Further to the Wall Street Journal article, there’s this from Bloomberg:
We Don’t Have to Give In to Sprawl – Bloomberg View
… where are Americans actually moving? Still mainly to sprawling, car-dependent suburbs and exurbs.
Some argue that this is because Americans prefer sprawl. Many Americans do, I’m sure. But many don’t — the breakdown is about 50-50, if you can believe what people tell pollsters.
A more convincing argument is that Americans are still moving to sprawl mainly because sprawl is affordable. On Wednesday, Issi Romem, chief economist at the San Francisco-based online construction marketplace BuildZoom and a former student of Moretti’s, backed this up with an important new study.
Almost 90 percent of the new housing built in the U.S. since 1950 has been in low-density areas, he found. Metropolitan areas that sprawl produce lots of new housing. Those with political and/or physical barriers to sprawl don’t. Writes Romem:
Of course cities should favor densification over the ills of sprawl. But if the past is any guide to the future, failing to expand cities will come at a cost. Cities that have curbed their expansion have — with limited exception — failed to compensate with densification.
If we are to keep building enough housing for a growing country, then, we seem to be basically stuck with letting it be done in metropolitan Las Vegas, Raleigh, Austin and Atlanta (the four major metro areas where sprawl is proceeding at the fastest pace), and similar “expansive cities” (Romem’s term). Because it sure isn’t happening in San Francisco (the archetype of what Romem calls an “expensive city”).
… Turns out it’s hard to get new housing built in already-built-up coastal communities full of anti-growth activists in a state that makes it really easy to block to new development. Which is Romem’s point.
His study has already gotten a lot of attention. Bloomberg News, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post covered it. Urban scholar Richard Florida weighed in on it. After I read the report, and the coverage, I sent Romem a message last night asking if he had a “non-fatalistic takeaway.” After putting his kids to bed, he responded with a bullet-pointed mini-essay. These seemed to be the two most important points (I left out a couple in between):
-
Fundamental land use reform that permits sufficient densification to move the needle on affordability may seem unrealistic today, but so did mandatory healthcare as little as 8 years ago. The White House is in favor of land use reform. The nascent YIMBY movement is a novelty, but is gaining traction. See e.g. the first ever YIMBY conference. Between top down and bottom up efforts, perhaps fundamental reform isn’t as far-fetched as we think?
-
Is sprawl so bad? Many of the arguments against sprawl boil down to taste, e.g. sprawl lacks character. A key set of arguments that aren’t a matter of taste involve the environment, but…
-
Greater carbon footprint? Will the carbon footprint still be such a concern if cars are electric, and more and more electricity comes from renewable sources like solar power?
-
Rural land lost to sprawl? The US is still a mostly empty country, even today.
-
More obesity when people walk less? Yep, this is true.
-
Yimby stands for “yes in my backyard,” in case you were wondering. And yes, it is a movement worth encouraging. Even if it can’t do much to increase the nation’s housing supply, it may at least help save the souls of cities such as San Francisco and New York. It is the Nimbys who usually make the claim that they are preserving the character of their neighborhoods and cities, but preventing development just as often destroys that character by turning in-demand areas into hyper-expensive museums.
As for Romem’s suggestion that maybe sprawl isn’t so bad, or won’t be once we all drive solar-powered cars, yeah, maybe. But half of Americans don’t want to live that way! A more encouraging lesson can be found in his animated maps of metropolitan area growth since 1950, which show even the sprawliest areas getting denser and denser near their cores. Not surprisingly, the Texas housing starts depicted above skew much more toward single-family homes than the California ones (59 percent versus 29 percent). But the four Texas metros still had more multi-family units permitted from 2013 through 2015 than the four California ones did (164,625 to 120,779). As I learned when I spent a week in Houston this year, the same pro-development attitudes that encourage sprawl also make it easier to get dense, fill-in development approved.
Finally, there are the metropolitan areas that Romem terms “legacy cities” — places that have old, dense cores but not many people clamoring to live in them. You know: Detroit, Cleveland, Milwaukee, St. Louis, even Pittsburgh. Yes, these places have disappointed boosters again and again in the past. But they’re all still alive, kicking and full of beautiful old buildings. The expansive cities are almost all in the South and Southwest, and could be hard hit by climate change. Maybe by 2100, when Dallas is projected to have 98 100-degree-plus days a year and Phoenix 163, the legacy cities will all be full again.
Very few North Americans prefer sprawl. What they do prefer is affordable single family homes. Attempts to ram condo or other multifamily living down their throats just won’t fly. There is no reason new suburbs can’t be walkable or have employment options.
One other note, affordable means ongoing affordability. In my experience condo easily fees can easily outstrip the yearly cost if maintaining a house. Granted you may not have to mow a lawn, but for many thats a mere 30 minutes out if their week.
