Articles like this on housing make me want to scream! The author actually mentions Jane Jacobs--who wrote *the book* on housing ("The Death and Life of Great American Cities") from actual meticulous observations of real cities--but then he cherry-picks one topic ("density") as a yes-vote for his side of an argument.
Every mayor of every city should read her book. Yes, she observed that a certain amount of density was favorable. But she also noted that vibrant living areas have mixed-uses, including little shops where people can stop in on their way to and from their home to purchase necessities, for example; that a certain amount of open space where people can breathe were necessary but that not all "green space" was a plus--if you have a long uninteresting grassy area to walk somewhere, that is actually a detriment; that places where people can interact risk-free (think tables and chairs with opportunities for people-watching) were important--so you don't have to invite a potential friend into your home before you actually get to know them, for example; that long blocks are "neighborhood" killers; that wide sidewalks where kids can play and be socialized into societal norms observed by all the adults in the mixed-use vicinity are a positive; and so on.
The picture of what is being proposed looks dreadful on a lot of levels. People need to LIVE--not just park themselves at night.
104
My town is also under assault by greedy developers trying to utilize 40B. 40B is a joke. It does nothing in the long run. The state giving developers who propose projects with the minimum 40B requirement the ability to by pass local planning boards is INSANE. Right now there are a dozen of these "hostile 40B" projects being proposed, several of which are massive apartment buildings located in single family home, suburban neighborhoods. It's absolutely criminal. It's disguised as a liberal law, so of course there is tons of misinformation out there, and if you oppose one of these hostile developments based on the simple idea that it JUST DEFIES COMMON SENSE, you are somehow labeled an elitist snob. The fact is, the 40B law is a handout to developers from their cronies on Beacon Hill. It should be overturned and the housing market should be left to market dynamics. If left alone, eventually equilibrium will be achieved, and no less houses will be available then are demanded. It's so simple, but this kind of policy muddies the waters and causing everyone to end up screaming at each other about a subject that most of them actually know little about. This article cites a study that says California has a shortage of 3.5 million houses. Has anyone considered that perhaps there are 3.5 million too many people in CA? The population there has doubled from 20 million to 40 million in the last 20 years. When does it stop being a housing problem and start being a people problem?
44
Projections indicate that we'll have 25% more peeps in the US by 2060.
8
Do not discuss building more housing in California without stating whether the additional water will come from for these new residents. There is insufficient water resources for the current population, and climate change will make that worse as the Sierra snowpack lessens and melts earlier in the dry season.
Build housing only in regions of the country with sufficient water resources. Otherwise, the new housing will have to go empty.
61
The high-rise low income projects built in Manhattan when I was young were not accompanied by the building maintenance, security, and social supports the poor people living there needed. The grass areas around the buildings were initially asthetic but difficult to maintain and created security problems. A higher density architecture based on simply using all the land area for structures (as was the case with the old tenements) instead of pretending the buildings were in parkland would have reduced cost per square meter of living space. Architects could have focused on creating comfortable and maintainable apartments with internal areas for community interaction.
In suburban areas here in Florida the least expensive residential construction by far is to be found in trailer parks. There is no way the cost of on-site construction can approach the cost of building modular housing in a factory. The main limitation is concentration of wealth. Why should a developer build a trailer park for 1000 working poor people when he can build a mansion with an estate on the same land and sell it to one millionaire at higher profit?
16
Why is there a lack of affordable housing? Easy. There is more profit elsewhere. In fact, there is a lack of housing in general. Simple supply and demand drives the price up. Current owners do not see this as a problem, as it inflates their assets. Right now, with low interest rates, the pool of new owners is artificially inflated. When interest rates rise, and they will, the value of homes will deflate to correct for total monthly mortgage payment affordability.
13
@Bruce Maier And rents will increase as people return out of necessity to renting and supply tightens.
11
The most common fallacy I encounter is that because new units are expensive or "luxury", they do not help with affordability and the developers are evil gentrifiers etc etc etc. Housing affordability works on a metro area scale. So just because 300 expensive units are built doesn't mean that supply and demand is broken when a metro area needs 50,000 new units.
Most metro areas with an affordability crisis need to legalize 2-5 story row houses with minimal parking in broad areas that currently contain single family homes - the natural progression of a city like you see in neighborhoods built before restrictive zoning became widespread after WWII.
22
@P High density requires mass transit as there is nowhere to park and poor residents cannot afford cars. The tenements in Harlem were within walking distance of the subway.
21
Pre-war cities weren't paradise.
7
Well planned high density housing is ecologically sound from many vantages. "Developers" is an epithet and they can be ravenous or constructive, but they are not de facto evil. If high density is the alternative to urban sprawl, high density is the better choice.
18
@W. Ogilvie Developers in general make the choice that appears most profitable, i.e. to maximize the value of their land. That usually means building for the rich, not the poor. Wheqather they are good or evil is immaterial. If we create a legal framework that makes it more profitable to build for millionairs the market is not going to provide housing for the working poor.
22
From the article title: "In cities, many people think “density” means crowded neighborhoods and greedy developers."
There is nothing inherently "greedy" about the word "developers" and I think it's terrible how the left attaches such words to people who start and grow successful companies.
Developers build housing units that people need in order to have a home to live in. Tenants or homeowners pay those developers, in exchange for the final product after the developers complete their work. Developers are not a charity. This is their job. They do it to make profit (which is not guaranteed by the way).
If you're going to call a developer "greedy" for what they do for a living, you might as well call they guy selling hot dogs on the corner "greedy" too. If that guy buys his hot dogs at wholesale, cooks them, adds a bun, and charges you a little something extra for his time/effort, then he too, is just doing his job to make a living... and that is not "greedy" either.
We should celebrate and appreciate people who start and grow successful businesses. These businesses provide JOBS. And these JOBS allow people to support themselves and their families.
19
@ABC123 I agree. Developers are in business to make money and will do what is most profitable for them. For the Trump family it was profitable to exclude blacks from their rental properties. If we as a society believe this is wrong we need laws to prevent it. Today, if we want adequate housing for the working poor we need to change laws to bring it about. One simple change is to let more people stay in an apartment when they have little money but are willing to accept limited space. Of course property owners don't want a crowd of poor people in thier neighborhood, so they will oppose it. We as a society have to decide what we want. It won't happen under the free market.
18
I live in a Boston suburb that is currently battling multiple developers trying to take advantage of out-dated laws (specifically 40B) that allow them to build "higher" density housing practically anywhere as long as they include several "low income" units.
These developers simply do not take into consideration/IGNORE the capability of local infrastructure when making these proposals & knowing that the various municipalities involved are already in the hole because they didn't keep up with the number of "low income" units required by law, it has been left to the individual neighbors to pool their resources to sue to try & revise the plans to fit better into the community. It isn't a NIMBY situation, as people in Boston like to call it (they also call us racists, btw) but one where you have to build to fit in with what is already there & provide well-priced housing, not willy nilly to make a buck.
I cannot image what it must be like to live in a building in Manhattan, living already in an area of high density, & some developer wants to slap up some more housing that won't solve the housing crisis but will, as is here in my town, add a few reasonably priced units & the rest will be prohibitively expensive. All the while this poor Manhattanite will deal with the construction noise, the blocked sunlight, the garbage, & in the end it will do nothing to relieve the shortage of reasonably priced housing. They probably can't even file suit.
No solutions from me but argh!
10
@MomT Why not just require impact fees from developers to pay for needed infrastructure?
10
While rightmindedly championing density, the article glosses over two important factors critical to implementing density increases: 1) Increased density without commensurate infrastructure improvements—such as adequate transit connectivity and capacity, adequate parks, adequate school seats—is a fatal flaw. And a densification model that primarily relies on the private sector to provide infrastructure improvements is not feasible. 2) Model high density neighborhoods cited by the author are Manhattan’s Upper West Side and London Terrace. Something is wrong with that picture—both neighborhoods are not remotely reflective of the borough’s or city’s diversity—and there lies a problem that cannot be solved merely by “collaboration” or helping affected communities “picture improvements.”
24
@Urban Planner In Los Angeles we feel that "fatal flaw" on an increasing basis. There was a big development push around the turn of the century, as the traditional horizontality of places like West Hollywood saw more and more upward building. The streets are no wider, municipal parking hasn't meaningfully increased, but up went the new apartment buildings, and what was already one of the densest neighborhoods in the nation has become torture to navigate. This is an improvement?
9
"Housing" density itself has seldom been a problem, but the concentration of poverty and related problems has always been. This article adds to list of wrong things you (don't) know about housing. The issue is not the number of people per acre or even the square feet per person in a dwelling (as per Jacob Riis), but the social characteristics of human beings in any residential space. Elevation of people to middle-class status would best solve the problem of social density. This was also an unlearned lesson of the myth of Pruitt-Igoe.
19
Some comments call for limiting the purchases of city residences by those with homes elsewhere. They complain about unoccupied apartments and call for a vacancy tax. Similarly would they favor laws restricting second home (summer/vacation) purchases by city residents? They might mean no one with a NY City home could buy in the Hampton's, as an example? Or a cottage in the Catskills? Those second/third home buyers drive up prices for those born in those localities.
5
Toronto is in the middle of this on-going debate. A few things to consider. Do you really think its a good idea to raise young children in a downtown tower on the 35th floor. I taught those kids several decades ago. Those children virtually never went outside unless it was to or from school. Not enough green space to ride a bike, play on the swings - and who was going to supervise them in any case. Mom was at work. There are not close to enough schools or libraries or community centres or anything else that enriches the lives of kids. And they won't be built - because who can afford the very expensive land required to do so. If you are without children by all means feel free to live in a 1,100 sq. ft. box in the sky. But for families? Not an appealing way to bring up children.
28
The hold that NYC developers have over the City Planning Commission and the Board of Standards and Appeals makes any suggestion of sensibility a farce. Add to this the 421a program, intended to create incentives for multiple dwelling development in less wealthy neighborhoods, this program is an egregious tax give away for the creation of luxury buildings. A look at the transportation infrastructure tells you all you need to know about "urban planning;" there is none.
12
The problem and the main objections with all of this affordable, high density housing; no matter where you build it is:
-Lack of ongoing upkeep by the developer, they walk away with the cash, the city and the neighbors deal with the mess.
-lack of of rules/ lack of enforcement of rules made for the common good e.g. sanitation, safety etc.
- lack of enforcement for meeting initial building codes; buildings deteriorate rapidly and accelerate the downward spiral to slum status
-Tax breaks given to developers who put a disproportionate impact on the existing electorate. Taxes should be higher initially in order to offset the cost of infrastructure needed to support this high density development.
21
@Mm - "Taxes should be higher initially in order to offset the cost of infrastructure needed to support this high density development."
Exactly, existing citizens now bear the burden of the up-front costs while the "developers" reap the up-front profits. The so-called benefits of the development are accrued over time - slowly - if at all. "Developers" are scam artists, not business persons.
19
Kimmelman stumbles through a few arguments with contradictory conclusions. Greater density without true public open space is just that - more density. So, when you have entire neighborhoods rezoned and nearly 100% of the land is private, guess want? You end up with little to no public open space. The public projects referenced are not what is happening in terms of development in NYC today.
Secondly, there is a metric to study open per resident by land tract. Here is a good example of high density that is in fact just that - high density. Atlantic Yards Brooklyn, now known as Pacific Park, if it is ever completed will be the most dense tract of land in North America. And, that fact includes the Private-Public park in between the residential towers. (To further density in the area, Brooklyn CB8 is rezoning the previous manufacturing area known as M-Crown for luxury residential)
But, what is Pacific Park directly adjacent to? Blocks and Blocks of Prospect Heights, Fort Greene and Park Slope are comprised of brownstones protected by Landmarks and historic preservation. I don’t think these blocks are dealing with any density problems. Their brownstones aren’t especially important from an architectural, or historic perspective.
So, please, if we’re going to romanticize architecture and it’s possibilities let’s come down to earth first. And, ask those that are paying low property taxes and have artificial protections in single family homes before we stereotype NYCHA
8
What density actually means is usagi goya, no yards, no trees, no garden, no privacy. Some people go for that. The problem is the busybodies saying everyone ought to go for that.
