The conservative case for denser cities

[traininthedistance]

But I do maintain that the idea of "mixity" is overrated whereas it compromises character, security, aesthetics, and quality of life for a neighborhood's residents.

Whose character?  Whose security?  Whose aesthetics?  Whose quality of life?  How do you define those things, how do you freeze them in amber, how do you justify using them as a cudgel against outsiders?  (Well, lots of people try to freeze them in amber, and use them as just such a cudgel.  Lots of people suck.)

Also it should not be hard to see how those are verrrrry similar to the anti-gentrification arguments that you were so baffled by earlier.

FWIW my aesthetics and quality of life have a strong preference for mixity, so there.

[Simfan34]

There is a difference between an organic process of change and razing 10 blocks of buildings to erect towers-in-the-park. "Income mixity" is highly overrated and gives a neighborhood a rather... schizophrenic character. It shouldn't be forced, and it rarely happens naturally.

[traininthedistance]

There is a difference between an organic process of change and razing 10 blocks of buildings to erect towers-in-the-park. "Income mixity" is highly overrated and gives a neighborhood a rather... schizophrenic character. It shouldn't be forced, and it rarely happens naturally.

I'm, uh, really not sure where you're getting support for "razing 10 blocks of buildings to erect towers-in-the-park" from?

[Simfan34]

There is a difference between an organic process of change and razing 10 blocks of buildings to erect towers-in-the-park. "Income mixity" is highly overrated and gives a neighborhood a rather... schizophrenic character. It shouldn't be forced, and it rarely happens naturally.

I'm, uh, really not sure where you're getting support for "razing 10 blocks of buildings to erect towers-in-the-park" from?

...housing projects? I'm suggesting razing all of them between 14th or Houston Street and 110th Street and replacing them with market-rate apartments. They can relocate to Hunts' Point, I don't really care where.

[bedstuy]

I think this discussion is way too abstract.

Personally, I think the ideal urban/suburban neighborhood setup is mixed-use, mixed-income and generally higher density than where US density patterns are today.  The question is: how do you get there in any particular urban area and what policies do you use? 

If we're talking about mandating that Scarsdale has X number of low income housing, I think that's ridiculous.  If we're talking about building gross, way below market slum buildings like the NYCHA projects, I think that's ridiculous.  If we're talking about mandating that luxury developments in pricey neighborhoods in Manhattan give a few lucky people cheap apartments, I generally don't like that idea. 

The basic reason I don't like that policy:  It's basically redistribution by urban planning.  I don't trust that using redistribution as a metric for planning will be efficient.  I would rather redistribute wealth through taxation because taxation is just the cleanest way to accomplish redistribution in any situation.

[traininthedistance]

There is a difference between an organic process of change and razing 10 blocks of buildings to erect towers-in-the-park. "Income mixity" is highly overrated and gives a neighborhood a rather... schizophrenic character. It shouldn't be forced, and it rarely happens naturally.

I'm, uh, really not sure where you're getting support for "razing 10 blocks of buildings to erect towers-in-the-park" from?

...housing projects? I'm suggesting razing all of them between 14th or Houston Street and 110th Street and replacing them with market-rate apartments. They can relocate to Hunts' Point, I don't really care where.

Well, housing projects are inimical to the sort of mixity I'm thinking of, and obviously so, so still not sure where you were getting that from.  Though this is a delightful left turn- to which I'll simply say that there's a difference between refraining from repeating the sins of yesteryear and forcibly expelling people from their home (a non-"organic process of change" if ever I've seen one).  And in any case, your desire to not interact with poor people is not actually a sound basis for public policy.

Also, I haven't actually read this book but it is most certainly relevant to your ideas here, and I probably should at some point.

I think this discussion is way too abstract.

Personally, I think the ideal urban/suburban neighborhood setup is mixed-use, mixed-income and generally higher density than where US density patterns are today.  The question is: how do you get there in any particular urban area and what policies do you use?  

