New Geography

Category: Suburbs

  • Homebuilding: Recovery & Red Tape

    The Recovery Blueprint is a multipart series of articles that offers suggestions on how to recover from the homebuilding recession.

    Since the recession began, there haven’t been any significant changes in how regulations could be improved to energize the housing market and foster innovation. Three areas where big regulation changes are needed? Environmental subsidies, density requirements, and zoning laws.

    Environmental Incentives: Repeating the mistakes of the Carter era, federal and state governments have thrown vast sums of tax money at ‘green’ solutions likely to fail. A massive amount of our nation’s total energy use seeps out of inefficient housing, draining families of income at a time when they can least afford it. The subsidization of inefficient construction that incorporates energy saving alternatives is as flawed today as it was 25 years ago. Federal and state credits allow funding for improvements such as insulation, solar panels, wind generation, geothermal systems, and the like. These tax credits have to be balanced against taxes paid by families who are barely surviving this recession, if they are still in their homes making mortgage payments.

    Who benefits? Not the mortgage companies that repossess energy inefficient homes. Not the families in traditional homes burdened with high energy costs. Only those wealthy enough to need tax breaks can benefit. But a household at the income level where it makes financial sense to upgrade an existing home can easily afford the upgrade without burdening the already overtaxed public.

    In a low income, possibly downtrodden neighborhood, upgrading a home for energy efficiency results in an expense (even after tax breaks) not likely to be recovered at the sale of the home. It would make more sense to use the same amount of funds to replace older, inefficient homes with new construction. New construction essentially replaces homes with the least efficient HVAC (heating/ventilation/ air conditioning) and insulation with new ones that operate the most efficient systems. But new construction gets almost no tax benefits; only geothermal or solar systems on new construction are subsidized. Does that make sense?

    Density Targets: Making funds available to cities on the condition that certain higher densities are met is not a solution, either. What I hear most often is that we need to provide high-density housing and public transportation so that poor people can get to their jobs, assuming, of course, that all people of low income work downtown.

    Are multi-billion dollar light rail projects and heavily subsidized low-income high-rise towers justified by such rhetoric? A low-income family on the 6th floor of a high-density building will not have the same quality of living or the pride-of-place that a home with a yard would provide. Travel dependent on a train or bus schedule does not offer the independence of owning a vehicle and travelling on one’s own schedule. Travel by foot or bike makes perfect sense for some of those who live in San Diego, but in the rest of the world those alternatives are viable only for the few nice weather days.

    When the recession began, urban architects and planners celebrated the death of the suburbs and the coming advent of an urban rebirth. While the suburbs were certainly hard hit, urban areas did not receive the expected mass migration.

    There is a myth that sprawl was the result of large lots and low density in the suburbs. Over the past 20 years, the firm I founded has planned over 730 developments in 46 States and 15 countries. I would estimate the average density of our suburban developments at between four and five units per useable acre. Today’s suburban development must preserve wetlands, steep slopes, wooded areas, and most often contain a minimum percentage of the site in open space. None of those requirements were in place when our core cities were built. One simply gridded streets through swamps (the previous term for wetlands) and bulldozed slopes and woodlands. Had our existing core cities been built under today’s regulations, they would likely sprawl 30% or more beyond the areas they currently occupy.

    Density targets that must be hit in order to receive government financial assistance not only doesn’t increase the quality of lower income life, it doesn’t result in more sustainable and affordable cities. Instead, most funding has resulted in displacing low-income neighborhoods with gentrified, wealthy development. Many of these projects were initial financial failures. The next developer — the one who picked up the project at bargain prices — realized the profit. Successful, affordable urban redevelopment remains elusive.

    Ordinances & Codes: The designer of any development, suburban or urban, will squeeze every inch out of the site to stay within the most minimal dimensions allowed by local ordinances. This effort to maximize the client’s profits can only result in monotonous, cookie-cutter development.

    Many city planning boards have been manipulated into believing the illusion that a ‘forms based’ or ‘smart-code’ approach is a solution. These new regulations simply increase the number of minimum standards, and restrict innovative solutions. What a ‘forms based’ or ‘smart’ code does accomplish is to significantly increase the consulting income of the firm that promotes this alternative.

    Many engineers and architects base their fees on a percentage of the final construction costs. A consultant who charges on a percentage of infrastructure costs has an incentive to introduce excessive sewer pipes, retaining walls, or other non-needed construction. A fee structure based upon increased profit derived on the least efficient design is a huge roadblock to developing sustainable cities.

    Innovations in land development and in methods of design now allow a reduction of both environmental and economic impact from 15% to over 50%, compared to conventional or New Urban planning methods. While these new methods take more time and effort to design, the reward is more attractive, affordable, and functional neighborhoods.

    What’s the blueprint for better planning? For starters, two ideas: government aid should be based on a ‘plan’ showing how the resulting development will enhance the living standards, and not be tied only to density levels. And agencies should reward contracts to the consultant with the best solution. This means creating a financial mechanism to increase – not decrease — profitability for sustainable planning and engineering solutions that require the least amount of construction costs.

    Photo by Stripey Anne: “I am an NHS Bureaucrat…These, dear friends, are the tools of my trade: red tape, pen, ink…”

    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 pps-vr.com.

  • Megalopolis and its Rivals

    Jean Gottman in 1961 coined the term megalopolis (Megalopolis, the Urbanized Northeastern Seaboard of the Unites States) to describe the massive concentration of population extending from the core of New York north beyond Boston and south encompassing Washington DC. It has been widely studied and mapped, including by me. (Morrill, 2006, Classic Map Revisited, Professional Geographer).  The concept has also been extended to describe and compare many other large conurbations around the world.

    Maybe it’s time to see how the original has fared?   And what has happened to other metropolitan complexes in the US, most notably Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago and should we say Florida?


    Table 1 summarizes the population of Megalopolis from 1950 to 2010 and Table 2 compares Megalopolis with other US mega-urban complexes.  Megalopolis grew fastest in the 1950s and 1960s, with growth rates of 20 and 18.5 percent. The  northeast has since been outpaced by the growth in other regions, but growth was still substantial in the last decade. Megalopolis added almost 3 million people, by 6.8 %, to reach an amazing 45.2 million.

    Table 1: Growth of Megalopolis 1950-2010
    Year Population Change % Change
    2010 45,357 2,983 7
    2000 42,374 5,794 15.8
    1990 36,580 2,215 6.4
    1980 34,365 360 1.2
    1970 34,005 5,436 18.5
    1960 29,441 4,910 20
    1950 24,534

    From Table 2 I note four major subregions of Megalopolis: Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Washington, DC. New York is still the biggest player, but the locus of growth over time has shifted South. This reflects the increasing world importance of Washington, DC. New York’s almost 20 million may not surprise, but the fact that greater Boston has grown to almost 9.5 million may be more surprising.  The Washington-Baltimore area grew by far the fastest at almost 15 percent (not much sign of shrinkage of government!). In contrast New York, Boston and Philadelphia’s growth was relatively paltry.

    Table 2: Megalopolis and Its Rivals
    Place
    2010 Pop
    2000 Pop
    Change
    % change
    Megalopolis
      New York 19,923 19,209 717 3.7
      Boston   9,445 8,967 478 5.3
      Philadelphia 8,415 76,781 773 9.5
      Baltimore-Washingt 7,403 7,681 960 14.9
    All 45,181 42,302 2,888 6.8
    Chicago 10,817 10,305 512 5
    Los Angeles 12,151 11,789 362 3.1
      Central 903 857 46 5.4
      North 928 634 294 46
      East 2,884 2,105 475 37
      South 3,543 3,210 337 10.4
    All Los Angeles 20,404 18,599 1,810 9.8
    San Francisco-Sacramento
      San Francisco 7,330 6,946 384 5.5
      Sacramento 3,171 2,604 572 22
    All San Francisco-Sacramento 10,501 9,550 951 10
    Florida
      Miami 6,027 5,311 716 13.5
      Tampa 4,818 3,894 974 25.3
      Orlando 2,915 2,193 722 33
      Jacksonville 1,483 1,191 2,242 24.5
    All Florida 15,243 12,544 2,699 21.5

    Greater Los Angeles is the second largest conurbation, with some 20.4 million, growing by 1.8 million, and 10 percent from 2000. In the table I distinguish between the core Los Angeles urbanized area and the satellite urbanized areas west, north, south and east. The core LA area grew by only 3 percent, while the spillover areas to the north and east had astonishing growth, at 46 and 37 percent over the decade.  These include several places with a fairly long history, such as Riverside and San Bernardino, San Diego and Santa Barbara, but many are rapidly growing large suburbs and exurbs, a spillover of growth from the Los Angeles core. Much of the fastest growth has been in  Mission Viejo, Murietta-Temecula, Indio, Lancaster, Santa Clarita and Thousand Oaks.

    For greater San Francisco, I distinguish two subregions, the Bay area of San Francisco-San Jose (west) and Sacramento (central valley).  Some might consider these totally distinct, but they have become one in a conurbation sense, as evidenced by commuting patterns. Many people live in the less costly Central Valley area but commute to the expensive Bay Area cities. Together, the conurbation is now 10.5 million, up 10 percent from 2000. The central valley (Sacramento) portion grew far more rapidly than San Francisco-San Jose (22 percent compared to 5.5 percent).  

    Compared to its rivals the Chicago conurbation has grown less rapidly but is still large, with a population of 10.8 million in 2010 , growing 512,000 (5 percent) since 2000.  Chicago and Milwaukee are the well-known core cities, but there are also less well known components with far faster growth such as Round Lake-McHenry and West Bend, WI.   

    Florida

    The more interesting and difficult conurbation to try to define is what might be called the Florida archipelago. Greater Miami has long been recognized as a conurbation, but I contend that virtually all the urbanized areas of the state are in effect a complex web of urban settlement, with little clear demarcation. This is in part a reflection of   rapid and expansive  growth.  Nevertheless it makes sense to recognize four sub-regions, centered on Miami, Tampa-St. Petersburg, Orlando and Jacksonville. 

    Together these areas have reached an astonishing 15.2 million, up 2.7 million or 21.5 percent in one decade.  Because settlement is spread across the state in such a web-like fashion with no single dominant center, they constitute a newish form of urban concentration. Besides the well-known centers such as   Miami, Tampa-St. Petersburg ), Orlando and Jacksonville,  there are many satellite cities, often quite large. These include North Port, Cape Coral  encompassing older Ft. Meyers, Bonita Springs, Kissimmee, Palm Bay-Melbourne, Palm Coast-Daytona, and Port St. Lucie.  An interesting but hard to answer question is how much of Florida’s phenomenal growth is a result of transfer of people and accumulated wealth from the North (and especially from the original Megalopolis).