14
@Eric
No, if you want peace and quiet, don’t live in a city or a nearby suburb. Those places need to get more dense so people elsewhere can have more peace and quiet.
5
I once lived a block north of London Terrace. It looks good from the street. I considered living there but was shown apartments facing an inner courtyard as many of them do. I didn't want a view of countless neighbors' windows just a short distance away. It does have it's own post office though.
8
Well-crafted Orwellian double-speak.
Here in California, SB 50 would take away the right of local governments to do their own zoning, and force them to watch as crowded high-density, low-income housing surrounded light-rail and commuter-rail stops.
And when the areas become filthy high-crime areas I'm certain the state - led by our vapid Governor - would ask for an emergency tax to address the problem.
No thanks! I
13
I would point everyone to the classic New Yorker magazine article of 2004, which points out that there is a significant environmental bonus to high-density urban living. It's called "Green Manhattan".
5
In a perfect world, density is efficient for many reasons, assuming proximity to open space proportional to the the density. Of course the ideal is complicated by politicians, developers and others whose goal is not necessarily to create an equitable society.
3
@Hal
In a perfect world, people can choose to live in a detached home on a large lot surrounded by trees, gardens and lawn,
In a socialist world, density is forced on everyone, whether they like it or not.
8
@Eric So is it not socialism when low density is forced on everyone, whether they like it or not? A detached home that only exists because government mandates artificially restrict the market from developing the land it's on for higher value uses is hardly a libertarian fantasy, whether you think it's perfect or not.
16
@Alex Good grief, citizen residents and citizen leaders aren't "artificially" doing anything when they opt to preserve single-family zoning. There is no constitutional right to tenements.
15
The people with no voice in this discussion are those who are excluded by housing prices. The push back against zoning reforms that would permit selective "densification" comes from insiders and those with the wealth to become insiders. Otherwise, forget about it.
My family has lived in high density digs, mostly apartments, for decades. It is great for reducing commuting time, exposing you to neighbors, saving energy on heating shared walls, and walking to coffee shops grocery stores, and the other amenities that come to where the people are.
Finally, zoning reform does not force change. It permits change, if densification is profitable. The unhappy single family home owners might even decide to sell their properties at a high price and move elsewhere. That is not an impossible burden nor an unfair one.
It is blatantly unfair to give the insiders all the power to squash selective zoning reform.
21
@bernard
It's great that it's great for you. As for me, I prefer a large, real home on a half acre in the suburbs. As do many others, considering the high prices such homes fetch.
7
@Eric
If you want to have a single family home in the suburbs, you should support density in cities and near transportation. Otherwise, the market will impinge on your small suburb and make it more dense.
16
@Mike
Not without a fight. And people wonder why the country is so divided.
1
This conversation has become so uncivil that I begin to despair. Los Angeles is always teetering on the edge of becoming an environmental wasteland; it's habitable now only through decades of muscular willpower and human intervention. When people say in good faith that we already have insufficient green space and tree canopies, and the immediate response is that downzoning is racially based, in 2020 it's offensive. Los Angeles is one of the most racially diverse places in the country, including my own single-family neighborhood. My immediate neighbors are Filipino, Sicilian, Mexican, Jewish, Indian, African-American, and Vietnamese. I'm a WASP surrounded by diversity. That's Los Angeles. Intelligent urban planning is always appropriate; claiming the need to destroy single-family zoning because of racial diversity is a lie.
18
@Blair - Feelings are not an argument. Downzoning lands like a hammer on the heads of the poor, especially racial minorities. Your single-family home zoned community sends a message: only the sufficiently wealthy belong. It is an ironclad law of physics and supply and demand. Density and building taller, with an emphasis on transit and walking and biking: this creates efficiencies that lead to sustainability and wealth creation and places that people love to be in.
11
@Blair I agree that claiming a need to destroy single-family zoning based on racial diversity is a lie, but I also think you're conflating two different topics. There's a difference between *literally* banning SF zoning – as in disallowing single-family homes, period – and what's being done in practice, in places such as Oregon & Minnesota: eliminating zoning rules that ONLY allow single-family homes (and NOTHING else) to be built in a given area. Upzoning is simply common sense, regardless of any race-related arguments involved.
Also, the fact that Los Angeles is diverse isn't even vaguely an acceptable rationale for keeping it so heavily single family-oriented. (And I'd say the same about my own city, Houston, which is considerably more diverse than most people seem to realize. It also has more suburban sprawl than any American city other than L.A., and in neither case is this a good thing.) I agree that we shouldn't predicate downzoning philosophies based on race, but the same applies the other way around as well.
13
@Blair
A lie, or more likely propaganda. What is beneath the surface is the motivations of the various players. Before we became over populated, there was a place for everyone. Now, with more people than the land can support, it's a zero sum game, and the stakes are high.
10
Possibly the solution to commuting will come from telecommuting rather than forcing people to live in Skyscrapers in megacities.
9
@Jerry Von Korff Fine for execs and managers. Not much of a solution for housekeepers, landscapers, handymen and nursing assistants, i.e. the people who cannot afford housing now.
12
The entire Skyscraper Museum HOUSING DENSITY exhibit is available on their website: https://www.skyscraper.org/housingdensity/
6
@Josh that's great because the museum is difficult to navigate.
3
"In cities, many people think “density” means crowded neighborhoods and greedy developers, but ..."
Nobody would think that unless the term was "high density."
6
Housing blocks worked so well in the Soviet Union and China... have less kids, full stop.
7
@Mystery Lits
You can sneer but actually those housing blocks did work reasonably well. They were designed to cure horrific housing shortages and terrible housing conditions.
And why not include Paris and Barcelona or Berlin in your disdain of "housing blocks", essentially 5 to 8 floor apartment buildings. So "horrible" that Paris is the most visited city in the world and with the most AirBnB rentals in the world too, and of course considered the most beautiful city in the world. Barcelona and Berlin not far behind, such that draconian new laws have been brought in to limit AirBnB displacing residents. Oh, and these happen to be the densest cities in the world.
17
@Mystery Lits
"It’s the dream of leftists everywhere to have everyone packed like sardines in apartments, a la Eastern Block countries. But it simply isn’t happening.
"The idea was that a new "socialist man" - an individual uninterested in private gain and dedicated to the promotion of a collective good in a classless society - could be produced through the means of architecture and urbanism." Sonia A. Hirt in O Sofia, Wherefore Art Thou: Suburbs as Stories of Time and Space
3
With all its new media and graphics capability, why on earth (pun intended) hasn't the NYT used these tools to present a visual representation of density in NYC? Text and a few photos are passable, but here is a story that cries out for maps, graphics, visuals, etc.
5
@Mon Ray
I agree, but to fair the author is reviewing the exhibitiion. It points out the weakness of this approach: a focus only on individual development rather than citywide which is what CA's SB50 (SB827) does. And the author (and exhibition?) glides over the fact that the proposed form of development (4 to 6 floors) achieves overall city density as good as, or generally, higher than a few high-rise, super-dense developments. Thus inner Paris (2.3m residents) achieves density of about 28,000/km2 which is almost identical to Manhattan (and far higher than anywhere else in the US, eg. San Francisco is 7,000/km2 and the second most dense area in the US). Most people, including most visiting Americans, don't seem to mind Paris.
3
I have read this article twice and I still can't find where it might tell me what dense housing might be.
3
This article is a smoke screen the rapacious and the greedy. Developers who are generally part of the .0001% want to use these arguments to be allowed to build bigger and bigger buildings in NYC blotting out the su and stressing infrastructure and public safety services. These bigger and bigger buildings are NOT housing the middle class or the working class they are housing billionaires and or their money...safety deposit boxes in the sky!
Cynical claims that taller bigger building will help increase affordable housing are just that cynical lies. As working class and middle class neighborhoods are rezoned to provide opportunities and taxpayer provided incentives for developers, affordable housing is bulldozed, neighborhoods along with the support the provide to the most needy and frail who love in them are destroyed and small businesses destroyed. It’s appalling that this kind of nonsense is offered in the NYT but the power of the corporations, developers and REBNY is very strong. They will destroy diversity. They will destroy our parks and suck the life out of a once proud and diverse city with dark store fronts and broken streets.
12
@Justice Holmes
You seem to have serious concerns about gentrification. I can see that, but I don’t understand how you think preventing housing from being built would ameliorate the ill effects of gentrification. Even your worst case scenario of a skyscraper for rich people being built would still prevent those rich people from displacing poorer people from their units. But, thankfully we can use inclusionary housing to have below market units built in that building for billionaires or take payments from the developers to build low income housing.
Your plan seems to be calling everyone cynical, but not actually addressing the housing affordability problems we face.
4
@Justice Holmes
Well said!
2
I can't even read these things. "Affordable" is what someone can and will pay for something, not the price they wish they, or, their friends, or, "people" could pay for something. You want to house someone else "affordably"? Take in some renters, or, carry the note on some "unit" you sell to someone. You'll learn a lot - good luck with that... You want to live somewhere but don't have the means to do so? Not my problem - and nobody's else's problem to fix for you either. You want to "wish" something into existence? Wish me richer, younger, and far away from stupid people. Thanks!
7
I live near the Douglass Houses, a large NYCHA project of mid-rise towers surrounded by parks, paths and playgrounds. What should be a lovely place to live is instead rundown and dirty. The reasons are myriad. The city fails to maintain it properly. Some residents throw trash out of their windows and leave dog feces everywhere. None of the neglect or abuse encourages the pride of place that's necessary for people to care about and maintain their homes.
No amount of density can overcome the effects of owner neglect and resident poverty.
25
@Elizabeth A
Bingo! The pride of place that's necessary for people to care about and maintain their homes comes from owning a real home, not renting a cell in a concrete tower.
"A man is not a whole and complete man unless he owns a house and the ground it stands on." Walt Whitman
By the late 19th century, the proper dwelling place for a middle-class family was commonly understood to be the single-family home. These were to be detached houses with a decent amount of land separating them from neighbors — a vision that was grounded in the Anglo-American ideal of the romantic country cottage, and that shaped the development of the early suburbs around major cities. As historians Olivier Zunz and Stephan Thernstrom have noted, home ownership among the working class, too, was surprisingly prevalent in this era — especially in industrial cities like Detroit and coastal towns such as Newburyport, Massachusetts. Vincent J. Cannato in A Home of One's Own
7
All I wish to say is to the editors who compose the headlines:
The trope "Everything you think you know about [X] is wrong," is annoying, even insulting of readers' intelligence.
24
“They equate density with ‘inner city,’” is the way Yonah Freemark, a scholar of urban development, put it the other day. “They perceive public housing as dangerous, failed, not integrated into the surrounding communities. So they think density is the enemy.”
Right after this statement is a picture of Coop City, looking just like NYCHA public housing, which is characterized as low density.
What New Yorkers don't want is totally out-of-scale 20,30, 50, etc. buildings being added to already dense neighborhoods. And these are solely for the rich.
Bloomberg and DeBlasio are responsible are this outrageous upzoning.
3
While this article focuses on housing issues in large cities, communities in the Intermountain West are facing similar issues. In Boise and along the Wasatch Front in Utah, affordable housing is becoming a serious issue. Large apartment buildings are going up but the rent is high and with the exception of a few thoroughfares transit is time-consuming and awkward. If you're a 25-year-old trust funder who bikes or skateboards and whose life is confined to a small radius, then the high density life works well. Without efficient transit to transport people the long distances found in western cities, high density housing simply clogs the roads and destroys the sense of character many of us have worked hard to preserve in our neighborhoods.
12
Suppose you live in a neighborhood of modest 1- and 2-story homes, about 1500-2000 square feet on 4000 to 5000-square-foot lots. The state enacts a law (SB 50) that enables developers to buy one or two such homes, tear them down, and build 4- and 5-story multifamily buildings between you and the family next door, consisting of condos priced at $80,000 to $1 million each.
