New Geography

Category: housing

  • Belly-Up In The Burbs: Bank-Owned Developments

    In 2009, the number of repossessed autos increased to 1.9 million. The number of homes under foreclosure varies from month to month, but the 2009 total was about 2.8 million. For 2010, it seems that a million new foreclosed homes would be conservative, with a large percentage in California. Miss a few payments on an auto loan and you may wake up to an empty driveway. On the other hand, repossession of your home is a long drawn out process.

    What kinds of communities have been hardest hit with foreclosures? Tom Cusack, a retired federal housing manager in Portland, tracks the issue via his Oregon Housing Blog. This summer, he was quoted in the Portland Tribune, saying “The foreclosure activity that is occurring in suburban markets in Oregon is unprecedented. It’s affecting not just rural areas, not just inner-city neighborhoods, but suburban neighborhoods, probably more substantially than any time in the past.”

    Daniel Ommergluck of Georgia Tech also studied this situation. His findings, he says, contradict “…some suggestions that the crises was primarily centered in suburban or exurban communities.” It concluded, “The intrametropolitan location of a zip code appears to have been a less important factor in REO (real estate owned) growth than the fact that a large amount of development in newer communities was financed during the subprime boom.”

    Decades ago, a young couple would have had to save for many years to accumulate the considerable down-payment to buy their first home, and the prospect of losing that home to foreclosure would have been devastating. With the more recent “easy financing,” though, there has been little to risk. The low effort to move into that new housing development has meant less “emotional” investment. When home prices escalated beyond reason in the years prior to the crash, it left many home buyers over-exposed, specifically because of the easy mortgages.

    The local economy also determines which suburbs suffer the most. Certainly homes in prosperous Houston or San Antonio that did not ride the absurd price increases fared much better than Detroit, with its bleak employment picture, where homes are imploding in value.

    Historically, the U.S. suburban home buying market is somewhere between 70% and 80% higher volume than the urban market. In other words, for every ten homes sold, seven or eight of them are likely to be suburban. So, it would stand to reason that the foreclosure crisis would be focused in the suburbs. Yet suburban vs. urban data on the subject is scarce.

    It’s probably more reasonable to assume that the local employment situation would have a larger effect than whether a community is urban or suburban. For example, when the Ford Plant in urban St. Paul closes, there will be 750 employees out of work and at risk of eventual foreclosure if the job market remains depressed. The residential area abutting the Ford plant is actually very nice, suggesting that many of the workers might live in the nearby city, not in the suburbs. Several miles from the Ford Plant is the suburb of Eagan where Lockeed Martin will close down their operation and put some 400 highly paid people out of work. These newly unemployed workers also may ultimately end up with their homes in foreclosure if they cannot gain highly paid employment elsewhere. Thus suburban vs. urban foreclosures are related to a very localized economy.

    There is, however, a greater menace to the suburbs than home foreclosures. It is when an entire development is foreclosed and becomes bank owned. Since the urban foreclosure is likely on a home that has been sold many times since the development — let’s call it ‘Jones Addition’ — was first built in 1925, the developer going broke is meaningless to the urban dweller.

    However, when ‘Jones Acres’ in Pleasantville was opened just five years ago, and phase one sold out with the beginning of phase two of 12 phases just started at the time of the crash, a very different and dangerous scenario arises. You see, Jones Acres is comprised of 500 lots. Of those, perhaps 40 were purchased by new suburban home buyers trusting that the amenities would be built as planned and promised.

    When President Bush announced that we had a 700 billion dollar problem and needed to bail out the banks, those same financial institutions essentially called the loans, which closed down much (probably most) of the nation’s developers. Land was no longer secure, and the development repossessions began. Without the banks funding, developers could not afford to properly maintain the grounds, associations failed, and eventually the banks were the new owners.

    Here in Minnesota, I know of few suburban developments that have not been foreclosed on. This would seem to be a greater threat to the future of the suburbs than individual homes being lost. Yet very little attention has been paid to the volume of bank owned developments. Much of the suburban land was purchased under contracts to farmers that took the land in phases. If a major builder committed to taking down the 500 lots in Jones Acres, and placed a million dollars in initial money ($2,000 a lot for the land), and after 40 lots decided to walk away, it left the farmer holding the land now likely taxed much higher and in danger of foreclosure. It made sense in many scenarios for the major builder to walk away and lose its lot deposits. Later on, if the development failed and the bank needed to unload the property, another major builder might be able to pick up the lots at 10 cents on the dollar, and just sit on the property for years until the housing market starts to recover.

    Since the recession began, a group of us approached banks with an offer to review the approved plans and re-plan some idle developments more efficiently and sustainably. This state of limbo would have been an excellent time to redesign the land into a much more sustainable (and profitable) product with little outlay from the financial institution. We could not find a single bank that was interested in adding value.

    Often the initial developer imagines the details of a neighborhood: the amenities, the architecture, the landscaping, and the marketing. What happens when a bank takes over? The banker most likely lacks this forward vision, and sells the development later to a buyer who offered 1/10th of the initial land cost for an approved platted development. Bah humbug, this buyer says, who needs a front porch, parks are for drug dealers, and if streets were meant to have trees, then the lord would have planted them there! The result is a highly visible, low value community.

    Cities approve developments based upon relationships. The recession eradicated so many promises that may now never be realized. Foreclosed homes in the cities or in the suburbs are less of a problem than foreclosed developments… and in this case, the suburbs lose – big time!

    Photo by Sean Dreilinger: One of two adjacent bank owned homes.

    Rick Harrison is President of Rick Harrison Site Design Studio and Neighborhood Innovations, LLC. He is author of Prefurbia: Reinventing The Suburbs From Disdainable To Sustainable and creator of Performance Planning System. His websites are rhsdplanning.com and performanceplanningsystem.com.

  • Can We Replicate in the 21st Century What we Accomplished in the 20th? Not if We Handcuff Ourselves

    Can the American republic replicate in the 21st century what its people accomplished in the 20th: widespread economic prosperity at home, the conquering of tyrannies and fascist ideologies abroad, the application of science to eradicate disease and improve life? These accomplishments took great efforts and costs, but the benefits were extraordinary. I have been optimistic my whole trend-forecasting career, but now it has become harder to be optimistic.