    The United States is a large and diverse country, with many other giant cities and a vast countryside. But it is important to realize the importance of these megalopolitan areas, with an aggregate population of 102.6 million, one third of the nation’s population.

    What’s next? Look for the rise of now just somewhat smaller conurbations such as Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Minneapolis, Seattle, Phoenix, and Denver. In terms of numbers and rates of growth Texas is a front runner, but its stars do not coalesce into a megalopolis, at least not yet. The belt of urban growth from Atlanta, through Greenville, SC, Charlotte to Raleigh-Durham is also a likely future conurbation candidate.

    Richard Morrill is Professor Emeritus of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Washington. His research interests include: political geography (voting behavior, redistricting, local governance), population/demography/settlement/migration, urban geography and planning, urban transportation (i.e., old fashioned generalist).

  • Census Estimates: Slowing Metropolitan Growth and the Future of the Exurbs

    Recently the Census Bureau released 2011 county and metro area population estimates that showed overall slowing population growth and particularly showing slow to halting growth in exurban counties.

    Someone once said to me about Chicago’s Mayor Daley that if he did something you liked, he was a visionary genius leader, but if he did something you hated, he was a corrupt machine dictator.

    That seems to be how too many urbanists view the Census Bureau.

    I’ll come back to the exurbs in a minute, but first a look at a map of metro area growth last year:



    Metro area percent change in population, July 1, 2010 to July 1, 2011. Source: Census Estimates via Telestrian

    Here’s the county map:



    County percent change in population, July 1, 2010 to July 1, 2011. Source: Census Estimates via Telestrian

    Someone once said to me about Chicago’s Mayor Daley that if he did something you liked, he was a visionary genius leader, but if he did something you hated, he was a corrupt machine dictator.

    That seems to be how too many urbanists view the Census Bureau.

    Back in the 90s when the Census estimates showed cities growing more slowly than boosters believed, they pressured the Census Bureau into adjusting the estimates to provide higher values. As it turned out, in most cases even the original estimates for cities proved inflated. In fact, the 90s were actually better for a lot of major cities than the 2000s were (e.g, New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago). This led to a new narrative that the Census had undercounted cities somehow.

    Now this new data shows slowing exurban growth. All of a sudden, the Census Bureau has become once more a source of Gospel Truth, and I’ve seen many articles suggesting that the exurbs are dead, killed by rising gas prices and new Millennial preferences.

    Let’s not get ahead of ourselves here.

    Yes, exurban growth slowed recently. While cities on the whole fared more poorly than expected in the last census, we did see strong growth in downtowns and adjacent areas. I myself wrote about improving migration trends for core cities. That’s good news worth celebrating for cities. But don’t overstate the case.

    I have a different though admittedly speculative take on the exurbs. I think a chunk of the fringe migration was from very low end home builders skipping out beyond established jurisdictions into unincorporated territory with few buildings restrictions. They threw up dirt cheap homes there and often sold them to people with marginal credit and income who had no business buying homes, using a variety of gimmicks to do so. (I know someone who sold homes for one of these builders, so I heard about some of these). Loose credit policies and government guarantees fueled this. The housing crash killed this market. Now that subsidies for this type of growth aren’t available, so that market is probably never coming back.

    But when the economy improves and the market normalizes, I’d expect some level of suburbanization to resume. Part of the logic is simple math. If you add up the population of the municipalities of New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Boston, Seattle, Washington, Portland, and Miami you only get 20 million people. That’s only about 20% of what the Census Bureau is projecting for just population growth by 2050. With the difficulties of building in urban areas, there’s no way to accommodate just the new growth even if everybody wanted into the city. In other words, there’s just no way there is going to be some massive back to the city movement. I hate to break it to you, but that’s reality.

    Here’s the full list of large metros, sorted by population growth percentage:

    Row Metro Area 2010 2011 Total Change Pct Change
    1 Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX
    1,728,247
    1,783,519
    55,272
    3.20%
    2 Raleigh-Cary, NC
    1,137,297
    1,163,515
    26,218
    2.31%
    3 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX
    6,400,511
    6,526,548
    126,037
    1.97%
    4 San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX
    2,153,891
    2,194,927
    41,036
    1.91%
    5 Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX
    5,976,470
    6,086,538
    110,068
    1.84%
    6 Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC
    1,763,969
    1,795,472
    31,503
    1.79%
    7 Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO
    2,554,569
    2,599,504
    44,935
    1.76%
    8 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV
    5,609,150
    5,703,948
    94,798
    1.69%
    9 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL
    5,578,080
    5,670,125
    92,045
    1.65%
    10 Oklahoma City, OK
    1,258,111
    1,278,053
    19,942
    1.59%
    11 Salt Lake City, UT
    1,128,269
    1,145,905
    17,636
    1.56%
    12 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA
    3,447,886
    3,500,026
    52,140
    1.51%
    13 New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA
    1,173,572
    1,191,089
    17,517
    1.49%
    14 Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL
    2,139,615
    2,171,360
    31,745
    1.48%
    15 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA
    4,245,005
    4,304,997
    59,992
    1.41%
    16 Nashville-Davidson–Murfreesboro–Franklin, TN
    1,594,885
    1,617,142
    22,257
    1.40%
    17 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA
    5,286,296
    5,359,205
    72,909
    1.38%
    18 Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA
    2,232,896
    2,262,605
    29,709
    1.33%
    19 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL
    2,788,151
    2,824,724
    36,573
    1.31%
    20 Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ
    4,209,070
    4,263,236
    54,166
    1.29%
    21 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA
    1,841,787
    1,865,450
    23,663
    1.28%
    22 San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA
    3,105,115
    3,140,069
    34,954
    1.13%
    23 San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA
    4,343,381
    4,391,037
    47,656
    1.10%
    24 Indianapolis-Carmel, IN
    1,760,826
    1,778,568
    17,742
    1.01%
    25 Sacramento–Arden-Arcade–Roseville, CA
    2,154,583
    2,176,235
    21,652
    1.00%
    26 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI
    3,285,913
    3,318,486
    32,573
    0.99%
    27 Columbus, OH
    1,840,584
    1,858,464
    17,880
    0.97%
    28 Jacksonville, FL
    1,348,702
    1,360,251
    11,549
    0.86%
    29 Las Vegas-Paradise, NV
    1,953,927
    1,969,975
    16,048
    0.82%
    30 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA
    12,844,371
    12,944,801
    100,430
    0.78%
    31 Richmond, VA
    1,260,396
    1,269,380
    8,984
    0.71%
    32 Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN
    1,285,891
    1,294,849
    8,958
    0.70%
    33 Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH
    4,559,372
    4,591,112
    31,740
    0.70%
    34 Kansas City, MO-KS
    2,039,766
    2,052,676
    12,910
    0.63%
    35 Memphis, TN-MS-AR
    1,318,089
    1,325,605
    7,516
    0.57%
    36 Baltimore-Towson, MD
    2,714,546
    2,729,110
    14,564
    0.54%
    37 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA
    18,919,649
    19,015,900
    96,251
    0.51%
    38 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD
    5,971,589
    5,992,414
    20,825
    0.35%
    39 Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI
    9,472,584
    9,504,753
    32,169
    0.34%
    40 Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI
    1,556,953
    1,562,216
    5,263
    0.34%
    41 Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC
    1,674,502
    1,679,894
    5,392
    0.32%
    42 Birmingham-Hoover, AL
    1,129,068
    1,132,264
    3,196
    0.28%
    43 Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN
    2,132,415
    2,138,038
    5,623
    0.26%
    44 St. Louis, MO-IL
    2,814,722
    2,817,355
    2,633
    0.09%
    45 Pittsburgh, PA
    2,357,951
    2,359,746
    1,795
    0.08%
    46 Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT
    1,212,491
    1,213,255
    764
    0.06%
    47 Rochester, NY
    1,054,723
    1,055,278
    555
    0.05%
    48 Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA
    1,601,065
    1,600,224
    -841
    -0.05%
    49 Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY
    1,135,293
    1,134,039
    -1,254
    -0.11%
    50 Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI
    4,290,722
    4,285,832
    -4,890
    -0.11%
    51 Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH
    2,075,540
    2,068,283
    -7,257
    -0.35%

    Aaron M. Renn is an independent writer on urban affairs based in the Midwest. His writings appear at The Urbanophile, where this piece originally appeared. Renn is the founder of Telestrian, a data analysis and mapping tool used to create the maps seen here.

  • California Declares War on Suburbia II: The Cost of Radical Densification

    My April 9 Cross Country column commentary in The Wall Street Journal (California Declares War on Suburbia) outlined California’s determination to virtually outlaw new detached housing. The goal is clear:    force most new residents into multi-family buildings at 20 and 30 or more to the acre. California’s overly harsh land use regulations had already driven housing affordability from fairly typical levels to twice and even three times higher than that of much of the nation. California’s more recent tightening of the land use restrictions (under Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 375) has been justified as necessary for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

    It is All Unnecessary: The reality, however, is that all of this is unnecessary and that sufficient GHG emission reductions can be achieved without interfering with how people live their lives. As a report by the McKinsey Company and The Conference Board put it, there would need to be "no downsizing of vehicles, homes or commercial space," while "traveling the same mileage." Nor, as McKinsey and the Conference Board found, would there be a need for a "shift to denser urban housing." All of this has been lost on California’s crusade against the lifestyle most Californians households prefer.

    Pro and Con: As is to be expected, there are opinions on both sides of the issue. PJTV used California Declares War on Suburbia as the basis for a satirical video, Another Pleasant Valley Sunday, Without Cars or Houses? Is California Banning Suburbia?

    California’s Increasing Demand for Detached Housing? A letter to the editor in The Wall Street Journal suggested that there are more than enough single-family homes to accommodate future detached housing demand in California for the next 25 years. That’s irrelevant, because California has no intention of allowing any such demand to be met.

    The data indicates continuing robust demand. In California’s major metropolitan areas, detached houses accounted for 80 percent of the additions to the occupied housing stock between 2000 and 2010, which slightly exceeds the national trend favoring detached housing (Figure 1). If anything, the shift in demand was the opposite predicted by planners, since only 54 percent of growth in occupied housing in the same metropolitan areas was detached in 2000 (Figure 2).


