Jane Jacobs would approve of this post, but I'm not sure we should throw out the filtering theory just yet. Even prior to our grotesque zoning hegemony the U.S. was embracing lateral, urban development driven by improvements in transportation technology. Streetcar suburbs served multiple tiers of income levels, as did the early car suburbs that followed. Collective investment in infrastructure and government backed mortgages created a sprawling nation that had/has a higher probability of surviving nuclear attack.
Now, in the context that Manhattan level density is illegal even in New York City, and we still have a robust road network and power grid, our best option--perhaps only option--is selective upzoning in low and middle income suburbs near established cities. In many respects this has been the only route towards housing development in metro Boston for the past 30 years.
Ah. I was afraid I might have left the wrong impression. I definitely am a firm believer in the importance of filtering in any housing context. Mainly, I was thinking of those who dismiss filtering as "trickle down" and who claim it doesn't happen. My reaction to them is that, not only does it definitely happen. It's basically the whole game.
Here, I'm backing off that binary a bit. It is the whole game only because the other important parts of the game are illegal. And, one can see how they would have the impression of filtering being about getting the crumbs and leftovers.
Filtering will always be important. And, as you say, those streetcar suburbs were meeting the needs of a broad set of residents. It's not about making every city Manhattan. It's about letting all forms of city grow.
Well, I was over-reacting a bit, partly because so many mechanisms of housing production are so broken. Even the filtering in lower quality urban areas is strangled by zoning codes--at least here in New England. Though it seems like places like Ohio and Arizona low income people pay an extra "land tax" because of bad policy. Did you ever expect Phoenix to turn into a closed access city?
Here's a fun fact, which ties into a comment you made in your post about how a wealthy, exclusionary neighborhood in a high density city could be converted to lower income housing. This happened in Boston in Beacon Hill and the Back Bay from the 1960's through the 1990's when large, single family row houses that had been built in the 19th century were subdivided into condos and apartments. Many people thought it was crazy to invest in what was obviously a dying city, but when Boston roared back in the past few decades the value of those properties went up--in fact, if you want to check on the price of a condo in those neighborhoods prepare to have your jaw dropped.
Now, Trump is trying to kill Boston, so who knows what will happen.
Just curious about your methodology: how do you know you didn’t suffer similar composition effects to that recent paper that tried to claim no scarcity effect from failing to build?
IE, that paper completely ignored that people might *move* out of an expensive area. It seems to me that the “price/income ratio” metric could suffer a similar composition effect.
Jane Jacobs would approve of this post, but I'm not sure we should throw out the filtering theory just yet. Even prior to our grotesque zoning hegemony the U.S. was embracing lateral, urban development driven by improvements in transportation technology. Streetcar suburbs served multiple tiers of income levels, as did the early car suburbs that followed. Collective investment in infrastructure and government backed mortgages created a sprawling nation that had/has a higher probability of surviving nuclear attack.
Now, in the context that Manhattan level density is illegal even in New York City, and we still have a robust road network and power grid, our best option--perhaps only option--is selective upzoning in low and middle income suburbs near established cities. In many respects this has been the only route towards housing development in metro Boston for the past 30 years.
Ah. I was afraid I might have left the wrong impression. I definitely am a firm believer in the importance of filtering in any housing context. Mainly, I was thinking of those who dismiss filtering as "trickle down" and who claim it doesn't happen. My reaction to them is that, not only does it definitely happen. It's basically the whole game.
Here, I'm backing off that binary a bit. It is the whole game only because the other important parts of the game are illegal. And, one can see how they would have the impression of filtering being about getting the crumbs and leftovers.
Filtering will always be important. And, as you say, those streetcar suburbs were meeting the needs of a broad set of residents. It's not about making every city Manhattan. It's about letting all forms of city grow.
Well, I was over-reacting a bit, partly because so many mechanisms of housing production are so broken. Even the filtering in lower quality urban areas is strangled by zoning codes--at least here in New England. Though it seems like places like Ohio and Arizona low income people pay an extra "land tax" because of bad policy. Did you ever expect Phoenix to turn into a closed access city?
Here's a fun fact, which ties into a comment you made in your post about how a wealthy, exclusionary neighborhood in a high density city could be converted to lower income housing. This happened in Boston in Beacon Hill and the Back Bay from the 1960's through the 1990's when large, single family row houses that had been built in the 19th century were subdivided into condos and apartments. Many people thought it was crazy to invest in what was obviously a dying city, but when Boston roared back in the past few decades the value of those properties went up--in fact, if you want to check on the price of a condo in those neighborhoods prepare to have your jaw dropped.
Now, Trump is trying to kill Boston, so who knows what will happen.
Just curious about your methodology: how do you know you didn’t suffer similar composition effects to that recent paper that tried to claim no scarcity effect from failing to build?
IE, that paper completely ignored that people might *move* out of an expensive area. It seems to me that the “price/income ratio” metric could suffer a similar composition effect.
I'm not sure I understand your question.