The building casts shade on your solar roof panels, wiping out your investment in renewable energy. No improvements are planned to traffic circulation, sewerage, or street parking. Every retail business in town now lacks enough parking to accommodate the increase in population, and there's no way to pay for parking structures throughout the city. There's no money for public schools to accommodate the children who will live in the new buildings.
Just how is this creating housing that is affordable to low- or moderate-income people? How is this a public benefit?
19
@Eleanor Sounds like building would make things worse for people who choose to use two ton steel boxes that chug dinosaur bones and spew CO2 and particulates to transport one person at a time... I'm for it.
Put the solar panels outside the city, and increase bus service.
2
@Eleanor
Where is the money for public schools? It comes from property taxes. Those fancy condos you denigrate would put exponentially more money into the public schools than your idyllic single family home. You are the one trying to stop money going to the schools.
7
@Graham Sorry, I am disabled and can't use bus service, which doesn't even exist within walking distance. We have an electric car and hope to be able to power it and our home with renewable energy in the future.
8
There is another way. The (democratically elected) governments of large over-priced cities, like NYC, could refrain from subsidizing new development and new employers and concentrate are serving the people who elected them. All the people. Renters as well as owners.
The effort to accommodate new businesses and their employees is really just about increasing the tax base, but since all those new people need parking spaces, subway cars, water and sewers etc. services never improve for the electorate.
These new businesses, instead, should be subsidized to locate in the Rust Belt or Appalachia where there are plenty of municipalities really suffering from population decline, brain drain and shrinking tax bases.
Everyone claims to love NYC for the "culture" but they're happy to destroy the character of the place by moving here en mass and jacking up the rents.
Also, being a native of this burg I'll gladly remind you that I wasn't born yesterday. I know that the only fans of "density" are the developers. And they have no intention of lowering housing costs for anyone.
"Growth for it's own sake is the philosophy of cancer"
12
In fact, developers should be taxed at an exponentially higher rate for the first 20 years of the project; this would reduce the burden on the existing electorate. After 20 years the rate could steadily decline to eventually level off. This development tax would be placed not only on high density high rises but also high density, land gobbling SFH sprawl.
5
We really need to rethink housing models in relationship to work.
Not too long ago most people lived within walking distance of work. Most people worked for one employer their whole life and often lived in the same house all their lives. The working class might move more - changing where they rented as their family size changed. A town might grow up around one company. A neighborhood n a city might house one plant's workers.
A rural family - or one living in a smaller town - might be in the same house for generations.
Today people change employers frequently (not always by choice). It is rare for anyone in a major urban area to live close to their employer.
Suburbs began when people could take a train or trolley to work. Sprawl really began after WWII with the use of cars. This was a BAD model.
Perhaps we need to rethink the relationship between housing and employer. If people lived close to their employer you'd have much lower energy costs. lighter traffic and a reduced need for public transit.
7
@cynicalskeptic —I don’t see most employers going for that (added costs for benefits). Though in fact, my employer would benefit if they did something similar.
1
no amount of money from Bernie and friends, no increase in min wage, no rent controls will fix the problems we have in our country. Zoning (public regulatory capture) is the mold in the bread. The supply is lower than the demand, so if we increase the demand (adding money) it will only increase the costs. We need to increase the supply of housing in our country, we need to force communities to "include" all socioeconomic stratus in their zoning per a percentage rule. One city shouldn't have to carry the weight of the poor for the community next to it. That only shifts the tax burden to the poorer community.
This supply/demand theory works for transportation and for health as well.. Should a school be receiving govt. loans, gifts and money, it should be forced to have night school, the classrooms should be full all day everyday, no summer vacation. College could be completed in 2 years this way. Cutting the overhead costs, increasing our supply of doctors, nurses and the like. We need more, and regulations and licensing is decreasing the numbers we are producing.
I am not advocating for the lessening of standards, I am only advocating that schools should not get away with empty classrooms and labs during the "work" day. We need better production from our institutions at all levels.
6
@matt
We don't need to increase the supply of housing in our country. What we need is to stabilize and decrease the population by restricting immigration.
Why is it always about 'increasing supply?' Why do we nver talk about curtailing demand?
5
Toyota makes a heck of a lot more profit than Ferrari. If developers could make money by building a lot of housing that is affordable to the middle class, they would.
The problem is that it takes so long to go through the planning and approval process to build something due to the tangled web of well-intentioned zoning, environmental, engineering and neighborhood approvals. Time is money spend on lawyers, loans, and opportunity cost for the capital. The new apartments end up having to be really expensive to make the numbers work.
Obviously we shouldn't eliminate all these regulations. But if we cut way back on the red tape in certain urban areas (NY, Boston, SF, LA, etc.) near transit our economy, environment would surely benefit. The current situation isn't working so it's worth a try.
9
@Graham
The problem is not that it takes so long to go through the planning and approval process - the problem is that the open fields on Long Island, the farms in Virginia, the orange groves in California, have all been developed. There is no land left.
5
An issue in CA is the value of the underlying land. Even formerly “bad” neighborhoods that are reasonably convenient to work places, schools, transportation, shopping, etc. appreciate rapidly in value, and soon become too “good” to squander on poor people in lower cost units. So, they are removed one way or another and the housing is upgraded or replaced and made available at staggering prices - because, location, location, location. Low income people are pushed further and further away from areas where they could hang onto a life, out to fringe areas that are cheap because they are remote and inconvenient. in CA especially, this means increased reliance on cars and fuel.
11
@Pottree
California is overpopulated. Homes were affordable for the middle class from the beginning of statehood until 1970.
6
Density has been communicated poorly. So, to a degree, you can’t blame opponents of it.
Take the arguments against it seriously, explain its benefits—if done right, and it’s often the best solution to multiple serious problems which can no longer be put off. Add aesthetics and show and tour examples of where it worked.
Further, explain where low density is actually preferable, as it tends to be confusing.
Be creative and allow time and budget for at least trying for win: wins.
And that includes thought to gentrification and social issues. While we’re at it, sea level rise and climate change, biological as well as human diversity, and, of course, education.
Let us know who is getting close, and if anyone changes their mind and why.
1
There is no housing "crisis" in most of the USA. People purchase a home in a neighborhood they like the feel of, and that's probably by far their biggest purchase ever. Why should they embrace politicians wanting to change the zoning in their neighborhood, thereby changing the feel of that area, after they laid out a lot of money for it? In the end, the people who benefit the most from zoning changes are people who are already rich, and have the resources to capitalize on those changes.
15
"Why should they embrace politicians wanting to change the zoning in their neighborhood, thereby changing the feel of that area, after they laid out a lot of money for it?"
@Fred Rodgers Thanks for the great example of NIMBYism. "Not in MY back yard! I paid good money for this house! How *dare* you suggest constructing marginally denser multifamily apartments within 10 miles of my street? Think of the children!! (And my precious property value!!)"
8
@Jeff... "Says the guy with probably no mortgage, no house to take of, and not much of a clue about what's being said..."
6
@Fred Rodgers
people who have the resources to capitalize on those change. and have the resource to support publication of propaganda in furtherance of their objective
2
I've spent a good bit of time in Singapore and some time in Hong Kong, as well. Invoking their high-density housing solutions as a model for American cities is uninformed and wrong-headed. Those are Asian cities whose high-density solutions are founded upon an Asian (largely Chinese) culture of mutual respect, non-violence, cleanliness and tidiness in one's abode. Also, factor in that many tower residences in Singapore are owned rather than rented. Finally, in Singapore and somewhat less (I'm thinking) in Hong Kong, the citizens have a very high level of trust in the government, which operates much more in the interest of ordinary citizens than governments in the US do.
High-density housing in the US can be made to work in limited situations, but successes will always be the exception rather than the rule ... until the US has the sort of homogenous sociopolitical worldview prevalent in Singapore and Hong Kong. Fortunately, our expanse and history offer a more desirable alternative: rebuilding our abandoned cities. Detroit can absorb a million urban dwellers without exceeding its previously urbanized footprint. Just five cities could absorb 2.5 million residents without exceeding their peak population: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/06/11/5-cities-have-lost-half-or-more-of-their-populations-since-1950/39557461/
Leaving this to architects and urban planners is like leaving war to the generals.
10
@Charles Becker I'm guessing you've never *lived* in Singapore, otherwise you'd be aware that its high-density housing for the middle class has much less to do with "mutual respect, non-violence, cleanliness and tidiness in one's abode" than absolute governmental control over society. No one objects to its state of affairs, because it's a place ruled by fear. Singapore's spotless surface obfuscates a deep level of rot in its governing institutions that's only a few steps short of all-out totalitarianism.
Curiously, you also reference its diametric opposite: Detroit crumbled in part because of the decline of the industrial Midwest, but also due to deep levels of corruption & institutional rot of an admittedly very different sort. I realize most observers of American racism seem to think it's largely limited to the U.S. South, but inner-city Detroit was in large part destroyed by racist actions, e.g. redlining and the grand-scale demolition of historically black neighborhoods in the interests of expanding the interstate highway system – mainly to make it easier for predominantly white suburbanites to commute to work – and "eliminating urban blight." (In practice this meant the wholesale bulldozing of areas for no "crime" other than poverty, never mind the tens of thousands of people displaced by it.)
If you're under the mistaken impression that it's somehow "all magically disappeared," I have two words for you: Flint water.
18
@Jeff,
Your comment deserves a serious response, which I'll try to provide. I have never had residency papers in Singapore, but I've spent numerous 2-3 months periods living in Singapore, working with locals to the extent of socializing with them outside of work. I am very aware of the strict laws including caning with the rattan, the blighted conditions of immigrant workers, and the Orwellian public cleanliness standards. I don't admire any of that, but if you are as respectful of my opinion as I'm trying to be of yours, you will understand that I include that in the entire cultural environment that Singapore and Hong Kong exist in ... and why I object to applying foreign high-density models to the American situation. In case you think it's only Singapore, there are plenty of controls in Europe that would be unacceptable in America (eg; Denmark requires "ghetto" children to spend 25 waking hours per week away from their families).
Detroit collapsed because the economic model quit working. Americans despise their fellow countrymen who are in need of help (eg; UAW workers) but demand help from their fellow countrymen (wealth transfer programs <- Bernie & Elisabeth). But none of that matters the slightest in terms of revitalizing our existing, largely deserted cities rather than building more tenement projects.
Thank you for your critique.
Thank you for your two words. I had no idea that Flint had bad water. Or did I?
2
@Jeff
While I also have reservations about government in Singapore, let's not exaggerate. (Oh, and its neptocracy and paternalism is very attractive to the Trump family.)
In fact Singapore does provide some lesson s in urbanity. It has population of 5,638,700 on 725km2 (7,804/km2). So less dense than Manhattan, Paris, Barcelona, Berlin and about the same as San Francisco. OK, that misses the spatial organisation which comprises dense districts (some newtowns) though you'd be surprised that hig-rise doe not equal high-density for a district (which is why the author give Co-op City as an example: not high density despite the hi-rise.)
Obviously Singapore has severe restrictions on land (and it has manmade about 30% of its current land). So it makes choices on how to best use that precious land. Residential, business, industry, roads etc. plus undeveloped zones. In fact Singapore is the greenest city in the world, including those dense residential areas.
And at 750km2, in fact it is not a bad model for western cities that mistakenly believe they have unlimited land, only to discover the awful inefficiencies of such sprawl.
Incidentally more than 80% of Singapore's population live in HDB flats, with 95% of them owning their HDB flat. Much higher ownership than the US or Germany. And the only real gripe about housing in Singapore is cost (doh, like the world) plus some issues concerning access. ie. not quality.
1
The role of architects in shaping cities these days all too often features structures with high profiles generated by publicity, leading to the vulgar term "starchitecture."
New York City is hardly alone in being exploited this way, homelessness burgeoning whereever vanity high-rises are favorites of elected officials (and royalty, oligarchs and tyrants).
What is to be done? For sure, nothing like the grotesque Hudson Yards, a subsidized commercial giveaway, nor the obscene supertalls in Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn -- The Bronx, Staten Island for the moment without 1000 feet stilettos.
