Hayek's View of New Urbanism
"If we wish to preserve a free society," Friedrick Hayek once wrote, "it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion." These are words worth remembering this year, on the 60th anniversary of Hayek's seminal work, The Road to Serfdom.
Hayek's maxim is a bedrock principle of American liberty. Simply because a majority of Americans may prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla, we don't demand that the government ban all sales of vanilla. Although one may not appreciate the personal preferences of others, we typically realize that they're not any of our concern.
Alas, there is an established movement that argues precisely the opposite. They call themselves the "new urbanists" and advocate "smart growth" to curb the growth of that malignancy known portentously as "urban sprawl."
Those are, of course, merely buzzwords. New urbanism is, in reality, a set of policies aimed at managing development with an eye for greater population density, thus encouraging more public transit, and fewer cars. To this end, they recommend that local governments pass strict land use controls, including urban growth boundaries, zoning laws restricting the construction of single-family homes, and even the expanded use of eminent domain to foreclose on existing developments.
Of course, no philosophy is complete without a villain, and for the new urbanists the villain is low-density suburban development, a.k.a. "sprawl." Although Americans have flocked to suburban neighborhoods since time immemorial, there have always been those who, because they dislike the suburbs, wish to see their popularity diminished. That's how new urbanism first came about – because of resentment .
However, the unfettered real estate market offers no impediments to the development of high-density neighborhoods. Without the benefit of government interference, many individuals already choose urban living over the suburbs. What makes new urbanists resentful, then, is the fact that most people don't .
Now, the new urbanists could have simply become cheerleaders for urban development. They could have engaged in public campaigns, encouraging others to join the fold and live like San Franciscans. The effort might have been futile, but it would have been unquestionably legitimate. Instead, they have sought to enforce their preferences through coercion. They love their flavor of living so much, they intend to make it dominate under pain of law.
Occasionally, the new urbanists will allow their draconian intentions to slip out. For example, last year during a city council meeting on the subject of transit ridership in Madison , Wisconsin , project manager David Townbridge remarked that " lots of people on the council … would like to use parking rates as a mechanism to force mass transit." He then gravely predicted that " people will think about whether they really want to pay at least $100 a month just to park."
"Force mass transit?" That's a key tenet of the new urbanist agenda. If people won't choose the "correct" path on their own, the new urbanists aim to force them to.
Similarly, in both San Diego and Los Angeles efforts are currently underway to ban the construction of the so-called "big box" stores. This would include popular chains such as Wal-Mart and Costco. According to the new urbanists, such bans are desirable because large retail stores foster the development of "sprawl." Whether or not shoppers like or dislike these stores is irrelevant; it's enough that they post a threat to new urbanist designs.
Of course, big box stores are better for consumers because they offer a superior selection at lower prices. This reveals an objective problem with new urbanism; it's simply more expensive. Since it imposes densification, real estate costs invariably increase, and higher real estate costs lead to higher prices at the register. On top of that, lot sizes are often regulated, which limits store selection and likewise increases costs.
This, I'm afraid, is not a matter of preference. It's one of economics. The new urbanists are costing us money.
Yet in the mind of new urbanists, this is completely justified. Who cares if vanilla costs less if chocolate is better? Under their philosophy, they're doing society a favor by enforcing a better way of living. In their view, we should be thanking them for saving us from ourselves.
Therein lies the problem with the new urbanists. They don't trust people making their own choices with their own money. They want to make the decisions for us on how and where we should live our lives, and no matter how pure their motivations may be, their methods are simply atrocious. Only I know what's best for me. They only know what's best for themselves.
Ultimately, it comes down to this simple principle: I don't want to be forced to eat chocolate if I happen to prefer vanilla. And neither should you.
Owen Courrèges is a Research Fellow in the Urban Futures program at the Reason Foundation.
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
There are currently no posts in this category.
Planetizen picks
Contribute
- The Benefits of Creating Hybrid Zoning Codes
- The Appeal of In-Town Big Box
- The Growing Appeal of Drinking From the Toilet
- How and Why Does an Architect Become Famous?
- Could Good Design Have Prevented the Housing Crisis?
- NY Times Defends the Port Authority
- Expanding the Hong Kong Subway, One Blast at a Time
- Can An Electric Bike Replace A Car?