    Watch What they Do, Not What they Say: It does no good to point to stated preference surveys indicating people preferring higher density living. Recently, Ed Braddy noted in newgeography.com (Smart Growth and the New Newspeak) that a widely cited National Association of Realtors had been "spun" to show that people preferred higher density living, from a question on an "unrealistic scenario," and ignoring an overwhelming preference for detached housing – roughly eighty percent – in other questions in the same survey. People’s preferences are not determined by what they say they will do, but rather by what they do.

    Off-Point Criticism: There was also "off-point" criticism, which can be more abundant than criticisms that are "on-point." Perhaps the most curious was by Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program Senior Researcher Jonathan Rothwell (writing in The New Republic) in a piece entitled "Low-Density Suburbs are Are Not Free-Market Capitalism." I was rather taken aback by this, since none of these three words ("free," "market" or "capitalism") appeared in California Declares War on Suburbia. I was even more surprised at the claim that I defend "anti-density zoning and other forms of large lot protectionism." Not so.

    Indeed, I agree with Rothwell on the problems with large lot zoning. However, it is a stretch to suggest, as he does, that the prevalence of detached housing results from large lot zoning. This is particularly true in places like Southern California where lots have historically been small and whose overall density is far higher than that of greater New York, Boston, Seattle and double that of the planning mecca of Portland.

    Rothwell’s own Brookings Institution has compiled perhaps the best inventory of metropolitan land use restrictions, which indicates that the major metropolitan areas of the West have little in large lot zoning. Yet detached housing is about as prevalent in the West as in the rest of the nation (60.4 percent in the West compared to 61.9 percent in the rest of the nation, according to the 2010 American Community Survey). Further, there has been little or no large lot zoning in Canada and Australia, where detached housing is detached, nor in Western Europe and Japan (yes, Japan, see the Note below).  

    On-Point: Urban Growth Boundaries Do Increase House Prices: However, to his credit, Rothwell points out the connection between urban growth boundaries and higher house prices. This is a view not shared by most in the urban planning community, who remain in denial of the economic evidence (or more accurately, the economic principle) that constraining supply leads to higher prices. This can lead to disastrous consequences, as California’s devastating role in triggering the Great Recession indicates.

    The Purpose of Urban Areas: From 1900 to 2010, the urban population increased from 40 percent to 80 percent of the US population. Approximately 95 percent of the population growth over 100 years was in urban areas. People did not move to urban areas the cities for "togetherness" or to become better citizens. Nor did people move out of an insatiable desire for better urban design or planning. The driving force was economic: the desire for higher incomes and better lives. A former World Bank principal urban planner, Alain Bertaud stated the economic justification directly: "large labor markets are the only raison d’être of large cities."

    And for the vast majority of Americans in metropolitan areas, including those in California, those better lives mean living in suburbs and detached houses. All the myth-making in the world won’t change that reality, even if it pushes people out of the Golden State to other, more accommodating pastures.

    The performance of urban areas is appropriately evaluated by results, such as economic outcomes, without regard to inputs, such as the extent to which an area conforms to the latest conventional wisdom in urban planning.

    • Land use policies should not lead to higher housing costs relative to incomes, as they already have in California, Australia, Vancouver, Toronto and elsewhere. If they do, residents are less well served.
    • Transport policies should not be allowed to intensify traffic congestion by disproportionately funding alternatives (such as transit and bicycles) that have little or no potential to improve mobility as seems the likely outcome of radical densification. If they do, residents will be less well served.

    This gets to the very heart of the debate. The “smart growth on steroids” policies now being implemented in California are likely to lead to urban areas with less efficient personal and job mobility, where economic and employment growth is likely to be less than would otherwise be expected. The issue is not urban sprawl. The issue is rather sustaining the middle-income quality of life, which is now endangered by public policy in California, and for no good reason.

    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”

    —-

    Note: Despite its reputation for high density living, Japan’s suburbs have many millions of detached houses. In 2010, 47 percent of the occupied housing in Japan’s major metropolitan areas was detached (Tokyo, Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto, Nagoya, Sapporo, Sendai, Hiroshima, Kitakyushu-Fukuoka, Shizuoka and Hamamatsu).

    Photo: An endangered species: Detached houses in Ventura County (Photo by author)

  • Alternative Growth Paths for Sydney: A New Report and its Implications

    Population growth in Australia is double the world average and the New South Wales Department of Planning has projected that the population of the Sydney region will increase by 57,000 people annually. How will these extra people be housed?  The NSW Government follows the usual doctrines based on higher population densities. Its planning policy, known as The Metropolitan Strategy, works on locating some 70% of new dwellings within existing urban communities (in-fill) and 30% in new greenfield sites. 

    This policy is implemented by orders issued by the New South Wales Minister of Planning and imposed by ministerial fiat which are neither tabled nor debated in parliament.

    To achieve this 70/30 strategy the Department of Planning in effect has placed a restrictive growth boundary around Sydney to force higher-densities into existing residential areas. Greenfield land release has been reduced from an historic 10,000 lots per year to less than 2,000. This has caused a severe land shortage. 

    These policies are undemocratic and widely resented. What is more, the government has not justified them in terms of public good.  Indeed they might find that hard to do. For example, Australian studies show that greenhouse gas emissions per person are higher in high-density living, congestion is worse, human health is compromised, the costs of electricity, gas and water services increase, heritage conservation areas valued by the community are often lost and irreplaceable urban patchwork of greenery and wildlife within the city is decimated.

    The CIE Report

    The previous Labor Government commissioned a report on possible planning alternatives for Sydney. This report, by the Centre for International Economics (CIE) titled The Benefits and Costs of Alternative Growth Paths for Sydney: Economic, Social and Environmental Impacts was delivered back in December 2010. It has only now been released by the current government. 

    The report discusses three different scenarios for Sydney.  These portray alternatives of 90%, 70% and 50% of new housing to be built in existing urban areas (in-fill) – and correspondingly 10%, 30% and 50% in greenfield sites.

    The report compares the costs of the 90/10 and 50/50 scenarios with those of the current Metropolitan Strategy 70/30 ratio over a twenty-five-year period. It finds the cost differences between them are comparatively trivial. When compared to the Metropolitan Strategy 70/30 policy, the annual non-discounted cost saving per new dwelling for the 90/10 scenario is only A$151.  For the 50/50 scenario the additional annual cost per new dwelling is found to be A$950.

    This report contains two significant flaws. The first is an implicit assumption that the price of land will be the same for all three scenarios. It also fails to properly consider additional cost factors.

    Price of Land

    Each scenario examined changes the amount of new land that would be released for development. When compared with the current baseline 70/30 strategy, the 90/10 scenario would require even greater restrictions on the release of new housing land and hence an even greater land shortage. By contrast, the 50/50 scenario would allow for a more generous release of new land and hence more land available for construction.  The immutable laws of supply and demand ensure that the degree of land restriction would significantly affect the cost of housing in each scenario, completely swamping the relatively minor cost differences due to other factors.

    Incredibly, the report appears to fail to take the effect of relative scarcity on costs into consideration. It simply assumes that the price of land will remain the same for each scenario.

    This is significant because the report includes in its calculations factors that are highly dependent on the cost of land. If the report’s findings are to be credible, the variation of these factors caused by land price variation in each scenario examined should also be taken into account.  When land is scarce high-density developers can make greater profits as they have less competition from low-priced houses and landholders can get higher prices for their land than would be the case otherwise. 

    Other Costs

    The report alleges that electricity consumption is greater in houses than it is in apartments. This is incorrect. Studies show that consumption per capita is greater in apartments. It appears that the data the report relies on does not take into account the consumption of electricity common to the whole apartment block such as lifts and lighting common areas such as foyers and car spaces. 

    The report also does not take into account costs to existing residents arising from forcing high-density into communities originally designed for low-density. These include:

    • The impact on a single-residential property that has high-rise built next to it. This can involve theft of amenity: new in-fill residents look over gardens of existing residents while the latter have to look onto unsightly structures, and suffer lack of privacy and overshadowing.
    • Congestion. Existing residents have to suffer from increasingly congested streets and shortage of street parking.
    • Shortage of recreational facilities. As more vacant land is built upon in a community originally designed for low-density, it becomes difficult to secure new open areas to service the needs of the additional population at a reasonable standard.
    • Reduction in housing choice, particularly for families.  Most infill development consists of apartments which are not suitable for bringing up young children.  Indeed the majority of those currently living in apartments do not do so by choice. A survey indicates multi-story apartments are not even acceptable to most people wishing to downsize, if they have other choices such as smaller single residential houses or villas.
    • Reduction in biodiversity. When gardens and open space are replaced with unit blocks this has a severe effect on urban plant and animal life.
    • Heritage items valued by the community such as traditional period architect designed housing are often lost.
    • Atmospheric pollution.  There is a local effect on residents of atmospheric pollution in high-density areas.  This is due to higher traffic densities and to less volume of air being available for the dilution and dispersion of pollutants.

    If these considerations had been quantified into the report’s calculations, they would have changed its overall findings.

    Conclusions

    As is not unusual in reports by density advocates throughout the English-speaking world, the report’s findings are marred by the fact that significant factors are omitted.  If costs and benefits were fully accounted for, including the costs and benefits borne by existing residents, an already weak case for emphasising densification over fringe development would vanish.

    As we have seen, even with the flawed accounting used in the report, the magnitude of the cost differences that it finds between its three scenarios is trivial. These tiny differences make the unpopular Metropolitan Strategy 70/30 policy hard to justify, and any intensification of this strategy to 90/10 impossible to justify.   Cost differences of either A$151 or A$950 are small compared to the price that people have to pay for a house (the median price in Sydney is A$650,000). These insignificant figures need to be considered in the light of providing people with the opportunity of living in the housing style of their choice.

    If costs and benefits were to be fully accounted for, including those borne by existing residents, the case for a policy of enforced densification cannot be supported.   When asked voters want less rather than more densification.

    High land prices due to restrictive land-releases are already making housing unaffordable for the next generation.  Unwanted high-rise development represents theft from the community, reducing the amenity of existing residents and transfers that value to property developers without recompense. This theft is aided and abetted by the policies of the State Government. Moreover, it continues to result in well-publicised favours being granted to developers with connections to government.

    The Metropolitan Strategy needs to be replaced. A good start would be for the New South Wales government to adopt the suggested 50/50 strategy as the first step towards reform.  The provision of more choice will allow people to demonstrate whether they prefer to live in high-density or in lower cost, more spacious housing with a garden in the suburbs.

    (Dr) Tony Recsei has a background in chemistry and is an environmental consultant. Since retiring he has taken an interest in community affairs and is president of the Save Our Suburbs community group which opposes over-development forced onto communities by the New South Wales State Government.

