. Our little planet has been the same size for billions of years. Some of the land, like Antarctica, Siberia and the Sahara, is not very attractive - now.
The demand for land increases every day. Humans zoomed from a billion to seven or eight billion in a blink of the geological eye. Judging from population densities, we like to pack into tiny areas and call them cities. Some of these cities are pearls. Some of these "cities" are glorified slums.
Why don't we humans build cities right? Well, for one thing, we are not ants or bees. For another thing, in spite of the hubris of many in high places, we are not the masters of the universe.
2
What about subterranean construction? Its being done in London and there is an art museum at the Smithsonian where you don't even notice you are below ground.
Can you really sell me a degree in the Trump University? I like a PhD on how to con people. How much and how do I pay?
I live in the SF area that you mentioned though I am not sure how practical and safe to build up here due to earthquake threats. Yes, there are technologies that will help but that too will push up the cost.
As to hoping the EPA will get it right, don't hold your breadth. Their denial of global warming is caused by human activities continue unabated. Having you heard they are already complaining that those who claim the power of Harvey is at least in part caused by global warming are trying to politicize tragic event?
Drill, baby, drill; and burn (more fossil fuel), baby, burn.
I live in the SF area that you mentioned though I am not sure how practical and safe to build up here due to earthquake threats. Yes, there are technologies that will help but that too will push up the cost.
As to hoping the EPA will get it right, don't hold your breadth. Their denial of global warming is caused by human activities continue unabated. Having you heard they are already complaining that those who claim the power of Harvey is at least in part caused by global warming are trying to politicize tragic event?
Drill, baby, drill; and burn (more fossil fuel), baby, burn.
3
Over the years, I've listened to so many Texas politicians sanctimoniously lecture us on how they have to keep power at the state and local level. But when their stupid decisions result in billions of dollars in additional damage from the storm, they are not shy about demanding a handout from taxpayers around the nation who were told to stick their noses out of local policy. When do the people responsible for horrible decisions have to pay for their mistakes? Where is the lecture on personal responsibility now?
18
Texas, as the hub of anti-government sentiment, would be averse to anything that smacks of planning, measured development, adequte infrastructure, and oh, woe, environmental protection.
So, drink up, and don't worry about a dozen or so superfund sites contributing to your water. Don't worry about the next storm of the ages coming next month. Never mind, don't worry, be happy.
Those people in the shelters certainly look happy enough, don't they? Specially now they got a hot dog from their what-me-worry president.
So, drink up, and don't worry about a dozen or so superfund sites contributing to your water. Don't worry about the next storm of the ages coming next month. Never mind, don't worry, be happy.
Those people in the shelters certainly look happy enough, don't they? Specially now they got a hot dog from their what-me-worry president.
4
Surely you're jesting, Dr. Krugman! In 1958 I went to hear a lecture by Jane Jacobs at the New School. At that time, she cast aspersions on the malevolent plans of Robert Moses, on the incomplete Lincoln Center, and on the massive destruction of city life wrought by public and private developers. A few years later, while I was in graduate school, her "Death and Life ..." appeared. Only inveterate do-gooders believe that science, sense or aesthetics can foil the greed of developers ... whether in New York, in Houston or in Toronto. Knowledge of traffic flow, concrete and steel, water-flow, etc., cannot counter the "Drang nach Mammon." Sorry.
3
I've driven in Atlanta traffic and it's terrible. I live in Tampa which has it's moments. I think it's about infrastructure along with green space. If people aren't forced to do it, it isn't happening. A lot of people from the Midwest and Northeast come to Tampa and have a sense of right so it happens here, that hasn't happened in Atlanta. Texas has the Rs at the state level strangling anyone who wants to put structure in planning as they can make more deals that way. The city of Houston doesn't stand a chance. The reality is, it isn't changing.
3
Come to central Atlanta and get off the freeways. There is very little traffic congestion on the surface streets. But there are tons of people on foot, bikes, and taking transit. We've added 10's of thousands of residents in the central neighborhoods in just a few years, and car traffic has decreased if it has changed at all. There are also plenty of parks, open spaces, and trees everywhere. My wife and I drive less in Atlanta than anywhere we have lived (except for NYC).
3
Tampa is the worst city in Florida by far. When you say Tampa has its moments I assume you are talking about cities outside of Tampa like St. Pete, which is pretty great. I don't know how you honestly believe Atlanta is worse simply because of traffic.
1
Actually, I'd say Jacksonville is the worst city in Florida.
2
Hmm...What are we going to do with all these people?
I got an idea! Let's cram them into small areas and force them to share utilities, housing and services. We'll ship the goods to them from the rest of the nation and from around the world, and they can provide for their own services.
Uhh...That sounds like a permanent refugee camp. Why is that any different than an Indian reservation?
Well, it's because they want to be there. They want to live in cities, so it's OK. We'll make sure the food is good and the entertainment never gets old -- you know, the bread and circus thing.
How is it they can find meaning in life and be productive...What about the existential angst of being 'hog crated' in little rooms?
Just like goats and other stock animals, people get used to their surroundings and become inured to their circumstances. In this case, we ship in large amounts of raw materials for them to play with and make things like children, and, you know, they're surprisingly good at that. So long as we can keep them busy and productive, they are happy. Also, now that we've got computers integrated into every aspect of their lives, they can be productive manipulating huge amounts of data, creating a virtual world of work on the internet and for operations outside of the cities.
How long do you think it will last?
Well, cities have been around for millennia, and given the craven and grossly impoverished cities in poor nations, I think there's nothing that will put them at risk.
I got an idea! Let's cram them into small areas and force them to share utilities, housing and services. We'll ship the goods to them from the rest of the nation and from around the world, and they can provide for their own services.
Uhh...That sounds like a permanent refugee camp. Why is that any different than an Indian reservation?
Well, it's because they want to be there. They want to live in cities, so it's OK. We'll make sure the food is good and the entertainment never gets old -- you know, the bread and circus thing.
How is it they can find meaning in life and be productive...What about the existential angst of being 'hog crated' in little rooms?
Just like goats and other stock animals, people get used to their surroundings and become inured to their circumstances. In this case, we ship in large amounts of raw materials for them to play with and make things like children, and, you know, they're surprisingly good at that. So long as we can keep them busy and productive, they are happy. Also, now that we've got computers integrated into every aspect of their lives, they can be productive manipulating huge amounts of data, creating a virtual world of work on the internet and for operations outside of the cities.
How long do you think it will last?
Well, cities have been around for millennia, and given the craven and grossly impoverished cities in poor nations, I think there's nothing that will put them at risk.
2
"How we manage urban land"? Who's we, Kemo sabe?
Colorado faces the same problems. Denver is growing rapidly, and so are the mountain valleys with resorts. Everyone is crying out for more affordable housing. But for at least 40 years we have been adding housing. Ergo: more housing is not a solution; it only adds to the problems.
The first step would be to require any new business to provide living space on site. They should also provide their own energy and other resources from food to waste. Up until now, we have been allowing business to "externalize" functions that fall on the public to subsidize. Hence toxic waste dumps in Houston and "extreme commuting".
The second step is to limit the growth of population. History is full of animals and societies that have overpopulated and then crashed. We are now in global warming. Houston is just one example of the crash now occurring. Can't limit population? We are supposedly intelligent beings; we need to reset our own biology. Or else!
Colorado faces the same problems. Denver is growing rapidly, and so are the mountain valleys with resorts. Everyone is crying out for more affordable housing. But for at least 40 years we have been adding housing. Ergo: more housing is not a solution; it only adds to the problems.
The first step would be to require any new business to provide living space on site. They should also provide their own energy and other resources from food to waste. Up until now, we have been allowing business to "externalize" functions that fall on the public to subsidize. Hence toxic waste dumps in Houston and "extreme commuting".
The second step is to limit the growth of population. History is full of animals and societies that have overpopulated and then crashed. We are now in global warming. Houston is just one example of the crash now occurring. Can't limit population? We are supposedly intelligent beings; we need to reset our own biology. Or else!
6
"But it's a good bet that more people will eventually die from the toxins Harvey leaves behind than were killed during the storm itself." Medical claims need to be more more specific than this. What particular toxins are you talking about? What is their lethal dose? How many people will have received that dose? Can you document the number of people killed by these toxins after other hurricanes? Or are you just making a speculation that supports your politics?
1
Are you serious?
3
I believe he's quite serious. Your scorn is not an adequate response. Answer the questions.
Not an adequate response to a turnip, maybe but I am not in the habit of polite discourse with vegetables, so enjoy the scorn.
To answer your question: "shy can't we get cities right?" It is because the democrats have run them and have ruined them. Show me a major city not ruined by democrats. They pander to unions for votes and waste YOUR MONEY; they excel at spending other peoples money.
Newsflash, Jan. This is not the 1980s, and Kurt Russell's "Escape from New York."
Most American cities are thriving today. The cities are where the good jobs and the quality of life are. People want to live in American cities.
If you want to see areas of disinvestment and drug addiction, where everyone who has the means and ability has left, go to the former Mayberrys and rural America. These are sadly the places that have been run into the ground. And they are largely run by Republicans.
Most American cities are thriving today. The cities are where the good jobs and the quality of life are. People want to live in American cities.
If you want to see areas of disinvestment and drug addiction, where everyone who has the means and ability has left, go to the former Mayberrys and rural America. These are sadly the places that have been run into the ground. And they are largely run by Republicans.
3
"Many toxic waste sites are flooded, but the Environmental Protection Agency is conspicuously absent." One wonders why Texans keep voting for Republicans when their backyard is a toxic waste dump and they don't bother to clean it up to say nothing of their air pollution.
3
Some things not noted by Mr. Krugman:
1. No one is going to die of a horrible poisoning because he couldn't find affordable housing in San Francisco.
2. SF has some of the densest housing concentrations in the country; oddly enough they are in the most affluent sections. It is the solid middle class that will fight to the death for their little private homes in the Outside Lands.
3. SF has a housing crisis because... far too many people want to live here! The best way to solve SF's housing crisis would be for the all the crushingly boring, bigoted, dead-end mid-size and smaller cities of the country to become more like SF: fascinating, exciting, beautiful places to live, eat, drink, have fun, get educated and work.
1. No one is going to die of a horrible poisoning because he couldn't find affordable housing in San Francisco.
2. SF has some of the densest housing concentrations in the country; oddly enough they are in the most affluent sections. It is the solid middle class that will fight to the death for their little private homes in the Outside Lands.
3. SF has a housing crisis because... far too many people want to live here! The best way to solve SF's housing crisis would be for the all the crushingly boring, bigoted, dead-end mid-size and smaller cities of the country to become more like SF: fascinating, exciting, beautiful places to live, eat, drink, have fun, get educated and work.
4
I live in the Bay Area. Almost everyone I know claims to be liberal or left wing and most, if not all-- who probably read your columns and those of the other liberal pundits-- are NIMBYs. Perhaps a claim to be liberal or left wing has become a fashion statement. Doesn't favoring affordable housing smack of Bentham and utilitarianism? Being utilitarian is definitely not stylish.
2
Good comments but they are blowing in the wind. We are too polarized on both the left and right to sit down and solve these problems. Other nations have done some good research into the problem of cities and natural catastrophes. They tend to be cities with mono cultures and a history of working together.
On the other hand, the US is a nation of polyglots where competition and short term gains at the expense of the other tribes takes precedence over cooperation and planning for the future. The heavy fist is now in power and the possibility of any cooperation or advancement in social good went out the window with the last election.
To the victor go the spoils. He who wins writes the history books. Empires always fail, the more despotic authoritarian ones tend the fail in their infancy. The Third Reich lasted less than a decade, the Soviet Union seven decades. The US, ??
On the other hand, the US is a nation of polyglots where competition and short term gains at the expense of the other tribes takes precedence over cooperation and planning for the future. The heavy fist is now in power and the possibility of any cooperation or advancement in social good went out the window with the last election.
To the victor go the spoils. He who wins writes the history books. Empires always fail, the more despotic authoritarian ones tend the fail in their infancy. The Third Reich lasted less than a decade, the Soviet Union seven decades. The US, ??
1
The solution to many of the problems detailed here might be one of Paolo Soleri's so-called "megastructures." Take a look at Arcosanti in Arizona, which is the world's only existing megastructure. You want urban planning? It's been right there for many years.
When will we have THE conversation as a world? Population Matters!
4
San Francisco is a lousy place to build tall buildings. For example Joe Montana owns an apartment in a building that is leaning at an angle.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Joe-Montana-sues-SF-s-Millennium-T...
Of course on lower grounds, the buildings shake a lot during earthquakes, because they are built on shifting sand.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Joe-Montana-sues-SF-s-Millennium-T...
Of course on lower grounds, the buildings shake a lot during earthquakes, because they are built on shifting sand.
Toronto could be a good example. Toronto is also very multicultural, and very welcoming to immigrants.
Toronto ahead of NYC: 130 highrise building projects in Toronto lead North America. http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/130-highrise-building-projects-in-toront...
http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/toronto-building-completions-timeli...
Toronto ahead of NYC: 130 highrise building projects in Toronto lead North America. http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/130-highrise-building-projects-in-toront...
http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/toronto-building-completions-timeli...
1
Our lust for money and a history of rugged individualism led to the unzoned mess of Houston and the suburban messes from coast to coast.
I'm convinced that it will take a systematic collapse to teach us to build places, to quote James Howard Kunstler "worth caring about."
I'm convinced that it will take a systematic collapse to teach us to build places, to quote James Howard Kunstler "worth caring about."
1
The tragedy in Houston is the direct result of a lack of rigid zoning and wetland policies. Everybody hates zoning and wetland laws until a tragedy makes them realize that "gee, those annoying prohibitions against building on wetland were created to protect us."
It's been amazing to hear people's rationalizations for not carrying flood insurance. It's "too expensive" was one description I read of a $500 a year flood insurance policy that a homeowner decided not to carry. "My home wasn't in the flood plain so I didn't buy flood insurance..." This last one came from a homeowner whose house was built within a mile of the official flood plain - and on the same level. How could this person possibly not understand the danger of buying a house that was situated right next to a major flood plain? Rushing waters are not held back by lines drawn on a map.
My heart breaks (and my wallet opens) for the lives lost and the devastation, but my mind boggles at the irresponsibility of this city that allowed this kind of development. It's wrong to kick people when they're down, but will we ever have a dialogue about the lack of knowledge that Houston home buyers demonstrated, and their poor judgment in buying homes that for-profit insurance companies refuse to cover for flood damage? Shouldn't the fact that a house is uninsurable for flood damage, outside of government policies, give you a clue that you shouldn't buy it?
It's been amazing to hear people's rationalizations for not carrying flood insurance. It's "too expensive" was one description I read of a $500 a year flood insurance policy that a homeowner decided not to carry. "My home wasn't in the flood plain so I didn't buy flood insurance..." This last one came from a homeowner whose house was built within a mile of the official flood plain - and on the same level. How could this person possibly not understand the danger of buying a house that was situated right next to a major flood plain? Rushing waters are not held back by lines drawn on a map.
My heart breaks (and my wallet opens) for the lives lost and the devastation, but my mind boggles at the irresponsibility of this city that allowed this kind of development. It's wrong to kick people when they're down, but will we ever have a dialogue about the lack of knowledge that Houston home buyers demonstrated, and their poor judgment in buying homes that for-profit insurance companies refuse to cover for flood damage? Shouldn't the fact that a house is uninsurable for flood damage, outside of government policies, give you a clue that you shouldn't buy it?
5
I would think that San Francisco residents, planners and developers are apt to be less enthusiastic about high rise development because of the ongoing threat of earthquakes.
Perhaps elevators aren't as easy a solution as might appear.
Ruth Benedikt
Perhaps elevators aren't as easy a solution as might appear.
Ruth Benedikt
3
No talk from Krugman about the folly of rebuilding in Houston. Houston started on its path of enormous growth because of people fleeing Galveston after the hurricane of 1900. The storms are going to increase in size and frequency, and the sea level is going to continue to rise. Anyone who doesn't believe that is a victim of deep denial and willful ignorance. If I were going to stay and rebuild my house in Houston, I'd put it on twelve foot pylons.
1
Maybe another reason for San Francisco to not have taller buildings is because they create an awful feeling on the ground for people like me. NYC is fun to visit for a day or two, but the towering skyscrapers, blocking out the sunlight on summer days, and creating wind tunnels on icy winter days, de-humanize the streets below.
San Francisco is the desirable city that it is because it is not a jungle of skyscrapers. You can see the sky. You do not feel dwarfed and insignificant while on the streets.
Let's leave the giant skyscrapers in NYC and Chicago, and let's leave San Francisco alone.
San Francisco is the desirable city that it is because it is not a jungle of skyscrapers. You can see the sky. You do not feel dwarfed and insignificant while on the streets.
Let's leave the giant skyscrapers in NYC and Chicago, and let's leave San Francisco alone.
6
Getting the cities "right" infrastructurally is a matter of budgets and their allocation. Getting them "right" morally and free of street crime is a question of stopping their role of the foci of evil emanating therefrom and resolving once and for all, who are the guardians of security -- the citizens themselves or the municipal police made of mercenary gunslingers, poorly trained in the use of arms and self-control.
While NIMBYism is part of the problem in many locations - on the local level a lot of the problems is good old greed and nepotism. Zoning boards are staffed with family members of elected officials, whose only aim is make deals that improve their portfolio. Construction firms are run by the sons and son-in-laws, of those on the boards approving who gets the work. Admin staff where paperwork gets filed properly, or moved thru the system properly (or not) are the wives, sisters and daughters of well connected private investors, or elected officials, or both. Municipal Crews are staffed by the sons, brothers, uncles, etc. And so it goes...you cant throw a rock in some places and not hit a relative of a relative of someone who controls a revenue, or contracting stream of money.
So when an honest player (me) is on the outside with a great idea to provide legal, affordable rental housing in a market sorely lacking and eliminate some suburban blight...they cant anything done, because it would cost too much in Smoozing money, and/or end with me having to hire a lousy contractor, or supplier who is related to the guy/gal I need to change move the project forward. Without the proper connections in the local Party, and/or Money Controllers...change to how we develop, or not develop, existing zones, or new ones is not going to be done with an eye towards modernity.
Because all that matters to those in charge of our cities, surroundings - is how much for me, and how soon do I get it?
So when an honest player (me) is on the outside with a great idea to provide legal, affordable rental housing in a market sorely lacking and eliminate some suburban blight...they cant anything done, because it would cost too much in Smoozing money, and/or end with me having to hire a lousy contractor, or supplier who is related to the guy/gal I need to change move the project forward. Without the proper connections in the local Party, and/or Money Controllers...change to how we develop, or not develop, existing zones, or new ones is not going to be done with an eye towards modernity.
Because all that matters to those in charge of our cities, surroundings - is how much for me, and how soon do I get it?
So much for trickle down, deregulation, and fake ideology intended to push the wealth to the top. It worked!
But, the winds of change are blowin' and the era of limits, responsibilities, and accountability is long overdue.
The world is closing in ...
The future's in the air
I can feel it everywhere
Blowing with the wind of change
(Note: different times required slightly modifying Dylan's lyrics by removing:
Did you ever think
That we could be so close, like brothers)
We are rapdily reaching, or have reached, the point where it is Change or die! But I am not a betting person, just a hopeful one.
But, the winds of change are blowin' and the era of limits, responsibilities, and accountability is long overdue.
The world is closing in ...
The future's in the air
I can feel it everywhere
Blowing with the wind of change
(Note: different times required slightly modifying Dylan's lyrics by removing:
Did you ever think
That we could be so close, like brothers)
We are rapdily reaching, or have reached, the point where it is Change or die! But I am not a betting person, just a hopeful one.
There will be many more Houstons to come in the future because it is already too late to correct the mistakes of the past. There could never be enough done to keep this kind of flooding at bay short of tearing down all areas that are on flood plains. As far as rescue don't even think of a large earthquake, another large flood, or nuclear bomb. Chernoble will never rise again ever. The great Midwest controlled floods by controlling rivers but it still floods. Time and time again we see a repeat and will continue to see that. Nothing can be done.
The foundation of our economy is greed.
It is not a philosophy that will lead to any long term good.
It is not a philosophy that will lead to any long term good.
3
Houston v. San Francisco presents a picture of upside-downism. Relatively conservative Houston welcomes change -- in the form of rampant real estate development -- while liberal San Francisco --usually at the forefront of social progress -- is averse to changing the status quo. In the matter of urban development, Houston is liberal & San Francisco is conservative.
But both cities demonstrate the essence of politics: greed & self-interest. They just happen to be captured by different power elites. The greater good is not a factor in either city's "vision."
Ironically perhaps, the federal government can do something about Houston's problem, but the feds can do little to force San Francisco to move toward a more liberal urban plan. Federal environmental & safety regulations can impose restrictions on Houston's careless development, but the federal government cannot order San Francisco to embrace, for instance, mixed-use development.
Neither city needs to change its political ideology. Houstonians must honor their conservative values & "consider the grandchildren," while San Franciscans must make room for "the least among us," as they have been eager to do on so many other policy issues.
But both cities demonstrate the essence of politics: greed & self-interest. They just happen to be captured by different power elites. The greater good is not a factor in either city's "vision."
Ironically perhaps, the federal government can do something about Houston's problem, but the feds can do little to force San Francisco to move toward a more liberal urban plan. Federal environmental & safety regulations can impose restrictions on Houston's careless development, but the federal government cannot order San Francisco to embrace, for instance, mixed-use development.
Neither city needs to change its political ideology. Houstonians must honor their conservative values & "consider the grandchildren," while San Franciscans must make room for "the least among us," as they have been eager to do on so many other policy issues.
70
@Marie Burns
Your comment is smart, incisive and nothing to disagree with. However you're incorrect to say SF doesn't embrace mixed-use development. It's been the central focus of the Planning Commission, probably the most powerful citizen-empaneled municipal agency, to require not just mixed-use but also mixed-income development. The scream heard around the world was from developers who really didn't want to set aside a single low-income (middle class anywhere else) unit in their multi-million dollar condo development.
If The City is special, it's because of its incredible diversity, which is #1 on the endangered list, starting with young families with kids. Early efforts at urban renewal were a debacle, like most everywhere else. Razing the Western Addition decimated San Francisco's Black population. The tech invasion has turned the Mission, once an Irish enclave and later Hispanic, into a rich techie fantasy playground of urban grit mixed with trendy destination eateries and quaint Victorian structures. An allure so strong even Mark Zuckerberg built his literal blockbuster mansion here.
The are few Japanese Americans left in J-Town, also razed by urban renewal. What's left is a Japanese-theme park shopping mall that's an exotic tourist mecca anchored by a Robert Redford cinema multiplex that bans kids when they serve wine with their movies.
The San Andreas Fault lurks as the Grim Reaper ready to finish the job rapacious developers started.
Your comment is smart, incisive and nothing to disagree with. However you're incorrect to say SF doesn't embrace mixed-use development. It's been the central focus of the Planning Commission, probably the most powerful citizen-empaneled municipal agency, to require not just mixed-use but also mixed-income development. The scream heard around the world was from developers who really didn't want to set aside a single low-income (middle class anywhere else) unit in their multi-million dollar condo development.
If The City is special, it's because of its incredible diversity, which is #1 on the endangered list, starting with young families with kids. Early efforts at urban renewal were a debacle, like most everywhere else. Razing the Western Addition decimated San Francisco's Black population. The tech invasion has turned the Mission, once an Irish enclave and later Hispanic, into a rich techie fantasy playground of urban grit mixed with trendy destination eateries and quaint Victorian structures. An allure so strong even Mark Zuckerberg built his literal blockbuster mansion here.
The are few Japanese Americans left in J-Town, also razed by urban renewal. What's left is a Japanese-theme park shopping mall that's an exotic tourist mecca anchored by a Robert Redford cinema multiplex that bans kids when they serve wine with their movies.
The San Andreas Fault lurks as the Grim Reaper ready to finish the job rapacious developers started.
2
All San Francisco needs to do to fix its problem is affix a giant "No vacancy" sign on the Golden Gate Bridge and let no one else in. Let tech move to places like Detroit or Baltimore where development is despertly needed, it is not like 1s and 0s can't move instantly and inexpensively anywhere.
1
There is a lot of talk about San Francisco's need for urban development with little or no regard for its circumstance. San Francisco sits on a major earthquake fault. Most of the low laying parts of the city sit on landfill. The combination makes development of high rise buildings particularly difficult and dangerous. A recent high rise apartment building in a landfill area of the city began sinking and leaning soon after it was built. At this point no solution has been worked out. More high tech companies are moving into this city than any other in the country, driving up land values and rents. Add to this that the people of San Francisco, perhaps the most beautiful city in America, do not want to see it destroyed for the sake of Urban Development. The people and city government are struggling to find answers to difficult, complex problems. Simple minded, uninformed criticism adds very little.
2
President Trump "pledges" $1 million toward hurricane damage relief from Harvey. Been there, done that with the Trumpian pledges. Whether or not the President actually follows through, the gesture is but a nose dripping in an ocean of need, made for image burnishing while he cuts hundreds of millions from the EPA, NOAA, NSF, NASA and so forth.
Aside from a side narrative about the president's character, as is any more of this were needed, the million dollar pledge means nothing at all.
Aside from a side narrative about the president's character, as is any more of this were needed, the million dollar pledge means nothing at all.
2
You are right, Dr. Paul, that managing our American urban land is key to impacting American lives. But elevators in high-rise apartment and business buildings are catastrophes waiting to happen, not the most effective mass transit technology yet divised. Imagine being caught for two hours with a toddler in a 33rd floor UES New York apartment elevator while 9 months pregnant (that happened to me)? Alas, Harvey won't be a wake-up call any more than Katrina was, than the 1989 Northridge SF earthquake was. We never wake up.
We know the facts of why we can't get our cities right - too many people, too little space. Unpredictability and disorder and Nature's depredations lead to collapse. Real estate developers like our 45th President and his son-in-law, the nepot, are holding the keys to the real estate kingdoms in our large American cities and suburbs. Urban growth is entropy.
We know the facts of why we can't get our cities right - too many people, too little space. Unpredictability and disorder and Nature's depredations lead to collapse. Real estate developers like our 45th President and his son-in-law, the nepot, are holding the keys to the real estate kingdoms in our large American cities and suburbs. Urban growth is entropy.
There was a time when you could arrive in a strange city, scan the ads or hammer on doors & have disheveled, sometimes suspicious landlords, scrutinize you & proceed to be shown an "obscure lodging", offered at what is now seen as a ridiculously low rent, adjusted for inflation. The bottom rung for climbing the ladder of economic betterment has been removed. The corporate bureaucracy has triumphed, with the flippers & dippers riding the coattails.
Hong Kong is cool, with accommodations ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous. Living in a Pullman sized apt. is preferable to nothing for outliers & the marginalized, and that seems to be where we're headed in our coastal cities, with increasing numbers of people living on the streets.
High speed commute trains for the plebes offers solutions in the present economic climate.
Hong Kong is cool, with accommodations ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous. Living in a Pullman sized apt. is preferable to nothing for outliers & the marginalized, and that seems to be where we're headed in our coastal cities, with increasing numbers of people living on the streets.
High speed commute trains for the plebes offers solutions in the present economic climate.
1
Well, Houston has its floods but what about San Francisco's faultline? Will building "up" & adding more places for people to live there increase the deaths and destruction of a future earthquake? I think NIMBYism (even tho' I'm not a proponent of that attitude) may well help save lives in the event of San Francisco's future "natural" calamity. Like the Houston floods, it's not an "if," it's a "when."