    We come to the close of the first decade of the 21st century confronted by profound economic, social, political and international challenges. Of course we differ on what policies to pursue; that has always been the case. But now we differ on fundamental goals, purposes and world-view. We don’t even agree on the positive benefits of pursuing prosperity through free-market, private-sector economic growth and development, or about conquering tyranny and fascist ideologies. And science, which used to be the objective pursuit of truth, has become politicized.

    This is a very different world than that experienced by my parents. They experienced a “typically extraordinary” rags-to-riches 20th-century American story. Born around the time of the First World War to first-generation parents, they lived in meager circumstances and worked continuously and constantly from a very young age while going to school, and of course handing their earnings over to their moms to help cover expenses. (I remember my dad telling me one of his earliest memories is a paint brush in his hand and a rope tied around his waist, being lowered into a tight spot his father, a housepainter, could not reach.)

    Dad worked his way through college and optometry school, attending nights and weekends to shorten the route; he wanted to be a surgeon, but this was the fastest path to being called “doctor.” They married young, started a family and moved to the suburbs. Dad started his professional practice and would work all day, come home for family dinner every night, then shoot downstairs and see patients until the rest of us were all in bed asleep. Mom was a wonderful homemaker to us four kids, and was also quite active in community and volunteer activities. When the last of her four kids was in middle school, she went back to work. At 50 years old she started commuting to New York daily, taking the bus into the Port Authority and then walking cross town to her job.

    Yes, they lived the American dream.

    Their legacy: putting all four of us through college (two through graduate school!), and watching all of us, all in long-time first marriages ourselves, do the same for our kids, their grandchildren. And giving us all wicked work ethics as well! Not bad, mom and dad, not bad. We could never thank you enough.

    Could they do it again today? I wonder. They benefited from public education, public transportation, a military that kept us safe, and a free market economy that provided opportunity and rewarded work, thrift, and responsibility. That was a lot, but compared to today, that’s limited government.

    Housing
    Mom and dad bought their house in 1946 for $30,000 and lived in it for nearly 50 years. They had to scratch together every dime they had to come up with the 25% down payment, and were lucky to get the loan at all (I remember my father telling me the loan officer got cold feet at the last moment). But it was a good bet for both the bank and my parents. Federal government policy promoted a stable family home market, stable house financing, a growing economy, private sector employment, etc. Local government was responsive and responsible; property taxes were reasonable. They paid off the loan early, and in what used to an American milestone, owned it outright (with no debt).

    Today the housing market has been exploded, and then imploded. Government policies have promoted instability, speculation, leverage, unimaginable debt, and irresponsibility. Would I advise my daughter, at a comparable stage of life, to buy a home? Not in these circumstances.

    Education
    Dad graduated from City College in New York when expectations and results were of a far higher standard than what exists today. He went to the Southern School of Optometry because it was the cheapest he could find, with the shortest route to graduation. He worked his way through school when it was still possible to do such a thing; he did not go thousands of dollars into debt, let alone tens of thousands, to get an education.

    Today the education industry has wildly inflated prices, and produces poorer results. Would I advise my daughter to go into thousands of dollars of debt to get a degree? Not in these circumstances.

    Starting and running a business
    Dad benefited from low barriers to entry and operation of private businesses. He was not inundated with laws, regulations, permits, fees, taxes and a minefield of liabilities covering every single action he could possibly take.

    Today all businesses are. According to Philip Howard, chair of CommonGood.org and author of Life Without Lawyers: Restoring Responsibility in America, a flood of statutes, rules and regulations is killing the American spirit. Legal mandates have accumulated like sediment in a harbor, robbing small business entrepreneurs of the opportunity to serve us all by hiring, producing goods and services, and thriving.

    Would I advise my daughter to start a business? Not in these circumstances. As Howard writes:

    “Small business owners face legal challenges at every step. Municipalities requires multiple and often nonsensical forms to do business. Labor laws expose them to legal threats by any disgruntled employee. Mandates to provide costly employment benefits impose high hurdles to hiring new employees. Well-meaning but impossibly complex laws impose requirements to prevent consumer fraud, provide disability access, prevent hiring illegal immigrants, display warnings and notices and prevent scores of other potential evils. The tax code is incomprehensible.”

    The very idea of progress today is slowly being strangled. In each of the examples listed above, all of which are keys to our future prosperity and well-being – housing, education, and small business – government intervention has made matters worse. Often designed, ironically, to help those who need it, government policies and programs have had a perverse effect, resulting often in the opposite of what was intended. These policies have stifled, not encouraged, self-reliance and self-sufficiency; have punished, not rewarded, thrift, responsibility and frugality; and have accentuated, not alleviated, poverty and inequality. And they have done so at a staggering cost to future generations.

    And yet, on the other hand, this is still America
    Despite these problems there are reasons to be optimistic about the American future. They include:

    1. SIZE: a large, growing and dynamic (not static) nation
    2. DEMOGRAPHICS: a large, growing and melding (not melting but melding) population
    3. MANUFACTURING, INDUSTRY, TECHNOLOGY & EXPORTS (still the world leader in all these categories)
    4. ENERGY & NATURAL RESOURCES (plentiful, if we have the political will)
    5. CAPITAL (traditional and non-traditional sources)
    6. LAND & AGRICULTURE (plentiful and fertile)
    7. MILITARY POWER & PROWESS (not to impose our will but to protect our interests)
    8. ENTREPRENEURSHIP, INNOVATION, CREATIVITY (they are in our DNA)
    9. EDUCATION, R&D (we realize their value and prioritize them)
    10. CONSUMERS GOTTA SPEND (we are as acquisitive as conditions allow)
    11. THE CULTURE (Americans will not settle for an unsatisfactory status quo)

    Would I advise my daughter to be optimistic, not give up, to go forward and work to better herself and her wonderful country by fighting to change harmful policies?

    You bet I would.

    I bid you a happy new year.

    Dr. Roger Selbert is a trend analyst, researcher, writer and speaker. Growth Strategies is his newsletter on economic, social and demographic trends. Roger is economic analyst, North American representative and Principal for the US Consumer Demand Index, a monthly survey of American households’ buying intentions.

    Photo: Paula Selbert was laid to rest at Riverside Cemetery in Rochelle Park, NJ on December 12, 2010, next to Harold, her beloved husband of 60 years, who passed away in 2003.

