Market Urbanism

Liberalizing cities | From the bottom up

“Market Urbanism” refers to the synthesis of classical liberal economics and ethics (market), with an appreciation of the urban way of life and its benefits to society (urbanism). We advocate for the emergence of bottom up solutions to urban issues, as opposed to ones imposed from the top down.

Calling your opponents “socialists” and “un-American” is as American as skyscrapers

By

It’s pretty amusing to me that liberals today are still whining about being called “socialists,” considering the charge is at least a century old. Here one example from Robert Fogelson’s excellent Downtown chapter on height restrictions around the turn of the century:

The Post voiced especially strong objections to the argument that a height limit was necessary to prevent new buildings from undermining the profitability of old ones and to deter the business district from moving from one location to another. That was “Municipal Socialism,” it declared. The city had no more business regulating development than running a department store. Municipal authority was already encroaching on private enterprise in too many ways. “And if it be permitted to limit the economic development of the city it might as well buy the city outright and conduct it as a Socialist Elysium.”

And here’s another example later in the chapter about comprehensive zoning, with an extra “un-American” mixed in there:

In some cities, the efforts to impose height limits through zoning ran into strong resistance. Sometimes the resistance was fueled by the opposition to zoning, which, it was charged, was “unfair, undemocratic, and un-American.” It was unfair because it discriminated among property owners. As Horace Groskin, director of the Philadelphia Real Estate Board, declared: “By what right has a zoning commission to set itself up as the judge and distributer of property values? To take the value away from one property owner and give it to another, or not to give it to anyone but to destroy it entirely for the imaginary benefit of the community, strikes me as coming mighty close to Socialism.”

And while I’m in the mood to fill posts with others’ work, here’s another good (unrelated) quote from market anarchist Kevin Carson, as a Christmas Eve bonus:

As Ivan Illich put it, bureaucracies solve problems by escalation. For example, government builds subsidized freeways and provides subsidized water and sewer infrastructure to outlying developments — and then deals with the increased sprawl by proposing new subsidized roads to “relieve congestion,” or a sales tax on the public at large to pay for expanding sewer capacity. Before long, the local Growth Machine wonders why the new roads are filling up with new congestion from the strip malls and subdivisions that sprang up at every single exit.

Comments

  1. A few comments:

    1) In discussions of “government regulations,” including discussions of “zoning regulations” it’s important, I think, for people to specify what type of “government regulation” or “zoning regulation” they are talking about. Otherwise, it seems to me that there is a strong likelihood that people will just wind up talking past one another, instead of engaging in fruitful discussion / disagreement.

    2) Here, for example, are some of the various types of zoning regulations that seem to be common in modern day American cities: a) regulations that govern land uses by zone; b) regulations that govern heights and setbacks (light and air) by zone; c) regulations that govern lot coverages by zone; d) regulations that govern parking (minimum or maximum) and curb cuts by zone.

    3) By the way, in order for one of the above regulations (or other similar ones) to be “properly” considered a “true” zoning regulation, it seems to me that the regulation has to differ within a city from one zone to another. If I understand Michael Lewyn’s (sp?) research correctly (and I’ve only read summaries) that is why Houston’s “zoning-type” regulations (regulations that are essentially similar to the zoning regulations of cities that do “officially” have zoning) have gotten away with not being called “zoning” – because the zoning-type regulations are, more or less, city-wide and don’t differ so much according to various “zones.”

    4) I don’t think regulations of height according to zones are inherently socialistic (although they could be used, I suppose, in a socialistic way). The same holds true for land use regulations. There is nothing inherently socialistic, so it seems to me, in protecting certain types of land uses (e.g., residences, schools, hospitals, etc.) from other types of land uses (e.g., fireworks manufacturers, gas works, etc.). Basic zoning of these types of zoning seem to me to be a legitimate use of a government’s police power.

    5) However, it does seem to me that much land use regulation by zone in modern day America has gone beyond basic police power and does border on being socialistic – or, perhaps more precisely speaking, does border on heavy handed government economic planning.

    It seems to me that NYC’s current zoning policies are very much along these lines. One hears much talk about zoning to encourage “x” activity at the expense of “y” activity, etc. by government bureaucrats to “further” the economy, etc. This seems to me to be a misuse of truly legitimate “zoned regulations.” And from what I can see, NYC doesn’t seem to be alone.

    6) What I find particularly striking and interesting are the following: a) how broadly accepted zoning, including the overuse of zoning, has become; b) especially interesting (and disturbing) is how accepted it has become among people who think of themselves as conservatives and libertarians!; c) how relatively quickly this happened; and d) how little evidence, so it seems to me, exists for the supposed need of anything more than very basic zoning (similar to NYC’s 1916 zoning code, which from what I’ve read so far strikes me as being pretty good zoning code). (I’m most familiar with the NYC experience, so my comments above are based mostly on that but, at least from what I’ve read “in the media,” the same seems to hold true for other parts of the country too, perhaps to an even greater degree.)