1
May I suggest before going around and blaming everyone understanding the flooding history of this area first. As the Harris County Flood Control District www.hcfcd.org states, "Shortly after the Allen brothers chose to establish Houston at the confluence of Buffalo and White Oak Bayous, virtually every structure in the new settlement flooded. Although it was quickly realized that our area is naturally flood prone, it took the devastating floods of 1929 and 1935 to bring about serious action for major flood relief. After these tremendously destructive floods, Harris County citizens clamored for solutions. Cumulative flood losses had reached a staggering sum. If ever there was a county in need of flood assistance, this was it." This area since it's inception was known to flood. It even has clay soil which when undeveloped doesn't drain well. There are over 2500 miles of storm channels in this area meant to channel storm flow. In addition, recent environmental regulations have made it much harder for them to implement fixes. So please do not try to simplify a very complex and longstanding problem as just NIMBYS. Surely development has not helped the situation but you can't engineer existing people out of the area. New regulations are needed surely but they should be thoughtful and not knee jerk. If you think imposing NY like regulations throughout the Country is the answer I dare you to have the citizenry take our wonderful subway and you may have quickly have your answer.
1
Maybe the bigger question is how we manage human populations.
3
Where money talks, everything else is an also ran. Then you're wondering why everything in your country is such a disaster. The "Robber Baron" economics of the past decades is catching up with the US. Another natural disaster? North Korea? Which will be the straw the finally breaks the camel's back?
Let's see here, Chicago has:
1. A soaring murder rate
2. An unserviceable pension obligation that typifies the broken democratic political machine that runs the place
3. Net out migration
4. Hmmm, what was #4 again... oh yes, affordable housing.
The reason couldn't possibly be supply and demand, could it, Professor Nobel Laureate? Or maybe that was the lesson you were drawing us to. If Houston and SF pulled a Detroit and drove everyone out of the city, then housing would be cheaper and floods wouldn't affect so many people.
Great point.
1. A soaring murder rate
2. An unserviceable pension obligation that typifies the broken democratic political machine that runs the place
3. Net out migration
4. Hmmm, what was #4 again... oh yes, affordable housing.
The reason couldn't possibly be supply and demand, could it, Professor Nobel Laureate? Or maybe that was the lesson you were drawing us to. If Houston and SF pulled a Detroit and drove everyone out of the city, then housing would be cheaper and floods wouldn't affect so many people.
Great point.
Theres a Village on Long Island that years ago had a handout to new homeowners and residents. "The Reasons People Love to Hate it Here"
Following was a list of restrictive zoning covenants that were and still are strictly enforced. It has a very solid tax base and among the highest property values on the Island. And its Republican territory.
One thing that always horrified me about Texas property no rules no enforcement. Your neighbor can have a pig farm and you are out of luck.
Following was a list of restrictive zoning covenants that were and still are strictly enforced. It has a very solid tax base and among the highest property values on the Island. And its Republican territory.
One thing that always horrified me about Texas property no rules no enforcement. Your neighbor can have a pig farm and you are out of luck.
If the government would stop paying people to have babies they just neglect, that might be a beginning. We're creating too many people.
2
Mr. Krugman, how can you say that in NYC "nothing goes" with respect to construction & development? I've lived in NYC my entire life and I'd describe the situation here as "anything goes, as long as you've paid off the right people."
I am surrounded by new construction; everywhere I look there are 5-story walkup buildings being torn down for "luxury" condos that are 20-30 stories high, and right now the foundations are being laid for an enormous monstrosity immediately west of Grand Central Station, which will put that building and the area around it into shade. Now add in the new, unfettered (and De Blasio approved!) "upzoning" of ALL of midtown east, and basically, NYC is horribly badly developed.
We already have lots of "finger" buildings sticking up to ruin the skyline - IMO, nothing should compete with the Empire State Building, but that ship has sailed. I think of these "finger" buildings as literally giving the finger to everyone in NYC who has the audacity to look UP and want to see SKY.
And NOTHING that is currently being built by developers in Manhattan, or Long Island City, and parts of Brooklyn, could be called "affordable" by any person who has a regular 40-hour-a-week job. No nurse, no bank teller, no teacher, no mid-level administrator could afford to live in any of the new developments.
So, it's not just land management, it's ZONING for height/density that matters in NYC. Zoning for AFFORDABILITY should also matter very much, but that'll never happen!
I am surrounded by new construction; everywhere I look there are 5-story walkup buildings being torn down for "luxury" condos that are 20-30 stories high, and right now the foundations are being laid for an enormous monstrosity immediately west of Grand Central Station, which will put that building and the area around it into shade. Now add in the new, unfettered (and De Blasio approved!) "upzoning" of ALL of midtown east, and basically, NYC is horribly badly developed.
We already have lots of "finger" buildings sticking up to ruin the skyline - IMO, nothing should compete with the Empire State Building, but that ship has sailed. I think of these "finger" buildings as literally giving the finger to everyone in NYC who has the audacity to look UP and want to see SKY.
And NOTHING that is currently being built by developers in Manhattan, or Long Island City, and parts of Brooklyn, could be called "affordable" by any person who has a regular 40-hour-a-week job. No nurse, no bank teller, no teacher, no mid-level administrator could afford to live in any of the new developments.
So, it's not just land management, it's ZONING for height/density that matters in NYC. Zoning for AFFORDABILITY should also matter very much, but that'll never happen!
2
"how much poison has been released by flooding of chemical plants, waste dumps, and more." That has received little media attention and it is flowing into the Gulf of Mexico with devastating impact and with Trump & Pruitt discount that as a "Chinese hoax" or fake media. Republicans are environmental criminals!
1
PK says “real-estate developers exert outsized influence, the more these cities sprawl, the more powerful the developers get.” That's normal politics in America, yet the media ignores it.
PK leaves out how our campaign financing laws---'free speech for big money---promote legalized "outsized influence" from special interests on all our politics. Is this cause/effect off limits for columnists?
Dems are already hustling up big money for 2020---NYT Sept 2. What limits will both parties accept on policy from their big ‘investors’, to compete for billions from real estate, big oil, insurance/pharma, big banks?
In a self reinforcing process, our corporations use profit from low taxes and weak regulations, to donate more millions to elections, thus increased influence, while removing influence from we the citizens. Can we call this norm bribery? Lawmakers listen to those who enable their careers to thrive.
Apply this to housing, health care, education, worker protections. Our democracy can’t protect us because average citizens can no longer translate their interests into political action.
PK always seems to be bravely defying the Gop, exposing our problems, but without tracing back to causes --how our politics are financed.
But we do get the cute, sarcastic sneers that PK is so adept at: “Oh, and if you trust the current administration to handle Harvey’s aftermath right, I’ve got a degree from Trump University you might want to buy.” Yes, cute! But not enough.
PK leaves out how our campaign financing laws---'free speech for big money---promote legalized "outsized influence" from special interests on all our politics. Is this cause/effect off limits for columnists?
Dems are already hustling up big money for 2020---NYT Sept 2. What limits will both parties accept on policy from their big ‘investors’, to compete for billions from real estate, big oil, insurance/pharma, big banks?
In a self reinforcing process, our corporations use profit from low taxes and weak regulations, to donate more millions to elections, thus increased influence, while removing influence from we the citizens. Can we call this norm bribery? Lawmakers listen to those who enable their careers to thrive.
Apply this to housing, health care, education, worker protections. Our democracy can’t protect us because average citizens can no longer translate their interests into political action.
PK always seems to be bravely defying the Gop, exposing our problems, but without tracing back to causes --how our politics are financed.
But we do get the cute, sarcastic sneers that PK is so adept at: “Oh, and if you trust the current administration to handle Harvey’s aftermath right, I’ve got a degree from Trump University you might want to buy.” Yes, cute! But not enough.
And while geography — the constraint imposed by water and mountains — is often offered as an excuse for the Bay Area’s failure to build more housing, there’s no good reason it couldn’t build up.
-------
San Francisco has no interest in becoming like Hong Kong, pure and simple.
-------
San Francisco has no interest in becoming like Hong Kong, pure and simple.
1
Not only that, cities are losing their unique personalities. First it was Giuliani, like Peter Minuet in reverse, selling out Manhattan to Disney. Then Los Angeles started losing its Hollywood/Art Deco/palm tree bling. Eventually every major American metropolis will be a clone of Hong Kong. That's somebody's idea of progress.
1
You can't get cities right because that's where the Democrats live.
1
Our greatest problem by far, the one leading us inexorably to our doom, is overpopulation. And we can't even discuss it. I have little hope that this comment will even be published.
3
Ah yes, spoken by the Messiah; Capitalism, the perpetual motion machine of unlimited growth will save us.
2
In my opinion, many, perhaps most U.S. cities are cesspools of corruption. Moving here to Portland from the SF Bay Area a number of years ago, I've witnessed rampant high-rise development that is quickly turning a somewhat charming and quaint small city into a mini-San Francisco where how large, ugly and misplaced a building can be seems to be the overriding goal. it's difficult not to conclude that the city leaders who allow such destruction of its citizen's well being are benefiting in various ways, either directly or indirectly.
The most glaring example is a vocal and prolonged movement to prohibit developers from using extremely noise-polluting pile drivers in construction projects (at minimal extra cost), that the city's law makers can never quite gather the courage to pass. The people be damned.
I fear our species is an experiment of nature nearing the end of our short ride on this lovely planet.
The most glaring example is a vocal and prolonged movement to prohibit developers from using extremely noise-polluting pile drivers in construction projects (at minimal extra cost), that the city's law makers can never quite gather the courage to pass. The people be damned.
I fear our species is an experiment of nature nearing the end of our short ride on this lovely planet.
1
So, dump 11 trillion gallons of water on NYC. And dump 11 trillion gallons on farmland. Not going to flood? Both will. You know nothing about this subject, did no research on Houston, hence saying "probably" and assuming that water just immediately soaks into ground not covered by concrete.
*eyesroll*
Nice attempt.
Nice attempt.
Paul, if you build "up" too much, you get New York City. Building "up" is not the same kind of uncontrolled development as found in Houston, but it's another form of over-development. I love visiting New York, but I wouldn't want to live there. There's too much crowding, noise, and dirt. That's a major reason a lot of people in places like San Francisco don't want too much development. It's not just about their property values. It's about their quality of life. I'm sympathetic to people wanting to live near where they work, but on the other hand, I don't think living anywhere you want is a right. It's something you have to earn by studying hard in school and performing well in your work. What we really need is much better public transportation so that people living outside of cities can get into cities quickly.
3
Professor Krugman unfortunately never seriously studied Henry George’s case for the taxation of ground rent, or else he would understand how efficient land use comes naturally from its application. Allowing the rent from land parcels to be privatized for speculative gain explains the sprawl evident in many cities. Taxing that rent induces its “highest and best use” as well as providing public revenue to supplant that now imposed on wages and goods.
Krugman has always trivialized rent yield, which reflects how much he is a captive of a now obsolete neoclassical economics. Fortunately an emergent Interest in capturing land rent in taxes, especially in Australia, shows how much that nation has divested itself from a corrupt discourse. We should hope other nations will soon follow.
Krugman has always trivialized rent yield, which reflects how much he is a captive of a now obsolete neoclassical economics. Fortunately an emergent Interest in capturing land rent in taxes, especially in Australia, shows how much that nation has divested itself from a corrupt discourse. We should hope other nations will soon follow.
1
Not to argue too much against the overbuilding point, but it was 51 inches of rain. The city would have flooded if there were no concrete. We should manage things better here, but southeast Texas is what it is.
5
The larger point is, it shouldn't be there at all. Soon enough it won't be.
1
Meaning?
But is there a lesson to be learned?
1
Tall buildings on shaky ground in San Francisco? Not for me. Paul's suggestion is one of many good solutions and would certainly increase the supply of housing. But the existing NIMBY folk will object to a force more powerful than any earthquake - the loss in value of their own existing property from increased lower cost housing.
Not to mention the ever increasing shadows of monster high unregulated buildings, like those to the south - south of Central Park, NY - darkening the skies of southern Central Park - Not In My Southern Park?
Irony of the tallest buildings with palaces in the sky owned by oligarchs to park their money and evade taxes, is that they are mostly unoccupied!!! These are the worst NIMBYs on Earth.
Perhaps a better solution is smaller footprint housing - tiny housing works for many people, something I've read San Francisco is pursuing but not at a fast enough rate. How about subdividing those unoccupied palaces in the sky into dozens of tiny homes each or to house the homeless?
Fortunately I now avoid cities all together and live on the coast in North Carolina where Republicans have declared Climate Change NIMBY - so I am safe, right?
Not to mention the ever increasing shadows of monster high unregulated buildings, like those to the south - south of Central Park, NY - darkening the skies of southern Central Park - Not In My Southern Park?
Irony of the tallest buildings with palaces in the sky owned by oligarchs to park their money and evade taxes, is that they are mostly unoccupied!!! These are the worst NIMBYs on Earth.
Perhaps a better solution is smaller footprint housing - tiny housing works for many people, something I've read San Francisco is pursuing but not at a fast enough rate. How about subdividing those unoccupied palaces in the sky into dozens of tiny homes each or to house the homeless?
Fortunately I now avoid cities all together and live on the coast in North Carolina where Republicans have declared Climate Change NIMBY - so I am safe, right?
2
San Francisco it seems has always been in love with itself, its picturesque setting and so on. Currently it is undergoing a building boom of very expensive condo towers, The City has forgotten that people who provide services, e.g. teaching, policing, fire fighting, nursing, public works etc. cannot afford to live there. The City is an outlier in the sense that it is not a victim to Nimbyism or uncontrolled growth, but rather to narcissism. It does have however a BIG heart.
2
Building tall buildings in a city over an earthquake fault might not be the wisest policy... unless standards are both exemplary and scrupulously applied.
Perhaps it's time to rethink transportation policy and to give up more cityspace to greenery rather than concrete... and to implement highspeed rail so commutes don't have to be four hours long.
I'm sure Elon Musk has some ideas.
Perhaps it's time to rethink transportation policy and to give up more cityspace to greenery rather than concrete... and to implement highspeed rail so commutes don't have to be four hours long.
I'm sure Elon Musk has some ideas.
3
In the case of San Francisco, earthquakes and unstable ground limit growth too. Look at the Millennial Tower in the downtown area, a new building that is sinking and tilting. Oakland and other nearby cities are better choices, and within easy commuting distance. They are expensive too, but have good places for high-rises.
5
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles County, 482 U.S. 304 (1987) read it and weep. LA County had made the provident decision to declare floodways in its land use plan - areas where building was prohibited in order to give floodwaters a place to go where they would cause less harm. First English Church owned land in one of these flood hazard zones and wished to build within the flood zone, but was denied a permit by the conty. The church, with thew backing of anti-regulatory organizations, appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, which held that LA County had "Taken" (as in the Fifth Amendment sense) the church's property without due process or compensation.
The Court had a good point there, and the decision served as a warning to planning agencies all over the country: if you wish to protect your community from flooding, be prepared to pay the full price of the land you declare must remain undeveloped.
The alternative argument, that the Rhenquist Court ignored, was that a government's police power authorizes it to prohibit certain actions which may threaten lives or pose a threat to public safety, even if those actions take place on private land.
To this day, First English and a flurry of similar decisions that limit the ability of local governments to regulate land use, stand. These decisions are taught in the planning law course of every school in the country and theiir results are all around us.
Lind Greenhouse! How about a column?
The Court had a good point there, and the decision served as a warning to planning agencies all over the country: if you wish to protect your community from flooding, be prepared to pay the full price of the land you declare must remain undeveloped.
The alternative argument, that the Rhenquist Court ignored, was that a government's police power authorizes it to prohibit certain actions which may threaten lives or pose a threat to public safety, even if those actions take place on private land.
To this day, First English and a flurry of similar decisions that limit the ability of local governments to regulate land use, stand. These decisions are taught in the planning law course of every school in the country and theiir results are all around us.
Lind Greenhouse! How about a column?
11
Thank you, very informative. It seems to me that using the 'police power' of the government, claiming they are protecting "threats to public safety" might work in the short run, at the expense of long-term public opinion about government over-reach. A classic case where short-sighted liberals use questionable means to accomplish a noble end. There must be an alternate way to restrict floodway development. If not, then we need to raise awareness and raise the money to purchase the land - yes, at full price. (If you want to dance, you got to pay the fiddler.)
The problem in these parts is that the DESIGNATION of floodways may not be executed in an entirely impartial and science-based manner (nor transparent).
There is a development, called "New Town" (in St. Charles, MO), at the confluence of the continent's two biggest rivers, the Mississippi and the Missouri. This development channelized a large region in the floodplain leading to, in my opinion (I work along the river a couple miles from there), more significant flooding and more agricult. run-off. How they got this major development approved needs investigation. I have seen no articles on the matter, whatsoever. But the connection between the degree of the flood here this spring and the two last year has been made by me and others on the river. Similarly, there's a development at the confluence of the Meramec and Missouri Rivers also of a dubious nature that may have contributed to intense flooding there this year and last.
The problem in these parts is that the DESIGNATION of floodways may not be executed in an entirely impartial and science-based manner (nor transparent).
There is a development, called "New Town" (in St. Charles, MO), at the confluence of the continent's two biggest rivers, the Mississippi and the Missouri. This development channelized a large region in the floodplain leading to, in my opinion (I work along the river a couple miles from there), more significant flooding and more agricult. run-off. How they got this major development approved needs investigation. I have seen no articles on the matter, whatsoever. But the connection between the degree of the flood here this spring and the two last year has been made by me and others on the river. Similarly, there's a development at the confluence of the Meramec and Missouri Rivers also of a dubious nature that may have contributed to intense flooding there this year and last.
2
I've lived in the Bay Area. Housing prices are indeed mind-boggling. But that's in the City, in Southern Marin, in Berkeley, Oakland, and on the Peninsula. What about the East Bay? There's gorgeous Victorian housing stock in San Francisco that should not be torn down to make way for high rises. A town like Hayward offers both a reasonable commute and affordable housing. Some areas in the City could accommodate more high rises, but remember Jane Jacobs?
1
San Francisco actually does a fairly good job of planning at the neighborhood and city scale. A lot of good thought goes into where new development should occur, the relationship between land use and transportation, and the unintended environmental consequences. However, the NIMBY problem often arises due to the legal and regulatory enabling of challenges to individual projects; virtually any stakeholder is empowered to halt or at least substantially delay a project. This has been a disaster of it's own for housing supply, and undermines an otherwise thoughtful comprehensive planning process. This problem does have a potential solution, namely legal limitations (best imposed at the state level) on NIMBY challenges. Some progress has been made in this regard by Governor Brown and enlightened legislators, though much more is needed. A second more stubborn problem is the lack of substantive regional planning processes among local governments. For example, California cities are incentivized to minimize housing in favor of more fiscally lucrative retail and commercial development. Compounding this is a lack of disincentives when local jurisdictions consistently fall short of regional housing development targets. The recently enacted Plan Bay Area partially addresses these and other issues, but more comprehensive and enforceable political and regulatory approaches are needed to balance the social, economic, and environmental constraints of development in the Bay Area and State.
5
How about a state-level law that a municipality must build as much new housing as is needed for the new employees in the new commercial developments it's building? Some secondary swap market with nearby municipalities could be allowed.
1
Density was and continues to be seen as a bad thing, the enemy of good urban planning, but the stories of Houston and San Francisco show that density can and should be a viable and powerful tool to balance the impact of sprawl and the problems that come with it. But the biggest challenge facing successful cities is creating a city where all the various income classes needed can actually live. Waiters, janitors, delivery people, secretaries and dishwashers are needed to make the city work and they have to be able to get to work which means they need to be able to live nearby. An 30 minute commute consisting of an elevator to a crowded bus or subway ride to work may not be glamorous, but it's functional and livable which is the object of the living together in the first place.
3
"Waiters, janitors, delivery people, secretaries and dishwashers are needed to make the city work and they have to be able to get to work which means they need to be able to live nearby."
How interesting that you place secretaries in the same category as "service occupations".
Secretaries are often graduates of business schools designed to train people for the position, which requires a fair degree of both technical skills and intelligence. That the field was never unionized and thus, always underpaid and undervalued has misled many to be capable of honestly assessing it.
How interesting that you place secretaries in the same category as "service occupations".
Secretaries are often graduates of business schools designed to train people for the position, which requires a fair degree of both technical skills and intelligence. That the field was never unionized and thus, always underpaid and undervalued has misled many to be capable of honestly assessing it.
5
Seattle is a prime example of "regular" city trapped in NIMBY vs Development.
Recent raising of taxes on foreign investment in Vancouver & Toronto is pushing the "hot" international money south. Every housing unit on the market gets snapped up, not by Amazon millionaire millennials, but billionaires from abroad sheltering money.
On the other hand every multi-unit rental proposal is fought, tooth and nail by single family homeowners. Fights over FOUR story apartment buildings on strip mall lots, on arterials, next to transit centers and light rail stations. They won't be able to drive six blocks for free parking at takeout and manicures, due to 10 two-bedroom apartments over an express bus stop. Why are we building less than 30 units next to this stop? Less than 100 on a former auto parts/pawn shop site on the same block as a light rail station?
Recent raising of taxes on foreign investment in Vancouver & Toronto is pushing the "hot" international money south. Every housing unit on the market gets snapped up, not by Amazon millionaire millennials, but billionaires from abroad sheltering money.
On the other hand every multi-unit rental proposal is fought, tooth and nail by single family homeowners. Fights over FOUR story apartment buildings on strip mall lots, on arterials, next to transit centers and light rail stations. They won't be able to drive six blocks for free parking at takeout and manicures, due to 10 two-bedroom apartments over an express bus stop. Why are we building less than 30 units next to this stop? Less than 100 on a former auto parts/pawn shop site on the same block as a light rail station?
8
Successful high-density cities require fast, modern light rail systems and fewer cars. As New York is learning with its completely antiquated, overcrowded subway system, politicians should have pushed for investment ahead of growth a long time ago, and now the system is beginning to crumble. San Francisco's BART system is similarly falling behind the Bay Area's growth, and neither San Francisco or Oakland (or the state) are volunteering enough money to get ahead of the problems. On the other hand, sprawling cities like Houston, Austin or Phoenix have very little mass transit other than some buses. Compared with excellent mass transit in major cities in Europe and Asia, this country is at least 50 years behind.
10
there's an unbridgeable gap between US cities and European cities you site. it's called taxes.
this also goes for healthcare, other infrastructure, and so many other things society counts on to function.
remember the Melting Pot? we didn't melt together as nicely as was once believed. we're divided, unwilling to contribute to an overall good that could be seen as helping someone else's group, aka, those people.
whereas in Denmark, they're pretty much all Danes, they pay higher taxes, the world does not end, they live on a scale pretty much as we do in tne US, and are happier in their cozy little country.
the baseline problem is selfishness.
this also goes for healthcare, other infrastructure, and so many other things society counts on to function.
remember the Melting Pot? we didn't melt together as nicely as was once believed. we're divided, unwilling to contribute to an overall good that could be seen as helping someone else's group, aka, those people.
whereas in Denmark, they're pretty much all Danes, they pay higher taxes, the world does not end, they live on a scale pretty much as we do in tne US, and are happier in their cozy little country.
the baseline problem is selfishness.
1
Pottree - I take your point, but I don't think the issue is taxes. It's a cowardly political class lacking the vision and salesmanship to earn our support for a plan for the future. Look at Eisenhower, selling a vision of a Federal interstate highway system and paying for it with higher taxes. Or JFK pitching a plan to put an American on the moon within a decade. Our country is physically deteriorating, we're the only one of the wealthiest 35 countries without some form of universal health care, and all we hear is tax cuts and smaller government. When will we find a unifier who can earn our combined support for a plan to build for the future? If we don't join together and take action, our children will face a diminished future and diminished opportunities for their children.
1
Ceasing to worry about future environmental disasters was only the first step. Not worrying about current environmental problems follows. That should not be surprising. Some rich person or hedge fund making a little less money is much more of a disaster than toxic chemicals.
9
Blueprint for livable cities: One hundred story apartment buildings, each in the middle of a one hectare park, all connected by subways. Replicate as needed.
"One hundred story apartment buildings, each in the middle of a one hectare park"
Actually, no. This was the vision of the early 20th century, and people like LeCorbusier. We tried it. It looks like the old housing projects (towers in a green) that have now largely been torn down (thankfully). The distance between the buildings in your model suggests that people will never walk anywhere.
Read Jane Jacobs or Andres Duany. Healthy cities are based on walkable neighborhoods with buildings that interface on the ground floor with the sidewalk (the public space). These need not be primarily high rises. A mix of mid rise and single family housing, with a mix of uses (retail, office, residential) also works. Transportation should be designed for walking first, augmented by other modes.
Actually, no. This was the vision of the early 20th century, and people like LeCorbusier. We tried it. It looks like the old housing projects (towers in a green) that have now largely been torn down (thankfully). The distance between the buildings in your model suggests that people will never walk anywhere.
Read Jane Jacobs or Andres Duany. Healthy cities are based on walkable neighborhoods with buildings that interface on the ground floor with the sidewalk (the public space). These need not be primarily high rises. A mix of mid rise and single family housing, with a mix of uses (retail, office, residential) also works. Transportation should be designed for walking first, augmented by other modes.
7
this was fine in 60 years ago, when Jane Jacobs lived in the West Village in an apartment big enough to have kids, yet was not a master of the universe.
image today, living in that kind of neighborhood, only a few stops away from where you work, say, selling gloves at Macy's. how could you possibly afford the rent?
image today, living in that kind of neighborhood, only a few stops away from where you work, say, selling gloves at Macy's. how could you possibly afford the rent?
1
I don't often disagree with Professor Krugman but he missed badly on this one. Yes, San Francisco has a housing shortage but the City is addressing that, in our cumbersome bureaucratic inclusive way. Whether or not it's enough remains to be seen. But that's not the story. The real story is how San Francisco is preparing for the next great earthquake while Houston has ignored the next 500-year flood. San Francisco required property owners to seismically reinforce risky masonry buildings in the 1990s. Now, owners of multi-residential "soft story" buildings (structurally weaker on the ground floor than the floors above) are required to reinforce their buildings. The problem, of course, is how to pay for it. San Francisco facilitated low-interest long-term loans for property owners and allowed a gradual pass-through of capital costs. Professor Krugman's story line should have been San Francisco has done something to mitigate its natural disasters. Why hasn't Houston?
11
Why can't we simply stop population growth?
The world population has doubled since 1970. This is the primary reason for global warming, not the internal combustion engine. This is what makes flooding of coastal cities more likely as the world goes further beyond carrying capacity.
The world needs to learn to live within limits. As one of the advanced countries, the US should adopt policies that enable it to live within limits.
US population grew by 82 million during the period 1980-2010. That's an increase of 36%. Most of that increase is attributable to immigration, both legal and illegal.
The simplest approach for the US to achieve zero population growth is to cut levels of immigration, and in particular to stop illegal immigration entirely.
Many find this to be Draconian. What about the refugees from poorer countries? Shouldn't we be doing something for them?
The answer of course is yes, but consider the scope of the problem. The UN estimates that 800 million humans on planet earth suffer from chronic malnutrition. Taking in a few million from Central America is like trying to empty the ocean with a teaspoon. It makes no sense.
Better to adopt foreign policies which encourage family planning. The US could exert pressure to make birth control freely available and abortion available on demand in all civilized countries.
Meanwhile in the US, we need to encourage smaller family size through welfare and tax policies.
But amazingly there is no discussion
The world population has doubled since 1970. This is the primary reason for global warming, not the internal combustion engine. This is what makes flooding of coastal cities more likely as the world goes further beyond carrying capacity.
The world needs to learn to live within limits. As one of the advanced countries, the US should adopt policies that enable it to live within limits.
US population grew by 82 million during the period 1980-2010. That's an increase of 36%. Most of that increase is attributable to immigration, both legal and illegal.
The simplest approach for the US to achieve zero population growth is to cut levels of immigration, and in particular to stop illegal immigration entirely.
Many find this to be Draconian. What about the refugees from poorer countries? Shouldn't we be doing something for them?
