There's a lot of anger in the comments on the posts that suggest that
a) I don't see the benefits of a gigantic lawn
b) DC should build some good parks if it wants to keep families with children
Apparently, this was somehow interpreted as advocating that everyone in the country who does not currently live in northwest DC should be herded up at gunpoint and forced to buy a condo here.
I was very careful about how I phrased that first post. I don't get the attraction of a big lawn. I've never had one, and havng grown up in Manhattan, I don't find it restful to be permanently ensconced somewhere where I have few near neighbors; it gives me that kind of eerie feeling you get in the horror movie right before the villain attacks. I spent six months living in the suburbs when I first moved to DC, and this was enough to convince me that, barring the sudden and unexpected production of three small children, I will probably not return there.
But I did not state that no one actually enjoys having a large lawn, or that there was anything wrong with people who want one. Differences of opinion, as Grandma used to say, are what makes marriages and horse racing.
There does not need to be this hostile contest between urbanites and suburbanites/exurbanites/rural people, where each claims that theirs is the only worthwhile way of life. Developing better rail networks to allow DC to enjoy higher, more productive population densities does not mean that the Thought Police will be sweeping house to house in Peoria to grab the family minivan. Having parks to allow families with children to stay longer--and anchor the kind of civic improvements that make cities thrive--will not actually magnetically suck all the families out of Tyson's Corner into the whirling vortex of Northwest.
I understand that there are urbanites who contemptuously declare that everyone in the country needs to get out of their car, like, RIGHT NOW. Those people are wrong, and pretty damn obnoxious. But so are the people who react to a post about building parks in DC with vicious diatribes about how horrible cities are and how he wouldn't live in one if you paid him a million dollars. It's exactly the same kind of lifestyle totalitarianism. And it's really, really unnecessary. Proving that there is nothing wrong with your lifestyle does not require you to angrily trash mine.
« American exceptionalism | Main | Just when you thought you'd seen everything . . . »
What's good for Peter is good for Paul . . .
08 Aug 2008 01:00 pm
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/27121
Comments (123)
I agree about failing to share the enthusiasm for large lawns, but that's because I want to garden. I want to have beds full of bulbs and shrubs, and others with vegetables. And a huge hedgerow of raspberries.
Eventually much of the grass in my equally arguably urban or suburban yard will be beds instead of lawn. (It's equally arguable because although I live in a walkable neighborhood only 3 miles from downtown in a city of half a million, it is a former trolley suburb developed between 1905 and 1915; about half the lots have a driveway and a garage tucked somewhere in the back or under the front porch.)
The people who like really really big lawns resent the fact that other people understand the purpose of the really really big lawn is so they can turn the kids out to play and then never have to deal with them for the next ten hours.
Oddly enough, the people who like really really big lawns so that they never have to see their neighbors don't seem to resent being called out on this.
I suppose it is easier to admit that you don't like your neighbors than to admit you don't like your kids.
But that's what it boils down to, isn't it?
I enjoy having space between my house and that of my neighbours. Having lived in apartments through a succession of neighbours varying from antisocial music-at-3am types to people who appear to have an elephant or two in the family tree, I very much enjoy not hearing the sounds of my neighbours' everyday living.
I'm not overly enamoured of having a big yard, but something has to fill the space between our houses...
Heh. When I saw the title I thought it had something to do with my fetish, ahem, preference regarding women's grooming.
There does not need to be this hostile contest between urbanites and suburbanites/exurbanites/rural people, where each claims that theirs is the only worthwhile way of life. Developing better rail networks to allow DC to enjoy higher, more productive population densities does not mean that the Thought Police will be sweeping house to house in Peoria to grab the family minivan.
There may be a good case for some expansion of rail transit in DC (stress on the word "may"), but in general urban rail transit is a hugely expensive boondoggle. It provides small benefits at great cost. The benefits are concentrated in a relatively small segment of the population, while the costs are shared by many people who will derive little or no benefit from the system.
I've still yet to see anyone present a serious case for the massively greater subsidies provided to transit compared to cars and highways. Rail subsidies are especially obscene, because rail systems are so expensive to build.
The people who like really really big lawns resent the fact that other people understand the purpose of the really really big lawn is so they can turn the kids out to play and then never have to deal with them for the next ten hours.
[...]
I suppose it is easier to admit that you don't like your neighbors than to admit you don't like your kids.
Really? Thinking kids need independence to develop into normally functioning adults = don't like your kids?
Saying "get out of your car" and "I'd never live in a city" are not equivalent; one of them interferes with another's life, the other does not.
And thank you, Diana, for your adorably judgmental approach to people who like the idea of their children playing outside.
I live in the District and work in Tysons Corner. Tysons is far more urban.
I don't recall too many or maybe any people angrily trashing your lifestyle. But I did see your previous writing subtlety implying that the preferred lifestyle of millions of families is unnecessary and now implying that the defenders of that lifestyle are raving lunatics.
Have you tried living in the suburbs where you weren't, like, 5 minutes away from one of the worst crime centers in America?
It totally changes the experience of feeling like you're in a slasher movie.
"There does not need to be this hostile contest between urbanites and suburbanites/exurbanites/rural people, where each claims that theirs is the only worthwhile way of life. Developing better rail networks to allow DC to enjoy higher, more productive population densities does not mean that the Thought Police will be sweeping house to house in Peoria to grab the family minivan."
