I Believe that Planners Are the Future
Murph has a great post about the future of the single-family detached house monoculture in light of recent economic problems. “Quality of life” and “diverse neighborhoods” (in the A2 sense of “low density” and “low density” respectively) have been the norm only for a few decades and may start to disappear as, he writes, “People will be quietly moving in with each other not only for help paying the mortgage, but for help paying the heating bills. Houses everywhere will be ‘over-occupied’, with individuals or families doubling up for the sake of finances.”
It can’t really be said to be a positive thing when people who would rather own and live in single-family detached houses are forced by economic circumstances to rent or live with larger groups. But at least it may bring on the reform of zoning laws and anti-dense development attitudes that penalize renters, students and people in nontraditional living situations.
“Great post”? Pssh. Sometimes I think that guy talks just to hear his own voice…
posted by Murph on March 19th, 2008 at 10:48 amI always figured both economic and environmental concerns would eventually force a change in “Western industrial” living patterns, most of which have only been the “norm” for a couple of centuries if that. Living in a multi-room house with two to several roommates, I’m perfectly fine with that. It’s nice to see posts like this one, too, that look at some of the fundamental concerns behind a lot of the arguments that take place here. Nice job, the pair of you.
posted by Lazaro on March 19th, 2008 at 1:29 pmThanks, Lazaro. I’m not gleeful about this the way that some people are gleeful about the demise of Western consumption. (A lot of these people like to mock passportless Americans and probably are not gleeful about the idea that their air travel may have to be severely curtailed.) But I do admit to some schadenfreude at the idea that single-family detached houses may no longer be subsidized (and alternatives officially discouraged) in the future.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on March 19th, 2008 at 1:41 pmAAIO - sorry, what’s “schadenfeude”? How are single family houses subsidized?
posted by me on March 19th, 2008 at 8:40 pmHomeownership has long been promoted by government as a desirable goal through favorable tax policies and zoning laws that forbid anything other than single-family houses. Really, read Murph’s post. This is a good start too. Our laws certainly favor car ownership as well, but not to the point where owning a car is considered morally superior to not owning one.
Now it looks like we’re poised for massive government price supports of the housing market, as well. I sound like a broken record, but everyone should read Dean Baker on this.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on March 19th, 2008 at 9:06 pmI think there are some good reasons for private home ownership that transcend the “quality of life” and “diverse neighborhoods” attitudes. The biggest one that comes to mind is avoiding the whole property-owning social class who owns a majority of the land and rents it out to the lower social class. That doesn’t bode well for having a strong middle-class. And who really wants to be at the mercy of a landlore/condo association. Not me.
posted by Tit for Tat on March 20th, 2008 at 8:51 amDead horse #12
Schadenfreude is a planners word.
I know several planners and although I love and respect them, they are convinced that the way to future prosperity, happiness and a everyone gets a pony will come from the the latest flavor of urban planning. They learned that at some seminar, workshop, classroom or read it in a book. Newly minted planners particularly have that zeal, a Joan of Arc look in their eyes that they are the chosen ones to bring us to the promised land.
How is having your future decided by overeducated, ivory tower academics playing with maps and statistics any different than temporary bureaucrats and politicians?
No one person, ethic or camp has the answers. But planners will be the first people to tell you that they do… in a nice academic way of course.
posted by mucho gusto (surreal oldie) on March 20th, 2008 at 9:08 am“I think there are some good reasons for private home ownership”
That’s a slightly different issue from the promotion of single-family detached homes; you can, for example, own a home that shares walls with neighbors, or rent one that doesn’t.
“The biggest one that comes to mind is avoiding the whole property-owning social class who owns a majority of the land and rents it out to the lower social class. That doesn’t bode well for having a strong middle-class.”
It doesn’t? Why not? You can’t be middle-class and rent? (What does that make you if you rent and put your savings in funds that invest in real estate?)
A subsidy that’s available only for homeowners is available only to people that can afford to buy a home in the first place. I’m finding it hard to accept that such a subsidy *reduces* income inequality.
“And who really wants to be at the mercy of a landlore/condo association. Not me.”
