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.

Long weekend links

By

1. The NYT utterly humiliates itself with a story on how difficult it is for a kid straight outta college from “a prominent Portuguese banking family” to rent a $2,500/mo. studio in a Chelsea coop for less than 12 months. Sounds like the perfect posterchild for Sheldon Silver’s rent control plans.

2. What does it cost in bribes to get an 11-story hotel built in Park Slope? $9,850 to Marty Markowitz and 400-space public garage. The developer called the garage a “magnificent cake,” and Irene Lo Re of the Fifth Ave. BID says, “We can’t turn our backs on 400 spaces.” The commenters are throwing a lot of scorn at the developer for the garage, but it looks to me like it’s the fault of Irene Lo Re and the parking-obsessed neighbors.

3. Vancouver considers easing up on “social housing requirement” for developer (for the first time ever?!) if they’ll give the city a few parcels of land.

4. New (again) California Governor Jerry Brown proposes elimination of redevelopment agencies.

Comments

  1. Stephen-

    I like your work here quite a bit, but I find the tone is sometimes accusatory and demeaning rather than informative. I think you should explain why the NY Times is “wrong” rather than saying they “utterly humiliate” themselves.

    I’d rather you advance clear, concise arguments than focus on how stupid some people are. Most people don’t have a great grasp on economics, and I think this blog can help inform the debate even more if the tone was more muted. I don’t think the word “stupid” should ever appear in one’s writing, for one. I’ve felt this about some of your recent writing, and the NY Times article is just the one I chose to comment on.

    Anyway, you do great work. I write for seattletransitblog.com and have excitedly shared your work with others.

  2. I’m not really sure what was humiliating about the NYT piece. Maybe there really are too few landlords willing to accept short-term leases in Manhattan – and, if so, some might be convinced to probe the potential for this market by reading stories like this.

  3. I guess what I found so offensive about it is how undeserving the subject is. Based on what he “settled” for, I’d be very surprised if he even considered living in – *gasp* – Brooklyn!

  4. Perhaps someone should inform the Times reporter that “application fees so high that even the broker thought they bordered on predatory” might be the managing companies’ rational response to the renter’s wish for a short-term rental. I don’t know how it is in those posh rentals, but if they’re anything like the rent-stabilized buildings I live in, each new tenant needs a new range, a new fridge, and a new microwave, plus a new coat of paint. That takes the apartment off the market for a month, so the landlord needs to make up another 17% of the total rent on the six-month lease, which is where the fees come in.

Meta