“I am going to break my policy of not replying more than once to comments about something I have written to address a fallacy that I hear too often when it comes to land use. That what gets built is a matter of supply and demand, that it is market based, and that whatever gets built must be good for our economy. That is far from the truth. What gets subsidize by infrastructure and incentives and encouraged by local government policies is what
gets built in the U.S. And far too often local governments’ development regulations are most influenced by industry lobbying and political wrangling, not citizen input.”

Well, it’s certainly true that what gets built has become more and more determined by what politicians beholden to interest groups to whom they have promised free lunches, and by what planners enchanted with the latest fad in urban design schools, have decided to allow. I.e., it is becoming less and less determined by the free market.

But that is a fairly recent phenomena. Most of the development patterns visible in extant urban settlements in the US were determined primarily through the operation of the free market. And you are probably misusing the term “subsidy.” Developments which make use of existing public
infrastructure, or which occasion the extention of that infrastructure, are not thereby “subsidized.” The new users of that infrastructure will be paying for that public good on the same terms as all other users (and in fact, will usually be paying more for it).

“The National Association of Home Builders own studies http://www.nahb.org/page.aspx/landing/sectionID=113 reveal that there is a much greater demand for walkable urban than suburban style development, about 35% nationwide if I remember correctly while there is only about a 5% supply while there is already about 100% supply extant to meet the demand for single family.”

Couldn’t find any data at that link to support your claim, Kitty. The link is to a page of dozens of other links. Could you give a more specific link?

But the stats you give do not support your claim that construction patterns are not market-driven. If there is indeed a greater demand for infill and inner-city housing than the present supply (and that is entirely possible in some markets), then the industry will respond to that demand. It is certainly not true in this market. Numerous condo and other inner-city housing projects announced over the last 10 years or so have been abandoned or placed on permanent hold — Rob Brewster’s Vox Tower, the YWCA Twin Towers, the Wall St. condo project, Mick McDowell’s project above Peaceful Valley, the Kendall Yards project, *et al*. Ron Wells placed the units in his Latah Valley micro-housing project for rent a couple of months ago. All those cancellations, BTW, except Wells’, occurred *before* the housing bubble burst last fall. And until then suburban housing sales continued apace.

“So why do they continue to build primarily car-friendly suburban style developments? Because they don’t have to supply the consumer with what they want, when they decide what the consumer has to choose from.”

Sorry, Kitty, but that claim cannot withstand a moment’s scrutiny. Builders are not building housing of the type you favor because units of that type which have been built *have not sold*.

“Good, people-friendly design is more expensive complicated to build, and often turns less of a profit.”

That is not true either. More complex design drives up costs, but has no effect on profits. A builder earns just as great a profit margin on costly projects as on less costly ones. Costs affect the demand and thus the size of the market, but not the profit margin. The builder will be happy to build whatever the market seems to want.

“While it is tempting to slap up a dozen peer reviewed studies that support transit to refute your assertions, I think most people know better, so I will not address that. It’s a matter of common sense that transit is more efficient.”

If you could cite even one study, peer-reviewed or otherwise, which concludes that transit is more efficient than POVs and which does not involve the goal substitution I mentioned in that post, I’d be interested to see it.

From your comment I’m guessing you did not read that post, or appreciate its point. Transit only appears efficent if you subsitute some abstract and synthetic goal, such as those set forth by planners and various Utopians, for the actual goals of individual travelers. When such a substitution is made the transportation choices of those individuals can certainly appear inefficient. But that is an invalid methodology. You can only analyze the efficiency of a process by examining the costs incurred to meet the goals *of those engaged in the process*. The goals of backseat drivers and other third parties are quite immaterial. You also have to calculate the costs using the acting agent’s ordering and weighing of the resources consumed; some arbitrary, third-party assigment of values to resources will only give you wildly inaccurate and irrelevant results.

This flawed methodology is adopted, of course, because the planners and Utopians have succumbed to the “organic fallacy” and thus assume that the choice of a transportation method is a collective decision to be made by a collective body, “society.” But it is not. There is no collective body; societies are not collective bodies, but simply collections of individuals, each of whom has goals of his/her own and who weigh the value of resources differently. Decisions concerning transportation methods are thus decisions to be made by each individual traveler, who will make it with respect to her own goals and and in light of the value she places on the various resources required. Only when the analysis proceeds on that basis can the overall efficiency of the system(s) chosen be evaluated.

While it is tempting to slap up a dozen peer reviewed studies that support transit to refute your assertions, I think most people know better, so I will not address that. It’s a matter of common sense that transit is more efficient.

I am going to break my policy of not replying more than once to comments about something I have written to address a fallacy that I hear too often when it comes to land use. That what gets built is a matter of supply and demand, that it is market based, and that whatever gets built must be good for our economy. That is far from the truth. What gets subsidize by infrastructure and incentives and encouraged by local government policies is what gets built in the U.S. And far too often local governments’ development regulations are most influenced by industry lobbying and political wrangling, not citizen input.