Sure. I think that’s a fine reason to own. And it sounds like that would still hold true for you regardless of zoning or tax changes.
posted by Bruce Fields on March 20th, 2008 at 9:41 amI kind of agree with m.g., planners will have their ideas,and all trends are pointing to increase density in the future. It will probably happen via reactive legislation at the local level, or maybe higher. There is a lot of trouble with having people move in with each other in unregulated ways. For example,I was taught in school, that as people crowd, it is much easier to transmit diseases. A lot of old problems will come back, and while some of this seems inconceivable, these are basic principles to humans living together. With the unwinding of the current standard of living, these will have to be addressed.
posted by juliem on March 20th, 2008 at 10:27 amI think the U.S. has more square feet of housing per person today than any society has ever had in all of human history. Even if every restriction on unrelated occupancy was repealed, I can’t see that we’d return to the kind of crowding that drove epidemics a century ago.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on March 20th, 2008 at 10:51 amOne in nine residences in the united states is currently vacant.
posted by juliem on March 20th, 2008 at 11:44 amMany were built in unsustainable suburbs,poorly constructed, and are nowhere near their current worth on paper. Many more will go into foreclosure, as the prices continue to go down. Given the coming scarcity of energy, the credit crunch, and inflation the trend is for people to live together more.
It is fact, the more people get closer, the more easily disease can spread.
Just because you can’t imagine it, does not mean that isn’t true.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/subprime
posted by Anonymous on March 20th, 2008 at 1:12 pmBut abandoning ridiculous MacMansion tracts outside of Chelsea for smaller homes closer to town (Lower Burns Park, anyone?) is hardly going to be the beginning of the cholera outbreaks. There are some extremist positions being taken here.
posted by Clem on March 20th, 2008 at 2:30 pm| Why not? You can’t be middle-class and rent? (What does that make you if you rent and
| put your savings in funds that invest in real estate?
That isn’t the meaning I intended. Since we’re on the topic of government subsidy, I am writing in macro perspective. Obviously this doesn’t apply to urbanites who rent, retired folks who drive from campground to campground in their motor home, or other people outside the norm.
In any of the historical instances where a higher social class owned a majority of the land and rented it to the lower classes, did the middle class grow? In every case I can think of it shrank, and not because middle-class people were joining the higher class ranks. Further, I see no reason why that wouldn’t happen here.
| A subsidy that’s available only for homeowners is available only to people that can afford
| to buy a home in the first place.
Not necessarily. There are plenty of people who once bought their home but could never hope to buy it again if they needed to, let alone pay the taxes had the taxes not been capped.
posted by Tit for Tat on March 20th, 2008 at 3:24 pmSchadenfreude - taking pleasure from the pain/suffering of others. There’s a song that does a pretty good job of defining it in the musical Avenue Q.
posted by Matthew on March 20th, 2008 at 4:19 pmYa know whose overeducated ideas really cheese me off — doctors! Those jerks think because they went to school for 7 years and did a clinical residency they know what’s best for my body. Well, let me tell you sumthin — homespun wisdom is where it’s at. I don’t need some smartypants college boy telling me about his latest “germ theory” of disease when we all know disease is spread by frat boys’ sweaty socks in their basement. A close second is research doctors — yeah, let me hear your ivory tower baloney about the unrestrained reproduction of microscopic cells one more time, egghead, when we all know density causes cancer. If you don’t believe me, think back to the time I once got stoned while riding a bus on the way from my house in Ypsi to a protest in DC. Did I mention the new computer software the city uses? Pure utopian nonsense; I can’t even believe how much corruption there is at city hall — it makes me so angry I used a four-syllable word. Those zealots, with that Charlemagne look in their eyes (I know what he looked like just about as well as I do Joan of Arc) are ready to plunder and dominate the rest of the continent. Don’t get me started on books — I get all my ideas about the world over beer at Ann Arbor pubs — but NOT Leopold Brothers’.
posted by Errata on March 20th, 2008 at 7:38 pmDear Erotica,
Sarcasm is a weapon of the weak and unintelligent. Grab your weapons!
