The myth of revealed preference for suburbs • Hacker News Board

Re: The myth of revealed preference for suburbs

#61

Post by graeme » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 12:22 AM UTC

so33 wrote: post #46

graeme wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just did a cursory search, and houston has mandatory parking minimums. Those are one of the most sprawl policies you can find. It also mandates setbacks from the street, wide roads, and long blocks. Overall Houston does a lot of stuff right! But, I think they have still baked sprawl into their system. From what I can see, my dense Montreal neighbourbood would be illegal in Houston. (It's illegal almost everywhere i…

The aerial picture of downtown Houston with all its parking lots is a favorite to show the deleterious effects of mandatory parking minimums: http://www.cdandrews.com/2014/09/surface-parking-lot-design-...

In the same blog I linked (different article I think) they actually noted that the downtown has no mandatory minimums, but it needs lots of lots because there are mandatory minimums elsewhere and everyone has cars as a result.

Re: The myth of revealed preference for suburbs

#62

Post by graeme » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 12:25 AM UTC

smcameron wrote: post #53

graeme wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I commented just before you, so you probably didn't see it. But Houston mandates parking minumum, setbacks of houses, very wide roads, and long blocks. Those are all pro-sprawl. My dense, walkable neighbourhood in Montreal would be illegal in Houston. https://marketurbanism.com/2016/09/19/how-houston-regulates-...

Also, nobody wants to walk in Houston. AC is required to survive there.

I've been to Cuba. There are old cities in the Spanish style, and new ones (1950s) in the american style.

In the spanish cities you can walk comfortably. The buildings are tall enough and near enough to the sidewalk that you can always find shade. And everyone walks on the shaded side of the street.

In the american cities the buildings are set back, and there is no shade. People still walk (they're poor), but there are a lot more horse carriages that pass by to offer people lifts. Walking isn't so feasible.

Re: The myth of revealed preference for suburbs

#63

Post by philwelch » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 12:55 AM UTC

VLM wrote: post #55

philwelch wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, so tell me why housing prices in high-density cities are significantly higher than in suburbs. Isn't that a revealed preference?

Massive demographic and socioeconomic class differences. I worked in a city where only the very richest people could live in the very expensive high-density areas. A tiny condo being perhaps four times the cost of my very large luxurious suburban house, maybe ten times the cost of a cheap suburban house. They had experimented generations ago with high-density poor people housing; that was not exactly paradise for any…

Housing projects are another question altogether, since people who live in subsidized housing don't really have the same choice and don't participate in the market the same way.

Let me ask you this--why don't the very richest people in your city live in very expensive suburbs instead of very expensive high-density areas?

Re: The myth of revealed preference for suburbs

#64

Post by imaoreo » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 1:29 AM UTC

ars wrote: post #25

I suspect that the people wanting "an urban zone", want one without all the drawbacks. Once you include the drawbacks that can not be removed, you will find they are living exactly where they want to live. The kind of analysis in this report is one of those "lying with statistics" things, because I don't think it's measuring what the authors think it's measuring.

care to explain what those drawbacks are?

Re: The myth of revealed preference for suburbs

#65

Post by Finnucane » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 1:33 AM UTC

galago wrote: post #36

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 the Boston area the less dense neighborhoods are scarce so only the rich can afford them. I live in the Boston area and that doesn't sound right. I guess you could say Brookline is low density and rich. But you have to consider the Back Bay, Beacon Hill, South End (north of Mass. Ave)--really the densest areas are the most expensive. Places like Chelsea, Roxbury, are cheaper and lower in density. Proximity to jobs…

Right now, a house in Revere or Everett probably goes for about half of what a condo in Somerville or Cambridge would cost. So it is very location dependent. And of course, that was true in Somerville twenty or thirty years ago. The red line extension, the end of rent control in Cambridge, and the conversion of a lot of rental apartments into condos during the housing bubble changed Somerville a lot.

Re: The myth of revealed preference for suburbs

#66

Post by pikma » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 1:34 AM UTC

rhapsodic wrote: post #47

For entertainment, I like cities better than suburbs. Hands down. At home, I like parking in a driveway better than parking on the street. At home, I like parking in a garage better than parking in a driveway or alley. At home, I like parking in an attached garage better than parking in a detached one. I like living in my own house better than an apartment. I like living in a free-standing house better than a duplex…

It is because the suburban lifestyle has some hidden costs, and in the US those costs tend to be paid equally by everyone. For example, air pollution (both local and greenhouse gases), and road maintenance costs.

Re: The myth of revealed preference for suburbs

#67

Post by oftenwrong » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 1:42 AM UTC

exelius wrote: post #20

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,…

Houston doesn't have zoning, but it does have development regulations that accomplish what zoning codes accomplish in other US cities.

https://www.houstontx.gov/planning/DevelopRegs/

Re: The myth of revealed preference for suburbs

#68

Post by JonathonW » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 1:44 AM UTC

rhapsodic wrote: post #47

For entertainment, I like cities better than suburbs. Hands down. At home, I like parking in a driveway better than parking on the street. At home, I like parking in a garage better than parking in a driveway or alley. At home, I like parking in an attached garage better than parking in a detached one. I like living in my own house better than an apartment. I like living in a free-standing house better than a duplex…

Exactly this for me, too.

There's also an aspect of affordability to why I ended up in the suburbs (in downtown or midtown Nashville, I'd be in a one-bedroom or studio condo for what I paid for my three-bedroom house), but it's mostly because I like living in my own standalone house. I have a yard; I have a garage and a driveway; I don't have upstairs neighbors rolling bowling balls around on their floor at 2 in the morning.

Re: The myth of revealed preference for suburbs

#69

Post by xkcd-sucks » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 1:54 AM UTC

rhapsodic wrote: post #47

For entertainment, I like cities better than suburbs. Hands down. At home, I like parking in a driveway better than parking on the street. At home, I like parking in a garage better than parking in a driveway or alley. At home, I like parking in an attached garage better than parking in a detached one. I like living in my own house better than an apartment. I like living in a free-standing house better than a duplex…

> I don't know why so many city dwellers seem to obsess over the fact that there are many people who simply prefer living in the suburbs.

Tribalism and a desire to see the whole world remade to their own fancy, just like everything else people have strong opinions about

Re: The myth of revealed preference for suburbs

#70

Post by dsfyu404ed » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 1:55 AM UTC

galago wrote: post #36

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 the Boston area the less dense neighborhoods are scarce so only the rich can afford them. I live in the Boston area and that doesn't sound right. I guess you could say Brookline is low density and rich. But you have to consider the Back Bay, Beacon Hill, South End (north of Mass. Ave)--really the densest areas are the most expensive. Places like Chelsea, Roxbury, are cheaper and lower in density. Proximity to jobs…

I'm thinking in terms of everything inside I-95 as being Boston area. e.g Lexington (less dense and rich) vs Waltham (still not cheap but much cheaper and more dense than Lexington).