Cafe Hayek - Latest Comments in On Sprawl

Re: On Sprawl

justin — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:57:20 -0000

I feel like this is pretty dangerous grounds, but I am a geography community planning student and I work in a neighborhood association. I love reading these posts because it does give me the other point of view that I do not necessarily get from school and my little liberal urban enclave in Michigan. I usually take the capitalist approach in my argument of sprawl vs. cities. Residents are consumers and they vote with their feet and if they do not like their living situation then they have the option of moving. I believe that many people move not because cities are inherently undesirable, but because many cities failed their residents. When students graduate from college in Michigan, they opt of living in Detroit and move to Chicago. I realize that Detroit has a bad reputation mostly from people who have never been the city, but metro Detroit has many nice suburbs with good schools, safe streets, world class amenities, and culture. Yet, more and more people pass up metro Detroit for Chicago.

There is no doubt that some urban planners do not listen to the residents and build the community they want. This is not my experience, I have been surrounded by great planners works hard to implement the kind of city that there residents want.

"The world is run by those who show up"
It is so hard to get people to show up to planning meetings. The city I live in is updating their master plan. They arranged free daycare, food, and games to get people to show up to help plan the city. If anyone has ever watched the TV show Parks and Rec, in my favorite scene Amy Pohler was conducting a public city meeting and thanked the crowd for such a great turnout. I laugh every time I see it because there were only about 15 to 20 people in the audience and that was a great turnout.

Re: On Sprawl

John Dewey — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 09:24:37 -0000

You misinterpret my post. I fully recognize that some folks prefer urban living. I'm happy to let those folks stay huddled together, as long as they stay away from my low density suburb. My fellow townspeople feel the same way.

It is not suburban folks who seek to transform our cities. It is urban folks who seek to either transform or steal from our suburbs. In the Dallas-Fort Worth area they would use our taxes to subsidize their view of cities by providing incentives for transit-oriented development. They already use our gasoline taxes to subsidize mass transit oriented toward the remaining center city employers. In Texas, wealthy suburban school districts have been forced to subsidize less wealthy districts.

Cities such as Dallas have made themselves so unfriendly to families that we deserted them in droves. The tax base for those cities has seriously eroded. Liberals now scheme to confiscate funds from suburbanites to make up that shortfall. For many urban leaders, "sprawl" is a red herring. The real problem is declining tax base.

Re: On Sprawl

Half Sigma — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 08:52:36 -0000

John,

I'm sure we both agree that the personal automobiles made suburban living more economically efficient than before such transportation existed, and this opened up rural areas to suburbanization.

I also have no doubt that urban living causes you a great deal of personal disgust, and it's surely your right not to be forced to live in an environment you don't like.

The point of my argument has never been that suburbs make no sense at all, but rather that more people live in suburbs than otherwise would were it not for government interferences that favor suburbs over city. This seems to be the opposite of your contention that cities would not exist at all were it not for liberals forcing people to live there. It's not true that all people hate urban living, you are presuming that everyone else has the exact same likes and dislikes as you do.

Re: On Sprawl

John Dewey — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 07:03:43 -0000

""Excellent" suburban schools are an artificial creation of government, not the free market."

"Exactly my point, forced busing is a government policy. Government policy created bad schools in the cities."

Sorry, Half Sigma, but I really do not understand what is your point.

Most suburbs built after World War II were the result of free market forces. Some were admittedly a reaction to government policies, such as forced busing. Some were the reaction to non-functioning local governments, such as lack of crime control. But long before the public so reacted to government actions and inactions, people of all incomes were moving to suburbs. The simple fact remains: most people do not desire congestion and high-density. They only put up with it for centuries because of limits on mobility and the need for commercial activity to be centralized. Technology, especially automobiles and computers, has finally freed man from the ills of congested living. Yet some folks would use government to take away that freedom.

Re: On Sprawl

Half Sigma — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 06:29:05 -0000

"Were you around in the 60's and 70's when first urban crime and then forced busing in many cities drove half the urban population out of metropolitan school districts?"

Exactly my point, forced busing is a government policy. Government policy created bad schools in the cities. Government policy prevents the creation of urban school districts without poor people.

Crime is also caused by poor people, and once again that's a government policy creating areas where poor people can't live.

If there was actually a free market, poor people would live far away from the city where land is cheaper, leaving the more desirable short commute time areas to richer people.

Re: On Sprawl

True_Liberal — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 16:29:59 -0000

Here's a site laying out some real data, and challenging some popular assumptions about "sprawl": http://www.demographia.com/

Re: On Sprawl

JohnDewey — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 09:40:17 -0000

superdestroyer,

I agree that urban traffic has increased because workers do not wish to limit job opportunity to the immediate area. That's especially true for two-income families. I appreciate your mention of that important factor.