posted by mucho gusto (surreal oldie) on March 20th, 2008 at 9:36 pmDue to the season and poor local economy a lot of “good deals” on rentals are on offer but mostly they only run into August. The landlord will sweetly coo something like “I’ll need a tenant for next year too so if you pay on time and don’t cause trouble, I’ll give you a good renewal!” Don’t bet on it. About the last week in July the new offer will arrive with a huge rent increase, right back to the usual A2 extortion level, and its pay or pack. The unfortunate fact is that a few big outfits like McKinley dominate the market and they would rather have empty units than reduce rents.
posted by herb on March 21st, 2008 at 10:58 amLook, when people live in crowded conditions, things happen. We still have running water, sewage, all that stuff, but still, the exposure to sick people, and their chances of passing that on just grow. Just an example of things you don’t really think that much about the with the current way we live, just like the way we lives now encourages obesity. Moving from an McMansion to a smaller house in town seems like a good idea, unless you owe more on that house than you can sell it for. There are a lot of unexpected issues when you lifestyle changes.
posted by juliem on March 21st, 2008 at 1:55 pmYou’re right juliem, folks in dense places are all sick. Just look at NY City, Chicago, all sick.
posted by LauraB on March 21st, 2008 at 4:27 pm“dense” “crowded”.
By the way, I’ve been renting from Michigan Realty for the past three years, and my rent has never been raised. They kick ass.
posted by ex-suburbanite on March 21st, 2008 at 8:12 pmwell, look it up folks. The discussion was for overcrowded, overoccupied housing.
posted by juliem on March 21st, 2008 at 8:40 pmplanners will be the first people to tell you that they [have the answers]… in a nice academic way of course.
Once again, MG, you take such pride in differing from me when we’re saying exactly the same thing!
A century ago, Planners took juliem’s argument on crowding leading to contagion, and used them to pass laws against high-occupancy and subsidies to encourage the middle class to stop renting and start owning. The predomination of detached single-family homes is by no means a natural occurance, but the result of policies set up by the Planners you so vocally despise.
I’m glad to hear that you, once again, so vigorously agree with me - the institutions created by Planners are not the right thing for us, and we need to exercise some healthy skepticism towards those institutions, and the “experts” who say that they are the best thing for us. (You should have a talk with juliem - she seems solidly in the sway of the “expert” Planners who preach the wisdom of detached, single-family, owner-occupied housing.)
posted by Murph on March 21st, 2008 at 9:39 pmNo, Murph, not particularly. I think detached, single-family, owner-occupied housing is fine, and a nice apartment is just swell too.
posted by juliem on March 22nd, 2008 at 2:51 amI once worked with a doctor from Russia or some slavic country-it’s been a long time now- who was training here in the US, and we were working on a patient with TB. He remarked, almost to himself, that as people get poorer, they tend to move in together to save money and thus TB was more likely to spread, and harder to eradicate. Very common problem in his part of the world.
Nobody can imagine such a difficulty here. It is the USofA after all.
It is just a general rule.
And that is just one problem with overcrowding.
I have been disappointed that Ann Arbor doesn’t allow more density, through apartments in people houses, which is a nice compromise to lots of apartment buildings. I grew up in a community back East with both. It has appeal, and it is nice multigenerationally. Older folks can rent an apartment close to the kids when the house becomes too much and younger people can strike out on their own and still be in the community. Sure you can do that here, but not likely in the 6 or 7 blocks near you.
Ann Arbor will I imagine, become much more dense and likely overcrowded. There are some homes now on the southeast side that look pretty crowded now. It is unsafe lots of other ways to have too many people in space made for less.
I think the Census definition of crowded is 1.01 or more persons per room.
Group housing (fraternities, sororities, dorms, hotels, military barracks, prisons) are excluded from that definition. I suppose the assumption is that those places are built and regulated in such a way as to protect public health, and indeed, I don’t think we see many cases of TB coming out of (say) South Quad, or even the overcrowded county jail.
