A Rorschach test for density

Take a look at this photo of Budapest from The Overhead Wire (republished with permission):

What's your gut reaction to it?

Do you see a place that is visually interesting, energizing, and socially, culturally and intellectually stimulating?

Or do you see congestion, overcrowding, noise, crime, and lack of privacy?

My guess is that you could accurately predict a person's stand on most land-use issues by his gut reaction to this picture.

This might also explain the dynamics of single-family neighborhood opposition to new density nearby.  Most single-family homeowners are highly risk-averse, which makes them anxious about dense development.  Some of these homeowners have a visceral distaste for density.  Others have an equally visceral, positive reaction to it.  You end up with one group that is anxious about home values and that dislikes density, and another group that is anxious about home values but likes density.  The first group intensely opposes the development, while the second (probably smaller) group is more ambivalent, even if it supports it on balance.  Presto!  Neighborhood opposition.

OK, nothing profound here.  I really just liked the picture.

Comments

[M1EK]

I'd put it differently. Most suburbanites have no experience at all with that picture - but they DO have experience living in the typical medium-density suburban apartment complex, and many live close enough to one now, too.

Those have all the disadvantages of density with none of the advantages. If that's your primary exposure to 'density', then it's no surprise you think there ARE no advantages, even if you still live in your single-family house down the street.

[DSK]

Personally, I'd prefer more green/public space along a river. Three good examples in generally-dense inner cities are portions of Boston, Chicago, and Tel Aviv.
I'll assume that the scene pictured predates most American urbanism, so I guess it gets a pass. But I think modern densifying innner cities can learn more from Olmsted or trends like City Beautiful than they can from Budapest.

[The Overhead Wire]

I took the picture from a hill on the other side saved as Green Space. You can see the top in this picture. http://www.flickr.com/photos/67644366@N00/1491580873/in/set-72157602281640163/

[DSK]

Ah, well... ok, then. =)

[ET]

DSK-Actually, Budapest may qualify for your list. If memory serves, this photo appears as though it was taken from a green, hilltop perch from the Pest side of the Danube. When I was there nearly a decade ago, much of the area on this side was hilly greenspace, with amazing vistas of the Buda side and of the Hungarian Parliament. Hopefully that has not changed.

From a completely biased perspective, I'm not sure how you can see anything other vibrancy and high property values. But, I wonder whether many American suburbanites images of such density will evolve as historically unlivable urban cores continue to be revitalized. I was stunned when my mother, a 60 year old widow in the hinterlands of Houston, told me she would like to move to a loft in downtown Houston--on the East side of 59 no less!

[Matt Turner]

My gut reaction to this is congestion, overcrowding, noise, crime, lack of privacy, and pollution. But I also realize that for some people that's exactly what they want. So if they want to build condo's downtown and the developers think they can be profitable doing then I say by all means build condos. My one big beef with alot of the condos downtown are the incentive packages we gave to give them a market advantage and yet the cheapest are still 250K, which most people can't afford. The City also sold some of the land for some of the condo's for under market value, again subsidizing the development.

That being said I wouldn't fight against condos at all, I just wish it was more fo a market force driving them. I'm actually for more condo's and density as I'm an outdoor enthusiast. Of course I don't spit on suburbanist either as they're just doing what makes sense for them.

I mean I'm just about to buy a house, but when given the choice of 150K for 2000 feet in the suburbs, with land (and a yard) vs. 250k for 1100, with no land the choice for me is pretty easy. Not to mention that the cost of a condo isn't just my mortgage, it's also the building association costs, so in some cases it's actually more like 300K or 400K house as far as payments go. That and I don't even own any land. Land the one true gold standard in this world as it's pretty much a constant.

[AC]

Matt:

As I'm sure you've seen from the discussion on ANC's listserve, there are plenty of other people who see congestion, etc. in that photo, who don't live downtown, and who don't work downtown but who nevertheless want to impose their preferences on downtown.

On the "subsidy" issue:

360, the Monarch, Alta Vida, the Shore, the Austonian, Spring and the Legacy are all being built on what was privately owned land. If the developers got any price break on the land, it was because the sellers struck a bad deal.

I'm not sure what other incentives you think the City gave to this latest round of development. In several cases, (Spring comes to mind) the City required the developers to make some contribution to improving the parks. It was relatively small, all things considered, but the payments were from the developer to the city and not vice versa.

The City has encouraged developers to participate in the "Great Streets" program. That raises the cost to the developer, and I believe the City has in some cases rebated some of these costs, either directly or through breaks on other fees. (If someone has a better understanding, please speak up.) Maybe also some price breaks on lane closures, but the City has usually asked for something in return. The amounts we're talking about even here are very small in relation to the size of the project -- a few hundred thousand at most, compared to $80-$100 million dollar development costs. (Bear in mind too that these condo towers already generate tax windfalls for the city.)

The story may be different with Block 21. I don't know what the City got for the lot and I certainly don't know what its market price was.

I don't spit on the suburbs either. A lot of the people who live out there simply want what SF homeowners in Bouldin Creek have -- a SF home and a little bit of yard. I think there are a lot of people, though, who'd prefer a non-suburban lifestyle, and aren't getting alternative choices. It makes more sense to me to provide the alternative choices in the inner city where land is so expensive and people are naturally willing to consume less of it. (I think there are also people who'd like to have the option of a different suburban form -- more Muellers or Plum Creeks with village centers, for example.)

[Matt Turner]

AC

Sorry i didn't mean you when I mentioned the spit. Yeah I was talking about some of hte discussions on ANC. Many people treat Suburbs as a cancer.

I was under the impression that most of the second street stuff was built on ex-city land?

I agree completely of course with the lack of choices arguement, I just wish that there where some actual affordable ones, and i realize that some of hte neighborhoods are getting in the way of that. By keeping them out of their "close" to downtown neighborhoods.

Personally, I'd love for anyone who wants to live downtown or density area to be able to live there and for those fo us who want to own something to be able to do that.

I also agree with the town center idea. I actually think this idea helps more with congestion and pollution than the dense downtown core idea.

BTW I really enjoy your blog and I learn quite a bit from it. While I don't always agree with you, you always have an informed position, and I respect that.

[M1EK]

Matt, adding to what AC already said, suburban homes receive tremendous subsidies on utilities and especially transportation costs. The subsidy equation is precisely the opposite of what you presume - the condo dwellers are paying a good chunk of YOUR bill, not the other way around.

[ET]

Nor should we forget the enormous negative externalities that are a byproduct of long commutes--and the gridlock this can create-- such as CO2 emissions. Any costs to remediate this damage--current or future--are not disproportionately born by the commuter, particularly since gas is so darn inexpensive in the US. This is essentially a subsidy that all taxpayers absorb.

[AC]

Thanks, Matt. Dissenting opinions are always welcome. ;)

[Matt Turner]

I'd like to see what you have to say about this proposal?
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/01/16/0116affordable.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=52

[The Overhead Wire]

One of the books that AC has on his list(or had) is Zoned Out by Jonathan Levine. In that book he talks about San Jose and the Single Family zoning that keeps the market from working itself out. I feel like that is a lot of what is happening in Austin. There is no room for the market to go up and organically so all the pressure focuses on downtown to develop the density that has built up a pent up demand and therefor higher cost. I definitely recommend the read to anyone who hasn't done so already.

[AC]

Matt, I've been meaning to comment on Roma's proposal but haven't found the time yet. I've written on the same general idea before:
http://austinzoning.typepad.com/austincontrarian/2006/09/what_kind_of_af_4.html

and

http://austinzoning.typepad.com/austincontrarian/2006/11/affordable_hous.html