    Benjamin Hemric
    Fri., Dec. 24, 2010, 8:15 p.m.

  2. I would actually use NYC as an example of where zoning’s justification finds clarity in a working system. Even basic concepts like the need for light and air on the streets are reasons why zoning is necessary. The collective free market of developers have no inherent incentive to make decisions for the good of the public space around them that is strong enough to ensure it as a legitimate consideration when planning for new construction. There has to be a governing body that examines the city at the scale of the city rather than the site or the block. –Also, zoning designations can be changed when good cases are made for it, such as meetings with the Board of Standards and Appeal, which is not uncommon.

    NYC is also a great example of the degrading quality of buildings constructed for speculative development. For the most clarity I would point to 6th Avenue from 25th Street to 30th. These shotty buildings are built out for floor plate profitability and if they could built out the entire site they would. Instead, the street is better because they step back at 1-story (or 23 feet, whichever is less).

    I don’t see a city as pursing a general direction of master/economic planning as being a bad thing as long as it is pliable and flexible enough to change over time with urban conditions. Given that developers are not the ones responsible for (or even concerned with) coordination of utilities, mass transit, traffic engineering, park space, etc. the existence of urban scaled initiatives can be useful in trying to manage a budget.

    I will say that the zoning resolution itself in NYC is very confusing. I think the system works, but as an architect, I can say the text was written as though a law degree was required for comprehension. There has to be an easier way to convey the system to the professionals that are responsible for designing within the constraints.

  3. I have a lot of thoughts about what you said, but the one that sticks out to me is this: All of this talk about setbacks and “light and air” (although it seems to me that the biggest threat to air quality is cars and sprawl, not tall towers) ignores the tradeoffs of restricting development – high housing costs. New York City is becoming a playground for the rich, interrupted only by the occasional decrepit rent-controlled building. With high housing prices the market receives the signal to build more, but this signal is interrupted by zoning rules and approval processes. If you think that New York’s “light and air” is worth pushing poor people out of the city, that’s fine, but you have to at least acknowledge the tradeoff.

  4. Stephen, I agree that the income levels of New York’s resident’s are only becoming further stratified, and I agree that it is problematic. It is only a matter of time before the island of Manhattan is more like a country club with fiscal barriers to entry that are all but unbreakable. It may be a while until Harlem and Washington Heights have been built out to match the lower half of the island, but it will happen. That being said, I’m not sure how the problem is fixable in a way that a market urbanist would approve of–without drastic manipulation. There is a finite amount of space, over time the value of it will continue to rise. The denser the city becomes, the more valuable the land beneath each tower is–which means it’s more money to tear a building down and then more still to put a new one up.We are beyond the age of empty lots and derelict sites. By default you are restricting the scale of developer than can do business in the system and increasing the rent they need to charge in turn.

    Having said all that, I don’t think zoning is what is keeping prices high. Manhattan is expensive, but even if you go miles out to Queens and Brooklyn where vacancy rates are higher, the prices are still not cheap and they continue to rise. (And keep in mind this is after a glut of housing space courtesy of the housing bubble.) Even now, building is starting again. Frank Gehry just design one of the tallest residential towers near the Manhattan Bridge. You cannot make a Tribeca loft building tall enough to make it affordable to the poor at market prices. The city is beyond a free market model that can facilitate low income residence without the intervention of regulation. Even then, as you said, rent controlling and zoning will only make a dent and a small one at that.

  5. Mr. Smith: The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 1967 edition, defines socialism as “a theory or system of social organization which advocates the vesting of the ownership and the control of the means of production, capital, land, etc. in the community as a whole.” None of the above examples fits the definition of socialism. Government regulation is not “ownership” or the “control of the means of production, capital, land, etc. in the community as a whole.” If we would strictly apply your definition of socialism, then the preamble to our Constititution suggests a socialistic state, which it does not. For instance, the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution speaks of establishing “Justice,” insuring the “domestic Tranquility,” promoting “the general Welfare.” It provides for taxation and other regulatory matters. Yet, you right-wing radicals seem to advocate anarchy which would result from total lack of regulation. You need to understand that regulation is not socialism. It is the glue that holds this democratic society together, making sure that the greedy, the criminals, the anarchists (like you) don’t take advantave of an un-regulated society.

