I'm only half joking.  From the Cleveland WHD thread, referring to a development presentation by RTA...

 

One of the first takes from the audience, "TOO MUCH DENSITY."  Jesus...

 

I find myself raising this in several threads, so I thought I'd put it somewhere.  We often talk about lines of thinking that oppose some of the things we tend to support on this forum.  Usually it's specific projects.  But to what extent is there opposition out there to the very concept of urban density?  And isn't that kind of a gateway issue to the types of development we like to see?  I'm wondering if maybe the premises we hold most dear could use a PR campaign.  I think the anti-density view is pretty dominant in Cleveland, especially among people who really don't care either way.  It's the default position.  I think this resulted from decades of concerted media effort on the part of automotive and sprawl-building interests. 

 

Hollywood in general depicted cities as bad and sprawl as good from the 1950s on, and particularly in the 70s and 80s, when a lot of today's adults grew up.  Seinfeld and Friends were credited with resurrecting New York as a setting, after it had taken such a beating in shows like Barney Miller and Taxi, and movies like Taxi Driver.  Welcome Back Kotter, Good Times, Sanford & Son, even Fat Albert, all highlighting the downfall of urban areas.  So the 70s had shows about people struggling in the ghettos, then the 80s featured generic midwestern suburbs where everything was better.  More than suggestion, on that scale and over that time frame it dictated how the world was to be perceived.

 

Bringing it back local... Cleveland's zoning code, allocation of development subsidies, and planning publications have all indicated a preference for low-density development with a decidedly postwar suburban feel.  Multiple University Circle projects have encountered objections of some sort due to density or height.  Sometimes city hall, sometimes neighborhood orgs.  And even when development is somewhat dense, the designers almost go out of their way to mitigate any sense of urbanity.  The siding on those new CSU dorms is practically an homage to Eastlake. 

 

But there have been positive signs recently, including the planning commission's comments about CSU's current proposal.  Also including the RTA proposal from the quote above.  So maybe this is the time to have a public discussion about the direction our city should be taking.  If the prevailing mood is anti-density, it creates an obstacle for every conceivable improvement.  But if our leaders are willing to push back a bit, to take a stand for urban density, they deserve all the help they can get.  People need to understand that rebuilding Cleveland with density is not only a viable idea but a better choice.  Right now, too many are stuck on the viable idea part.                   

^If you haven't read LeCorbusier's "City of Tomorrow" yet, I highly recommend it. It was first published in 1924, which is about the time that zoning codes came into existence in the United States.

 

 

Also, I would suggest Edward Glaeser's "Triumph of the City".  It has some brilliant observations and ideas about density.  It's most applicable to mega type city's, therefore you may not agree with everything as it would relate to Cleveland. 

My feeling has always been that Americans in general prefer more personal space, and the automotive industry and the suburban developers were responding to a demand far more than they were creating one.  Particularly after World War II.

I don't think the movies and TV shows you cited dictated the feelings to density and urban settings,  but were reflective of the current trends at the time

Good points.  I guess it's more accurate to say those shows supported prevailing lines of thought, rather than dictating them.  But what of overcoming those lines of thought?  Seems like some communities have done so.  I think part of the difficulty here is that so many of those who may be inclined to support density have moved away.  And this is a generalization, but a lot of the people I know who openly support dense urban development in Cleveland aren't originally from here, myself included.  Converts aren't being made so much as they're being imported... but that's just a trickle, considering Cleveland's overall population trends.  At some point I think we need to 1) import more converts, and 2) convert more locals.     

I think what's missing in this line of thought is urban living is not for everyone.  Even people who enjoy urban living don't want to do it forever, depending on what stage of life they are in.  Consider NYC.  Long Island was created simply by people not wanting to live in the crowded city anymore.  Even today, people that live in the city flee on weekends if they can...and often move out of it when they reach a certain point in their life.

 

I lived in downtown Cleveland for 5 years.  I loved it and enjoyed my time there. I moved out of the city this year as I am at a stage in my life where urban living just isn't as practical as living in the suburbs.  People generally live in areas (assuming they can choose where they live) because it's supports the type of lifestyle they want to live.  Urban living presents lifestyles that not all people want to live.

^I actually think that's a bit off topic.  Same for Erocc's comment.  I think 327 is talking about rules that forbid density, even in places where by many objective measure it makes the most sense to allow; he's not saying that everyone needs to love urban density.  This is not directed at anyone here, honestly, but it's a pet peeve of mine when critiques of urban planning focus on a supposed plot to force everyone to live in high density areas when in reality 99% of all planning legislation and planners are actually employed prohibiting density, often for highly local fiscal or exclusionary reasons.