  • Are Developers Greedy, Or Just Misunderstood?

    Construction starts in Australia, like much of the English-speaking world, are falling across a spectrum from commercial to retail, industrial and housing. Construction industry jobs – one of the few sources for well compensated blue collar employment – are going with them. Yet developers, the very group who would create these jobs, continue to suffer a poor public image. Why, and can it ever be improved?

    The Reserve Bank of Australia’s recent move to increase interest rates was not well received by the development and construction industry. Housing and non-residential approvals are in a general slide and a widely reported lack of new supply in housing is compounded by private sector commercial development at a virtual standstill, with development finance the most widely cited culprit. According to the UDIA, construction industry jobs are down by around 25,000 in just one Australian state, the formerly booming Queensland. That’s a lot of incomes not being spent in the economy.

    Yet despite these problems, developers aren’t exactly being courted by policy makers or regulators. Quite the opposite – politicians still regularly throw the mud at the very industry which holds a key to improving housing supply and construction industry jobs. “I won’t stand by and let greedy developers get away with … blah blah blah.” You’ve all heard it before. Denial, pass the buck and shoot the messenger continue to be preferred defensive tactics of politicians responding to industry complaints of excessive regulation. Labeling all developers “greedy has about as much validity as suggesting all politicians are corrupt simply because a handful break the law, but the latter (politicians) continue to target the former (developers) – and get away with it.

    It’s not just the politicians of course. Many regulators and planners, if you believe the horror stories, have taken an adversarial stance to development assessment whereby the developer is regarded with suspicion from the outset. The regulators don’t see themselves as facilitators of new activity but as ‘growth managers’ exercising every precautionary principle known in a bid to slow, curtail, check and re-check the consequences (real or imagined) of a proposal.

    Then there’s community opinion, which puts developers and real estate agents and used car dealers into the same category. Development proposals that align with local or state planning schemes, and which may have already jumped through several hoops before a public airing, are often widely rejected via the pages of the local press. This isn’t just NIMBYism, because the target of hostile public complaint isn’t the planning scheme or the local or state politician who endorsed it, but the developer applicant who is simply complying with the scheme’s intent. Irrespective of how green, how sustainable, how rational or how much needed the proposal may be in community or economic terms, it’s the developer who gets the bad press.

    Why is it that developers just can’t win?

    I’ll venture a theory that many readers won’t like. Developers are too meek, too obsequious, too prepared to be thrashed with a wet lettuce and succumb. With rare exceptions (Stockland’s Matthew Quinn is one) developers rarely comment publicly about the problems imposed on the industry by excessive and growing regulatory burdens. The allegations of land banking, of profiteering, greed, opportunism, social irresponsibility and environmental vandalism are too infrequently challenged in the public domain.

    Some blame no doubt lies in the politicization of development assessment: development is no longer an exercise in market and land economics, but a political game. Political intervention in planning schemes and the ability to kybosh proposals means that developers need to be acutely sensitive to political trends. Throwing back the facts and arguing the case publicly may not win political friends, and developers certainly don’t need any more political enemies. But what that means is that as more mud is thrown, more mud sticks.

    It’s true that industry groups have their role to play in advocating development industry positions and promoting the benefits the industry brings, and by and large do a good job with the resources available. But is it also true that developers themselves tend to hide behind their industry groups in a sort of ‘good guy, bad guy’ act where industry group executives are left to do the sledging while developers do the schmoozing?

    I recall a meeting with a Government Minister some years ago, dealing with a mounting problem in the Minister’s Department which threatened to cost the industry dearly. The meeting was civil but the issues weren’t danced around – “a full and frank discussion” might be its best description. The Minister was getting the message, loud and clear. But then, at the close of the meeting, the developer representative left the Minister with the comment that “Minister, thanks for your time and we want you to know you’re doing a great job.” Bang, pop – the pressure was instantly deflated. That Minister no doubt reported to their colleagues that the industry was pretty put off but didn’t present a political problem.

    Perhaps asking individual developers to publicly challenge the opprobrium being thrown at them and defend themselves more aggressively is akin to asking them to paint a target on their forehead saying ‘shoot me’ But perhaps they can take a hint from Australian farmers. Farmers, thanks to aggressive environmental politics, were copping all the bad press from tree clearing and land erosion to fertilizer and herbicide runoff. Somehow the community was allowed to forget that without farmers we don’t eat, they responded. The ‘Every Family Needs a Farmer’ campaign was a defensive community education campaign, designed to build more empathy amongst urban consumers of the issues faced by farming communities. The campaign has run through several incarnations over several years, and was no knee-jerk, one-off exercise.

    Now if Australian entrepreneur Dick Smith can fund a TV documentary and anti-growth campaign single handed, you’d think the entire development industry could manage something in its own interests, especially when those interests are closely aligned to the interests of the community. You wouldn’t call it ‘Every Family Needs a Developer’ but you could start with a few things that the community as a whole seems to have forgotten:

    • Almost every street and the houses in it, in every neighborhood, is the result of a developer at some stage taking a risk.
    • Every shop in every high street, and every shopping mall your family visits, is the result of some developer at some stage, taking a risk.
    • Almost every workplace, whether it’s a medical centre, a factory, or an office building, is the result at some stage of a developer taking a risk.
    • Increasingly, many of the schools, roads and community facilities that we enjoy are funded through the activity of developers.

    The homes we will need so that people aren’t sleeping on the streets won’t be provided by governments, or politicians, but by developers. The economy that we need to feed our families and support our aged and infirm, relies heavily on developers and the construction jobs that flow from them.

    Many developers go broke trying, and in doing so they lose their own money, not public money. It’s a high risk venture where certainty is essential. It’s not an industry where the public sector has ever shown much of a track record – witness the billions squandered on public housing programs which produce very few roofs.

    Developers have legitimate concerns about the cost of doing business. It means their costs to the consumer,in the form of houses young people can’t afford, or rents that businesses struggle to pay, are higher than they need to be. It’s not developers making this happen; it’s regulation.

    At the end of the day, developers can sit back and wait for more mud to be thrown, or begin to defend their reputation, and to defend the need for growth.

    Is there anything to be lost by trying?