Outside of group housing, 5.7% of U.S. households were “crowded” in 2000 (more than 1 person per room), and 2.7% were “severely crowded” (more than 1.5 persons per room). For Michigan, the corresponding numbers were 3.0% and 1.0%. For Ann Arbor, it’s 2.2% and 1.4%. In other words, 97.8% of Ann Arbor households are below the “crowded” level.
This has changed a lot over time, especially in the South. In 1940, 41% of Alabama’s households were crowded, versus 2.9% today. I’m guessing that Russia today looks like Alabama in 1940, or perhaps much worse, enough so that it’s a noticeable public health issue.
The 2000 Census showed Ann Arbor with 101,635 people in housing units, and those units, collectively, had 232,883 rooms. That’s more than 2.2 rooms per person. It would take an economic cataclysm to make crowding a significant problem in Ann Arbor.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on March 22nd, 2008 at 8:03 amWhat MG fears is that stupid politicians get oversold on the planning flavor of the month only to have a new flavor and a new bunch of planners come along 5-10 years later after finding out that the last flavor wasn’t so sweet. We’ve witnessed first hand how having a Master Plan means nothing when politicians and bureaucrats are swayed by the clamor of the loud and the power of money.
The clamor of the loud tell us that “we need to fix these things”, “make my life better, right now”,” I want a pony but don’t give my neighbor one because it costs too much!” They whine about the terrible problem and demand a solution. Bureaucrats who want the noise to stop, go looking for a solution to the noise problem and not the actual problem.
Then along come the planners who tell them they have the solution that will please their political masters. A solution to a problem that exists only in the mouths of the loud and those with the power of money to “solve” it.
The power of money tells us that they can fix the problem if only the rules were different. So the bureaucrats change because power and money is their language. After rules are changed and the plan is in place we find out that the solution is worse that the problem. Then the loud, then the new flavor, then the power and money, then…
Remember when “making a downtown” like Mains St. USA, was the urban plan du jour touted by politicians to solve middle class flight and urban decay and all it did was create sprawl and empty fake downtowns? Or building insta-neighborhoods of where people would rush to live? How about a big aquarium or an Auto World to solve urban problems? What did we learn from Las Vegas about déclassé old neighborhoods? How about trolleys and People Movers? Robert Moses’ expressway that destroyed NYC neighborhoods? Have not these things, ideas or design ethics received popular support by planners, politicians and capitalists as ways to solve our “problems”? I’m sure history is rife with similar missteps that cost human effort, money and decades to do and undo instead of following evolutionary, organic and sustainable paths to social growth.
I believe in social, cultural (and biological) evolution, gradual change that allow for mistakes and dead ends to die without impeding success and positive change. I don’t care for wide swings of the pendulum that leave us in a constant state of overreaction, always having to correct or undo poorly executed or shameless intentions. You can’t rush into these things, you know. And that’s what we’re doing here in Ann Arbor.
Ann Arbor isn’t perfect but it’s better by many magnitudes than most places its size in similar climates and economic environments. Whatever problems we have will not be solved by overreaction, a magic bullet or the flavor of the month. What’s here seems to be working for a large majority of people including students, working people, middle class, retirees and our share of the wealthy. Which always brings me back to one of my favorite questions, that anyone has yet to answer. What are the compelling reasons for unsustainable growth that will forever change the face and character of Ann Arbor? Why mess with success?
posted by mucho gusto (surreal oldie) on March 22nd, 2008 at 10:41 amLauraB Don’t understand your comment. I have friends and family in both Chicago and New york and they are not sick. Ann arbor has also built their fair share of McMansions. The A2 rich seem to be hogging all the resources. On the inside the homes may be beautiful , but from the outside, it just shows that they are gluttens pretty much taking from the poor and giving to the rich. However, they all drink the same contaminated polluted waters from the Huron
posted by sherry on March 22nd, 2008 at 11:15 amYes, Mucho: this is indeed the best of all possible Ann Arbors.