They won't come for their minivans Megan, they will come for their bankaccounts. Mass transit is woefully unprofitable even in places like Washington.
That said, it seems to me that if you want to be a political journalist or writer, which you seem to be, you ought to have some understanding of the country West of the Hudson. You really seem to have very little understanding of what life outside of the NE corridor is like. New York and Washington are probably the most a-typical cities in America along with New Orleans and Miami. They are great places. I am happy to live in Washington and have no plans to move. But, Washington is not typical of the rest of the country. Not to pick on you, but I think every journalist in Washington ought to have to spend at least three years living in working outside of the coasts to get some perspective on things.
DC should build some good parks if it wants to keep families with children
I know that it's not your argument, Megan, but I think if DC (or most major cities) wants to keep families with children, they need to build better schools first. I lived in the city until I had kids, then it was out to the 'burbs for better schools. I now have a larger yard than I want, but the school thing trumps a lot of other concerns.
I've still yet to see anyone present a serious case for the massively greater subsidies provided to transit compared to cars and highways. Rail subsidies are especially obscene, because rail systems are so expensive to build.
Are you joking? Highway and car subsidies dwarf spending on transit.
Bill,
You are exactly right. It is about schools not parks. The exodus of the middle class from the center cities and inner suburbs started in the late 60s and 70s when the inner city schools went to hell. Yes, a lot of that flight was due to racism and white people's objection to sending their kids to schools with poor black children after desegregation. But God how much better we would have been if they had just fixed the black schools rather than trying to forcibly de segregate the white schools.
Further, I am really not sure what on earth Megan is talking about when she talks about parks. You would be hard pressed to find people raising children over the age of three in condos or apartments even in Washington DC. Most people want a yard not a park. There are tons of single family homes with yards in the District. People leave the District not because of the lack of parks but because they cannot afford to send their kids to private school. Also, there is a lot of flight for parents who have kids leaving grade school. The grade schools in the good neighborhoods in Washington are actually quite good. It is the middle schools and high schools that are bad. People will live in the District, no parks and all, until their kids are old enough to go to middle school and then leave.
"Are you joking? Highway and car subsidies dwarf spending on transit."
And how many of those highway subsidies come from gas taxes which amount to user fees on roads? Most. Further, you are right the government has to subsidize some kind of transportation. Building roads, rails and bridges is a core government function. Only a radical libertarian would argue that all such things should be left to private industry. The question is where should the money go? I think the money should go to roads. Mass transit is much less efficient and convienent in all but the most congested areas and I don't think making things more congested is a very good answer.
Highway and car subsidies dwarf spending on transit.
According to the figures provided by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, transit is subsidized by around $400 per thousand passenger-miles, while highways are subsidized by only around $10 per thousand passenger-miles. What is the justification for the hugely disproportionate subsidies provided to transit? Why shouldn't transit users pay a larger share of the cost of building and operating the systems they use?
I'm probably atypical in that I find a lot of appeal in urban and a lot of appeal in rural. Not a whole lot in suburban. As a couple of people have noted, a lot of the appeal is separation from neighbors--not lawns per se. (In fact, I keep a fairly small lawn around my house and let most of the property grow as meadow. Doubtless wouldn't cut it in most suburbs but I'm more rural.)
There does not need to be this hostile contest between urbanites and suburbanites/exurbanites/rural people, where each claims that theirs is the only worthwhile way of life.
Oh yes there does, Megan! Don't you understand that they are right, and therefore anyone who believes differently is fucking wrong!!!????!!!
When demonstrate that behavior in terms of national policy (elections, etc) it make sense. They are wrong because if they get their way it will influence my life. But in something like this where both sides of the fence can easily have their way without impacting each other?
Us it as a tool to tell great depths about that person's personality. Other than that, it matters naught.
"I'm probably atypical in that I find a lot of appeal in urban and a lot of appeal in rural. Not a whole lot in suburban. As a couple of people have noted, a lot of the appeal is separation from neighbors--not lawns per se. (In fact, I keep a fairly small lawn around my house and let most of the property grow as meadow. Doubtless wouldn't cut it in most suburbs but I'm more rural.)"
I am with you on that. I either want to live in a really big city or in the middle West Texas where no one will bother me. It is when you get degrees in the middle that you get into trouble. The suburbs generally offer the worst of both worlds rather than the best.
Sam says: "[Megan implied that the]...preferred lifestyle of millions of families is unnecessary and ... that the defenders of that lifestyle are raving lunatics."
Yes, that's called an opinion. Feel free to dissent.
I'm not sure Megan's ever actually been to Tysons Corner, she must have just heard about it somewhere. Very few people actually live there, and very few of those very few are families. (I did actually live there for a few years, when single and then for a short while after getting married.) Tysons is a gigantic mass of office buildings, shopping centers, and narrow roads. The actual people are found elsewhere.
"I'm probably atypical in that I find a lot of appeal in urban and a lot of appeal in rural. Not a whole lot in suburban. As a couple of people have noted, a lot of the appeal is separation from neighbors--not lawns per se. (In fact, I keep a fairly small lawn around my house and let most of the property grow as meadow. Doubtless wouldn't cut it in most suburbs but I'm more rural.)"
