|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:53 am Post subject: Hate Suburban Sprawl? Blame the State |
 |
|
John Stossel, who is generally useful, made a typical libertarian error:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Hate-Suburban-Sprawl-Blame-the-State-2810
| Quote: |
| Sure, we all hate suburban sprawl, right? "Wrong." So says libertarian John Stossel as he attempts to debunk the sprawl-is-bad argument in his Myths, Lies and Nasty Behavior series on ABC. "Should everyone have to live the way I do?" he asks. He likes his apartment, but it's not for everyone. He also says the idea that open space is disappearing in America is "a total myth," and reproaches anti-sprawl "busybodies" for dictating how and where people should live. |
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2010/03/10/sprawling-misconceptions/
| Quote: |
The fallacy of this view has been pointed out about 100 times. For the 101st time: sprawl � an umbrella term for the pattern of development seen virtually everywhere in the United States � is not caused by the free market. It is, rather, mandated by a vast and seemingly intractable network of government regulations, from zoning laws and building codes to street design regulations. If Stossel wants to expand Americans� lifestyle choices, he should attack the very thing he was defending, namely, suburban sprawl.
It�s odd that self-described libertarians such as Stossel are so slow to grasp that government planning makes sprawl ubiquitous. You would think that libertarians would instinctively grasp the deeply statist nature of suburban development. First of all, with a depressingly few exceptions, virtually every town in America looks the same. That is, it has the same landscape of arterial roads, strip malls, and residential subdivisions, accessibly only by car. Surely, given America�s celebrated diversity, you would also see a diversity of places. As it turns out, all but a few people live the same suburban lifestyle. Government, as libertarian assumptions would predict, is the culprit.
Second, the few places in America that have a distinctive character are also exceedingly expensive. John Stossel himself admits to living in an apartment and walking to work most days. Now, I don�t know where exactly Mr. Stossel lives, but it sounds as if he lives in Manhattan, where residential space costs over $1000 a square foot (that means a two-bedroom apartment where a family of four could fit costs at least $1.5 million). If Mr. Stossel�s lifestyle, as he puts it, is less popular than the suburban lifestyle, then why does his cost so much more? He apparently never asks himself the question. Had he done so, he might have discovered that government artificially restricts the supply of Manhattan-like places but artificially increases the supply of sprawl. That�s the reason Americans �prefer� to live in the suburbs. They don�t have a choice. |
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/03/centrally-planned-suburbia.php
| Quote: |
But whatever that would be, it�s certainly not what we have in America�s sprawlier places. Take the thrilling Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance in Phoenix and it�s suburbs. Chapter 6 covers single family residential zones. You�ve got your R1-35 areas in which you need 35,000 square feet of land per dwelling unit, your R1-10 areas where you need 10,000 feet, and then separate zones for 8,000 square feet per unit; 7,000 square feet per dwelling; and 6,000 square feet per dwelling.
If you want to build a mult-family structure in those places, you can�t. If you find yourself an R2 zone you can, but it can only be a two family structure. Also your building can�t be taller than 40 feet, �There shall be a front yard having a depth of not less than 20 feet,� the year yard needs to be 25 feet, and the side yard needs to be at least 5 feet. On average, buildings can only occupy at most 50 percent of the lot. And there have to be two parking spaces per dwelling unit. And you can go so on and so forth throughout the whole thing. The point, however, is that walkable urbanism is illegal in most of the county. Not just giant skyscrapers, but anything even remotely non-sprawling. |
Also:
| Quote: |
| "anti-anti-sprawl libertarianism will exist so long as there are libertarians who hate hippies more than they hate central planning--which is to say, it will exist for a long time." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Reggie
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 11:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I hate zoning laws. They're one reason why we're such a wasteful gas guzzling nation and require so many men and women to die overseas for our fuel. When oil becomes unaffordable, they'll have to scrap zoning laws. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Reggie wrote: |
| I hate zoning laws. They're one reason why we're such a wasteful gas guzzling nation and require so many men and women to die overseas for our fuel. When oil becomes unaffordable, they'll have to scrap zoning laws. |
Alas Reggie, one city that doesn't have zoning laws, Houston, is one of the sprawl monsters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| whoops. It has other types of regulations, just not called zoning. Nevermind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm curious what people think of the living conditions here in Korea where 'zoning laws' seems to be a totally foreign concept. Most of my time has been spent in apt complexes, usually with a chicken place and a mart a few steps out my door. Once I lived in a nifty apt above a furniture shop, so it was quiet, but I've had friends who lived above hoffs and pizza places. That's taking no zoning too far, in my opinion.