 

My sincere apologies, I reread 327 and you guys were entirely responsive, and I agree with you both, though, for the record, there are at least some people who do want an "urban" life for their entire lives, and I think we should try to accommodate them too... to wit:

 

What bug me are rules that forbid density, even in places where by many objective measure it makes the most sense to allow.  This is not directed at anyone here, honestly, but it's a pet peeve of mine when critiques of urban planning focus on a supposed plot to force everyone to live in high density areas when in reality 99% of all planning legislation and planners are actually employed prohibiting density, often for highly local fiscal or exclusionary reasons.

 

Anyway, density requires both cooperative regulations and market demand.  If the market's not there, the zoning isn't binding, so doesn't matter so much (as is the case in most of Cleveland).  But there are some places where the market is there, and I would be very happy if the city were a little bolder embracing those opportunities.  I would have no problem letting developers knock down more University Circle mansions if meant adding to the absurdly meager housing options in the middle of that neighborhood.  And the fact that Rosemary Vinci could effectively veto added density to Duck Island was outrageous, IMHO.

 

It's a hard balance between (a) the city enforcing design quality by requiring most significant development to get some kind of discretionary approval and (b) the certainty and clarity of an ex ante enlarged zoning envelope that removes the Jeff Johnsons and Rosemary Vinci's from the equation.  Different cities come down in different places in this balance.

^I actually think that's a bit off topic.  Same for Erocc's comment.  I think 327 is talking about rules that forbid density, even in places where by many objective measure it makes the most sense to allow; he's not saying that everyone needs to love urban density. 

 

The initial question was "But to what extent is there opposition out there to the very concept of urban density?" 

 

The RTA report didn't cite rules against density, it cited feedback saying people didn't like it.

 

 

^You are totally right.

 

I guess a key question is to what extent should public policy indulge people's anti-density preferences.  If one is a good capitalist, their first response to zoning that restricts density should be to bristle, and the burden should be on the pro-single family density people to justify their abridgement of other people's land use.  I'm not anti zoning per se, but I think zoning has been horribly abused over the years.

There are good reasons for zoning restricting density so long as their is a process which grants variances for well-planned developments.

 

Like it or not, market demand and unrestricted zoning can lead to unfortunate results.  Everybody here seems to want 'high-rise' residential towers all over town, but no consideration is given to the type of high-rises the market would demand.  The market certainly would not call for high-end condos.  So while zoning certainly can be overly restrictive and/or abused by politicians with agendas or special interests, it can also be a quite useful tool to help encourage well planned density.

It would be an "unfortunate result" if middle class people lived in a new cluster development in Gates Mills because they would likely consume more in services than they would contribute in locally collected tax revenue, even if a project could be shown to have immaterial traffic/noise/environmental consequences.  But there are real social costs to allowing hyper local constituencies decide what an "unfortunate result" is on the basis of density alone.  I would never argue that zoning isn't useful and should be abolished, but social exclusion is a messy business, and I'm definitely not convinced our current system, especially in the suburbs, is so great, even if its what local constituencies want.

My feeling has always been that Americans in general prefer more personal space, and the automotive industry and the suburban developers were responding to a demand far more than they were creating one.  Particularly after World War II.

 

Part of that is the fact that cities were so dirty and poorly maintained at that time. Those filthy tenements on The Honeymooners were representative of what a lot of the nation's middle class housing consisted. Other factors include racism and even homophobia ("I'm standing close to another guy. People might think I'm gay.")

Everybody here seems to want 'high-rise' residential towers all over town, but no consideration is given to the type of high-rises the market would demand.  The market certainly would not call for high-end condos.

 

Not necessarily true. If people really want to live in a condo tower, that's fine. But building a ton of them and telling people to live there doesn't work. First of all, they're not very successful living arrangements as far as quality of life for most. In a place like NYC they work because of high property values, topographic restrictions and the biggest factor: the fact that NYC is a very exciting place with lots to do every day of the week. There's only one New York; if there were New Yorks all over the country, none would be special.

 

Overall, though, condos towers for everyone is way too Soviet. We found that out very quickly in this country. Towers for the poor went up in the '60s and were obliterated by the '80s simply because they are unpleasant for most. It took Europe a little longer to figure this out (perhaps because groups besides just the impoverished populated them) , but now they too are rapidly demolishing those.