I am with you on that. I either want to live in a really big city or in the middle West Texas where no one will bother me. It is when you get degrees in the middle that you get into trouble. The suburbs generally offer the worst of both worlds rather than the best.
Actually, on a per-mile basis, railroads are far cheaper to build than roads, and the associated engineering works are cheaper, too. That I-395 mixing bowl in Springfield, VA cost about $676 million - that's $111 million more than the government gave Amtrak for capital appropriations in FY 08.
http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/FY09GrantLegislativeRequest.pdf
I wouldn't take your commentors' reactions too seriously - I don't think your remarks justified the reactions, but a lot of commentators really ARE anti-suburban, and I think people are just touchy about it, since so many advocates of density are strident and preachy. I read Ryan Avent's blog a lot and there's more than a touch of the "I don't care whether you like it or not, you MUST increase density NOW" over there - the comments his posts on the Brookland controversy draw from his readers are a good example.
John,
As I and others did. And am now scratching my head at how she is taking the moral high ground as someone who just posted a casual opinion and is confused that so many lunatics popped out of the wood work. I didn't read everything comment in the previous thread, but from what I saw most people on either side weren't the foaming at the mouth potrayal her latest post seems to give.
It's -almost- like someone threw a rock at the beehive, and then said, "what are all those bees getting upset about, I was just casually stating my dislike for honey?"
"I'm probably atypical in that I find a lot of appeal in urban and a lot of appeal in rural. Not a whole lot in suburban. As a couple of people have noted, a lot of the appeal is separation from neighbors--not lawns per se. (In fact, I keep a fairly small lawn around my house and let most of the property grow as meadow. Doubtless wouldn't cut it in most suburbs but I'm more rural.)"
I am with you on that. I either want to live in a really big city or in the middle West Texas where no one will bother me. It is when you get degrees in the middle that you get into trouble. The suburbs generally offer the worst of both worlds rather than the best.
"I'm probably atypical in that I find a lot of appeal in urban and a lot of appeal in rural. Not a whole lot in suburban. As a couple of people have noted, a lot of the appeal is separation from neighbors--not lawns per se. (In fact, I keep a fairly small lawn around my house and let most of the property grow as meadow. Doubtless wouldn't cut it in most suburbs but I'm more rural.)"
I am with you on that. I either want to live in a really big city or in the middle West Texas where no one will bother me. It is when you get degrees in the middle that you get into trouble. The suburbs generally offer the worst of both worlds rather than the best.
Sam,
The problem is that Megan honestly believes that the lack of parks is the reason why or even a significant reason why middle class people with families don't live in DC. To anyone who has ever lived in the burbs for any period of time, that is bunk. People live in the burbs because they don't want to live in the city parks are no. It is not like there are 1000s of people just dying to have a two bedroom condo to raise their kids but are not doing so because of the lack of parks. I think Megan might actually believe that. As I said above, she needs to get out more.
Actually, on a per-mile basis, railroads are far cheaper to build than roads, and the associated engineering works are cheaper, too.
Pretty meaningless. Obviously, the per-mile cost of building roads varies dramatically. An 8-lane interstate is probably going to cost far more per mile than a 2-lane state highway. And the per-mile cost of roads and rail tracks isn't a terribly useful measure of the economic efficiency of transportation spending, anyway, because it doesn't reflect actual usage. That's why transportation mode costs and benefits are generally measured in passenger-miles.
I grew up in metro-NYC, a 1.5 hour car/train/tube commute to NYC. I spent most of my adult life in suburban central Ohio, a 0.5 hour car commute to Columbus. I spent my final working years in suburban DC, a 2 hour car/train commute to DC.
Neither NYC or DC could function without public transit - there aren't enough roads & bridges and there aren't enough parking spaces. DC Metro, VRE and MARC trains are frequently SRO during rush hours. I66 is a veritable 50 mile long parking lot during rush hours. DC started a firestorm when it tried to interfere with the "slugs" who fill seats in commuter vehicles to permit travel in the HOV lanes during rush hours.
Many in suburban DC communities in MD and VA complain about urban sprawl, but fail to realize that the only way to stop urban sprawl in metro-DC would be to stop the growth of the federal government. I plan not to hold my breath waiting for that eventuality.
"DC started a firestorm when it tried to interfere with the "slugs" who fill seats in commuter vehicles to permit travel in the HOV lanes during rush hours."
How and why did they do that? Are they insane? Don't answer it is the DC government so I know the answer. But seriously, I have never heard that before. What did they try to do?
"DC started a firestorm when it tried to interfere with the "slugs" who fill seats in commuter vehicles to permit travel in the HOV lanes during rush hours."
How and why did they do that? Are they insane? Don't answer it is the DC government so I know the answer. But seriously, I have never heard that before. What did they try to do?
DC attempted to prevent the "slugs" from "assembling" at the sites at which they typically wait for rides, on the grounds that the vehicles stopping to pick them up were interfering with the flow of traffic.
It's true the discussion doesn't have to be hostile, but that is the dominant attitude among urban advocates. It's rarely a story of these are the benefits of living without a car or a detached house, rather a vitriolic holding-forth on why cars and detached houses are evil. And though it may be uncivil or impolite, hostility offered often equals hostility received.