    Sydney suburb photo by BigStockPhoto.com.

  • The Urban US: Growth and Decline

    The urban population of the United States is now 249 million, according to the 2010 Census, 81 percent of the total. This is impressive, and not all surprising for a large developed economy. Yet the urban population — meaning cities, suburbs and exurbs — is not everything. And in many ways for everything from food, resources and recreation, the urban areas still depend on the nearly sixty million who live in rural America

    It is fascinating to review how American demography has changed over the last decade. So I will briefly look at some obvious points, such as the largest, most important, places, those that grew the most absolutely and relatively, and those that, on the contrary, declined.

    Our Giant Metropolises 

    The Census is very generous, probably way too generous, in their defining the outer limits of our urbanized areas (agglomerations with over 50,000 people). They tend to respect the independence of historically separate places, which from a satellite view would appear to be part of a united larger agglomeration. For example, New York, as defined, is huge enough but dense settlement goes far beyond its census limits. (I’ll take a look at conurbations, like Megalopolis, in a separate discussion). The 30 giants are shown in Table 1. The top three, New York, Los Angeles and Chicago have kept their positions for decades, but  story of more recent times has been the upsurge of Southern giants of Houston, Dallas, Miami, Atlanta, and of course, Washington, DC. Detroit is still in the top 15, but its position has fallen to 11th, while other historic places like Cleveland, St. Louis and Pittsburgh have dropped into the second set of 15.

    Table 1: Largest US Urbanized Areas
    Urbanized Area Name  2010 Population 2000 Population Change % Change
    1 New York–Newark, NY–NJ–CT 18,351,295 17,799,861 551,434 3.10
    2 Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim, CA 12,150,996 11,789,487 361,509 3.07
    3 Chicago, IL–IN 8,608,208 8,307,904 300,304 3.61
    4 Miami, FL 5,502,379 4,919,036 583,343 11.86
    5 Philadelphia, PA–NJ–DE–MD 5,441,567 5,149,079 292,488 5.68
    6 Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington, TX 5,121,892 4,145,659 976,233 23.55
    7 Houston, TX 4,944,332 3,822,509 1,121,823 29.35
    8 Washington, DC–VA–MD 4,586,770 3,933,920 652,850 16.60
    9 Atlanta, GA 4,515,419 3,499,840 1,015,579 29.02
    10 Boston, MA–NH–RI 4,181,019 4,032,484 148,535 3.68
    11 Detroit, MI 3,734,090 3,903,377 -169,287 -4.34
    12 Phoenix–Mesa, AZ 3,629,114 2,907,049 722,065 24.84
    13 San Francisco–Oakland, CA 3,281,212 3,228,605 52,607 1.63
    14 Seattle, WA 3,059,393 2,712,205 347,188 12.80
    15 San Diego, CA 2,956,746 2,674,436 282,310 10.56
    90,064,432 82,825,451
    16 Minneapolis–St. Paul, MN–WI 2,650,890 2,388,593 262,297 10.98
    17 Tampa–St. Petersburg, FL 2,441,770 2,062,339 379,431 18.40
    18 Denver–Aurora, CO 2,374,203 1,984,889 389,314 19.61
    19 Baltimore, MD 2,203,663 2,076,354 127,309 6.13
    20 St. Louis, MO–IL 2,150,706 2,077,662 73,044 3.52
    21 San Juan, PR 2,148,346 2,216,616 -68,270 -3.08
    22 Riverside–San Bernardino, CA 1,932,666 1,506,816 425,850 28.26
    23 Las Vegas–Henderson, NV 1,886,011 1,314,357 571,654 43.49
    24 Portland, OR–WA 1,849,898 1,583,138 266,760 16.85
    25 Cleveland, OH 1,780,673 1,786,647 -5,974 -0.33
    26 San Antonio, TX 1,758,210 1,327,554 430,656 32.44
    27 Pittsburgh, PA 1,733,853 1,753,136 -19,283 -1.10
    28 Sacramento, CA 1,723,634 1,393,498 330,136 23.69
    29 San Jose, CA 1,664,496 1,538,312 126,184 8.20
    30 Cincinnati, OH–KY–IN 1,624,827 1,503,262 121,565 8.09
    29,923,846 26,513,173

    Cities with the Largest Gains  

    Urbanized areas which gained the most population over the last decade are listed in Table 2. These numbers are truly large; these are clear leaders in “population power”. I’ll first draw our attention to the five cities which are in the top 35 in both absolute growth and in percent growth. These include Temecula-Murrieta, CA (most folks will never have even heard of it: think inland sunshine of Riverside county); Charlotte and Raleigh, NC; Cape Coral, FL (again, huh?); and Austin, TX (you were thinking Dallas or Houston? See below).

    Temecula-Murietta : 25th absolute growth, 6th % growth               
    Charlotte : 9th and 19th
    Raleigh : 18th and 21st               
    Cape Coral : 30th and 27th  
    Austin : 10th and 34th

    North Carolina wins the race for the fastest growing areas.  But in sheer growth in people, the winners are (Table 2) Houston, Atlanta, Dallas, Phoenix, Washington, Miami, Las Vegas (despite the recession), New York, Charlotte and Austin. Giant New York is the only non-sunbelt place in the elite, and it had a quite slow rate of growth (3%). The next places outside the southern tier are Denver (13th) and Seattle (18th).  The total absolute growth in these top 15 cities was a phenomenal 7.24 million, a rate of growth of 8.7 %. For the top 30 urbanized areas, the growth was 10.3 million, with a percent growth of 9.7 – the same as the rate of growth of the nation. This includes slow growing but still very big places like Los Angeles (growth displaced to its satellites), Philadelphia, Chicago, Indianapolis, Portland and Minneapolis.

    Table 2: Largest Absolute Change in US Urbanized Areas
    Urbanized Area Name  2010 Population 2000 Population Change % Change
    1 Houston, TX 4,944,332 3,822,509 1,121,823 29.35
    2 Atlanta, GA 4,515,419 3,499,840 1,015,579 29.02
    3 Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington, TX 5,121,892 4,145,659 976,233 23.55
    4 Phoenix–Mesa, AZ 3,629,114 2,907,049 722,065 24.84
    5 Washington, DC–VA–MD 4,586,770 3,933,920 652,850 16.60
    6 Miami, FL 5,502,379 4,919,036 583,343 11.86
    7 Las Vegas–Henderson, NV 1,886,011 1,314,357 571,654 43.49
    8 New York–Newark, NY–NJ–CT 18,351,295 17,799,861 551,434 3.10
    9 Charlotte, NC–SC 1,249,442 758,927 490,515 64.63
    10 Austin, TX 1,362,416 901,920 460,496 51.06
    11 San Antonio, TX 1,758,210 1,327,554 430,656 32.44
    12 Riverside–San Bernardino, CA 1,932,666 1,506,816 425,850 28.26
    13 Denver–Aurora, CO 2,374,203 1,984,889 389,314 19.61
    14 Tampa–St. Petersburg, FL 2,441,770 2,062,339 379,431 18.40
    15 Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim, CA 12,150,996 11,789,487 361,509 3.07
    16 Orlando, FL 1,510,516 1,157,431 353,085 30.51
    17 Seattle, WA 3,059,393 2,712,205 347,188 12.80
    18 Raleigh, NC 884,891 541,527 343,364 63.41
    19 Sacramento, CA 1,723,634 1,393,498 330,136 23.69
    20 Chicago, IL–IN 8,608,208 8,307,904 300,304 3.61
    21 Philadelphia, PA–NJ–DE–MD 5,441,567 5,149,079 292,488 5.68
    22 San Diego, CA 2,956,746 2,674,436 282,310 10.56
    23 Indianapolis, IN 1,487,483 1,218,919 268,564 22.03
    24 Portland, OR–WA 1,849,898 1,583,138 266,760 16.85
    25 Minneapolis–St. Paul, MN–WI 2,650,890 2,388,593 262,297 10.98
    26 Columbus, OH 1,368,035 1,133,193 234,842 20.72
    27 Nashville-Davidson, TN 969,587 749,935 219,652 29.29
    28 Murrieta–Temecula–Menifee, CA 441,546 229,810 211,736 92.14
    29 McAllen, TX 728,825 523,144 205,681 39.32
    30 Cape Coral, FL 530,290 329,757 200,533 60.81

    Rate of Population Growth

    Thirty six cities had a growth rate of more than 50 percent between 2000 and 2010, a decade not that fabulous in economic growth!  Only three of these are independent metropolises of over a half-million: Charlotte and Raleigh, NC, and Austin, TX. With growth numbers and rates of 491000 (65%), 343000 (63%), and 460000 (51%)—clearly places on the move up. The others fall more or less into these categories: (please see table 3 for a list of all 35).

    Satellite places to larger urban areas: 21 places
    Smaller regional capitals or centers: 10 place

    The superstars in rate of growth were McKinney, TX (Dallas satellite), 212% growth; Avondale, AZ (Phoenix suburb), 190%; The Woodlands, TX (Houston satellite), 168%; Lady Lake, FL (Orlando satellite), 123%; West Bend, WI (Milwaukee satellite, 106%); El Centro , CA (Imperial Valley center), 103%; and  Hilton Head, SC (retirement, etc.), 101%.