 

The most pleasant development patterns are the ones that were devised before someone had the bright idea to change everything in the 1900s. Good development is the kind that we have been mastering for thousands of years, not some wacky Marxist tower farm, suburban production homebuilder's wet dream or some opportunist looking to make $10 billion off of two acres of land.

^FYI, nobody here is endorsing required highrise construction.  The towers for the poor were not the result of market demand, they were pure government planning and deep subsidy.  I think Hts was just suggesting that allowing more high density construction could permit not just high end, but low end density too, which might not be what people advocating loosened zoning want.

Strap - eggsactly.

^I figure that's the consensus around here. Hopefully my rant will at least leave you with something to say to people who think all urbanites want to cram everyone in like sardines.

Anti-density sentiments come mainly from the fact that there's very little truly outstanding examples of density in the USA.  Since the founding of the country, we've been building excessively wide roads, houses on large lots, and an overall very dispersed pattern of development, even long before the automobile came on the scene.  Because of this, even the best examples of American urbanism are still disfunctional compared to their counterparts in Europe, Asia, or Latin America. 

 

What ends up happening is the streets are too easy to drive in, so they become clogged with traffic or parked cars.  Immediately the public realm is tainted because it's no longer people-centric.  The distances become pushed farther apart so walkability is hurt.  Then people want buffer zones, green space, large parks as escapes. 

 

This guy puts it much better than I can, with many great visuals.  Note that these are just a small sample of the articles he's written, in no particular order.

 

http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2011/020611.html

http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2008/072008.html

http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2010/052310.html

http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2010/030710.html

 

In a more "traditional city" development pattern, density becomes an asset through all the activities and street life it supports, all without the need for more parking, more roads, or more traffic.  In most places in the US today, even where very well connected to transit, most people still drive.  Therefore, any increase in density means more traffic, more competition for parking, more noise, and no real benefits.  There's also selfish and even racist concerns too like blocking views or potentially letting "undesirables" into the neighborhood. 

 

Another aspect is property value concerns.  NIMBY's who come out against increasing density almost always trot out the "protecting home values" or "protecting neighborhood character" argument.  But what exactly does that entail?  If you have a single-family residential neighborhood and a large multi-family building is looking for a zoning change, then the existing homeowners are worried about the aforementioned traffic, undesirable people, loss of views, etc., decreasing the value of their property by being a nuisance.  On the other hand, if all their land was upzoned too, it would lead to an increase in value since it can be built on more intensely.  Their taxes would go up as the valuation increased, but they could sell out at a profit to a developer who wants to build an apartment building.  In that situation they could still stay in the neighborhood by moving into one of the new apartments or condos, but it would certainly not have the same "character" as it did before.

 

The sinister thing about all this is that zoning also inflates land values in another way.  Zoning creates artificial scarcity, so values become inflated.  That's why the same house in the city tends to cost more than in the exurbs, because it's a more desirable location, but you can't put more units on the same piece of land due to the density restrictions.  Allowing more density would thus increase the supply, and ultimately reduce the price as the demand is satisfied.  This unfortunately brings us back to the "protecting home values" argument. 

Haven't had a chance to read all the responses here, and frankly I'm late for the bar, but I do see some good defenses of the anti-density mindset.  Like shs96, I realize that the classic urban living arrangement isn't for everyone at every stage of their lives.  But at the same time, some people do prefer it... some even prefer it throughout their lives, raising kids in such conditions by choice.  And I worry that Cleveland is chasing those people away.  We need those people.

 

I've never said that non-density shouldn't be allowed anywhere.  I just don't understand why people oppose it so strongly right in the heart of downtown.  Why can't there be a place for everything?  Cleveland could add a two dozen apartment towers and it would still be overwhelmingly a city of detached houses.  It wasn't always this way, but that's how far out of balance it is right now.  So much density has been lost, and so many single family homes have been added in its place. 

 

Density advocates don't insist on razing the suburbs and replacing them with our own personal preference... so why must anti-density advocates hold sway in the core city?  Why must Cleveland be redeveloped in its suburbs' image?  To each their own.  What I'm really pushing for is balance, but we're so far from that at this point that I believe density needs a big boost.       