  6. Is a height restriction not a form of “control of […] land” by “the community as a whole”?

    Look, my mother’s family fled from communist Romania in 1970 – I know the difference between full-blown communism and American-style regulations. You won’t find us calling anything “socialist.” And I of course can see the difference between a height restriction and full-on communism. The point of the post was merely to point out that such charges are indeed very old, and that while I don’t agree with them 100%, you can’t just dismiss them out of hand.

    (Also, while we’re getting into definitions, I should point out that there’s a big difference between “right-wing” and “libertarian.” On social and foreign policy, libertarians are far to the left of self-described “left-wingers.”)

  7. Please forgive the sketchy nature of my responses (e.g., they’re being most balk assertions, etc.) as I’m pressed for time at the moment. (Aren’t we all!) The purpose of these responses, however, is not so much to “demonstrate” or to “convince” but rather to help lay out and to help clarify the arguments for various future discussions.

    1) T. Caine: wrote:

    The collective free market of developers have no inherent incentive to make decisions for the good of the public space around them that is strong enough to ensure it as a legitimate consideration when planning for new construction.

    Benjamin Hemric writes:

    This is indeed one of the main arguments of “planners” and others who favor what I think of as over-zoning. I disagree for, perhaps, three main reasons: 1) I think it is untrue that collective free market or developers have no inherent incentive to make decisions for the good of the public space around them; 2) I think that the collective free market and developers have historically done a better job of this than the public sector (e.g., compare Rockefeller Center to Lincoln Center); 3) I also think that if the private sector can’t provide something that is for the public good then government should provide for it as a government service (e.g., public parks) – not indirectly by debasing zoning, etc.

    2) T. Caine wrote:

    There has to be a governing body that examines the city at the scale of the city rather than the site or the block.

    Benjamin Hemric writes:

    While this is a common argument among “planners,” it seems to be unexamined – and unsupported — dogma to me. This is especially true with regard to “over-zoning” as opposed to basic zoning (e.g., keeping fireworks factories separate from residences, schools and hospitals, etc.), which I think is legitimate.

    3) T. Caine wrote:

    NYC is also a great example of the degrading quality of buildings constructed for speculative development. For the most clarity I would point to 6th Avenue from 25th Street to 30th.

    Benjamin Hemric writes:

    Everyone is entitled to their own taste, of course, but I don’t think this is a common feeling about the newly built buildings on Sixth Avenue between 25th and 30th. But even if it were, it should be pointed out that these buildings are indeed a product of the zoning.

    4) Stephen Smith wrote [the added numbering is mine – BH]:

    All of this talk about setbacks and “light and air” ([1]although it seems to me that the biggest threat to air quality is cars and sprawl, not tall towers) [2] ignores the tradeoffs of restricting development – high housing costs.

    Benjamin Hemric writes:

    Regarding [1]: “Light and air” as is usually used (at least in terms of discussions about “light and air” regulations in NYC) is essentially a euphemism for “we don’t want our area to look like the canyons of Wall St.” Thus you can’t build buildings straight up but must build them with setbacks (or as towers taking up a smaller part of the building lot). (By the way, it seems to me that “light and air” was the original rationale for regulating building bulk, or what is now regulated via F.A.R., floor area ratio.)

    Personally, I think the “canyons of Wall St.” fear is much overrated, at least in part because I like the canyons of Wall St. But since I’m pretty much the only person that I know of who feels this way, I generally concede that “light and air” is a legitimate concern of zoning. However, in any case, it seems to me that “light and air” is a more legitimate concern than many other zoning concerns – like “too much density” (i.e., meaning too many people, rather than buildings that are too large).

    Regarding [2]: I don’t think people have ignored tradeoffs here, but they have generally looked at them and have agreed (rightly or wrongly) that there is very little cost associated with NYC’s regulations regarding light and air (in terms of straight up vs. setbacks), especially in terms of housing production. (See a bit more about this below.)

    However, it should be noted that the conversation here is about New York City, particularly Manhattan. It is possible, of course, that VERY restrictive light and air regulations in other localities (very different from those, say, in NYC’s 1916 zoning ordinance) drive up housing costs in those cities.

    5) Stephen Smith wrote [added text in brackets is mine – BH]:

    New York City [the argument is usually about Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn] is becoming a playground for the rich, interrupted only by the occasional decrepit rent-controlled building. With high housing prices the market receives the signal to build more, but this signal is interrupted by zoning rules and approval processes. If you think that New York’s “light and air” is worth pushing poor people out of the city, that’s fine, but you have to at least acknowledge the tradeoff.

    Benjamin Hemric writes:

    While I think concern for “light and air” (as it is usually defined) is, as mentioned above, greatly overdone, I think it’s nevertheless a mistake to equate regulations governing light and air with high housing costs in Manhattan (although it may be an “indirect” factor in terms of the outer boroughs).