Mostly, I like the Korean style of mixed neighborhoods--if it isn't extreme. I would not want noisy bars next door. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
I'm curious what people think of the living conditions here in Korea where 'zoning laws' seems to be a totally foreign concept. Most of my time has been spent in apt complexes, usually with a chicken place and a mart a few steps out my door. Once I lived in a nifty apt above a furniture shop, so it was quiet, but I've had friends who lived above hoffs and pizza places. That's taking no zoning too far, in my opinion.
Mostly, I like the Korean style of mixed neighborhoods--if it isn't extreme. I would not want noisy bars next door. |
And that's like Houston too. One reason Houston is sprawl though is because it has bizarre regulations such as parking lot requirements. So hell, a strip club can be next to a church, but both need to have parking lots. There are also strict townhouse laws and other inane crap. Bizarro world.
Anyway, yes, that is one thing I loved about Korea, and what I like about my neighborhood in DC. Mixed neighborhoods.
One reason housing costs are so high in DC is the height restrictions. DC is heavily built up, but you can't build high rises, so there is a limited supply of housing. Woo hoo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think the problem is if you have land use regulations but the quality of such regulations. As Yglesis points out, it is illegal to build walkable areas in much of Phoenix. That's completely nuts.
| Quote: |
I'm curious what people think of the living conditions here in Korea where 'zoning laws' seems to be a totally foreign concept. Most of my time has been spent in apt complexes, usually with a chicken place and a mart a few steps out my door. Once I lived in a nifty apt above a furniture shop, so it was quiet, but I've had friends who lived above hoffs and pizza places. That's taking no zoning too far, in my opinion.
Mostly, I like the Korean style of mixed neighborhoods--if it isn't extreme. I would not want noisy bars next door. |
Seoul, like Singapore, has created their own version of suburbs. In Singapore, they call it the "garden city" model. They built huge housing estates (HDB apartments, if you want to google it) far away from most places of employment but connected by mass transit. Each development has a market area with restaurants and shops in the center (or near). It really diminishes the energy of the city. Seoul built similar, but there are so many people in Seoul that it all blends together more than in Singapore.
Portland has apparently done a good job creating a livable city core. Denver and Miami have passed new city master plans that use the New Urbanist ideas. I think we see in middle class types a move away from suburbs as the ideal, but the cost of housing in city centers is too high for most. The idea way to deal with this is to create city master plans that create incentives for the construction of more walkable/livable areas.
For an example of a more sensible city plan:
Miami 21:
http://www.miami-miamibeach.com/docs/Miami.pdf |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reggie
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think the writer of this article comparing the collapse of the USSR to the coming collapse of the USA does a good job of analyzing the problems we're going to face because of the decisions of American bureaucrats to cause sprawl.
http://madconomist.com/what-if-us-collapses-soviet-collapse-lessons-every-american-needs-to-know
| Quote: |
Soviet public transportation was more or less all there was, but there was plenty of it. There were also a few private cars, but so few that gasoline rationing and shortages were mostly inconsequential. All of this public infrastructure was designed to be almost infinitely maintainable, and continued to run even as the rest of the economy collapsed.
The population of the United States is almost entirely car-dependent, and relies on markets that control oil import, refining, and distribution. They also rely on continuous public investment in road construction and repair. The cars themselves require a steady stream of imported parts, and are not designed to last very long. When these intricately interconnected systems stop functioning, much of the population will find itself stranded. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
I'm curious what people think of the living conditions here in Korea where 'zoning laws' seems to be a totally foreign concept. Most of my time has been spent in apt complexes, usually with a chicken place and a mart a few steps out my door. Once I lived in a nifty apt above a furniture shop, so it was quiet, but I've had friends who lived above hoffs and pizza places. That's taking no zoning too far, in my opinion.
Mostly, I like the Korean style of mixed neighborhoods--if it isn't extreme. I would not want noisy bars next door. |
I quite like it. I really dislike cars and driving, and in Korea I really don't need them. Mass transit is sufficient to get you into the rough area you want to be in, and from there you can almost invariably easily make your way around on foot. If we're feeling tired and don't want to cook, there's a nice little restaurant right outside.
I really do dislike suburbs, and I agree that ultimately they're caused by the government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
I'm curious what people think of the living conditions here in Korea where 'zoning laws' seems to be a totally foreign concept. Most of my time has been spent in apt complexes, usually with a chicken place and a mart a few steps out my door. Once I lived in a nifty apt above a furniture shop, so it was quiet, but I've had friends who lived above hoffs and pizza places. That's taking no zoning too far, in my opinion.
Mostly, I like the Korean style of mixed neighborhoods--if it isn't extreme. I would not want noisy bars next door. |
I quite like it. I really dislike cars and driving, and in Korea I really don't need them. Mass transit is sufficient to get you into the rough area you want to be in, and from there you can almost invariably easily make your way around on foot. If we're feeling tired and don't want to cook, there's a nice little restaurant right outside.
