Show Preview: Brackett & Co., Real Estate
J. Tillman at the Mohawk - Giveaway
The Statesman picked up a Chicago Tribune story indicating that 18 out of 20 studies on the topic show significant links between the built environment and obesity.
One, by Reid Ewing from the University of Maryland, showed that people living in suburban developments whose only link to other places is busy roads with few sidewalks were 6 pounds heavier on average than those living in "walkable" communities.
Another, by Matthew Turner at the University of Toronto found the same 6 pound weight difference, but he thinks the cause is that "people who don't like to walk move to [the suburbs] where they don't have to." He explains the opposite results of other studies by blaming a vast left wing conspiracy "ideologically driven by people who want other people to live in townhouses."
Image from Obrz on Flickr
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
You are stretching the truth a bit by saying that professor Turner "blam(es) a vast left wing agenda".
You also seem to have missed the part of the Statesman article where professor Ewing actually asserted that there is a vast, right-wing agenda against smart growth. Nice try though.
"There is a political agenda" among critics of smart-growth policies, Ewing said. "There are libertarian think tanks, anti-planning, pro-development groups that . . . when we put out our research, they attack."
I meant to say "left wing conspiracy," not "left wing agenda." I changed the post.
I don't think it is stretching the truth any more to say that Turner is blaming the left than to say that Ewing is blaming the right. Both strike me as accurate readings of what they said. I just think Ewing's assertion is more plausible - people are disputing these studies because they are receiving corporate funding interested in hiding the truth (see global warming, tobacco, lead paint, etc.).
I think it is ridiculous to say that the academics doing the studies are driven by a desire for other people to live in townhouses, so I put it in the post. Plus, it furthers my desire to get people to live in townhouses.
Fair enough. You have your agenda and are free to spin things as you please.
"I don't think it is stretching the truth any more to say that Turner is blaming the left than to say that Ewing is blaming the right. Both strike me as accurate readings of what they said. I"
Then why didn't you include both quotes? After reading the Austinist article, Turner seems like a kook and Ewing seems like the reasonable one. But when you read the Statesman article, you realize what's actually going on: they're both driven by agendas. As is the case with everything involving statistics, it has nothing to do with the numbers themselves and everything to do with the way you interpret the numbers. Are fat people moving to the suburbs? Or are the suburbs making people fat? Who knows.
Just be on the watch out for anti-planning Libertarian think-tank types and those crazy left-wing, townhouse loving hippies.
Hambriq,
The problem with playing "both sides the same" is that they AREN'T the same.
Nowhere around here is there a neighborhood with MINIMUM height and density zoning. But every single neighborhood does, in fact, have maximum rules for both. Likewise with setbacks; off-street parking; etc.
The only force going on in this particular contest is that suburban self-identified libertarians want to continue forcing everybody to choose suburban sprawl even if they want urban density.
six pounds? are you kidding me?
Remember kids, correlation != causation.
I'm with self-described "fatgirl", though. Six pounds seems like way too little of a difference. There's some serious lard-assess down at the SuperTarget on Mopac and 71. While down by Town Lake, everybody appears to be in good shape. Gotta be at least 20 pounds difference.
I don't think anyone is disputing correlation - surburbanites weigh more. Turner's basic point is disputing causation - he argues that heavier people move to the suburbs, instead of the intuitive conclusion that living in the suburbs makes people heavier. I suspect there is some truth to that, but sitting in traffic eating 2/99¢ drive-thru tacos instead of walking to the corner deli for a seltzer probably has a major causal effect.
I would hope that the various cited studies took causation (and other basic statistical principles) into account. For example, the Tribune article discusses a current study by Karen Mumford following the same individuals before and after living in a walkable neighborhood, which would show clear causation and negate any self-sorting argument.
M1EK:
Because there are zoning laws instituting a maximum population density, that somehow changes the fact that the author of the article conspicuously left out one side's silly rhetoric while including another's? Yeah, yeah, I get it, the evil right wing fuckers are trying to zone people into a suburban sprawl, blah blah blah. But hey, you want to fight zoning laws? I'm sure Wal-Mart would LOVE that. A Wal-Mart on every street corner! Hooooorah!
As per correlation vs. causation: see my first post. You can read the statistics however you want. In fact, you can make a convincing argument either way. The only thing you are going to prove is that self-righteous people aren't going to change their way of thinking. No matter what side you are on.
Also, olMan-ATX, are you kidding me? Could you have picked two more extreme examples? Town Lake is a mecca for fitness-loving, slim, taut, attractive Austinites. Super Target, on the other hand, is a mecca for obese, prescription pain medication-abusing, welfare-living minorities and white trash.