If we're talking about mandating that Scarsdale has X number of low income housing, I think that's ridiculous.  If we're talking about building gross, way below market slum buildings like the NYCHA projects, I think that's ridiculous.  If we're talking about mandating that luxury developments in pricey neighborhoods in Manhattan give a few lucky people cheap apartments, I generally don't like that idea.  

The basic reason I don't like that policy:  It's basically redistribution by urban planning.  I don't trust that using redistribution as a metric for planning will be efficient.  I would rather redistribute wealth through taxation because taxation is just the cleanest way to accomplish redistribution in any situation.

Yes, that is the question, I agree.  And it's all well and good to criticize specific approaches- and god knows I don't think more NYCHA slums are the answer to anything- but you gotta provide an alternative.  I think your criticism misses the forest for the trees somewhat, actually: I do agree that mandated affordable housing in places like Scarsdale and Chelsea is a lottery, and not any sort of solid large-scale basis for redistribution like taxation would be... but that's not entirely their point.  The benefits of mandates like that are almost more in the realm of trying to foster that mixed-income, denser built pattern that you agree is ideal, so they are more "on point" than it seems at first.  

Are they the absolute best approaches we could theoretically use?  Probably not.  But getting rid of them without coming up with a solid alternative first is a bad idea.

[Simfan34]

Of course, I'm being a tad hyperbolic. But there needs to be a significant upbuilding, alongside the curtailment of rent protections, in order to achieve the price suppression we agree needs to happen.

[bedstuy]

I think this discussion is way too abstract.

Personally, I think the ideal urban/suburban neighborhood setup is mixed-use, mixed-income and generally higher density than where US density patterns are today.  The question is: how do you get there in any particular urban area and what policies do you use? 

If we're talking about mandating that Scarsdale has X number of low income housing, I think that's ridiculous.  If we're talking about building gross, way below market slum buildings like the NYCHA projects, I think that's ridiculous.  If we're talking about mandating that luxury developments in pricey neighborhoods in Manhattan give a few lucky people cheap apartments, I generally don't like that idea. 

The basic reason I don't like that policy:  It's basically redistribution by urban planning.  I don't trust that using redistribution as a metric for planning will be efficient.  I would rather redistribute wealth through taxation because taxation is just the cleanest way to accomplish redistribution in any situation.

Yes, that is the question, I agree.  And it's all well and good to criticize specific approaches- and god knows I don't think more NYCHA slums are the answer to anything- but you gotta provide an alternative.  I think your criticism misses the forest for the trees somewhat, actually: I do agree that mandated affordable housing in places like Scarsdale and Chelsea is a lottery, and not any sort of solid large-scale basis for redistribution like taxation would be... but that's not entirely their point.  The benefits of mandates like that are almost more in the realm of trying to foster that mixed-income, denser built pattern that you agree is ideal, so they are more "on point" than it seems at first. 

Are they the absolute best approaches we could theoretically use?  Probably not.  But getting rid of them without coming up with a solid alternative first is a bad idea.

There's all sorts of good policy alternatives.  Just responsible zoning that isn't poor-phobic and doesn't fetishize the big single family home would be a great start.  If you invest in transit and zone higher density, you create economies of scale that make things more affordable.  Also, reforming the tax code at the state and national level would be great.  We still have cretins like Cuomo stealing from the MTA to pay for tax cuts for the suburbs.  If we stop subsidizing suburbs, that's going to make urban areas more attractive for lower income people.

[DrScholl]

San Francisco and other California cities have a lot more space than New York, and it's been developed in a space conscious way that preserves character and limits the sort of anonymity that some of New York has. If I'm correct, housing in New York is quite expensive and hard to find, despite different building standards.

[traininthedistance]

San Francisco and other California cities have a lot more space than New York, and it's been developed in a space conscious way that preserves character and limits the sort of anonymity that some of New York has. If I'm correct, housing in New York is quite expensive and hard to find, despite different building standards.

What do you mean by "space-conscious"?