I'm not so sure about your other point. Didn't expansion of metro areas (known by detractors as "sprawl") start before metro employment was decentralized? The first ring of suburbs around center cities was made up of housing developments. Joel Garreau explained in "Edge Cities" that it is the second ring of suburbs which contain the employers competing with the center cities for talent.

The point is that low density housing is what people desire in the first place, and neither government strategies nor employment opportunities create that desire.

Re: On Sprawl

JohnDewey — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 09:16:47 -0000

Half sigma wrote: "Excellent" suburban schools are an artificial creation of government, not the free market."

Do you really believe this? Were you around in the 60's and 70's when first urban crime and then forced busing in many cities drove half the urban population out of metropolitan school districts? Excellent suburban schools are a product of the public's insistance, not some edict imposed by or strategy devised by government.

Half sigma wrote: "The schools are one of the major methods with which government has created an artificial incentive for people to live in suburban "sprawl" rather than in high rises."

It was and still is the people who push local government to place restrictions on housing density. The people in the suburbs know that low income families cannot afford low density housing. People like me do not want to live next to low income families. We do not want our children spending the schoolday with low income gangs. People like me do not want to live in crowded high rises on congested streets, regardless of whether our neighbors are rich or poor. The U.S. - and the world - is filled with people who believe like me.

In the nineteenth century, those who could afford it began moving to suburbs as soon as local trains allowed them to do so. They migrated before high rise buildings were possible and they continued doing so after. The only restriction on movement was the amount of land close to the railroad tracks. The automobile opened up much more of the land around cities, and developers created the type housing the public has always desired.

Please don't be fooled into thinking the government was the driver behind the expansion of urban freeways and low density housing.

Re: On Sprawl

superdestroyer — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:40:48 -0000

I am amazed that no one has discussed fricitonal unemployment as a cause of traffic and sprawl. High density, new urbanism only works as long as workers are willing to limit their job hunts to where they can take public transporation. Of course, no one limits a job hunt to where they can commute. In addition, most people do not want to relocate inside a metropolitan area just to make their commute easier. Thus, over time you end up with large number of people who are forced to commute.

Re: On Sprawl

Half Sigma — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 16:52:45 -0000

" suburban America will not give up their excellent schools, their large backyards, and their freedom from all the ills that accompany high-density housing."

As Ronald Reagan once said, there you go again.

"Excellent" suburban schools are an artificial creation of government, not the free market. School districts were zoned so that there was no poor people housing in the district. Without poor children, the school seem excellent.

One could do the same thing with dense living. Create a school district that is zoned only for "luxury" high rise buildings that poor people can't afford and you'll have the same excellent schools in the city.

The schools are one of the major methods with which government has created an artificial incentive for people to live in suburban "sprawl" rather than in high rises.

Re: On Sprawl

JohnDewey — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 16:17:43 -0000

MjrMjr,

The public has twice shown how they will adjust to rising gasoline prices. They buy smaller cars, they re-prioritize spending, they devise more efficient travel patterns (multi-tasking trips, for example). Very few people opted for high-density housing after even a doubling of gasoline price increases. Even if gasoline prices increased fivefold, suburban America will not give up their excellent schools, their large backyards, and their freedom from all the ills that accompany high-density housing. They'll just reduce expenditures and carpool.

You may believe the cost of fuel for transport will increase more than five-fold. No one is betting money on such an increase.

Re: On Sprawl

JohnDewey — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 16:07:23 -0000

Perry, I agree the argument is density vs non-density. But highway funding is very much a requirement for the low density design that Americans prefer. I cannot see how discussion of one can ignore the other.

I agree that defense was the reason Eisenhower and many members of Congress wanted an interstate highway system which connected all parts of the U.S. Robert Cote can confirm that I argued that point for two weeks on another forum. But defense was certainly not the only reason the interstate system was funded. Defense requirements had nothing to do with the huge expansion of urban freeway systems beyond the original plans.

You are correct that the representatives of the people decided to fund highways with a tax on gasoline. I am certain the citizens of the 50's wanted an interstate highway system. I clearly remember how proud we all were as it was built. I am certain the citizens of most states wanted the non-interstate highways converted to freeways. They want that today, so much so that they are creating tollways across the nation to speed up building of freeways. That's necessary to make up for the funds stolen for the rail transit fraud.

You can talk forever about modern highways depended on "subsidies" from the federal government. The truth is that U.S. citizens have always wanted high speed highways, and would have found ways to fund them if the national gasoline tax were not in place. Federal funding was simply a mechanism for reallocating funds from populous to non-populous states. It also guaranteed that freeways would be consistent in structure.

People call expansion of metropolitan areas "sprawl" because the liberal mainstream media picked up the derogatory term and force-fed it to the public for years. The expansion is realy just an accomodation of a rising urban population.