- The Growing Popularity of Women-Only Mass Transit
- Putting the Bloom Back on the Rose Bowl
Volunteerism Plays Critical Role in Reaching World’s Millennium Development Goals
Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs, Cleveland State University
Feb 10, 2012
www.flickr.com
|
typical developers lead to higher RE taxes.
don't hehe... Owen writes like most who have never really been in an industry and have no sense of history. "Sprawl" exists only because of massive subsudy of the auto industry. Sprawl raises my real estate taxes.
"However, the unfettered real estate market offers no impediments to the development of high-density neighborhoods. Without the benefit of government interference, many individuals already choose urban living over the suburbs. What makes new urbanists resentful, then, is the fact that most people don't ."
Sorry bud, but most communities have their zoning slanted towards sprawl. Try actually Getting on a planning Commission somewhere like in Pa and find out it all ain't so simple as to be solved in a column write from lack of knowledge.
Hayek' s view of New Urbanism
Truly a brilliant defense of American Liberty.
That is if your view of American Liberty is to eventually drown in one's own filth. Mr. Courreges' assasination of "New Urbanism" as straw man is both one dimensional and short sighted, as evidenced by the cornball patriotism included in your argument.
I would recommended that you read up on your Thomas Malthus before arguing that such approaches to planning merely "cost us money".
More highways! More cars! More parking lots! More pollution! Count the costs inherent to the exercise of these liberties first, if you would.
Eating vanilla would thus be the least of your worries one day.
LRT isn't old-time streetcars
Michael Setty invokes a bizarre contention, that the old-style streetcars, which can yield right of way to autos, are somehow the equivalent of modern-day light rail transit cars. They aren't. I've ridden both New Orleans streetcars and light rail in Houston, and I know the difference. There's a reason why old-style at-grade streetcars are not the same as modern at-grade light rail. It's an invalid comparison.
As for other criticisms of my argument, I'll simply say this -- I do not favor policies that unfairly support suburban growth either. However, market momentum has been favoring suburban growth for several decades, and although this has been encouraged by the government, it was not caused by the government. Advocates of smart growth, conversely, continually want the government to create a momentum for development where none currently exists. I see a difference there as well.
Emotional Anaylsis
This anaylsis is itself based purely on emotion and fails to look at the massive public subsidies (the national highway system) that allowed subrurban development, or the ethical issues (i.e. loss of countryside and animal environments) that accompany suburbanization. I don't agree that the whole point of new urbanism is to force all Americans to live in cities. I think new urbanists today as a whole recognize the need for mixed-income, mixed-use, and mixed-density landscapes to allow all people to live as they wish.
Confusion about the point
A lot of the back and forth here, especially the criticizm of Owen's points, confuses his criticism of restricitions based on new urbanist ideas with the ideas themselves.
As Ost pointed out in the last comment, let the competition begin. What Owen and Reason advocate is minimizing the restriction placed on land use and allowing people to choose how to live and travel--be it suburban or new urban--free of subsidies or restrictions designed to "shape" their choices.
Old style restrictions and subsidies and new ones based on new urban ideas are equally harmful. It's the interventions that are the problem, the different models for living can compete in a real free market. Let restrictions focus on dealing with real harm and leave the rest to people's choices.
Poor Logic All Around
Having read both the original editorial and the replies, I have to say that they are almost uniformly poor. It is much more akin to a religious war than a reasoned debate. Hardly a paragon of objectivity. Most of the replies amount to nothing more than baseless assertions without reference to "surveys" and "studies" - our new bibles.
On the other hand, the original editorial is equally weak. The whole planning scenario takes place in the context of government - which is by definition a monopoly of force and coercion. Objections that the existing market is not free because it unjustly favors sprawl are as arbitrary as the author's claim that that new urbanist policies distort the existing free market.
Hayek also wrote that there were valid cases for monopoly and regulation. If I recall correctly, the principle justifications offered were when the distribution of costs were not feasible (as in the case of utilities, roads, etc), extreme technical challenges (very rare), and when neighborhood effects prevented sharing fair valuation of costs and benefits.
Planning is necessary because of the inherent neighborhood effects. Unless we are willing to dump all forms of zoning law, the government will always have a role in determining what can be built where. Note that without this regulation individual "free" investments in housing or commercial real estate would always be at risk because anything could be built next door.