As I remember, Robert Moses did not have a broad coalition of support when it came to building that expressway. He was the decider. The people mover was similarly unilateral decision: Coleman Young found out that other some other cities were getting one and shamed Washington into including Detroit. That it was intended to be part of a larger light rail system is a myth (albeit a persistent one). The trolleys were quite effective, it’s a shame they no longer operate. But the rails are still mostly intact and, who knows, maybe one day they’ll be useful to Detroit again.
I guess the term ‘unsustainable growth’ is relative, but I wonder exactly what you’re referring to? Most city planner-ish people I’ve talked to recently are gun-ho on getting express train service from Detroit to Ann Arbor. A radical overreaction, perhaps; but believe it or not, the plan has a broad coalition of support
posted by Elise on March 22nd, 2008 at 3:28 pmI’m sure the concrete companies and labor unions loved Mr Moses plan. I do not doubt because of economic pressure there was more than one politician going along with his plan.
Yeah, Unsustainable growth is a very relative term. I’ve lived and worked through several construction boom and busts in Ann Arbor. I believe that the willingness of politicians to favor the loud and the powerful then disregard Master Plans, blatantly find ways around local law and the will of residents and local taxpayers is a cause of unsustainable growth. Deregulation, loss of home rule and greed are on the list. I always wondered that if we build everything today, what will young people, who decide to learn a trade, do for work in the coming decades?
If there was an express train from A2 to Detroit would it be so A2 residents would go to work in Detroit on it then suffer the extreme unreliability of SMART? I think that a train of that sort would be People Mover on a larger scale. I wouldn’t expect that A2 residents would use it to go to dinner in Greektown. Or would Detroit residents use it to come to work and play in A2? I think that neither of those scenarios is plausible. I believe that politicians/boosters think that a hi speed train is a good thing as long as it serves their community and brings jobs, regardless of how much it costs or how many people use it.
posted by mucho gusto (surreal oldie) on March 22nd, 2008 at 10:31 pmThat’s quite an assertion that people wouldn’t use a high-speed train to Detroit. I for one would love to be able to go to a show or a club in Detroit and NOT have to drive an hour. Especially because I just spent $3.50 a gallon yesterday to fill up my car. Actually, if there was a high-speed train from Detroit to Ann Arbor, I might consider commuting to Ann Arbor. The rent is high enough here and low enough there that it may actually be worth it. Plus, I love Detroit.
But I agree, it would be nice to figure out how many people think they would use it in Detroit and Ann Arbor BEFORE spending all of the money that the state really doesn’t have.
posted by ex-suburbanite on March 23rd, 2008 at 10:10 amSo nobody believes “if you build it, they will come?”
posted by juliem on March 23rd, 2008 at 11:54 amWould mucho gusto please explain the expression “loss of home rule”? Each city and township in Michigan controls its own planning and zoning processes, and most of those McMansions are built OUTSIDE the city, in places like Ann Arbor, Scio, Superior and York Townships. The townships are what has created sprawl, not the cities. If we had regional control over planning and zoning, perhaps we could stop the unsustainable growth. Right now it is being halted by the economy - but you can bet it will get fired up again in a few years.
posted by from a REAL oldie on March 23rd, 2008 at 12:11 pmOne of the best arguments I have heard for having rail service came from the mayor. He was speaking at Borders headquarters just a few weeks ago. I forget the number but it was like 68,000 people who drive in to work in Ann Arbor everyday.
Every time the DDA or the UM has to build parking, it averages something like $32,000 per space and the UM in particular is adding a lot of jobs. Especially at the Hospital. I think they want the east/west rail to stop at the base of the hospital, the parking lot off Fuller. This is why the UM will buy a ticket for any of their employees who want to ride the train.
He asked what we thought people would do when gas hits $5 per gallon. Seems like that might be sooner than we would have thought just a few years ago.
A train to the airport would be grand, like a modern city!
posted by LauraB on March 23rd, 2008 at 6:21 pmI get that you hate sprawl, Mucho, I really really do. But how can you, on one hand, condemn the shoddy McMansions and condos that blight our landscape, and on the other deride city planners?
