Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The myth of revealed preference for suburbs

cityobservatory.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 143 posts

Re: The myth of revealed preference for suburbs

#11

Post by mc32 »

tfehring wrote: post #4
Isamu wrote: post #2

>If so many people live in suburbs, it must be because that’s what they prefer, right? But the evidence is to the contrary. This article makes its point from the book "Zoned Out" (2005.) Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the argument is that zoning policies make suburban sprawl, not free markets. They argue that if zoning restrictions were lifted and development responded to free market forces, higher density hous…

The article seems to support this argument: > In Boston, about 40 percent of respondents said they preferred denser, more pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods, while in Atlanta, just under 30 percent of respondents did so. In the absence of prohibitive zoning laws and other restrictions, the split between urban and exurban properties should converge to align with consumer preferences. Of course, it’s possible that consu…

Not sure about Atlanta but Boston suburban lots tend to be about half an acre, the ones outside of the 495, closer to an acre. Inside the 128 they do get smallish though. So given those sizes, I’m not surprised people are okay with “more density”.

Re: The myth of revealed preference for suburbs

#12

Post by djrogers »

Yet another article claiming that I, every member of my family, and all of my friends don’t actually want to live in our horrible susburbs.

It’s not possible that we actually love it here, that we like the clean air, wide open spaces, huge yards, non-crowded downtown, small family friendly parades, and our rodeo.

Nope, we’re all just lying to ourselves and really want to love in a cramped arcology.

Re: The myth of revealed preference for suburbs

#14

Post by tomtheelder »

Isamu wrote: post #2

>If so many people live in suburbs, it must be because that’s what they prefer, right? But the evidence is to the contrary. This article makes its point from the book "Zoned Out" (2005.) Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the argument is that zoning policies make suburban sprawl, not free markets. They argue that if zoning restrictions were lifted and development responded to free market forces, higher density hous…

> They argue that if zoning restrictions were lifted and development responded to free market forces, higher density housing would result and more people would prefer that to sprawl.

I think this is half true (that zoning regulations have caused a good amount of sprawl) but I think that other posters here are right that the free market may also create sprawl, as it will respond to preferences and cultural biases that may favor sprawl.

Really the point of zoning is to prevent that, to guide the market toward development that is in the interest of the common good. Without zoning regulations you tend to get pretty nasty tragedy of the commons effects.

Zoning codes shouldn't be overly restrictive, in fact they should be a gentle touch that doesn't interfere with competition very much, but they are often hugely beneficial and guide the market toward a solution that benefits the community at large.

Re: The myth of revealed preference for suburbs

#15

Post by zellyn »

djrogers wrote: post #12

Yet another article claiming that I, every member of my family, and all of my friends don’t actually want to live in our horrible susburbs. It’s not possible that we actually love it here, that we like the clean air, wide open spaces, huge yards, non-crowded downtown, small family friendly parades, and our rodeo. Nope, we’re all just lying to ourselves and really want to love in a cramped arcology.

It's weird. He actually called out your name in the article.

I don't think the article makes the claim you're defending against. It was all about averages.

Re: The myth of revealed preference for suburbs

#16

Post by PopsiclePete »

djrogers wrote: post #12

Yet another article claiming that I, every member of my family, and all of my friends don’t actually want to live in our horrible susburbs. It’s not possible that we actually love it here, that we like the clean air, wide open spaces, huge yards, non-crowded downtown, small family friendly parades, and our rodeo. Nope, we’re all just lying to ourselves and really want to love in a cramped arcology.

...did you and I read the same article....? Read it again. It's quite interesting.

Re: The myth of revealed preference for suburbs

#17

Post by majormajor »

liveoneggs wrote: post #9

this article is a little strange since Atlanta has something like a 20 year supply of condos in midtown/surrounding for very affordable prices. Single family in-town homes, however, are scarce.

Yeah, this article doesn't really seem in sync with the realities of where the construction is in Atlanta.

The reality seems to be more one of the market chasing changing preferences - as desire for denser areas increases relatively, a lot of inside-the-perimeter denser construction has followed.

Re: The myth of revealed preference for suburbs

#18

Post by twblalock »

Steltek wrote: post #10
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #6

In the Boston area the less dense neighborhoods are scarce so only the rich can afford them. In Atlanta the denser neighborhoods are scarce so they cost more so the rich go there. Of course if you ask people what their preference is a huge chunk of them will describe the features of whatever more upscale place that the place they currently live is compared to.

In Boston, everything is expensive so only the rich can afford them. Boston resident preferences might be explained by culture more than looking up through the glass ceiling of home prices. I think we might also be reaching a tipping point where school districts may not even hold people back. If you can afford a house anywhere, you probably also can afford to send your kids to private school.

You would expect that to be the case in the Bay Area, but even now people will spend several hundred thousand dollars more for a home in a good school district, even though that money could have been used to pay for private school.

Re: The myth of revealed preference for suburbs

#19

Post by dreish »

djrogers wrote: post #12

Yet another article claiming that I, every member of my family, and all of my friends don’t actually want to live in our horrible susburbs. It’s not possible that we actually love it here, that we like the clean air, wide open spaces, huge yards, non-crowded downtown, small family friendly parades, and our rodeo. Nope, we’re all just lying to ourselves and really want to love in a cramped arcology.

That's decidedly not what the article claims. It claims that there are people who live in the suburbs but would prefer not to, and provides evidence to support that claim. The same evidence acknowledges the existence of people who are happy living in suburbs.

Re: The myth of revealed preference for suburbs

#20

Post by exelius »

Isamu wrote: post #2

>If so many people live in suburbs, it must be because that’s what they prefer, right? But the evidence is to the contrary. This article makes its point from the book "Zoned Out" (2005.) Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the argument is that zoning policies make suburban sprawl, not free markets. They argue that if zoning restrictions were lifted and development responded to free market forces, higher density hous…

I would hold up Houston as the counterexample. It has zero zoning policies whatsoever and is one of the most sprawled cities in the country, and everyone lives in low-density single family ranch homes with huge floor plans and drives an hour to work each way.

Developers still basically just plop large single-family residential developments on random plots of land with few ways to stop them. In the absence of zoning, developers will not build denser properties because they’re riskier.

Post reply on HN