Housing in San Francisco is not only more expensive and harder to find than housing in NYC... it's more expensive and harder-to-find than in Manhattan.

And that's before you take into account that the headline numbers for San Fran are artificially depressed because it includes a huge amount of rent-controlled units that nobody who is ever looking to move anywhere (whether it be moving in from another area, or even within the metro, city, or neighborhood) will be able to access.  And, yes, this so-called "character-preserving" artificial scarcity has a lot to do with it. 

[traininthedistance]

I think this discussion is way too abstract.

Personally, I think the ideal urban/suburban neighborhood setup is mixed-use, mixed-income and generally higher density than where US density patterns are today.  The question is: how do you get there in any particular urban area and what policies do you use? 

If we're talking about mandating that Scarsdale has X number of low income housing, I think that's ridiculous.  If we're talking about building gross, way below market slum buildings like the NYCHA projects, I think that's ridiculous.  If we're talking about mandating that luxury developments in pricey neighborhoods in Manhattan give a few lucky people cheap apartments, I generally don't like that idea. 

The basic reason I don't like that policy:  It's basically redistribution by urban planning.  I don't trust that using redistribution as a metric for planning will be efficient.  I would rather redistribute wealth through taxation because taxation is just the cleanest way to accomplish redistribution in any situation.

Yes, that is the question, I agree.  And it's all well and good to criticize specific approaches- and god knows I don't think more NYCHA slums are the answer to anything- but you gotta provide an alternative.  I think your criticism misses the forest for the trees somewhat, actually: I do agree that mandated affordable housing in places like Scarsdale and Chelsea is a lottery, and not any sort of solid large-scale basis for redistribution like taxation would be... but that's not entirely their point.  The benefits of mandates like that are almost more in the realm of trying to foster that mixed-income, denser built pattern that you agree is ideal, so they are more "on point" than it seems at first. 

Are they the absolute best approaches we could theoretically use?  Probably not.  But getting rid of them without coming up with a solid alternative first is a bad idea.

There's all sorts of good policy alternatives.  Just responsible zoning that isn't poor-phobic and doesn't fetishize the big single family home would be a great start.  If you invest in transit and zone higher density, you create economies of scale that make things more affordable.  Also, reforming the tax code at the state and national level would be great.  We still have cretins like Cuomo stealing from the MTA to pay for tax cuts for the suburbs.  If we stop subsidizing suburbs, that's going to make urban areas more attractive for lower income people.

I agree with all of this.  I also despair that any of this will ever come to pass, alas- and I'm not sure whether to despair more for the sorts of green-liberal tax reform we both want (but would require the support of suburbs and rural areas to ever pass), or the zoning reforms that, even at the local level, will inevitably froth up mad bands of NIMBYs from all across the ideological spectrum.

I guess all I'm trying to say is that, in the world we live in, inveighing against stuff like affordable housing set-asides is probably not the most productive use of our time- even if it is kinda arbitrary and inadequate, it can do some good for some places.  (In particular your example of low-income housing in Scarsdale is in fact a super-relevant arrow in the quiver of "responsible zoning that isn't poor-phobic and doesn't fetishize the big single family home", IMO.) 

[Хahar 🤔]

The issue with rent control in San Francisco is that it's not the best interests of anyone involved to change the status quo. The best feasible situation to the issue of housing stock in the Bay Area is to make the areas served by Caltrain desirable and affordable places to live.

[traininthedistance]

The issue with rent control in San Francisco is that it's not the best interests of anyone involved to change the status quo. The best feasible situation to the issue of housing stock in the Bay Area is to make the areas served by Caltrain desirable and affordable places to live.

It's both/and, not either/or- you gotta do both.

And, of course, fixing up the Peninsula in that manner is going to require that Caltrain be converted from a rinky-dink peaking commuter operation to, basically, heavy rail- with heavy rail load capacity, and heavy rail frequencies/hours of service, and heavy rail interoperability with BART... all things that should and must be done, I agree.  But let's not forget that this is a pretty heavy lift, too.