    Table 3: Greatest Percent Gains
    Urbanized Area Name  2010 Population 2000 Population Change % Change
    1 McKinney, TX 170,030 54,525 115,505 211.84
    2 Avondale, AZ 197,041 67,875 129,166 190.30
    3 The Woodlands, TX 239,938 89,445 150,493 168.25
    4 Lady Lake, FL 112,991 50,721 62,270 122.77
    5 West Bend, WI 68,444 33,288 35,156 105.61
    6 El Centro, CA 107,672 52,954 54,718 103.33
    7 Hilton Head Island, SC 68,998 34,400 34,598 100.58
    8 Temecula–Murrieta, CA 441,546 229,810 211,736 92.14
    9 Concord, NC 214,881 115,057 99,824 86.76
    10 Visalia, CA 219,454 120,044 99,410 82.81
    11 Los Lunas, NM 63,758 36,101 27,657 76.61
    12 Myrtle Beach, SC 215,304 122,984 92,320 75.07
    13 Portsmouth, NH–ME 88,200 50,912 37,288 73.24
    14 Casa Grande, AZ 51,331 29,815 21,516 72.17
    15 Fayetteville–Springdale, AR 295,083 172,585 122,498 70.98
    16 Dover, DE 110,769 65,044 45,725 70.30
    17 Kissimmee, FL 314,071 186,667 127,404 68.25
    18 Salisbury, MD–DE 98,081 59,426 38,655 65.05
    19 Charlotte, NC–SC 1,249,442 758,927 490,515 64.63
    20 Victorville–Hesperia–Apple Valley, CA 328,454 200,436 128,018 63.87
    21 Raleigh, NC 884,891 541,527 343,364 63.41
    22 Manteca, CA 83,578 51,176 32,402 63.31
    23 Cape Coral, FL 530,290 329,757 200,533 60.81
    24 Provo–Orem, UT 482,819 303,680 179,139 58.99
    25 Nampa, ID 151,499 95,909 55,590 57.96
    26 St. George, UT 98,370 62,630 35,740 57.07
    27 Cartersville, GA 52,477 33,685 18,792 55.79
    28 Hammond, LA 67,629 43,458 24,171 55.62
    29 Mauldin–Simpsonville, SC 120,577 77,831 42,746 54.92
    30 Blacksburg, VA 88,542 57,236 31,306 54.70
    31 Lee’s Summit, MO 85,081 55,285 29,796 53.90
    32 Hagerstown, MD–WV–PA 182,696 120,326 62,370 51.83
    33 Santa Clarita, CA 258,653 170,481 88,172 51.72
    34 Austin, TX 1,362,416 901,920 460,496 51.06
    35 Daphne–Fairhope, AL 57,383 38,110 19,273 50.57

    Losers

    Urban growth is the expected norm, but not all areas of the country prospered 2000-2010. What kinds of place lost population and why? See Table 4 for a list of larger absolute and percent losses. Despite the comeback of the automobile industry, Detroit experienced the greatest loss, arguably because much of the industry has moved to the non-union and lower wage South. New Orleans had the second biggest loss, with almost an 11 percent loss, recovering only gradually from hurricane Katrina. Partly race or perhaps more a legacy of poverty and inept governance?  Other large numerical losses were in rust belt industrial and mining cities, such as Buffalo, Youngstown and Pittsburgh and Charleston, WV.  At least one was quite different: Seaside-Monterey CA, with losses due to reduced military operations as well as a generally weak California economy.

    High rates of losses were mostly in the same places, but included several smaller industrial towns in Ohio, Indiana and Pennsylvania.

    Table 4: Greatest Percent Losses  and Greatest Absolute Losses
    Relative posses
    Urbanized Area Name  2010 Population 2000 Population Change % Change
    1 Mansfield, OH 75,250 79,698 -4,448 -5.58
    2 Lorain–Elyria, OH 180,956 193,586 -12,630 -6.52
    3 Pascagoula, MS 50,428 54,190 -3,762 -6.94
    4 Youngstown, OH–PA 387,550 417,437 -29,887 -7.16
    5 Wheeling, WV–OH 81,249 87,613 -6,364 -7.26
    6 Lompoc, CA 51,509 55,667 -4,158 -7.47
    7 Mayagüez, PR 109,572 119,350 -9,778 -8.19
    8 Hightstown, NJ 64,037 69,977 -5,940 -8.49
    9 Pine Bluff, AR 53,495 58,584 -5,089 -8.69
    10 Seaside–Monterey–Marina, CA 114,237 125,503 -11,266 -8.98
    11 Anderson, IN 88,133 97,038 -8,905 -9.18
    12 Johnstown, PA 69,014 76,113 -7,099 -9.33
    13 Saginaw, MI 126,265 140,985 -14,720 -10.44
    14 New Orleans, LA 899,703 1,009,283 -109,580 -10.86
    15 Uniontown–Connellsville, PA 51,370 58,442 -7,072 -12.10
    16 Yauco, PR 90,899 108,024 -17,125 -15.85
    17 Charleston, WV 153,199 182,991 -29,792 -16.28
    18 Lodi, CA 68,738 83,735 -14,997 -17.91
    19 Parkersburg, WV–OH 67,229 85,605 -18,376 -21.47
    20 Ponce, PR 149,539 195,037 -45,498 -23.33
    Absolute Losses
    Urbanized Area Name  2010 Population 2000 Population Change % Change
    1 Seaside–Monterey–Marina, CA 114,237 125,503 -11,266 -8.98
    2 Lorain–Elyria, OH 180,956 193,586 -12,630 -6.52
    3 Saginaw, MI 126,265 140,985 -14,720 -10.44
    4 Lodi, CA 68,738 83,735 -14,997 -17.91
    5 Yauco, PR 90,899 108,024 -17,125 -15.85
    6 Parkersburg, WV–OH 67,229 85,605 -18,376 -21.47
    7 Pittsburgh, PA 1,733,853 1,753,136 -19,283 -1.10
    8 Charleston, WV 153,199 182,991 -29,792 -16.28
    9 Youngstown, OH–PA 387,550 417,437 -29,887 -7.16
    10 Buffalo, NY 935,906 976,703 -40,797 -4.18
    11 Ponce, PR 149,539 195,037 -45,498 -23.33
    12 San Juan, PR 2,148,346 2,216,616 -68,270 -3.08
    13 New Orleans, LA 899,703 1,009,283 -109,580 -10.86
    14 Detroit, MI 3,734,090 3,903,377 -169,287 -4.34

    These statistics are also summarized in 5 maps – one showing the size and rate of growth of all urbanized areas, followed by maps of the largest 30 places, the 35 places with the highest absolute and highest relative growth, then a map of the largest absolute and percent losses.

    Density, Size and Location

    People are often surprised by the fact that the highest urban densities are not in the historic eastern cities but in newer western cities. Los Angeles, often called the epitome of sprawl, is in fact the densest urbanized area in the US, for the third straight census! Table 5 lists the densest urbanized areas and the densities of the largest areas.

    Table 5: Highest and lowest urban densisties
    Highest urbanzed area densities
    Place State Population (Thousands) Density
    Los Angeles CA 12,151 6,999
    San Francisco CA 3,281 6,266
    San Jose CA 1,664 5,820
    Delano CA 54 5,483
    New York NY 18,351 5,319
    Davis CA 73 5,157
    Lompoc CA 52 4,816
    Honolulu HI 802 4,716
    Woodland CA 56 4,551
    L:as Vegas NV 1,886 4,525
    Densities of largest places (not on above list)
    Chicago IL 8,608 3,524
    Miami FL 5,502 4,442
    Philladelphia PA 5,442 2,746
    Dallas TX 5,122 2,879
    Houston TX 4,944 2,979
    Washington DC DC 4,586 3,470
    Atlanta GA 4,515 1,707
    Boston MA 4,182 2,232
    Detroit MI 3,734 2,793
    Phoenix AZ 3,629 3,165
    Seattle WA 3,059 3,028
    Lowest density places
    Hickory NC 212 811
    Hammond LA 68 883
    Barnstable MA 247 890
    Gadsden AL 64 892
    Homosassa Spgs FL 81 895
    Anniston AL 80 920
    Los Lunas NM 64 921
    Spartanburg SC 181 952
    Hilton Head SC 69 1,020
    Anderson SC 76 1,022

    The remarkable story is that of the 10 densest areas, 9 are in the west, and 7 in the Golden State. Four of these are fairly small, another surprise. The only eastern city in the top 10 is New York, which is fairly sharply limited by the census. Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Jose are the three most densely settled areas. The main underlying reason is not just planning regulations, although these probably play a role, but the issue of providing water to developable land. Both are restricted. This is one reason why growth in the southwest tends to be relatively dense. These drier areas lack the local water supplies that enable the kind of low density sprawl typical of the historic eastern cities like, yes, Boston with a density of only 2231, less than one-third that of Los Angeles!!  Other large urban areas with lower densities include Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, Houston, Dallas and Atlanta, a mere 1707!

    The winners for low density are an interesting mix of satellite places, such as Hammond, Barnstable, Los Lunas, and independent places like Hickory, Gadsden and Anniston, AL, and Spartanburg and Anderson, SC, many in hilly Appalachian environments, with settlement limited to valley floors. This is why the density could be below 1000 per square mile, the usual demarcation point of urban densities. Several are rather resort-like, e.g., Barnstable, Hilton Head and Homosassa Springs.

    Even if our urban definition is a little generous, 80 percent of the population or 250 million persons is an impressive total. Most of us cannot escape the city, where most jobs and opportunities are. We need to live in cities and perhaps most of us love the city. So the settlement issue in our lives becomes what city to live in and where to live within that place.

    Richard Morrill is Professor Emeritus of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Washington. His research interests include: political geography (voting behavior, redistricting, local governance), population/demography/settlement/migration, urban geography and planning, urban transportation (i.e., old fashioned generalist).

    Next: Megalopolis and its rivals.

    Los Angeles skyline photo by Bigstockphoto.com.

  • Still Moving to the Suburbs and Exurbs: The 2011 Census Estimates

    The new 2011 Census Bureau county and metropolitan area population estimates indicate that Americans are staying put. Over the past year, 590,000 people moved between the nation’s counties. This domestic migration (people moving within the nation) compares to an annual rate of 1,080,000 between the 2000 and 2009. Inter-county domestic migration peaked in 2006 at nearly 1,620,000 and has been falling since that time (Figure 1). The continuing low rate of domestic migration has been reinforced by the economic malaise that has kept job and income growth well below levels that would be expected in a more genuine recovery.

    Yet the nation has continued to grow. With less domestic migration, natural growth (births minus deaths) and considerable, but slower international migration, growth over the past year has been more in proportion to total population. The movement between counties within major metropolitan areas has become less of a factor. Predictably, there the usual doom and gloom reports  about suburbs and exurbs and how poorly they are doing compared to before, and how people are returning to the cities (Note 1). As usual, the data shows no such thing, as people continue to move from core counties in greater numbers than others move in (See Note 2 on county classifications).

    Domestic Migration: Despite the higher gasoline prices and the illusions of a press that is often anti-suburban, both the suburbs and the exurbs continued to attract people from elsewhere in the nation. The core counties, which contain the core cities, continued to lose domestic migrants to other parts of the country, principally to the suburbs and the exurbs of the large metropolitan areas.

    Over the past year, the core counties of major metropolitan areas lost 67,000 domestic migrants (people move between a metropolitan area and somewhere else in the nation). Suburban counties gained approximately 72,000 domestic migrants, while exurban counties gained 49,000 domestic migrants (Figure 2). Because of their lower population base, exurban counties had the highest relative rate of net domestic migration, at 0.34% of their 2010 population. This is more than three times the rate of the suburban counties (0.11%) and far higher than the minus 0.09% of the core counties (Figure 3). Thus, the overall slower rate of growth among exurban counties was due to a lower natural growth rate and less international migration, not the result of any losses to the core. The same is true, to a lesser extent, of the suburban counties.