Instead, wiser, more modest and less aggressive design by officials, city planners, architects (no starchitects) and sponsors like churches, unions, non-profits, institutions, community groups, all of which has been done in the past and some now. Shut down subsidies and tax giveaways to the few super-rich developers buying votes of officials.
More attention to the hazards of high-rises, reinstitution of strict building and zoning regulation relaxed in the 1970s. Deglamorization of skyscrapers in literature and universities, for thoughtful and responsive design closely coordinated with those most affected.
Perhaps impossibly in the Trump era, financial institutions making a killing in cities be required to directly fund construction and long-term maintenance of affordable housing and necesssary social support. This is not unprecedented. What say Jamie Dimon? Care to earn a Nobel?
3
"The role of architects in shaping cities these days all too often features structures with high profiles generated by publicity, leading to the vulgar term 'starchitecture.' New York City is hardly alone in being exploited this way."
@John Young Actually, it is, at least in North America. "Starchitects" are not a root contributor towards density regardless, however: only a handful of the highest-end residential buildings have been designed by them. (All six of NYC's tallest residential "megatowers" have under 500 total apartments. Combined.)
"More attention to the hazards of high-rises, reinstitution of strict building and zoning regulation relaxed in the 1970s."
Because NYC was so quaint & wonderful back in the '70s? As a refresher, the city literally almost went bankrupt in 1975. Crime took place at rates almost unprecedented in the industrialized world. Rioting in many parts of the outer boroughs left numerous areas with little more than burnt-out husks that would remain in stasis for decades. Bed-Stuy lost nearly HALF of its population between 1970 & 1980.
I agree that Hudson Yards is grotesque, as are nearly all other multibillion-dollar urban developments, and Manhattan in particular has one of the biggest chasms between rich & poor of any city in the world. That said, these obscene displays of wealth are a mere symptom of the disease, not the disease itself, and it's not one that can simply be blamed on Trump and starchitects.
4
Space is finite, and people have limits on what they’ll accept (in terms of crowding, destruction of views, parks, and historic buildings, etc). On top of that, cities like SF and NYC are sufficiently desirable that there’s no shortage of supply of wealthy people who want to live there and don’t yet (which is why prices will stay high no matter how much housing you add). Rather than focusing to opportunities to live in oversubscribed cities, maybe we should focus on increasing easy access to such cities. A series of urburbs (not traditional suburbs but outer ring communities that are themselves flush with amenities and walkable town centers with good intra-town public transportation) connected to city centers via excellent, fast public transportation seems like the most tenable solution. Stop trying to cram more people into the most desirable places to live and increase the number of places to live that are desirable.
17
@Just A Thought
Well, in California SB50 is meant to help create exactly that scenario you describe. It increases hight restrictions near transit so communities flush with amenities with good transportation to jobs can be built. Yes, we can build more densely in San Francisco, but surrounding communities need to be part of the solution too!
4
I am so glad to see this show getting reviewed here.
One thing the author doesn’t do is press hard enough against the commodification of housing. It’s that (developers and lenders have fiduciary responsibility to extract maximum profit from land) that makes us fear density because redevelopment always happens in an either or mostly capitalist system. Any new building means that happens. And rents go up.
11
@Nobody
You seem to be arguing any new building increases rent for others. Many people argue that, but the opposite appears to be true. There is good evidence that even expensive housing built in lower income areas (i.e gentrifying areas) actually slows rent increases rather than exacerbating them.
https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1334&context=up_workingpapers
1
Residents justifiably fear being priced out of their own neighborhoods. One reason is that the percentage of "below market" units—one of the projects described in this article would have set aside 20%—is always far too low to generate a meaningful number of affordable dwelling units. And the definition of "market rate" is also absurdly high, and beyond the reach of most people of ordinary means.
No one is building housing for average people! Build truly affordable dwellings, and watch the opposition vanish.
12
There is no money in building housing affordable to people of average or below average means. In American cities costs are so high that only very expensive luxury new housing is seen as profitable for developers.
In many places in the great “west,” meaning basically anywhere west, north, or south of the original 13 colonies, a city is a collection of suburban housing tracts based on the idea of single family homes on private parcels, sometimes with a downtown area that’s principally commercial.
3
True, not all real estate development is automatically bad. But sometimes it feels like all real estate developers are.
13
Add in cooperative ownership subsidized for lower income residents and you have a solution that could create equity for all involved while increasing housing options and decreasing the disconnect between renters and owners. Nice article.
6
@JF not for all. For the poor and the rich. No middle class.
1
"[A]dvocates for poor and working-class residents who might ordinarily want more housing but have come to fear that nearly all development brings gentrification that prices the most vulnerable out of neighborhoods."
While this view is on the one hand an understandable one, on the other hand it ignores the reality that gentrification can – and routinely does – occur even in areas with little to no new housing. "Developers" aren't the reason Harlem brownstone prices have risen 20x in value since 1980. (Same goes for large swaths of Brooklyn. And even downtown Manhattan.)
In much less dense parts of North America, and in particular in or near predominantly single-family-home areas, NIMBYs somewhat bizarrely shriek at the thought of even limited-scale multifamily development, but barely even blanch at the thought of a 5,000 sq ft McMansion going up next door to a quaint 1,200 sq ft Craftsman cottage. But hey, at least everyone gets to keep their parking spots!
6
@Jeff Oh, we blanch, trust me.
2
@Jeff
Where I live, parking is in the garage. No parking on the street from 2am to 6am.
2
@Jeff
The family on the 5,000 sq ft mansion pays enough in property taxes to cover his childrens K12 funding. I'm more than glad to have them as neighbors.
3
After I moved out of my rent-controlled Upper East Side apartment, the building was redeveloped and now the apartments are $3k a month (they are studios); I was paying $600 a month. Density is fine, more the better; it is the ‘market rates’ that are a problem.
12
@Eugene Debs You’re right. Cases such as yours are the norm and put the lie to the argument that unfettered density is the solution.
Unfortunately, redevelopment frequently destroys more affordable units than it produces, resulting in a net loss of affordable units.
7
@Eugene Debs While I agree that $3,000/month studios are a problem, so are $600/month ones – which is a core reason why NYC eliminated full-scale rent control nearly 50 years ago. (Which begs the question of how you managed to find a rent-controlled apartment in one of the poshest parts of the city, but that's another story.)
If you're an able-bodied adult not yet at retirement age and with no other form of impairment, why on earth do you think you (or anyone else) should be "entitled" to housing that's so astoundingly cheap? I don't suppose you've considered that you were part of the problem, not the solution? (e.g. apartments so artificially cheap that everyone else not lucky enough to have one gets stuck paying more)
To be clear, I fully support rent-stabilization programs, but $600/month for an UES studio is just nuts.
2
@Jeff I didn't find it; my wife, a gerontological social worker, knew the landlord, who was non-greed-based senior citizen. She had a rent-controlled apartment available and liked that my wife taught dance to senior citizens. $3K is 'astoundingly greedy' rent, especially for 500 square feet. No, I was not 'part of the problem', the problem is unbridled greed of capitalists. Capitalism is fine, as long as it is controlled, regulated and watched like a hawk.
3
This article misses the point. Dense development occurs in markets with high demand and little space, like Manhattan or San Francisco, and less so in markets like Houston with still considerable demand but less regulation and few natural/geographic constraints on outward development. The problem is that local governments in NY and CA have repeatedly demonstrated that they aren't willing to release land to the kinds of development that local markets warrant, resulting in exorbitant prices ($3,700 per month median for a 1 bedroom in SF). Density or lack-thereof is not nearly as important as affordability. Restrictive zoning codes that try to dictate land use out of step with market demand are the real problem.
3
Landmarks and historic preservation of single and two family homes is the single most problematic barrier to more housing. If, that is what you’re advocating...
3
@Liam Actually, the article explicitly notes that "New York is not Palo Alto is not Barcelona is not Hong Kong: Density is not one size fits all. Urbanism isn’t a mere kit of parts." Perhaps you're the one who missed a point here?
"Density" isn't a construct limited to "markets with high demand and little space." Both Minneapolis and the state of Oregon, to cite two examples, have effectively outlawed single-family zoning, or at least any *requirements* that a given parcel be limited solely to a single variety of housing – in both cases as a proactive measure designed to preclude future displacement.
While I agree that NY & CA have repeatedly demonstrated they're not willing to release lands for development, they're by no means alone. We need more loosenings of the nature embraced by Oregon across the continent, coupled with significantly more proactive anti-displacement measures in our densest cities that operate in tandem with proposed new development.
3
@Liam
Well said. Zoning codes, master plans, and tenant rights laws are most beneficial when they are applied with common sense.
When they are not (in markets like NYC and SF), it is ironically only the largest and most well-connected developers that can compete.
1
"sprawl" is often associated with los angeles but it is in fact the most densely populated metro region in the country, approx 40 percent more dense than nyc metro region ..no surprise to people who've seen it and had to deal with it..
6
@Andrew Edge I'm not sure which barometer you're using to measure "densely populated," but I'm pretty sure L.A. doesn't qualify as such. Yes, I get that the greater NY metro area is mostly sprawl. The difference is NYC having Manhattan and its 1.6 million residents (and vastly greater numbers who commute there each day) at its core. Downtown L.A. has fewer than 50,000 residents.
Even factoring in NYC's much less dense outer boroughs, it's still 4x denser than L.A. (the city) and 14x denser than Los Angeles County.
5
@Andrew Edge
The population density of Los Angeles proper is exceptionally low as anyone who lives or has lived there knows
~ approximately 8,100 people per square mile.
New York (27,500), San Francisco (17,000), Boston (13,300), and Chicago (11,800).
4
@Jeff no.
1
Why not allow density for those of us who want it, rather than banning it nearly everywhere? The NIMBYs always complain about being "forced" to live a certain way, but zoning for higher density doesn't force them to sell their single family homes. If you like your single family home, fine, but don't force that on everyone else by prohibiting other types of housing, especially in cities.
19
@j
Sure, just guarantee me that my home won't live in permanent shade behind some monstrosity. Also, I don't want to have my yard be a fishbowl hovered over by 15 floors of neighbors.
14
Well the difference is when you buy into an area with residential zoning for single family homes you assume the zoning will not change because you don’t want an apartment or gas station next door. If zoning is not assured then all property values are off.
Areas with screwed little or zoning end up being a mess of commercial and residential uses intertwined.
You be able push a zoning change into a residential area, but expect a legal battle if it is an upper-middle class or higher. Those who are less fortunate will be defenseless.
5
@j — That’s how it typically works, Developers work hard to fond residents like you, who will support their projects,
1
"Upzoning will give developers 'carte blanche to cut down trees,' wreaking environmental havoc, NIMBYs respond."
Indeed they do ... until you present them with a plan that will require cities to retain nearly all large trees & build significantly greater flood protections into any large-scale development, at which point they'll conjure up yet another litany of specious complaints. (I speak from experience.)
Or, alternately, they'll obstruct an upzoned apartment project on the basis of "traffic concerns," even if the project in question involves replacing a half-century-old, single-story strip mall that has 100% impervious-cover surface parking & zero trees, and would primarily be occupied by non-car-owners. (Again: I speak from experience.)
To be blunt, NIMBYs fear change. While this is a perfectly normal human reaction, letting fears paralyze you to the point of utter inaction – or believing that the prospect of an eight-story apartment tower in Silicon Valley, adjacent to a transit hub, is "terrifying" – is not. Sometimes you really do just need to rip the Band-Aid off and be done with it, as is absolutely the case with California's SB 50 and similar measures elsewhere.
The only literal alternative is stopping growth of any kind, at which point a city ultimately begins falling into decline. If you want to see how that's worked out, I'd suggest visiting any given industrial hub in the Midwestern Rust Belt.
18
Many NIMBYs fear racial integration and are terrified of anyone with less money, feeling they will be victimized by thieving lower orders... when in fact they are already being squeezed to death by the better dressed crooks higher up the food chain who thrive on distraction.
6
@Pottree
Most NIMBY's realize that they are caught in the middle -- being squeezed to death by those higher up the food chain who thrive on distraction -- snobs who invoke allegations of racism (playing ethnicities against each other) as part of that very distraction.