What is particularly irritating is how some people would deny citizens access to inexpensive housing and freedom from congestion because an expanded metro area does not fit with their view of what a city should be. My metro area, Dallas/Fort Worth, has mass transit, has clustered urban housing, and has powerful advocates for high density/mass transit in charge of the two newspapers. But its citizens continue to choose low density and auto transport by at least 20 to 1.

Re: On Sprawl

MjrMjr — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 15:52:40 -0000

Another GMU professor, Bryan Caplan had a good post on some of these issues on his blog a while back.

http://econlog.econlib.org/...

On a somewhat different topic, I'd bet that the majority of libertarians or folks on the right dismiss the idea of peak oil but what happens to the economics of sprawl if gasoline prices increase significantly faster than inflation for another 5 years? 10 years? At some point do the economics of denser development in urban areas become more compelling? I think that fuel prices are likely to continue to rise quickly and that the answer is probably yes.

Re: On Sprawl

Perry — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 13:51:56 -0000

And just as a total side note - I don't believe that government subsidy for mass transit is the correct answer just as much as government monopoly of mass transit is. But this isn't an argument for or against mass tansit, its about density vs non-density.

Re: On Sprawl

Perry — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 13:44:56 -0000

John,

Please don't tell me that the public made the "choice" to fund the interstate highway system when it was plainly a job creation act justified under national defense (sound familiar, anyone?) That would be like saying that the public made the "choice" to invade iraq when in fact all they did was elect someone who decided to make that choice.

This is not to make any judgement that the interstate highway system is good or bad in the 'grand scheme', just that iraq may or may not be good in the long run grand scheme, but that was a HUGE subsidy that plainly tilted the dynamics of the cost dynamic for city vs suburb. The annual TEA appropriations allocate about 30 billion per year, most of which gets funneled towards highway construction and maintenance. Do you honestly think that small exurban and semi urban areas would have the budget to build those highways that make it even semi-feasible to build residential development there without that initial investment and annual funding?

And trust me, go to a zoning or variance board meeting in any city, and you'll see what goes on - developers make concessions mainly for density in order to get projects approved. Whatever forced minimum density regulations that these planners that you speak so endearingly of are nothing compared to the subtle yet powerful interests in the other direction. They're both wrong.

All I'm saying is that the true market forces that would bring density naturally are scuttled and tamped down in every city and every county and virtually every development planned across this country. What you get at the end of that process is this thing that people have chosen to call "sprawl".

Re: On Sprawl

JohnDewey — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 11:54:45 -0000

"I don't believe mass transit to be a government intereference in the economy any more than roads are an interference."

How are roads an interference in the economy? Except for a very few commodities, all goods in this country are transported at some point over those highways. Emergency vehicles of all sorts can reach any populated area and many other unpopulated areas of the nation via the highways. Private automobiles travelling along those highways allow citizens to drop off kids at daycare, travel to work, stop off at the grocery store on the way home, and do hundreds of other tasks that would be just about impossible if the highways weren't available.

Sorry, Half Sigma, but I cannot see how highways are an interference in the economy.

Trains, however, suck up billions in funds that would be more effective if spent on roads and buses. Trains interfere with highway and street traffic. Except in a few pre-automobile cities, trains provide very little of the benefits promised.

Re: On Sprawl

JohnDewey — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 11:38:26 -0000

Half Sigma,

Where in the U.S., other than Manhattan, is population density so high that personal automobiles cannot be used efficiently? As Robert Cote pointed out, Los Angeles is a very high density city. And yet personal automobiles are the chosen means of transport for most of that city.

What are the powerful economic benefits of dense cities that you refer to? Throw them out there for our consideration. If such economic benefits exist, why is there no post-automobile U.S. city that evolved to even remotely resemble Manhattan?

Even if you are correct about high density development being efficient - and I believe that to be incorrect - why would rail transit make any sense? Bus transit is far more efficient, doesn't require the construction of rails, doesn't require the purchase of multi-million dollar trains, and doesn't interfere with any other traffic flows whatsoever. Before 1980, bus transit was working just fine for those who could not make use of personal automobiles. It would work fine today if we were not foolishly abandoning it to chase after this toy train fantasy.

Re: On Sprawl

JohnDewey — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 11:15:24 -0000

Charlie Q,

If Minnesota citizens wish to fund mass transit, fine. Let them do it. But why should a portion of U.S. gasoline taxes be used mass transit? Highway users pay for their highways. Let rail users pay for their trains.

Light rail transit pays for itself nowhere in the U.S. Nowhere! Nowhere that I've read about - and I've read about most - does light rail transit remove enough cars from the roads to impact highway congestion. But planners continue to promise - despite all the evidence - that light rail will do both.

Light rail is a fraud.