    Overall, the major metropolitan areas gained 48,500 domestic migrants between 2010 and 2011. By contrast, between 2000 and 2009, the major metropolitan areas lost, on average, nearly 200,000 domestic migrants to the rest of the nation each year. The huge domestic out migration in the last decade has been associated with the housing bubble. Less affordable housing markets lost 3.2 million domestic migrants between 2000 and 2009. More affordable markets gained 1.7 million domestic migrants. This was not enough to negate the losses in the higher cost markets, and major metropolitan markets lost 1.5 million domestic migrants overall.

    Natural Growth: As the grim economic times induced people to stay put, core counties grew marginally faster than suburban and exurban counties principally because of higher natural growth rates, which is the net of births minus deaths. More than 70% of the higher population in core counties was from natural growth. Natural growth was less of a factor in the suburban counties, at 60%. In the exurban counties, natural growth accounted for only 47% of the population growth (Table 1). The higher core county natural growth rates are especially evident where there are large foreign born populations, due to their generally higher birth rates (such as Los Angeles, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, Austin and Riverside-San Bernardino, as well as Raleigh and Salt Lake City).

    International Migration: The other component of growth was international migration, which contributed 38% of the growth in core counties and 29% of the growth in suburban counties. International migration was much less important in the exurban counties, contributing only 15% of the growth (Table 1)

    Table 1
    Major Metropolitan Areas
    Components of Population Change: 2010-2011: Summary by Sector
     Net Domestic Migration   Net International Migration   Natural Increase (Births Minus Deaths) 
    Core Counties -8.5% 37.6% 70.8%
    Suburban Counties 11.2% 29.0% 59.8%
    Exurban Counties 37.9% 14.5% 47.4%
    Multi-County Major Metropolitan Areas 3.5% 32.1% 64.3%
    Single County Major Metropolitan Areas -10.9% 34.5% 76.7%
    Major Metropolitan Areas with More Than 1 County 3.0% 32.2% 64.7%
    Single County Major Metropolitan Areas: San Diego and Las Vegas

     

    The Gainers: The fastest growing major metropolitan areas were dominated by the four largest Texas metropolitan areas. Austin (3.2%), Dallas-Fort Worth (2.0%), Houston (1.9%) and San Antonio (1.9%) were all among the five fastest growing. Raleigh placed second, with a one-year growth rate of 2.3%. The top five numeric gainers in domestic migration were in all in Texas or Florida — Dallas-Fort Worth (39,000), Miami (36,000), Austin (31,000), Tampa-St. Petersburg (27,000) and Houston (21,000). The much improved housing affordability in Florida seems likely to be a factor in the recovery of Miami and Tampa-St. Petersburg. Further, Houston became the second Texas metropolitan area to exceed Philadelphia in population, following Dallas-Fort Worth in the last decade. Texas thus becomes the first state to place two metropolitan areas in the five largest in the nation (Table 2).

    Table 2
    Major Metropolitan Areas: Population
    Population: 2010-2011
    Metropolitan Area 2010 2011 Change % Change
    New York, NY-NJ-PA        18,919,649        19,015,900                  96,251 0.51%
    Los Angeles, CA        12,844,371        12,944,801                100,430 0.78%
    Chicago, IL-IN-WI          9,472,584          9,504,753                  32,169 0.34%
    Dallas-Fort Worth, TX          6,400,511          6,526,548                126,037 1.97%
    Houston. TX          5,976,470          6,086,538                110,068 1.84%
    Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD          5,971,589          5,992,414                  20,825 0.35%
    Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV          5,609,150          5,703,948                  94,798 1.69%
    Miami, FL          5,578,080          5,670,125                  92,045 1.65%
    Atlanta, GA          5,286,296          5,359,205                  72,909 1.38%
    Boston, MA-NH          4,559,372          4,591,112                  31,740 0.70%
    San Francisco-Oakland, CA          4,343,381          4,391,037                  47,656 1.10%
    Riverside-San Bernardino, CA          4,245,005          4,304,997                  59,992 1.41%
    Detroit. MI          4,290,722          4,285,832                   (4,890) -0.11%
    Phoenix, AZ          4,209,070          4,263,236                  54,166 1.29%
    Seattle, WA          3,447,886          3,500,026                  52,140 1.51%
    Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI          3,285,913          3,318,486                  32,573 0.99%
    San Diego, CA          3,105,115          3,140,069                  34,954 1.13%
    Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL          2,788,151          2,824,724                  36,573 1.31%
    St. Louis, MO-IL          2,814,722          2,817,355                     2,633 0.09%
    Baltimore, MD          2,714,546          2,729,110                  14,564 0.54%
    Denver, CO          2,554,569          2,599,504                  44,935 1.76%
    Pittsburgh, PA          2,357,951          2,359,746                     1,795 0.08%
    Portland, OR-WA          2,232,896          2,262,605                  29,709 1.33%
    San Antonio, TX          2,153,891          2,194,927                  41,036 1.91%
    Sacramento, CA          2,154,583          2,176,235                  21,652 1.00%
    Orlando, FL          2,139,615          2,171,360                  31,745 1.48%
    Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN          2,132,415          2,138,038                     5,623 0.26%
    Cleveland, OH          2,075,540          2,068,283                   (7,257) -0.35%
    Kansas City,  MO-KS          2,039,766          2,052,676                  12,910 0.63%
    Las Vegas, NV          1,953,927          1,969,975                  16,048 0.82%
    San Jose, CA          1,841,787          1,865,450                  23,663 1.28%
    Columbus, OH          1,840,584          1,858,464                  17,880 0.97%
    Charlotte, NC-SC          1,763,969          1,795,472                  31,503 1.79%
    Austin, TX          1,728,247          1,783,519                  55,272 3.20%
    Indianapolis, IN          1,760,826          1,778,568                  17,742 1.01%
    Virginia Beach (Norfolk), VA-NC          1,674,502          1,679,894                     5,392 0.32%
    Nashville, TN          1,594,885          1,617,142                  22,257 1.40%
    Providence, RI-MA          1,601,065          1,600,224                      (841) -0.05%
    Milwaukee, WI          1,556,953          1,562,216                     5,263 0.34%
    Jacksonville, FL          1,348,702          1,360,251                  11,549 0.86%
    Memphis, TN-MS-AR          1,318,089          1,325,605                     7,516 0.57%
    Louisville, KY-IN          1,285,891          1,294,849                     8,958 0.70%
    Oklahoma City, OK          1,258,111          1,278,053                  19,942 1.59%
    Richmond, VA          1,260,396          1,269,380                     8,984 0.71%
    Hartford, CT          1,212,491          1,213,255                        764 0.06%
    New Orleans, LA          1,173,572          1,191,089                  17,517 1.49%
    Raleigh, NC          1,137,297          1,163,515                  26,218 2.31%
    Salt Lake City, UT          1,128,269          1,145,905                  17,636 1.56%
    Buffalo, NY          1,135,293          1,134,039                   (1,254) -0.11%
    Birmingham, AL          1,129,068          1,132,264                     3,196 0.28%
    Rochester, NY          1,054,723          1,055,278                        555 0.05%
    Total      167,462,456      169,067,997             1,605,541 0.96%
    Data derived from US Bureau of the Census
    Major Metropolitan Areas: Over 1,000,000 Population

     

    The Losers: Four metropolitan areas, Detroit, Cleveland, Providence and Buffalo suffered small population losses. Pittsburgh had a small gain, but was alone in having an excess of deaths over births. New York again led the nation in its net domestic migration loss, at 99,000. Chicago lost 54,000 and Los Angeles lost 51,000 residents to other areas of the country between 2010 and 2011, while Detroit lost 24,000. Domestic migration data is available for New York City because it is composed of five counties. New York City lost 57,000 domestic migrants (Table 3).

    Table 3
    Major Metropolitan Areas
    Components of Population Change: 2010-2011
     Net Domestic Migration   Net International Migration   Natural Increase (Births Minus Deaths)  Total Components of Change (Note)
    New York, NY-NJ-PA              (98,975)                83,322                112,336               96,683
    Los Angeles, CA              (50,549)                54,725                  96,150             100,326
    Chicago, IL-IN-WI              (53,908)                24,422                  61,483               31,997
    Dallas-Fort Worth, TX                39,021                23,291                  63,504             125,816
    Houston. TX                21,580                24,105                  64,363             110,048
    Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD              (13,133)                11,413                  22,769               21,049
    Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV                21,517                24,872                  48,235               94,624
    Miami, FL                36,191                35,215                  20,440               91,846
    Atlanta, GA                12,419                17,370                  42,908               72,697
    Boston, MA-NH                 (1,627)                15,494                  18,143               32,010
    San Francisco-Oakland, CA                  5,880                17,996                  23,939               47,815
    Riverside-San Bernardino, CA                15,131                  9,065                  35,826               60,022
    Detroit. MI              (24,170)                  7,468                  11,734                (4,968)
    Phoenix, AZ                  5,585                15,866                  32,847               54,298
    Seattle, WA                17,598                12,228                  22,280               52,106
    Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI                      536                  7,832                  24,296               32,664
    San Diego, CA                      816                  9,591                  24,703               35,110
    Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL                27,157                  6,857                     2,318               36,332
    St. Louis, MO-IL              (10,260)                  2,671                  10,256                 2,667
    Baltimore, MD                 (1,341)                  5,004                  10,941               14,604
    Denver, CO                19,565                  5,204                  19,997               44,766
    Pittsburgh, PA                  3,740                  1,426                   (3,260)                 1,906
    Portland, OR-WA                11,388                  4,806                  13,511               29,705
    San Antonio, TX                19,515                  3,841                  17,486               40,842
    Sacramento, CA                  2,856                  6,173                  12,659               21,688
    Orlando, FL                10,394                  9,767                  11,557               31,718
    Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN                 (7,149)                  2,152                  10,624                 5,627
    Cleveland, OH              (12,521)                  1,896                     3,344                (7,281)
    Kansas City,  MO-KS                 (2,820)                  3,009                  12,705               12,894
    Las Vegas, NV                 (6,353)                  8,007                  14,395               16,049
    San Jose, CA                 (2,704)                11,072                  15,376               23,744
    Columbus, OH                  2,219                  3,329                  12,390               17,938
    Charlotte, NC-SC                13,778                  4,581                  13,038               31,397
    Austin, TX                30,669                  6,134                  18,085               54,888
    Indianapolis, IN                  1,940                  2,953                  12,827               17,720
    Virginia Beach (Norfolk), VA-NC                 (7,086)                  2,382                  10,044                 5,340
    Nashville, TN                  9,323                  3,015                     9,867               22,205
    Providence, RI-MA                 (6,254)                  2,487                     2,940                   (827)
    Milwaukee, WI                 (4,862)                  1,796                     8,384                 5,318
    Jacksonville, FL                  2,911                  1,935                     6,691               11,537
    Memphis, TN-MS-AR                 (2,933)                  1,841                     8,615                 7,523
    Louisville, KY-IN                  1,886                  1,711                     5,400                 8,997
    Oklahoma City, OK                  8,746                  2,228                     8,904               19,878
    Richmond, VA                  1,546                  1,965                     5,519                 9,030
    Hartford, CT                 (4,749)                  3,066                     2,493                     810
    New Orleans, LA                10,153                  1,563                     5,630               17,346
    Raleigh, NC                13,262                  3,228                     9,608               26,098
    Salt Lake City, UT                      915                  3,090                  13,674               17,679
    Buffalo, NY                 (2,558)                  1,185                        176                (1,197)
    Birmingham, AL                 (2,452)                  1,245                     4,421                 3,214
    Rochester, NY                 (3,320)                  1,235                     2,650                     565
    Total                48,513              517,129             1,039,221         1,604,863
    3.0% 32.2% 64.8% 100.0%
    Data derived from US Bureau of the Census
    Major Metropolitan Areas: Over 1,000,000 Population
    Excludes San Diego and Las Vegas, which have only a single county