    As mentioned above, basically “everyone,” including even the most rabid free market urbanists, have conceded that some concern for “light and air” (as it is usually defined) is “important” AND that given the loose nature of NYC’s light and air regulations in Manhattan it doesn’t really impact the costs of housing in Manhttan much, if at all. Lots of very dense NYC neighborhoods – among the densest in Western Civilization — were built up under the 1916 rules that regulated “light and air.”

    Also, although fresh thinking is always welcome, I think it should at least be noted that the “light and air” argument hasn’t been the argument that “free market” urbanists have usually been making in terms of high housing costs in New York City. Generally speaking most “free marketers” have pointed to other regulations as the ones that are unnecessarily driving up the cost of housing in New York City, and these arguments seem more plausible to me.

    ON THE OTHER HAND, in terms of NYC housing costs overall, I do think that concern for “light and air” in the outer boroughs “could” be considered “one” of the factors driving up the cost of housing in New York City. However in terms of the outer boroughs, this is usually not spoken of, so it seems to me, as a “light and air” issue. People seemed concerned, rather, with just plain density (even with two-family houses), with high rises (even against one across from a park), with gentrification, with urbanization, and with change in general.

    Benjamin Hemric
    Mon., Dec. 27, 2010, 8:30 p.m.

  8. All very good points. Can I make a suggestion, though? I personally rarely go back to sites where I comment to check for responses, so I rely on the commenting system emailing me and telling me if someone responds (this is pretty much the only reason I like Disqus). But if you bunch up your comments and don’t post them in specific response to the person you’re talking to, they never get the email, and they’re less likely to read it and respond.

  9. Hi, Stephen! It’s “funny” that you should mention that the automatic notification feature is pretty much the only reason you like Disqus, because the nesting feature (which seems to be part and parcel of the automatic notification feature) is the one thing about Disqus that I have an intense dislike for!:

    1) I find it very annoying (and sometimes difficult) to read the threads as they progressively become narrower and narrower.

    2) Also, when people respond to comments individually it seems to me to “fragment” the conversation. (I pretty much tend to ignore any comments in a thread where this has happened.)

    3) In a long thread, especially, it becomes hard to check to see what the last comments were that were made, since comments appear to be listed in order of the “original” comment — and new nested “replies” just seem to “tag along with the original comment. So when you order the comments by newest first, a new comment that is a response (“reply”) to an old comment will not be shown as a recent comment.

    But I’m glad you mention this, as I can see that others may feel differently about this (and thus that they may use the blog differently), and I’ll try to keep this in mind in terms of my own comments.

    Benjamin Hemric
    Mon., Dec. 27, 2010, 10:00 p.m.

  10. Yeah, I agree with you on nested comments – I don’t like it much either, for the reasons you described. But at the end of the day, I think having users stay engaged with the email notifications outweighs the bad parts. Ideally I’d like a plain comment system where you use @ replies to “tag” other people, who are then notified by email of responses (but only to their original comment, unlike blogs like GGW that force you to subscribe by email to all comments posted) – essentially what the Gawker Media sites (gawker.com, gizmodo.com, etc.) use, but without the starring system. And the one-level-of-nesting-only idea that they use is also pretty interesting, although I’d be fine with it even without any nested comments.

  11. Yuk yuk yuk! (Yes, that’s pun.) Is there a meaningful difference in relationships comparing the following?

    Party A builds an apartment building and sells it to Party B. Are Parties C-Z affected, other than in the whereabouts (location) of the building?

    Party A owns the earth (or desirable parts of it) and sells it to Party B. Are Parties C-Z affected, other than in the planet they were born onto, out of?

  12. Stephen:
    Do you know what a “strawman” argument is? It’s where someone dreams up an argument that no one has made (“It’s pretty amusing to me that liberals today are still whining about being called “socialists”) and proceed to argue with themselves and eventually declaring themselves the winner of the argument. I’ve known many liberals in my lifetime and I’ve never known any of them to come close to believing in socialism. For your information, socialism is a political theory in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people, who advocate an end to private property and to the exploitation of workers. Now really, have you ever known an American who would buy such nonsense? It has never come close to happening and never will happen. There are no socialists hiding under your bed, no commies coming to take your property away, no “liberals” who want any of this. So please, why don’t people like you stop dreaming up worlds of fantasy to knock down so you can feel superior to a phantom class of people (“liberals”) who really don’t exist in the real world the way you perceive them. We’re all Americans, we all love American and trying to turn one American against another by calling them names or accusing them of things that aren’t true is truly un-American.

Meta