    Ross Elliott has more than 20 years experience in property and public policy. His past roles have included stints in urban economics, national and state roles with the Property Council, and in destination marketing. He has written extensively on a range of public policy issues centering around urban issues, and continues to maintain his recreational interest in public policy through ongoing contributions such as this or via his monthly blog The Pulse.

    Photo by Scorpions and Centaurs

  • A New Word in Development

    In the old days a “blurb” was a positive promotional recommendation statement on a book jacket. I have done a few myself. Now we are informed by the developer of Civita, an urban infill project in San Diego, that “blurb” really means a cross between suburban and urban.

    Are they going to put a picture of it on a book jacket?

    As for villages, I live in one myself. Fine and dandy, Very nice to have shops, bars, and restaurants you can walk to. But most people are not going to want to be limited to the retail and recreational opportunities of their “village,” nor even to those one can reach by good public transport from said “village.” Most particularly, most people are not going to be able to be limited to the job opportunities reachable on foot or by public transit from one’s “village.”

  • Home Sweet McMansion

    Is the new American house, with three-car garages and laundry chutes like Olympic ski runs, an improvement over the old ones that were limited to a cozy dining room, a den, and a kitchen that held a small round table on which was kept a toaster?

    The size of the American house tracks the evolution of the budget deficit and national debt. Think of McMansions as you would the Federal Reserve Bank—an imposing edifice with the contents of the garage pledged to Household Finance, if not the Chinese.

    Many neighborhoods have become the United States of Gatsby.

    Because I live in Europe but travel across America to visit family and friends, I will start my appraisal in the guest room.

    In my wanderings, I have slept on bunk beds, fold-out sofas (one called “the rack of pain”), camping mats oozing air, and luxury, king-sized mattresses, suitable for a sultan. This summer, I woke up in the middle of the night to find two dogs nestled against my feet. My only objection was when they chose to growl at each other at 3:00 a.m.

    What makes a great guest room? My tastes are idiosyncratic, but I like a room that has bookshelves, a good reading light, a clock that works, a large desk, Wi-Fi, windows that open onto cool air, the distant sounds of trains in the night, hooks instead of closet hangers, and a cat that buys into guests.

    Instead of television, I prefer a radio beamed up to the BBC World Service and a side table of magazines (ones devoted to gardens, yachts, and celebrity divorces are the best) that I would never buy or read, unless I were a guest. I like coming down in the morning with up-to-date information on Jody Foster’s career. (She’s loyal to Mel Gibson, despite his crazy rants.)

    Having been recently in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and New Jersey, I can report that the American guest room is alive and well. As for the rest of the new American home, the jury is out, or least meeting with the architect to design several thousand more square feet of pool rooms, wet bars, conversation pits, walk-in closets, and fireplaces that ignite with jet propulsion.

    When I last lived in the United States in the 1990s, our kitchen was the size of a pantry. If I held my arms outstretched, I could almost touch both walls, and the length was less than that of a stretch limo (literally and figuratively, imagine the oven in the trunk).

    Nevertheless, that kitchen was a perfect place to feed a family of four, prepare a dinner party, and hold a conversation. The cost to renovate the kitchen was about $900, but that’s because we went with a “custom” linoleum countertop that fit around the stove top. The overhead light came from a closed New York City school. A neighbor, whose services we won at a charity auction, repainted the cupboards.

    Now the American kitchen is the size of Polynesia and comes with archipelagos of “islands,” a nearby “family room,” television screens that could track a lunar launch, machines that dispense coffee and boiling water on demand, hidden drawers that contain freezers, enough marble to impress the Emperor Aurelian, and appliances that give the room the air of an operating theater.

    The “new” kitchen is designed to celebrate the diversity of American families—imagine Thanksgiving with the Brady Bunch, maybe over at Bill Cosby’s house—although best as I can judge from my travels, these tribal nations rarely eat together, in the kitchen or anywhere else.

    Like nomads, children and adults wander through the new American kitchen as if it were the Serengeti, collecting food and drink until the grazing land is stripped, and then they head off to a cave, to surf the web, text, or watch movies.

    I would say that the herd goes to the living room, but I haven’t seen anyone in an American living room since “Gunsmoke” was aired during the Eisenhower administration.

    Part of the reason that living rooms are now as forlorn as a safe house is because the television is elsewhere and because there are few formal occasions to sit in the American living room, which often looks as though it could be hired out to a funeral parlor.

    As a guest, I am sometimes granted a living-room audience. As a rule of thumb, however, Americans prefer to talk to their guests when standing up in the kitchen or sitting outside on the porch.

    Porches are one of the few areas of the house that modern architecture has improved. Screened porches used to be small and cramped, with patches on the screen where the bugs had drilled holes in the night.

    In places like Florida, there are now screened porches that are the size of the backyard; in fact, they are the backyard, and the netting and enclosed jungle trees give the terrace the air of a film location on “Survivor.” But I admire anything that allows me to sit outside, beyond the reach of mosquitoes. I also like the practical evolution of the outdoor kitchen, even though the idea seems better suited to the Roman senate.

    Part of the reason that many new American houses lack a central focus (think of the courtyard in a Spanish hacienda or an English fireplace) is because television is the high alter of fleeting attention, and screens pop up in all sorts of diverse places, as though part of a billboard campaign.

    I have seen televisions in the basement, in small dens, in exercise rooms, on kitchen and living room walls, and on small robotic arms that shift the blue haze around the bathroom as if it were yet another jet spray coming out of the shower or Jacuzzi.

    Nevertheless, television watching is a solitary endeavor and programs could be beamed into headsets, for all they foster family or community. Its effect on house layout is put up electronic walls that the architects have spent thousands of dollars to remove, in the spirit of open design.

    In my experience, happy houses are those that work in spite of their obvious flaws, like all those New York City apartments that used to have a bath tub in the kitchen or farmhouses with large wood stoves just inside the kitchen door.

    In the 1970s, I loved visiting a house in Maryland that instead of a front hall had an indoor rock garden. The meals were cooked outdoors on an open flame, but no one left the dinner table before midnight, unless it was to go for beer (kept outdoors).

    The house in which I grew up had claw-footed tubs and one shower. Between 1961 and 1994, when my parents lived there, home improvements consisted of cosmetics and painting (sometimes carried out by one Larry W. Jones, who was a family legend for his ability to paint windows shut).