For my part I don't find either option particularly desirable aesthetically, because they both rest on illegitimate application of violence (i.e., the state). In suburbia that means heavy-handed zoning and NIMBY-ism, and in the cities it means public transportation and regulation of taxis. Of the two though, I put suburban living closer to "free".
This is why libertarianism is valuable. It reminds us that we can each live our own lives as we please. The problem of course is that some libertarians spend all their time dismissing externalities like Global Warming or pretending that governments don't sometimes have to actually make decisions about what kind of society we are going to have. Cities do have to decide whether they want to have dense populations and mass transit or whether they want to be like Boise Idaho and just be one gigantic suburb. Libertarians should say that if we have carbon tax that reflects the true costs of energy consumption then some cities will make other choices than other cities and if we have liberal captial and labor markets then people will vote with their feet.
I'm not sure Megan's ever actually been to Tysons Corner, she must have just heard about it somewhere. Very few people actually live there, and very few of those very few are families.... Tysons is a gigantic mass of office buildings, shopping centers, and narrow roads. The actual people are found elsewhere.
For real. Tysons is neither fish nor fowl and I can't imagine masses of anyone would find it an appealing place to live, regardless of where they align on the urban/suburban or kids/no-kids axis.
"Libertarians should say that if we have carbon tax that reflects the true costs of energy consumption then some cities will make other choices than other cities and if we have liberal captial and labor markets then people will vote with their feet."
No. Libertarians should have a healthy skepticism about basing policy decisions on fadish science promulgated by leftists with an almost cult like devotion. When science becomes about "consensus" rather than results and testible hypothosis and a contest between believers and deniers, we are all in a lot of trouble.
Every morning I bicycle to work in DC. I cross North Capital Street on my commute and am often stopped at a traffic light there. This is a major route into DC and one thing that always strikes me is on most days, the only cars I see with more than one person in them have out of area license plates on them, which makes me think they are tourists.
I think it says a lot about our commuting habits, and I doubt that this is just a DC issue. At least the slug lines help address the issue, even if their creation wasn't altruistic in nature.
I wonder if sometimes urbanism-proponents seem a bit touchy is because they are tired of hearing sob stories about how rising energy prices are making it impossible for suburbanites both to heat/cool their large houses and to drive to their jobs. Urbanites are much less affected by these things and you rarely hear them complain about the inherent problems of their lifestyle ("It was slightly cold on my two minute walk from the grocery store").
It is interesting to see the lack of communicative ability displayed when discussing subjective values like this. If you read the previous thread, several early comments by suburbanites snarked on the urbanism idea by questioning what planet Megan lives on and suggesting that everyone, if given the opportunity, would prefer to live in a cul-de-sac. And yet these same people are suggesting that the vitriol and lack of understanding comes from urbanites. I think I am beginning to see the problem here.
"Urbanites are much less affected by these things and you rarely hear them complain about the inherent problems of their lifestyle ("It was slightly cold on my two minute walk from the grocery store")."
What a load of crap that is. I have lived in both and there is almost never a "two minute walk to the grocery store". Moreover, it sucks going to the grocery store without a car. I don't care how close you are to the store, lugging bags for blocks or fighting a granny cart is not fun.
Living in the city is a pain in the neck. Things are not always convienently located and wonderfully useful stores like big grocery stores or Targets or (gasp) Wall Marts are not there. Moreover, the prices in center city stores tend to be higher.
There was a time when there was no such thing as suburbs. Most people lived in either the farm or in apartment houses in big cities. When World War II ended people send to hell with that and left the cities. They didn't leave the cities only because of schools and crime. The schools were still good and the crime hadn't gotten bad yet. They left the cities because it is really hard to raise a family in a compact apartment or row house. For a family, life is just easier in teh burbs. That is why people moved there in late 40s and early 50s. Living in the city is great if you are single or incredibly wealthy and even then it has its drawbacks. But if you have a family, the city sucks. The best bet is an older inner suburb like Bethesda or The Palisades. But those places are incredibly expensive. For people with more normal incomes, the outer burbs are the easiest and most efficient place to live even if you love the city letalone if you can't stand the place.
"I don't find it restful to be permanently ensconced somewhere where I have few near neighbors; it gives me that kind of eerie feeling you get in the horror movie right before the villain attacks."
I recall a WSJ article from, oh, long ago, in the lat '90s, when the dot com bubble had lots of Manhattanites buying their first vacation houses. They interviewed a bunch of local sherrifs from towns seeing a lot of second home buying. The sherrifs basically were complaining that they were getting a huge volume of calls from New Yorkers and 3 in the morning insisting that there were burglars or prowlers or escaped lunatics looking in their windows. (As non-urbanites can guess, the miscreants were generally squirrels, deer, rabbits and raccoons.) The locals weren't nasty about it, just bemused and of the opinion that New Yorkers see too many slasher flicks and never experienced actual privacy before.
"If you read the previous thread, several early comments by suburbanites snarked on the urbanism idea by questioning what planet Megan lives on and suggesting that everyone, if given the opportunity, would prefer to live in a cul-de-sac."
No not everyone, just most. The arguments you are referring to started when people started asserting that everyone would prefer to live in the city and are just being prevented from doing so by evil car subsidies, the NeoCons or whatever other nonsense. The fact is that most people who have children don't want to live in the center city or in high density areas. Some do, but most don't. Why that fact bothers so many people is really a question of those people's nuerosises than anything else.