2
Excellent summary of the issue. The mere utterance of the word density aggravates everyone except urban design professionals when I present housing design in public meetings. I've had notable success asking people if they like Paris. Pretty much everyone does. The challenge is to link density to high quality of life, and to divorce it from noise and squalor. Only first-hand experience will convince people of the difference between, say, the West Village and Cabrini Green in terms of livability, comfort, exciting diversity, access to services, etc.
As long as population grows we need to promote the great benefits of housing density and a rich mixture of incomes and uses. The suburbs are the enemy.
10
@Vee.eh.en : When developers start building projects that resemble the core of historic Paris, I’ll enthusiastically support you.
Until then... no.
5
@ANetliner "projects that resemble the core of historic Paris,"
Agreed. Developers will never do that but cities could if they took their responsibilities seriously. In fact it is what SB50 (SB827) was designed to achieve: Parisian style density. The urbanity wuld follow.
One problem is that few people properly understand density, or "high density" and imagine it can only be achieved by high-rise. Paris, with barely anything over 7 floors disproves that--overall it is the same density as Manhattan (both about 28,000/km2) and the densest western city (and still denser than many Asian ones).
The other problem is that developers just look at one project in isolation and so want to build (overbuild) to maximise profit. Hence high-rise, or super-talls. Leaving it to the free market will only make things worse.
3
Where I currently live in Vancouver, the density is essentially that of three story buildings occupying modestly sized lots. Some are townhouses, others are apartments, some are large houses divided into smaller units. The density is probably around 100 people per acre. This is enough to support schools, libraries, restaurants and supermarkets, along with buses on the major streets. There are a few buildings of ten or more floors, but they were built in a period where setbacks and greenspace were required.
Anything beyond this density is overcrowding, and despite what the architectural lobby might have us believe, it’s the greedy developers that lie behind it.
10
@Global Charm from the picture you paint i doubt your neighborhood actually has that kind of density. but in any case, my guess is most people who are pro-development would be happy with the density achieved by such overcrowded slums as Paris, New York, or Barcelona.
2
@Global Charm Curious that you blame "greedy developers" for wanting density, and yet fail to note that Vancouver is now the second most expensive place to live in North America – explicitly *because* it's had such a large influx of newcomers, but its residents refuse to allow much in the way of added density outside of a few parts of town. It's essentially the same story in San Francisco, now *the* most expensive North American city.
"Greedy developers" don't unilaterally create demand, and despite your personal preferences, well more than 100 people on average can comfortably live on a single acre of land. Do you seriously think it's in your city's best interests to become a de facto gated community for the 1%? That's where it's headed absent change. (Again, just like SF.)
4
@Global Charm 100 people per acre is the density of Brooklyn in its nicer parts. Excessive building is a form of theft, which is why people quite sensibly resist it. There are plenty of construction sites on the periphery of every major city, but to create sustainable living space requires investment in roads, sewers, public transit and quite a lot else.
As I write this, I am riding on a bus through the center of Langford, a bedroom suburb of Victoria, which is smaller than Vancouver but certainly not cheap to live in. Langford has bus service every ten minutes to the downtown. It has a mix of residential and commercial buildings and although its density varies, the central part is probably around 100 people per acre. Less than Yonkers, more than Rye.
The key to getting more people into cities is better transit. It’s an anti-American concept, I know, but so is stealing people’s investment in their properties, especially when it’s done to the false progressive tune of “densification” and “urbanism”.
10
Activists are poison, and are responsible for much of the shortage of affordable housing.
The only way to deal with a housing shortage is to build more. That is not profound.
Below-market housing is, by definition, oversubscribed. Instead of being awarded to those able to pay the most, it is awarded to those able to put themselves on the top of the waiting list---those with the most political clout. No better.
The way to deal with a lack of affordable housing is to maximize the supply. Reduce unnecessary zoning and other obstacles to building---require only that basic safety requirements be met. Don't require parking (poor people don't have cars). Don't require minimum square footage or amenities. Don't limit density.
6
It does occur to me that we are now experiencing—and suffering from—over-population, which is creating issues as space (a natural resource) is closing up for humanity.
I, for one, do not have any interest in being jam-packed into urban density such as Manhattan. Where I live. in Norwalk, CT, is for me at the max of my tolerance for traffic congestion, crowded stores and parking lots, and just too many people. Perhaps we can design ourselves out of driving cars, but too much of our country was built around the car and it doesn't look like a sea-change will happen in this lifetime.
Diversity of people, cultures, and experiences is great. But population density is telling ya something.
8
@Audrey well, if you wanted to infer over-population from density, you'd have concluded that the world was overpopulated since the Roman Empire. kidding aside, low-density settlements are a feature of the modern world. when there were no cars nor trams few people could afford to commute to work other than by foot, so they lived in pretty closed quarters.
4
@Bogdan Yes, you are correct on that. In the old days, people rode horses and had wagons or carriages. Took forever to travel (not to mention, messy). I guess I grew up in the suburbs and even though not perfect (nothing is, really, in terms of city design), it's "what I know." I do dream of Norwalk and other cities getting more on board with making public transportation more accessible and reliable. The way we've designed our landscape to suit the car (thank you, Robert Moses) hasn't helped. Thanks for your reply!
1
Density, if properly managed, can foster diversity, affordability, economic efficiencies, conservation of resources, cultural and open space and transportation alternatives. Essentially it is synonymous with urbanism.
15
NYC desperately needs far more housing density. The problem is that a small number of very loud NIMBYs have the ear of politicians, so you have wealthy NIMBYs blocking housing in order to preserve views and to monopolize high end unit supply, and working class NIMBYs mistakenly believe new housing will raise prices on non-market housing.
11
@Osito We desperately need more affordable housing, Unfortunately, we’re often trying to get it by building market rate housing with fractional setasides of affordable housing. Predictably, the result is insufficient affordable housing with greatly heightened density,
What is needed are lower-rise projects substantially dedicated to affordable units.
3
It seems to me the problem is that these complexes built for lower and middle income people did not remain so, for by the time I came to New York in 1981, they were all far out of reach.
7
Density can also be a fine solution to many social problems. It can allow for preservation of open space, which is described in the article. It can allow for a more pleasant streetscape, which can facilitate availability of services without the need for automobiles. It can allow for more efficient transportation options, such as car-sharing (Zip-car, etc.) and bicycles. Density can be used to facilitate independent living for vulnerable populations, such as elderly people, because support services can work for them in a more efficient manner, and there might be more neighbors to look in on them. Density is, however, predicated on the environment as a whole being maintained as pleasant. Elevators must work, and the common spaces must be clean. The "rules" for the environment must be understood and policed. Finally, density can allow for more energy efficiency and environmental impact for the population being served.
17
We have experience with down zoning here in Flushing. In the 1950s, forty-one co-op buildings of six stories were built in an area that was mostly a former swamp. These were very modest examples of the tower in in the park with all being free-standing. About twenty years after the construction, the zoning was changed to exclude all but four of these buildings. Today, nothing over 40 ft. can be erected and the portion of the lot that can be occupied reduced. This change does not seem to make a great deal of sense given the various developers built on vacant land.
3
Density solves a housing problem, sure but, going forward, what the Earth needs is fewer humans. Politicians won't talk about overpopulation, but that is the real cause of housing shortages, pollution, habitat destruction, species decline, climate change, and water and food shortages in many areas.
20
@CJ Bravo for pointing out the obvious- overpopulation. Our leaders, both political and economic, won’t talk about this issue because more people = more consumers. Yet those who benefit economically from ever increasing numbers do NOT have to navigate a crowded, unaffordable world. They are comfy in their mansions behind the guarded gates.
3
@CJ
The birth rate of the US is below replacement rate [1.80] and has been for a number of years now.
3
@SteveRR —-but the population is much higher than it was even 30 years ago.
4
Paris, beloved by the same people who perceive more neighbors as an existential threat, has a density of 53,000 people per square mile. In San Francisco, the epicenter of NIMBYism, it’s less than 20,000.
23
In the typical model, the rich live in central Paris, and the further out from cite you go, the less expense the neighborhoods until you reach the banlieux, the remote suburbs which are basically a ring of slums.
In NY, the reverse model was true until pretty recently: the “inner city” residents except for a few tony areas were slum dwellers, and the population became more affluent the further out of the city you went. People lived in slums in Harlem and Brooklyn and the South Bronx, increasingly bigger and new private houses as you got out of town, and eventually at the fringes, in mansions on large estates.
Now, more affluent people want to live in the city, squeezing out lower income groups and taking over their more desirable areas.
5
@Chris Pining Also Paris has huge ugly tower blocks on the outskirts where the poor people live.
4
@Pottree
A common misapprehension of Paris. The "banlieus" is a lazy shorthand used by journalists and others to mean Seine-St-Denis (department 93, aka " the 93"), the north-eastern part of Paris. It is poor but not all is the cliche of movies and the tabloids. It contains about one seventh of the population of greater Paris. The western part, eg. St Denis (with its cathedral as royal burial for the last 1000 years) and St Ouen; becoming trendy with its docks and Luc Besson's Europa film studio, and the centre of the '24 Olympics.
Other parts of the true banlieus are some of the ritziest parts of Paris and Europe, eg. Suresnes & Puteaux next to Europe's biggest business district la Defense; and Boulogne-Billancourt, Neuilly, Vesinet, St Cloud and Versailles or Sceaux and many others. Of course there are large swathes of middle-class housing.
4
Another misconception that I've seen in civic meetings is that increasing "density" will tend to increase "affordability." Indeed, I've seen real estate developers cynically use affordable housing advocates to push this fiction in public meetings. Too often, the "density" promoted by the developers turns out to the shoe-horning of market rate apartments into small spaces, the destruction of historically significant buildings, the eradication of green spaces and, ironically, the further gentrification of the neighborhood.
33
@David
1. If people are willing to live in smaller apartments—that is, by your definition of smaller, which will never be universally shared—who are you to tell them they can’t? You know what’s best for them?
2. Cities have protections for historic buildings. There are thousands of examples of successful adaptive reuse projects throughout the country. Furthermore, all buildings require major renovations during their lifespans. Sometimes, the demand for specific types of buildings dries up, and the city is left with abandoned churches or warehouses or power stations. The buildings can be demolished or repurposed. Letting them stand vacant is not an option.
2
@Chris Pining It’s differs by city. And what goes on behind closed doors.
Further, one only needs to compare price per square foot to see as a moniter to affordable housing. I’ve compared many Single family dwellings being torn down for 4-6 unit duplexes. But by looking at former price psf I see smaller but more costly units. Pay more for less isn’t affordable. But people buy them because nothing else is available
3
It’s easy to criticize anti-density folks as blue-haired NIMBYs but in reality there are some valid reasons why density is no solution. For one thing, “density” in many neighborhoods is gentrification, which creates its own sets of problems, especially when the real problem is AFFORDABLE housing. Density no more solves the affordable housing crisis than adding lanes solves traffic congestion. If density were the answer, cities like New York, London and Singapore would be the most affordable in the world. But the exact opposite is true.
In my city, we've been adding density through infill, teardowns and glitzy new high rises at an unbelievable pace over the past 10 years. In tandem with all of this construction is a $47 million budget hole, teachers forced to forego promised raises, an increase in our water and sewer rates and a median home price increase of 55%. Newcomers and young families are forced to live further away from the city where homes are more affordable, adding to traffic gridlock, sprawl and other issues of sustainability.
Why hasn’t density solved the problem? Developers build to make money, not to provide housing, and as long as out of town investors, REITs and other financial investors are the buyers, not real people needing a place to live, housing stock is removed from the labor market. So in reality, what we’ve seen in Nashville and all around the country is that density just adds to the problem.
31
@Litzz11 Exactly. Public policy is the problem, not lack of affordable housing.
In addition, people need to plan their lives and careers based on more than a sense of entitlement. There have been many places in my life where I'd like to have lived. I couldn't afford those places, so I had to make other choices. It seems to me that people today are demanding to live where they want to live simply because they want it. And they want it subsidized.