I really do dislike suburbs, and I agree that ultimately they're caused by the government. |
It is clearly, imo, the best way to live.
How about drunk driving? How often in some crappy suburban crapshoot do people drive to the local pub and drive home? Can't walk. A cab is expensive as all hell. The whole system is inadvertently designed to create drunk drivers. Then the government makes everybody stop drinking at the same time, creating a spike in demand for taxi's and thereby a long wait for a cab and additional incentives to drive.
I am not saying that residents of Seoul, Paris, NYC, Tokyo etc never drink and drive. But they have more options to avoid it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 1:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
As always in America, there's a philosophy bucking the prevailing trend. In this case, that philosophy would be New Urbanism.
There are examples within the wiki entry of New Urbanist experiments. Others would include Louisville, KY's Norton Commons.
A description of the Norton Commons plan from 2001
| Quote: |
Streets will join together generally in a grid pattern, enhancing traffic flow and increasing connectivity. They will also be narrower, to slow cars down and increase safety for children and others on foot.
Lot sizes will be smaller, putting houses closer together and, so goes the thinking, increasing interaction between neighbors.
Most of the buildings--but not all--will resemble those from the turn of the last century or earlier. Most will be at least two stories tall.
Front porches and balconies will be favored over rear decks.
Housing costs will encourage a multitude of incomes, ranging from $500-a-month studio apartments to $1 million single-family homes.
Instead of the garage-with-attached-house facade so common nowadays, homes here will have garages to the rear, allowing access from alleys.
In some cases, "granny flat" apartments will rest atop garages, as in the carriage houses of days gone by. In others, shopkeepers will live in apartments above their businesses.
Sidewalks will proliferate.
The conventional "separation of uses" philosophy that has governed development since World War II has been discarded. In its place will be a neighborhood orientation that places retail, dining, recreation and even offices and government services within walking distances of homes. Foot traffic trumps automobile traffic. |
I don't think the United States can afford to redesign the whole country this way. But if this takes off, it could offer an alternative to dissenters from traditional 1960s-era suburbia and sprawl. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here's a Ted Talk by Howard Kunstler on this topic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1ZeXnmDZMQ
Warrior, did you see the New Urbanist plan for Miami I posted? Cities are catching on. Unfortunately, fields of suburbs have been built that are being rendered obsolete with high energy prices. The middle class is going to migrate into cities. It isn't so much a question of retro-fitting the suburbs to walkable areas but what will become of them once they are vacant and rotting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just watched a BBC documentary about Detroit that claimed the suburbs there were heavily lobbied for by the car-makers. I don't see why you can't see suburbia as a result of what people wanted. People wanted a back-yard and a McMansion, and they didn't mind using a car. There were also things like 'white flight'. I would suppose recently they're the result of corporate capture of government.
| mises wrote: |
| It isn't so much a question of retro-fitting the suburbs to walkable areas but what will become of them once they are vacant and rotting. |
1/3 of Detroit has been reclaimed by nature apparently. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| I just watched a BBC documentary about Detroit that claimed the suburbs there were heavily lobbied for by the car-makers. I don't see why you can't see suburbia as a result of what people wanted. People wanted a back-yard and a McMansion, and they didn't mind using a car. There were also things like 'white flight'. I would suppose recently they're the result of corporate capture of government. |
Those two claims aren't mutually exclusive. Many people clearly do find appeal in surburban living. However, far fewer people could possibly engage in it without governmental intervention, which was spurred on by lobbying. Unnaturally accessible home loans, tax credits, a willingness to build road and sewage systems at far greater cost per person (apartment complexes and/or closely packed urban housing both make far more efficient usage of both). If not for governmental involvement, far fewer people would end up in the suburbs. And remember, they're living in the sururbs in part at our expense; the inefficient road systems and sewage systems were built with tax-payer money, and tax revenue is also lost on home-owner tax credits. And that doesn't even get into indirect factors like the massive increase in gas consumption due to excessive commuting raising gas prices and more quickly depleting a finite resource, or the focus on driving as opposed to walking resulting in increased obesity.
The total cost to society is quite considerable. I don't have a problem with communal resources in general, but this seems like a heavy misappropriation of them to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't see where the government interest is in creating suburbia unless it's wanted by the populace (post-WWII) or via corporate capture. The thread title blames the state but individual and corporate interests are equally, or more, at fault. 'Nice' city centers etc are a public good: we should be complaining about bad government, not government itself.
The state should now step in and plan cities, but when Republicans fight tooth and nail for any and all tax cuts you can't be surprised America has gone down this route. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