"If you read the previous thread, several early comments by suburbanites snarked on the urbanism idea by questioning what planet Megan lives on and suggesting that everyone, if given the opportunity, would prefer to live in a cul-de-sac."
No not everyone, just most. The arguments you are referring to started when people started asserting that everyone would prefer to live in the city and are just being prevented from doing so by evil car subsidies, the NeoCons or whatever other nonsense. The fact is that most people who have children don't want to live in the center city or in high density areas. Some do, but most don't. Why that fact bothers so many people is really a question of those people's nuerosises than anything else.
"If you read the previous thread, several early comments by suburbanites snarked on the urbanism idea by questioning what planet Megan lives on and suggesting that everyone, if given the opportunity, would prefer to live in a cul-de-sac."
No not everyone, just most. The arguments you are referring to started when people started asserting that everyone would prefer to live in the city and are just being prevented from doing so by evil car subsidies, the NeoCons or whatever other nonsense. The fact is that most people who have children don't want to live in the center city or in high density areas. Some do, but most don't. Why that fact bothers so many people is really a question of those people's nuerosises than anything else.
"If you read the previous thread, several early comments by suburbanites snarked on the urbanism idea by questioning what planet Megan lives on and suggesting that everyone, if given the opportunity, would prefer to live in a cul-de-sac."
No not everyone, just most. The arguments you are referring to started when people started asserting that everyone would prefer to live in the city and are just being prevented from doing so by evil car subsidies, the NeoCons or whatever other nonsense. The fact is that most people who have children don't want to live in the center city or in high density areas. Some do, but most don't. Why that fact bothers so many people is really a question of those people's nuerosises than anything else.
If you read the previous thread, several early comments by suburbanites snarked on the urbanism idea by questioning what planet Megan lives on and suggesting that everyone, if given the opportunity, would prefer to live in a cul-de-sac. And yet these same people are suggesting that the vitriol and lack of understanding comes from urbanites. I think I am beginning to see the problem here.
Yup. There's a non-trivial cohort of suburbanites to whom even hinting at terms like "moderate density" and "walkable" constitute an almost Belgian attack on the 'Merican Way of Life.
When in fact, no one's even suggesting that you won't be able to live in your congested exurban slum 10-20 years from now. Who would want to take that away from you?
Just more room in the nice urban schools and trendy gastropubs for the rest of us.
ibc,
I will assume that, in mentioning "nice urban schools", you are not talking about the government schools in the District of Comedy.
"Just more room in the nice urban schools and trendy gastropubs for the rest of us."
Did you really just say that? First, find me a nice urban school that goes for under 20K a year? In DC you won't, unless you are in the under 10 set and live in an expensive neighborhood.
A "trendy gastropub"? Come on you can't be serious. No one really talks like that do they? Please tell me you are just sock puppeting to make fun of urbanites?
"Just more room in the nice urban schools and trendy gastropubs for the rest of us."
Did you really just say that? First, find me a nice urban school that goes for under 20K a year? In DC you won't, unless you are in the under 10 set and live in an expensive neighborhood.
A "trendy gastropub"? Come on you can't be serious. No one really talks like that do they? Please tell me you are just sock puppeting to make fun of urbanites?
Megan, you might not have argued that nobody should have a lawn, but you quoted Ryan Avent as saying:
Is it necessary for every last home on the block to have a decorative, manicured lawn that does nothing but sit there getting watered and mowed? No way, a couple of public gardens will suffice. Is it necessary for every home to have its own blacktop square with basketball hoop that sits unused 99 percent of the time? Is it necessary for every home to have a place for a father and son to play catch, or for a guy to sit in the shade and read?Those sounded a lot less like innocent inquiries and more like rhetorical questions.
So glad to hear that Megan no longer lives in Manhattan. This island isn't big enough for two, obnoxious, boring, Irish-Americans.
"Just more room in the nice urban schools and trendy gastropubs for the rest of us."
Did you really just say that? First, find me a nice urban school that goes for under 20K a year? In DC you won't, unless you are in the under 10 set and live in an expensive neighborhood.
We'll talk in 10 years, and sort it out then.
Please tell me you are just sock puppeting to make fun of urbanites?
What, you don't like tasty gastropub fare? Next you'll be denigrating arugala...
John,
Your refresh privileges have been suspended. Please mail you F5 key to:
The Atlantic
The Watergate
600 New Hampshire Ave, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
I read Ryan Avent's blog a lot and there's more than a touch of the "I don't care whether you like it or not, you MUST increase density NOW" over there -
Ryan Avent is a particularly addle-brained proponent of urbanism and density.
De gustibus non disputandum
George Orwell's main character in Down and Out in London and Paris has a job, for a while, as a schoolteacher, in an English school where parents pay tuition. The character offers that the school is really no better than the state supported schools, but it makes the parents and students like the rich kids in the arrangement; so they do it. I think suburbs ape the country estates of the rich past the point where what you buy is worthwhile. As a kid I enjoyed Army apartments next to a parade ground. The 'new urbanism' offers change away from the suburban ways but, like the Roman suggested, quarreling over matters of taste quickly gets to the point of diminishing returns.