     

    Captive v. Discretionary Markets? One year’s data does not make a trend, especially in unusual times. Until the nation returns to normal economic growth, many young who would otherwise move are staying put, as well as young families that would be looking for larger houses. The driving factor in the more modest domestic migration trends observed today could well be necessity rather than desire.

    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”

    —-

    Note 1: It is a misconception that suburbs and exurbs have grown principally because people have moved from cities. In fact, most suburban and exurban growth has been from smaller towns and rural areas. See Cities and Suburbs: The Unexpected Truth. Components of change data (domestic migration, international migration and natural growth) is available only at the county level. Thus, city or municipality data is only available where a municipality and a county are combined.

    Note 2: The core county contains all or most of the largest historical core municipality (see Suburbanized Core Cities) in the metropolitan area, except in New York, where all five counties that comprise the city of New York are classified as core counties. The suburban counties are those designated by the Bureau of the Census as central counties, but exclude the core counties. The exurban counties are as classified by the Bureau of the Census.

    Note 3: The largest historical core municipalities comprise slightly more than 55 percent of the core county population (both figures combined).

    Photo: Chicago (West Wacker Drive) By Author

  • Smart Growth: The Maryland Example

    This is Part Two of a two-part series.

    Evidence that people just don’t like Smart Growth is revealed in findings from organizations set up to promote Smart Growth. In 2009, the Washington Post reported, “Scholars at the National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education found that over a decade, smart growth has not made a dent in Maryland’s war on sprawl.”

    Citing the “most comprehensive review to date” from the same Center, the Baltimore Sun in 2011 argued that Maryland had made “little progress with Smart Growth” despite adopting laws and policies hailed across the country as models for growth management.

    One of the innovative policies was the establishment of Priority Funding Areas (PFAs) where development was to be directed and incentivized with money for cash-strapped jurisdictions. Yet the representative bodies closest to the people continued to permit development outside the PFAs.

    Assessing the failure of incentives to concentrate development, the Center concluded: “As the Maryland experience suggests, without statutory requirements, tools that matter to the state are not always those that matter to local governments.”

    The anti-democratic outlook among Smart Growthers was evident in a comment by Gerrit Knapp, the director of the National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education, who said, “What makes incentives so politically attractive is that governments and individuals can choose to ignore them if they wish. Unfortunately, in Maryland over the last decade, that’s exactly what many have been doing.”

    This “unfortunate” behavior by free people is consistent with the conclusion of Robert Bruegmann, author of Sprawl: A Compact History, who found that low density development was “the preferred settlement pattern everywhere in the world where there is a certain measure of affluence and where citizens have some choice in how they live.”

    Deconstructing Density

    Under the new PlanMaryland, Priority Funding Areas essentially become urban growth boundaries. People still can choose to live outside PFAs, but new housing can be built at no greater than one unit per 20 acres, making such dwellings unaffordable to all but the extremely rich. Ninety percent of new development must be inside the PFAs at a minimum density of 3.5 units per acre.

    The impact of increased densities is hard to gauge when presented in this manner, but 3.5 units per acre converts to 2,240 units per square mile. Maryland averages 2.62 people per dwelling unit, so the minimum population density for almost all new development will be on a scale of 5,846 people per square mile, a density higher than Portland or San Francisco, and just shy of Copenhagen, Denmark.

    Furthermore, reviewing previous drafts of PlanMaryland leads one to believe that this minimum density will be the exception to the rule of even higher densities. The earliest draft available for public comment, April 2011, was unapologetic about the need for significantly higher densities, saying this “threshold for new development – a relatively low density of 3.5 units per acre – is not accommodating growth in PFAs as needed to minimize continued impacts on our rural and resource lands and industries.”

    A later draft, September 2011, established ranges for “medium density” (3.5 to 10 units per acre) and “high density” (10+ units per acre) and repeatedly showed a preference for the high density classification, which converts to a scale of at least 16,704 people per square mile.

    For example, on page 18 is the complaint that incentive-based planning “hindered high-density urban development,” and page 35 says there would be dramatic per capita savings “if 25 percent of the low-density development projected to be built from 2000 to 2025 was shifted to high-density development.”

    But a strange thing happened on the road to the final draft: high density was euphemized. The sixteen-page Executive Summary does not once mention density. “Low density” makes numerous appearances in the final draft in the context of wasteful land use patterns, and “high density” appears just once.

    Instead, PlanMaryland relies on the phrase “compact development”. A comparison table, laughably labeled “Low Density versus Compact Development,” steers clear of medium or high density labels even though, when converted to population per square mile, the “compact” living arrangement would be more than seven times Maryland’s current density.

    To discern the density thresholds that Maryland planners have in mind, consider, PlanMaryland claims that “Compact development leads people to drive 20 to 40 percent less, at minimal or reduced cost, while reaping fiscal and health benefits.”

    This appears to be lifted from the influential 2007 Growing Cooler report, sponsored by the National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education, Smart Growth America, and other advocacy organizations. The authors call on “all housing growth” to be built at an average density of 13 units per acre (21,798 people per square mile), in order to increase the overall metropolitan density to 9 units per acre (15,091 people per square mile) by the year 2025. There’s not a lot of room for detached single family homes in this scenario.

    PlanMaryland’s Best Practices section highlights White Flint in North Bethesda for redeveloping “an auto-dominated suburban strip into an environment where people walk to work, shops and transit.” This project puts 1,400 apartments on 32 acres, for a density of 44 units per acre.

    Hyattsville’s Arts District is recognized because “this mixed-use community features row homes, condominiums, live-work units, shops and a new community center,” but there is no room for detached, single family homes among the 500 dwellings crowded onto 25 acres, or 20 units per acre. Also featured is Carroll Creek Park that has 300 residential units, all multi-family, mixed among commercial and office space along a linear 1.3-mile strip.

    As a “Traditional Neighborhood Development,” Kentlands is closer to the norm, and features some single family housing among its mix of shops, apartments, and condos, but the 1,655 residential units on 352 acres is still 35 percent higher than the “minimum” densities mentioned in PlanMaryland, and thirteen times the state’s current density level.

    These places are architecturally striking and aesthetically attractive, but they are unaffordable to most of the state’s population. Furthermore, the dearth of detached single family housing, the predominance of multi-family dwellings mixed with (not nearby) other uses, and dramatically higher densities are not at all what an overwhelming majority of people want in Maryland or anywhere else.

    The emergence of Smart Growth in Maryland is indicative of the movement in general: For successful implementation, it would be necessary to replace incentives with mandates, and continue to rely on euphemistic language to avoid a candid discussion of density.

    In October, I spoke — along with Wendell Cox and a few others — at a technical forum on PlanMaryland, addressing many areas of concern including density. Signed into law by Governor Martin O’Malley in December 2011, PlanMaryland weakens the authority of local governments, eviscerates property rights, and expresses hope for declining interest in the single family home.

    Defenders will argue that most people support Smart Growth; after all, O’Malley and others like him were popularly elected. Yet these politicians never campaign on the specifics of Smart Growth, such as how many people per square mile they believe is necessary, or what kinds of restrictions they will impose on single family housing in the suburbs, or the impacts on affordability.

    The September draft of PlanMaryland said, “PlanMaryland, we believe, is what the public says it wants and deserves in government.” Tellingly, this statement is missing from the final report. That’s because what planners want and what people prefer are starkly different.

    Photo: New residential smart growth, from the state of Maryland’s, “Smart, Green, and Growing” site.

    Ed Braddy is the executive director of the American Dream Coalition, a non-profit organization promoting freedom, mobility and affordable homeownership. Mr. Braddy often speaks on growth management related issues and their impact on local communities or at ed@americandreamcoalition.org

  • Smart Growth and The New Newspeak

    It’s a given in our representative system that policies adopted into law should have popular support. However, there is a distinction to be made between adopting a policy consistent with what a majority of people want, and pushing a policy while making dubious claims that it harnesses “the will of the people.”
    The former is a valid exercise in democracy; the latter is a logical fallacy. Smart Growth advocates are among the most effective practitioners of Argumentum ad Populum, urging everyone to get on the bandwagon of higher densities, compact mixed-uses, and transit orientation because all the “cool cities” are doing it.

    Smart Growth advocates also claim this is what people prefer, even if it is not how they currently live. The two core features of Smart Growth land use — high densities and multi-family dwellings — are simply not preferred by most Americans in most places, despite the trendy push for Livability, New Urbanism, Resilient Cities, Smart Codes, Traditional Neighborhood Design, Transit Oriented Developments or any other euphemistic, clever name currently in fashion.

    Survey Says!

    In the internal data of the 2011 Community Preference Survey commissioned by the National Association of Realtors, no specific question was asked about density, but 52 percent of respondents said, if given a choice, they would prefer to live in traditional suburbs, small towns or the rural countryside. Another 28 percent chose a suburban setting that allowed for some mixed uses (Question 5). Taken together, this shows an overwhelming preference for low densities. Only 8 percent of the respondents favored a central city environment.