    For years, my parents resisted “improving” the kitchen, because the walls had hand-painted fruit trees and it reminded them of a European café. Nor did they touch the wallpaper in the hall, which had similar scenes of the French revolution.

    When they sold the house, the new owners, no doubt in counterrevolutionary horror, tore it down and put up a McMansion, although I have a hard time imagining that they were able completely get rid of all the “fraternité” that would have been lodged in the walls.

  • Love and the City

    It has been said that the modern city is soulless, that it is heartless, and that it is brutal. The modern city represents in its scale and complexity one of the most extraordinary of human inventions, but there is also no doubt that everywhere in the world it is also one of our biggest failures.

    The dysfunction of a city in the past was an inconvenience. The dysfunction of a city in the future will be a profound disaster for that city and, ironically, a profound opportunity for another city, of a smarter city. It will be an opportunity for a city that has found out how to position itself better in the world of cities, but more importantly in the eyes and hearts of its citizens.

    All over the world, there is a growing recognition that this brutality must stop; we have to imagine a different kind of city which addresses human needs and that puts the soul back into the city. This is essential to the survival of the city. Put another way, there is a growing understanding that it is actually “love” that will be the prime force in the future economy of successful 21st century cities.

    Who would have thought in the last generation that “love” might become a meaningful topic in a discussion about urban economies, much less a prime force of those economies?

    One important reason for creating a love-based city grows from the struggle today among cities for hegemony. We read all the time about “alpha-cities” and “delta-cities”: the “alphas” enjoy the fruits of labour and the “deltas” just do the labour – they just exist. And why is this?

    Well, it’s because the dynamics of urban growth and competition have fundamentally changed in the last quarter century. The world has become footloose, with people and capital moving at will: business can be done anywhere. Other aspects of life are more important than one’s livelihood and where people choose to settle is not tied down the way it used to be. We can do and be almost anything anywhere.

    The result is a new kind of economic base for our cities, augmenting the traditional economic activities holding our cities together. This is the ideas and service economy and it opens up the imperative to create a city of beauty and quality liveability and style. This is an economy driven by people, their direct needs, their preferences and their day-to-day experiences.

    This ideas and service economy quickly becomes an economy involving almost everyone. If you live in a core city, have you ever tried to get a gardener or a plumber? But, even beyond that, you have to think about all of the professions and vocations that can now demand an enjoyable as well as functioning city.

    We’re not just talking about the service sector or the ‘creatives’, we’re talking about almost everybody. We have to focus the discussion on a city that is liveable for a broad array of its population.

    I worry that in all our creative thinking about sustainable technologies and sustainable urban forms, there may be some strong denial going on about people and their inclinations, denial that will block the way towards sustainability.

    Take the fashion that insists on the primacy of density and mixed use and diversity and sustainable transportation. Sadly, most consumers in the English speaking world, except in a very few of our older gracious places, have shown very little interest in being a part of that kind of city. In my country, two-thirds of Canadians live in auto-dominated suburbs that boast none of these qualities – and that proportion is even higher in America.

    Let’s be blunt: most people hate density because most of it has been so bad; they think of mixed use as probably hitting them negatively and transit is not even in most people’s vocabulary. The ideal of most people is some sort of rural “garden of Eden” that they want to escape to from the city – even if that ends up being an illusory goal.

    I sympathize. The cities we have been building since the War have very seldom offered anything very appealing at almost any density. Who can really fall in love with brutal concrete canyons or anonymous strip malls or wind-swept roads?

    If cities want to offer an alternative, they must change and bring back the human touch – we have to bring placemaking to the very heart of the civic agenda. We have to stop trading away the urban qualities we care about for the urgencies of the moment of modern life.

    We must start to build places that truly appeal to people – yes, places that are sustainable, but also places that are so good that people will choose them. These cities have to have all the human services and they have to have beauty and they have to be gentle. Only then will they become attractive to a wide range of people.

    I call this “Experiential Planning” – learning about and then carefully making the city deliver the experiences people tell us they want in their lives for their families and children.

    Experiential planning looks beyond land-use and transportation patterns to things like character and comfort and health and convenience and the visceral response of the senses and caprice: things that simply make people happy. Happiness is the applied side of love.

    People want all of the efficiencies and choices but they also want more. They want to feel the unique, special spirit of a place as a real thing, not a marketing gimmick. They want their habitat to have a “buzz” that makes them feel good. They want their day-to-day living environment to foster social engagement and neighbourliness not isolation. That is what the contemporary city has often been missing.

    For as long as anyone can remember, modern cities, with very few exceptions, have been shaped by economic activity and politics and the shifting of social groups: the city exploited as a commodity. But that doesn’t have to be the case. We can actually design our cities as an explicit act of creation – grand civic design with the whole city as a canvas. And every city has to find its own way: they should not accept cookie-cutter replications of what’s being done everywhere else.

    To start, every city needs to perform a ritual burning of these outdated and single-purpose rules. Now I am not talking about de-regulation. The city of the future will have to have strong regulations because the possibilities out there for development are just too diverse and the private interests in development too strong. There must be a clear expression of the public interest and public needs to match that of the private sector.

    Also, I want to be clear that this is not a “top-down” agenda. Experiential planning requires an aggressive and diverse engagement of the public at every step along the way to articulate the public perspective and to insure public buy-in and ownership. The general public needs to discuss and debate an overall civic vision and all aspects of urban design.

    In this experiential-based city there will be an alignment of profitability and community building. We will also see people coming back to live in the core city and to suburbs transformed through natural choice and preference. There will be an alignment of consumer selection and sustainable practice. This will include all kinds of people but especially families with children.

    But none of this will happen by accident. We have to make it happen and bring along individual values through a careful process of reconciliation.

    Tomorrow’s city must meet the environmental test and the economic test but it must also meet the experiential test; and that is the test of love; that is the test of soul. It must be beautiful and joyful and sociable and humane and offer a complete rich community life – with all the subtleties of human occupation. That is the real power of an urban love affair.

    Larry Beasley is the retired Director of Planning for the City of Vancouver in Canada. He is now the “Distinguished Practice Professor of Planning” at the University of British Columbia and the founding principal of Beasley and Associates, an international planning consultancy. He chairs the ‘National Advisory Committee on Planning, Design and Realty’ of Ottawa’s National Capital Commission; he is the Chief Advisor on Urban Design for the City of Dallas, Texas; he is on the International Economic Development Advisory Board of Rotterdam in The Netherlands; and he is the Special Advisor on City Planning to the Government of Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates.