You might as well have said, "Man, those people working on Wall Street sure are a lot richer than those guys on the corner of the street with the 'I'd say some change would do me good' signs!!"
err, i buy my Town Lake workout gear at Target... where do i live, then?
Hambriq,
I was referring only to your implication that Shilli (and the author, and me, and everybody else you don't like) wants to force people to live in townhouses. The only force going on is the kind that PREVENTS people from building density.
I have the same questions about correlation that you do about the study - but there have now been around 20 of these done; and you'd figure by now they'd begin to have a handle on the variables.
What do they have to say about rural people? There seems to be more fat people out in the country than even in the suburbs.
M1EK-
I love how you automatically assume that because I'm trying to be the voice of reason, I must be one of those rightwing douchebags who calls conspiracy theory every time an anti-right article appears in a newspaper. Just so you know, I'm far from being a supporter of suburban sprawl.
What I *am*, is a supporter of common sense. Something that you seem to be failing to use. However, making idiotic assumptions seems to be your cup of tea. Nowhere am I accusing anyone of "forcing" anyone to do anything. Nowhere am I accusing anyone of being part of any "agenda". I'm just saying: don't take these studies as gospel. Do you always believe everything you read? If so, I've got a stack of studies that say that global warming doesn't exist.
As per zoning laws: they exist for a reason. Otherwise, Austin would be overrun with multi-story, multi-family housing and massive corporate chains. The only thing keeping them out are zoning laws, not "Keep Austin Weird" bumper stickers. So unless you want Austin to turn into an urban suburbia, I would say that zoning laws are a good thing.
tarjay:
Ah, but you see, "Target" is vastly different than "Super Target". Apparently, "Super" is actually Austin-ese for "Mexican".
Way to go, Hambriq!
M1KE is living in Salem 1692 and everyone who doesn't support condos is a sprawl-witch.
Not just condos there, I guess it's everything he thinks is right.
Dear Hambriq,
Struck a nerve, huh? It's not unreasonable to jump from "desire for everybody to live in townhouses" to the force argument. I'm thrilled that you're smart enough to try to divert attention from your original argument in this fashion; knuckle-draggers like ol' pappy just aren't worth the trouble.
In particular, the argument that the area would be nothing but multi-family without zoning is a load of crap. Remember - we didn't HAVE zoning before roughly WWII in most of this country. (And, no, don't bring up Houston; they have land-use laws which restrict density just as much as does our zoning code, although they don't affect USE as much).
And the assertion that our suburban zoning code is somehow keeping OUT the national chains just made me throw up in my mouth a little bit. Son, are you aware that national chains beat out the local guy precisely BECAUSE of one-size-fits-all suburban-oriented code in areas like parking requirements? The little guy who wants to open in a single storefront on Guadalupe has to somehow figure out how to get his hands on a parking lot; while the national chain just knocks down the block and builds one (see Walgreens). Suburban-style zoning isn't keeping the chains OUT; it's what's keeping the local guys from thriving.
We didn't have zoning laws before World War II? I believe the appropriate term here is "No shit, sherlock." In 1920, we had 100 million people living in this country. Now, we have 300 million. It's a little thing called "necessity." But hey, did you know that there weren't ANY laws in this country before the 15th century? Why, that must mean that all laws are pointless!
Secondly, there's no argument here. Basically every analyst agrees that zoning laws are healthy for a community. This isn't a gray area like, "Are tax cuts good for the economy?" No, it's more like a lighter shade of white; "Unemployment is bad for the economy." Sure, you can make a rogue case for the idea, but no one is going to listen to you. And for good cause.
Here's the scoop, "son": No one is saying our zoning laws are perfect. You obviously can't make everyone happy. The original point you were trying to make is that the key difference between the left and the right views on the issue of suburban sprawl versus urban planning is that suburban sprawl is somehow "forced" on people via zoning laws. See my previous paragraph. Zoning laws don't exist as part of some vast right-wing conspiracy to get people into the suburbs and eating McDonalds. No, they exist for the exact opposite reason. The funny part is, we're on the same side here, but you're so interested in being edgy and belligerent that you're just *inventing* an argument for the pure sake of arguing.
I'm sure there are better places where you can masturbate your ego. Go there. Not here.
P.S. "I threw up in my mouth a little" stopped be funny in like, 200-fucking-5.
Snooze.
Pithy remarks are generally funnier when they make sense.