In fact, Hayek specifically endorsed government regulation that set boundaries within which competition and the free market were free to act.
My only question for the new urbanists and smart growth people is this, how does suburban sprawl prevent smart growth and new urbanism? If it does not, then let the competition begin. According to most of the authoritative surveys quoted, new urbanist communities are the inexorable wave of the future. How can irrational sprawl policies resist the tide of history?
free market?
One need only scan the other stories in this edition of Planetizen's top 20 stories to debunk Mr. Courreges's arguments. See "WAL-MART GETS MORE THAN $1 BILLION IN GOVT. SUBSIDIES" and "THE INTERCOUNTY CONNECTOR THAT ISN'T: This proposed 18-mile Intercounty Connector is estimated to cost 166 million a mile." I would like to see sprawl development compete with urban development in an unfettered market. I work to see that happen.
Let's now dispense with the disingenuous assertions, such as density invariably raising prices. Another Planetizen story notes that Orange County, CA, nears build-out. Might that perhaps be a reason why median home prices push 1/2 million dollars? Wouldn't a free market economist argue that more homes in the same land area would be more affordable? Or perhaps the sprawl lobby will again bait and switch, bring up places like downtown San Diego or Oakland and argue that prices there are going up not because of demand (the market's acceptance of urban development) but because of anti-growth policies propagated by middle-class Republican enclaves many miles away.
And, there's no such thing as free parking. Why would a capitalist be opposed to the consumer paying for parking as a user fee in lieu of consumers absorbing the cost in the price of goods?
Free-market folks, why don't you focus on battling arbitrary density restrictions that pervade zoning ordinances throughout the country or fight the billions of pork dollars plunked down for beltways that carry less than half of their capacities? I'm not in favor of paying extra for mandatory front porches either, but that to me is no more problematic than a minimum half-acre lot that I can't afford or the government raising my taxes because the guy in the Lexus next to me is mad because he had to stop twice for the same stoplight.
Hayek: deja vu again
Hayek simply rehashes the smart-growth bashing rhetoric we've heard many times. The script twists reality. After generations of policies that practically outlawed city building and subsidized sprawl, groups that try to level the playing field to allow more choices are branded as anti-choice. Where were these defenders of freedom when FHA prohibited loans for existing buildings, and even required racial covenants restricting minorities? Why do they now spring up to fight attempts to build diverse, walkable neighborhood choices?
Like his counterparts, Hayek makes paints smart growth with blanket assertions such as prohiting single-family homes, with no examples or data what-so-ever. Virtually all smart growth and new urbanist policies promote housing choices.
Force mass transit in Madison with parking prices? Parking is intensely subsidized by rents and retail prices. $100 is the going market rate for monthly parking in downtown Madison. Shouldn't transportation choices be based on market prices?
The rest of this deja vu will likely follow script: people will diligently set the record straight about new urbanism and smart growth, perhaps invite the more reasonable libertarians to join in removing real barriers to housing and neighborhood choice. This will be followed by the next, nearly identical, harangue attacking smart growth and new urbanism as being anti-choice.....
Your view of New Urbanism
Although I appreciate your article for balancing what I can sometimes see as the New Urbanism impediment, government regulation, I think that you are too quick to bash the movement without really understanding the whole picture.
New Urbanism didn't come about because certain people enjoyed urban living and wanted to force else live the same way, nor did it arise because these people “resented” the suburbs, as you claim. New Urbanists may resent the suburbs for the impediment they serve to the cause, but that resentment is the not the source of the cause per se. Forgive me if I sound like an introductory planning course, but it is quite clear why one would advocate a new urbanist approach. There are decreased costs to the consumer, both in transportation and housing (if done right); decreased infrastructure costs to the city, planning agency, or regional government (let the sprawl mistakes of many central Californian cities serve as an example); increased convenience to the resident (again, if done right); healthier and more fit people (compare indexes of sprawl and commute times with obesity levels, and you'll find Texas at the top, coincidentally the same state that most advocates the most "free market" principles); and let us not even begin to cover the vast environmental benefits, which will serve as significantly reduced costs down the road. There are many other reasons behind the New Urbanist approach, but this was only meant to summarize the many the motivations for the movement, which do not include one’s preference being forced upon others. To simply understand the movement as that is to not understand it at all.
