• About
  • Adam Hengels
  • Emily Hamilton
  • Michael Lewyn
  • Salim Furth
  • What Should I Read to Understand Zoning?
  • Contact

Market Urbanism

Liberalizing cities | From the bottom up

“Market Urbanism” refers to the synthesis of classical liberal economics and ethics (market), with an appreciation of the urban way of life and its benefits to society (urbanism). We advocate for the emergence of bottom up solutions to urban issues, as opposed to ones imposed from the top down.

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Linkedin
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • Economics
  • housing
  • planning
  • Zoning
  • Urban[ism] Legends
  • Book Reviews

New Years link list

January 1, 2011 By Stephen Smith

Behold, your first link list of 2011!

1. The automobile may officially in decline (very good article!).

2. Interesting parallels between China and its HSR intellectual property disputes and post-WWII Japan and Korea. More here.

3. Fred Barnes writes a stupid article for the Weekly Standard (“The road to hell is paved with bike baths”), and Jarrett Walker responds with a treatise on “coercion” (“We are the libertarians!”).

4. I forget that although rent control has been thoroughly discredited in the real world, NYC developers are still grappling with it. Vornado and another developer had to shell out tens of millions to break the rent control grip on a Central Park South building they bought, with 15 rent controlled tenants receiving payouts of around $1.5 million each.

5. Vancouver is loosening its grip on the street food market, while Stephen Goldberg is trying to create a one-stop shop for getting NYC restaurant permits/licenses/certificates/inspections.

6. The market-defying schemes that liberals come up with would be amusing if they weren’t so horrifying. Read here as they puzzle over why excess luxury condos built in NYC during the boom couldn’t easily be used as affordable housing (Vancouver redux), and watch out for the part on the third page where an organization called “Right to the City” advocates “using eminent domain to seize vacant residential buildings and turn them into affordable housing.”

7. Niagara Falls’ decades-long megaproject failures. The article ends on a positive note, citing federal money for a new train station and grants for a wine bar and a concert hall, but I wonder if anyone in Niagara Falls ever bothered trying to loosen up the parking restrictions and maybe upzone a few blocks.

Tweet

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: affordable housing, China, conservatism, eminent domain, food, HSR, nyc, rent control, Vancouver

About Stephen Smith

I graduated Spring 2010 from Georgetown undergrad, with an entirely unrelated and highly regrettable major that might have made a little more sense if I actually wanted to become an international trade lawyer, but which alas seems good for little else.

I still do most of the tweeting for Market Urbanism

Stephen had previously written on urbanism at Forbes.com. Articles Profile; Reason Magazine, and Next City

Comments

  1. Alon Levy says

    January 2, 2011 at 5:50 am

    The story of empty New York condos shows that market-rate doesn’t always mean the rate dictated by supply and demand. In New York it more often means a very high rent, based on what developers expect to be able to profit; if there’s a glut, they’d rather leave the property empty for a few years than lower prices to compete.

    What this means is that if the permit process is streamlined and zoning laws relaxed, leading to a large growth in supply, then it won’t immediately lead to a gradual reduction in rents; instead, there will be a glut until the market capitulates and rents crash.

  2. Jarrett Walker says

    January 2, 2011 at 6:28 am

    Happy New Year, Stephen. Great blog, even when I disagree.

  3. Jonathan R says

    January 2, 2011 at 3:11 pm

    I agree with Alon. One other factor about Manhattan real estate is that it is marketed to foreign pied-à-terre buyers as well, who are looking for an investment that they can use to visit New York. It makes more sense to warehouse apartments for eventual sale to foreign buyers who won’t spend that much time in the apartment (less wear-and-tear on common areas and trash collection, for instance) than to sell them immediately to “affordable” residents who are likely to use and abuse the common areas and put more wear and tear on the apartment and building as a whole.

  4. HLS says

    January 2, 2011 at 3:37 pm

    Wow … who says there is no good news ? The article on the automobile in decline — it was going to happen some time, but why not now ? — is a nice start to the New Year.