The answer of course is yes, but consider the scope of the problem. The UN estimates that 800 million humans on planet earth suffer from chronic malnutrition. Taking in a few million from Central America is like trying to empty the ocean with a teaspoon. It makes no sense.
Better to adopt foreign policies which encourage family planning. The US could exert pressure to make birth control freely available and abortion available on demand in all civilized countries.
Meanwhile in the US, we need to encourage smaller family size through welfare and tax policies.
But amazingly there is no discussion
14
I totally agree that all after-Harvey discussions about urban planning etc. miss key point: all our current urban problems are the result of demografic policy, or, to be more precise, total absence of such. Uncontrolled population growth requires accomodation, and big cities with jobs and opportunities are natural magnet for all newcomers, either naturally born or immigrants. No approach will work; some might for some cities, but only because most will be pushed to cities absorbing more. Until key question - where as the nation we want to be in 50-100-200 years; do we want to be 400 million nation? 1 billion? 5 billion? - is answered, cities will suffer.
1
Have you discussed the population problem with the GOP lately. Every attempt to control the world's population growth has typically been shot down by the religious conservatives of the GOP.
1
Idiot is a word derived from the Greekἰδιώτης, idiōtēs ("person lacking professional skill", "a private citizen", "individual"), from ἴδιος, idios ("private", "one's own").[1] In ancient Greece, people who were not capable of engaging in the public sphere were considered "idiotes", in contrast to the public citizen, or "polites"[2]. In Latin the word idiota("ordinary person, layman") preceded the Late Latin meaning "uneducated or ignorant person".[3] Its modern meaning and form dates back to Middle English around the year 1300, from the Old French idiote ("uneducated or ignorant person"). The related word idiocydates to 1487 and may have been analogously modeled on the words prophet[4]and prophecy.[5][6] The word has cognates in many other languages
NIMBYISM is the child of gentrification. Developers buy up land and housing in low income areas where real estate value is low. Often lower income renters are there. The excuse is that the city needs the tax revenue. Then larger more expensive homes go in. The land that supported eight people now only supports four people in a spacious McMansion. Once this gentrification takes over an area the new residents begin to fight any low cost housing that goes into "their" neighborhood. So it should be Not in My Backyard even if I've only lived here two years.
Extend this to farm land like Houston or Sacramento. Not only do you have a housing problem you also take land out of production for food. Forget GDP. The real measure of how we are doing should be how well citizens are doing. If only ten percent can afford health care, housing and food then we are in trouble.
Extend this to farm land like Houston or Sacramento. Not only do you have a housing problem you also take land out of production for food. Forget GDP. The real measure of how we are doing should be how well citizens are doing. If only ten percent can afford health care, housing and food then we are in trouble.
6
Unfortunately, the top one percent couldn't care less about the bottom ten percent. We are not bothered by the condition of our fellow man, as that went out several hundred years ago as modern corporate capitalism took root. The idea that we all are part of the same culture and have obligations to one another is out of fashion in a society of individualists. We even have capitalist churches today preaching how to get rich.
Another issue that was not addressed is the 'privatization of profit and the socialization of risk'. Yes, the folks in Houston and other places don't want Government to tell them what to do with their land. what they build and how they use it until something like Harvey comes along and then it is 'help me, help me'. And when the recovery is finished they kick out the Feds and continue to do what they've always done. To enjoy what the Government has built and take advantage of its money until it becomes time for the Feds to do it again.
38
yep, WE'RE the suckers.
If San Francisco built tall buildings and filled them with people, where would the additional water for them come from? There isn't enough for the current population, and the situation will only get worse -- as global warming means less snow and earlier melting (before the end of the dry season) in the Sierra.
East coast people are always telling California to house more people. But they never mention the biggest issue, the one that westerners never stop talking about: water.
East coast people are always telling California to house more people. But they never mention the biggest issue, the one that westerners never stop talking about: water.
23
Water will have to be recycled. That is the only answer for water shortages in the west.
Considering that so cal gets water from up north if California implemented desalination my these concerned would be allayed
I fear this administration is definitely going to make cities worse, unless cities can work independently of the pretender to the white house's oversight. We are doomed unless folks change their thinking about infrastructure, building, wetlands, and climate change. Many cities are already doomed. I feel for the folks that have to live in them. It is all about greed and the great American dollar and no insight into the future, much less tomorrow.
5
Northern Virginia is a classic example of urban sprawl. Reston VA was built to be a planned community. Now it is the epicenter of Northern Virginia's worst traffic. Arlington has been transformed. Luxury townhouses and condominiums have swallowed low income housing and other easily engulfed areas. McMansions are everywhere.
9
We can't get cities right because city planning lags deleterious effects of human over-population. Economists like Paul Krugman should devise methods for societies to transition to those having fewer persons.
8
Of course. Why didn't we think of that. All we have to do is convince four billion people to commit suicide, or seven billion people to create no more than one child.
I imagine I'm not the first poster to have pointed this out but San Francisco lies on a fault line and is subject to massive temblors. I'm not sure about the wisdom of putting up too many tall buildings there.
13
And way less even than the risk of a much, much more significant quake along the Cascadia Subduction Zone, i.e.: Seattle and Portland, OR
3
Seismic resistance in tall buildings is an engineering problem that is well understood and tall buildings are no more or less vulnerable to shaking than shorter ones. For proof, just look at Japan. They overhauled their seismic design standards after the Kobe disaster in 1995 and new construction has proven remarkably safe. We have the advantage of applying the lessons the Japanese learned the hard way.
1
I expect that you got your facts on the Bay Area housing market from Reason magazine. The past decades have seen huge amounts of construction in Oakland and San Francisco with high rises dominating SF and multi story downtown development dominating Oakland. Some areas that might be developed remain low density because our liberty loving tech companies like their low property taxes and do not want to cough up the money need to expand our crowded transit system or build new roads or provide subsidies for public transit.
We left the 1970's years ago. Why are you still there?
We left the 1970's years ago. Why are you still there?
5
When we consider paved cities, we have to recognize the amount of space and pavement given over to the automobile. Aerial views of many cities show us vast parking lots around malls, on the outskirts of financial districts, and so on. Then there are the freeways, highways, and surface streets needed to move cars between one parking space and another. I don't like the idea of building up in earthquake-prone San Francisco, but building IN is very possible. Get rid of the parking lots in the city, improve public transit, and build multi-story parking structures near commuter stations. Keep the cars out of the city altogether. The most desirable neighborhoods, nation-wide, are those where people can live, dine, shop, and work, and take their kids to school within the radius of one streetcar ride.
8
One of Houston's main selling points was affordable housing, but it appears that housing has gotten very expensive, especially for the tax payer.
7
Thanks Professor. I don't understand why, when people look at that standing water in Houston, it is not immediately clear to even the most obtuse, that somebody built that thing wrong. Drainage is a basic consideration when you pour a 4' x 4' concrete slab. These people developed constructed city blocks, and they did not plan where the water would go in case of a hurricane in a costal area?
9
You forgot to mention Boston which is so hemmed in that their football team had to leave the city and where Fenway Park had gone through some many "adjustments and updates" that it is probably a disaster waiting to happen, all because there is no place left to build a new baseball stadium in the city. Due to its unique configuration it is very difficult for Boston proper to grow.
I sometimes feel that we build cities in the wrong places that make them prone to natural s disasters and that constantly rebuilding in these locations is the wrong direction to take.
I sometimes feel that we build cities in the wrong places that make them prone to natural s disasters and that constantly rebuilding in these locations is the wrong direction to take.
2
NIMBYism may be bad in some situations, but not all. Why should the wants of newcomers to my neighborhood take precedence over the quality of life for those already here? Why should a hulking multi-unit building be allowed to tower over my single-family house on a 6,000 sq. ft. lot, taking away my light and air and eroding my privacy?
Mr. Krugman, the fact is that some areas are already fully built out, and developers need to look elsewhere. Maybe the solution is for industries to look elsewhere first. Go build your new high-tech company in Indiana.
Mr. Krugman, the fact is that some areas are already fully built out, and developers need to look elsewhere. Maybe the solution is for industries to look elsewhere first. Go build your new high-tech company in Indiana.
14
"Why should the wants of newcomers to my neighborhood take precedence over the quality of life for those already here?"
I have an answer: Basic human decency. Unless you a Native Californian, whose ancestors were here before Europeans, you actually weren't here first. The wants of your ancestors took precedence over the quality of life for those already here. So why should you be entitled to be treated like you were here first? After the Native Californians were killed or displaced, the rest is arbitrary.
I have an answer: Basic human decency. Unless you a Native Californian, whose ancestors were here before Europeans, you actually weren't here first. The wants of your ancestors took precedence over the quality of life for those already here. So why should you be entitled to be treated like you were here first? After the Native Californians were killed or displaced, the rest is arbitrary.
1
You pose these questions as rhetorical questions as an evasion of the hard answers. Here's one: Because there will be 20 people living in the multi-unit building as opposed to the 2 people living in your 6000 sf lot, and those 20 people deserve at least as much dignity and the right to a decent life as your 2 people. You are literally balancing the rights of 20 human beings against the right of "light and air." Classic indefensible nimbyism.
1
Krugman's helpful column raises issues that the two cities I spend the most time in (Portland OR and Vancouver BC) are heavily engaged with. Vancouver's real estate inflation, even more than SF's, is driven by Asian money seeking a political and economic safe haven. The city has enacted an absentee landlord tax, but enforcement is lax. Tech workers and execs are resigned to a lifetime of renting, although there is still the option of living in outlying suburbs like Surrey, without the four-hour commute mentioned for the Bay Area. Expanding rail service is in the plans, but whether it will be fast enough to catch up with growth remains to be seen.
Portland is earlier on the inflationary real estate curve than Vancouver or SF, but price increases have been very noticeable in the past seven years. Portland's best asset is the policy awareness of its residents and city council. Many experiments are being tried, including more new quasi-affordable real estate (including Accessory Dwelling Units and Tiny Homes); but probably not fast enough.
The real issue--in Vancouver, Portland, and Houston--is that it's tough to get people to think about infrequent natural mega-hazards, like the Pacific NW's coming M9 Cascadia Earthquake. Even wonky Portland has been remarkably ostrich-like in planning for its inevitable disaster. Trump or no Trump, choosing to put rare tax dollars into strengthened bridges and schools is a harder political sell than giving them back as tax cuts.
Portland is earlier on the inflationary real estate curve than Vancouver or SF, but price increases have been very noticeable in the past seven years. Portland's best asset is the policy awareness of its residents and city council. Many experiments are being tried, including more new quasi-affordable real estate (including Accessory Dwelling Units and Tiny Homes); but probably not fast enough.
The real issue--in Vancouver, Portland, and Houston--is that it's tough to get people to think about infrequent natural mega-hazards, like the Pacific NW's coming M9 Cascadia Earthquake. Even wonky Portland has been remarkably ostrich-like in planning for its inevitable disaster. Trump or no Trump, choosing to put rare tax dollars into strengthened bridges and schools is a harder political sell than giving them back as tax cuts.
10
It is both unfair and dangerous to use the term "Nimbyism" every time there is a discussion of zoning or land use regulation. This completely suppresses any rational discussion and leads to uncontrolled and unregulated growth even when there are legitimate concerns. I am surprised and disappointed that Krugman sees the issue as only a battle between extremes. Keep in mind too, that California has led the way nationally in environmental regulation, instituting policies that help America at large.
10
Speaking of poor planning what about energy infrastructure? The flooding of one storm upends fuel prices and turns residential neighborhoods into superfund cleanup sites. Was that hurricane not a ringing endorsement for clean, renewable energy... clean energy for our transportation, housing and industrial needs? I doubt Harvey will be a lesson in the folly of carbon fuels. More likely it will be used to justify why we need the Keystone XL pipeline.
8
"Chicago is a huge city with dense development but relatively low housing prices; maybe it has some lessons to teach the rest of us?"
Dr Krugman, what percentage of households where you live has median per capita income of $7,398 (2013). What's a percentage within 1 mile radii? Within 10 mile?
Zero?
I thought so.
Dr Krugman, what percentage of households where you live has median per capita income of $7,398 (2013). What's a percentage within 1 mile radii? Within 10 mile?
Zero?
I thought so.
5
San Francisco and Houston are two very different places and the geography and availability of land makes a huge difference in the way both cities have evolved. I live in Houston and we are simply using an abundant resource in our area; land. Many people, including my family, like to live in single family homes in the suburbs. The housing is affordable, the amenities in my community are great and plenty of restaurants and shopping opportunities around. Downtown, where I go to see the Astros, shows and Opera is only 30 mins away. The traffic is not nearly as bad as in Chicago or LA and the highway system is the best in the country. No way we have a higher percentage of paved land than NYC. Houston leads the nation in parkland with over 53,000 acres and that does not include the suburbs. Many communities (like Eagle Springs were I live) look like forests seen from above. I do agree we need to pay more attention to our chronic flooding problem and built better drainage systems and separate some land to absorb water. We also need to put a stop in contractions in or near floodplains.
6
It would be interesting to know what kind of house Mr. Krugman lives in. After New York City, San Francisco has the greatest population density of any big city in the U.S. We don't do this with elevators, but with walk-up apartments in buildings that leave room for light and air. We have plenty of public parks, but not many private yards. We walk to our grocery stores, take Muni to the opera and the beach, or ride our bikes in the city's growing bicycle network.
Humans need livable cities, not warehousing in skyscrapers.
Humans need livable cities, not warehousing in skyscrapers.
17
The apartments you describe are illegal over vast swaths of SF where only separated single family homes are legal.
Here in the San Francisco Bay Area there is an even greater force than NIMBYism...the BANANAs...Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhwere Near Anything. And as a biological consultant I am frequently witness to how these extreme attitudes tie the hands of land use planners and place exaggerated burdens on even the smallest of development projects.
But I grew up in San Diego where, under Mayor Pete Wilson's land use mandate of "anything goes" everything went. That included a reason for me to want to live there.
For all of the faults one can find in how land use deccisions are being made in the Bay Area, there are also some of the most innovative ideas now being put forth. Skyscrapers are definitely not the answer on an earthquake-prone geology. Nor is unregulated sprawl. Concentrated development around transportation hubs with access to mass transit and emphasizing walkability and safe bicycle commuting is.
Not all communities in the Bay Area are like San Francisco, a place my family fled 20 years ago. And I truly feel for the difficulties faced by low wage workers trying to pay exorbitant rents here. I don't know how they manage.
But the foresight planners and environmentalists showed as early as the 1920s set the tone for preserving the region's incredible natural beauty and prevented it from following San Diego's path. The downside, of course, is it became a place so many people want to live...for that exact reason. And because of that, competition is stiff and prices rise.
But I grew up in San Diego where, under Mayor Pete Wilson's land use mandate of "anything goes" everything went. That included a reason for me to want to live there.
For all of the faults one can find in how land use deccisions are being made in the Bay Area, there are also some of the most innovative ideas now being put forth. Skyscrapers are definitely not the answer on an earthquake-prone geology. Nor is unregulated sprawl. Concentrated development around transportation hubs with access to mass transit and emphasizing walkability and safe bicycle commuting is.
Not all communities in the Bay Area are like San Francisco, a place my family fled 20 years ago. And I truly feel for the difficulties faced by low wage workers trying to pay exorbitant rents here. I don't know how they manage.
But the foresight planners and environmentalists showed as early as the 1920s set the tone for preserving the region's incredible natural beauty and prevented it from following San Diego's path. The downside, of course, is it became a place so many people want to live...for that exact reason. And because of that, competition is stiff and prices rise.
6
I am disturbed to see how many comments believe that population growth is the problem. You are echoing the flawed claims of Thomas Malthus from the 19th century.
The developed nations of the world, including the U.S., most of Europe, and Japan, have below-replacement-level fertility rates. Apparently we have arrived at steady-state populations in the developed world without the Malthusian checks of war, famine, or disease.
The problem with American cities is the over-reliance on the automobile, and all of the wasted space and impervious pavement to support our vehicles. Suggesting that there are too many people is implying that we should value our car-based lifestyle more than we value humans.
The developed nations of the world, including the U.S., most of Europe, and Japan, have below-replacement-level fertility rates. Apparently we have arrived at steady-state populations in the developed world without the Malthusian checks of war, famine, or disease.
The problem with American cities is the over-reliance on the automobile, and all of the wasted space and impervious pavement to support our vehicles. Suggesting that there are too many people is implying that we should value our car-based lifestyle more than we value humans.
8
In the short term, Japan's falling fertility ratio has resulted in lower economic output and an increased ageing population. But in the long-term, this is what all developed countries should be emulating.
For environmental, social and economic reasons, I consider Japan to be the most intelligent country in the world in terms of how they are dealing with long-term population management.
This Ponzi scheme mentality in most of the world that we must continue with high population growth in order to sustain our economies, our pensions and our social infrastructures is myopic to the point of suicide
For environmental, social and economic reasons, I consider Japan to be the most intelligent country in the world in terms of how they are dealing with long-term population management.
This Ponzi scheme mentality in most of the world that we must continue with high population growth in order to sustain our economies, our pensions and our social infrastructures is myopic to the point of suicide
1
I grew up in a small town in western NY in the 50s and 60s. That town of only about 9000 people had about half a dozen manufacturing plants that paid union wages. There was no need to move to an urban area. Towns like that do not exist much anymore. Good paying jobs and reasonable housing costs.
8
Allowing development based on self interest is a recipe for desire. Self interest is not always in the best interest of the majority of people who choose to live in cities. We need regulation to protect the better good. Houston seems to have developed guided by self interest and now are finding that there are many conflicts between all these examples of self interest.
When we decide to live in a city we should accept that we are giving up some of our personal interests for the betterment of the group. Encouraging self interest above the common good in an urban setting is a disaster.
When we decide to live in a city we should accept that we are giving up some of our personal interests for the betterment of the group. Encouraging self interest above the common good in an urban setting is a disaster.
4
Does't sound like Dr. Krugman has spent much time in Silicon Valley, at least not much time with us serfs. A hint, try to go somewhere on the South Peninsula between 3:30 and 7:00 pm, or between 7:00 and 10:00 am. There's no simple fix for the tens of millions of car trips being taken, certainly no simple public transit fix, and adding more housing units just exacerbates the congestion. Getting it right isn't easy, probably why we miss the mark so often.
7
San Francisco is a bad example of cities with over regulation for 2 reasons. One is a healthy respect for the possibility of a very major earthquake that drives the height restrictions. The second is a recognition that he charm of San Francisco could easily be destroyed by replacing 19th century homes with unlimited high rise buildings. They are addressing the housing problem with attempts at good light rail to the suburbs. One can get on a BART train and be home in the East Bay which has land to build homes in 30-45 minutes.
The real problem with housing prices in the SF Bay area is built into capitalism. I buy a piece of property knowing that there is a rapidly growing need for homes. I rent it for more than my mortgage payment because I can. When I decide to move on I sell it at a profit to someone who raises the rent to cover his or her mortgage and the cycle continues with the entry level buyer priced out of the market by all the investors. Since almost everyone finds a roof to live under, one must assume that the actual lack of homes isn't what is driving the affordability problem. It is the combination of a few people with huge incomes from stock options who can pay whatever is asked and a system that through bad tax laws and low ethics allows the prices to rise forever.
So, in my opinion this is just another example of a topic you cover well; the negative effects of massive income inequality combined with poor government policies to address it.
The real problem with housing prices in the SF Bay area is built into capitalism. I buy a piece of property knowing that there is a rapidly growing need for homes. I rent it for more than my mortgage payment because I can. When I decide to move on I sell it at a profit to someone who raises the rent to cover his or her mortgage and the cycle continues with the entry level buyer priced out of the market by all the investors. Since almost everyone finds a roof to live under, one must assume that the actual lack of homes isn't what is driving the affordability problem. It is the combination of a few people with huge incomes from stock options who can pay whatever is asked and a system that through bad tax laws and low ethics allows the prices to rise forever.
So, in my opinion this is just another example of a topic you cover well; the negative effects of massive income inequality combined with poor government policies to address it.
37
It is obvious that the Market does not work for housing. Some projects, like the maintenance of a military, are seen as too important for the realm of private, for profit entities. Housing must be freed form markets. We must value community ( staying as well as selling) and decide that basic housing is not a purely speculative venture like buying a gold bar but essential services everybody must have access to. The disappearance of cheap housing in most of the USA has disastrous consequences for the young and the old. Housing must stop being a gamble, both for the 'players' and the 'played'.
5
There are some things that have been monopolized to a great extent such that the greater majority of us are "Unemployed Serfs" while the rest are either Wage Slaves, Corporate Owner Class or their Overseers.
Some things really DO need to be freed from the huge monopolies and some strict regulation put in place. With the housing there needs to be a total divestment of any more than the house that you live in. To own other homes and to take rent to cover all of your bills Plus, on top of a job, is robbery of the person renting, who is generally forced into renting because the 'do not have the proper credit'. Bring home pricing to realistic instead of stupidly rich buyer level, for those who only count the number of Zeros in the figure.
Which is another thing needing Regulation: the Banks and Stock Exchanges need charged a flat rate of 25 cents (one quarter) for every bid, whether it results in a buy or not. Thus those who make 1K Ebids per second will pay $250/sec for the priviledge. Also taxing the profits from stock the same as any other income, no distinction between earned and unearned...if it is unearned then it should be un-paid as well. Or taxed as the Income that it really is.
Food and power/energy are another two, and there needs to be a better way of distribution of both, as well as making sure that all sources are clean for environment AND the humans involved all along the way.
Information freedom via internet is absolutely required, to be able to talk it out.
Some things really DO need to be freed from the huge monopolies and some strict regulation put in place. With the housing there needs to be a total divestment of any more than the house that you live in. To own other homes and to take rent to cover all of your bills Plus, on top of a job, is robbery of the person renting, who is generally forced into renting because the 'do not have the proper credit'. Bring home pricing to realistic instead of stupidly rich buyer level, for those who only count the number of Zeros in the figure.
Which is another thing needing Regulation: the Banks and Stock Exchanges need charged a flat rate of 25 cents (one quarter) for every bid, whether it results in a buy or not. Thus those who make 1K Ebids per second will pay $250/sec for the priviledge. Also taxing the profits from stock the same as any other income, no distinction between earned and unearned...if it is unearned then it should be un-paid as well. Or taxed as the Income that it really is.
Food and power/energy are another two, and there needs to be a better way of distribution of both, as well as making sure that all sources are clean for environment AND the humans involved all along the way.
Information freedom via internet is absolutely required, to be able to talk it out.
One rationale for the suburban lifestyle is based on raising children - good schools, safety, and yards to play in. This has been the story in the U.S. since the 1950s.
For the sake of argument, let's assume this is true. (Although it is debatable.) Only one in three American households includes school-aged children.
So why are so many people in the other two out of three American households choosing to live in large single family houses accessible only by automobile?
For the sake of argument, let's assume this is true. (Although it is debatable.) Only one in three American households includes school-aged children.
So why are so many people in the other two out of three American households choosing to live in large single family houses accessible only by automobile?
6
If you tax the gains in real estate values in expensive cities, you can pay for a good transit system. The high prices are location rents, which could accrue to the location community at large, rather than to the fortunate landlord. Such a tax won't increase rental prices, which are determined by supply and demand. It merely transfers from landowners to government.
6
1. Expensive cities already have good transit, for the most part.
2. If you tax the gains in my town, the result will be that a lot of longtime residents will have to move away, selling their property to wealthier people who can afford the new taxes. Of course such a tax will increase rents -- landlords still have to cover their costs. Filling a town with rich people won't help anything -- it will just create the San Francisco problem in many other places.
2. If you tax the gains in my town, the result will be that a lot of longtime residents will have to move away, selling their property to wealthier people who can afford the new taxes. Of course such a tax will increase rents -- landlords still have to cover their costs. Filling a town with rich people won't help anything -- it will just create the San Francisco problem in many other places.
Capital gains are made at a sale transaction, when real money is actually available. Property taxes need to be slightly different, unless you prefer pushing out long term residents.
Back to the Clinton era review of floods and damage mitigation presented in these pages last week. Houston and contiguous counties were second only to New Orleans for flood damage risk. The proposed mitigation was to buy up properties, reconstitute wet lands buffer zones and tighten building regulations. But Houston was having none of it. As a results up to 40% of some counties are paved over, no regulations and historic flooding.
The answer is that money commands in Houston as it does everywhere. And where money clashes with regulation it always wins. (And this is an entirely different problem from San Francisco elitism.)
Yes, we knew the risk and the solutions for Houston and over low lying communities. Buy up properties ($5 saved for every $1 spent--$400 million spent), reconstitute buffer zones, build on stilts, regulate where and how construction is done.
Trump was against all of this pre-Houston, having proposed to shut down the Federal agency charged with flood mitigation. Let's hope that he is capable of listening. A 1,000 year flood is far riskier than presumed, not unlike a 1,000 year unqualified president. Let's address the problem(s) before it happens again.
The answer is that money commands in Houston as it does everywhere. And where money clashes with regulation it always wins. (And this is an entirely different problem from San Francisco elitism.)
Yes, we knew the risk and the solutions for Houston and over low lying communities. Buy up properties ($5 saved for every $1 spent--$400 million spent), reconstitute buffer zones, build on stilts, regulate where and how construction is done.
Trump was against all of this pre-Houston, having proposed to shut down the Federal agency charged with flood mitigation. Let's hope that he is capable of listening. A 1,000 year flood is far riskier than presumed, not unlike a 1,000 year unqualified president. Let's address the problem(s) before it happens again.
10
Prof. Krugman asks the right question when he says "Why can't we get it right?". One of the discouraging lessons I learned as Chair of a committee of our city planning department was that our highly trained city planners were ignored more often than not when a developer came before council to request a zoning variance. Our local politicians were almost always obscenely eager to please the developer, not the home owners.
They thought nothing of allowing development on hazard lands, or regional parks. The developers would bring in highly paid lawyers to argue their case before the state board that determined the outcome of their appeals, and I remember being called upon to go up against these slick lawyers before the Municipal Board--with trepidation.
And there were physical threats--sugar poured into my gas tank by one developer. So big money is the reason for most of the planning--or lack thereof that results in shockingly dangerous development on inappropriate lands.
They thought nothing of allowing development on hazard lands, or regional parks. The developers would bring in highly paid lawyers to argue their case before the state board that determined the outcome of their appeals, and I remember being called upon to go up against these slick lawyers before the Municipal Board--with trepidation.
And there were physical threats--sugar poured into my gas tank by one developer. So big money is the reason for most of the planning--or lack thereof that results in shockingly dangerous development on inappropriate lands.
17
We now live in an era where no one believes those who actually study the issues: city planners ignored, climate scientists ignored, and historians - all ignored. Sad, so so sad.
4
The giant problem, so often omitted in discussion these days, is population growth. And I see it regularly in newspapers like this; they are supposed to be critical thinkers. Krugman is an excellent economist (for the people) but he misses the big picture regularly.
Too many people, too few resources. And I would say the USA is getting too populous to govern. And the exponential factors coming at us are horrendous and will have no solutions in the near future. The pop growth, to resource demand (energy, water, jobs) to space and food and agricultural needs are all in demand and are exponential factors, growing exponentially nor arithmetically. Anyone who knows what that kind of growth looks like on a graph knows that suddenly and unexpectedly, one has huge problems to solve. That includes climate change and the increased dangers of the use of nuclear weapons.
So those problems listed above are of the "exponential" kind -- coming at us like freight trains and will suddenly be upon us -- some more critical than others.
But these problems that grow exponentially have been stated by a very famous person as something to pay close attention to.
"The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." ( Edward Teller)
Too many people, too few resources. And I would say the USA is getting too populous to govern. And the exponential factors coming at us are horrendous and will have no solutions in the near future. The pop growth, to resource demand (energy, water, jobs) to space and food and agricultural needs are all in demand and are exponential factors, growing exponentially nor arithmetically. Anyone who knows what that kind of growth looks like on a graph knows that suddenly and unexpectedly, one has huge problems to solve. That includes climate change and the increased dangers of the use of nuclear weapons.