14
@shamtha I think a lot of people want to live where the jobs are, which right now is the cities. In Nashville, civic leaders are bragging about Amazon bringing 1,000 new jobs. Wow! Dig a little deeper and you learn these are $15/hour jobs. You can't afford to live in Nashville on that. So while we can all oooh and aaaah over Amazon's "Operations Center of Excellence" in the new Nashville Yards development downtown, only a few top management people will be living the dream. Most of the workers will be slogging through bumper to bumper traffic from outlying counties.
28
@Litzz11
Barcelona’s density is 41,000 people per square mile. Nashville’s is 1,200.
15
While California didn't manage to pass SB 50, last summer the Oregon legislature did pass HB 2001, becoming the first state to address the problem of density in neighborhoods zoned exclusively for single-family-detached houses, by utilizing the types now known as "missing middle" housing.
In cities with a population between 10,000 and 25,000, any single family lot will be allowed to contain two dwelling units. In cities over 25,000, any single family lot will be allowed to contain up to four dwelling units. Cities will have the opportunity over the next two years to develop planning and design standards for implementing this law, or they can use a model ordinance now being developed by the state.
Missing middle housing won't solve all of the housing problems we face, but it does provide housing types that could meet the needs of many of our citizens, in the kinds of neighborhoods in which they would like to live.
25
@Canard " . . . housing types that could meet the needs of many of our citizens, in the kinds of neighborhoods in which they would like to live." Except, of course, citizens who already live in the neighborhood, which some surely chose because it did not allow 4-plexes in the first place.
7
@Canard Minneapolis MN did this first, but only for the city. Any lot can now have up to a triplex on it.
1
@Canard At the expense of people already living there. This is not a solution.
Queensbridge is public housing. Activists would be for it. It is about the subsidy, not just density.
Why don’t we just redistribute income and then let everyone enjoy high rise, densely built apartments.
2
My grandfather, Henry Wright, built Sunnyside Gardens in Long Island City as a demonstration that affordable housing with a density equal to that of slum tenements could with proper planning be beautiful and desirable. Sunnyside was a privately financed for-profit venture.
29
@John Wright; I applaud your grandfather, who— unlike many contemporary developers— provided substantial green space in Sunnyside and dedicated himself to making the neighborhood attractive.
Were more attention given to making dense projects beautiful and well-landscaped, opposition to density would diminish.
7
"New York is not Palo Alto is not Barcelona is not Hong Kong". And, Palo Alto is not LA is not SF is not San Diego. The idea that the state of CA would dictate to cities how to develop their communities and neighborhoods is absurd. You mention that SB50 restricts downzoning but forget to mention it demands upzoning - without regard to a city's master plan. Developers can disregard current requirements like adequate parking and balconies (a little open space for a resident). Developers won't have to contribute to improvement of community assets like parks and libraries. In the case of LA, the city already approved development of "granny flats". SB 50 allows for fourplexes to be built on single-family properties, drastically changing neighborhoods forever. Most importantly, SB50 requires very little in the way of developing workforce housing. It is mostly about building market rate units, which will not help middle or low income families living in already unrealistically high rent areas.
12
@Zrokids Of course adding housing will help middle and low income families. It's called supply and demand; more supply = lower prices overall.
If you build only expensive units, rich people will move into them; now where did they move out FROM? Those units are now free and not as good as the new units putting pressure down on rents; then the people that move into those units will lower the rents in the units they have left and so on...
By preventing additional supply, housing advocates are locking in the high prices for market rate units which will only create more pressure for subsidies and greater political push-back.
22
@Zrokids it's interesting that you find absurd the idea that California "would dictate to cities how to develop their communities and neighborhoods" but you don't find anything absurd about cities dictating their residents how many parking lots and balconies they need.
when SF restricts the number of housing units it has, that doesn't affect only its own residents. people from California cannot move to the city, and thus have no access to its jobs, and therefore are less productive than they might be. because dense living has a lower impact on the environment, keeping Californians out of SF increases their environmental footprint. the city's infrastructure (partially funded by the state) is used by fewer people.
all of these are reasons why the state should have a say in how a cities "develop their communities". now you tell me why cities should decide how many parking spots my building needs.
12
@OneView: Many wealthy people buy second and third homes. Many homes in Portland are empty most of the year because a rich person in California only uses it for occasional visits. That does not help Portlanders who need affordable housing. So the supply is often demanded by people who are not part of the local economy.
20
I agree in housing density to lower carbon footprints and housing costs, but the concept is exploited.
In my hometown density is used to justified to give tax incentives to developers who are building luxury student’s housing. Meanwhile, locals are still priced out and the tax base doesn’t grow.
Perhaps density gets a bad rap because it’s exploited concept to maximize returns.
16
@Michael Decatur
Curious, what is "luxury student's housing?" And such
housing is subsidized by the town, not the university?
4
@Susan Student housing - off campus usually - with lots of amenities, co-living style (single bedrooms with shared common spaces)is usually privately owned by big investors and caters to upper middle class families who want to send Jr. or Ms. Jr. away to school but don't want him/her to suffer the privations of living in what many of us remember as a chilly or overheated cinderblock hive with clunky furniture (where we could afford to live). Sometimes the college or university rents units in bulk and then re-lets them to students., but it's not usually subsidized, just a market transaction.
4
Planners promoting high density should also beware of their own "ableist" biases. While I love urban living, it's not suited for everyone. In SF, I walked everywhere, which was great!--until I broke my foot and was on crutches. Suddenly hobbling 1.5 blocks to the bus stop was a really big deal, as was carrying groceries or anything else. The passionate urban planners here in Portland are always extolling the biking and walking culture, but they are almost all universally youngish, healthy, and fit. Many don't have kids (or only 1). Car-free life isn't as glamorous when you're not able-bodied, or when you're carting around a toddler and a baby.
55
@Itsy: a car-dependent life isn’t as glamorous when you’re blind. You at least can take taxis while your leg heals. I don’t know how blind people in strip mall land cope.
13
@Itsy exactly. Or when you are old. And it’s 100 degrees outside
6
GLOBAL WARMING, everyone with intelligence has some understanding of the risk. Peter Calthorpe rightly said "The city is the most environmentally benign form of human settlement. Each city-dweller consumes less land, less energy, less water and produces less pollution than his counterpart in settlements of lower densities." In the SF Bay Area, NIMBYs falsely claim environmental concerns to stifle density when the opposite is true. We need to support density as if our future depends on it - because it does.
47
@Carol M
Their idea of “environmental concern” is that tall buildings cast too many shadows.
2
@Carol M when you consider the burden on Water resources, tree cutting ( the lungs of the Earth), the heat island effect, lack of infrastructure for transportation it becomes a lot more gray about what is green. Look to the Netherlands for the best in balancing these issues-something I’m sure our city planners don’t do routinely.
@Liberal Hack
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say? Are you agreeing with Carol? Because building of any sort—whether city high rises or exurban McMansions—requires material resources, though higher density housing requires much less. And only high density cities can support robust plug transportation infrastructure. There are also plenty of urban planning strategies to mitigate the heat island effect, light pollution, etc. All of your concerns are resolved by Carol’s argument for high density.
1
This all sounds well and good, but all I know is this.... 'regular folk' who live in NYC have good reason to be suspicious of anything that comes out of the mouths of realtors, developers, local Pols, etc. They can say whatever they please about how things will be 'good for us', but time and again all we've seen are neighborhoods being destroyed, block by block. And new developments that have X% with 'affordable units'?? Please. Yeah, maybe affordable if you are already at the Poverty Line. Otherwise, the truly middle class Need Not Apply.
16
anyone who objects to development, no matter how inappropriate the development may be, is labeled NIMBY...especially by developers. of course the developers don't live in the neighborhoods they destroy, keep the cash, and then leave town. the neighbors are the bad guys and the fat cat developers are the white nights, coming into town to fix the housing crisis, with promises that are often not kept. and these "below market rate" units are often still too expensive for the average person and ridiculously tiny. nothing is solved. no one is "saved". the neighbors are left holding the bag and the developers laugh all the way to the bank.
30
Nothing is solved because NIMBYs block every housing development as "inappropriate," when we desperately need housing of all types.
6
@j We do NOT need more overpriced studio apartments in huge, poorly built ugly buildings.
4
@Bill P.
Who are you to decide what’s appropriate? The paternalism and entitlement of NIMBYs never ceases to amaze me.
Also, if people move to those studios, they are by definition not overpriced. If no one moves there, developers lower the price until people do. That’s how the market works. This is real estate 101.
4
Appreciate the calmness of the author's discussion of housing. The reality is that homelessness is directly tied to our own selfish behavior of blocking new development ... especially redevelopment of places that are already built on once.
Easier to blame corporations than to look inward at ourselves.
37
A different urban density.
Could not the blight of empty, offshore money apartments
be resolved by using them to house the homeless?
John Galton
4
@john galton despite what you might have heard, there just aren't that many empty apartments in nyc. definitely not enough to house the homeless, let alone enough to make housing affordable for the rest of us.
6
You definitely hear the cry for more density as one policy approach to address the housing crisis (and affordability) in many US cities - the logic being, increase the housing stock and prices will ease. This piece reveals a paradox in this thinking: that often, the neighborhoods/areas with the highest density are those least affordable. We've seen a classic pattern of gentrification in Seattle where affordable, but low density housing is replaced by more dense but much less affordable units. Seattle, like NY, now requires a certain number of affordable units in newly permitted developments, but it does seem like a bandaid approach where much more agressive policy is needed.
13
@Oncorhynchus but at least you'd have more people living in desirable neighborhoods, right? it might be true that in Seattle prices will not come down no matter how many people you fit in - because more people will sustain more jobs who will attract more people, who will...
but then at least you'd have millions more people living close to their jobs, in attractive neighborhoods, which is still a big plus.
13
Agreed, but the downsides are displacement, homelessness, and loss of diversity. This is where I believe our housing policies have failed. Are there examples of effective approaches to address these negative effects?
2
@Oncorhynchus displacement and homelessness are not necessary consequences. imagine that in a place like Seattle you make it legal to replace three story structures with higher structures, so long as an area equal to the old building is affordable, and old city residents have priority to it. that would immediately solve displacement while allowing for lots of out-of-towners to move in.
the solutions are actually staring us in the face, which makes me think that liberal nimbys are actually not that sincere when they wring their hands about housing affordability.
2
But free markets are evil and monopoly government regulations are good.
5
I lived in Shanghai 5 years and Saigon (Ho Chi Minh City) for two years. In both places I had apartments in fairly high-density neighborhoods, at least compared to where I am now in the Seattle area.
I loved both those living situations because on the ground floor were plenty of restaurants and shops including grocery stores. The neighborhoods were vibrant with people living their lives and enjoying the parks and open spaces that surrounded the tallish towers (5 at over 30 stories each) in Saigon and smaller (6 - 20 stories) buildings in Shanghai.
Shanghai high rise residences almost always have the apartments designed to have a window both to the north and the south. Each apartment "goes through" the whole building. In hot weather, the option of opening windows on both sides is a plus and the southern exposure in the winter is a nice touch, too.
I for one love high rise living provided that the elevators are plentiful enough, maintained, and operational.
One comment on San Francisco and other places in California: from where is the water for the rising population going to come?
24
@Lennerd there is plenty of water in California. Farmers use 80%+ of it. The question is, why does CA grow water-intensive crops such as rice and alfalfa?
20
@Lennerd
You write: “Shanghai high rise residences almost always have the apartments designed to have a window both to the north and the south. Each apartment "goes through" the whole building. In hot weather, the option of opening windows on both sides is a plus and the southern exposure in the winter is a nice touch, too.”
This is true of LeFrak City in Queens as well. Walkways to elevators on each floor are exposed to the elements.
5
@Fedee, Noted and correct, as I understand it.
And, the 80% that is going to "farmers" is actually going to giant agribusinesses, not exactly mom-n-pop farmers getting up at 4:00 AM to milk their cows -- as my mom's brother did until he was in his 60s.