Re: On Sprawl

Charlie Q — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 09:24:13 -0000

Here in Minnesota, we heard similar arguments against transit and urban density from our governor who wanted to starve the light rail line developed under Gov. Ventura. He appointed an opponent to chari the state planning authority that oversees transit. But more people than expectedp used the new rail line anyway, developers are building all along the line and downtown, and people are buying them.

Now even the governor and his chairman are supporting more light rail.

This was no thought experiment, but it looks pretty good.

Re: On Sprawl

Half Sigma — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 07:23:45 -0000

I wrote a very long essay on this topic at my blog:

http://www.halfsigma.com/20...

All of the most recent comments are at Cafe Hayek have to do with mass transit. First of all, I am in agreement that dense cities create transportational and space inefficiencies. In other words, yes, mass transit systems are less economically efficient than people driving in their cars.

HOWEVER, mass transit is necessary when the populatio density is too high to allow efficient use of personal automobiles.

Now the arugment some are making is, if mass transit is expensive, then too bad, let's do without it and without dense cities. However, that's ignoring the hidden but very powerful economic BENEFITS of dense cities. The evidence that these benefits exist is obvious when one looks at how expensive cities are yet people CHOOSE to live there and businesses CHOOSE to locate there.

Mass transit is paid for with a combination of fares and taxes on people who live in the geographic area that is served by the mass transit. And that seems pretty FAIR to me. No one is being forced to live in New York City.

I don't believe mass transit to be a government intereference in the economy any more than roads are an interference.

Re: On Sprawl

True_Liberal — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 05:23:20 -0000

Government's attempts to manipulate population density through lot size, building heights etc. are ultimately futile, because people will choose where they want to live. Unattractive housing schemes will be unable to command a reasonable profit for the builder or landlord.

It's the old approach-avoidance conflict.

Re: On Sprawl

Robert Cote — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 03:49:11 -0000

Public transit as practiced in the US is IMO the most wrongheaded public function we allow government to exercise. On every level it sends the wrong signals and the cost/benefit ratio is absymal. We need to rethink why we have public transit at all. If it turns out there are still places or reasons to keep providing some form, then fine but we don't even question these things anymore.

http://exurbannation.blogsp...

And don't get me started on the "level playing field" we tilt the field in favor of transit with preemption, preference, priority, subsidy, force of government and in some

cases monopoly. Private rail used to work, it was so profitable that the

nations first mega-wealthy industrialists were rail barons. Lots of things

happened from WW-I to present that made the passenger portion of rail

transportation no longer viable. This should have been no big deal. My

grandfather was an ice man, that industry went away too.

Our national transportation policy lavishes money and preference on

passenger rail transport like no other modality and cannot even manage to

hold onto existing customers. Even the people that claim to be rail transit

supporters are fooling themselves. They won't pay even the operating costs

for their preferred mode nevermind the total costs.

The very last thing anyone advocating passenger rail transport would want is

a fair chance. I once did a thought experiment on what would happen if the

playing field were leveled. It isn't pretty.

Re: On Sprawl

JohnDewey — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 03:21:37 -0000

Half sigma,

Transit funding may sound fair to you. But consider who pays the taxes that fund the roads and the taxes that fund mass transit. Highways are funded by taxes on gasoline, purchased primarily for the purpose of moving along those highways. So highway users fund highways.

Transit is funded in several ways:

- a portion of the gasoline taxes paid by highway users;

- sales taxes paid by everyone for the benefit of the tiny few who use transit;

- fares which cover anywhere from 40% to as little as 10% of the cost of transit.

In order to get voters to approve transit sales taxes, planners claim that transit will remove enough cars so that highway congestion is reduced. Planners also grossly underestimate the cost of transit projects. Net result: public is saddled with permanent taxes for costly trains that very few use.

Planners then compund the lie by changing the ridership estimates after taxes are approved. Even though ridership is only a small fraction of what was claimed when the vote was cast, planners can now say that ridership is exceeding estimates.

Sorry, sir, but I see little fairness about modern transit funding and I see much fraud on the part of transit planners. Those planners, of course, depend on transit taxes for continuation of their employment. It is not surprising they deceive the public.

Re: On Sprawl

Robert Cote — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 02:57:45 -0000

Government has compelling reasons to limit density and does so. Government has no compelling reasons to mandate increased density yet does so anyway. All the reasons given by planners and their ilk advocating increased density fail in light of the facts. Ask urbanists what the benefits of dense conurbations and you'll hear the usual; reduced ecological footprint, reduced pollution, reduced costs of infrastructure. Ask them for the supporting evidence or even just definitive examples and you'll hear nothing.

Re: On Sprawl

eddie — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:13:33 -0000

Hm. So if I'm reading this thread correctly... the government is forcing density to be too low through minimum lot sizes and maximum building heights, and is forcing density to be too high through subsidized mass transit and insufficient roadbuilding.

Seems like everyone here agrees that the cause of the problem is government... but what was the problem, again? Too much city or not enough?