The conservative case for denser cities

[traininthedistance]

Most definitely.

This issue, and the correctness of your position here, and the primally central importance of it in my politics, is precisely why I identify more as a liberal than as a socialist BTW. 

[traininthedistance]

"Heavy industry!!!11"

Heavy industry does not belong in modern cities. It belongs elsewhere. It simply doesn't make sense to plop a 500,000-square foot factory in the middle of a city. Read Greg David's Modern New York for an idea about what I am talking about. I was reminded of it just a few days when some politicians gathered to demand (sillily) to create more "industrial jobs" Here's an example of what he talks about:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20140601/BLOGS01/140539979/de-blasio-zones-out-on-manufacturing

I agree with you, more or less, on the merits of siting large-scale manufacturing in the city*- but there is still an important place for small-scale specialty stuff like say microbreweries, where it's actually kind of important that the workforce be plugged into the sort of information agglomerations that only cities can provide.  And of course you will always need warehouses.  It's not sexy, but you do need them no matter what.  Especially in NYC, where the geography makes getting goods by land here kind of a b*tch.

*though there's a case to be made that we should be looking at reviving that stuff on the outskirts and in the suburbs, and if we do that we'll need to beef up transit connections (given the low-density nature of modern industrial operations, this will probably have to take the role of feeder/circulator buses to larger lines, rather than direct rail service or anything like that).

[traininthedistance]

"Manhattanization" would "destroy" SF, lol.  

(I do agree re: greater urgency in upzoning the Peninsula and having metro-wide governance.  But let's be real, SF needs it too, and hyperbolic, ignorant, self-centered BS about "OH NOES AN EIGHT-STORY APARTMENT BUILDING ON MARKET STREET WILL RUIN THIS CITY FOREVER AND TURN US INTO TIMES SQUARE" sure ain't actually helping anyone.)

[traininthedistance]

I think the harsh reality is that if you're poor, you should think about moving to a more affordable part of the country.  Nobody just deserves to live in the most desirable real estate in America because it's their birthright.  

I wouldn't actually say that- better to say that we should radically increase housing supply so that there's room for the gentrifiers and for the poor people, living side-by-side.  That would be the welfare-maximizing move, rather than either preserving ghettoes or making people move to Atlanta and Houston, which is actually a pretty sh*tty thing to do, both to the people in question (along both financial and social axes), as well as to the environment as a whole.  (Remember that's my real horse in this race.)

This. Thank you. I don't know why people seem to think housing projects belong right next to Lincoln Center or in the middle of Chelsea. Like I always say, it's not like I have a right to live on the Upper East Side.

Well, housing projects in general are a bad idea.  Having buildings set aside some percentage of their units as "affordable", or giving folks housing vouchers, is much better and there's no reason those units should be excluded from "better" neighborhoods.  Obviously some areas will always be richer and more desirable than others on average, but there's tremendous value in it not being completely monolithic and walled-off, in either direction.

[traininthedistance]

I think the harsh reality is that if you're poor, you should think about moving to a more affordable part of the country.  Nobody just deserves to live in the most desirable real estate in America because it's their birthright.  

I wouldn't actually say that- better to say that we should radically increase housing supply so that there's room for the gentrifiers and for the poor people, living side-by-side.  That would be the welfare-maximizing move, rather than either preserving ghettoes or making people move to Atlanta and Houston, which is actually a pretty sh*tty thing to do, both to the people in question (along both financial and social axes), as well as to the environment as a whole.  (Remember that's my real horse in this race.)

I think NYC obviously needs to have poor people for their labor so it's silly to consider the idea that they're all going to leave.  The question is whether our planning needs to freeze the current wealth patterns in place today.  In reality, poor people are going to move to the Bronx, Queens, New Jersey and deep Brooklyn.  Harlem near Columbia and Central Park is just valuable for its location and will eventually become mostly middle class young people and rich people.

Pushing poor people out to the suburbs (or places like eastern Queens that might as well be suburbs), out beyond the effective reach of public transit, is not actually a satisfactory outcome.  In fact, insofar as it provides a breeding ground for hinterland-populist "environmentalism = elitist" thought, it is pretty much the worst outcome possible in some lights.

The case for radically denser cities is precisely that you accommodate reinvestment and gentrification, and the very real benefits they do provide to the planet and to the city's solvency and quality-of-life, without doing that.

(ETA: The case for radically denser cities, especially in places like San Francisco, is also that increased housing supply will also allow people, and not just the techies themselves but also and especially less-skilled service and support, to "move to opportunity" and increase their welfare by going to where there's good paying jobs, without having it all be clawed back in hellacious rent.  I am in fact quite deadly serious when I say that the restrictive supply of housing in the Bay Area, and the fact that it prevents people from moving to places where they can get good jobs and live more sustainable lifestyles, is one of the greatest tragedies and emergencies in American life today.)

[traininthedistance]

What we really need is the Utica Ave. subway.

Just for starters.

[traininthedistance]

"Manhattanization" would "destroy" SF, lol.  

(I do agree re: greater urgency in upzoning the Peninsula and having metro-wide governance.  But let's be real, SF needs it too, and hyperbolic, ignorant, self-centered BS about "OH NOES AN EIGHT-STORY APARTMENT BUILDING ON MARKET STREET WILL RUIN THIS CITY FOREVER AND TURN US INTO TIMES SQUARE" sure ain't actually helping anyone.)

I'm aware that that's an argument that people make, but at no point have I said that. Height restrictions throughout much of the city are absurd. But the article quoted in the original post specifically called for "massive high-rises housing thousands of people," which suggests something quite different than the building mentioned in your strawman.