    Photo by ecstaticist

  • The Overdue Debate: Smart Growth Versus Housing Affordability

    American households face daunting financial challenges. Even those lucky enough not to have suffered huge savings and retirement fund losses in the Great Recession seem likely to pay more of their incomes in taxes in the years to come, as governments attempt pay bills beyond their reasonable financial ability. Beyond that, America’s declining international competitiveness and the easy money policies of the Federal Reserve Board could well set off inflation that could discount further the wealth of households.

    In this environment, the last thing governments need do is to raise the cost of anything. It is bad enough that taxes may have to rise and that a dollar will probably buy less. America’s standard of living could stagnate or it could even decline.

    The Choice: Smart Growth or Affordability

    The Washington Examiner, however, succinctly put the choices that face the nation, states and localities with respect to the largest element of household expenditure — housing. In an editorial entitled “Take Your Pick: Smart Growth or Affordable Housing,” the Examiner noted:

    “No matter how much local politicians yammer about how much they support affordable housing, they are the principal cause of the problem via their land use restrictions, such as the urban growth boundary in Montgomery County and large-lot zoning in Loudoun County.”

    The editorial was in response to our Demographia Residential Land & Regulation Cost Index, which estimated the extent to which the land to construction ratio had risen in metropolitan regions. The principal finding was that the share of land and regulatory costs to new house prices had risen only with the impostion of more restrictive land use policies. This is principally because strategies such as urban growth boundaries, suburban large lot zoning and geographical growth steering (such as allowing state financial assistance only in areas meeting smart growth criteria) makes land for housing unnecessarily scarce, raising its price just as surely as OPEC’s oil rationing raises the price of gasoline.

    Urban planner and mayor of Ventura, California Bill Fulton objected to our attributing these increases to land and regulation, instead suggesting that smart growth increases homes prices much less than we claimed although, he admits, “at least a little“ . The pro-smart growth study Costs of Sprawl — 2000 concedes that a number of smart growth strategies can increase house prices (See Table 15-4). Thus, the debate is not about whether more restrictive land use policies raise the price of housing, but rather by how much.

    More often, however, proponents of more restrictive land use regulations have avoided and even denied that the inconvenient truth linking their policies with higher housing costs. Rarely, if ever, have proponents of such policies fully disclosed to elected or appointed officials that more restrictive land use policies would lead to higher house prices. It is doubtful that any urban planning department ever sent representatives to an NAACP chapter to explain how fewer African-Americans would be able to own their own homes, despite already having a one-third lower home ownership rate than non-Hispanic whites. Similarly, the planners probably never told La Raza chapters that Hispanic households, also with a one third less home ownership rate, would find home ownership more costly. Nor was the message delivered to the religious organizations concerned with improving the standard of living for lower income households.

    Pervasive Evidence

    Yet the evidence that smart growth boost prices substantially seems incontrovertible. An early 1970s research effort led by renowned urbanologist Peter Hall quantified the impacts of the restrictive Town and Country Planning Act of 1947, which brought smart growth measures to England. The result, The Containment of Urban England revealed how strict regulations on development had driven the price of land for development from five to ten times the value of comparable on which development was not permitted, but might be permitted in the future. More recently, Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee member Kate Barker, was commissioned by the Blair Labour government to review housing affordability and land regulation. She attributed England’s more steeply rising house prices relative to continental Europe to its more restrictive land use regulations.

    The same effect is evident in the United States. Dartmouth’s William Fischel noted that California house prices were similar to those in the rest of the nation as late as 1970. By 1990, however, California house prices had escalated well ahead of the nation. Fischel found that the higher prices could not be explained by higher construction cost increases, demand, the quality of life, amenities, the property tax reform initiative (Proposition 13), land supply or water issues. His conclusion was that the expansion of land use restrictions were the culprit.

    Let Them Eat Cake?

    The disregard at least some smart growth proponents show about house prices may be characterized, for example, in a comment on the Planetizen website:

    “… smart growth can lead to more expensive housing. So what? At least it’s REAL value, generated by a higher quality of life, easier commutes, more transit options, walkability and a more enriched cultural experience…” (emphasis in original)

    Perhaps it never occurred to the proponents of more restrictive land use policies that not all households have the benefit of incomes typical of urban planners or new urbanist architects. One has to question the “REAL values” of smart growth since most housing consumers place their highest emphasis on things like privacy, security and good schools, not always available at a decent price in urban areas.

    In fact, higher priced housing reduces the discretionary income that is crucial to an acceptable standard of living to many households. Millions of households will not be in the market for “a more enriched cultural experience” until they can afford the housing they desire.

    Housing Affordability and the Cost of Living

    It is not accidental that the cost of living is higher (both in nominal terms and relative to incomes) in metropolitan regions where land use regulation is the strongest, such as San Diego, Washington-Baltimore, Seattle or Boston. Nor is it accidental that house prices have escalated to 40 percent above historic norms in Portland, Oregon, where planners have skimped on geographical urban growth boundary expansions, choosing instead to look skyward, seeking higher densities. California’s aspiration under Senate Bill 375 for new housing at 20 units to the acre offers a more than Jakarta level of density (residential densities above 30,000 per square mile) that could escalate the unprecedented exodus of people and businesses.

    Higher Housing Costs: The Poverty Connection

    The acknowledged relationship between more restrictive land use regulation and higher house prices also applies to standards of living, which are sent lower, and poverty rates, which must inevitably be pushed higher. This constitutes a second inconvenient truth: as discretionary income drops, more households fall into poverty. This creates a difficulty for proponents of more restrictive land use regulation, because there is no constituency for increasing poverty. It is no wonder they have generally discounted, ignored or even denied the nexus between smart growth and higher housing costs.

    Considering the financial uncertainty American households face, it is long past time that the choice between smart growth and housing affordability be seriously debated.