"Zoning laws don't exist as part of some vast right-wing conspiracy to get people into the suburbs and eating McDonalds. No, they exist for the exact opposite reason"
No, you don't get it. Zoning laws are why the suburbs are the way they are today - the stores like McDonald's are the natural result (standardized design which can profitably build with large surface parking lot).
This IS the primary point of contention. Somehow, you think that zoning that forces one-size-fits-all development of EXACTLY THE KIND WHICH IS SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE SUBURBS is somehow what's keeping suburban development from going everywhere? Are you crazy?
If you want to open up a new storefront on Guadalupe (or South Congress) where a ton of people walk, bike, and take the bus; you have to navigate a zoning code which treats you as if you're opening your store on William Cannon or Parmer Lane. What, exactly, in that do you think makes it somehow the 'opposite' of forcing suburban design?
Here's the problem. You literally have no idea what you are talking about. You keep going on, riding on notions that are so patently false, that I can only conclude that you've listened to a few hours of NPR and have decided that this is your pet issue. What you are saying defies 90% of common thought regarding the growth and development of cities and suburbs.
City and suburb growth are functions of the characteristic aspects of cities and suburbs, respectively. Population density. Building density. Amount of space available. No amount of zoning will turn Austin into Round Rock. Austin has a smaller amount of available space, more people in a smaller area, and more buildings. Plain and simple. Our zoning code exists to keep certain factors in check.
Of course, you keep coming back to parking, which is no surprise because that's the issue I hear about the most on the radio. Here's an idea. READ OUR ZONING CODE. Then read the zoning code of other cities. Our parking requirements are on par with other major metropolitan areas; Chicago, Boston, D.C., Philadelphia, etc. In fact, our code is pretty tame compared to some denser, smaller areas. The idea that our parking code somehow contributes to homogenization is ridiculous.
The problem here is that you have a fundamental lack of knowledge. You fail to grasp the basic concepts behind city and suburb growth, and you do not have a sense of perspective regarding our zoning laws compared to other cities'. In fact, I highly doubt that you have even read our zoning laws.
You might as well be trying to tell Steve Jobs that declaring bankruptcy is a sound financial decision, that's how fundamentally incorrect your thought process is. Until you demonstrate that you actually understand the subject you are talking about instead of parroting off viewpoints that are just patently false, I really see no reason to continue arguing.
"Basically every analyst agrees that zoning laws are healthy for a community."
You must not mean economists. Most economists think zoning laws reduce total welfare (= sum of consumer and producer surpluses). It's the same analysis that justifies anti-monopoly laws.
I agree, Hambriq, that we would still have tract suburban housing without zoning laws. But zoning laws clearly obstruct the demand for denser housing in some places (like Austin). This is density the market is trying to provide naturally. As a result, a lot of people are forced to choose the suburban lifestyle who don't want it. By restricting supply, density also raises prices. A lot.
There are some places where the local governments try to restrict suburban development (usually while fighting density too). None of them are in Texas, though.
Now we're talking. Before we start, consider the arguments surrounding minimum wage. In a pure free market system, minimum wage laws negatively impact the market by imposing a false floor on wages and thus shifting the supply and demand equilibrium. However, because we don't live in a pure free market system, these arguments are not as infallible. The government interferes with the free market in the form of subsidies, grants, welfare, etc. This isn't inherently good or bad, it just changes the playing field. Thus, we have to consider things differently.
The same applies with housing. If we lived in a pure free market society, I would agree with you 100%. Let the market dictate what it would. A higher demand should naturally result in a higher supply. However, again, we don't live in that free market. The government subsidizes housing, a large percentage of residences get free or reduced prices through government programs, and people living on welfare affect the supply and demand curve. Again, none of these things are inherently bad. They just change the playing field.
Thus, because we have outside forces interfering in the free market, we cannot rely on the principles of economics alone to guide us. Enter zoning laws. They exist to preserve the integrity of the city. If we didn't have outside interference in the free market, they would be unnecessary. But, it is what it is, for better or for worse.
Also, I'm counting down the minutes until M1KE me-toos, and claims AC's argument as his own.
Hambriq, M1EK's been blogging about this stuff for years, and I blog about little else. You're wading into a debate that has been going on for a long time.
See http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/blog/ (M1EK) and http://austinzoning.typepad.com/austincontrarian/ (me).
I assume you haven't seen these, b/c M1EK has made the argument I made many times (although he disagrees with me about the amount of suburban sprawl we'd have without zoning).
In that case, I would expect far more from M1EK than what he's been giving me so far. I think your argument about the economics of the situation has by far been the most promising one. I'd rather see you expand on our discussion there and let M1EK defend himself.