So those problems listed above are of the "exponential" kind -- coming at us like freight trains and will suddenly be upon us -- some more critical than others.
But these problems that grow exponentially have been stated by a very famous person as something to pay close attention to.
"The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." ( Edward Teller)
13
I agree with the "too many people" sentiment. Homo sapiens sapiens seem to be on the self-destruction path. There is too much short-term thinking rather than long-term solutions.
One oft-neglected aspect of this problem is that we already have a number of cities--Rochester, Syracuse, Utica, and Buffalo in NY; Springfield, Fitchburg/Leominster, and any number of places in southeastern MA and RI; Hartford, CT...these just in New England and NY...that have lost population and employers and have plenty of room, if they had what people need: jobs, transit, education, and entertainment options. We really don't need to crowd crowded places even more. We need to go back to places we built and then abandoned when their industrial bases moved elsewhere. People don't realize that it isn't the actual location most of the time. It's people and businesses moving there and making the location a desirable place to live and work. Of course, this requires businesses that value their stakeholders over their shareholders, but that is how quality cities and towns are made, not by chance or geography alone.
24
I went to high school in Fitchburg. I was there when Digital, GE Power Systems, and Fort Devens closed. Simplex is a shell of its former self. Cheap housing relatively close to Boston seems to be the only thing the area has to offer (besides heroin).
According to my friends who still live there, the traffic into Boston starts at 5am. The Commuter Rail is literally keeping the area afloat.
According to my friends who still live there, the traffic into Boston starts at 5am. The Commuter Rail is literally keeping the area afloat.
These places have water. We can find ways to create jobs in cities that have water. LA and Phoenix will be up a (dry) creek without a paddle when the water runs out and it will soon.
first, shame on the good doctor for dissing the "current administration" for its houston rehab effort before it's out of the box...how american is that coming from the quarter so sensitive these days to things unamerican?
next: all the bad stuff waiting in place, like explosives, for a spark (some of it actually explosive as we now know!) and set in place by "bad policy" as today's column describes, (once the obligatory trump bump has been delivered) only adds to the obstacles faced by anyone charged with remedy...and, as we saw from the flood rescue effort, it will require all of us to pitch in.
on the one hand, we can impede the repeat of past errors, (for example, development abetted by sweetheart deals between electeds and special interests)...instead of ranting and tossing bricks from behind bumper stickers, we can take on the weight of rational action (wake up our leisure-class congress) toward alternatives that will rehabilitate... and, on the other hand. we can be proactive in taking on the mess we've made of our planet...for example, there's no reason we can't, within a decade or so, with a fierce effort, create a solar/tidal powered grid for electric vehicles that will get internal combustion engines off the road for keeps.
to the question, "Can America break out of these political traps?" the answer is yes, but a "break-out" is not for the weak-willed, it will take resolve, an appetite for risk, and a commitment to "can-do," our long ago go-to american value.
next: all the bad stuff waiting in place, like explosives, for a spark (some of it actually explosive as we now know!) and set in place by "bad policy" as today's column describes, (once the obligatory trump bump has been delivered) only adds to the obstacles faced by anyone charged with remedy...and, as we saw from the flood rescue effort, it will require all of us to pitch in.
on the one hand, we can impede the repeat of past errors, (for example, development abetted by sweetheart deals between electeds and special interests)...instead of ranting and tossing bricks from behind bumper stickers, we can take on the weight of rational action (wake up our leisure-class congress) toward alternatives that will rehabilitate... and, on the other hand. we can be proactive in taking on the mess we've made of our planet...for example, there's no reason we can't, within a decade or so, with a fierce effort, create a solar/tidal powered grid for electric vehicles that will get internal combustion engines off the road for keeps.
to the question, "Can America break out of these political traps?" the answer is yes, but a "break-out" is not for the weak-willed, it will take resolve, an appetite for risk, and a commitment to "can-do," our long ago go-to american value.
3
I believe the issue is centered on one thing and one thing only, too many people. There should be restrictions on population density. If you get past the earthquake issue in San Francisco and build "up" you still have to deal with the problems of increased population. How does the city process waste, how does it provide the necessary water, what do the residents do on weekends and holidays when they want to get out of their apartments. It comes down to limiting population growth and density, plus planning well into the future (in the 1950s the planners did not imagine that within 50 years the freeways would be packed, slow and frustrating).
10
If only there was a city packed on an island with a major newspaper you might be familiar with that solved these problems. If only.
Yes, the factor of human population is too often ignored in such issues as those discussed by Krugman. At some point along the time-line, and Homo Sapiens sapiens may be near that point, it won't matter how the cage is designed and built if there are more rats than it can accommodate.
The freeways are packed because we severely limit density and highways are a poor way to move large numbers of people. People have to process waste, drink water, and go to work no matter where they live. In sprawl-tastic cities like those in the Sun Belt all of those tasks are significantly harder, and each person living in those areas is more impactful than his peer in a dense city. Your proscription to limit density is exactly what planners wanted in the 1950s... and they were wrong.
This article is not very useful or well-informed. Anyone who implies that Nimbyism alone is what affects San Francisco's housing problems clearly has not spent much
time studying the subject and is way, way behind the debate. Same for anyone who contrasts the affordability of New York and San Francisco. New York has the *same* fundamental cost problem that San Francisco does. Merely building high rises everywhere won't fix the affordability problem - witness the numerous cities with high rises and high costs.
time studying the subject and is way, way behind the debate. Same for anyone who contrasts the affordability of New York and San Francisco. New York has the *same* fundamental cost problem that San Francisco does. Merely building high rises everywhere won't fix the affordability problem - witness the numerous cities with high rises and high costs.
15
Over 25 years ago, Washington state instituted the Growth Management Act, requiring all urban areas to designate boundaries and come up with growth plans, and the bickering over it has never stopped, including blaming the GMA as the main reason for our spectacular rise in RE prices. Nonetheless municipal boundaries in the Puget Sound area bleed into each other, now almost continuous suburb from Olympia to Bellingham.
The Seattle city government thinks its "got this one" and is pushing density in an attempt to improve affordability. Meanwhile, the planning for this is atrocious.
In a country where "growth is good" and the primary influence on city planning is the development industry, this is what you get. We continue to build in 100-year flood plains and atop filled-in swamps, (which is what a good part of downtown Seattle sits on). We've already had serious winter floods on PNW rivers, thanks to a combination of clear-cut logging, building on flood plains, etc. The more famous San Andreas ticking time bomb gets most of the press, but when the "big one" hits Seattle, it's going to be a lulu.
The Seattle city government thinks its "got this one" and is pushing density in an attempt to improve affordability. Meanwhile, the planning for this is atrocious.
In a country where "growth is good" and the primary influence on city planning is the development industry, this is what you get. We continue to build in 100-year flood plains and atop filled-in swamps, (which is what a good part of downtown Seattle sits on). We've already had serious winter floods on PNW rivers, thanks to a combination of clear-cut logging, building on flood plains, etc. The more famous San Andreas ticking time bomb gets most of the press, but when the "big one" hits Seattle, it's going to be a lulu.
10
The 800-lb. gorilla in the room that no one wants to acknowledge is population growth. These natural disasters are exacerbated by the need to house more and more people.
28
It is not just developers. Community groups in Greenwich Village and Brooklyn Heights, among others have fought like mad to prevent greater hi-rise develope not just in their neighborhoods but near them.
3
I think Prof Krugman has missed an essential point.
Both the NIMBYism of the coasts and the 'build wherever' attitude of the central states arise from the same cause. It's such a fundamental part of the American psyche that many aren't even aware of it. It truly is an 'American Exceptionalism' - I've not seen anything like it anywhere else I have lived or visited.
What is it?
Individual rights. Only in the USA are the rights of the individual paramount - even when it is to the detriment of society as a whole.
Housing is but one area where this has real impact - it would take a long essay to fully work through them all, but it would include; healthcare, housing, transportation, taxation, employment and the third rail of US politics - the 2nd amendment.
Both the NIMBYism of the coasts and the 'build wherever' attitude of the central states arise from the same cause. It's such a fundamental part of the American psyche that many aren't even aware of it. It truly is an 'American Exceptionalism' - I've not seen anything like it anywhere else I have lived or visited.
What is it?
Individual rights. Only in the USA are the rights of the individual paramount - even when it is to the detriment of society as a whole.
Housing is but one area where this has real impact - it would take a long essay to fully work through them all, but it would include; healthcare, housing, transportation, taxation, employment and the third rail of US politics - the 2nd amendment.
18
Paul, Its not entirely clear whether you are aware that earthquakes are prone in SF and developers might not want to bear the costs to proof structures or buy the extra insurance required. And why explicitly you didn't enumerate these problems.
3
Toyko is earthquake prone. People seem to want to build there. Every large urban region of coastal East Asia is earthquake prone. Their cities grow up and out.
Easy cure no federally backed mortgages if cities cannot or do not target their housing issues. Allow state and federal agencies to overrule local zoning if cities affordability goes below a certain level. In some States, MA, if a city has less than 10% of its homes deemed affordable, developers can bypass local zoning. Affordable are homes in the 200 thousand range.
Easy cure no federally backed mortgages if cities cannot or do not target their housing issues. Allow state and federal agencies to overrule local zoning if cities affordability goes below a certain level. In some States, MA, if a city has less than 10% of its homes deemed affordable, developers can bypass local zoning. Affordable are homes in the 200 thousand range.
1
Not sure about Tokyo geography but as I have ran the SF marathon I can assure you that it's not as flat as other types of cities mentioned, Chicago and Manhattan. I am no civil engineer but it seems like a flat city may be more ammenable to building up and out, which may be evident in east Asia, not the west coast.
One small item that might make a difference would be owner/developer co-ops made up of people who will live in the buildings the co-ops develop.
This would reduce the risk of not selling, reduce sales cost, lower financing risk (and create an investment opportunity for people to loan out money).
Such co-ops would have an incentive to develop affordable housing that would not be profitable for a regular developer.
Best of all, this wouldn't require new law or significant public finance, just some city employee staff time for liaison.
Might be just the thing for some parts of the Bay Area suburbs such as Vallejo, or for developing brownfield sites (also known as shopping malls, in the age of Amazon).
This would reduce the risk of not selling, reduce sales cost, lower financing risk (and create an investment opportunity for people to loan out money).
Such co-ops would have an incentive to develop affordable housing that would not be profitable for a regular developer.
Best of all, this wouldn't require new law or significant public finance, just some city employee staff time for liaison.
Might be just the thing for some parts of the Bay Area suburbs such as Vallejo, or for developing brownfield sites (also known as shopping malls, in the age of Amazon).
3
I just finished a 2000 mile car trip from Chicago, to Chagrin Falls Ohio, to the D.C. area (Germantown), to Bloomington, Indiana and return to Chicago. Little public transport was in evidence, road construction everywhere, urban sprawl, the list goes on. I've been to all of these places during the past half century, and none of them struck me as improved, more beautiful, comfortable. Growth has its limits in terms of population and what it necessitates. Mr. Krugman's vision, which I usually find remarkably clear, tries to solve this problem by building up, a sort of elevator filing and storage system for human beings. In 1971 a friend suggested that not only the world but the U.S. was overpopulated. I was shocked. I thought he was insane. However, the world today seems to prove him right.
12
We can't get cities right because we live in an era when money is not being spent where it needs to be: on upgrading and maintaining our infrastructure. We don't plan. We simply build housing but not affordable decent housing. We build luxury everything despite the fact that most of us can't afford luxury anything. We have wasted the last 30-40 years with petty spats and vows to reduce the size of government at all levels. Now we're paying the price in cities like Houston, San Francisco, New York, Boston, and the rest of the country. We let builders dictate where housing will be put, what type, and we go even further with zoning codes that work against smart planning. To add to the mess we have managed to force too many people to live long distances from their jobs.
There are answers to the problems but in our current state of government not one of them will be acted upon. The GOP doesn't believe in regulation or safety. The Democrats over-regulate and both parties fail to help the middle and working class. So we have a crumbling and dangerous infrastructure but we're not doing anything to fix it unless there is a natural or man made disaster destroying things.
There are answers to the problems but in our current state of government not one of them will be acted upon. The GOP doesn't believe in regulation or safety. The Democrats over-regulate and both parties fail to help the middle and working class. So we have a crumbling and dangerous infrastructure but we're not doing anything to fix it unless there is a natural or man made disaster destroying things.
7
Krugman and others point out that Houston might have done better if planning for floods had been done 100 years ago and kept up. But now, how would anyone unscramble the eggs? Providing generous flood damage relief at the expense of the rest of the country allows Houston to set itself up for a repeat disaster. Instead of repairing flood-damaged houses, pay the owners fair value and tear down the houses and all buildings and parking lots in the flooded zones. Then plan for proper density, flood control and transit with state funding.
11
Mr. Krugman's essential point is that cities are caught between either too much or too little regulation, and, a deep culturally rooted "the market will decide" mentality. The condition of cities is a direct reflection of our collective values, attitudes and beliefs. What we have, see and experience is a direct consequence of contradictory forces that make us want to control what others want, against the reflex to do what we want without consequence, or accountability. This self-serving root of our culture is a collective failure to understand the greater balanced good that comes from constantly searching for better ways to improve the baseline for everyone.
The particular solutions Mr. Krugman offers are simplistic. Generic solutions don't fit every situation and result in generic outcomes.
Resiliency doesn't come cheap or easy. It's a long committed slog to reduce the vulnerabilities of the least able in every setting. If we don't care about affordable housing, it won't happen (market forces cannot do this, and neither will regulation alone). And so also for safety, the environment, traffic, emergency services, housing.. and the rest.
We have an existential crisis of not being committed enough to constantly care about those who are squeezed out of the mainstream. Now that the middle class is increasingly part of that squeeze, will the protests will be loud enough for us to re-evaluate our priorities?
The particular solutions Mr. Krugman offers are simplistic. Generic solutions don't fit every situation and result in generic outcomes.
Resiliency doesn't come cheap or easy. It's a long committed slog to reduce the vulnerabilities of the least able in every setting. If we don't care about affordable housing, it won't happen (market forces cannot do this, and neither will regulation alone). And so also for safety, the environment, traffic, emergency services, housing.. and the rest.
We have an existential crisis of not being committed enough to constantly care about those who are squeezed out of the mainstream. Now that the middle class is increasingly part of that squeeze, will the protests will be loud enough for us to re-evaluate our priorities?
5
Too many people. Not enough of anything else. The dystopian future is now.
7
You are wrong about San Francisco. More housing will not bring prices down to a level which mid and low income families will be able to afford. Over 500,00 jobs were created in the Bay Area between 2011 and 2016 alone, and the city’s population has grown from 770,000 to 870,000 over the past ten years. The demand for housing by techies, financiers and other professionals who can pay higher prices is enormous - and there are hundreds of thousands of them with pent up housing demand, living outside SF or in the city with roommates, etc. The only thing the new sky scrapers you propose (and which are being built) will do, is push SF towards Manhattan in terms of density. But the difference is SF doesn’t have a subway system, or the general infrastructure to handle it. Can low and middle income folks afford Manhattan, London, etc, in any case? Your proposal will ruin the city in terms of livability - we're already crammed like sardines in a 7 by 7 sq mile city - and the unfortunate result will just be a lot more housing for the well-to-do. Middle and low income families will still be unable to afford to live here.
11
SF is laughably NOT dense. Yes, more high-rises are going up downtown but most areas of the city still often feature one or two floor commercial buildings along major transit streets that can easily be replaced by mixed retail-residential buildings of five to seven floors without affecting the fabled charms of the city. After all, there are scattered pre-war buildings of this size already and they don't terrify the natives. This is not rocket science. Most thriving European cities are built this way.
2
Simplistic to compare to Europe. European cities were designed differently, apples and oranges. Most American cities are designed around the automobile, industry saw to that. It now takes over a half hour to travel a few miles in SF, and that’s despite numerous ride sharing options, etc, drivers are at each other’s throats. Cars are lined up on the freeway for a half mile before 9am to access recreation, such as the exit to Stinson Beach on weekends, and the Bay Bridge is a perpetual nightmare. People are lined up to try to get into the parking lot of Rainbow Grocery, Trader Joe’s, etc at all hours. The examples go on. Get hurt and spend over a day or two in the ED waiting for an in-patient bed at SF Gen. Power goes out regularly in nice neighborhoods like Cole and Noe Valley. Without a prohibitively costly overhaul in mass transit and other vigtal infrastructure, increased density will most definitely adversely effect quality of life in SF.
Sorry, Paul; but, I really don't want to live on the fortieth floor of a high-rise in San Francisco over the Rodgers Creek and Hayward fault lines.
And I don't want to live in Chicago because I'd have to carry whether it was legal or not.
And I don't want to live in Chicago because I'd have to carry whether it was legal or not.
7
You'd have to carry? What add to the gun problem? The gun problem in Chicago involves its highly fractured gangs and drugs which are being sold ro affluent whites coming in from the suburbs. Chicago is not alone in its gun problem.
Houston definitely needs more green space and flood mitigation, but its doubtful that it would have made a lot of difference with 50 inches of rain, but any reduction of the flooding would have helped.
3
I like the concept that the Romans used when deciding on where to locate a new town. The size limit was predetermined and large cities could not exceed 10,000 people. I know that in the land of the free, limiting the population size to one that is in balance with the local resources, topography, would be seen as heresy, but when we are spreading like a virus, some level of control may be necessary.
8
Working class and middle class folk were happy to believe they could afford to live in Houston and its outlying areas. Who thought to do due diligence to make sure that developers were thinking about the wetlands or the environment when green spaces were paved over in concrete? Why build, knowing that Houston is a flood-prone area, many times over? Human desire and developers' greed came first. Now all those poor souls, without flood insurance, have lost all their possessions and their houses.
The American Dream is always about more and more consumerism, less and less about the planet we live on. We have to realize that throwing away stuff, and buying more and more stuff, is actually not a noble goal in life. Helping each other, conserving our resources, and planning for our children's well-being, are the goals to strive for.
The American Dream is always about more and more consumerism, less and less about the planet we live on. We have to realize that throwing away stuff, and buying more and more stuff, is actually not a noble goal in life. Helping each other, conserving our resources, and planning for our children's well-being, are the goals to strive for.
11
Who thought to do due diligence when purchasing a home? One would hope that everyone would. This is what needs to be taught in high school. How to manage your money. How to buy a home. How to do due diligence when making a major investment.
I'm amazed at how few people in Houston had flood insurance policies, given where they lived.
https://www.fema.gov/news-release/2003/09/25/flood-insurance-myths-and-f...
I'm amazed at how few people in Houston had flood insurance policies, given where they lived.
https://www.fema.gov/news-release/2003/09/25/flood-insurance-myths-and-f...
1
Why does Krugman not consider networked mass transit? The "4 hour commute" is because the commute is by car. Why not link satellite population centers in a metropolitan region by an efficient rail system? This is what commuter railroads do, of course. Why do we care if some people are priced out of Manhattan if the subway system swiftly and reliably carried them to destinations in the metro area? Paris is dense because the periphery is dense, not the core. Krugman also omits a certain problem with encouraging housing/population growth in the Bay Area: the San Andreas fault. To think Chicago is doing something right in its housing policy?!! -- rents are down because people are leaving because crime is up. Read the NYT.
7
Not sure what you're talking about? With precious few exceptions Paris is wall to wall 7 to 10 stories tall from one side of the 8x6 mile core (Paris proper). That is dense, and overwhelmingly without high rises.
Though relatively dense, none of the 30 cities surrounding Paris comes close to its density. Within a mile of Paris proper in most directions you will find single family homes (mostly affordable only to the well heeled)
What an American will notice on a highway going out of Paris is how abruptly urban areas flip to fields and then well circumscribed towns. Endless urban sprawl isn't in the equation, and new development is channeled as much as possible to corridors where public infrastructure exists or is planned short term.
Though relatively dense, none of the 30 cities surrounding Paris comes close to its density. Within a mile of Paris proper in most directions you will find single family homes (mostly affordable only to the well heeled)
What an American will notice on a highway going out of Paris is how abruptly urban areas flip to fields and then well circumscribed towns. Endless urban sprawl isn't in the equation, and new development is channeled as much as possible to corridors where public infrastructure exists or is planned short term.
2
Individual decisions by developers to build or employers looking to relocate, are driven by the need for short-term payoffs and opportunities to externalize costs.
Long term issues affecting a diffuse population require government planning and regulation. If there is a coherent long-term plan backed by a public mandate obtained in a plebiscite or issue-election, then city planners can resist NIMBY-ism.
If, however, disaster costs are repeatedly allowed to devolve onto federal resources, then that makes the federal government a major stakeholder in regional planning.
If the Army Corps of Engineers thinks it would be a good idea to create something like a massive Texan shipping channel gouged out way inland, then building that with national taxpayer dollars might be cost effective in the long run. It would create a new fact that enables individual decisions to relocate further from the coast.
The San Francisco issue highlighted in this article is only a local problem. The Texan mismanagement situation belongs to us all.
Long term issues affecting a diffuse population require government planning and regulation. If there is a coherent long-term plan backed by a public mandate obtained in a plebiscite or issue-election, then city planners can resist NIMBY-ism.
If, however, disaster costs are repeatedly allowed to devolve onto federal resources, then that makes the federal government a major stakeholder in regional planning.
If the Army Corps of Engineers thinks it would be a good idea to create something like a massive Texan shipping channel gouged out way inland, then building that with national taxpayer dollars might be cost effective in the long run. It would create a new fact that enables individual decisions to relocate further from the coast.
The San Francisco issue highlighted in this article is only a local problem. The Texan mismanagement situation belongs to us all.
3
I largely agree with this op-ed.
"Sunbelt cities where anything goes, like Houston or Atlanta"
But I must quibble with one point here. Atlanta was once the poster-child for sprawl back in the 1980s. But things are changing here. In the Midtown district alone, Atlanta has added over 10,000 residential units in just two years - mostly in high rise buildings. Many of the older in-town neighborhoods within a few miles of the city center are thriving as well. Lots of people walk to work and bike in Atlanta. And many others take transit (yes, Atlanta has had a subway since 1979).
Atlanta is headed in the right direction, toward the balanced approach to urban development Dr. Krugman is suggesting. Many other mid-sized American cities are also undergoing a revival of in-town living.
"Sunbelt cities where anything goes, like Houston or Atlanta"
But I must quibble with one point here. Atlanta was once the poster-child for sprawl back in the 1980s. But things are changing here. In the Midtown district alone, Atlanta has added over 10,000 residential units in just two years - mostly in high rise buildings. Many of the older in-town neighborhoods within a few miles of the city center are thriving as well. Lots of people walk to work and bike in Atlanta. And many others take transit (yes, Atlanta has had a subway since 1979).
Atlanta is headed in the right direction, toward the balanced approach to urban development Dr. Krugman is suggesting. Many other mid-sized American cities are also undergoing a revival of in-town living.
6
An unmentioned problem in Prof.. Krugman's suggestion is earthquakes. Tall buildings fall down during earthquakes. Major bridges, such as the Oakland Bay Bridge, suffer irreparable damage that requires complete replacement. The history of recent earthquakes in that region is as well known as the history of hurricanes in Texas.
3
Making buildings taller could be a problem especially in earthquake regions.however, the cities could be expanded if there were good public transportation. There will be areas where none of this works. Areas that have flooded over and over should not be rebuilt. They should be allowed to go back to the way they were created over millions of years. We may need to move millions to safer ground.
1
Right on, as usual, with good questions that should be answered before Houston starts to rebuild. Let's start by once again emphasizing that anthropogenic climate change is real, is here, should be seriously dealt with (but isn't being dealt with except by us fanatics) - but MUST be accepted and acknowledged in any rebuilding efforts in coastal cities such as Houston that will always be in the path of severe storms.
Congress could include conditions to encourage that consideration in any funds allocated for reconstruction in Houston (not for funds for immediate relief, of course). I'm not holding my breath about that, though.
Congress could include conditions to encourage that consideration in any funds allocated for reconstruction in Houston (not for funds for immediate relief, of course). I'm not holding my breath about that, though.
2
The medium-sized city of Alameda, CA only a few mile across the bay east of San Francisco, and adjacent to Oakland has now become a 'country club' of sorts in that it's very difficult and very expensive to get into whereas for many years it was just a sleepy town. Small bungalows and town homes now sell for close to a million dollars, and higher if near to some of their top schools. A fair amount of open land is still available, some of which had been part of the closed naval air station, but pressure to limit building on such land while limiting the height of any such building is an ongoing, fierce debate.
2
As one who worked in San Francisco, Boston, Louisville, Dallas, Los Angeles, San Diego, Providence and El Paso - 1960-2000 (peripatetic old guy), I have a simple observation: The city-fication of our population is cramming a disproportionate portion of citizens into these nodes. Cities are draining the small towns and open spaces where the living is easier and the real estate is affordable. No amount of planning can fix the problem - improve maybe, but not fix. Until we fix the issue of "going to work" at centralized locations, these problems will fade. Perhaps the dreams of telecommuting, distributed virtual workplaces, fully automated manufacturing, etc. will come true, but all the cultural magnets of big cities are unlikely to lose their appeal. Megacities like Mumbai, Tokyo, Seoul, and NYC foreshadow everyone's future unless we learn how to "get back to the land."
4
I lived in Houston 10 years. I currently live in the Berkeley area close to San Francisco. No amount of urban planning would have saved Houston from 50 inches of rain. Zoning may be helpful, but it wouldn't have made a big difference under the circumstances. The Bay Area needs more dense housing, but the streets and transportation system aren't able to handle it. Tax foreign investors using shell corporations to hide their ill-gotten gains to prevent them from buying in our major cities. It is estimated that 10% or more real estate in SF is owned by foreign shell companies. That drives the price up for people who need to live here. Encourage investment in condo buildings to replace single family homes where you can, and couple that with more transportation spending. And while your at it, create managed homes for homeless--our area is overrun with drug addicts and people who need treatment for mental health disorders. It makes our cities dirty, unsanitary, and unsafe.
11
In the Bay Area the reason there are issues about building up- in SF the San Andreas fault, in the East Bay the Hayward fault, and other faults that have been discovered in recent years.
Earthquake proofing works for milder earthquakes but the big ones are due along both faults.
Who thought it was a good idea to expand cities in an earthquake prone area?
Earthquake proofing works for milder earthquakes but the big ones are due along both faults.
Who thought it was a good idea to expand cities in an earthquake prone area?
3
It is not very hard to design buildings to resist earthquakes, even high rises. The routine loads on a ship in a storm seaway, on an offshore platform or on an aircraft are much more severe. I worked at a firm of structural engineers on the 3rd floor of a hide rise in San Francisco during a big earthquake and they all ran to the windows to watch the buildings sway, then started a "guess the Richter" pool, because they understood the science.
"3rd floor of a hide rise in San Francisco during a big earthquake and they all ran to the windows to watch the buildings sway"
Sounds like the Loma Prieta quake which was 6.9.
I was referring to the Big Ones that will be around 9 or more on the Richter scale. The 1960s Alaska earthquake was in the vicinity of 9.
By the way there is a luxury condo high rise in San Francisco now leaning at a noticeable angle.
Sounds like the Loma Prieta quake which was 6.9.
I was referring to the Big Ones that will be around 9 or more on the Richter scale. The 1960s Alaska earthquake was in the vicinity of 9.
By the way there is a luxury condo high rise in San Francisco now leaning at a noticeable angle.
1
Building up is no cure all for the urban question. The question of density and vertical development are both tied to the larger city culture and the cityscape in general. Here, I would argue the relationship between transportation and infrastructure is king. Let me put it a different way: What does every desirable NYC neighborhood have in common? Grocery store, pharmacy, school, and subway access. All within walking distance. You might throw in a park or something else depending on your preferences.