    —-

    Photograph: “Low density” smart growth development adjacent to the urban growth boundary (Hillsboro) in suburban Portland (by author)

    Wendell Cox is a Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris and the author of “War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life”

  • Miami Condo Price Implosion Continues

    The National Association of Realtors has just published its quarterly median house prices and the trend continues downward in Miami. At the end of the third quarter, the median condominium price had dropped to $82,900 in Miami, about the same as the list price for a BMW-7 sedan. This places condominium prices at 77 percent below the 2007 second quarter median of $367,000.

    While Miami has experienced perhaps the most substantial condominium bust in the nation, other metropolitan areas, such as Atlanta, Seattle, Los Angeles, San Diego, Chicago and Portland (Oregon) have seen huge decreases and a spate of spate of distress auctions and conversion of units to rentals.

    A recent article in The Wall Street Journal noted that condominiums have experienced an even greater market decline than detached housing. The over-building of condominiums may have been spurred by rose predictions from urban planners about the demand for central city housing being far greater than the supply. For example, the developer of City Center Las Vegas indicated that they built too many condominium units, at least in part in response to information received an urban planning symposium.

    Photograph: Condominium Conversion to Rentals in Portland (by author).

  • Livability and All That

    Livability is one of those once innocuous words, like sustainability, that now receive almost unquestioned acceptance in the bureaucracy, academia and the media. After all, words like sustainability and livability have no acceptable negative form. Who could be in favor of anything unlivable, insensitive, unhealthy or unsustainable?

    Back in the late seventies, when I served as Special Assistant for Information Policy in the Office of the Secretary, our shibboleth was “balanced”. Can anyone be in favor of unbalanced transportation? It didn’t matter that the word had no meaning and we couldn’t explain it to others, it still became standard in the rhetoric of secretarial officers. In an unkind moment a reporter asked the present DOT Secretary Ray LaHood what he meant by livable, given that the department had just added it to its criteria for giving away money. He replied vaguely it was something about being able to walk to work and the park and a restaurant, to a doctor and a few more things.

    Well it turns out I was living the livable life style when I was growing up in Queens, New York in the fifties and didn’t know it. Here all along I just thought we were poor.

    Aside from seeking to have the same modal shares of America in 1910, or Tajikistan today, this idea fails on both theoretical and practical grounds. Theoretically, whatever merit the idea might have, livability means very different things in a tenement in Brooklyn, or a place in Billings, Des Moines, or Peoria. I can recall being sent to the store for milk or lettuce by my Mom after school. If I didn’t get there in time the four heads of iceberg lettuce (I was 16 before I found out that there were other kinds) were gone. The milk was “milk”. Today in a supermarket the milk section is bigger than the grocery store I went to as a kid. There’s skim, 1%, 2%, whole, lactaid, acidophilus in quarts, half-gallons, and gallons and 86 kinds of lettuce. The typical market today has above 50,000 items. That means that the market shed for such stores is far broader than it was back in the day.

    We were three generations of the family in the same household and we all had the same doctor who lived two blocks away. Today I don’t have a doctor – I have half a dozen – none of them selected on the basis of distance. When one selects doctors, best, not closest, matters. Hospitals are growing in size but declining in the number of facilities per thousand population. All of this is simply representative of the immense trend towards specialization in our society – an increasing division of labor in all activities and an accompanying division of tastes and preferences in an increasingly affluent society. If you want a loaf of wonder bread there’s a 7-11 down the street; if its ciabatta with sun-dried tomatoes there’s this really great place I know a few miles off of exit 29 on the freeway.

    In today’s job market don’t we expect that people will be willing to go farther to find the job they want or can get? If the average travel time is about 25 minutes and a half-hour commute is acceptable, how long is one unemployed before the acceptable becomes 45 minutes or an hour? In this period of housing constraint in which people are even more locked into their homes by underwater mortgages, the commute will grow as people get desperate.

    In my town of College Point, Queens when the factory whistle blew a few thousand walked in the gate and out again when the whistle blew in the evening. People don’t live outside the factory gate anymore and haven’t for awhile. Again, specialization and division of labor are the main factor. Job groupings are far smaller today, and the rate of job turnover means more people won’t/can’t move every time they change jobs. Moreover, about 70% of workers live in a household with other workers – whose job will they live next to?

    More importantly, the great competitive strength of America lies in access to skilled workers. Employers will be reaching out farther and farther to find the specializations and skills they require. We should expect work trip lengths to grow not become walking trips. It won’t be inner city oriented either. The metropolis of today is of immense size because many employers need a market of hundreds of thousands of potential workers to reach the ones they need. The Atlanta region with 26 counties is not a great economic engine because it is 26 charming adjacent hamlets, but rather because the market reach of employers, suppliers, customers and job seekers spreads over several million residents.

    In this environment it takes massive transportation capability to assure that market shed. The questions are how many potential employees can I reach in half an hour; how many suppliers, how many customers? In the future more of us will be free to live where we want and work where we want. Most will not be willing to trade living floor space for a close-by sidewalk café. Americans will drive to where they want to walk.

    There remains, of course, lots of room now within the existing land use distribution to make it easier for those who wish to live closer to shops, jobs or entertainment. People also are free to go to the nearest store or nearest doctor. The fact that so few do so reflects the oft-forgotten fact that people have their own notions of what is most important. Trying to coerce them to live the way government – particularly the upper bureaucracy – thinks they should live holds many perils. The American people have no obligation to live in ways that make it convenient for government to serve them. Government isn’t smart enough to know how people should live or to order their lives in more “convenient” arrangements.

    On the practical side:

    It’s on the practical side that the concepts of livability really fail. The central failure inheres in what the Europeans call subsidiarity, proposes that any necessary activity of an authority should be conducted by that level of governance closest to the problem that can effectively address it. Having livability rise to become central principle of federal transportation investment planning is an egregious failure in our historical system of decentralized government. If sidewalks and bike paths are federal then everything is federal.

    The mayors of our cities love it. Why not? It is the closest they have come to being able to lay claim to direct federal funding, getting those pesky states and suburban communities where the majority of Americans live out of the way. They see it as finally being their turn at the money from Washington. In these times, when every government level is broke, livability and sustainability can prove a potential lifeline, and a bonanza as well to developers – often themselves subsidized – who focus on the inner city.

    The livability criterion is ultimately centralist: fed-centric. It is not up to local people if they want to densify or not, but real power will rest with a really “smart” guy behind a desk in Washington. Proposals for federal “performance measurement” degenerate into a charade that produces pre-ordained results. Now I can fund my friends, who are as right-thinking as I am!