Hambriq,
I actually have a real job, too.
You're swimming upstream against an awful lot of research from an awful lot of people who understand the zoning laws a hell of a lot better than you apparently do, with your ridiculous contentions like "zoning keeps out McDonald's and suburban sprawl". Or "zoning protects the integrity of the city" when essentially everybody who studies this stuff admits that zoning forces suburban sprawl and destroys urban development.
To clarify AC's last point: nobody (not even me!) argues we'd have NO suburban sprawl without the effect of the zoning code. We disagree about how much LESS we'd have; and why. (I'd also add preferential tax treatment for suburbs and their concomittant building types).
And I have never argued for the elimination of zoning, by the way. I'd like a hell of a lot less restrictions; and I'd like for the idiot free-market Republican types to at least acknowledge that forcing setbacks, off-street parking, maximum heights, FAR, number of units per acre; etc. is basically forcing everybody to build suburban-style whether or not they want to.
The reason I brought up pre-WWII is to make this point incredibly obvious; but apparently not obvious enough for you: before we started outlawing everything BUT suburban sprawl, we got a MIX of development types (including single-family houses on all sizes of lots; not just "townhouses"); and most of our best-loved neighborhoods actually date from that era. One could easily craft a zoning code which restricts some of the worst USEs (like the stereotypical hog renderer next to homes) while still allowing urban FORM, but it's been a hard thing to do politically.
Wow M1EK that is the least-abusive post I've seen from you yet. Aloha!
I think it would be helpful to take this argument from the top, so we can see where it went wrong.
1. I begin by urging a little common sense: each side is motivated by agendas, so don't take a study that says the suburbs make you fat to be gospel just because one side interprets the numbers one way.
2. You retort by claiming that there is in fact, only one agenda here. The agenda of the "suburban self-identified libertarians [who] want to continue forcing everybody to choose suburban sprawl even if they want urban density." You cite maximum height and density zoning laws as proof.
3. I question the factuality of this claim while again, going back to my original point urging moderation and taking the study with a grain of salt.
4. In a shameless example of putting words in my mouth, you accuse me of implying that "Shilli... wants to force people to live in townhouses."
5. I defend height and density zoning laws.
6. You claim that zoning laws are what cause the suburbs to be the way they are. You then cite zoning laws regarding parking spaces.
7. I explain that zoning laws have little to do with creating a suburb, and everything to do with the actual characteristics of the area itself. I go on to explain that the parking requirements in the zoning laws have a negligible impact.
8. AC jumps in and argues an economic perspective of zoning laws, saying they unduly affect the market in a negative way.
9. I agree in principle, but remind him that we don't live in a pure free market society and thus we have to consider other factors.
You seem far more interested in drawing sensationalist conclusions and trying to smear me with every brush possible than actually discussing this point. I don't know where you got the notion that I was accusing Shilli of wanting everyone to live in Townhouses, nor the idea that I somehow support all zoning laws regardless of their nature.
The only zoning laws I am defending are maximum height and density laws, and only to a certain extent. The parking restrictions have negligible impact, and certainly are not enough to transform Austin the way you are suggesting. If you want to discuss the pros and cons of height and density zoning laws and how restrictive they should be, then by all means, let's talk about it. But let's cut out all the mumbo-jumbo and be clear about what we're talking about rather than spending 90% of our posts bloviating and name-calling. Of course I'm guilty of that too, but I'd rather actually discuss things than continue crafting a large mountain of horseshit for us both to play in.
Now, to kick things off, I'll try to summarize my argument about height/density zoning requirements and how it relates to suburban homogeneity. Also, I'm gonna go ahead and create a pretentious acronym so I don't have to type out the phrase "height/density zoning requirements." Thus, I unveil: HDZR.
I think it's fair to say that the only realistic way to create suburban homogeneity is to create a demand for it. Short of bulldozing a town to the ground and rebuilding it from scratch, a stereotypical suburb cannot exist unless there is a healthy demand for what it has to offer. My point is that the existence of HDZRs do not create this demand. They make alternate forms of development unfeasible, but they do not, in any way, contribute to the key element necessary for that homogeneity: demand.
On the other hand, the complete removal of HDZR would create demand for such homogeneity. My favorite example of this is the furor over the Wal-Mart in Northcross. The only reason why that Wal-Mart is being built is because people will shop there. And people will shop there because Wal-Mart can offer the best prices. And the most important factor in a Wal-Mart customer's decision is price. And because the Northcross area is full of potential Wal-Mart customers... well... If you build it, they will come.