By contrast, what is Houston's reality? Even before the modern rush to development, the city almost universally requires a car to accomplish basic tasks in daily life. Not having a car in Houston is the equivalent of super commuting. You'll spend that much extra time every week just running errands. So most people have cars. What do cars require? More space. Both to park the vehicle at home but also when you're out. Where do you park a vehicle? On pavement.
In both scenarios, the lifestyle infrastructure creates self-reinforcing incentives towards a certain kind of development. Regulations can push or prevent certain actions but rezoning residential districts makes no difference if you don't have the mechanisms to support a high rise cityscape. You need to change the one and the other should follow.
By contrast, what is Houston's reality? Even before the modern rush to development, the city almost universally requires a car to accomplish basic tasks in daily life. Not having a car in Houston is the equivalent of super commuting. You'll spend that much extra time every week just running errands. So most people have cars. What do cars require? More space. Both to park the vehicle at home but also when you're out. Where do you park a vehicle? On pavement.
In both scenarios, the lifestyle infrastructure creates self-reinforcing incentives towards a certain kind of development. Regulations can push or prevent certain actions but rezoning residential districts makes no difference if you don't have the mechanisms to support a high rise cityscape. You need to change the one and the other should follow.
11
You just get busy and build it in steps. That's what we're doing in Los Angeles, another place very like Houston. There are a couple of subway lines and a handful of very useful light rail lines. Another is under construction as I write this. Development is concentrating around these transit amenities. Downtown LA is virtually unrecognizable to someone who has been absent for a decade.
Stop carping and making excuses and get to it.
Stop carping and making excuses and get to it.
"What does every desirable NYC neighborhood have in common? Grocery store, pharmacy, school, and subway access. All within walking distance. You might throw in a park or something else depending on your preferences."
Sounds an awful lot like the vast majority of European cities.
Sounds an awful lot like the vast majority of European cities.
CITIES Are more energy efficient than other areas because of high rise buildings and retrofitting them for energy efficiency, along with the extensive use of mass transit by commuters. In Philly, where I live, there's been a spate of new building in center city. Long gone is the time-honored tradition that no building could be higher than the top of the hat of Wm Penn's statue that sits perched above City Hall. The skyline has grown past Penn's hat for decades. I don't always like the results, but the city is undergoing a revival that was unimaginable 50 years ago. During the 60s, some of the most historically important homes could be had for a pittance, rehabbed and flipped in areas like Olde City and Society Hill. No more! Million dollar homes abound there. It's possible to design cities to be safer and more energy efficient than Houston. I hope that the rebuilding in that city will be more ecologically sound and energy efficient.
6
It sounds like we need restrictions on the "free market". The market is not always right.
5
After 40 years working in land planning, transportation and development, I find this to be an incredibly shallow article expressing a myopic view of the issues involved. Chicago as a positive example of urban development? I try to take time to walk the streets and absorb the atmosphere of every city, town and rural area I visit from the US and Canada to Latin America and Europe. Chicago is the only place I can think of that I haven't come away from thinking that I could enjoy living if I had to. We have huge problems dealing with massive human population growth over the past 100 years, but this article only complains about the problems and takes Houston's tragedy as an opportunity castigate people already suffering.
6
Really? Aside from the weather and the second rate public transit (compared to Paris) I liked Chicago. Great architecture, great food, great museums and sights, friendly people. I'd live in Chicago in a heartbeat if I had a reason to. But I won't leave Paris for any city in North America anytime soon, without a darn good reason, and for some of the reasons noted in the article.
4
So what does your 40 years' experience suggest as a solution to the problems Krugman outlines?
3
Yes! Discussion of population growth is conspicuous by its absence. The elephant in the room.
If we are serious about reducing carbon emissions, urban planning is front and centre. Insert "wasteful use of fuel" for every place "pollution" appears in Dr. Krugman's article. Leaving development decisions to developers alone will not produce an urban architecture that is environmentally sustainable. That requires the "r" word -- regulation -- and political decisions taken at a level higher than civic leaders who seem incapable of saying no to endless urban sprawl.
5
What needs regulation more than anything else is GOVERNMENT. But while it loves to supervise all other activities, there is no real supervision of government because the same party runs the news media that runs city hall.
Answers are tough. This discussion always reminds me of the quote attributed to Yogi Berra, "The place is too crowded. Nobody goes there anymore." I love to go back to Vermont every year for homecoming but I'm not sure I would leave San Diego to live there.
1
Doesn't unbridled, unrealistic aspiration underlie most of this? People go where the money and jobs are, and are willing to do almost anything, including 4 hour commutes, to get them. Cities offer lax building regulations and tax breaks to entice businesses to locate there, in the hope that the money and jobs will attract the people who will then spend their income... and so on. Houston would love to have the housing problem that San Francisco has.
The American Dream is built on the idea of ever increasing, never ending prosperity. Anything that speaks to something less --- say, a slower, more sustainable rate of growth in the GDP --- is anathema to this idea and treated as a problem to be solved. If your house isn't worth 10% more today than it was last year, something's wrong with the real estate market where you live. If the CPI isn't clicking along at plus numbers quarter to quarter it's an economic drag on the country. And God help us if the stock market returns to 15,000 --- roughly 50% higher than it was in 2000 --- it would be the end of the world as we know it.
The piece of the puzzle that seems to have fallen on the floor and been swept away is the concept of Enough. This is the single commodity in our world that we seemingly need to have in an ever increasing, never ending supply.
The American Dream is built on the idea of ever increasing, never ending prosperity. Anything that speaks to something less --- say, a slower, more sustainable rate of growth in the GDP --- is anathema to this idea and treated as a problem to be solved. If your house isn't worth 10% more today than it was last year, something's wrong with the real estate market where you live. If the CPI isn't clicking along at plus numbers quarter to quarter it's an economic drag on the country. And God help us if the stock market returns to 15,000 --- roughly 50% higher than it was in 2000 --- it would be the end of the world as we know it.
The piece of the puzzle that seems to have fallen on the floor and been swept away is the concept of Enough. This is the single commodity in our world that we seemingly need to have in an ever increasing, never ending supply.
11
San Francisco is an odd example. I'd assert that their high rents a pure market choice: people like living in the low-rise, Walmart-free areas like The Richmond.
Nobody works there, every morning they commute out from the city to some suburban office park and back in at night. They have a choice to pick any number of less expensive and perfectly nice housing out near those office parks. They are willing to pay a huge chunk of their fabulous Silicon Valley salaries for it.
This is 180 degrees from the situation in NYC, where every morning the suburban population implodes onto what Vonnegut called Skyscraper National Monument, because that is where all jobs are located.
Nobody works there, every morning they commute out from the city to some suburban office park and back in at night. They have a choice to pick any number of less expensive and perfectly nice housing out near those office parks. They are willing to pay a huge chunk of their fabulous Silicon Valley salaries for it.
This is 180 degrees from the situation in NYC, where every morning the suburban population implodes onto what Vonnegut called Skyscraper National Monument, because that is where all jobs are located.
3
There is no, or very little "less expensive and perfectly nice housing out near those office parks." See the media stories on the new Apple HQ in Cupertino and the lack of housing around it. Same with Facebook or Google and all the other companies. Palo Alto is a poster child for ridiculous planning decisions that have restricted housing. More infill density is happening in scattered locations like Redwood City but most of Silicon Valley refuses to meet the challenge of providing more housing.
Vonnegut reference! Five points!!
There's San Jose and Oakland. I'm an old New Yorker. I took the M train through Bed-Stuy and Williamsburg from 85-87, and the car that I was in was struck by bullets 4 times. Those nabes are creeping in on 3K for a 1BR, and need I mention LIC?
From what I can tell from reading articles such as the one below, keeping the Rice University campus in downtown Houston becomes an increasingly iffy proposition over time.
Perhaps the campus itself never floods, entirely. However, all the infrastructure that makes Rice a viable place to live and to learn -- all the staff and their homes and their children and their schools -- seems to be in serious jeopardy.
"it remains unclear whether many Houstonians realize that nothing is being done to address floods like the one that happened on Tax Day"
https://www.propublica.org/article/boomtown-flood-town-text
Perhaps the campus itself never floods, entirely. However, all the infrastructure that makes Rice a viable place to live and to learn -- all the staff and their homes and their children and their schools -- seems to be in serious jeopardy.
"it remains unclear whether many Houstonians realize that nothing is being done to address floods like the one that happened on Tax Day"
https://www.propublica.org/article/boomtown-flood-town-text
2
Unplanned urban "planning" is a USA issue...Modern times mean that more folks live in densely populated urban places. Cities geographical constraints lead to " different lifestyles" than those associated with suburban and country living. For densely populated interconnected living, we need planning, rules and regulations. Why? To ensure that all receive, have access to: energy, food; have potable water, sanitation; and, roads, transportation and security.
Here in Reno, we are "re-imagining the next 25 years". How do we enhance the livability of a small city? The big issue here is more affordable housing. The current master plan, facilitates the development of SFR's away from the city center, which are too expensive for most workers to buy. Rents have doubled since the Great Recession. The answer Is to enhance the population density in the central core areas by going from two story buildings to up to 10 stories with apartments above the shops and businesses. Facilitating city services, with urban markets, laundromats, coffee houses and restaurants. The infra-structure exists; however, building a city-wide solar micro-grid to make power inexpensive for all, adding practical transportation options to enhance city livability will be necessary... but NIMBY's prefer to stay in the past and not move forward into a "better living" future.
Monies to spend for these future urban dwellers? Simple! Carbon fee and dividend will distribute $3500 to all 93,000,000 US families.
Here in Reno, we are "re-imagining the next 25 years". How do we enhance the livability of a small city? The big issue here is more affordable housing. The current master plan, facilitates the development of SFR's away from the city center, which are too expensive for most workers to buy. Rents have doubled since the Great Recession. The answer Is to enhance the population density in the central core areas by going from two story buildings to up to 10 stories with apartments above the shops and businesses. Facilitating city services, with urban markets, laundromats, coffee houses and restaurants. The infra-structure exists; however, building a city-wide solar micro-grid to make power inexpensive for all, adding practical transportation options to enhance city livability will be necessary... but NIMBY's prefer to stay in the past and not move forward into a "better living" future.
Monies to spend for these future urban dwellers? Simple! Carbon fee and dividend will distribute $3500 to all 93,000,000 US families.
2
Anything that refers to housing as "units" isn't going to make a city a better place to live. Witness the Moses debacle, right here in New York City. Moses took alive, colorful, thriving albeit crime and not rich and poor neighborhoods, razed them, and built "units,' which destroyed the area and quality of life.
San Franciscans don't want massive impersonal towers dwarfing the beautiful city and blocking the sun. Not everything is subject to ideology and control -- not yet. Houston clearly needs restrictions and rebuilding must adhere to flood regs developed after Sandy - Trump can't kill such local regs. Far from units that are human filing cabinets, regulate aesthetic and height standards -- regulate charm, architecture, not concrete blocks, markets, gardens, theaters, so that no matter what the income, people's lives have dimension and charm.
San Franciscans don't want massive impersonal towers dwarfing the beautiful city and blocking the sun. Not everything is subject to ideology and control -- not yet. Houston clearly needs restrictions and rebuilding must adhere to flood regs developed after Sandy - Trump can't kill such local regs. Far from units that are human filing cabinets, regulate aesthetic and height standards -- regulate charm, architecture, not concrete blocks, markets, gardens, theaters, so that no matter what the income, people's lives have dimension and charm.
5
First off Paul, high rise construction is very expensive. That is not the answer. Furthermore, our economic system, compounded by human nature easily explains your NIMBY concerns. All of us, including you Paul, will always put your interests above all others.
Any real change for the better comes through a different economic system, which is unthinkable for nearly all of us here in the U.S. That change occurs via revolutions.
Any real change for the better comes through a different economic system, which is unthinkable for nearly all of us here in the U.S. That change occurs via revolutions.
1
And Paul, like most well-off liberals, is quite happy with the status quo, and would be the first to cry "NIMBY".
As long as the revolution isn't a rerun of some catastrophic failure that you might be too young to read about.
It's pretty horrible to exploit this tragedy for political points and it's even worse when you consider that Krugman doesn't really have a valid point anyway. If you dropped 50 inches of rain on any highly planned Blue city things would have been as bad or probably much worse.
6
Houston is a very, very blue city.
It's pretty horrible to imagine closing your eyes to the human suffering caused by the fact Houston was, is, and will remain in the path of destructive flood producing storms and yet, still paved over and overbuilt as if it were in a magically tornado free Kansas plain.
What's worse is to score political points by denying these facts. With so little respect for reality it's no wonder Trump is in a shouting match with a loudmouthed nutbar in the Hermit Kingdom threatening Armageddon. The fact free tweeter in chief doesn't care about Americans, either.
What's worse is to score political points by denying these facts. With so little respect for reality it's no wonder Trump is in a shouting match with a loudmouthed nutbar in the Hermit Kingdom threatening Armageddon. The fact free tweeter in chief doesn't care about Americans, either.
Paul Krugman has carefully omitted earthquakes from his list of possible natural disasters. The higher they rise, the greater the fall.
5
Except in Japan, where developers greed doesn't trump public safety.
Krugman is uncharacteristically behind the times on this one. Around San Francisco's new Transbay Transit Center, thousands of new units are being built in tower form; and several of those towers had to make over 30% of those units affordable.
Greg Harper,
Director, Transbay Joint Powers Agency
Greg Harper,
Director, Transbay Joint Powers Agency
1
Thousands quickly gets reduced to several, and those to 30%. An interesting calculation
Professor Krugman never factors in corruption in his analysis.
3
Reduce our dependence on imported goods. Cities like San Francisco, Houston, New Orleans and New York host the biggest ports, adding to the congestion. The entire scope must be considered.
2
Not sure if more housing on top of a tectonic fault line is such a splendid idea. The NIMBY attitude in SF may prevent the next big one from destroying as many homes as it would without it.
2
Based on your only criteria (build up and no toxic waste sites), NYC sounds like the perfect place. Looks like we got it right!
How about rising sea levels and what NYC needs to invest in sea walls?
Sandy was an early foreshadowing of things to come; and that's in addition to what is needed to bring the subway system into the 21st Century. London has done a better job - unfortunately, there are too many political and structural barriers in NYC that prevent the issue from getting addressed in a timely fashion.
May need a crisis to get the right level of attention and inject a sense of urgency.
Sandy was an early foreshadowing of things to come; and that's in addition to what is needed to bring the subway system into the 21st Century. London has done a better job - unfortunately, there are too many political and structural barriers in NYC that prevent the issue from getting addressed in a timely fashion.
May need a crisis to get the right level of attention and inject a sense of urgency.
Paul - here's a story you should be telling. Smart cities, like smart companies, share and implement best practices. Right now, China is implementing the Sponge Cities Project across 16 cities (all larger than NY) as their response to a massive flooding event (Beijing 2012). This $1 trillion infrastructure initiative uses low impact development technologies (many developed in the Western US and the Benelux countries of the EU) to make China's cities more resilient in the face of hyper intensive rains and storms and allow them to avoid flooding and soak up, divert and store precious rain for future use. The contrast between China's smart and pro-active response to climatic devastation and the blame storm trooping in Texas by Trump is all too clear and one of the big uncovered stories of our day. Please shine on a light on this global learning moment.
1
Economists: individuals in stock markets pursue rational self-interest. Good. individuals in cities do the same. Bad
Always interesting to read what ill-informed people who've never been to been your city will write. Yes, building up makes more sense in theory but a couple of questions. How to ensure that the structure is sound and safely constructed in a country of greedy unrestrained developers? When the next storms and accompanying floods come (which they'll most definitely do, climate change is real) how to deal with towers of people without electricity and no way to escape?
4
A real building inspection department and generators?
1
Not to move too far off of the subject of population growth in cities and the real need for fair housing, but there is a more immediate need to focus on the growing chemical hazard that is now Houston.
Dr. Krugman said, "In particular, we don’t yet know just how much poison has been released by flooding of chemical plants, waste dumps, and more. But it’s a good bet that more people will eventually die from the toxins Harvey leaves behind than were killed during the storm itself."
Austin, Texas is a 'safe' 150 miles from Houston but, not far enough to be out of the Houston chemical plume yesterday morning when daylight arrived in Austin with a faint acrid smell of chemicals. Chemical smells like those given off by pest control products
Where is the plan to identify, map and source the chemicals now creating this toxic soup? Will Houston volunteers find themselves in the same, tragic position as so many of the 9|11 first-responders found themselves--when seeking medical care for health problems caused by their exposure to toxic substances?
http://on.cc.com/1R7vMat
Dr. Krugman said, "In particular, we don’t yet know just how much poison has been released by flooding of chemical plants, waste dumps, and more. But it’s a good bet that more people will eventually die from the toxins Harvey leaves behind than were killed during the storm itself."
Austin, Texas is a 'safe' 150 miles from Houston but, not far enough to be out of the Houston chemical plume yesterday morning when daylight arrived in Austin with a faint acrid smell of chemicals. Chemical smells like those given off by pest control products
Where is the plan to identify, map and source the chemicals now creating this toxic soup? Will Houston volunteers find themselves in the same, tragic position as so many of the 9|11 first-responders found themselves--when seeking medical care for health problems caused by their exposure to toxic substances?
http://on.cc.com/1R7vMat
7
Charges of "NIMBYISM" are basically accusing people of not wanting to see their neighborhoods destroyed
Think: what paul is saying is that if you live in a neighborhood you like, you should voluntarily help get it destroyed, so others might benefit
are you , personally, willing to see a 30 story apt building go up across the street ?
Is Dr Krugman ?
of course not
so when people accuse others of NIMBYISM, what they mean is, usually, I want you to put up with the noise and dirt of construction, so I can benefit
Think: what paul is saying is that if you live in a neighborhood you like, you should voluntarily help get it destroyed, so others might benefit
are you , personally, willing to see a 30 story apt building go up across the street ?
Is Dr Krugman ?
of course not
so when people accuse others of NIMBYISM, what they mean is, usually, I want you to put up with the noise and dirt of construction, so I can benefit
3
These same nimbys weren't too concerned about seeing the village, fruit grove, farmland, or even woodland that their neighborhood formerly had been get destroyed so that they could move in and immediately pull up the draw bridge. And yes, justice and social policy very frequently require some people to accept temporary inconveniences such as noise and construction so that other people can, like, live. You put up a rather unconvincing apologia for the myopic self-interest of nimbyism.
Soviets planned their cities.
2
And so does that mean that you believe that the Soviets were wrong on this?
Paul you should stick to writing about economics. At least readers are used to you're being wrong.
RE: But it’s a good bet that more people will eventually die from the toxins Harvey leaves behind than were killed during the storm itself.
REALLY I would like to take that bet. The evidence Krugman presents: none.
RE: As many have pointed out, what made Houston so vulnerable to flooding was rampant, unregulated development. Put it this way: Greater Houston still has less than a third as many people as greater New York, but it covers roughly the same area, and probably has a smaller percentage of land that hasn’t been paved or built on.
The key word : probably. The evidence presented: none.
Houston’s sprawl gave the city terrible traffic and an outsized pollution footprint even before the hurricane. When the rains came, the vast paved-over area meant that rising waters had nowhere to go.
Pavement will slow water's dispursement does not prevent it.
Typical bleeding heart liberal trying to use the storm for more regulation and bureaucrats dictating to the people they're supposed to be serving. Surprise he did not bring up a carbon tax.
RE: But it’s a good bet that more people will eventually die from the toxins Harvey leaves behind than were killed during the storm itself.
REALLY I would like to take that bet. The evidence Krugman presents: none.
RE: As many have pointed out, what made Houston so vulnerable to flooding was rampant, unregulated development. Put it this way: Greater Houston still has less than a third as many people as greater New York, but it covers roughly the same area, and probably has a smaller percentage of land that hasn’t been paved or built on.
The key word : probably. The evidence presented: none.
Houston’s sprawl gave the city terrible traffic and an outsized pollution footprint even before the hurricane. When the rains came, the vast paved-over area meant that rising waters had nowhere to go.
Pavement will slow water's dispursement does not prevent it.
Typical bleeding heart liberal trying to use the storm for more regulation and bureaucrats dictating to the people they're supposed to be serving. Surprise he did not bring up a carbon tax.
2
So much in your comment is simply false. In 800 words Krugman isn't going to waste readers' effort to cite the same statistics published just days ago showing that Houston a comparatively very high rate of impermeable built surface cover. That's a fact. Yes pavement slows absorption, and the rate of dissipation matters... because that means the levels rise higher and farther and destroy more homes and business before subsiding.
But this disingenuous dismissal demonstrates disinterest in facts and arguments, only the desired to baselessly deflect from hard facts. And that doesn't surprise me, coming from a typical "conservative" (quotes imply fake, as in fact free, and self declared as opposed to genuine.)
But this disingenuous dismissal demonstrates disinterest in facts and arguments, only the desired to baselessly deflect from hard facts. And that doesn't surprise me, coming from a typical "conservative" (quotes imply fake, as in fact free, and self declared as opposed to genuine.)
There is plenty of research in support of Krugman. To start, go to the following USGS website.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs07603/
https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs07603/
Covering the land with concrete and asphalt increases the heat and contributes to flooding. It's also ugly as the sin it is. Cities like Houston need more green space, more walkable space, higher density. Period. And the houses need to be raised if people are going to continue living there. However, the cleanup and restoration is likely to be as short-sighted as its inception, leading to more loss in the future. Because short-sighted is perhaps our worst trait as human beings. The predication on the car is, as James Howard Kunstler says, "The greatest misallocation of natural resources in the history of the world."
As for San Francisco, regulations did not prevent the Millennial Tower from being built on unstable land, causing it to sink and lean. And the rents are high in SF due, in part, to capitalist factors that relegate low earners to distant lands.
As for San Francisco, regulations did not prevent the Millennial Tower from being built on unstable land, causing it to sink and lean. And the rents are high in SF due, in part, to capitalist factors that relegate low earners to distant lands.
1
In Louisville we are in the middle of a housing boom...in the CITY! It's almost everywhere ... and not just hotels. And we are working on expanding the green vision Olmsted had for the city when he created the parkways and great parks. To that end we created the riverfront park with its great lawn and a walking bridge across the Ohio, and are working to connect all the parks to one another.
We've got challenges, sure, but compared to the cities mentioned, we are luckier than most at having a fairly practical mindset. We're even working on our aging sewer system.
Maybe the coasts need to turn to some of the cities in the heartland (and around the world) to see if there are practical solutions already at hand for their challenges. And then they need to stop letting lobbyists and political hacks drive policy.
Happy labor day all!
We've got challenges, sure, but compared to the cities mentioned, we are luckier than most at having a fairly practical mindset. We're even working on our aging sewer system.
Maybe the coasts need to turn to some of the cities in the heartland (and around the world) to see if there are practical solutions already at hand for their challenges. And then they need to stop letting lobbyists and political hacks drive policy.
Happy labor day all!
2
All this talk about Houston and flooding, but what happens to Houston when it takes a direct hit from a category 4 hurricane with its 130+ mph winds going right up the ship channel taking out chemical facilities along the way. Then downtown with all its highrises...Houston hasn't really seen the worst yet.
2
Rome, Paris, St Petersburg - all tourist favorites. But the reason they got that way is that they had single-member planning boards to impose their will on the community: the Pope, Haussman, and the Czar.
American cities will never be like these cities - I hope - because Americans make planning decisions through democratically elected bodies. The problems of American cities are the problems of democracy, and i wouldn't have it any other way.
American cities will never be like these cities - I hope - because Americans make planning decisions through democratically elected bodies. The problems of American cities are the problems of democracy, and i wouldn't have it any other way.
2
I know stupidity and lack of knowledge of their subjects are a requirement to write opinion pieces in the Times but could you try to offer a glimmer of sanity. Chicago as a place to live? Tall buildings in San Francisco? Traffic relief in New York? Having lived in and/or worked in all of those cities I can say with perfect clarity Mr. Krugman "Tear down that wall"The one around your brain.
He did get one thing right it is an important issue. Hallelujah, politics Code word for Greed, Self Service, Cronyism, Social Elitism play a huge part in urban structure. Need one say more than Emanuel, de Blasio and San Francisco city council to evoke nausea in any US citizen not on the political dole.
He did get one thing right it is an important issue. Hallelujah, politics Code word for Greed, Self Service, Cronyism, Social Elitism play a huge part in urban structure. Need one say more than Emanuel, de Blasio and San Francisco city council to evoke nausea in any US citizen not on the political dole.
3
50 inches is a lot of rain, no matter how good your urban planning is, there will be extensive flooding. That said, the goal should always be: good planing, based on the best science, and good government based on the best science.
The current fad of insisting on small to no government, and dismissing science is extremely short sighted and extremely dangerous, and quite frankly, just plain dumb.
The current fad of insisting on small to no government, and dismissing science is extremely short sighted and extremely dangerous, and quite frankly, just plain dumb.
4
You seem to be puzzled professor by greed, developer greed in Houston, resident greed in SF. Why?
3
Earthquakes in SF does limit where you can build tall
1
" ... Many toxic waste sites are flooded, but the Environmental Protection Agency is conspicuously absent."
At this stage, there is nothing to be done. If there is a problem, there is a fairly lengthy process for (contracting for) testing and remediation. Stomping around in a waste site would only compromise what integrity to a containment system remains.
At this stage, there is nothing to be done. If there is a problem, there is a fairly lengthy process for (contracting for) testing and remediation. Stomping around in a waste site would only compromise what integrity to a containment system remains.
2
I don't think I've ever previously disagreed with anything in any of P.K.'s columns -- and am not sure this is a disagreement, BUT.....No mention of earthquake 'issues' in Metro San Fran while proposing taller buildings for the area as its affordable-housing solution????
Seems every bit as risky an urban planning notion as Houston's no-zoning/pave everything 'strategy.' (Which is not to say that I don't 'feel' for the 'regular [if insane] folks' who must [???] now spend 4 hours a day commuting.)
Seems every bit as risky an urban planning notion as Houston's no-zoning/pave everything 'strategy.' (Which is not to say that I don't 'feel' for the 'regular [if insane] folks' who must [???] now spend 4 hours a day commuting.)
1
"San Francisco housing is now quite a lot more expensive than New York housing, so why not have more tall buildings?"
Paul, did you forget your coffee this morning?
Earthquakes? Added money to build safely? They sound like good reasons to me why the Bay area hasn't grown skyward like NYC.
Paul, did you forget your coffee this morning?
Earthquakes? Added money to build safely? They sound like good reasons to me why the Bay area hasn't grown skyward like NYC.
2
Have you taken a look at downtown SF lately?
Apples and oranges: NIMBYism is not an excess of regulation, but an excess of irrational regulation--small-minded, self-interested and short-sighted. It is the wealthier protecting their investments by promoting scarcity. Smart regulation--regulation that worries about both the common good and the future--is the antithesis to both NIMBYism *and* the kind of laissez-faire profit-seeking that will have turned Harvey into an ecological horror show.
3
Given the rising probability that storms, and storm surge, will be enhanced by climate change, why would anyone move to or start a business in any coastal city that didn't take this seriously. The "rust belt" and the Northwest should do well compared to the South, South West, and the Heartland. Go North, young man.
1
"But unrestricted development imposes large costs in the form of traffic congestion, pollution, and, as we’ve just seen, vulnerability to disaster."
As etymology shows, civilization is essentially cityfication--high density cooperative living with all its amenities and cultural pluralism--requiring great feats of civil engineering (the Greco-Roman tradition)), civil service and civility. City planning, infrastructure for transportation, water, sewage, garbage, building codes, zoning--on an on. Impossible with a wild west--libertarian mind set--the political version of Asperger's syndrome.
NIMBY is also racist, classist, and phobic. Trumpism is essentially NIMBY--as was prewar isolationism. Do US schools still teach Civics? Or Geography?