6
Let me tell you how the use of “added density” has fared in my locality: very poorly.
Here’s the process:
1. Older, frequently affordable housing is acquired by developer.
2. Developer submits redevelopment plan for higher-density, market rate— typically luxury— housing with a 12.5-15% required setaside for affordable units. Almost all such redevelopment plans are approved by the locality.
3. The affordable housing razed by the developer contains more units than the affordable housing delivered in the new project. The impact: a net loss of affordable housing.
4. Meanwhile, the added residential density strains local schools, roads and transit systems. Development impact fees and added property taxes are insufficient to pay for needed school and infrastructure improvements.
5. Net impact: the developer profits while the locality suffers a net loss of affordable housing, more school overcrowding, added road and transit congestion and heightened fiscal pressures.
These problems could be addressed in part by heightening property taxes and/or development impact fees and by requiring one to one replacement of affordable housing units. But developers are key funding sources for local political campaigns, so these reforms have gotten nowhere.
122
@ANetliner "The affordable housing razed by the developer contains more units than the affordable housing delivered in the new project."
this wouldn't happen if developers were allowed to build higher. replacing a three-story building with a 15 story apartment building would actually _increase_ the number of affordable units. unfortunately, 15-story buildings are outlawed throughout most of dc to my knowledge.
18
@Bogdan: Yes, but if the goal is more affordable housing— not congestion— your approach is very wasteful.
In communities like mine, sustainability is being undercut because mass transit systems have not kept pace with new apartment construction. As a result, density is adding hundreds of cars to the road per project. And because most of the units are high-priced, the affordable housing crisis grows.
4
@Bogdan you clearly work in real estate
4
To the contrary, there is too much "collaborative planning and architecture." A recent proposed housing development in SF, which included about 1/4 below-market units, got derailed because a few people complained it would cast a shadow over a small part a nearby park during certain hours. Multiple lawsuits are filed whenever a project of any size is approved, and it takes 4-5 years from that point (after approval) to defeat all the lawsuits and begin construction. People need to accept that neighborhoods will change, but rarely do. I think SB 50 is the only answer.
17
This article is spot on. We need more affordable housing and rent control and we also need to build a lot more housing in urban areas.
We can either build up, in, or out. Building out means destroying more of the planet. Building up and in increase density and walkability while preserving nature.
27
@Claudia Gold Well, depends on how you define rent control.
Standard rent control warps the housing market and results in a pool of lucky and unlucky renters, with very little correlation to the renters income level. I know multiple people in San Francisco making software developer and management type incomes (i.e. mid-six figures) living in attractively rent-controlled places. People pass the lease to friends and family. Meanwhile, my artist friends (this is cliche, but true) had to move out of the city.
While I believe in regulation of rent rate increases (ideally, if improbably, after some massive city-wide readjustment of the market), the way rent control happens right now in SF is completely unfair and arbitrary.
5
@Claudia Gold As the population increases, good luck with 'preserving nature' regardless of the density.
3
@Claudia Gold The "affordable" housing isn't affordable. In NYC, the income limits for families is ridiculous.
3
It is curious that this article does not address how many housing units are removed due to short term rentals, out-of-state or foreign interests buying them up. There is no proof whatsoever that supply and demand economics works in real estate, it is only one of many factors in the price and availability of housing. The builders solution benefits the builders and real estate tycoons, nobody else. A decline in housing prices (were it to happen) steals most peoples only investment, with their own tax dollars in many cases and pushes those on the cusp of affording their mortgage into default, a bonanza for the banks and bankers.
38
@Tibby Elgato No proof? Seattle rents have recently gone down after a massive influx of new units. DC rents flat-lined after a similar influx. Tokyo builds a huge # of units every year, and is one of the more "affordable" megacities in the developed world.
There is plenty of proof supply and demand works in real estate.
25
@Tibby Elgato " There is no proof whatsoever that supply and demand economics works in real estate, "
even if you were right about that (you're not), there are additional benefits of higher density, as the article notes - dense living is more environmentally friendly, not to mention you'd allow more people to live in desirable neighborhoods.
going back to your initial quote, of course prices will raise when demand for short-term rentals increases; this doesn't invalidate the law of supply of demand, it's rather an illustration of that very law. so is foreign investment in real estate.
9
@Bogdan and Fedee--in fact, what research shows is that in a few cases prices do level off, but at a much higher rate than that which preceded it, thus ensuring that housing remained unaffordable and unwelcome to any but the most affluent or the readiest to sacrifice everything to pay rent. As for environmental impact, it's true that per capita CO2 emissions decline as the number of people crowded into a building increases. However, the actual absolute amount of CO2 (and all other pollutants) increases because each individual is producing pollutants. Same with cars: reduce parking spaces, and you end up (in rare cases) with a reduction in per capita car ownershp, but with many more cars because the more people you crowd onto a block or into a city, the more cars total, even with reduced per capita. And you also add Uber, Lyft, restaurant and Amazon deliveries, which are worse than car ownership. Finally, demolition and new construction are very bad for the environment, as is covering over green space and removing trees. If we were concerned about environment, we'd be planting trees and opening up green spaces rather than building more big buildings. Density, as construed by big developers and their social media PR team is uninterrogated propaganda. Don't fall for it.
11
Really need to hear why the "towers in the park" concept from the early to mid-20th century failed and morphed into the proverbial "projects" where crime and degradation became prevalent.
I was under the impression that Planners over the last 50 years or so had concluded that the keys to successful urban density housing included a broad mix of household economic levels with a maximum of 10% low-income dwelling units in each development, proximate to outdoor recreation areas, mass transit / walking distance of occupational opportunities, and diverse support services such as grocers, markets, drugstores, retail, restaurants, medical and dental services.
In a place like NYC, it has always mystified me why these parameters can't be codified/incentivized into new developments, to make them self-supporting as much as possible to create a sense of place and pride of place amongst residents.
20
@roc1 simple answer: no retail or services. And that was by design. The projects weren't designed to be communities. Rather, they were designed to be storehouses from which workers would necessarily have to travel each day to do the lower paying jobs in the bustling urban cores.
True story.
8
@roc1 Also failing because racism ensured that funding for maintenance would be below what was required, from the beginning. Also, the interstate highway system and mid-century economic boom, favored suburbanization as a means of preserving racist, segregationist thinking. The themes of the NYT's 1619 project continue to ring true. We must move beyond the myriad ways racism has structured our society. Density continues to be feared because of its long association with socially undesirable groups (e.g. African Americans and darker, non- northwestern European groups.
7
@roc1 I am a housing historian and I can tell you that when it comes to subsidized and low income “towers in the park,” one key reason is the loss of municipal and state funds for the maintenance of such housing. When spaces aren’t maintained people who care about safety leave and things get worse.
While there are issues with “towers in the park” not having services and many were designed for the automobile era and are not easily walkable, those problems don’t have to do with density or with the presence of towers.
You can watch the excellent documentary (which I believe has an interview with one of the curators of this show) “The Pruitt-Igoe Myth” for more on this.
In short: it’s all about the maintenance.
9
The problem that informed people have with the density propaganda pushed by developers is that it is full of flaws. The only consistent takeaway is that the massively wealthy and influential real estate industry seeks to maximize profits and will sell this however they can but meanwhile, as this article demonstrates, all they have is hypotheses: no actual examples of how density is having a positive impact on affordable housing or on the environment. Quite the contrary. Crowding is not good for people--it causes more pollution, it takes out trees and open space, it has a negative impact on mental and physical health. Jane Jacobs argued for *walkable* neighborhoods, not crowding. Walkable neighborhoods means being motivated to walk, to do your chores in a few blocks. In contrast, these overpriced behemoths are a highway to Amazon, Uber, and Lyft.
We do have a housing crisis in the US--for low-income and, increasingly, middle class people. I'd like to see developers proposing ways to house those populations in high opportunity neighborhoods: now. Not in some fantasied future.
Stop drinking the developer Kool-Aid, stop engaging in developers' propagandistic ad hominems against those who question the destructive ambition and greed of developers. Instead of hypotheticals, show us where these theories are working for anyone other than developers.
34
@Valerie "no actual examples of how density is having a positive impact on affordable housing or on the environment. "
there are _plenty_ of examples of how high density is good for the environment. a new yorker's environmental footprint is much smaller than a californian's (because her living quarters will be small, therefore requiring less energy to heat or cool; because it's easier to heat apartments adjacent to other apartments than houses; because a new yorker is much more likely to take public transit to work and walk to the supermarket; etc).
as for your distinction between walkable and crowded: most dense cities are more walkable than less dense cities, almost by definition. what you call "crowded" might be a more subjective matter, but i will just say that both paris and new york are some of the most walkable cities you'll ever see, and they're also quite dense. they don't seem too "crowded" to me, although of course i understand why some might feel differently.
12
@Bogdan: can you point me to peer-reviewed, scholarly studies that document positive environmental impact, and also that document this amazing trend of creating affordable housing? I do not want to be referred to developer propaganda "working papers." All the studies I have read, by scholars, suggests that perhaps some day in the future "affordable" housing could be created, but that in fact the notion of "filtering" turned out to be a dud, that desirable neighborhoods just get more expensive and have a negative impact on surrounding neighborhoods, and so on. And the more people, the more pollution, no matter whether you reduce the per capita rates of any type of pollution. Finally, demolition and new construction are themselves highly toxic, as is eliminating open space (groundwater and sky) as well as eliminating tree canopy. These are bad for all of us. No research to support the opposition, as far as my extensive reviews of scientific literature have turned up.
7
@Valerie try Edward Glaeser, "The Triumph of the City". really cool book, and from what I remember he has a chapter dedicated to environmental impact. but the whole book is worth reading, it shows how immensely destructive NIMBYism is. not only for people who live in the city and barely afford it, but most interestingly, for people _outside_ they city.
the guy is more right-wing than i'd like, but he makes some really compelling points.
again, when you think about pollution (and other goods that cities provide) you need to take into account what happens to those people we effectively bar from the city with our zoning laws. of course SF "pollutes less" than it would if it had five million more people. but as it is, those five million people do not just disappear into thin air - they are still living somewhere (maybe not a dense area), polluting even more!
7
The housing shortage in many cities is greatly exacerbated by investors (many from overseas) who purchase buildings as investments but keep them vacant. I lived for awhile in a lovely neighborhood in SF, and was amazed about how many of the row houses on my block appeared vacant. They were maintained, but probably for half of them, I never saw evidence of people actually living there for the 4 years I spent on the block. I suspect some were 2nd (or 3rd or 4th) homes of wealthy Americans who wanted pied-a-terres in the city. I suspect a lot were owned by investors from China or elsewhere too. A real estate friend told me that he commonly purchased homes for wealthy Chinese, as American real estate was seen as a safe way to park cash when living in Communist China. Apparently Portland OR and other cities are experiencing this too. Thousands of homes in expensive cities are owned in this manner, further restricting the true housing supply.
I'm not sure how to fix this, but it's a big problem that is not often discussed!
155
@Itsy i think there are plenty of ways to fix this (vacant property tax?) but i'm not sure it's such a big problem. people mention this all the time, but i haven't really seen any numbers to support the claim.
5
@Itsy This type of ownership doesn't "restrict" true housing supply or cause a housing shortage. These properties were sold in the open market and bought by the highest bidder. Period. If they were occupied with big families you would complain that they are overcrowding your schools.
8
@Itsy Housing units that are not used as primary residences (i.e. more than 6 months of the year) AND are in places with housing shortages ought to be subject to a much higher property tax than primary residences are.
41
'I want more neighbors' said nobody ever.
There is no doubt that many people enjoy the wide variety of amenities that come along with high density housing, but it is very easy to discount how important density is when the average person thinks about why these amenities exist.
As much as we love amenities though, people still drive us nuts on a fairly regular basis.
On top of that, change and the inevitable uncertainty that comes drives us nuts even more than people.
Combine the two, change and more people, and you have the perfect recipe for dismissing density while embracing the amenities.
6
"Density" should really be viewed as a relative term that may vary depending on your needs and situation.