I think it's more of a knee-jerk reaction. People hear "density" and they think block after block of high rises with tiny apartments, even if they live in an urban neighborhood lined with single-family homes and that is their daily exposure to urban density. Even posts on this thread make the assumption as though Downtown Cleveland=density while Tremont and Shaker Square don't qualify. Hell, dense urban landscapes as far as Europe goes is dominated by five-story buildings. In my current neighborhood there's a "hip" little downtown with plenty of high-rise riverfront condos and quite a few nightspots. You'll find other examples of medium density elsewhere in the neighborhood, but even there in the by far densest area it's not overwhelming at all. There's no in-your-face, mass of people packing the sidewalks and streets. While my area is dotted with neighborhoods bars it's mostly homes and shorter apartment buildings, then there's another nice, but smaller and quieter district nearby and another one out east with a higher ratio of houses which is very quiet and popular with families and has a fair share of older folk. Single-family homes on quiet streets with yards to modern loft apartments in a multi-story building right next to some nightspots: who says urban living isn't for everyone? If urban living were so unbearable that people just can't live in cities, how did we even manage to survive until the recent advent of the *sprawling* suburb when you either could only choose to live in a city, town, or out in the boonies?

Haven't had a chance to read all the responses here, and frankly I'm late for the bar, but I do see some good defenses of the anti-density mindset.  Like shs96, I realize that the classic urban living arrangement isn't for everyone at every stage of their lives.  But at the same time, some people do prefer it... some even prefer it throughout their lives, raising kids in such conditions by choice.  And I worry that Cleveland is chasing those people away.  We need those people.

 

I've never said that non-density shouldn't be allowed anywhere.  I just don't understand why people oppose it so strongly right in the heart of downtown.  Why can't there be a place for everything?  Cleveland could add a two dozen apartment towers and it would still be overwhelmingly a city of detached houses.  It wasn't always this way, but that's how far out of balance it is right now.  So much density has been lost, and so many single family homes have been added in its place. 

 

Density advocates don't insist on razing the suburbs and replacing them with our own personal preference... so why must anti-density advocates hold sway in the core city?  Why must Cleveland be redeveloped in its suburbs' image?  To each their own.  What I'm really pushing for is balance, but we're so far from that at this point that I believe density needs a big boost.       

 

If you are limiting it to downtown, I think your argument is with a very minute portion of the population whose influene downtown is pretty much insignificant.  There is no push to have downtown Cleveland developed in its suburban counterparts image.  Not every development will be ideal as far as density, but there are always other, usually business related, reasons for that besides "too much density".  In fact, I think we have made great strides recently (mostly due to the historic tax credits) in terms of re-creating some real density that was taken away during the era (60's, 70's) your complaints should really be direccted at.

I know of some older folks (including my parents and some of their friends) who grew up in Glenville, East Cleveland and other fairly dense neighborhoods who recalled it fondly and would have gladly stayed if not for block-busting, white flight and the city's general neglect in services, etc. They could see where the neighborhood was going and got out while they still could. Sure, they loved living in the heights (later moving farther out when the traffic got so bad in those single-use districts), with the larger lawns and good public services, yet without the grit and grime of the uncared-for city. But they missed having everything so close where you could walk to stuff, sit on a front porch near the sidewalk and chat with neighbors, and enjoy the generally stronger sense of community.

 

I suspect that most people are sheep and will follow the herd regardless of where its going. It has little to do with the free market (which doesn't exist) and more to do with whose true-believing is pushing the center one way or another. Granted, those of us here on UO are true-believers when it comes to urbanity. We are attempting to push the center in a different direction just as these guys did many years ago after the growth in sales of new cars flattened after 1923 at roughly 3.6 million per year. That caused GM's new president Alfred Sloan to start buying up streetcar systems and replace them with GM buses which riders considered inferior to rail.

 

Or ask Paul Hoffman, president of the Studebaker Automobile Co. who said this in 1939....

 

"(New roads) must gash ruthlessly through built-up sections of overcrowded cities. If we are to have the full use of automobiles, cities must be remade. The greatest automobile market today, the greatest untapped field of potential customers, is the large number of city people who refuse to own cars, or use the cars they have very little, because it's a nuisance to take them out."

 

Read more at:

http://books.google.com/books?id=2iVbs4Myu_AC&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=Paul+Hoffman,+Studebaker,+If+we+are+to+have+the+full+use+of+automobiles,+cities+must+be+remade&source=bl&ots=Fpf-YvDpuk&sig=kmrx8fNQv-qv1qvjJgoI3p2X16s&hl=en&ei=8T-iS_yXPI3YM6GEtdsI&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CCkQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false

 

I'm sure many people love to live in the suburbs just as I would like to buy a nice new tailored suit every month or so. If I didn't have to pay full price for them, I just might do that. Just as I'm sure many would not live in the suburbs if they had to pay the full price for it without the government massively distorting the transportation marketplace (or paying for huge stormwater control projects, transit systems that served reduced population densities, aid to needy families who can't easily reach jobs out in the suburbs, etc).