Planners worry about population density--in relation to infrastructure. They should also worry about business density. You can't "build up" where earthquakes are a problem. Manhattan's bedrock is not everywhere.
But that requires more than city-wide planning--state and federal planning too--about the distribution of factories, labs, college and corporate campuses--like those in silicon valley and Microsoft in Washington.
Multilevel planning could keep corporations from playing polities off against each other--for tax and other giveaways.
"Community-ism" is not "Communism"--its corrupt perversion. The USA was always a mixed economy. But Trump and the GOP want Feudalism--Money-lords and vassals--politicians and serfs.
As etymology shows, civilization is essentially cityfication--high density cooperative living with all its amenities and cultural pluralism--requiring great feats of civil engineering (the Greco-Roman tradition)), civil service and civility. City planning, infrastructure for transportation, water, sewage, garbage, building codes, zoning--on an on. Impossible with a wild west--libertarian mind set--the political version of Asperger's syndrome.
NIMBY is also racist, classist, and phobic. Trumpism is essentially NIMBY--as was prewar isolationism. Do US schools still teach Civics? Or Geography?
Planners worry about population density--in relation to infrastructure. They should also worry about business density. You can't "build up" where earthquakes are a problem. Manhattan's bedrock is not everywhere.
But that requires more than city-wide planning--state and federal planning too--about the distribution of factories, labs, college and corporate campuses--like those in silicon valley and Microsoft in Washington.
Multilevel planning could keep corporations from playing polities off against each other--for tax and other giveaways.
"Community-ism" is not "Communism"--its corrupt perversion. The USA was always a mixed economy. But Trump and the GOP want Feudalism--Money-lords and vassals--politicians and serfs.
2
September 4, 1981 - Finally invited Harvey B. (an unfortunate name) to dinner, and my brother came along at the last minute. Made roast chicken and lentil salad, and we watched 'Urban Cowboy' until 2:00 a.m. The gentlemen then left.
September 4, 2017 - Houston is in trouble. So is America. We need more engineers, scientists, mathematicians and visionaries, or we are going to have a glut of lawyers and doctors.
If the Governors, Mayors and Public Officials of our State Capital Cities Unite, progress to implement infrastructure for our urban cities and residential houses, institutions and other environments for our healthy and safe habitat might take place, but on an aside it is long time past to start Rebuilding our Nation. The words 'Restoration and Demolition' seem to be clashing in the times we live.
September 4, 2017 - Houston is in trouble. So is America. We need more engineers, scientists, mathematicians and visionaries, or we are going to have a glut of lawyers and doctors.
If the Governors, Mayors and Public Officials of our State Capital Cities Unite, progress to implement infrastructure for our urban cities and residential houses, institutions and other environments for our healthy and safe habitat might take place, but on an aside it is long time past to start Rebuilding our Nation. The words 'Restoration and Demolition' seem to be clashing in the times we live.
1
This apple is rotten at the core. Our current form of capitalism is not about planning for the common good but only about short term individual profits.
1
Oh, Paul, you can be such a myopic and apocalyptic scold sometimes. We, and by that I mean global humanity, are pretty good at building cities. In fact, they are the most enduring form of economic, political, social and cultural formation and organization extant on the face of the earth.
2
Houston is not a city; it is a giant conglomeration of suburbs. Los Angeles ditto. I don't know Atlanta or Phoenix, but my guess is they are similar agglomerations
Most Americans don't like cities. They want to live in a single family house with a yard and a garage, or at least a carport. You put millions of these houses together and you have Houston. Cities require high population density and high rise apartment dwellings. Of course if a city floods (as New York did following Sandy) the elevators and the subways can stop working and you are in trouble. But, this is an easier problem to fix than the mess they have in Houston, where no one can get to work or to the store because even if their house isn't wrecked, their car probably is. They're stuck. It looks to me like we need city planners (socialism?) and a political will to follow through on what they recommend.
Most Americans don't like cities. They want to live in a single family house with a yard and a garage, or at least a carport. You put millions of these houses together and you have Houston. Cities require high population density and high rise apartment dwellings. Of course if a city floods (as New York did following Sandy) the elevators and the subways can stop working and you are in trouble. But, this is an easier problem to fix than the mess they have in Houston, where no one can get to work or to the store because even if their house isn't wrecked, their car probably is. They're stuck. It looks to me like we need city planners (socialism?) and a political will to follow through on what they recommend.
1
A couple of things.
Human beings, with our pitiful lifespans of 80 years or so, have a unique inability to plan in our minds past, say, ten or twenty years. It's just out of the realm of our consciousness. Everything is for right now, or for the very near future.
The other thing is we keep right on having more kids, more "growth," more vehicles, more buildings, more, more, more, more, more, more.
Anyone have the ability to project 50 years into the future? How about 500 years? How about 5,000 years? How about 50,000 years?
Mind blown yet?
But that's the reality...we can't see past our noses, really.
Human beings, with our pitiful lifespans of 80 years or so, have a unique inability to plan in our minds past, say, ten or twenty years. It's just out of the realm of our consciousness. Everything is for right now, or for the very near future.
The other thing is we keep right on having more kids, more "growth," more vehicles, more buildings, more, more, more, more, more, more.
Anyone have the ability to project 50 years into the future? How about 500 years? How about 5,000 years? How about 50,000 years?
Mind blown yet?
But that's the reality...we can't see past our noses, really.
3
Food for thought. We must develop self-sustainable 'green' cities, with a well regulated public transport system, no private cars, where we can walk to work or school or park, with plenty of open spaces (unpaved)) with trees and some brush, where nature is allowed to function as a sponge in case of extreme weather. Our current 'license' to build a cement jungle for realtors' benefit must be proscribed, witness the Houston disaster, greatly aided by human stupidity. Unless we can learn from our past mistakes, we shall deserve our fate of an uncertain future, costly in lives and treasure.
1
Why Can’t We Get Cities Right? View from Abroad:
You don't see "why can't we get Paris, Toulouse , Nice right ?" in Europe.
You don't see "why can't we get Paris, Toulouse , Nice right ?" in Europe.
Paul I think you should have focused more on mass transit. That's what we've got all wrong. I used to commute from the lower Hudson valley to downtown Manhattan. With no traffic, it's drivable in slightly over a half hour; but the train commute takes 2 hours , door-to-door. That four hours a day is your life -- i.e. the difference between having one, and not. It's a disgrace. Granted, this is NJ Transit, funding for which has been decimated by Christie and co. But it's a nightmare, and that's before you even consider the environment and climate.
1
Until human life is valued above corporations - who are people too! Only in the US! - will we become a civilized nation. Right now we are a mess with real people terrified that they will be bankrupt if they become sick, or they will be forced to eat cat food if they don't have a bundled saved for retirement, yet how can we save if we must be consumers and buy, buy, buy to keep our economy going?
We elect people who cater to oligarchs' welfare and ignore the people who voted for them once they're ensconced in office.
As a country, we are slowly becoming a basket case, a basket case with a huge nuclear weapons cache.
We elect people who cater to oligarchs' welfare and ignore the people who voted for them once they're ensconced in office.
As a country, we are slowly becoming a basket case, a basket case with a huge nuclear weapons cache.
Why Can’t We Get Cities Right?
Cause they are ruled by Democrats.
Cause they are ruled by Democrats.
And defunded by Republicans.
Too. Many. People. Period.
5
Well put. Thanks.
The problem is not America as a whole, but Republicans and Republicanism. The Republican brain detests having to use that brain for anything but the bodily animal functions. The idea that one could actually plan, think scientifically, or rationally about anything, anything at all, is deeply repugnant to it. So, no connecting the dots on international policy, on economics, on climate change, on social well being. A drag on the rest of humanity.
2
Krugman knows nothing about the subject yet doesn't let that stop him from writing these absurd editorials. When he figures out how to prevent two massive high pressure areas from positioning exactly in places to prevent the movement of a tropical storm resulting in a 10,000 yr rainfall, let us know. No, it had nothing to do with global warming. Data clearly shows the intensity of storms have no correlation to sea temperatures. Second: NO, more government planning will not stop 53 inches of rain. No, there was no exploding chemical plants in Houston. ( another Krugman lie). And lastly: Krugman.. you can promote government all you want but just like massive earthquakes ( the reason SF doesn't build up) and volcanoes, you can't control events that occur once in 10,000 years.
But you can decide not to build on a sea-level swamp.
Dang, there's government again.
Dang, there's government again.
It takes centuries, possibly milleniums, to get a city right. Rome, Paris, London bear little resemblance to what they were 100 or 200 years after their founding.
1
That's what you want in earthquake prone areas...taller buildings.
I recall Obama's statements on Deepwater Horizon. "Nothing to see here move along". Complete dismissal, all under control, minimal leakage, etc. Only when the extent of the disaster became apparent (To the extent that it did. Who really knows how much oil was released in to the gulf and how many chemicals were used to try to disperse it.) did he change his tune a bit. Of curse Krugman and the Times had nothing to say beyond a scolding word or two for BP.
At least one Trump Tower in every city.
Nothing will be learned here. Red states doing the right things? Not going to happen. Freedom comes at too high a cost when a place is overpopulated. City planning in the US is a disaster and it is ugly too. I don't see this changing anytime soon.
When I go to places that are wonderfully planned and beautiful I think to myself why can't we do this in the US? The reason is that everyone wants to feel "free". Well, that freedom comes at a steep cost. Poor city planning with 0 consideration for any type of thought, design and regulation and with 0 aesthetic focus. Cost should not be the only driver of design. When it is this is what we get. Ugly, dangerous, mixed up looking cities made up of each individuals miniature cheapened fantasy of freedom.
When I go to places that are wonderfully planned and beautiful I think to myself why can't we do this in the US? The reason is that everyone wants to feel "free". Well, that freedom comes at a steep cost. Poor city planning with 0 consideration for any type of thought, design and regulation and with 0 aesthetic focus. Cost should not be the only driver of design. When it is this is what we get. Ugly, dangerous, mixed up looking cities made up of each individuals miniature cheapened fantasy of freedom.
1
Their "freedom" is a fraud. Freedumb.
1
The answer to Dr Krugman's question ought to be obvious to an economist of his stature. We can't get cities right because of greed. Whether the greed of NIMBYists or the greed of unregulated developers, it's just basic human greed, the grabbing and "protecting" of my little piece of turf. We can't get cities right because human beings, contrary to economic theory, are not "rational".
We can't get cities right because they are too big. At some point a city loses its sense of community and becomes a collection of people who happen to live there. There is no more civic pride, people stop caring, and the situation goes downhill from there.
If we want a better community we would have a central core, then smaller communities with a common purpose in a ring around the central core, with parklands in between. High speed, light rail would connect the core to the artist, high tech, health care, manufacturing, etc. communities.
People are not meant to live like rabbits in a warren. "Watership Down" was not just a cute tale about bunnies.
If we want a better community we would have a central core, then smaller communities with a common purpose in a ring around the central core, with parklands in between. High speed, light rail would connect the core to the artist, high tech, health care, manufacturing, etc. communities.
People are not meant to live like rabbits in a warren. "Watership Down" was not just a cute tale about bunnies.
Yesterday, the N Y Times had a fabulous article about how Kodak paid janitors a living wage and Apple, with all its money does not.
You think the cut throat inhumane mindset of the tech sector might just possibly have something to do with the Rents in SF ?
I bet dollars to donuts, if you go back and look at NY or CHI in the Gilded age, you will see the same problem with Rents
The problem isn't NIMBY: it is the greed of the new gilded agers
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/03/upshot/to-understand-rising-inequalit...
You think the cut throat inhumane mindset of the tech sector might just possibly have something to do with the Rents in SF ?
I bet dollars to donuts, if you go back and look at NY or CHI in the Gilded age, you will see the same problem with Rents
The problem isn't NIMBY: it is the greed of the new gilded agers
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/03/upshot/to-understand-rising-inequalit...
2
Paul,
Assuming we upzone NYC, what makes you think the results would be more housing for the middle class or the poor? We have upzoned a number of neighborhoods but this hasn't happened--rather the contrary--more gentrification, not less (think LIC, Brooklyn, now South Bronx).
The reason is simple: there are people who would like to live in NYC who cannot afford it and if you lower the price they will move here. But most of them are richer than the local average already.
Now you can set aside a portion of the upzoning for affordables, which is what NYC does. But unless you overtly or covertly restrict the affordable to long term residents, you are just subsidizing migration by poorer people.
Of course the federal govt. can limit immigration from the rest of the world, as Trump and other have advocated. But not from say, New Jersey. Or Ohio. And there are over 300 million Americans. Assume only 10% want to love here. That is 30 million. Make it 1%. That is 3 million.
So what you wind up with (at best) is a two tiered market, a free market for immigrants (external or internal) and a subsidized market for locals who need assistance.
Whether you like this or not, it is simply another form of NIMBYism. You are just substituting an over or covert residency restriction for a market based approach.
Assuming we upzone NYC, what makes you think the results would be more housing for the middle class or the poor? We have upzoned a number of neighborhoods but this hasn't happened--rather the contrary--more gentrification, not less (think LIC, Brooklyn, now South Bronx).
The reason is simple: there are people who would like to live in NYC who cannot afford it and if you lower the price they will move here. But most of them are richer than the local average already.
Now you can set aside a portion of the upzoning for affordables, which is what NYC does. But unless you overtly or covertly restrict the affordable to long term residents, you are just subsidizing migration by poorer people.
Of course the federal govt. can limit immigration from the rest of the world, as Trump and other have advocated. But not from say, New Jersey. Or Ohio. And there are over 300 million Americans. Assume only 10% want to love here. That is 30 million. Make it 1%. That is 3 million.
So what you wind up with (at best) is a two tiered market, a free market for immigrants (external or internal) and a subsidized market for locals who need assistance.
Whether you like this or not, it is simply another form of NIMBYism. You are just substituting an over or covert residency restriction for a market based approach.
Would San Francisco being prone to earthquakes preclude building up? There would probably be significant resistance on aesthetic grounds. Have you been to Vancouver recently? All the cute gingerbread craftsman houses are being torn down in favor of giant high rises.
While Chicago has taken up the vertical idea, it is a mistake to verticalize some cities. San Francisco has a character similar to Paris that manifests itself in the views over rooftops and from hills. I think some cities need to maintain their historic character.
Chicago has highly centralized mass transportation, businesses, shopping, restaurants, and entertainment (theater, sports, opera and symphony, museums) into loop area. That has worked toward building the density into a critical mass. Locals know to take public transportation and avoid the traffic buildup. Neighborhood associations try to squeeze parking spaces out of developments, encouraging tenants to go carless and use the car sharing, taxi and bike sharing services. The lack of light from street tunnels of tall buildings are also an issue that are addressed with strong neighborhood associations working with zoning and development to encourage setbacks, park development, and a narrow footprint from the tall structures.
However, the school systems in urban areas are still a problem which drives many families out. As a result, Chicago has terrible suburban sprawl, gobbling up farmland and hours of commuting time. Who deals with a problem through multiple counties? We don't have very good urban - suburban development boards and zoning to ensure sane solutions in the outskirts in the zone between suburb and exurb.
Chicago has highly centralized mass transportation, businesses, shopping, restaurants, and entertainment (theater, sports, opera and symphony, museums) into loop area. That has worked toward building the density into a critical mass. Locals know to take public transportation and avoid the traffic buildup. Neighborhood associations try to squeeze parking spaces out of developments, encouraging tenants to go carless and use the car sharing, taxi and bike sharing services. The lack of light from street tunnels of tall buildings are also an issue that are addressed with strong neighborhood associations working with zoning and development to encourage setbacks, park development, and a narrow footprint from the tall structures.
However, the school systems in urban areas are still a problem which drives many families out. As a result, Chicago has terrible suburban sprawl, gobbling up farmland and hours of commuting time. Who deals with a problem through multiple counties? We don't have very good urban - suburban development boards and zoning to ensure sane solutions in the outskirts in the zone between suburb and exurb.
2
I think you should have mentioned the probability of a earthquake in SF, as part of the problem.
Money is political power that often trumps democracy, let alone common sense. Income inequality has led to large amounts of wealth held at the top. That wealth continues to seek the best rate of return while simultaneously greasing the political skids. It seems to have easily overcome health, safety, and environmental considerations in Texas.
Billions to restore Houston to its recent glory? It seems politicians will gladly spend the money. But that will be moral hazard on steroids if some sanity isn't brought to bear. The planet is warming folks. Houston is sinking, and storm intensity will increase. We probably haven't seen the last thousand year flood on the Texas coast within our lifetimes.
Houston is rightly the current focus, but community planning issues are always present and filtered through local circumstances. If money and its corresponding political power were more fairly distributed, we'd have a better chance at more equitable and sustainable solutions.
Billions to restore Houston to its recent glory? It seems politicians will gladly spend the money. But that will be moral hazard on steroids if some sanity isn't brought to bear. The planet is warming folks. Houston is sinking, and storm intensity will increase. We probably haven't seen the last thousand year flood on the Texas coast within our lifetimes.
Houston is rightly the current focus, but community planning issues are always present and filtered through local circumstances. If money and its corresponding political power were more fairly distributed, we'd have a better chance at more equitable and sustainable solutions.
Houston has flooded throughout its history going back to the early 19th century, and yet somehow modern development is to blame?! Wetlands developed over the last 25 years would have absorbed 4 billion out of over 1 trillion gallons dropped, or less than 0.4%. And those developed lands provided affordable housing for millions of middle and working class Americans and immigrants who want the American Dream, not Cabrini-Green government high-rise housing.
5
Agreed, but maybe if man-made global warming climate change had not occurred (and is continuing to occur) the trillion gallons of water would not have rained down on Houston and surroundings. There are more factors causing flooding damage than simply where, why, and how housing is built.
2
When discussing land use regulation it's important to be clear about whether it truly promotes health and safety. I remember when attractive detention ponds started appearing around Houston, and thinking that that sort of idea would never have gotten traction based on aesthetics or "the environment."
I hope we determine the extent to which developers really did skirt impervious cover regulations. It's simply not the case that anything goes in Houston. They also spent about 1.5 billion widening and stabilizing the bayous, I think, and the town seems to drain faster than when I grew up there.
If the goal is to actually discuss policy, and not just sound off, it's important to keep in mind that zoning and regulations based on health and safety are not the same thing.
It would surprise me if any petrochemical plant has been built near an existing neighborhood since the emergency of WW II.
Texas cities have been building vertically, btw. Traffic. And those millennials people like to bash seem to have saner ideas about urban life.
I hope we determine the extent to which developers really did skirt impervious cover regulations. It's simply not the case that anything goes in Houston. They also spent about 1.5 billion widening and stabilizing the bayous, I think, and the town seems to drain faster than when I grew up there.
If the goal is to actually discuss policy, and not just sound off, it's important to keep in mind that zoning and regulations based on health and safety are not the same thing.
It would surprise me if any petrochemical plant has been built near an existing neighborhood since the emergency of WW II.
Texas cities have been building vertically, btw. Traffic. And those millennials people like to bash seem to have saner ideas about urban life.
1
How do you explain Detroit and other similar cities in the Rust Belt. Houston happens because of poor oversight and lack of comprehensive regulation. Federal politicians are tripping over themselves to ship truckloads of money to Houston in order to replenish the truckloads of belongings being hauled out of areas were houses should not have been constructed in the first place. This is a rather wasteful and expensive form of recycling. When will we ever learn.
San Francisco sits on a huge fault. I, for one, would not live in a skyscraper there.
Having said that, I agree with much of the thinking here. Especially about Houston. A horrible city without zoning laws.
As climate change turns us into dinosaurs, we need to be discussing the absence of the EPA in Houston, what coastal areas can do to move away from the water, how to stop funding reckless building. Seems to me.
Having said that, I agree with much of the thinking here. Especially about Houston. A horrible city without zoning laws.
As climate change turns us into dinosaurs, we need to be discussing the absence of the EPA in Houston, what coastal areas can do to move away from the water, how to stop funding reckless building. Seems to me.
1
I live in the Los Angeles area, which is right in the middle of this situation. Rents have become astronomical, and there are too few rent-controlled buildings. Home prices have soared, and house-buying has been made even more difficult by swarms of investors and flippers. Both groups pay cash. The investors buy houses to rent them, and the flippers buy them, cover up the flaws, and resell them at higher prices.
In downtown Los Angeles, so-called luxury condo complexes are being built literally within fifty feet of the 110 Freeway, which is one of the most congested highways in the country. In order to legally build these complexes, special heavy-duty filters must be put into the HVAC systems.
The only way to deal with this is through government regulation, which I absolutely support.
But I, too, am part of the problem. I live in a small, single family house. I couldn't even buy a house until I was fifty-nine. Now that I own one, I don't want apartment buildings being built anywhere near me. Having lived in apartments for all my adult life until I bought my house, I am well aware of the problems that come from renters. The crime situation in my neighborhood is much worse a mile to the south of my home, where there are apartment buildings aplenty.
But this is certain - unless major cities provide housing for those of us who aren't millionaires, the millionaires will have no one to do their work for them.
In downtown Los Angeles, so-called luxury condo complexes are being built literally within fifty feet of the 110 Freeway, which is one of the most congested highways in the country. In order to legally build these complexes, special heavy-duty filters must be put into the HVAC systems.
The only way to deal with this is through government regulation, which I absolutely support.
But I, too, am part of the problem. I live in a small, single family house. I couldn't even buy a house until I was fifty-nine. Now that I own one, I don't want apartment buildings being built anywhere near me. Having lived in apartments for all my adult life until I bought my house, I am well aware of the problems that come from renters. The crime situation in my neighborhood is much worse a mile to the south of my home, where there are apartment buildings aplenty.
But this is certain - unless major cities provide housing for those of us who aren't millionaires, the millionaires will have no one to do their work for them.
1
Paul, you're arguing for more dense housing and commercial units. A developer with a green veneer, and maybe more depth than that, argued for higher buildings in height restricted DC as well to achieve the moral imperative to get us out of cars. But New York City undercuts your argument that higher and denser must mean more affordable units for the average citizen...who has been pushed out of all the traditionally working class neighborhoods of New York City...Harlem coming particularly to mind as the latest...but the historical list is long...
Is this another of your "odes" to the market forces...? It seems to me that the private sector never has generated, on its own, affordable housing for the lower middle class...the closest it got was the Levittowns of the 1950's and those circumstances of abundant and cheap semi-rural land and mass production are very hard to duplicate.
I know you don't want to go there, but subsidized housing from the rent gatherings of the 1%, along the New Deal lines, has been the social democratic compromise for a private sector that won't deliver on its own.
By the way, next to the power of the federal reserve to create money or take it away, the governmental power to create $ by increasing zoning densities is the greatest gift of supposedly neutral government to the worshipped entrepreneurs who, with a little sarcasm here, make all life possible in the intellectual and moral universe of Neoliberalism.
Is this another of your "odes" to the market forces...? It seems to me that the private sector never has generated, on its own, affordable housing for the lower middle class...the closest it got was the Levittowns of the 1950's and those circumstances of abundant and cheap semi-rural land and mass production are very hard to duplicate.
I know you don't want to go there, but subsidized housing from the rent gatherings of the 1%, along the New Deal lines, has been the social democratic compromise for a private sector that won't deliver on its own.
By the way, next to the power of the federal reserve to create money or take it away, the governmental power to create $ by increasing zoning densities is the greatest gift of supposedly neutral government to the worshipped entrepreneurs who, with a little sarcasm here, make all life possible in the intellectual and moral universe of Neoliberalism.
With few exceptions what we call city is really a metropolitan area; a combination of a relatively small urban core and hundreds of little towns we call suburbs.
Zoning regulations are managed by the towns' city councils, not a metro area commission. There is something to be said about merging towns into a larger more efficient area/population city, but where's the will? Each suburb wants to protect its own character, if there is such a thing is character in a suburb. Automobile rules and there is no network of mass transit. Buses and rail (when exists) connects suburbs to core, not between suburbs.
Until we acknowledge the problem exists, we won't look for solutions.
Zoning regulations are managed by the towns' city councils, not a metro area commission. There is something to be said about merging towns into a larger more efficient area/population city, but where's the will? Each suburb wants to protect its own character, if there is such a thing is character in a suburb. Automobile rules and there is no network of mass transit. Buses and rail (when exists) connects suburbs to core, not between suburbs.
Until we acknowledge the problem exists, we won't look for solutions.
1
Your comment confirms my belief that most people are selfish.
So, with the twisted approach of gutted governance, many people will succumb to industrial poisons released and not tracked in this unchecked growth area. Congratulations trump voters, I do believe we have finally achieved banana republic status.
4
Feel all better now? Houston was on its trajectory long before Trump, as was BTW San Francisco.
My point exactly. This trajectory now enters the trump zone, where a gutted government offers hollow hope.
@Gary: And you think any occupant of the White House was going to interfere with the progressive shining city on the hill - San Francisco?
The answer was and is no.
The answer was and is no.
Denver's population has doubled in the last 20 years. We have built both up and out, as well as turned abandoned warehouses into housing. There have been no improvements in public transit, however, and traffic issues have resulted. Plus, Denver relies on snowpack for its water supplies. A couple of drought years, and the City will be in trouble. The population increase has resulted in more restaurants, arts and culture, but at some point, city leader need to say enough; this is not sustainable.
2
One reason this happened in Houston, is probably because of the desire for deregulation and therefore zoning. The South typically has much less zoning than the North. And even in the North, I would not say they would successfully put in place zoning to avoid this type of catastrophic flooding. I recall reading a Op-Ed by David Brooks and he noted the same lack of zoning in the South. If someone had taken heed of the reports mentioned in Blow's article and incorporated the findings into zoning regulations, perhaps some damage could be mitigated.
Perhaps the solution is a better transportation system. Self-driving cars, combined with much improved mass transit, holds the possibility of improving urban life.
In this moment of time, many young and affluent people have a preference for urban living. When these people have families, many will want the less crowded, less expensive, and more time efficient life offered by suburban living.
In this moment of time, many young and affluent people have a preference for urban living. When these people have families, many will want the less crowded, less expensive, and more time efficient life offered by suburban living.
I once served as a volunteer member of Portland's Pedestrian Advisory Committee. We had input but no veto power over prospective building projects.
It was dismaying to see that even in Portland, a city known for friendliness to non-automotive transportation, builders were planning commercial and residential projects that were centered entirely on automobile access and made no allowances for pedestrians, cyclists, or transit. The worst case was a commercial development that was literally within a few hundred feet of a major MAX (light rail) station that is now served by three lines. The plans had no provision for pedestrian access.
Here in Minneapolis and St. Paul, I have noticed that "improvements" to affluent neighborhoods consist of making them more village-like, with off-street parking behind the stores, street furniture, and storefronts directly on the sidewalk. "Improvements" to poor neighborhoods consist of tearing down existing buildings, replacing them with a huge, bleak asphalt parking lot that is like the plains of Siberia in the winter, and plunking a big box store (or three or four) down in the middle of it. The people least able to afford driving are forced to do it the most.
I have often said that the key to effective planning would be to force all urban planners and builders to live without a car for six months. Onerous? Yes, but a lot of people do live without a car or would like to, and they are the forgotten Americans.
It was dismaying to see that even in Portland, a city known for friendliness to non-automotive transportation, builders were planning commercial and residential projects that were centered entirely on automobile access and made no allowances for pedestrians, cyclists, or transit. The worst case was a commercial development that was literally within a few hundred feet of a major MAX (light rail) station that is now served by three lines. The plans had no provision for pedestrian access.
Here in Minneapolis and St. Paul, I have noticed that "improvements" to affluent neighborhoods consist of making them more village-like, with off-street parking behind the stores, street furniture, and storefronts directly on the sidewalk. "Improvements" to poor neighborhoods consist of tearing down existing buildings, replacing them with a huge, bleak asphalt parking lot that is like the plains of Siberia in the winter, and plunking a big box store (or three or four) down in the middle of it. The people least able to afford driving are forced to do it the most.