Interesting sentence “But half of Americans don’t want to live that way!” The half that do is a very, very large number. The fact that that half is more and more trapped in sprawl is more the failure of the planning process than a failure of suburbanites’ imagination. Sprawl tends to be post-planned, which is to say local and regional governments wait to see where people have gone and what problems have been created and then try to solve those problems (slowly and expensively) by weaving new transportation systems through the mess (Skytrain anyone?)
Vancouver, unfortunately, is in a unique situation of being the second least affordable city on the entire planet.
As young, urban families reach school age, many are leaving Vancouver and flooding into suburbs such as Surrey. And, they’re not going from Vancouver townhouses into Surrey houses. Instead, many are going from 1 bdrm rentals in Yaletown/West End into 2-3 bdrm rentals in Surrey.
The solutions to sprawl in many parts of North America may not work here. Ironically, in a few years, our least densely populated/occupied neighbourhoods might actually be those closer to the city.
PS. I just want to add that a couple of my kids’ school friends at Mount Pleasant Elementary got reno-victed out of their apartments over the summer and moved out to the burbs. I think Coquitlam and Surrey.
Thankfully, we own our condo (although, we’ve out-grown it with two kids). But, imagine the thought/stress of worrying that every year you might have to pull your kids out of school, their sports teams, and their friends and start all over again because the most you can get is a one year lease. This has became a sad reality. For single people and couples, it might be okay, but it wouldn’t surprise me if families move further out in search of both affordability AND stability.
As I said, Vancouver is in such a unique position due to unaffordability, and I don’t know if our problems are solvable because of that. But, for other cities, like Calgary, there must surely be some solutions to sprawl.
All the more reason for the public sector to build rental housing, or offer tax breaks on city land for privately-built rentals under strict legal agreements. This way elected officials, not private landlords, will be held accountable for decisions affecting renters. I’d include design guidelines to ensure an adequate number of three bedroom suites along with the ubiquitous one and two bedrooms are built, stick to low and mid-rise, utilize mixed incomes as a guide for development, and best management practices, which are several cuts above the bottom of the private sector bottom line. Supply and demand really is a factor in affordability; build enough quality, well-managed affordable rental housing in attractive neighbourhoods and the housing market will lose a slice of its market share, and prices will react accordingly.
Calgary … solutions to sprawl? Oh I’m cramping with laughter! Those words actually appeared in the same line. There are two solutions to sprawl there. Continue the current low price of oil that erodes their one-horse economy and cause a net out-migration. And establish an iron greenbelt at the current boundaries and not release it until it has tripled in population.
Those oceans of grain waving in the wind over the horizon? Those are subdivisions in the making under normal circumstances there. You can’t plan your way out of unsustainable sprawl there until you stop the political flow of donations from developers of low density housing tracts to the councillors in wards at the periphery who fight against smart growth proposals at every turn.
You clearly know nothing about Calgary other than stereotypes.
High rents are a result of high land and real estate prices.
Those are the result of
a) low interest rates, i.e. forced inflation of real assets such as land and real estate
b) our blind heavy-immigration-at-all-costs policy. Less immigration means less demand
c) our under-taxation of real estate, but over taxation of income
d) lengthy building process due to heavy approval loops
e) heavy regulations (see for example a small example, staircases here http://www.prestprop.com/2016/08/19/creating-affordable-housing-supply-modifying-building-code/ )
f) lack of land (although more could be made available from ALR or ocean/river flats)
g) lack on density along arterial roads
Change any of these and rents will be impacted positively or negatively.
Why should density be concentrated along arterial roads where more people have to put up with the higher levels of the noise stench and carnage of motor vehicles? Perhaps one of the reasons people shun multi-family is because it is predominantly built in noisy dangerous places.
I don’t know anything about Europe, but it sounds like most people, including families, rent. Do they have stronger renter protection that ensures tenants have long term stability?
@Kirk: Europe is older thus far more taxes, far higher energy costs and socialist policies, thus poorer, on average than Canada. Thus: more renters. Yes it has far more and tighter rent control laws than here. Their rents too are rising rapidly on vacant units due to lack of construction and similar trends as outlined above. Vancouver is not unique here. Roughly 50% of folks rent in Europe, very similar to Vancouver.
@RV: Driving along Hastings, for example, one wonders why there are SFH left and right and not even 3 story yet along 8-12 story buildings. To build rental units it has to make economic sense. Not everyone can afford $3/sq ft rents like it is now common downtown or at UBC. Some can maybe only afford 41.50/sq ft. Thus you need to build where land is cheaper, i.e. not as desirable. Hence few rentals are built in desirable locations as one can make more money with less risk selling condos. Vancouver now is mandating minimum rental %, I believe 25% on new towers. That makes condos even more expensive as they now have to subsidize rental units.
“Cities that have curbed their expansion have — with limited exception — failed to compensate with densification.”
I think it is vital to recognize these exceptions, understand why they are exceptions, and use those lessons.
Vienna comes to mind. Lots of published information and studies (published both by them and others, much of it in English even) about what they have done, and why it has and hasn’t worked. Let us please look more to such examples for a tried and tested and working way forward … someone already invented this wheel.