Institutional Anti-Urbanism

[helsinki]

Arguably the post-financial-crisis United States is undergoing a generational shift, part of which is a different way of thinking about cities. Some people really don't like that idea at all because it upsets the status quo. One way to define that status quo is as economic growth structured around [1] new low-density housing starts, and [2] high-volume consumption (and health care, naturally, but that isn't relevant to the analysis).

Institutions that benefit from the status quo therefore have incentives to be anti-urban. These range from the plethora of companies that don't make sense in an urban environment (Home Depot / Menards, Toro, many real estate and mortgage finance firms [threatened by rental housing], home builders like Toll Brothers, civil engineering firms dependent on government road expansion, etc.) to government itself (suburban municipalities and subordinate institutions such as suburbans school systems of course, federal and state bureaucracies ranging from the FHWA to local DOT's), as well as a large number of trade associations (ie lobbying groups) like the NAHB, and public intellectuals of the big-government conservatism variety. These organizations lobby, advertise, cajole, and use their 'muscle' in favor of the current development pattern because it makes financial sense for them to do so. They depend on the current model for their existence.

Sometimes, though, there are institutions that are just plain nutty and hate some of the new ideas. Like the Wall Street Journal editorial board. It hates bike sharing. Why? I'm still not really sure:

http://live.wsj.com/video/opinion-death ... A50BDD8D4D

[twincitizen]

To hammer home your point, when I clicked on the WSJ link I was presented with a Chevron advertisement that lead with "WE NEED TO START BUILDING AGAIN"

[helsinki]

"The bike lobby is an all powerful enterprise!"

(that is an actual quote)

[mulad]

"Why Conservatives Hate Citi Bike So Much, in One Venn Diagram"

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... -bike.html

[TWA]

"Why Conservatives Hate Citi Bike So Much, in One Venn Diagram"

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... -bike.html

They had me at "vaguely french"

[nasa35]

"Why Conservatives Hate Citi Bike So Much, in One Venn Diagram"

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... -bike.html

What a lazy and patently wrong opinion. Except for the elitist Bloomberg; nonsense.

[nasa35]

"The bike lobby is an all powerful enterprise!"

(that is an actual quote)

The demands of the bike supporters does border on insane at times. Two bike lanes? One for single bikes and another for the people who are dragging kids behind them? Plus, Bikers don't want to pay a dime.

[ECtransplant]

Bikers already paid plenty to support autos

[nasa35]

Bikers already paid plenty to support autos

I'd love to see that link.

[RailBaronYarr]

Yeah if roads and streets weren't already subsidized by the general taxpayer then I suppose the anti-argument would have a case. Also throw in that space for bikes reduces maintenance cost per trip taken on the pavement due to drastically lower wear and tear (even though there may be fewer bicyclists using it per hour today it still end up costing the city less). But I'll agree that many bike facility pushers seem to be as ardent and fanatical about their transportation choice as any other person (you want a full lane for a bus!? You want to spend $1B for a light rail!? etc).

Back to the original post... I think it's spot on. We have an institutional inertia in the way things are financed, built, and consumed. It's fueled by our higher than global average desire to have people owning their own home (particularly detached structures) and the notion that the freedom and convenience cars provide is not only the best thing for an individual but also a driving factor for economic growth. This inertia is supported by parties incentivized to keep it that way (as the OP notes, NAHB, builder/transportation unions, raw material (concrete, etc) consortium, the list goes on). It's a problem that's tough to overcome when trying to get projects back to a smaller, local scale. The way things are set up, it's very difficult to create urban design that isn't very large in scale.

[nasa35]

Yeah if roads and streets weren't already subsidized by the general taxpayer then I suppose the anti-argument would have a case. Also throw in that space for bikes reduces maintenance cost per trip taken on the pavement due to drastically lower wear and tear (even though there may be fewer bicyclists using it per hour today it still end up costing the city less). But I'll agree that many bike facility pushers seem to be as ardent and fanatical about their transportation choice as any other person (you want a full lane for a bus!? You want to spend $1B for a light rail!? etc).

Back to the original post... I think it's spot on. We have an institutional inertia in the way things are financed, built, and consumed. It's fueled by our higher than global average desire to have people owning their own home (particularly detached structures) and the notion that the freedom and convenience cars provide is not only the best thing for an individual but also a driving factor for economic growth. This inertia is supported by parties incentivized to keep it that way (as the OP notes, NAHB, builder/transportation unions, raw material (concrete, etc) consortium, the list goes on). It's a problem that's tough to overcome when trying to get projects back to a smaller, local scale. The way things are set up, it's very difficult to create urban design that isn't very large in scale.

We need a bike lane. I'm fine with that. They're pushing for two.

Question:
Why are you against someone owning a home with some land on it? We all have different motivations for living and recreating. What is your solution? Having a family is why I don't live in the city, if I were just married with no children then I would live in the city. Either way I think it's a freedom issue. People choosing what lifestyle is true to them. What "makes them happy."

[FISHMANPET]

Clearly he's against any person in the history of ever owning their own home.

[Nick]

lol, cars

[nasa35]

Clearly he's against any person in the history of ever owning their own home.

what a surprise, snark. Very lazy.

[FISHMANPET]

Well it's the question you asked, soooooo.

[nasa35]

Well it's the question you asked, soooooo.

I never asked THAT question. But thanks for answering for him.

[Snelbian]

Snark is evidently lazier than strawmen.

I love freedom of choice. If only I could choose not to subsidize freeway capacity to third tier suburbs that I'll never use...

[nasa35]

Snark is evidently lazier than strawmen.

I love freedom of choice. If only I could choose not to subsidize freeway capacity to third tier suburbs that I'll never use...

If that's how we did funding, the cities would be screwed. You would have no buses, no LRT, no parks, no bike lanes.

BTW, I'm thinkikng you don't get what a strawman is since my post did not create one.

[RailBaronYarr]

Question:
Why are you against someone owning a home with some land on it? We all have different motivations for living and recreating. What is your solution? Having a family is why I don't live in the city, if I were just married with no children then I would live in the city. Either way I think it's a freedom issue. People choosing what lifestyle is true to them. What "makes them happy."

As others pointed out, strawman. I'm against subsidizing this desire (property tax relief, mortgage interest deduction, minimum down payment reductions through gov't-backed loans, etc etc). It's the government's stated policy to increase homeownership rates through these programs, which I seriously question the rationale given other strong economies with far lower homeowner rates, the inverse, and a host of other data showing what it means financially for middle income and down families who are tied to a specific house and have most of their finances tied to one capital asset. Not saying owning a home is bad, I'm saying I don't see why we subsidize it. I'm against the 'democratic process' going a little out of control in limiting what can go where. And I'm against what our anti-urban policies have done (and are doing) to our environment.

I'm glad you like living not in the city for your family. I also know plenty of families across the world who get by without a single square foot of yard to themselves and rely solely on transit to get around. I'm not saying we should cram people in against their will to this living arrangement, only that people should pay the full price to do what 'makes them happy' (in my opinion, clearly a "want" not a "mental or physical need").

[RailBaronYarr]

If that's how we did funding, the cities would be screwed. You would have no buses, no LRT, no parks, no bike lanes.

Actually, Minneapolis is basically neutral on the fiscal disparities revenue sharing, and seeing as they manage most of their parks and bike lanes, I think they'd be ok. Had we not built roads/freeways with such subsidization as Snelbian points out and half the metro population lived within the city's borders, the population density would be 29,300/sq mile. This is roughly NYC's aggregate density (though obviously much smaller). They seem to have parks, buses, subways, and even bike lanes (though hotly contested), so I think Minneapolis would be just fine.