    As for vibrant urbanism, only 7 percent were “very interested” in living in a place “at the center of it all.” Most people wanted to live “away from it all” (Question 17). An astonishing 87 percent said “privacy from neighbors” was important to them in deciding where to live. One can reasonably infer that a majority of this majority would favor low density places with separated uses rather than crowded, noisy mixed use locations that blur the line between public and private.

    When presented with a range of housing choices, 80 percent preferred the “single-family detached house” (Question 6). Only eight percent chose an apartment or condominium. Furthermore, 61 percent preferred a place where “houses are built far apart on larger lots and you have to drive to get to schools, stores, and restaurants” over 37 percent who wanted a place where “houses are built close together on small lots and it is easy to walk to schools, stores and restaurants” (Question 8).

    So — absent the loaded terms and buzzwords that are central to Smart Growth — a large majority of randomly selected people from across the country showed a strong preference for the land use pattern derisively referred to as “sprawl.”

    Yet the press release from the National Association of Realtors proclaimed that “Americans prefer smart growth communities.” This is because on Question 13, respondents were given a description of two communities:

    Community A, a subdivision of only single family homes with nothing around them. Not even sidewalks!

    Community B: lots of amenities all “within a few blocks” of home. Of course, the description neglected to mention the population density and degree of residential stacking required to put all those dwellings in such close proximity to walkable retail. This was a significant omission, since the first housing option offered in Community B was “single family, detached,” on “various sized lots.”

    Community B received 56 percent support.

    So, with just one response to an unrealistic scenario, out of twenty answers that included many aversions to Smart Growth, the myth that people prefer Smart Growth was spread. The National League of Cities released a Municipal Action Guide to thousands of elected and appointed officials declaring the preference for Smart Growth, and the online network Planetizen, among others, uncritically helped spread the news.

    Missing from the triumphalism was this important caveat in the 98-page analysis of the results by the consultants who conducted the survey:

    “Ideally, most Americans would like to live in walkable communities where shops, restaurants, and local businesses are within an easy stroll from their homes and their jobs are a short commute away; as long as those communities can also provide privacy from neighbors and detached, single-family homes. If this ideal is not possible, most prioritize shorter commutes and single-family homes above other considerations.”

    In addition to spinning the results of preference surveys, Smart Growthers also ignore them. Maryland is a case study in how to disregard what people want while claiming the opposite. In drafting a statewide growth management plan that anticipated “increased demand for housing, an aging population, and diverse communities,” Maryland officials ignored a robust 55+ Housing Preference Survey from Montgomery County that specifically addressed this concern.

    The survey showed that most seniors planned to remain in their present homes upon retirement. Only 30 percent planned to move, and, of that group, only a small percentage would consider an apartment or condominium. This should have mattered to Maryland officials trying to gauge housing preferences for their senior population. Instead, the architects of PlanMaryland looked elsewhere to find studies that reinforced their assumptions.

    The Great Conflation

    There is an abundance of examples like these, and the key to understanding how they influence decision-makers lies in the conflation of specific amenities with the overarching concept of Smart Growth. For example, Todd Litman’s Where We Want to Be, published by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, claims that “preference for smart growth is increasing due to demographic, economic and market trends such as aging population, rising future fuel prices, increasing traffic congestion, and increasing health and environmental concerns.”

    Does this mean most seniors – such as those in Maryland – want to live in high density, mixed use, transit-oriented apartments even when they say they don’t? Hardly. Litman concedes that “most Americans prefer single-family homes,” but finds “a growing portion want neighborhood amenities associated with Smart Growth including accessibility, walkability, nearby services, and improved public transport.”

    Those amenities are things like sidewalks, which evidently are now a Smart Growth invention, and shops that are close to (but not mixed into) residential areas. Litman’s clever construction – e.g., sidewalks equal walkability equal Smart Growth policy – is convincing to officials who mistakenly conclude that their constituents must want Smart Growth when, in fact, they do not.

    This has been Part One of a Two-Part Series on Smart Growth by Ed Braddy.

    Photo by W. Cox: Rail station in Evry, a suburb of Paris

    Ed Braddy is the executive director of the American Dream Coalition, a non-profit organization promoting freedom, mobility and affordable homeownership. Mr. Braddy often speaks on growth management related issues and their impact on local communities. He can be reached at ed@americandreamcoalition.org.

  • The Evolving Urban Form: Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon)

    Vietnam may be the next China. With a nominally communist government, Vietnam has liberalized its markets and is prospering from an increased reliance on exports. Vietnam’s gross domestic product per capita is still only about $3000, but has been among the faster growing economies over the past 10 years. Vietnam is well positioned to capture any growth that might be diverted from China’s east coast urban areas as labor costs there rise and concerns increase about the influence of that country’s powerful state-owned corporations.

    Political power in Vietnam may lie in Hanoi, but the economic heart of Vietnam is Ho Chi Minh City, the former Saigon. Ho Chi Minh City is the core of Viet Nam’s largest urban area, which is headed toward a population of 9 million, including exurban areas beyond the municipal boundaries.

    For planning purposes, the area has been divided into five subregions. The urban development trends in the Ho Chi Minh City area are similar to those of high income world urban areas. The core is experiencing little or no population growth, while peripheral areas are growing much more strongly (Photo: Core and Saigon River).


    Core and Saigon River

    Suburbanizing Ho Chi Minh City: Historical data for the districts of Ho Chi Minh City are difficult to obtain. However, the last five years provide a representative view of urban development trends, especially when combined with population projections through 2025 as reported in transportation planning documentation from the Ho Chi Minh City master plan.

    The inner core area has a population of approximately 1.4 million, with little growth expected, and is expected to decline in population by 2025. At the same time, the inner core is particularly dense, with more than 100,000 residents per square mile or 40,000 residents per square kilometer. This is approximately 1.5 times as dense as Manhattan or the ville de Paris. By 2025, the inner core will decline further to a population of 1.3 million. One unusual distinguishing characteristic of the core is very thin buildings, the result of taxation based upon building width (Photo: Tax induced thin buildings)


    Tax induced thin buildings

    Growth is stronger, but still limited in the outer core area (adjacent to the core, but differentiated because of its lower density). Over the past five years, the outer core grew from approximately 2.2 million to 2.5 million, which is strong growth in most high income world urban areas but not as notable for a rapidly growing urban area in the developing world. This growth is expected to moderate even further by 2025, when the population is expected to reach only 2.6 million. The population density in the outer core area is 60,000 per square mile or 23,000 per square kilometer.

    In contrast, almost all  the growth is expected outside the core, with both less formal development and very attractive housing (Photo: New suburban housing).


    New suburban housing

    The urban fringe areas, or the second ring of development beyond the inner core grew from 1.5 million in 2004 to 2.0 million in 2009, a 31% growth rate. By 2025, the urban fringe is projected in transportation planning documentation to grow to 3.0 million. The population density of the urban fringe is 14,500 per square mile or 5,500 per square kilometer, nearly as dense as the city (municipality) of San Francisco.

    The suburban areas within the municipality of Ho Chi Minh City grew from 1.0 million in 2004 to 1.3 million in 2009, again approximately a 30% growth rate. By 2025, the suburban areas are expected to experience the greatest growth, adding 1.6 million population, rising to 2.9 million residents.

    Comparable data for the exurban areas outside the Ho Chi Minh City municipality are not as readily available. However, it is projected that from 2007 to 2025 the population in these areas will rise from 2.6 million to 4.1 million.

    Overall, the municipality grew from 6.1 million population in 2004 7.2 million in 2009, for an 18% growth rate. Including the municipality and the exurbs, it is expected that there will be an increase from 9.1 million population in 2007 to 13.9 million in 2025. At least 95% of this growth is expected to be outside two core areas (Figure 1).

    Employment growth is also projected to be dominated by areas outside the two core areas. Between 2007 and 2025, it is expected that 80% of the new employment will be in peripheral areas.

    Building a Metro: Ho Chi Minh City may have the highest personal transportation market share outside North America. The personal vehicle (motorcycle and car) share of travel is 92%, leaving just 8% for transit (one estimate indicates an even lower 5%). Most of this travel by motorcycle, which sometimes carry three or more people.  As Ho Chi Minh City becomes more prosperous, the share of travel by automobile will likely increase. Automobile ownership is rising at 20 percent annually, more than twice the rate for motorcycle ownership.

    The government would like to change this pattern and has embarked on building a Metro in hopes of increasing transit’s market share to between 40% and 50% by 2025. This huge capital investment will be largely limited to feed and serve the core areas that will account for virtually none of the population increase and little of the new employment.

    There is no precedent for an increase in transit usage remotely of the magnitude that is sought in Ho Chi Minh City. In fact, consultants for the Asian Development Bank were so concerned that they provided an alternative projection for the system, indicating a 2025 transit market share of 22%, instead of the official goal of 40% to 50%. The consultants indicated:

    As noted earlier, the above demand models were adjusted to reflect the Government “policy” objective of achieving 40-50% PT mode share by 2025. This will entail a massive shift in travel behaviour and introduction of some very strong transport and policy initiatives. Clearly there is a risk that this may not happen as quickly or to the extent targeted. Therefore forecasts were developed for a “trend” scenario – still based on major PT transport improvements and strong policy initiatives, but with parameter values based on the consultants’ experience of what has been achieved in other cities.

    However, virtually tripling transit’s market share to 22% seems little less doubtful than increasing it to 40% to 50%. The consultant provided no examples to indicate that such an increase had "been achieved in other cities."

    Personal Mobility in Ho Chi Minh City: One of the challenges for a pedestrians in Ho Chi Minh City – like Hanoi – is dodging the swarm of motorcycles in crossing streets. Even with the Metro, more and more will buy motorcycles and cars. Traffic congestion is likely to worsen. This is principally because, even in congested urban areas, door to door travel tends to be more rapid by personal modes than by transit.

    Fortunately, the authorities are allowing the urbanization to expand, which will limit the growth of traffic congestion. They would do well to follow the advice of urban planners like Shlomo Angel (of New York University and Princeton University), who recommends building a grid of arterials streets to accommodate the growth on lower cost peripheral lands.   Strategies such as these provide Ho Chi Minh City the potential to suburbanize gracefully, maintain its high level of personal mobility and contribute substantially to its continued economic progress.

    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”

    Top photo: Typical transport in Ho Chi Minh City

    All photos by author