Also, there are a number of statements that are unfounded in your article. You say that there are no impediments to the real estate market to develop of high density neighborhoods, but, in actuality, it is quite the opposite. There are tons of zoning regulations still in tact that encourage cities and developers to build essentially low density sprawl. These include, but are not limited to: the arbitrary designation of very large pieces of land to one type of development; the site cleanup regulations which discourage infill development; and the single use zoning that many cities partake in that make it much harder, if not impossible, to build mixed use development, a staple of the New Urbanist movement. You talk about New Urbanists imposing regulations as if there are not already tons of them already in existence that directly and indirectly encourage suburban sprawl. The funny thing is, though, that you argue that a free market would be best for cities, but most developers will tell you that they prefer a moderate amount of regulation to direct their efforts and keep things competitive with other developers. Also, regardless of the fact that theoretically there is not such thing as a free market - because there is always, and has to be, government intervention to serve the best interests of the people – if you were to give the real estate a free market slate, then these sanctions encouraging sprawl would have to be removed too. Too few regulations and then planning would become useless. Let us not even to try and imagine a world without planning.
You also have a number of misconceptions about the real estate market. There is a multitude of research and survey material out there that has proven that there is a large percentage of people would prefer more urban living as opposed to living in a single family suburban home. They cite that the number one reason why they don’t, though, is the lack of housing options available. Call me crazy, but perhaps that has to do with the aforementioned regulations that encourage suburban development.
You also quote project manager David Townbridge when he talks about using parking rates to “force mass transit”. Although, I will agree that his word usage was poor, and perhaps that was his sole intention - that, my friend, is not the intention of most New Urbanists. Charging for parking in cities is not done so much as an effort to encourage mass transit as it is to make people who drive cars begin to pay for the actual cost of driving, which can sometimes manifest itself as crowded streets, polluted air and aquifers, and construction of expensive pieces of infrastructure such as freeways or parking garages. Driving is deceptively inexpensive because it is footed almost wholly as a public expenditure. But, when public transit is even fractionally supported by tax revenues, it is criticized for not being able to pay for itself. If you want people to be able to make a free market decision on whether to drive or take transit, you would either have almost fully subsidize public transit, or use mechanisms such as charging for parking that do a small part to more accurately reflect the literal (not to mention social) costs of driving.
Economics of New Urbanism
Beyond promoting higher population densities, New Urbanism also promotes pedestrian destinations. One advantage of putting more people on the street is a reduction in street crime - nobody wants to commit a crime when there are witnesses. New Urbanism also recognizes that road access to suburbs is a cost that is unfairly subsidized by city dwellers who don't (most of america lives in cities), and seeks to rectify this by concentrating spending on public transit options for the many rather than exclusive transit options for the few (at least public transit brings in some money - roads just need constant repair). Not to mention the moral ethical complications of sprawl (oil consumption promotes dictatorships in the middle east and south america, big boxes promote indentured servitude in china), i would like to point out that when most of america likes chocolate, americans do try to ban vanilla, e.g. the debate about gay marriage (which is not a political issue for any self-respecting secular government), debates about moral standards on television and radio, and a general reluctance on the part of media outlets to show americans the damage our bombs are causing in iraq. the plain fact is most americans aren't sufficiently responsible to spend their money correctly; if they were, americans would be demanding auto manufacturers to make more hybrid cars, which would reduce our dependance on foreign oil and, depending on your perspective, would have saved us some $200+ billion in absurdist dada military exploits.
"Rational Man" Theory and Reptillian Brain Practic
Mr. Courreges and other libertarians would do well to consider contemporary marketing tactics that are based on market research into stimulating responses from the "reptillian", primitive part of the human brain. A good discussion of this real-world market research and the applciations of its findings can be found in the book by the former Detroit correspondent for the New York Times, Keith Bradsher in his book "High and Mighty: The Dangerous Rise of the SUV" (Public Affairs Press). Bradsher reports on interviews with remarkably frank auto industry market researchers and marketing executives. The implications of what he reports have wide application, well beyond the auto industry. This view into the real-world of consumer marketing brings into stark relief the realism of the "rational man" hypothothesis on which the entire neo-classical economics (and libertarian) theoretical house of cards is built. Comments Mr. Courreges?