The National Association of Home Builders own studies http://www.nahb.org/page.aspx/landing/sectionID=113 reveal that there is a much greater demand for walkable urban than suburban style development, about 35% nationwide if I remember correctly while there is only about a 5% supply while there is already about 100% supply extant to meet the demand for single family. So why do they continue to build primarily car-friendly suburban style developments? Because they don’t have to supply the consumer with what they want, when they decide what the consumer has to choose from. Because raw land outside of cities is cheaper, cookie cutter single family homes are cheap to build, and there are less regulations, and since it has been such a dominating trend, it is also what banks are most familiar with and therefore willing to finance. Good, people-friendly design is more expensive complicated to build, and often turns less of a profit. And what is most profitable for corporations does not equal what is best for the people in a situation where there is limitations on choice–which all communities have. If you really want to understand this matter there is a quick read that I highly recommend called The Option of Urbanism by Christopher Leinberger. People like to live where the families and jobs are, very few have the luxury of moving to a community that is better designed merely for that purpose.

Really at the end of the day it is not only our environment that is suffering. The very fabric that holds our society together is busted. I think the simplest and biggest step is to turn off your T.V. and get to know your neighbors. I know it wont fix all our problems, but it will start moving us closer.

“. . . we’ve mostly rejected the downtown condo kool-aid; affordability is frequently quoted as a dilemma yet we can’t keep developing around the outliers as a solution, eat the land, and poison the waterways with shoreline development. It’s like the theory of building new roads to ease congestion which is like buying bigger pants if you have a weight problem.”

No, Paul. Bad analogy — it mistakes healthy growth for pathology, because it presumes the growth patterns of the 19th century (or some other pattern envisioned by planners) are “normal.” Hence any deviation from that “norm” is deemed pathological. But such “norms” are wholly arbitrary.

Extending roads and utilities to new a ring of subdivisions is more like buying bigger pants for a growing boy. The patterns of urban growth reflect the interests and desires of the people living in them at each increment, constrained by the resources and technologies available to them at the time. As with the evolution of all other complex systems, those adaptations are not predictable in advance; there is no preordained pattern, and the optimum pattern is always a function of the current conditions.

The phrase “eating the land” makes the same question-begging presumption. The market takes the value of the land for agricultural purposes into account when deciding whether to change its use. If the use is changed, it is because the better use of that land at than time is for housing, rather than farming — more people will derive more benefit from it in the new use than the old. There is no shortage of ag land in this country, or any prospect of one. There is, indeed, a surplus. That is why some of it is converted.

Nor need shoreline development “poison” waterways. It can, of course, if the development is unmindful of that possibility or of the consequences. But there is no reason why it should be. Most types of shoreline development will have negligible impact on water quality, if properly designed.

Lots covered here. An amazing amount . Biologic systems and kinetics measures involving them are only accurate in the most control controlled situations. Never do they approach what happens in natureor in the real world.

Throw in some humans and modeling simply evaporates. Green types seem to be confounded and angry when face with the freewheeling performed in societies and nature. I have a lot more to say on this since “rights in conflict” or “insights in conflict” seem to be the order of the day now as it was in the 60′s.

40 more years of ideas to describe the same issues. whew!…Honestly , the only person I’ve ever seen who had a decent perception of all these things was fellow named Teilhard de Chardin. He’s worth a read if you like to get a feel for philosphy, justice and how both work within biologic systems. Nice work Paul, Jon and Contrarian. I’ve enjoyed reading tonight. Lots of other people’s jargon but some terrific interaction. Keep it nicer though. Fences don’t help discourse…. usually those fences reflect fear.

How do you build in a previously populated area when there is no, or only a small, market for new housing in that area? Who is going to buy the houses? Housing styles, types, sizes, and locations are driven by demand. You can’t build housing which the market does not want, any more than owners of downtown buildings can maintain them if they remain vacant. Well, you can, but only by forbidding some persons to live the lifestyles they prefer and forcing them to lifestyles some planner prefers.

“I realize this debate on urban growth in Spokane and other cities is often reduced to simplistic notions about city versus cul-de-sac: one good (dense, walkable, full of the creative class) and the other bad (SUV-friendly, sprawling, perhaps people turned off by urban lifestyles). The reality, for anyone who has lived in both, is more complex. ”

The complexity derives from the fact that what is “good” differs from person to person. There is no “common good.” For some people, a dense, walkable, even raucous urban environment is a good; for others, a quieter, more pastoral, less dense environment is a good — that is where they will feel more, tranquil, comfortable and secure. That latter group has absolutely no duty to forgo their own happiness in order to enhance someone else’s.