  5. Stephen says

    January 2, 2011 at 5:54 pm

    Thanks, and same to you!

  6. MarketUrbanism says

    January 2, 2011 at 6:05 pm

    I forget that although rent control has been thoroughly discredited in the real world, NYC developers are still grappling with it. Vornado and another developer had to shell out tens of millions to break the rent control grip on a Central Park South building they bought, with 15 rent controlled tenants receiving payouts of around $1.5 million each.

    I think that buyouts are a reasonable and just way to phase out rent control. Although rent control is immoral and should be abolished, rent control tenants now (however unjustly granted) have some sort of property right claim in the units and should be compensated to some degree for that. However, I think the politicians who implemented the rent control are the ones responsible for the reparations to the owners and tenants. I would propose some sort of auction where the state offers to match a certain percent (plus a voucher of some sort) for tenants and owners who reach an agreement to permanently de-control units through buyout until rent control no longer exists…

    I touched on this in the conclusion to my rent control series:
    http://www.marketurbanism.com/2008/06/01/rent-control-part-4-conclusion-and-solutions/

  7. Jim657 says

    January 3, 2011 at 9:28 pm

    The study cited in your first link appears to be counting only passenger cars. This ignores the fact that there has been a big shift in the private automobile market from cars to light trucks (SUVs and pickups) over the past couple of decades. For the U.S., population data from the Census Bureau and passenger-miles data from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics supports the study’s assertion that per capita travel in “cars” declined between 2000 and 2007. But per capita travel in passenger cars and light trucks combined increased significantly. By my calculation, it increased from about 14,200 passenger-miles per capita in 2000 to about 15,200 in 2007.

    Population data here: http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html
    Passenger-miles data here: http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_37.html

  8. Stephen says

    January 3, 2011 at 9:33 pm

    I know that some branches of the US government count SUVs as separate from “regular” cars, but what makes you think that this study is doing the same thing? I’m in a rush and don’t have the time to use my university login to look up the original source, so maybe you could show us why you’ve come to that conclusion.

  9. Jim657 says

    January 3, 2011 at 10:04 pm

    “I know that some branches of the US government count SUVs as separate from “regular” cars, but what makes you think that this study is doing the same thing?”

    I thought I had explained this. The data I cited indicates that per capita travel in passenger cars has declined (as the study suggests), but that per capita travel in passenger cars + light trucks has increased. This suggests the study is using the data for passenger cars only, not data for all private automobiles.

  10. Stephen says

    January 3, 2011 at 10:20 pm

    Couldn’t it also be explained by a) the study’s authors using different data, or b) the fact that the study is generalizing about eight industrialized country, and not just the USA? If you want to argue that they used faulty data, fine, but circumstantial evidence isn’t enough when we have direct access to the paper – you have to actually download the paper and find out what data they used.

  11. Jim657 says

    January 3, 2011 at 10:43 pm

    My evidence is not circumstantial. It’s official government data on population, from the Census Bureau, and passenger-miles of travel, from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. See the links I provided above. As far as I’m aware, this is the most authoritative data available. The report you link to specifically states that the study found that “passenger travel stopped growing” in the U.S. after 2000. The Census Bureau and BTS data contradict this assertion, at least with respect to per capita passenger-miles of travel by passenger car and light truck. And if the study is wrong about travel the U.S., I’m not sure why we should believe it’s likely to be right about travel in other countries.

  12. Stephen says

    January 3, 2011 at 10:52 pm

    Just so you know, when critiquing academic papers, it’s generally good form to actually read them. I understand that you’re so confident in your own data analysis that you don’t feel this is necessary, but you’re not going to convince very many people that way. If you don’t have access to the article but would like to read it anyway and try to confirm your theory that they’re using faulty data, shoot me an email ([email protected]) and I’ll download it and send it to you.

  13. Jim657 says

    January 4, 2011 at 12:28 am

    I did the read the paper. It doesn’t provide any clear data.

  14. Stephen says

    January 4, 2011 at 4:50 am

    You’re flat-out lying. I just downloaded the paper, and they specifically address the issue of cars vs. light trucks.

