The secret of Sunbelt growth isn't corporate friendliness, it's housing

[Jasonhouse]

Originally Posted by strongbad635

I think one of the biggest reasons certain cities become overly expensive is that the quality and character of their urban fabric is excellent. Since we have so few examples of great urbanism in America, the supply for these kinds of living arrangements doesn't come anywhere near meeting the demand, and people pay a gigantic premium for the experience of living in such places. They will even pay a premium to live in a drab suburb of one of these places, since Hayward, CA still grants someone access to San Francisco while Plano, TX does not. We could help solve this problem by building more places that resemble a San Francisco or a Manhattan, so the supply more closely matches the demand. There are numerous roadblocks in the way from zoning to MINBYs to well-intentioned but misdirected environmentalists.

Krugman talks about densification and loosening the zoning regulations. While I think there is merit in this idea, he's very low on the specifics, and absent a real focus on USEFUL densification, we could end up with more crowded versions of the same shitty sprawl we've had before. Density without urbanism doesn't work. You can't have a townhouse without a town. We need to have more serious conversations about replacing zoning codes based on use with more flexible zoning codes based on form and building good streetscapes. And we can have more conversations about transit-oriented development, or even just the over-arching concept of giving people more choices of modes of transportation to get where they need to go.

The hard part is explaining this to older people who have been programmed to instinctively oppose everything you just said.

Such people are the voting majority in the Tampa Bay area. Little wonder that an entire region of over 3 million people doesn't have a single complete urban neighborhood. Not a single one. We have some neighborhoods that are trying to 'grow up', and even those halfhearted attempts command a huge price premium, exactly because there is so much pent up demand for true urban living.

[jpdivola]

Originally Posted by tablemtn

He casually equates higher wages with higher "productivity," but it would take a few more analytical steps to get from one to the other. Higher wages may be an indicator of higher "productivity," especially if the term is being used as a proxy for GDP inputs or something.

But as an economist, he knows it's more complicated than that. It's entirely possible for one's economic productivity to rise along with a reduction in wage income. It's entirely possible for a reduction in wage income to accompany a rise in standard-of-living, if costs decrease at a greater rate.

If jobs pay more in Manhattan, it doesn't mean that those jobs must therefore be more economically-productive than jobs elsewhere which pay less.

Fair enough, he should have cited GDP per worker rather than wages to be more precise. But, do you really doubt the basic agreement which is that one average workers in NYC, Bos, SF are more productive than in your typical sunbelt city? Sure, there is the Balassa-Samuelson effect whereby workers in local non-tradeable services (i..e supermarket cashier in Nashville vs. Bos) earn more for no higher productivity. But, ultimately the higher prices levels are because workers in the tradable sectors (finance, tech, professional services, etc) in these cities are able to generate a lot more revenue than workers in the national/international focused tradable sectors of the sunbelt.

As to his bigger point, we should build more housing in the expensive coastal markets...I'm on board. But, how much can relaxing zoning really drive down housing? Seems there could only be at best a marginal impact, given the innately high costs of urban construction.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by strongbad635

I think one of the biggest reasons certain cities become overly expensive is that the quality and character of their urban fabric is excellent. Since we have so few examples of great urbanism in America, the supply for these kinds of living arrangements doesn't come anywhere near meeting the demand, and people pay a gigantic premium for the experience of living in such places. They will even pay a premium to live in a drab suburb of one of these places, since Hayward, CA still grants someone access to San Francisco while Plano, TX does not. We could help solve this problem by building more places that resemble a San Francisco or a Manhattan, so the supply more closely matches the demand. There are numerous roadblocks in the way from zoning to MINBYs to well-intentioned but misdirected environmentalists.

Krugman talks about densification and loosening the zoning regulations. While I think there is merit in this idea, he's very low on the specifics, and absent a real focus on USEFUL densification, we could end up with more crowded versions of the same shitty sprawl we've had before. Density without urbanism doesn't work. You can't have a townhouse without a town. We need to have more serious conversations about replacing zoning codes based on use with more flexible zoning codes based on form and building good streetscapes. And we can have more conversations about transit-oriented development, or even just the over-arching concept of giving people more choices of modes of transportation to get where they need to go.

This is exactly what's happening in some cities, and sort of in others.

The "sort of" variety comes with large amounts of parking, which tends to mean wide roads, and can also mean big podiums, doughnut holes, or even surface lots that diminish density. Also "sort of" can be simple lack of mass, through lack of height, setbacks, etc. And transit is a big part.

But many places are building real urbanity, with low parking ratios, high units per acre, high commercial floor area ratios (FARs) etc.

[Jasonhouse]

I think Krugman has it a little backwards on this one.

I don't think America needs cities like NYC and SFO (and others) to get bigger, become ever more dominant, and increasingly monopolize the nation's resources in various ways... I think America needs lesser cities to grow up into real competition for those greater cities.

[atlantaguy]

Originally Posted by Jasonhouse

I'm actively in the process of planning a move from Tampa up north, in large part because of sheer number of deadbeats around here. They're literally the voting majority, and will be for years to come. Lots of good stuff here. Tampa could be a far better place to live. But it isn't, there's a specific reason why it isn't, and that reason isn't going anywhere.

Wow, Jason - I'm sorry to hear this.

I keep up with Orange & Seminole Counties, and I don't get the same vibe from over there?

Good luck, and all the best to you and your family.

[hauntedheadnc]

Originally Posted by Jasonhouse

We have some neighborhoods that are trying to 'grow up', and even those halfhearted attempts command a huge price premium, exactly because there is so much pent up demand for true urban living.

Just to chime in, but that's exactly why even small places that offer a decent urban experience tend to become major regional (if not national) tourist attractions, and quickly become draws for wealth that pushes everyone else out. That's why small cities like Charleston and Asheville accumulate wealth, while in affordable metros like Charlotte, Raleigh, and Greenville, you'll find that the urban experience is the most expensive experience.

[MolsonExport]

So why are people moving to these relatively low-wage areas? Because living there is cheaper, basically because of housing.

You can buy a house in parts of Detroit, Cleveland, Gary or Flint for the price of a VCR. Just sayin'