Because of various factors and influences, a major portion of the new housing that would spring up as a result of the removal of HDZR would go to people of lower income. The Wal-Mart customer, if you will. The types of people that increase the demand for homogenization. You get enough of them, and the economics of the situation (as crippled as they may be by outside influences) will eventually grind into action, and the result is Wal-Marts where we don't want them. You can see prime examples of the effects of population on homogenization if you just look at the Drag.
The point I am trying to make here is that, to an extent, HDZR are... here comes that buzz phrase... necessary to preserve the integrity of the city. To what extent? That's really impossible to tell at our level. I'm certainly not opposed to EASING the restrictions, but I don't think we can really argue the specifics of that at this point because it requires a little bit more analysis and data than we are capable of doing on the comments section of a blog.
Again, thanks to the fact that I have a real job, I can't post treatises like that; but you should be aware that you're arguing a contrary position to all (yes, all) the scholarship on this issue. You may have found a crackpot theory which sounds attractive, but it's actually 180 degrees from the truth: suburban zoning _creates_ homogenity (every apartment complex ends up being those 3-story pod-buildings around parking lots; every house has to be N feet away from the street and no more than M feet high; most retail ends up as either strip center or restaurant pad; etc.).
All you need to do is take a comparative look at Guadalupe versus a standard suburban strip mall. Which one, even with the recent import of some additional national chains, is the more heterogenous? (Note that, in a particularly perverse, but very telling, case of zoning gone mad, many new tenants on the Drag must apply for a variance to avoid providing surface parking).
Dude, I appreciate your ability to string this shit together; but you've got to come up with a more compelling, not just a louder, argument to justify why everybody who studies this stuff points to the exact opposite conclusion you do. And the first test of such a theory is whether it can explain current conditions - once again, yours fails (e.g. Vino Vino vs. Walgreens - one can thrive in the suburban zoning code; one is having a hell of a time).
"I don't know where you got the notion that I was accusing Shilli of wanting everyone to live in Townhouses"
Oh, and don't be disingenuous. When you back the people who were quoted as: "ideologically driven by people who want other people to live in townhouses", you can't be surprised when somebody calls you on it. And it wasn't even me that did it - it was Shilli. To whit:
"I think it is ridiculous to say that the academics doing the studies are driven by a desire for other people to live in townhouses, so I put it in the post."
which you then took issue with as spin, somehow, because it was a quote you thought looked kooky. But, and here's the rub, many right-wingers DO IN FACT TALK THIS WAY, even though the only force inherent in the zoning code is that which PREVENTS people who WANT townhouses from living in them.
When I said that, you went bat-shit insane; so it's not an unreasonable leap to conclude that you agree with those people.
Hambriq, zoning doesn't create demand, but eliminating zoning would create demand? Removing zoning would generate low income housing? I don't even know what you are talking about with "integrity of the city." It sounds a lot like "purity of essence."
I see how zoning affects supply: it is easier for developers to build in accordance with zoning than to seek a variance, so cities with standard suburban zoning get strip malls and tract homes, which are difficult to walk between, so people drive instead and get fat.
To your earlier point, I think Ewing's explanation for why his research was being attacked was plausible - people have an economic incentive to attack it. I didn't think Turner's explanation was plausible, which is why I mentioned it in the post. Also, you can interpret the numbers different ways, just like you can interpret a red light to mean "go." I think the 90% of the studies showing a link between weight and the built environment are probably interpreting the numbers correctly.
Oooo... You have a real job. Unlike the rest of us. Who have fake jobs. Which reminds me, you seemed to do a pretty decent job of keeping up the pace with me... that is, until I challenged you to rise above sensationalism, namecalling, and general douchebaggery. At which point, your "real job" conveniently reared it's head. Right.
I guess reading isn't a prerequisite for your "real job". I mean, Jesus Christ, did I ever once say I was in support of zoning laws such as the "N feet away" that you are mentioning. This isn't so much of an argument as it is you proudly displaying the size of your internet penis. Look, I get it. You don't like anything even remotely to the right of center. And because you assumed I was such, you're jumping all over me, despite the fact that we pretty much agree on what we're talking about. But let's not let something as silly as facts, truth, or logic get in the way of you impressing all the fellow bloggers. Because after all, that's what's really important.
"hich reminds me, you seemed to do a pretty decent job of keeping up the pace with me... that is, until I challenged you to rise above sensationalism,"
...with a treatise that put the Unabomber on notice. I can't out-volume you; if that's your method of choice, you win.