The remarkably stupid urbanist vs anti-urbanist debate
Yes, I'm late to this party...
Like so much else in today’s world, the ‘debate’ between urbanists and anti-urbanists is remarkably stupid. I’ve previously written about the approach of the on-line urbanists in a blog post on the Planetizen website, so today will turn to the anti-urbanists. In this article, published in The Federalist, the authors make the claim that urbanists are ‘reengineering American life by discouraging homeownership.’ The headline is typically bombastic ‘New Urbanists Want to Bulldoze the Suburban American Dream’, which is certainly effective for generating clicks, but does little to advance a meaningful viewpoint.
The biggest issue I have with the anti-urbanists is the inability to sustain a coherent argument. We’re expected to believe that nobody wants to live in dense, walkable neighborhoods, yet these neighborhoods are also so expensive that normal people cannot afford to live in them. If I knew how to make memes, I would insert the goose meme ‘Why are dense, walkable neighborhoods so expensive? Why are dense neighborhoods so expensive?’ If these neighborhoods are so undesirable they should be the cheapest housing available, and yet… They claim developers are conspiring with urbanists to take away choice. Why would developers work against what customers want? If they build things people don’t want, it won’t sell. It is difficult to have a rational conversation when one side refuses to see the contradiction in their own argument.
The second point is that advocates for dense, walkable neighborhoods are trying to take away people’s choice of where they want to live. The claim is everyone will be forced to live in shoebox apartments. To make this point, the authors point to a tweet from DPZ CoDesign that read ‘We look forward to a ‘car-optional’ #Miami!’ Now, I’m no linguist, but last time I checked optional means not required. This isn’t a gotcha quote, it’s a statement that cars should not be the only choice people have to move around a place. Who’s taking away choices, those advocating for more accessibility without a car or those demanding we all live in the suburbs where cars are mandatory? Again, incoherence.
They also argue that urbanists are against the idea of homeownership, which doesn’t seem to be the case. Nobody is advocating for the abolition of homeownership, instead, it’s pushing for more housing diversity and options for people who want to rent or own. Not everyone wants, or can afford, a large lot, single family home, but would be very happy in a small home on a small lot, or a townhouse, or a condominium. Just because it’s dense doesn’t mean it has to be rental property. They then argue that it’s government policy that is creating the housing crisis. I largely agree with that, as zoning and other regulations do impose barriers. But what they refuse to acknowledge is that large lot, single family homes are literally the easiest thing to build under current regulations. What they are advocating for is what most development is, yet we still have a housing crisis. Reducing barriers to build smaller homes will make housing more affordable and give people more choice in where they live rather than reducing choice as they claim.
I won’t get into the ad hominem attacks on prominent urbanists, they have a larger platform than I do to respond. Suffice to say, if you’re attacking people not arguments, you’re losing. The takeaway from this is that the anti-urbanists are claiming they are for more development and more opportunity for people to live the American Dream as they define it. However, they overlook the fact that not everyone wants to live in a big, suburban home. They claim developers and urbanists are conspiring to force us to live in apartments while completely ignoring that basically every development policy and regulation supports the construction of big suburban homes. When Minneapolis revised their zoning code, they didn’t prohibit single family homes, instead they allowed up to triplexes in most neighborhoods. This isn’t bulldozing anything, it’s allowing developers to respond to market demand for smaller homes and more options.
I’m working on a research project looking at the use of Planned Unit Developments as a way to get around restrictive zoning (side note, if any city folks want to help out by providing data please reach out). What I’m seeing is developers are looking for more flexibility in adding density and mixing housing types. Would they be doing this if there wasn’t market demand for it? If developers wanted to build single family homes on large lots, that’s already allowed and is easy. Why go through the trouble of getting PUD approval or zoning changes if there’s not a market demand for it? There’s no developer conspiracy to force people into apartments, instead I would argue (only somewhat in jest) that it’s a government conspiracy given our policy bias towards single family homes.
It might be because I live in the exact middle of the pro- vs anti-urbanist sides that I can be so sanctimonious in criticizing them. I live in a single family home on about a ¼ acre lot. Next to me is a duplex, which is allowed in the R-1 zoning in my town every 1400 feet. Yet, across the street from me is duplexes and townhomes that are public housing, at the end of my street is a large, new townhome development. At the other end of my neighborhood is a 100 unit, public housing apartment complex. If I start Don McLean’s American Pie when I get on my bike I can be at my office door before it’s over. I can be at a grocery store, convenience store, gym, etc. even faster. I live in a suburban style home in a walkable neighborhood. Could my neighborhood add density, absolutely, I’d love to build an ADU on my property and allow 3 and 4 unit homes on the large lots, basically make my side of the street look like what’s right across from me. As far as I can tell from my home’s value and the way homes sell on my street, proximity to that scary density of duplexes and townhomes and public housing hasn’t affected my property value or home sales.
Our regulations are skewed to sprawl and auto-dependency, yet anti-urbanists continue to claim it’s the other way around. It’s incoherent and does nothing to further what should be a deep conversation about how we develop our communities. The American Dream is much more than a big house on a big lot and the ‘freedom’ of having to drive everywhere you go. It’s about the freedom to make your own choices in where and how you want to live.