I have often said that the key to effective planning would be to force all urban planners and builders to live without a car for six months. Onerous? Yes, but a lot of people do live without a car or would like to, and they are the forgotten Americans.
8
What's missing in this discussion about the lack of regulation in Houston is the simple recognition of what 50 inches of rain will do to any place in our Nation. I would submit that regulation and controls would have had little positive affect in this case - Houston was simply overwhelmed with water.
2
Inevitably, new housing developments will be encroaching on your neighbourhoods. They will impede your ocean views; destroy your wetlands, forests and parks; add further congestion and gridlock to your roads; less breathable air. And all of the aforementioned, doesn't even take into account the added industrial waste that will be created to accommodate the increased number of residential inhabitants.
And who would argue that sounder urban planning policies, improved public transportation and increased environmental management won't be to the benefit of us all?
But all of the above will provide nothing more than temporary relief without taking into account the country's (and the world's) rising population which is the greatest threat to the planet's well-being.
And who would argue that sounder urban planning policies, improved public transportation and increased environmental management won't be to the benefit of us all?
But all of the above will provide nothing more than temporary relief without taking into account the country's (and the world's) rising population which is the greatest threat to the planet's well-being.
2
Houston has been run by developers since the allen brothers.
2
Telecommuting?
2
If one wants to live in a European city, move to Europe. People who are happy to rent live in high density areas well served by public transportation. Consequently, the ability to provide for energy efficient recycling and low cost water and sewer infrastructure, as well as convenient public spaces, is increased.
Americans prefer to own their tax-subsidized, excessively large suburban homes. Urban sprawl is an American phenomenon, which leads to housing and related infrastructure located in areas that really were not good for either. Developers might build "whatever they want, wherever they want," but, as movie pointed out, if you build it, they will come (except in white, "liberal" upper middle class areas in which the use of "zoning" to restrict affordable housing is the way to go).
Americans prefer to own their tax-subsidized, excessively large suburban homes. Urban sprawl is an American phenomenon, which leads to housing and related infrastructure located in areas that really were not good for either. Developers might build "whatever they want, wherever they want," but, as movie pointed out, if you build it, they will come (except in white, "liberal" upper middle class areas in which the use of "zoning" to restrict affordable housing is the way to go).
2
One thing missing about San Francisco's NIMBYism (or rather ethos in this case) is that it will save thousands of lives and keep the city habitable when the next quake strikes. San Francisco is forcing owners of soft story apartment buildings (a building design that is prone to collapse in an earthquake and very very common all over the city, think Loma Prieta) to earthquake retrofit their buildings. Which can range from $100K to $0.75M, depending on the complexity.
The City is forcing existing property owners to plan for the next disaster, something that would be laughable in Houston. Later this month buildings that have yet to have permits pulled will get a a sign plastered on them that they are unsafe.
San Francisco may not be building enough market rate apartments, but they are making sure the ones they have survive. Many many lives and homes will be saved.
Now if they could just start building normal apartments rather than high end condos at a higher clip...
The City is forcing existing property owners to plan for the next disaster, something that would be laughable in Houston. Later this month buildings that have yet to have permits pulled will get a a sign plastered on them that they are unsafe.
San Francisco may not be building enough market rate apartments, but they are making sure the ones they have survive. Many many lives and homes will be saved.
Now if they could just start building normal apartments rather than high end condos at a higher clip...
10
"Now if they could just start building normal apartments rather than high end condos at a higher clip..." That misses the point entirely. While it's a good idea to prepare for a potential future disaster as best as possible by retrofitting buildings, no one is going to "just start building [less expensive] apartments" until somehow the supply of housing begins to catch up with demand. Further, modern building construction, assuming its done properly, will always be superior to retrofits, so rather than forcing building owners to try to "earthquake-proof" buildings, SF could loosen zoning restrictions which will allow developers to build new and safer while also adding to the supply of housing. Dr. Krugman is 100% right in his article. The goal is to find ways to build as much housing as is necessary while also properly planning infrastructure and disaster readiness to handle the increased development.
Band-aids on a broken arm.
But if it makes you feel better...
But if it makes you feel better...
There is a theory that building new highways will reduce traffic congestion. In practice, however, building a new road increases traffic to the limits of human tolerance. When it gets to be too much, people will take public transit.
I own a house in Oakland, a half-hour bus ride across the Bay from San Francisco. It takes longer (and costs more) to drive. The value of my little house is obscene, but it was overpriced 20 years ago when i bought it, after 25 years of saving in a high-rent area.
The point is, I don't want the value of my estate to be diminished by taxing me to build affordable housing that makes congestion worse. No matter where you live, rich people will always be able too outbid you for housing.
The fix is to level income with progressive taxes. Then, things will level out.
I own a house in Oakland, a half-hour bus ride across the Bay from San Francisco. It takes longer (and costs more) to drive. The value of my little house is obscene, but it was overpriced 20 years ago when i bought it, after 25 years of saving in a high-rent area.
The point is, I don't want the value of my estate to be diminished by taxing me to build affordable housing that makes congestion worse. No matter where you live, rich people will always be able too outbid you for housing.
The fix is to level income with progressive taxes. Then, things will level out.
3
"I don't want the value of my estate to be diminished by taxing me..."
Scratch a Bay-area progressive deep enough and you will find a Libertarian.
Scratch a Bay-area progressive deep enough and you will find a Libertarian.
this house is 45 years of my life. it's not personal Sonny. it's strictly business.
Here's a possible explanation for the lower cost of real estate in Chicago compared to other cities: Way fewer buyers arrive in town with money in their pockets. Cities that are magnets for people with elite educations also attract more people who have low (or no) student debt and who often have families who can help them out with beginning costs and even with down payments. Couple the advantage of family money with a well paying job such as you find in cities with robust tech and finance sectors and you have high rents and real estate costs. In Chicago, by contrast, you find tens of thousands of Big Ten graduates who presumably arrive with a negative net worth, so even with good salaries, they can't bid up the market.
So here's a plug for my hometown: You want to live in an exciting city with good jobs, but you also want a good chance for middle class life, move to the 312 (or 773).
So here's a plug for my hometown: You want to live in an exciting city with good jobs, but you also want a good chance for middle class life, move to the 312 (or 773).
3
A modest suggestion: Try something that has been working for the last 60 years or so in, of all places, parts of Manhattan.
It only had a chance here because it started when "everyone" (including most economists who bothered to comment) "knew" NYC was spiraling towards ruin. Middle Income co-op housing, underwritten by the City or State, but spearheaded by church groups, non-profits, and unions, was constructed. A government entity provided the mortgage, eminent domain was used, and there were some "subsidies" (such as where I live: the property tax is at the same rate as for single family dwellings, instead of at the higher multiple family rate.) When one bought shares in the co-op, one agreed to sell them back for essentially the same price when one moved out..
Once built, the complexes had to stand on their own. Most pundits predicted failure. They all have done quite well, thank you, with monthly maintenance charges usually under $1,000 and new people replacing the aging original Co-operators. None have gone under and infrastructure upkeep is probably better than Market Apartments. The only problem was that in the mid '70s politically connected developers saw the market starting to turn and took over. New construction became rental, which became market priced eventually.
Thousands of middle class families still live and prosper in these Co-ops. So we know how to do it. It just takes some will and integrity.
It only had a chance here because it started when "everyone" (including most economists who bothered to comment) "knew" NYC was spiraling towards ruin. Middle Income co-op housing, underwritten by the City or State, but spearheaded by church groups, non-profits, and unions, was constructed. A government entity provided the mortgage, eminent domain was used, and there were some "subsidies" (such as where I live: the property tax is at the same rate as for single family dwellings, instead of at the higher multiple family rate.) When one bought shares in the co-op, one agreed to sell them back for essentially the same price when one moved out..
Once built, the complexes had to stand on their own. Most pundits predicted failure. They all have done quite well, thank you, with monthly maintenance charges usually under $1,000 and new people replacing the aging original Co-operators. None have gone under and infrastructure upkeep is probably better than Market Apartments. The only problem was that in the mid '70s politically connected developers saw the market starting to turn and took over. New construction became rental, which became market priced eventually.
Thousands of middle class families still live and prosper in these Co-ops. So we know how to do it. It just takes some will and integrity.
8
'Oh please' asks why people in the Midwest prefer to live in single-family homes, when they never spent time in the space outside the house and engage in only perfunctory maintenance around the garden. That misses the point. Americans buy houses separated from their neighbors because they don't want the contact that a condo or apartment would require: negotiating common social graces, considering the feelings of people with whom one shares space. Our 'rugged individualism' necessitates ever more sprawl, longer commutes, greater reliance on cars and the impervious parking at larger stores. Until we become a society rather than a collection of beans in a jar we will continue to see Houstons with greater and greater frequency.
7
NIMBYism is definitely a problem where I live. But most cities in California prefer retail development over new housing, because nonresidential property owners generally pay higher taxes. That is a big contributor to the housing shortage in the Bay Area and LA. One potential silver lining of the sharp drop-off of brick and mortar retail: cities may have to accept more housing to keep tax collections flowing.
1
We focus on the immediate (e.g. management of urban land) without ever addressing the issue from which many other problems originate. Until we address the human population trend, we will find no answers for affordable rentals, immigration, climate change, trade agreements, border disputes, jobs, addiction, water pollution, fishery collapses, viral epidemics, and on. We try to address each one as a separate issue without getting at the primary cause.
War should not be the answer, but inevitably ...
War should not be the answer, but inevitably ...
4
The Bay Area's problem, much like Houston's problem is not development policy so much as too many people. San Francisco is already 100% clogged. If you build more, no one can move around.
Nevertheless the "liberal" Bay Area IS encouraging development, in fact mandating it, but in outlying areas. In those areas, the developers do get to build wherever they like, just like in Houston. In fact in the Sacramento River Delta, a bedroom area for both the Bay Area and Sacramento, new homes are built below 19th century hardly maintained levees. In "liberal" California, we still are careful to privatize profit while passing risk on to the taxpayer -- the party responsible for damages if the levees break.
Development is like a metastasized cancer -- at first it just starts a tumor, pushing out what was there before, but as it grows, it needs ever more blood and nutrient supply, arteries and capillaries, producing ever more toxins, until eventually it hogs everything in sight, and finally cannot be sustained, killing the host.
Nevertheless the "liberal" Bay Area IS encouraging development, in fact mandating it, but in outlying areas. In those areas, the developers do get to build wherever they like, just like in Houston. In fact in the Sacramento River Delta, a bedroom area for both the Bay Area and Sacramento, new homes are built below 19th century hardly maintained levees. In "liberal" California, we still are careful to privatize profit while passing risk on to the taxpayer -- the party responsible for damages if the levees break.
Development is like a metastasized cancer -- at first it just starts a tumor, pushing out what was there before, but as it grows, it needs ever more blood and nutrient supply, arteries and capillaries, producing ever more toxins, until eventually it hogs everything in sight, and finally cannot be sustained, killing the host.
10
San Francisco has like 1/2 the population density of New York and even less that of the big European cities. Your casual statement that it is 100% clogged is classic nimbyism: "Never mind the facts, don't even try to build here. You should instead try to bid up the price of my house to $2 million." Or be forced to live in dangerous places like the flood zones of the Sac. delta. Which, from the sound of your statement, you would be ready to ban next - indeed, ban all "development" - so that there is no alternative but to bid up your house to $3 million.
San Francisco was 100% clogged when I lived there 45 years ago.
Lots of clean living available up yonder in the Triple W.
Wilton, Weston, and Westport, AKA, White, Wealthy,
and Well educated.
But In hear the state of CT wants to build a wall along the Byram River in PortChester. So come on up while you still can.
Wilton, Weston, and Westport, AKA, White, Wealthy,
and Well educated.
But In hear the state of CT wants to build a wall along the Byram River in PortChester. So come on up while you still can.
Unfortunately a good portion of the nation is controlled by about 20 states with less than 10% of the population. Population density and the need for room to build is not an issue for them. They have no people. So federal help or guidance is not on the way. Immense profit and regulatory capture has destroyed the Houston's of the nation. Arrogance and bigotry with over regulation has led in the opposite direction in places like SF. So as the good doctor says, both sides are wrong. Greed, regulatory capture and both market and government failure are present. One solution, recidivist disaster cities and states get no Federal subsidy after the event recedes . Obviously you can't let the people die during the disaster but you don't have to subsidize their behavior by helping them to rebuild. The NIMVBY states, I have no answer. Their evil is usually much more pernicious, mostly driven by racism/classism. Going up is the right approach, but then you block the view of a rich many who overpaid for a house just so he could see Alcatraz. Perhaps it solves itself. When the people who do the real work(janitors, maids, policemen, building engineers) leave because they refuse to commute 4 hours a day and a pencil neck geek computer engineer has to clean the toilets things will change. Until then, who knows.
3
Cities are full of THOSE people. You know, not lily- white, not straight, not even upright, uptight, Bible thumpers. Not REAL Americans. It's a geographical Sodom and Gomorrah. Or both. Yikes.
Excellent point about elevators. They allowed the birth of skyscrapers, in a very practical way. A hundred years old, and still the wave of the future.
Personally, I can hardly wait to retire. And move to Seattle. In an elevator building.
Excellent point about elevators. They allowed the birth of skyscrapers, in a very practical way. A hundred years old, and still the wave of the future.
Personally, I can hardly wait to retire. And move to Seattle. In an elevator building.
5
Cities would be fantastic places if there were only retires with no cars living there. Elevators are not the wave of the future if people need to get cross town to work. Then you need horizontal infrastructure. NYC barely limps along on what it has, and there's either no room for more or it's too expensive. There is a saturation point, and NYC has reached it. Maybe Seattle hasn't. Good luck.
It's difficult to build a better planned city when no one can agree on a vision however I think most logical well-meaning people can agree on few things.
1. Establish and enforce zoning laws
2. Avoid building hazardous industry next to residential
3. Reduce the political power of developers
4. Avoid risky behavior that jeopardizes infrastructure and drinking water (e.g. fracking in San Fransisco around the fault line comes to mind)
1. Establish and enforce zoning laws
2. Avoid building hazardous industry next to residential
3. Reduce the political power of developers
4. Avoid risky behavior that jeopardizes infrastructure and drinking water (e.g. fracking in San Fransisco around the fault line comes to mind)
8
well, it is clear that you don't understand san francisco. everything you say is true. but that is the appeal. as a former 30 year resident i think i can use the term "we". so here "we" go. we did not allow rampant construction of high rises. starting in the early 80s restrictions were put in place by mayor feinstein. at every turn and in every neighborhood san francisco has fought to remain beautiful. the reason it appeals is that it didn't tear down t's old residential housing stock when that was in style.... so we have entire neighborhoods of beautiful victorians. in downtown, preservation of older architecture has left us with many beautiful old office buildings..... in both cases we resisted what ever the developers and architects were peddling and came out the better for it. now however the skyline is crowded with steel and glass towers and tech hipsters are in charge. i am not sure this self-absorbed group is going to carry the torch further.... when you ride the google bus with your face in your phone? you probably don't care.
9
I hate the word NIMBY. Here, to my mind, is a great definition of NIMBY: a derogatory term used by people who live far away, or are not effected by, something to belittle the protests of those in its immediate vicinity who will feel the adverse effects. There should be a similarly negative acronym for the people who want to shove something unpalatable down the throats of others and take away their rights to further some personal agenda.
Also, may I say "Good on ya, NYT!" for not "correcting" NIMBY to Niimby.
Also, may I say "Good on ya, NYT!" for not "correcting" NIMBY to Niimby.
3
Houston's road system acted like gulches transporting water directly to everyones driveway and living room. They and many American city planners need to find their inner-Archimedes. They need an El train transportation system coupled with flood mitigation which includes effective wetland management.
Zoning Baby Zoning.
As for San Francisico I agree with many comments here and not with Mr Krugman, geography is destiny. San Francisco is on a peninsula with active fault lines building up is not prudent. They also could benefit from a better transportation system, high speed rail lines so folks don't have long commutes from areas off the peninsula. Speed Baby Speed.
When the Dutch sailed into the Hudson many centuries ago they understood immediately its worth, a gift from the gods.... a protected harbor. But that gift can not be abused without suffering dire consequences. The massive JFK airport complex was once called Idlewild for a reason, LaGuardia use to be called the Marine terminal, Aquaduct Race track tells its real purpose by its name as does many place names around the city. When you stand under Hells Gate Crossing in Astoria Park you can see the currents from the two estuaries paths in the East River collide in a swirling madness, they are telling us to be both cautious and humble of Mother Nature.
Zoning Baby Zoning.
As for San Francisico I agree with many comments here and not with Mr Krugman, geography is destiny. San Francisco is on a peninsula with active fault lines building up is not prudent. They also could benefit from a better transportation system, high speed rail lines so folks don't have long commutes from areas off the peninsula. Speed Baby Speed.
When the Dutch sailed into the Hudson many centuries ago they understood immediately its worth, a gift from the gods.... a protected harbor. But that gift can not be abused without suffering dire consequences. The massive JFK airport complex was once called Idlewild for a reason, LaGuardia use to be called the Marine terminal, Aquaduct Race track tells its real purpose by its name as does many place names around the city. When you stand under Hells Gate Crossing in Astoria Park you can see the currents from the two estuaries paths in the East River collide in a swirling madness, they are telling us to be both cautious and humble of Mother Nature.
11
The answer is not open borders for sure and I don't believe that tying the hand of the President is the an answer either . Distracting the president with frivolous attacks from his mission will destroy the country in order to elect an HRC look alike in four years. We need to focus on jobs ,infrastructure tax reliefs Subsidies for people to live in the cities makes rents high for the rest of us There is
No right to that one has to live in NY or SF Fast trains are all over Europe and Asia but we need the will and the money Better trade deals with the rest of word and needless govermant intrference might give us the money needed . How can a Noble Prize winner be so wrong on everything?
No right to that one has to live in NY or SF Fast trains are all over Europe and Asia but we need the will and the money Better trade deals with the rest of word and needless govermant intrference might give us the money needed . How can a Noble Prize winner be so wrong on everything?
Trump is tying his own hands by making big statements and claims without doing the hard work of dealing with the Congress and the people to actually make them happen (see, for example, the repeal and replacement of Obamacare). As for jobs, infrastructure, and tax relief, Trump's desires in these areas benefit the wealthy, not the people you and others are thinking of.
And it's Nobel Prize, not Noble Prize.
And it's Nobel Prize, not Noble Prize.
Start by doing some checking out, like a dictionary. You can't make comments about people being "so wrong" when you spell it Noble instead of Nobel.
As for this "president", he is tying up his own hands, because he has two left ones. And calling him out on all the stupid things he says and does is not frivolous; it's the height of sanity. His mission is the greatest glory of Donald Trump, no matter who gets trampled.
I agree that we need to focus on jobs, infrastructure and tax relief (for the middle class), but he focuses on supporting white supremacists and lies about how many illegals voted against him. It's not subsidies that make for high rents but the unrestricted development of ultra luxury apartments in high rises for foreigners, who occupy them a quarter of the year, instead of building sane housing for the middle class. As for "needless government interference", there wasn't any such interference in Houston, so they built chemical plants next to high schools on a flood plain. Look at the results.
As for this "president", he is tying up his own hands, because he has two left ones. And calling him out on all the stupid things he says and does is not frivolous; it's the height of sanity. His mission is the greatest glory of Donald Trump, no matter who gets trampled.
I agree that we need to focus on jobs, infrastructure and tax relief (for the middle class), but he focuses on supporting white supremacists and lies about how many illegals voted against him. It's not subsidies that make for high rents but the unrestricted development of ultra luxury apartments in high rises for foreigners, who occupy them a quarter of the year, instead of building sane housing for the middle class. As for "needless government interference", there wasn't any such interference in Houston, so they built chemical plants next to high schools on a flood plain. Look at the results.
1
"Open borders"? Not SF's problem, and while you might consider it to be Houston's, I'd call it a distortion since cheap housing and consequently (?) a (formerly) booming economy were considered a positive by the urban sprawlers...
"Frivolous attacks"? They'll stop when the frivolous (and dangerous) tweets (and policies) stop, which is to say never...
"Fast trains"? Umm... firstly restricting international trade might not produce the wealth you expect it to (quite the contrary). And what makes you think ANY of that money would go to public infrastructure when all the evidence demonstrates the opposite? (Amtrak cuts, broken infrastructure promises, etc...)
And finally, it's Nobel, not "noble". While that may be a simple spelling error it is also an accurate reflection of the muddled and wishful thinking in the comment.
"Frivolous attacks"? They'll stop when the frivolous (and dangerous) tweets (and policies) stop, which is to say never...
"Fast trains"? Umm... firstly restricting international trade might not produce the wealth you expect it to (quite the contrary). And what makes you think ANY of that money would go to public infrastructure when all the evidence demonstrates the opposite? (Amtrak cuts, broken infrastructure promises, etc...)
And finally, it's Nobel, not "noble". While that may be a simple spelling error it is also an accurate reflection of the muddled and wishful thinking in the comment.
No policy is in keeping with concrete dreams and land grabs.
As Joni Mitchell sang:
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
With a pink hotel, a boutique
And a swinging hot spot
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got til its gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
As Joni Mitchell sang:
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
With a pink hotel, a boutique
And a swinging hot spot
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got til its gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
4
And his idiocy thinks hugging a few black kids redeems him from his white supremacy...no way.
I found his visit to the flood areas nauseating. And why does Melania even bother to go? To make a fashion statement? Flood chic?
We need to wake up from this national nightmare and have a country as usual again.
I found his visit to the flood areas nauseating. And why does Melania even bother to go? To make a fashion statement? Flood chic?
We need to wake up from this national nightmare and have a country as usual again.
5
@Arya: I haven't seen many pics of Trump and Houston kids, but the one I have seen is him picking up one like a sack of potatoes, holding the kid away from him and giving a quick, "I have to do this for the cameras" air peck on the cheek. It WAS nauseating....and, I think, especially for Trump. I'm sure he took a long, hot shower on Air Force One.
I used to have sympathy for Melania. I don't any more. I wish, for Barron's sake, she'd leave Trump.
I used to have sympathy for Melania. I don't any more. I wish, for Barron's sake, she'd leave Trump.
1
Every big city has problems. In the Nashville area transportation is a mess, especially now that they're packing extra houses onto lots in the areas close to the city center. People who have lived in their homes for years and don't want to move are seeing monstrosities rising around them.
So what's the main cause of trouble, no matter what kind?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
So what's the main cause of trouble, no matter what kind?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
6
The reason we can get cities right is regulation. People - especially builders and city fathers who like tax income - hate regulation. They don't care if they are covering every square inch of land with concrete while ignoring drainage issues. They just want to build and sell and increase property taxes.
We discussed Houston in particular 35 years ago in my real property class in law school. We saw this sort of mess coming, but no one would listen. We saw it coming 35 years ago!
And now we can't "undo" Houston or any other city. We can't reconstruct what's already there, unless we can find a way to turn it into a profitable enterprise that increases real estate taxes.
I for one get the feeling that we have allowed unplanned growth to twist the entire country into a knot, politically and in reality.
We discussed Houston in particular 35 years ago in my real property class in law school. We saw this sort of mess coming, but no one would listen. We saw it coming 35 years ago!
And now we can't "undo" Houston or any other city. We can't reconstruct what's already there, unless we can find a way to turn it into a profitable enterprise that increases real estate taxes.
I for one get the feeling that we have allowed unplanned growth to twist the entire country into a knot, politically and in reality.
6
Why not build up in San Francisco? For one thing, the ground is kinda shaky. It straddles the San Andreas fault.
10
Well, I've commented enough on Krugman's wanderings into urban planning. I've even identified myself as a civil engineer so my comments might carry some weight. He knows that if you build up, many more will need ground transportation to get around. In New York, the sidewalks are in gridlock, so even feet don't work. Yet, he's bringing up the elevator solution again. He seems to live in this fantasy world where efficient horizontal people management can be achieved by waving some magic wand. Well, we're not the Jetsons. We can't fly around between buildings in our personal size space ships.
Quality of life for people in urban areas is important, but Paul prefers his graphs showing flat housing prices in Houston because cheap houses can pop up like mushrooms, while prices in places like San Francisco escalate due to supply and demand. Well, I recently drove through Houston, and people sit on Interstate 10 like it's a parking lot. Sprawl with gridlock in the middle of nowhere. Even if Houston were high enough to stay dry, what kind of life is that?
I agree we need solutions, but elevators in already congested cities is not it. We need major investment in horizontal transportation systems.
Quality of life for people in urban areas is important, but Paul prefers his graphs showing flat housing prices in Houston because cheap houses can pop up like mushrooms, while prices in places like San Francisco escalate due to supply and demand. Well, I recently drove through Houston, and people sit on Interstate 10 like it's a parking lot. Sprawl with gridlock in the middle of nowhere. Even if Houston were high enough to stay dry, what kind of life is that?
I agree we need solutions, but elevators in already congested cities is not it. We need major investment in horizontal transportation systems.
8
The internet and telecommuting far surpass the production of elevators. The technology and sociology of today's online retail market are perfectly capable to serving vast portions of commercial activity. Manufacturing and the servicing of machines are really the only activities that can't be "networked".
One possible scheme might be for companies to reimburse employees for the time and expense of their commutes but to strictly control such expenses where there is no alternative. On the surface this might seem like a reduction in pay but the reality would be a reduction in the cost to commute or, even more significantly, the extra cost to live within commuting distance. I can't imagine that enlightened tax policy couldn't be devised to promote these practices to achieve an all around win-win.
One possible scheme might be for companies to reimburse employees for the time and expense of their commutes but to strictly control such expenses where there is no alternative. On the surface this might seem like a reduction in pay but the reality would be a reduction in the cost to commute or, even more significantly, the extra cost to live within commuting distance. I can't imagine that enlightened tax policy couldn't be devised to promote these practices to achieve an all around win-win.
"Sprawl with gridlock in the middle of nowhere. Even if Houston were high enough to stay dry, what kind of life is that?"
You've obviously never talked to a Houstonian. They think it's a great life, that Houston is a wonderful city, and that Texas is the best place in the world to live.
You've obviously never talked to a Houstonian. They think it's a great life, that Houston is a wonderful city, and that Texas is the best place in the world to live.
And we won't get good horizontal transportation until we get people out of cars in high density locations. We have a reasonably decent public transportation system in DC despite all of the grumbling. Last year one line on the subway shut down for a day. There are so many government workers from the Maryland suburbs who use that particular line that the federal government shut down for the day as well.
Let's try this one: Don' t build; Re-build!
Light'n up the regulations on the tried n' true, and leave the open spaces open. There's never a one, true answer, but more an emphasis on re-building is a significant part of the answer.
Light'n up the regulations on the tried n' true, and leave the open spaces open. There's never a one, true answer, but more an emphasis on re-building is a significant part of the answer.
1
A bullet train from Fresno to the Bay Area is in the planning stages, even if the state of California has to pay for all of it. The commute would be 45 minutes. The Republican mayor of Fresno loves it and has asked the Trump administration to support it.
Island communities served by high speed rail with lots of green space in between is another viable model.
Island communities served by high speed rail with lots of green space in between is another viable model.
4
Dr Krugman--want to know what your problem is? You demand perfection in an imperfect world. We're never going to get urban policy right and all the editorial complaining on the OP ED section isn't going to change that. It just doesn't work.
Besides throughout our history (before it's completely rewritten) almost every major American city suffered through an epic disaster. Chicago was burned to the ground by a fire. San Francisco was leveled by a massive earthquake. New Orleans and New York suffered complete devastation by Hurricanes Katrina and Super Storm Sandy respectively. Yet somehow we survive, sift through the wreckage and rebuild. That's what's already happening in Houston. People are slowly returning to their homes to salvage what's left of their possessions in order to start all over again.