Pre-kids, I absolutely loved living in a very dense urban environment. I didn't own a car, and the smallness of my apartment was offset by the amazing amenities within a short distance of my apartment. Honestly, I didn't even spend much time in my apartment.
With 3 kids, I'm really glad I don't live there anymore. I appreciate the single family home we have, the ability to drive places rather than carting 3 young kids on a bus everywhere. But our neighborhood is still pretty dense. The houses aren't huge, most running around 1800 or 2000 square feet. The yards are small. As a result, there are a lot of single family homes on a given block--which translates into enough density to support our vibrant restaurant/cafe/local shops scene. We still walk to almost everything. There are also apartment buildings throughout the neighborhood to give cheaper options to individuals and couples who need less space.
I don't think we need to force everyone into highly dense living situations. We need to create communities that are "dense enough".
79
@Itsy We had the opposite experience. We lived for four years in student-family housing when my husband was in grad school. We lived in a 700-square foot apartment with two kids under the age of five. Our apartment sat in a run-down complex with a central courtyard. All of our neighbors were also students with families. The result? The kids ran in a pack from dawn to dusk, always supervised by one or more of the adults. Legendary potlucks of international fare. Whole weekends spent loitering in the courtyard with neighbors, gossiping, eating, or playing with the kids. We hardly spent time in our small apartments, but even so the units were smartly functional. As each family graduated and had to move on, each mourned leaving the community. Now we had to commute, arrange "play dates" for our kids, and so on. We keep in touch on Facebook, but every single one of our "courtyard" families mourn that period of our lives, and wonder why we can't recreate that living situation.
50
@Itsy "I don't think we need to force everyone into highly dense living situations"
i'm pretty sure nobody ever suggested this (outside of the former Soviet Union and Communist China). you are arguing against a strawman. the issue is whether we should allow people this lifestyle (with few exceptions, we currently don't) not whether we should force them into it.
16
@Itsy With all due respect, the situation you describe is the very definition for the cause of our planet's environmental crisis, i.e. population increase and sprawl. Switching from walking, biking, transit to cars, from a compact apartment sharing walls with other units to a free-standing home, occupying a few hundred square feet to occupying thousands of square feet, all these multiply our carbon footprint exponentially. Agreed that it is unwise to force everyone into dense living but we should encourage it and certainly not prevent it for those who want to live that way, as many, many do.
17
When NYC pays attention to the necessary infrastructure changes, I might be a little less wary of increasing neighborhood density. Since I KNOW that is the last thing on developers mind (private or city), and that the city is basically unable to keep up with the necessary infrastructure developments, I will continue to be wary. (Look how long the 2nd ave subway took to build; look at all the development in Jamaica Queens, and no changes to the E or F lines)
Without infrastructure improvements (in terms of utilities, but also consumer services), newly densified neighborhoods will not be pleasantly walkable or commutable, but annoyingly insufficient and inconvenient.
The pleasantly dense neighborhoods you mention in your article were the ones that developed at the same time that subways expanded throughout NYC. The same is true of the North Side of Chicago. (And your next sentence about rich celebrities living in London Terrace in fact confirms the fears of many that led to community pushbacks towards Mayor deBlasio's development.)
Lastly, apartments for multimillionaires are enormous (and in some neighborhoods probably contribute to lowering density despite being in towers given the fact there are so many absentee owners); new apartments for the middle class are insultingly small compared to apartments that were built for middle class people a century ago.
33
@Minmin
You write: “look at all the development in Jamaica Queens, and no changes to the E or F lines)”.
What time period are you speaking about?
The E and F lines were completed to 179th Street in Jamaica Estates along Hillside Avenue by 1940. The QJ line ran as an elevated line at that time, terminating at 168th Street. In the eighties and nineties, the QJ line was undergrounded and the E train was rerouted from the Queens Boulevard interchange with Hillside Avenue to that tunnel with both lines terminating at 168th Street. The F line service remained unchanged. At the same time, the “Train to the Plane” service was initiated between JFK Airport and Jamaica Station (Long Island Railroad) at Sutphin Boulevard with an interchange to the E and QJ lines at that point.
2
@5barris —I mean recently. There have been no recent major changes to E and F since the second tunnel around 2000. Jamaica is undergoing significant redevelopment (lots of hotels and apartment buildings, which is good, but infrastructure can’t keep up). The airtrain is good but it’s not really a commuters line.
4
@Minmin you cannot ask for infrastructure before you have development. for one thing, the money for infrastructure usually comes from property tax revenue, which doesn't increase in the absence of more housing units.
2
I'm having some trouble drawing the line between increased density and positive outcomes, and the same for lower density and worse outcomes. This article describes a correlation but in my mind really falls flat of describing causation.
As someone who grew up in suburbs, I strongly preferred finding a single family home in my adult life. My wife and I settled into a suburb of Cleveland in a small house with a backyard for just under 100k. It's a lovely neighborhood and a picture of what racial integration SHOULD look like. We love our life here.
According to the excellent reporting of Aaron Glantz from Reveal and his book Homewreckers, a great deal of our housing crisis can be attributed to the investment banks which scooped up single family homes at rock bottom during the recession, then set them up as rentals, charging exorbitant rent and taking them off the market for ownership nigh indefinitely.
Looking at you, Steve Mnuchin.
89
@Jordan Farr I grew up in a similar neighborhood outside of Cleveland (possibly the same one!). I spent my adult life in expensive cities on the East and West Coasts. The housing prices on the coasts are outrageous (tho I can afford it, luckily). But it drives me nuts when people move to these cities and then complain about housing costs. There are many many wonderful places to live in the middle of the country that don't have the high price tag (Cleveland suburbs being an excellent example). People seem so snooty about the middle of the country, though--like how could anyone suggest they live there???
Instead of the answer to the housing crisis being to make housing more dense, maybe the answer should be to encourage people to live in one of the many wonderful alternatives off of the coast.
19
@Itsy Provided that sufficient jobs exist in the heartland.
Part of the problem is that economic activity has become increasingly concentrated on the coasts.
21
But the coasts are where many if not most of the educated jobs are. There are mega-politan areas that support jobs not elsewhere available. There’s a reason people still move to NYC despite the cost, same reason why people still move to Los Angles and the Bay Area, because that’s where the opportunity is.
16
The problem is that when people with good incomes live in high rises, they seem to stay safe and well kept.
And when people with low incomes live in high rises, they seem to be dangerous and falling apart.
45
Race remains an excellent predictive measure of high-rise upkeep, too.
4
@SR Sorry, no. It’s income level and character. Not race.
16
@Talbot Public housing in Austria and Singapore is safe and well managed, with mixed incomes. Public Housing in the US is poorly managed and maintained for the most part. The ideologues would have it be so.
10
If you polled a representative sample of people across the US and asked them if they wanted to live in Co-Op City, I bet the answers would echo a resounding "NO WAY". Yeah, lots of air and light on that tiny little balcony. There is nothing "suburban" about it. When housing "scholars" just look at numbers and not design and aesthetics, walkability, creating a livable neighborhood to human scale, and environmental impact, you get "projects". We need more creative thinkers than number crunchers like these. This article could have had more depth and it's a conversation many places need to have.
10
"Well-to-do NIMBYs, congenitally opposed to new developments, have lately been joined by anti-displacement tenant activists — advocates for poor and working-class residents who might ordinarily want more housing but have come to fear that nearly all development brings gentrification that prices the most vulnerable out of neighborhoods." This exact concept is manifesting itself in neighborhoods that are gentrifying in Chicago, where activists take to the streets to protest any market-rate development. What they fail to realize is that if a neighborhood is "chic," "hip," "trendy," or desirable at all, people are going to continue to move-in and keep-up demand. How do you prevent displacement? Increase supply, increase density. It baffles me how NIMBYs and Activists cannot grasp the basic rules of supply and demand.
Instead they could be focusing on keeping lower-income or established residents in their homes by moving towards home-ownership or partnerships with local landlords. As well participating in local planning meetings to create smart growth plan, placing higher density, appropriately massed buildings near transit stops and on higher-density corridors.
98
@Michael Really wonderful points!
Anyone in the Bay Area who wants to support the types of ideas in Michael's second paragraph should look up EB PREC.
1
@Michael that might work for your city but here it is displacing everyone of every stripe
Even so called nimbys are getting pushed out
It’s complicated state by state city by city
2
I was amused and depressed during the debate over the Atlantic Yards development (against which there were some important arguments) that some denounced it as “high-rise sprawl.” Somehow they combined the contradictory bugaboos of urban sprawl, urban density into one insult.
9
Naive article.
“Public housing was designed to ‘take people out of the city,’” Mr. Freemark said, but “denser urban neighborhoods are where people with choice have almost always preferred to live.” No, that is not where people with a choice have almost always preferred to live.
Towns other than large cities used to be walkable neighborhoods with jobs. Economic policies have forced people out of these areas and into ever denser cities, which benefits developers and investment banks. Then the taxpayers are forced to subsidize the building of all these so called "affordable housing" and other projects, which somehow end up in rents being even more expensive over time.
When city planners spend more time with developers than ordinary citizens, and the spreadsheets used to justify tax increment financing of a lot of these projects are hidden with deliberation from the publics' eyes, ordinary folks don't benefit.
Follow the money.
21
People do prefer to live in walkable communities. When people assert that suburbia is the most desired because the most people want live there, what is lost is the amount of government subsidy that goes into suburbs. Look at some of them now unable to pay for their own expenses because of a dwindling tax base. They’d need *subsidies* to continue existing.
62
It's not cities versus suburbs. That's a false dichotomy. It's big cities versus everywhere else.
Cities are heavily subsidized--public transportation receives grant money and gets subsidized from one or more government enterprise funds and local tax dollars, which are paid for by ordinary people. Plus, there's a reason city governments hide details about tax increment financing for their projects--very few taxpayers would accept these projects if they knew how much they actually cost. And let's talk cities' stadiums--new stadiums are money losers for the people that actually pay taxes to pay back the bonds cities (or their city created private companies) raise to pay for them. Cities also receive a heck of a lot of federal grant money (e.g. federal tax dollars) to subsidize housing and community development and infrastructure. My home town is getting a lot less per capita in government aid than big cities are across the country.
3
@Charlie Naive comment. You oversimplify the evolution of the American economy which has always included both urban centers and smaller towns and with people who are drawn to each.
6
Good points that some tall buildings waste land and are
not the best approach "[to] become less automobile and carbon dependent" whereas shorter residential buildings sited closer together can achieve higher density. The piece would be even stronger if it had some reference to actual energy consumption data. How do Tudor Place and London Terrace actually perform as low-carbon communities?
Sad that often affordable housing advocates fail to see density as their friend even if subsidized rent comes with the package, but what about the growing YIMBY movement. Maybe these folks are outnumbered, but it would be nice to see us mentioned.
9
@Susan support for "affordable housing" is truly commendable when very low income people actually get their housing subsidized. Many so called "affordable housing" projects actually subsidize people who would be able to get housing anyway and are NOT designed to accommodate the very low income folks who actually need housing. I hope you are paying attention to WHO exactly is the real targeted demographic for each affordable housing project (and it shouldn't be the single person right of of college whose income is going to rise and who could afford housing if they lived with a roommate).
4
@Charlie Why can't we help *all* of those groups of people afford housing? The single person out of college might have $150k in debt and might take decades to pay that off. Yes priority should go to the ones who need it most, but the US has plenty of money for both.
Programs that help a larger swath of society (social security, medicare) tend to last much longer and be political harder to cut back on than programs that are targeted strictly for the poor.
4
@Susan
The city requires private buildings over 50,000 SF to report energy/water consumption metrics.
Here's a handy map with an enormous amount of information collected due to that law:
https://energy.cusp.nyu.edu/
Enjoy.
1
There are lots and lots (pun intended) of City-owned land that is being underutilized that should be sold to private developers contingent on them building 100% "Affordable" units. Let the debate begin about what "Affordable" means, but this would certainly help.
28
@Full Name Great idea- and not just city but county state and Universities. If those areas were highlighted on a map I think we would all be amazed at who the mega real estate owners are...
3