    The problem here is a total disconnect between what people in a diverse democracy want, and what the central bureaucracy, and their academic allies, wish to impose. The livability agenda may be popular in the press and among pundits, but for most communities and people it’s neither popular nor remotely democratic.

    Alan E. Pisarski is the author of the long running Commuting in America series. A consultant in travel behavior issues and public policy, he frequently testifies before the Houses of the Congress and advises States on their investment and policy requirements.

    Photo by Mastery of Maps

  • The Two Worlds of Buenos Aires

    Central Buenos Aires is undoubtedly one of the world’s great tourist destinations. Days could be spent walking among its narrow streets admiring the plentiful art noveau, art-deco, beaux-arts and other architectural styles. The triumphal Avenida 9 de Julio is one of the world’s widest boulevards with two interior roadways of up to seven lanes and two service roads of two lanes, with a Washington Monument type obelisk at Avenida Corrientes (Top photo). Avenida 9 de Julio is bordered by buildings that are both ordinary and impressive, such as the Colon Opera House.

    There is also an attractive area of redevelopment adjacent to the core in the former dock area, Puerto Madero. The old port buildings have been converted to commercial uses, especially restaurants. A number of high-rise condominium buildings have been constructed beyond the old port basins. Government buildings more than match the commercial architecture, with the National Congress and the Casa Rosada, or “Pink House,” with its balconies from which President Peron and his wife Eva used to address the public (Photo 2). Not more than two weeks ago, former President Nestor Kirchner lay in state to be visited by in an emotional outpouring by hundreds of thousands of Argentineans. The city of Buenos Aires also has a distinctive legislative building (Photo 3).

    These older romantic styles make Buenos Aires a wonderful walking environment. Most were erected in the first three decades of the 20th century. This was Buenos Aires at its zenith. Then, Buenos Aires was capital of one of the world’s acknowledged economic powers. Argentina generally ranked around10th in gross domestic product (GDP) per capita during that period (Note 1). Thus, today, the tourist can enjoy the product of that prosperous time.

    Economic Stagnation: More recent years have not been good to the Buenos Aires area and Argentina. The nation has seen decades of ups and downs – but mostly downs. The nation has been buffeted between constitutional governments and military dictatorships. Too often, even the constitutional governments have placed too little emphasis on creating wealth and too much on redistributing it. A failed currency policy in the 1990s destroyed the savings of millions. All of this has led to Argentina’s migration from the top 10 economies to near the bottom of the top 100, now ranked at 82nd in the world in GDP per capita. No top ten nation from early in the 20th century has fallen so far. New Zealand managed to drop from 1st in the world in 1920 to 51st now, but still has a GDP per capita double that of Argentina.

    Argentina suffered the largest sovereign debt default in world history, at $100 billion in 2002. The nation’s former colonial master, Spain, trailed Argentina in GDP per capita throughout the 20th century to the 1980s, yet is now more than twice as prosperous (Figure 1)

    This economic decline is not so evident in the autonomous city of Buenos Aires, which is also called Capital Federal, analogous to the District of Columbia (DC) in the United States. This is the Buenos Aires of tourists, an area only slightly larger than Washington, DC, but with five times the population. The municipality of Buenos Aires is by far the most affluent urbanization in the nation. Even so, there are informal settlements within the city, such as Villa 31. Overall, approximately three percent of the city’s population is in these kinds of informal settlements.
    BA3-bencich
    Population and Distribution: According to the last census (2001), the city of Buenos Aires had fewer people than in 1947, having fallen from 3.0 million residents to 2.8 million. The city is also very dense, at 35,600 persons per square mile (13,700 per square kilometer), which is about one-half the density of Manhattan or the ville de Paris and double the density of the city of San Francisco.

    Most of the population lives in peripheral areas. This dominant suburban growth pattern is typical of world urbanization, as can be seen in such high-income nation capitals as London, Washington, Brussels, Copenhagen has been in the suburbs. Indeed, all growth in Paris has been in the suburbs since 1881. Like the ville de Paris, the city of Buenos Aires now accounts for less than 25 percent of its metropolitan area population (Figure 2).

    Overall, the urban area (area of continuous development) has nearly 13 million people and covers more than 1,000 square miles (2,600 square kilometers) for a population density of 12,100 per square mile (4,700 per square kilometer). This is 70 percent more dense than Los Angeles and one-third more than Paris but less than one-eighth that of Dhaka (Bangladesh).

    Suburban Buenos Aires: The suburbs of Buenos Aires differ from those in high-income national capitals. Generally, the suburbs are far poorer than the city and reflect the more recently less affluent Argentina that has emerged in recent decades just as the central area testified to the nation’s former relative wealth. All of suburban Buenos Aires is in the adjacent Buenos Aires province, which has the largest population in the nation.

    Some of the suburbs are affluent, especially to the northwest, where suburban municipalities like Pilar and Tigre contain housing that could easily fit in upper middle income suburbs of the United States or Europe. However, even in these areas, there are close-by developments of low-quality and even informal housing, mostly housing domestic employees to the higher income population.

    The suburban poverty is far more pervasive to the southwest and the southeast. Many neighborhoods look similar to modest suburbs in Mexico City, though without the pervasive informal settlements. More people live in informal settlements in the suburbs than in the city, with estimates putting the number at above 500,000.

    More than the Core: Any thought, however, of Buenos Aires being a “compact city” is dispelled by the vast sea of lights visible on an evening flight out of Ezeiza International Airport. The urbanization stretches 30 to 40 miles in all possible directions, to the northwest, southwest and southeast (with the Rio de la Plata being to the northeast).

    However, probably no urban area illustrates the general rule that urban cores tend to be substantially different from their suburbs. Not only is suburban Buenos Aires far less dense, but it is far less affluent. Any who visits the city alone will have missed more than three-quarters of the reality.

    ————

    Note: GDP per Capita data based upon Angus Maddison’s work for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

    Photos (by the author):
    Top: Avenida 9 de Julio
    2: Casa Rosada
    3: City of Buenos Aires Legislative & Office Buildings
    4: Bencich Building
    5: Casa Borolo

    ————

    Wendell Cox is a Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris and the author of “War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life”