I can't believe that Dr Krugman thinks the best solution to a problem that defies a resolution is to build an effective mass transit system. Oh don't make me laugh. Thanks to our quirky geography the Rockaways lost subway service for almost a year. The peninsula was cut off from the rest of the city And next year the L train connecting Brooklyn to Manhattan has to be shut down for post-Sandy repairs. There's a very different world outside of Manhattan. It's no Utopia that's for sure!!!
Besides throughout our history (before it's completely rewritten) almost every major American city suffered through an epic disaster. Chicago was burned to the ground by a fire. San Francisco was leveled by a massive earthquake. New Orleans and New York suffered complete devastation by Hurricanes Katrina and Super Storm Sandy respectively. Yet somehow we survive, sift through the wreckage and rebuild. That's what's already happening in Houston. People are slowly returning to their homes to salvage what's left of their possessions in order to start all over again.
I can't believe that Dr Krugman thinks the best solution to a problem that defies a resolution is to build an effective mass transit system. Oh don't make me laugh. Thanks to our quirky geography the Rockaways lost subway service for almost a year. The peninsula was cut off from the rest of the city And next year the L train connecting Brooklyn to Manhattan has to be shut down for post-Sandy repairs. There's a very different world outside of Manhattan. It's no Utopia that's for sure!!!
1
I have to ask, why the rebuild? Why on earth would you create the same knowing that within your lifetime it will happen again? Why are we funding this madness? No insurance, didn't buy insurance? No worries, FEMA will take care of it.
Take care of the humans and livestock. Absolutely yes. But the concept of rebuild in not only a flood zone but a toxic waste zone... that's nuts. If that's the plan, then build at your own risk and leave me out of it.
We need to recognize that our shorelines are not the lines of our grandparents. That would be the first step in getting our cities right.
Take care of the humans and livestock. Absolutely yes. But the concept of rebuild in not only a flood zone but a toxic waste zone... that's nuts. If that's the plan, then build at your own risk and leave me out of it.
We need to recognize that our shorelines are not the lines of our grandparents. That would be the first step in getting our cities right.
2
Hey Dr. Krugman, what do you think NYC would have been like if Sandy had been a Cat 3 and dumped 50 inches of rain in 2 days?? Yeah, you're a real genius on urban policy.
"I’ve got a degree from Trump University you might want to buy".
I'd buy that for a dollar. Seriously, I offer one dollar. Probably it comes in a frame that can be reused for something else and I can toss the degree. But don't overcharge for shipping.
I'd buy that for a dollar. Seriously, I offer one dollar. Probably it comes in a frame that can be reused for something else and I can toss the degree. But don't overcharge for shipping.
3
Public transportation and birth control...
Here in Chicago our founding fathers kept the lake shore open in a huge park that extends the city. So housing on the lake is rare in Chicago proper. That gives us a great buffer when the lake rises and it gives a great natural water absorption system in the years of high rainfall. Did the forefathers foresee this? Perhaps but more they foresaw an open space for the people to enjoy. When you live along water for your entire life yo come to respect it's great power. Houston is one of those cities with outsiders moving in and in their selfishness want ocean view property. They would build there as they have no respect for the power of water nor any understanding of the power of weather. I guess they had to learn the hard way.
Yeah laugh at Chicago all you want and listen to the propaganda about how they waste or steal our tax money but our sewers work, our transportation works, we have parks with open land everywhere, and our city works and though we have our problems exacerbated by the callous abandonment of the American people by the International Corporations masquerading as American companies, we will work to solve the human problems which are our greatest challenge. Water and weather we have nothing but respect for..
Yeah laugh at Chicago all you want and listen to the propaganda about how they waste or steal our tax money but our sewers work, our transportation works, we have parks with open land everywhere, and our city works and though we have our problems exacerbated by the callous abandonment of the American people by the International Corporations masquerading as American companies, we will work to solve the human problems which are our greatest challenge. Water and weather we have nothing but respect for..
2
An electoral minority voted for deregulation and Herr Trump obliged by signing one Executive Order after another removing all safety valves that we had to protect us from greed and abuse. This, together with a stubborn refusal to accept the scientific fact of climate change has doomed us to endless Houstons to come. Someday we'll learn; but by then, it'll be too late.
2
Trump is an obvious symptom, and truly awful.
The real disease are the voters that still rally for him.
They could make our Republic sick enough to kill it.
The real disease are the voters that still rally for him.
They could make our Republic sick enough to kill it.
Please add the planning and development of mass transportation to the list. Mass transit horizontally is certainly as important as vertically (the elevator).
2
...simply Dr. K, we, as a people, value the wrong things ...
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/thank-you-wendell-berry-rick-karcich-pe
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/thank-you-wendell-berry-rick-karcich-pe
SF's nimbyism is all that stands between a unique and uniquely beautiful city and ... Manhattan. Should they build higher and denser buildings inVenice or Florence? A high rise apartment complex next to the Duomo? When you're a hammer everything looks like a nail, and when you're an economist, apparently aesthetics don't concern you much. Places of unusual beauty become expensive in a capitalist system, and they may become boring (soho!) as a result, but better to preserve than destroy forever. wasn't the teleconference and the internet supposed to make commuting a thing if the past?
3
There can be no right way to develop a modern hi-rise, vehicle-infested megacity. It's simply the most unnatural way to live that people have yet devised.
Aside from the typical density, economic, supply, waste/water/sewer/air/noise/transportation/greenspace/greed/crime/housing/societal disease issues, they will always be a blackout, outbreak or other disaster away from utter & complete chaos & potential mass death.
It's just too unnaturally concentrated of a settlement for something to not go catastrophically wrong.
Aside from the typical density, economic, supply, waste/water/sewer/air/noise/transportation/greenspace/greed/crime/housing/societal disease issues, they will always be a blackout, outbreak or other disaster away from utter & complete chaos & potential mass death.
It's just too unnaturally concentrated of a settlement for something to not go catastrophically wrong.
1
The local yokels of Texas want to free of imagined federal intrusion, until they need the federal governmental for the usual cash.
These "rugged individualists" are really diapered babies awaiting change. They stink.
These "rugged individualists" are really diapered babies awaiting change. They stink.
2
"Oh, and if you trust the current administration to handle Harvey’s aftermath right, I’ve got a degree from Trump University you might want to buy. There are already signs of dereliction: Many toxic waste sites are flooded, but the Environmental Protection Agency is conspicuously absent."
Premature pre-judgement here. What do you think the EPA is supposed to do until the flood recedes? It's been published that they are ready to go in when access is possible.
If you look at the Arkema plant in Crosby via satellite photo, you'd see that it's not in the middle of a residential neighborhood.
Premature pre-judgement here. What do you think the EPA is supposed to do until the flood recedes? It's been published that they are ready to go in when access is possible.
If you look at the Arkema plant in Crosby via satellite photo, you'd see that it's not in the middle of a residential neighborhood.
2
Trouble is, developers don't want to build affordable housing, no matter how high the elevators go. In the small city where I live, though the slimeball developers raise the issue of affordability as a reason to give up quality neighborhoods, the high-rises they're putting in are ridiculously priced. The asking price for a one bedroom in a godawful neo-Soviet-style building (entirely hardscape, thus mimicking Houston's big mistake) is $477k, more than my family's 3 BR single family home in a wonderful old-style neighborhood is worth.
Beware of developers bearing "gifts," wrapped in a pack of lies and greed.
Beware of developers bearing "gifts," wrapped in a pack of lies and greed.
1
Just to be clear, the target market for the local developers is second (third? fourth?) homes, part-time residences for wealthy out-of-staters. It has nothing, zero, zip, nada to do with providing housing for actual local residents or would-be workers moving here to fill jobs.
Thus the whole effort is completely wasteful of in-town real estate. For example, I have walked through a certain pseudo-colonial luxury condo-plus development downtown a few dozen times, and only once have I seen any evidence of actual human life in the place. The development takes up a chunk of ground that could be fully occupied by full-time residents, but that's not where the money is for the developer.
Thus the whole effort is completely wasteful of in-town real estate. For example, I have walked through a certain pseudo-colonial luxury condo-plus development downtown a few dozen times, and only once have I seen any evidence of actual human life in the place. The development takes up a chunk of ground that could be fully occupied by full-time residents, but that's not where the money is for the developer.
1
So Mr. Krugman's solution to the housing problem in San Francisco is to turn the city into Second Avenue? Thanks but no thanks. How about moving the jobs electronically instead, since after all, this is Silicon Valley we are talking about.
As for the example of Chicago, we've been there while Mr. Krugman was living in beautiful Princeton in the late 1980s. I had an apartment in the upper West Side just off CPW for $350 courtesy of a huge murder and crime rate. Just like Chicago. Better stick to your economics Mr. Krugman.
As for the example of Chicago, we've been there while Mr. Krugman was living in beautiful Princeton in the late 1980s. I had an apartment in the upper West Side just off CPW for $350 courtesy of a huge murder and crime rate. Just like Chicago. Better stick to your economics Mr. Krugman.
How we 'manage urban lands'?! What about the rural ones?
C'mon Mr. Krugman. Get real. The world's over-populated as is and our collective mantra should now be: "ZPG!"
C'mon Mr. Krugman. Get real. The world's over-populated as is and our collective mantra should now be: "ZPG!"
2
One rule of thumb for knowing where to build to avoid natural disasters on steroids due to climate change, is to figure out where the Native Americans lived. I think that was the lesson of Katrina, the indigenous settlements along the river didn't flood or flood as bad. But alas, we don't listen to nobody, least of all mother earth: what was that margarine commercial again, so ironic it was margarine and mother earth....that's America ! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijVijP-CDVI
1
"It's a good bet that more people will eventually die from the toxins Harvey leaves behind than were killed during the storm itself."
"We are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight." -- PK, 11/9/16
When's the last time Krugman predicted something that came true? My gosh. Despite having no real expertise in subjects -- and even when, he does, he got it completely wrong on election night -- he spouts apocalyptic stuff that gives liberals and progressives everywhere a bad name. Why NYT continues publishing columns that contain no research or original thoughts is mystifying.
In this case, he ignores the obvious. You show me a city that could withstand 50 inches of rain in three days and I'll show you Atlantis. Houston may have lousy planning, but all the planning in the world wouldn't have prevented this catastrophe. And chemicals have to come from somewhere. Unless and until Krugman starts living in a chemical-free hut in the woods, or until he develops actual expertise, he needs to shut his pie hole about chemicals.
And this stuff about San Francisco is rich. Krugman is actually right. Low density development rules--the exact kind that Krugman favors for Houston, albeit for different reasons--would help lower rents. Then again, when an earthquake hits, Krugman would blast the city for allowing taller buildings.
Krugman is pretty muchy the Ann Coulter of the left. And that's no compliment. A Coulter of any stripe is bad.
"We are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight." -- PK, 11/9/16
When's the last time Krugman predicted something that came true? My gosh. Despite having no real expertise in subjects -- and even when, he does, he got it completely wrong on election night -- he spouts apocalyptic stuff that gives liberals and progressives everywhere a bad name. Why NYT continues publishing columns that contain no research or original thoughts is mystifying.
In this case, he ignores the obvious. You show me a city that could withstand 50 inches of rain in three days and I'll show you Atlantis. Houston may have lousy planning, but all the planning in the world wouldn't have prevented this catastrophe. And chemicals have to come from somewhere. Unless and until Krugman starts living in a chemical-free hut in the woods, or until he develops actual expertise, he needs to shut his pie hole about chemicals.
And this stuff about San Francisco is rich. Krugman is actually right. Low density development rules--the exact kind that Krugman favors for Houston, albeit for different reasons--would help lower rents. Then again, when an earthquake hits, Krugman would blast the city for allowing taller buildings.
Krugman is pretty muchy the Ann Coulter of the left. And that's no compliment. A Coulter of any stripe is bad.
1
>
Your words are as wonderful as they are worthless as their sound waves migrate off into the ether.
Just like overeating, the love of Lucre comes with its own punishment.
Your OP-ED brought to my mind a P. Larkin poem.
Man hands on misery to man
It deepens like a coastal shelf
Get out as early as you can
And don't have any kids yourself
Philip Larkin, from "This Be The Verse" from High Windows
Your words are as wonderful as they are worthless as their sound waves migrate off into the ether.
Just like overeating, the love of Lucre comes with its own punishment.
Your OP-ED brought to my mind a P. Larkin poem.
Man hands on misery to man
It deepens like a coastal shelf
Get out as early as you can
And don't have any kids yourself
Philip Larkin, from "This Be The Verse" from High Windows
I can here the grumbling of developers from Vegas to South Beach about regulations. They have there own NIMBYism....No regulation on my investment......NROMI.
I lived in NorCal off and on for about 30 years. Stockton, Berkeley, Davis, Sacramento... Bay Area homeOWNERS don't mind one bit $800,000 homes. They join the fight against more affordable housing whether they are liberal or conservative. That is a big part of this equation, the people who want the affordable homes are fighting against those who want their equity to keep going up so they can sell when they retire and move inland where they get a huge house and a nest egg. The San Joaquin and Sacramento valleys and the Sierra Nevada foothills, where land is much cheaper, are filled with Bay Area retirees. A big part of that huge commute btw are also people near retirement who sold their high-value homes in the Bay Area and are willing to commute their final years as they build their dream homes on huge lots east of Stockton and Sacramento. Professor, you also missed another variable in the California equation. Prop 13 makes new homeowners pay a lot more in taxes than older homeowners for the same property, that screws up the decision making quite a bit.
2
"In sprwaling cities, real-estate developers experto outsized influence . . ." Don't worry, we've elected a unethical deleoper POTUS.
Pruitt will make the problem worse by his gutting of the EPA. The affluent abandon their effluence.
there seem to be several very glib hypotheses in krugman's thinking. eg., toxic waste plants don't follow development into neighborhoods; rather, neighborhoods encroach on factory/industrial fringe areas and then wonder why there is a health problem. eg., high-rise will solve everything? not even close, to look at new york where high rise does nothing but suck up resources (light, air, space) and multiply problems of density (transportation, parking, city services). Meanwhile, using New York as the most flagrant example, high-rise development is built on profitability models that gear it to higher-ticket buyers. And that is true everywhere - 2 bedroom condos being built near a train line in a small suburb west of Chicago are now being marketed in the $500K range, same price or significantly more as standalone houses that require homeowner attention (the tradeoff being convenience).
this article is too simplistic - Houston's urban sprawl grew because it had the land to do so. New York's urban sprawl grew upward because it is much more limited geographically and has a bedrock that permits high load. Chicago's cost of living is only moderate by comparison but is quickly on a pace to catch up - look at how many new buildings are rising in South Loop as one example, and they aren't cheap. High-rise is not the antidote to sprawl. The drivers are 1) population and 2) development greed, not city planning which chases both.
this article is too simplistic - Houston's urban sprawl grew because it had the land to do so. New York's urban sprawl grew upward because it is much more limited geographically and has a bedrock that permits high load. Chicago's cost of living is only moderate by comparison but is quickly on a pace to catch up - look at how many new buildings are rising in South Loop as one example, and they aren't cheap. High-rise is not the antidote to sprawl. The drivers are 1) population and 2) development greed, not city planning which chases both.
1
Houston doesn't even have zoning much less "city planning."
Interesting thoughts on the failure of urban development, expensive living, and the evils of NIMBYism.
Krugman cites and compares various U.S. cities on several factors. Blaming a lack of planning goes so far. Houston's sprawl grew like Topsy. It has been industry and product (petroleum) driven. Is San Francisco blameless with its restrictions. Maybe. Maybe not. Why build more high rises there to accommodate more people (lower rents to follow? Not likely)...furthermore considering the fault line upon which most of that city lies, maybe the solution is more inland focus. In comparison rents in Manhattan are lower (not by so much) than San Francisco, but hey...still out of reach for most long distant commuters.
So, while I get the larger point he is making...it's unlikely trying to retrofit our larger urban areas with 'elevator' residences is going to be a cost-effective measure come hell or high waters!
Krugman cites and compares various U.S. cities on several factors. Blaming a lack of planning goes so far. Houston's sprawl grew like Topsy. It has been industry and product (petroleum) driven. Is San Francisco blameless with its restrictions. Maybe. Maybe not. Why build more high rises there to accommodate more people (lower rents to follow? Not likely)...furthermore considering the fault line upon which most of that city lies, maybe the solution is more inland focus. In comparison rents in Manhattan are lower (not by so much) than San Francisco, but hey...still out of reach for most long distant commuters.
So, while I get the larger point he is making...it's unlikely trying to retrofit our larger urban areas with 'elevator' residences is going to be a cost-effective measure come hell or high waters!
1
Harvey repudiates just about everything Trump stands for with his "Make America Great Again" nonsense. He denies the (1) human-induced global warming that led to record temperatures of Gulf of Mexico waters that enabled Harvey to suck up and transport a Chesapeake Bay amount of water to dump on (2) over-developed/under-regulated Houston.
Trump wouldn't know "great" if it slapped him in the face. His false narrative about a "war on coal" (methane killed coal, not Obama, and automation took the mining jobs, not Obama) and his prideful boasts about cutting regulations are antithetical to "greatness" in any sustainable sense. Trump can only deliver a sugar high of short-term job creation - his sole criterion of "greatness" - at the cost of many problems that will be killing us, and that we undoubtedly will need to rectify, after he is dead.
We should tell Trump "Thanks for nothing" while he's still around to hear it.
Trump wouldn't know "great" if it slapped him in the face. His false narrative about a "war on coal" (methane killed coal, not Obama, and automation took the mining jobs, not Obama) and his prideful boasts about cutting regulations are antithetical to "greatness" in any sustainable sense. Trump can only deliver a sugar high of short-term job creation - his sole criterion of "greatness" - at the cost of many problems that will be killing us, and that we undoubtedly will need to rectify, after he is dead.
We should tell Trump "Thanks for nothing" while he's still around to hear it.
Dr. Krugman skips over mentioning the extraordinary degree of foreign immigration into Houston that has played such a huge role in causing sprawl and paving over the region. The good professor used to write now and then about the pluses and minuses of immigration, as in this 2006 essay:
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/notes-on-immigration/
But immigration has become so sacralized and saccharizined lately that even Dr. K. doesn't dare mention its down sides.
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/notes-on-immigration/
But immigration has become so sacralized and saccharizined lately that even Dr. K. doesn't dare mention its down sides.
20
How has immigration impacted Houston differently than, say, SF or Washington or any other big city?
1
If housing in Houston was as restricted and/or as expensive as SF or Manhattan, it's rather unlikely that it would have experienced immigration in the same way.
So you need to be careful about what you consider the egg and what you consider the chicken in cases like this. Krugman has made his position reasonably clear, I think.
So you need to be careful about what you consider the egg and what you consider the chicken in cases like this. Krugman has made his position reasonably clear, I think.
1
Wrong target, Steve Sailer. If the sprawl had been well regulated, it would have been less destructive. The cause of the sprawl is not the issue.
2
Just like the economics profession failed to predict the housing crisis of 2007-2012 (or the present)... you are off the mark here.
The real estate industry does run unregulated in Houston, but it does so also in SF. While developers may have to comply with some rules in SF, the expensive housing there is due to your demand/supply issue. Where there is high global demand in a fixed space (SF is 7 square mile peninsula) real estate speculators make a fortune.
In other words, the problem with urban policy is that long ago the "free marketeers" in the real estate industry, the private sector, won the battle over development, vanquishing housing reformers who wanted government to supply housing (and develop complete communities) because they could see that the "free market" would never supply housing to the bottom 40 percent of the population. There is no profit. Nothing wrong with some profit, but there must be some public intervention to house all the people.
As long as housing goes to the highest bidder and the real estate and banking lobbies dictate policy, we will have this problem.
And yes, there must be regulation to prevent disasters such as Houston.
The real estate industry does run unregulated in Houston, but it does so also in SF. While developers may have to comply with some rules in SF, the expensive housing there is due to your demand/supply issue. Where there is high global demand in a fixed space (SF is 7 square mile peninsula) real estate speculators make a fortune.
In other words, the problem with urban policy is that long ago the "free marketeers" in the real estate industry, the private sector, won the battle over development, vanquishing housing reformers who wanted government to supply housing (and develop complete communities) because they could see that the "free market" would never supply housing to the bottom 40 percent of the population. There is no profit. Nothing wrong with some profit, but there must be some public intervention to house all the people.
As long as housing goes to the highest bidder and the real estate and banking lobbies dictate policy, we will have this problem.
And yes, there must be regulation to prevent disasters such as Houston.
2
The biggest disasters-to-come of urban un-planning are earthquakes. No cities should be built over major faults where scientists predict disasters. Tragically, nothing beyond enhanced construction standards will be done until a truly monstrous calamity occurs that overwhelms construction standards. And it will occur.
1
Once again, Dr. Krugman misses a huge point: the real estate market in SF (and Vancouver, where I live) is not some local market where supply and demand are easily understood. These markets are international and thus increasing supply, as Dr. Krugman suggests, will do little to solve the price problem.
But Growth is not inevitable, and when we decide, as our resident economist does, to bless it as an almost unqualified good, we treat it as such. SF's problem, in part, has to do with not regulating growth--of the population. But even that makes us ask: between 2000 and today SF's population has grown 12 percent or so. Its housing prices have more than doubled in that time. I realize this is a tad simple, but clearly there is no linear relationship between the two numbers and if pop growth of 1 percent per annum might lead to housing price growth at 5 or 10 times that rate, how do you manage your way out of that with supply?
Look at Vancouver: we increase supply on a daily basis. This city is unrecognizable in places over the past decade because of all the towers being built. Not only did this plan--"build up!"--do nothing to stop price increases (my home is worth 2x what it was when I bought it 7 years ago, thank you very much!...), it has made a city that is increasingly ugly and unliveable despite its reputation. So sure, we can try massive supply increases to keep prices down, but it has other consequences, which a simple model like Dr Krugman's doesn't address at all.
But Growth is not inevitable, and when we decide, as our resident economist does, to bless it as an almost unqualified good, we treat it as such. SF's problem, in part, has to do with not regulating growth--of the population. But even that makes us ask: between 2000 and today SF's population has grown 12 percent or so. Its housing prices have more than doubled in that time. I realize this is a tad simple, but clearly there is no linear relationship between the two numbers and if pop growth of 1 percent per annum might lead to housing price growth at 5 or 10 times that rate, how do you manage your way out of that with supply?
Look at Vancouver: we increase supply on a daily basis. This city is unrecognizable in places over the past decade because of all the towers being built. Not only did this plan--"build up!"--do nothing to stop price increases (my home is worth 2x what it was when I bought it 7 years ago, thank you very much!...), it has made a city that is increasingly ugly and unliveable despite its reputation. So sure, we can try massive supply increases to keep prices down, but it has other consequences, which a simple model like Dr Krugman's doesn't address at all.
1
In the case of San Francisco's NIMBY attitude, urban planning asks the current residents to give for the future. This is actually a failing of the idea of democracy.
If you ask a neighborhood of single family homeowners for permission to build higher density housing in their neighborhood you're going to get a NO.
Also historically urban planning doesn't have a good track record in SF with the destruction of housing in the Fillmore district or South of Market. Whole functioning, low income and non-white neighborhoods were destroyed for grand visions that are not as livable as they were.
If you ask a neighborhood of single family homeowners for permission to build higher density housing in their neighborhood you're going to get a NO.
Also historically urban planning doesn't have a good track record in SF with the destruction of housing in the Fillmore district or South of Market. Whole functioning, low income and non-white neighborhoods were destroyed for grand visions that are not as livable as they were.
The graph in Krugman's recent blog post on the topic contradicts his claims. It is apparent that the cities above the line, i.e. already higher than average density given the population, are the expensive ones. With the sprawling cities being the cheaper ones. (Although he doesn't show cost of housing, it is the case given what we know about the selected cities). This is true worldwide - Paris, Hong Kong, Tokyo, are all very dense AND very expensive. To me it is clear that there is no correlation. The likely explanation is that factors other than density are far more important for determining cost (eg. good job availability, desirability as places to live).
1
A bit of a muddle. Rents are being bid up in SF by foreign investors and the desire of techies not to live in the ugly sprawlburgs where they work. The distortion of foreign money is a problem in NYC, Seattle and a few other places and probably could be regulated but the techies don't to other places. Houston as a giant Love Canal could have been prevented by better land use regulation, infrastructure investment and developers who know better than to build in a flood plain. Global warming aside, building near water, esp. when it doesn't involve pretty views, is just stupid and its always been possible to build a bit away from the natural resources that drive a local economy. Older cities were built on transport routes rather than on top of resources including ineptly planned sprawlburgs like Atlanta. The lessons of putting toxic industries on important watercourses was learned decades ago in places like Cleveland where Standard Oil's Refinery #1 was an example of what to avoid. Cleveland's deindustrialization augmented efforts to clean the local river but didn't help the local economy, but perhaps that's exactly what boosterish, short-sighted Houston needs.
113
SF has built little net new housing in the past several decades. Foreign investors have little to do with the soaring rents and housing prices. SF is not Vancouver. There is plenty of room in San Francisco south of Market St., particularly along 3rd (China Basin, India Basin...) to build high-density, very livable, mass transit-friendly housing. Easily room for 100,000 additional people.
2
ten thousand units at what price? Removing rent controls and building new housing hasn't done much for real estate prices in NYC. The ide athat building more will, by itself, reduce prices is a misreading of how markets work---real estate markets, esp. in large cities have a great many niches.
1
One thing that could help is a huge tax on unoccupied investor RE, and assessing room taxes on all rentals through airbnb. Much of the uptick in apt prices is caused by the ability to sell to speculators who have no intention of occupying the spaces they buy, but make them unavaillable for others. Hotels have to pay them, and if you make your "home" into a transient hotel, you should be paying them too.
1
Houston and San Francisco face very different risks. I do not know the reason for the rigid regulations in San Francisco, but personally, I would not want to live in a high rise built next to the San Andreas Fault.
2
I have to disagree with Mr. Krugman when it comes to San Francisco. He says, "The Bay Area economy has boomed in recent years, mainly thanks to Silicon Valley; but very few new housing units have been added."
In truth, many housing units have been added, and all but a very few at market rates, many in high-rises south of Market Street. And many of these apartments are bought as pied-a-terres or investment properties, lived in rarely. Because of our already built environment, our charming neighborhoods, our earth prone to quakes, our borders of water, there are few places to build safely and without ruining what already makes us a place people want to live and work in. And our mass transit system is not capable at the moment of carrying many more people.
Just as people in lower Manhattan fought from building a highway to bisect it and later an arts neighborhood (SoHo) rose from the dying manufacturing lofts, NYMYism is not always bad. Take a look at San Francisco's skyline twenty years ago and today and you will see an entirely different animal.
In truth, many housing units have been added, and all but a very few at market rates, many in high-rises south of Market Street. And many of these apartments are bought as pied-a-terres or investment properties, lived in rarely. Because of our already built environment, our charming neighborhoods, our earth prone to quakes, our borders of water, there are few places to build safely and without ruining what already makes us a place people want to live and work in. And our mass transit system is not capable at the moment of carrying many more people.
Just as people in lower Manhattan fought from building a highway to bisect it and later an arts neighborhood (SoHo) rose from the dying manufacturing lofts, NYMYism is not always bad. Take a look at San Francisco's skyline twenty years ago and today and you will see an entirely different animal.
1
The case of soaring housing costs in San Francisco (and spilling over in the rest of the Bay Area) is just not that simple. Much of it is driven by soaring wages from Silicon Valley companies and tech start-ups in SF. Houses don't sell for $1 million+ with multiple bids in a matter of days unless there are enough people who can afford to buy them. Not good for those without such income, yes. And there is a truly pressing reason NOT to add housing in the Bay Area: water. Not nearly enough water to support more population growth in California, yet "housing advocates" and fat-cat developers, driven by their own agendas, constantly press for more and more housing in a region that has very, very limited water. Solve that, Professor Krugman.
1