Owen Courrèges' "Scholarship"
A couple of weeks ago, this Houston-based "analyst" wrote a www.rppi.org opinion warning the Memphis, TN area of the alleged numerous "dangers" of ground level rail transit, for a proposed LRT line to Memphis airport.
Courrèges made a big point of the high rate that wacko Houston drivers crash into their new LRT cars. His warning ignored, of course, the excellent safety record of the 100% ground level streetcar system Memphis has been running for several years now, let alone 140 years of New Orleans streetcar operations 300 miles to the south of Memphis.
As Bill Clinton, the "big dawg" of Arkansas politics is fond of saying, "that dog (i.e., Courrèges' logic) won't hunt."
Freemarket
This guy's arguement has one huge hole it. He claims there's an "unfettered real estate market" that prefers sprawl. For many years and in most places, anything resembling "new urbanism", which as we all know is essentially "old urbanism", has been made to be illegal. All of us that like new urbanism only want it to be an alternative, which it hasn't been for so many of us for too long.
-Ryan
Eating superpremium ice cream, paying for ice milk
Mitch Glaser writes "Courreges couches his argument on an assumption that everyone in the U.S. is able to "choose" a fine suburban home, a car and its albatross of maintenance, and big-box retail." And then he goes on to discuss housing for the non-rich.
I think that's important point (I live in a mixed urban community myself, Washington, DC), but think an additional and different point needs to be emphasized other than the issue of equity.
I agree that many (if not most) people want that fine suburban home, access to big box retail and cheap gallon jars of pickles, and cheaper gas for their increasingly large vehicles.
More importantly they want everyone else to pay for all the extra costs that such a choice wreaks upon society.
People like Courreges, Wendell Cox, and Randall O'Toole ignore the fact that the market is impure, that there are huge distortions in the "free" market. One of the distortions is the fact that the costs generated by sprawl and its pattern aren't covered by developers and the new occupiers of residential and commercial sprawl. Another distortion is the flawed public policies (and financial and development practices) that support sprawl as well as the political-economic relationships that continue to let such policies run roughshod over the planning and development agenda.
Developers donate great sums of money to politicians and this has extra-normal influence on the process. This is obvious, but seems to go over the heads of people like Courreges.
The costs that owners of the "fine suburban houses" want the rest of us to pay for include, but are not limited to: 1) the construction of new infrastructure in all sorts of ways, from roads to schools and (2) the huge costs imposed on the federal government in terms of maintaining access to relatively cheap and plentiful foreign oil supplies (cf. Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Nigeria, etc.) Certainly, every time a U.S. soldier dies in Iraq, that needs to be added to the hidden costs of sprawl.
Disconnecting housing choice decisions from transportation and employment questions is nonsensical, a cost that society can no longer afford, and is unsustainable.
Courreges could learn as much or more from reading _Friday_ by Robert Heinlein, or watching the second "Mad Max" film.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
On Robert Coté
Yes Mr. Coté and you have responded with nothing more than your typical patronizing, sarcastic commentary.
That you continue to participate in these discussions is not a reflection of any real desire to improve the built environment. Rather your postings serve as little more than an excuse to engage in ideological axe grinding, as you never seem to attack the actual arguments, only the people who post them and the planning profession in general.
Let Them Eat Vanilla
Courreges couches his argument on an assumption that everyone in the U.S. is able to "choose" a fine suburban home, a car and its albatross of maintenance, and big-box retail. There needs to be a discussion about the large working class and the impoverished populations in our cities.
The main appeal of the abstract "New Urbanism" body of thought may well be its aim to create mixed-income neighborhoods with thriving neighborhood stores and easy access to transit. Our cities tell a tragic story of exclusive zoning codes, state highway agencies, and the FHA have alienated and excluded the urban poor by restricting new development to single-family homes, by evicting thousands for urban freeway routes, and by denying home loans in the inner city, "redlining" neighborhoods with "subversive racial elements." Redevelopment in cities coast to coast replaced low-income housing with convention centers, stadiums, and office towers. Our deliberate effort to plan our suburbs and rejuvenate our cities by exclusion and/or removal of less wealthy citizens is deplorable and un-American.
As a planner practicing zoning code enforcement in South L.A., I see the effects of our callous planning first hand. With single-family housing practically unaffordable, people live in converted garages or "backyard trailer parks." The commercial strips are strewn with auto repair shops, liquor stores, and second hand stores. We don't need Wal-Mart Supercenters in L.A. because local businesses have suffered enough at the hands of the existing chains, not because they ruin our "New Urbanist" fantasies.