 

All land use is a function of its circulation systems, and transportation is perhaps the most important of these. As we know here (and as Studebaker's and GM's head honchos knew a long time ago), different forms of transportation beget different densities of land use. So how much low-density land use-generating road infrastructure would have been built if it were up to private enterprise to finance, build and own new superhighways that would raise their cost above the public-sector financed and owned roadway network?

 

And how many people could afford to use it? A lot fewer. Don't believe it?

 

Here is an interesting document that shows if we used price rather that adding to the supply of lane-mile to regulate demand for highways, we would likely have fewer people willing to live so far away from the central cities:

http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm35.htm

 

Interestingly, much of that document is about 10 years old including this quote from 2002:

 

The only tollway project untainted by controversy is a proposed segment of California 125 near the Mexican border in San Diego County. It may provide the last chance to prove that a privately owned toll road can work in California.

 

Well........

 

San Diego County regional government to buy bankrupt toll road

July 30, 2011 |  9:34 am 

 

A San Diego regional government organization has agreed to purchase the bankrupt State Route 125 toll road near the U.S.-Mexico border for approximately $345 million.

 

Opened in November 2007, the 10-mile toll road in southern San Diego County was described initially as an example for Los Angeles and other traffic-beset regions on how a private-public partnership could build new roads and ease congestion.

 

Instead it became a cautionary tale about risky assumptions, and the stubborn opposition of motorists to paying tolls. In March 2010 the road's operator filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, noting that traffic counts were less than 50% of projections.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/07/san-diego-regional-government-to-purchase-bankrupt-state-route-125-toll-road.html

 

So the short version is, I think that in between the true believers there is a middle who don't care about density as we urbanists do, or as those who are true believers in creating more lower-density development patterns. If that's an anti-density conspiracy, then we may be called the pro-density conspiracy. Those who pushed low-density patterns have been winning since the 1920s in America. But I see the pendulum swinging back again and not everyone, especially the true believers on the opposite side of us, are happy about it.

Lots that were big enough to support a vegetable garden have been the preference in this part of the country starting in the nineteenth century.  Families could not get fresh food if they did not have a garden and maybe an orchard.  They certainly would not get a variety of fresh food.  Canning and "putting up" had been a tradition for families of slender means.

its sickening, and makes me want to get the hell away from here. not because i hate cleveland and think the grass is always greener on the other side but because i want to live in an actual city. cleveland used to be an urban city but has lost pretty much any semblance of that thanks to the people in charge.

 

americans are just incredibly selfish people. they want their car because they can go anywhere and it gives them "freedom" (LOL). so much stuff is excess in this country......excess bellies, excess vehicles, excess houses, excess stuff.

 

the ironic thing is how people want to live in these exurban mcmansion developments to get away and have more space, yet most of these places dont even provide bigger lots.

>rather than dictating them

 

No, TV dictates reality.  People don't trust their own observations.

 

I have a local history textbook that was part of the Cincinnati Public Schools curriculum in the late 1940s.  It vilifies the very neighborhoods where the school children lived, pointing to new single family home neighborhoods as "ideal". 

 

America as we know it is absolutely not the result of people acting as individuals.  The Vast Anti-Density Conspiracy is a big part of it.  Everything we're talking about found its true root in germ theory and the social ills that were supposedly the result of high density living.  There was some truth to disease spreading in crowded quarters, but the social ills obviously still exist.

 

 

Hts121 just found this, which I'd never heard of before.  Crazy... and I don't mean Agenda 21, I mean the organized opposition to it.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/tea-party-versus-agenda-21-saving-u-just-050156332.html

 

^I ran across that article as well.  After reading it I did not know whether to laugh or cry.

It makes me want to advocate density till the cows come home.

^LOL. Please make that your signature.

These nut jobs came to a City Council meeting at the city where I work here in Oregon and joined forces with the Tea Party fringe group "Americans for Prosperity".  They were all kooks and had no bona fide information or even well thought out opinions.  There only reason there was to make public waves.  Their idiotic ways and refusal to follow the Council protocols on behavior when in the chambers got a lot of them kicked out by the cops and several new procedures put in place in the chambers because the Council was literally afraid of these people crowding the Council floor, approaching them personally while in session and just providing an extremely tense atmosphere.