I would argue that sprawl is a perfect example of evolution. Buildings, strip malls, roads went in ad hoc whenever the demand was there. As you put it yourself, development followed the boom and bust nature of our economy. We came to accept ugliness as status quo because we had no plan for something more sustainable.
As for the express rail, I suppose you could call it a People Mover on a Much Larger Scale, which isn’t a bad thing. The People Mover itself is really efficient. It’s a joke because it covers one square mile, but it’ll get you to your destination in a jiffy
. As LauraB and ex-suburbanite noted, the demand is there; the cost isn’t prohibitive; and the Wayne County Commissioner’s office is working with Norfolk Southern to make sure the rails are freed up for speedy service. It’s really going to happen, Mucho. Just repeat after me: Yes we can!
posted by Elise on March 23rd, 2008 at 9:23 pmI’m skeptical of Murph’s predictions. There are many adjustments people can make before joining a ‘back to the tenements’ movement. And although the cost of heating is going up, you may have noticed that the cost of houses is falling pretty rapidly right now.
These kinds of arguments seem to follow the form of ‘How the energy crisis will force people to live the way I’ve always thought they should’. Kunstler is particularly silly–in his view, the ‘Long Emergency’ will smite Walmart and KFC and strip-malls and, well, basically everything that offends the aesthetic tastes of progressives.
BTW, here’s a problem that occurred to me the other day and I’ve not seen discussed anywhere. If people start buying and driving plug-in hybrids…where are city dwellers who don’t have driveways or garages going to plug them in at night? Just wondering if anybody’s worrying about that…
posted by mw on March 24th, 2008 at 11:29 am“If people start buying and driving plug-in hybrids…where are city dwellers who don’t have driveways or garages going to plug them in at night?”
They’ll just buy an adapter at Radio Shack and plug into their cigarette lighters.
posted by Parking Structure Dude! on March 24th, 2008 at 11:59 amYeah, my god, capitalism will NEVER figure out a solution for a huge problem like that.
posted by Errata on March 24th, 2008 at 12:05 pm“Yeah, my god, capitalism will NEVER figure out a solution for a huge problem like that.”
Well, there are obvious solutions — plug-in recharging stations that take credit cards along the streets next to every parking space. But that strikes me as a pretty major infrastructure investment — and not one that markets can address without a lot of involvement from city governments.
Before that happens, it’s going to be difficult for non-homeowners to benefit from plug-in electric vehicles. Maybe ubiquitous curb-side recharging will pop-up faster than plug-in hybrid cars, but I doubt it. And it’s not like plug-in hybrids are some technology for the distant future — a plug-in Prius is supposedly due next year.
posted by mw on March 24th, 2008 at 1:52 pmInstallation of charging units in parking garages and lots so cars can charge during the day while you’re at work or a similar alternative to the gas station. That didn’t seem so tough.
posted by Errata on March 24th, 2008 at 2:10 pmBut wait, isn’t electricity from coal? Oh wait, that’s global warming concerns, not peak oil concerns. Or is it the money we’re worried about? It’ll cost less, being a new take on technology? Oh wait, not true. How much energy would all those cars need, recharging through the work day?
posted by juliem on March 24th, 2008 at 3:11 pmHmm, if you just lived close enough to walk…
Installation of charging units in parking garages and lots so cars can charge during the day while you’re at work or a similar alternative to the gas station. That didn’t seem so tough.
But retrofitting parking garages and parking lots is a big investment, too. And we really want to be recharging electric cars at night, not during the day:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/09/excess_nightime.php
But wait, isn’t electricity from coal?
Doesn’t have to be (ask the French).
How much energy would all those cars need, recharging through the work day? Hmm, if you just lived close enough to walk…
Well, I do heartily recommend telecommuting — my zero mile, zero minute commute is ideal for cost, free-time, and environmental impact.
But for those who do have to travel, I believe electric cars would use the same energy sources as electric public transit systems.
posted by mw on March 24th, 2008 at 3:50 pmWhere does the French electricity come from?
Nuclear power.
So, the deal is that electricity is not clean unless it comes from wind or solar. In AA, you can forget solar.
posted by Living Large on March 30th, 2008 at 11:24 am