New Urbanism is the right strategy for South L.A., where the commercial strips with easy access to bus and (sometimes) rail transit can be redeveloped into higher density residential and commercial districts that do not disrupt the existing fabric of the 1900-1940 streetcar suburbs. I'd like to see higher densities and local entreprenuership than people living in garages and trailers and big-box stores that do not reinvest their profits into the neighborhood.
Courreges ought to know full well that suburban enclaves will always be available to the vanilla-preferring upper escholons of society. But to insist that those with less money accept no alternative to the available but unattainable vanilla and scarce but desirable chocolate may be in line with so-called "free market principles," they are not in line with the American way. The American way is to balance the whims and vagarities of capitalism with the principles and morality of social responsibilty.
Thanks to the urban planners who have understood this, we no longer have noxious factories next to homes and horrendous tenements without light or ventilation. I hope a few planners may be able to say that thanks to their efforts, we no longer exclude the poor from our urban fabric, that our cities have become more integrated in class, wealth, and race and that in creating better cities, we have become a better nation.
Laughable Responses
Many thanks to numerous replies to Owen Courrèges' observation that modern planning has been turned on its' head. No longer content to be professional public servants of commual values; planners "want to direct." I think the 9 responses to date have hit all the usual buzzwords and polmeics the Nurbs have come to embrace. All the fluffies, "sustainable," "sprawl," "visionary," "progressive" make an appearance. The usual guilt by association; "Liiiiberteriannnnn" was equally predictable. As were the direct attacks on the writer "poor logic," ill informed, etc. And no public planning stoning party would be complete without the long disproved level playing field complaints.
Modern planning can be expressed in one sentence. Planning seeks to direct urban densities to levels higher than both stated and revealed public preference.
Ignores reality
The "strict zoning codes" today are the ones that mandate nothing BUT single-family low-density sprawl. In most cases, New Urbanism in practice results in more permissive development (which, thanks to the natural workings of the market, results in more density).
Vienna, London & Chicago
Consider, for a moment, Vienna, London, Chicago--the great cities of the Western World where Friedrich August von Hayek called home. To invoke Hayek's name against these paragons on New Urbanism reveals great ignorance of the man himself, not to mention the reverses in causality throughout this screed, that obscures a valid complaint. Hayek wrote of the importance of market competition. The distortions of our now typical suburban zoning, financing, and building industries restricts market decisions. The promise of New Urbanism is creating new choices for those of us who would rather have a real home like they used to build 'em.
Faux Libertarian
This editorial is a great example of "the big lie" technique: Make so many huge whoppers that there's no way they could all be false. Right? Well, no. In fact, Courrèges' lies have been repeated so many times over the years that the Congress for the New Urbanism wrote up a FAQ to present their view of the issues (http://www.cnu.org/about/_disp_faq.html). You've read the screed by Courrèges; now take a look at the CNU materials and decide for yourself.
Conventional suburban development represents 95% of all new construction, but surveys say that 30% of the market wants new urbanism. That demand is project to rise to 70% over the next few decades. Why isn't this demand being met by the market?
It's too bad that Courrèges isn't a real libertarian. A real libertarian would argue against the federal actions that have supported sprawl over the past 50 years and continue to support it. Federal interference in the free market has played a major, perhaps determining role. For example:
* GI Bill and the Housing Act of 1949 - Guaranteed loans for new construction in suburbs (a no-lose proposition for developers). Denied loans for construction or renovation in cities. Favored WASP recipients.
* Accelerated depreciation tax changes of 1954 - Suddenly made big-ticket real estate investments profitable, directly causing the widespread appearance of shopping malls.
* Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 - Funded an interstate system using motor fuel taxes. Over $350 billion spent by 1996, with direct annual expenditures of $36 billion today. Until the early '70s, freeways were routinely routed through existing neighborhoods, displacing thousands of city dwellers and creating instant slums.
This doesn't even begin to mention the impact of state and local regulations and market distortions. There are a vast number of regulations at the local level that throw up obstacles to developers who want to build diverse, lively, and walkable neighborhoods.
what about strawberry?