Sorry for the double post IBC. I didn't realize that did that.
The neighborhood I grew up in, we all had huge back yards. Most of the families didn't have fences, so all us kids could go back and forth and play in one anothers yards. I suppose it was kind of like our own neighborhood park, except our parents didn't have too worry about the drug dealers taking over after dark, or the city deciding to take down the swings because someone might get hurt.
The 'new urbanism' offers change away from the suburban ways but, like the Roman suggested, quarreling over matters of taste quickly gets to the point of diminishing returns.
Right, but given that the "new urbanist" developments always carry a price premium over similarly located developments based on tht traditional sprawl model, at some point you have to realize we're not comparing Big Macs to truffles, but to Chipotle Burritos.
I read the previous two threads, and there really wasn't a lot of anger that I could identify. This thread has much more of that.
There are some real misunderstandings within these threads:
(1) When we talk about "walkable communities", we are talking about such commumities within, or very near, the urban cores, are we not? If suburbs and exurbs, and all such future commnuities want such walkability, they can zone/rezone for it. They can invest their tax dollars in things like parks that Megan wants (and her complaints and desires should be made known to her local representatives- Megan, you have a measure of control on this issue).
(2) Urbanites complaining about little walkability in suburbs and exurbs get no sympathy from me- they don't live there, and their opinions are of no weight. Suburbanites and exurbanites that complain about this have three options- either mass in political movements to get zoning/public building changed, move, or shut up.
(3) The high cost of urban property is not a result solely of demand- it is also a result of supply- something that cannot be changed in a fair manner since it is a function of high population density. What I sense from some of the urban supporters of "walkability" is a desire for subsidies that make their desired communities more affordable, but those subsidies have to come from someone's hide, and one can certainly understand a certain amount of defensiveness on behalf of sub/ex-urbanites.
My opinion on the future is that the trend towards sub/ex-urbanation will not reverse. The cost of energy in the future may take up more of one's income (it may not, the trend is still in favor of declining fraction of income devoted to energy). Higher gas prices will lead to people buying more fuel efficient cars. In addition, employment itself will move to where the people are living (this is already the trend as urban centers are increasingly losing out to suburban locations for employers), or those who can will telecommute more. Americans have already voted on what they want- they want more living space. They tell you this in a multitude of different ways, including through their solid political support for road building/expansion.
However, as I wrote on the other thread- you can find any kind of community you want in the US, just move to one that suits you. Complaints that that you can't afford the one you want are pretty silly, in my opinion.
If no one has already pointed this out, rail is a horribly expensive and inefficient way to move people about. Better rail would mean almost no rail.
Families will not move into cities with horrible public schools and high violent crime rates. There are few urban amenities that would provide them with a trade off on this issues.
given that the "new urbanist" developments always carry a price premium over similarly located developments based on tht traditional sprawl model
You're going to have to name names here. You have repeatedly cited examples of "old urbanist" neighborhoods like Capitol Hill and Alexandria, for which no "similarly located" sprawl exists.
Thanks, Megan, for trying to dial it down. It's astounding how some people feel personally attacked by a discussion of the relative merits or urban vs. suburban life. I detect insecurity behind the zeal with which they defend their housing preferences as universal. I love cities, you don't. So what?
BTW - social networks are generally stronger and friendlier in the suburbs than in the city.
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/8656
And I am not a suburban chauvinist. I prefer an urban lifestyle in my present personal situation. I do actually live in the suburbs of New Orleans, because the city is still a political, economic, and social disaster and now a relatively expensive one.
In addition, employment itself will move to where the people are living .
You hear this a lot, but it's just silly. What do you mean "Where the people are living?" Already suburb-to-suburb commuting comprises most of the congestion in the DC metropolitan area.
Employees are scattered across the region, and there's no "there" to build at.
And the telecommuting option is always just over the horizon. Nice for white collar thinky-types who spend all day chatting on public policy blogs--not such a great option for the vast majority of those folks you see clogging 66 every morning, though.
Families will not move into cities with horrible public schools and high violent crime rates. There are few urban amenities that would provide them with a trade off on this issues.
Let's turn this around: Would families move into exurban developments with horrible public schools and high violent crime rates?
Obviously your implied argument is that schools in high to moderate dense areas will always be worse than in low density areas. I'm sure you have a reason for believing that--other than "that's the way it is."
If you suddenly and unexpectedly produced three small children a suburban setting would be the least of your concerns. Most people have the problem of suddenly and unexpectedly producing babies, producing children would put you in the national spotlight as a modern miracle, besides putting you in a coma.
Final comment:
Older cities in America were essentially built out by 1945 when the population was 140 million. (this does not include the newer suburban type cities like Dallas, Houston, etc.)
It took the USA 400 years to reach that 140 million mark. It took us about 50 to add another 140 million and we will add another 100 million in 30 to 40 years.
You can't cram those people into the cities. Even people in most cities don't live in the same densities that they did in 1940.
The only real question about continued suburban growth is what form it will take, and the trends are to a somewhat more "urban like" land use.
BTW - social networks are generally stronger and friendlier in the suburbs than in the city.
That's just, like, your opinion, maaan.
It's been argued that the study you linked to shows just the opposite...
