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.

Links

By

1. NYT reports on dense suburban projects being scaled back across Long Island not because of financing constraints or the recession, but because local governments are refusing to accept the density. At the end it cites AvalonBay as saying that after the its rebuke on the Island, it will reconsider “whether we would stay on Long Island and be an investor.” AvalonBay is a developer that specifically targets “high barrier-to-entry markets,” so the fact that it’s considering pulling out of the market entirely is a bad sign for Long Island’s long-term growth prospects.

2. Cap’n Transit on the private bus battle brewing in New York City that we should all be paying more attention to. Coincidentally, earlier today I did a search for new about dollar vans, and the only coverage I found was about car crashes – anyone know of any new developments that have flew under the radar of the mainstream media? Separated by language and legality, private buses might be one of New York City’s most undercovered industries.

3. An incredible list of demands from DC Walmart foes. I have no particular love for Walmart – it’s clear that their business model relies heavily on government intervention in favor of roads and sprawl – but any self-styled “community” group that’s demanding free buses every 10 minutes to the Metro, transit benefits for workers, and “free or low-priced parking spaces” is not to be taken seriously. I also like how they want Walmart not to screen workers’ backgrounds at all but also want “no less than two off-duty D.C. police officers on its premises at all times.” The demand for direct cash bribes at the end is also pretty classy.

4. SFpark, the San Francisco market-based on-street parking pricing scheme, has launched. Apparently the price can get up to $18/hour during special events – I hope they let it rise that high all the time if the market can bear it!

5. Manhattan developers are pushing upzoning in Chinatown, which some are linking to the creation of the BID. Given that Asian migrants seem to be skipping the traditional Manhattan Chinatown entirely and going directly to Queens, Brooklyn, and North Jersey, I wouldn’t be surprised if Manhattan’s Chinatown becomes significantly less Asian in the years to come.

Comments

  1. Wow. Being anti-Avalon is pretty spectacular. Assuming their proposed project in LI is anything like the Avalon place I live in now, it’s as low-impact as high-density can get- the building is attractive; it is completely self-contained, parking-wise; it has street-level commercial properties so that you don’t have the “unbroken wall of private space” problem that makes so many modern buildings bad neighbors; and the residents are all upper-middle-class to outright wealthy (one resident has two Ferraris) so it isn’t like you’re bringing in undesirables.

  2. (I’d add that I think that Avalon is a terrific investment. Lousy landlords, mind you, but that’s part of why I think they’re probably a great long-term investment…)

  4. 3. An incredible list of demands from DC Walmart foes. I have no particular love for Walmart – it’s clear that their business model relies heavily on government intervention in favor of roads and sprawl – but any self-styled “community” group that’s demanding free buses every 10 minutes to the Metro, transit benefits for workers, and “free or low-priced parking spaces” is not to be taken seriously. I also like how they want Walmart not to screen workers’ backgrounds at all but also want “no less than two off-duty D.C. police officers on its premises at all times.” The demand for direct cash bribes at the end is also pretty classy.

    If it’s any consolation, most of those will probably go bankrupt if or when online/mobile grocery shopping and home delivery come into the main. They’re already testing it in various cities. Keeping out Wal-Mart is only postponing the inevitable.

    What really makes me angry about their opposition, though, is that it disproportionately hurts the poor. The middle-class and rich people with cars aren’t hit too hard, since they can just drive to the nearest superstore.

  5. I wonder about that– it seems to me that if or when online grocery shopping come in to the main, it’s the Walmarts of the world that have more to fear than your average corner store. For example, once you can buy bulk toilet paper and cereal and dry goods online, why drive 10 miles to the nearest Walmart? On the other hand, when you want fresh veggies or you forgot to get tinfoil or milk, the local shops can cater to you– and since you’ll be spending significantly less locally (vs online), there are fewer savings to be had by traveling a great distance. Yes, they may be hurt by competition from the 2-hour online delivery services– but not as much as Walmart, I wager.

    Plus, this will increase the attraction of highly urbanized places. If you can get your bulky goods delivered, that’s one less reason to need a car (or multiple cars).

    Anyway, that’s my optimistic theory.

  6. Well, the flip side of this is that suburbs can get amenities via the internet that were once only available to city-dwellers. In a market-based world it would be a bit more expensive to deliver to Nowheresville, WY, but thanks to our shiny interstates, it’s the same cost.

    Overall, though, I think you’re right, and that it will benefit urbanites more.

Meta