  15. Jim657 says

    January 5, 2011 at 2:30 am

    I’m not lying, you are. I did not say say they don’t “address the issue of cars vs. light trucks” (whatever that’s supposed to mean). I said that, for the U.S. at least, they appear to be counting only passenger cars. Because the claim that passenger travel stopped growing in the U.S. after 2000 is flatly contradicted by the Census Bureau and BTS data when light trucks are included. As I also said, they don’t include any clear data in the study. Just a series of roughly-drawn charts. The whole study is very amateurish.

  16. HLS says

    January 5, 2011 at 7:03 pm

    Here’s what the paper had to say in text, when introducing the transportation data:

    “A wide variety of national-level data sources were compiled for this analysis, as
    detailed in Appendix 1. The paper uses a similar dataset to earlier analyses from
    1993 and 1999 (Schipper et al., 1993b; Schipper and Marie-Lilliu, 1999), allowing
    us to capture recent trends.

    “A typical problem is that activity and energy data are published by different
    agencies, and do not necessarily agree. Another is that the scope and procedure
    for data collection often change over time. In general, bottom-up calculations
    using activity and on-road fuel economy data are presented here, calibrated to
    top-down fuel consumption data. Interpolations are sometimes used for missing
    years. Importantly, the analysis includes all transport fuels, not just gasoline. The
    inclusion of diesel for cars as well as public transport makes a significant difference
    to the results in several countries.

    “The data cover passenger travel by car and household light truck, bus, rail and
    domestic air. Household light trucks are significant in Australia, Canada and the
    USA and identified by surveys. Sport utility vehicles in Japan, Sweden, France,
    Germany and the UK that are household vehicles are counted as such as well. The
    rail category includes local metro and streetcar systems, except in Canada where
    official statistics aggregate these modes with bus. Motorcycles are excluded as
    their share of travel is minimal. Water transport is excluded for consistency
    reasons and is small even in Japan. Our analysis does not include non-motorized
    travel, largely because of the poor quality or non-existence of the data in several
    countries.”

    Here’s more on the U.S., from the appendix

    ?”USA

    “Davis, S. C., Diegel, S. W. and Boundy, R. G. (2009) Transportation Energy Data
    Book, 28th edn (Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory). Also previous
    editions.

    “Federal Highway Administration’s Table VM1, Bureau of Transport Statistics
    publishes the ‘authoritative’ table of vehicle registrations, annual usage and fuel
    consumption.

    “The share of light trucks, their annual distances driven and fuel use is taken
    from various editions of Transportation Energy Data Book and interpolated between
    the years in which surveys are taken by the Truck (Vehicle) Inventory and Utiliza-
    tion Survey by the U.S. Department of Commerce, published every five years
    until its demise in 2002.”

Listen in

  • Abundance
  • Conversations with Tyler
  • Densely Speaking
  • Ideas of India
  • Order Without Design
  • UCLA Housing Voice
  • Yeoman

Connect With Us

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Linkedin
  • RSS
  • Twitter

Market Sites Urbanists should check out

  • Arpitrage
  • Cafe Hayek
  • Center for Building in North America blog
  • Construction Physics
  • Conversable Economist
  • Environmental and Urban Economics | Matt Kahn
  • Erdmann Housing Tracker
  • Foundation for Economic Education
  • Marginal Revolution
  • Marginal Revolution University
  • Parafin
  • Propmodo
  • Rent Free
  • Time & Space
  • Urbanomics

Urbanism Sites capitalists should check out

  • Caos Planejado
  • City Density
  • Cornerstone
  • Granola Shotgun
  • Important Readings in Urbanism
  • Kartografia Ekstremalna
  • Metropolitan Abundance Project
  • Pedestrian Observations
  • Planetizen
  • Reinventing Parking
  • Skynomics Blog
  • StreetsBlog USA
  • Strong Towns
  • The Corner Side Yard | Pete Saunders
  • YIMBY Alliance

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org

Copyright © 2025 Market Urbanism