"Social Interaction and Urban Sprawl," by Jan Brueckner and Ann Largey, finds that people talk to their neighbors and hang out with friends more in cities than in suburbs on a per capita basis. They found no statistically significant difference in other observed social activity, such as the number of friends and confidants, based on density.
http://www.planetizen.com/node/34075
The only real question about continued suburban growth is what form it will take, and the trends are to a somewhat more "urban like" land use.
And that's where all the tension in this thread comes from--on one side you've got folks talking about what form suburban development is going to take as these numbers ramp up. On the other, you've got folks *hearing* that the commies are going to box them up and ship them into a 1-bedroom tenement in Greenwich Village.
ibc,
You hear this a lot, but it's just silly. What do you mean "Where the people are living?"
The meaning of the phrase seems pretty clear to me. Employment centers are decentralizing. Jobs, along with people, are moving away from high-density urban areas and into low-density suburbs and exurbs. The old commuting model, in which lots of workers who live in the suburbs surrounding a dense urban core travel into and out of that core for work each day is giving way to a more dispersed, decentralized model in which commuting means travel within suburbs or between suburbs. Mass transit is far more suited to the suburb-to-urban-core model than the suburb-to-suburb model, which is one reason why transit has been losing market share to automobiles.
And the telecommuting option is always just over the horizon. Nice for white collar thinky-types who spend all day chatting on public policy blogs--not such a great option for the vast majority of those folks you see clogging 66 every morning, though.
Higher energy costs, increasingly sophisticated and inexpensive communications technology, and the growing share of knowledge-based jobs, all suggest that telecommuting will become increasingly important and widespread in the future. Even just a modest increase in the rate of telecommuting could have a significant impact on road congestion and work-related travel costs.
The only real question about continued suburban growth is what form it will take, and the trends are to a somewhat more "urban like" land use.
I don't think it's even becoming more "urban-like." There's nothing much urban-like about most of the new development in the fast-growing cities of the south and west. It's mainly mile after mile of low-density, single-family-home housing developments and mall-like shopping/dining/entertainment facilities far from urban cores. Public transportation in these areas, such as it is, is limited and inconvenient (almost exclusively buses). A car is pretty much a necessity. Yes, the recent increase in gas prices and the collapse of the housing bubble have slowed the pace of suburban development somewhat in recent years, but the long-term trend remains the same.
I don't think it's even becoming more "urban-like."
There are a LOT of luxury high-rise condos going up in Portland, and a bunch in the close-in Seattle suburb of Bellevue (which, given the office towers, is now more of a city in its own right, minus the bums). Of course, the housing collapse is hurting them pretty badly, which suggests that maybe people aren't as eager to live in a box as some assume.
Mass transit is far more suited to the suburb-to-urban-core model than the suburb-to-suburb model, which is one reason why transit has been losing market share to automobiles.
Which is why we've experienced crushing growth in congestion around pretty much every major population center in the US.
High-rise luxury condos are a niche market and tend to be located in or close to urban cores, not in the suburbs where most new development is occurring. But as you say, the luxury condo market has also been hit hard by the housing bubble collapse. I've seen countless articles over the past couple of years about people who bought a luxury condo in a new high-rise building in places like Miami and Las Vegas and Scottsdale, Arizona hoping to flip it for a quick profit, and instead being bankrupted after the market collapsed and they were unable to keep up the mortgage payments.
ibc,
Which is why we've experienced crushing growth in congestion around pretty much every major population center in the US.
We haven't been experiencing crushing growth in congestion. Congestion is a function of size and density. Sprawl tends to reduce congestion. Density tends to increase it. Density also tends to increase commute times, because it reduces the accessibility of workplaces by car. The average commute time by public transportation is almost twice the average commute time by car. New York, which has the most extensive mass transit system in the country and the highest job density (thanks to all those high-rise office buildings in Manhattan), also has the longest average commute time in the country. New York also has the highest rate of "extreme commutes," defined by the Census Bureau as commutes taking 90 minutes or more each way.
We haven't been experiencing crushing growth in congestion. Sprawl tends to reduce congestion. Density tends to increase it.
Well, I think anyone who lives in the greater Washington region and has to leave the house in the morning knows that the roads are more congested, and that average commute times have increased over the last couple decades.
As to the general topic of commutes, transit, density, etc...:
http://www.ryanavent.com/blog/?p=717
The idea that we can make things better by "making things less dense" (i.e. spreading folks out as thinly as possible in an exurban model), and then "putting the jobs where the people live" seems pretty nonsensical to me, but there y'go.
ibc,
Well, I think anyone who lives in the greater Washington region and has to leave the house in the morning knows that the roads are more congested, and that average commute times have increased over the last couple decades.
As I said, congestion is a matter of size and density. If Washington had done more to decentralize its workplaces, so that fewer people needed to converge on a small geographical area every morning to get to work, there would be less congestion.
As to the general topic of commutes, transit, density, etc...:http://www.ryanavent.com/blog/?p=717
As I said before, Ryan Avent is one of the most addle-brained proponents of urbanism and density I have come across. He claims and arguments tend to be wrong, misleading and/or irrelevant. The post you link to here provides an example of his irrelevant claims. In response to the observation that commutes by transit take longer than commutes by car, he asserts that transit is more "efficient" at moving people than cars. Whether or not that's true, it doesn't alter the fact that commuting by transit tends to take much longer than commuting by car. That time penalty is a strong incentive to commute by car instead of commuting by transit, and a strong incentive to build new development and locate employment centers in such a way as to allow people to commute by car instead of having to rely on transit.