When I was a wee lad in the 30's the ice cream "man" offered a discount on chocolate ice cream but only if I purchased it in rural areas. Fortunately, access was improved greatly to these rural areas during the 50's by the I.C. Man, and it became even easier to take advantage of the more affordable chocolate ice cream. Now my children would like to try vanilla but the "market" has decided chocolate is more precious and the need for vanilla has become an "expensive novelty". Owen Courreges wrote this story to piss off anyone who knows a little bit about city planning in America. Why else would Owen imply the suburbs developed as they did, due to "market forces" when history clearly depicts a more "socially engineered" process?
Same ole rant
This argument highlights in itself, the need for more progressive, socially concious minds within North America. Urban sprawl is a serious problem and without appropriate measures to change the way we live, our lives will no longer be sustainable. The government already subsidizes urban sprawl through tax incentives and mortgage red lining in the inner city, so why not attempt to balance the incentives and see what choice rational open minded people will make. Don't discredit positive change under the fear of losing 'freedom', which in your argument equates to little more than the ability of the average consumer to consume the largest amount of goods at the lowest price possible, regardless of the social and economic pitfalls.
Poor logic
The successes and failures of New Urbanism clearly create two schools of thought. However, if one is to support either line of thinking (for or against new urbanism) then one should at least demonstrate a significant understanding of both sides. I am afraid that Owen's comment, "The new urbanists are costing us money," is grossly misinformed. True, one of the problems of new urbanism communities is that they are so popular that real estate properties skyrocket. However, if new urbanist principles became the norm in urban place making, then the demand would be quelled and market prices would normalize.
Moreover, it seems as though Owen is forgetting the actual social and economic costs of normal post-World War II developments -aka sprawl. Infrastructure expansion and maintenance, school expansion, obesity, pollution, race and class segregation, all outweigh any sort of an economic argument that traditional neighborhood developments cost "us."
Current development patterns cannot be sustained for much longer. America's resources cannnot support sprawl forever. Thus, new urbanism is planning ahead to prevent the social, environmental, and economic catastrophes that will ensue if we do not change our current patterns of development. Planners, developers, and critics need to look beyond five, ten , or twenty years from now and realize that the sprawling we have created will not offer any solutions to future problems. Afterall, isn't planning ahead what we planners are suppossed to do?
Tiring
Once again someone from the Reason Foundation is dragging out the weary arguments against new urbanism and smart growth. The new twist is the author’s cleverly ironic use of preference of chocolate over vanilla to prove his point. Besides that, this is simply the general libertarian screed that the new urbanism and smart growth movements want to force people to use mass transit, create urban growth boundaries, pressure people to ‘live like San Franciscans” and, of course, that proponents of new urbanism and smart growth view the suburbs and the people who live in them as evil.
Mr. Courrèges’ essay is clearly written without nuance and understanding of the finer points of new urbanism and smart growth. So, here is a simple, short, and blunt reasoning on why new urbanism and smart growth exist and why they are important. We used to do a pretty good job at designing and planning our suburbs. We have gotten progressively worse at designing and planning our suburbs. This has resulted in many problems. New urbanism and smart growth offer ways to address those problems through better design and planning.
The finer points of new urbanism and smart growth are assuredly open for argument and they need to be argued. Based on Mr. Courrèges’ uninformed essay he is certainly not ready to be the person doing the arguing.
Cant, Courreges-style
Owen writes:
"[T]he unfettered real estate market offers no impediments to the development of high-density neighborhoods."
I suppose that's true. The fettered real estate market, however, offers lots of improvements to development of high-density neighborhoods.
What are the fetters? Where to start...
-Property tax;
-Zoning laws;
-Building codes;
-Traffic codes;
-Federal, state, and local subsidies to developers, highway-builders, automobile-manufacturers, etc.; and, of course
-Back-door deals we never hear about.
Seems like the guh'ment is already playing the game. Perhaps them freedom-hatin' New Urbanists would just like it play fair.
Planning as Ice Cream
I think this argument is a little harsh and a gross generalization of the intentions of the New Urban movement and of the opinions and actions of New Urbanists. It comes down to design - we can create communities that are completely New Urban in character or are more conventional in nature. Or we can create communities that combine the best attributes of New Urbanism and suburbia. You can offer chocolate or vanilla, but you can also offer a chocolate-vanilla twist. Planning isn't as simple as ice cream.