It's not a strawman, it's an actual (and honestly kind of timid BTW) proposal that was shouted down by the NIMBYs:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/04/11/san_francisco_zoning_needs_more_density_and_tall_buildings.html

Mea culpa it was actually Mission St., not Market- but it was still right the f**k of top of BART, which is to say exactly where people should be building taller.

Also, obviously we are not going to be building massive high-rises everywhere in the city or anything like that- but, c'mon, having a few of them in places like SoMa (in addition to loosening height restrictions in general) would, in fact, help relieve the insane levels of pressure the city's real estate market is under, and in no way would "destroy" the city (which, as commonly expressed, is more of a weird romantic chauvinism than anything else anyway IMHO).

Also also, the whole premise of "Manhattanization" is stupid because, among other things, it ignores that most of even Manhattan is six-story apartment buildings, not high-rise condos anyway.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[traininthedistance]

We need to smash the cycle of poverty, but charlatans who are professional race-baiters (e.g. Al Sharpton) aren't going to be helping in that regard, now are they? That's another issue entirely, but there's no reason for that uplifting- if and when it happens- to happen on the Upper East Side or right behind Lincoln Center.

Why shouldn't it happen there, at least for some people?  It's unhealthy for places to be a monoculture of everyone having the same appearance, jobs, tax bracket, etc.- it stunts understanding and empathy.

[traininthedistance]

We need to smash the cycle of poverty, but charlatans who are professional race-baiters (e.g. Al Sharpton) aren't going to be helping in that regard, now are they? That's another issue entirely, but there's no reason for that uplifting- if and when it happens- to happen on the Upper East Side or right behind Lincoln Center.

Why shouldn't it happen there, at least for some people?  It's unhealthy for places to be a monoculture of everyone having the same appearance, jobs, tax bracket, etc.- it stunts understanding and empathy.

I agree with that in principle, but the fact is that those neighborhoods are some of the fanciest in the United States.  They're too far gone in terms of getting a good mix of incomes.  It's also just a cost issue.  It could be a matter of getting 3X or 4X the number of units per $X if you build in places like Bushwick or Crown Heights.  

I think the social costs of that monoculture are sufficiently severe that we should be doing things like having affordable housing set-asides, Mitchell-Lama, vouchers, etc. even in tony neighborhoods like Chelsea and the UES.  Even if all you can afford to make is a token effort at inclusiveness, and I do agree that the bulk of working-class housing is going to have to end up elsewhere... a token effort is better than nothing.  

And, just an aside, as crazy as it sounds many parts of the UES are relatively affordable by Manhattan standards, actually, especially closer to the river, and are relatively affordable because they are built so densely.  I mean, folks are fleeing the East Village to go live in affordable faraway Yorktown, is what's happening.

As for Chinatown, that's a complicated story.  There is gentrification there, but there's also been plenty of expansion of the Chinese population there as well over the past few decades (as it has now well and truly swallowed up every last remnant of what used to be Little Italy).  And from my perspective I'd also say that Chinatown is somewhat unique in that it's already super-dense, and it's super-dense even by NYC standards.  It's not like you're reinvesting into an area that's been hollowed-out, or building six stories where there were one-to-three- you're already at that six-story standard, with pretty cramped quarters besides.  

[traininthedistance]

This issue comes up a lot in the DC area.  People say the character would be the same if the buildings were 20-30 stories rather than 10-12.  People also say there is too much historic preservation of crappy buildings that could at least be turned into 10-12 story buildings.  However, there are a lot of issues that come with increasing density... pollution, noise, street parking.  It's a huge undertaking.  It seems like the better thing is to just build more large nearby cities that compete with the inner city.  This is essentially what is happening in NOVA where there are lots of mini-cities within 40 minutes of DC.

Maybe if DC allowed its central business district to exceed 12-13 stories, it might actually have character for once.  Because it certainly ain't got none right now.

Also lol @ the idea that "just building more large nearby cities" will reduce pollution, parking demand, and all that.  It'll inexorably and obviously make those problems much worse, and add new ones besides.  (To be fair, at this point the cat is sufficiently out of the bag that obviously doing things like urbanizing Arlington and other already-developed areas will do more good than harm.  That's fine. But it's just such a band-aid- there is no substitute for building up the core itself.)

[traininthedistance]

Treasure Island and West Oakland are some good places for lots of new apartment buildings.

I understand things are headed in the right direction over there, but I still wouldn't call West Oakland a "good" place for lots of new apartment buildings. Most people with any sort of alternative wouldn't even consider living there. Legal issues notwithstanding, from my point of view, most of the Presidio is an enormous waste of space in a city that is starved for real estate. If I were emperor, that's where I'd start in creating new housing for San Francisco.

Well, we need to keep parks. Should we replace Central Park by housing?

No, but we should look into this visionary proposal.

...

To be serious for a moment, Jane Jacobs was actually kind of scornful of parks (or at least skeptical of their universal acclaim), as she thought they interrupted the urban fabric, and served as underused boundaries and poorly-lit havens for crime and unsavory characters.  And some parks are probably sufficiently poorly designed, maintained, or sited such they may as well be empty lots and could be used better in other ways.   But she was also writing at a time when urban crime was on the rise, and it's likely that some of the problems she identified were a product of her time rather than universal.  In any case, developing parkland is going to be considered a bridge too far by just about everybody, and I am not going to be the person to take a brave stand against trees.

[traininthedistance]

I'm sure at least some of you are aware of how, in the olden days, those big cemeteries basically were their cities' marquee public parks, and people would go on their Sundays off to picnic among the gravestones and the grass and trees. 

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.) 

[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.