Seeming to recognize the irrelevance of his response, Avent goes on to engage in various speculations, claiming that the higher density of transit-oriented cities "probably cancels out the additional slowness" of commutes by transit. As usual, Avent provides not a shred of evidence to support his wishful thinking.
I don't think it's even becoming more "urban-like." There's nothing much urban-like about most of the new development in the fast-growing cities of the south and west. It's mainly mile after mile of low-density, single-family-home housing developments and mall-like shopping/dining/entertainment facilities far from urban cores.
There is a change taking place right now with more PUDs, Planned Unit Developments, and TNDs, Traditional Neighborhood Development, taking place. These are two side of the mixed use coin. My original post said somewhat more urban-like and I will stick with that. That does not mean that every development is mixed use or new urban, far from it, but the trend is there.
I believe in 10 or 20 years, suburban development will be more village like. It is still suburbia and it will still require auto travel.
As I said, congestion is a matter of size and density. If Washington had done more to decentralize its workplaces, so that fewer people needed to converge on a small geographical area every morning to get to work, there would be less congestion.
Excellent advice. Then all we would need to do is assign housing for the workers based on the corporations they work for. Otherwise they'd buy houses willy-nilly across the region--as they do--and you'd get the kind of suburb-to-suburb commuting that cripples Washington suburban traffic every morning.
Better yet, we could just move all government functions to South Dakota, and spread the various offices as far afield as possible, achieving minimum density.
As for the private sector, I guess we'll just have to deal with human behavior, messy as it is.
"Washington! Decentralize your workplaces!"
ibc,
...and you'd get the kind of suburb-to-suburb commuting that cripples Washington suburban traffic every morning...
There is no "suburb-to-suburb commuting that cripples Washington suburban traffic every morning."
You really ought to try actually learning something about land-use and transportation issues, ibc. Then maybe you wouldn't keep making so many false claims and specious arguments. The relationship between employment density and congestion has been studied extensively. There is no serious dispute that a more decentralized employment base is associated with lower congestion. This really isn't hard to understand. In a high-density employment model, in which large numbers of workers from outlying suburbs must converge on a small urban core to get to work (the clearest example being midtown and lower Manhattan in New York) traffic density close to the urban core becomes very high and the result is massive congestion. In contrast, when workplaces are decentralized, so that fewer workers need to converge on a given geographical area to get to their place of employment, traffic densities and thus congestion are reduced. As Edward Glaeser puts it in his paper Sprawl and Urban Growth:
the decentralization of employment actually reduces the pressure on crowded downtown streets. By moving to lower densities, the traffic problem is actually reduced. Indeed, one of the major appeals of sprawl cities is that they have shorter commutes than dense downtowns
And it's not just higher employment density that causes longer commutes, but higher residential density also:
In Table 9, we use the micro data from the 1995 National Personal Transportation Survey to study differences in one way commuting times (in minutes) as a function of distance to work and residential block density. We find that average commute times rise with population density. The effect of density is actually less on car commuters than on noncar commuters. It is also true that across cities, there is a strong positive relationship between average commute times and the logarithm of population density
In my experience commuting into the District of Comedy from Northern Virginia, the only ways to beat a mass transit commute time-wise were in a hybrid vehicle (which could use HOV lanes with a single occupant), or with 1 or 2 others in the vehicle (slugs or otherwise), depending on whether you were using I66 (HOV2) or I95 (HOV3).
From my perspective, the 1.5 hour portion of my 2 hour commute on VRE allowed me to read or work, rather than focus on driving in heavy, stop and go traffic, completely unproductively, surrounded by aggressive drivers fighting for a 1-2 car length advantage. That was about a "no brain-er". My 12 hour day was all productive, with the exception of the two half hour drives on back roads to and from the VRE station.
Compared to that, retirement is a major improvement.
Greg,
Future development may become more village like if there is a significant demand for such communities, or it may not. One of the problems with the walkable village model is the necessity for small businesses to locate within to serve it-small grocery stores, etc. Unless zoning is used to bar larger stores in the areas around these villages, like you see in many of the older urban cores, such stores will find it difficult to compete due to economies of scale. Outside the urban cores, I believe you can get the walkable village, but it will be minus the businesses to serve it- you will still need a car.
ibc,
I have read your comments on this and the previous threads, and you are seriously misinformed on so many different issues that it is impossible to know where to begin with you. Mixner is much more patient than I am. There is literally no evidence of any kind that people will abandon the suburbs/exurbs for the urban cores. Many other commenters have pointed out why Americans do and can choose to live in these communities. Even with much higher gas prices, the still higher costs of living within the cities still mitigate against such a return.
It's odd that these arguments often center on the DC suburbs. Most of them have higher population densities than many cities. My own sprawling, big-lawned burb has a population density higher than Houston, Dallas, San Diego, Portland or Denver. The last DC suburb I lived in would be the 22nd densest city in the country, if it were a city.
Go back to the doggie posts and let these people stew in obnoxiousness :)
Posted by SMC | August 8, 2008 1:25 PM