Sprawl is how much of the US provides new housing, and so it's interesting to ask the opposite question: Which cities are actually building new housing in walkable neighborhoods? Here is a study published this week by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley that looked at exactly this. What they did was divide all US neighborhoods into five categories based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per resident in 2023.
The categories:
Very Low VMT - 12 miles per person per day
Low VMT - 17.3 miles per person per day
Mid VMT - 21 miles per person per day
High VMT - 25.5 miles per person per day
Very High VMT - 37.5 miles per person day
These seem like oddly specific distances, but it's what they used to sort new housing supply. Here's all of the US:
Since the 1950s, new home production in very low VMT neighborhoods has generally been declining. Most of the lower VMT stuff was built before the 1940s, which is why New York City is so walkable and its chart looks like this:
Most newer cities do not build in this way. In fact, based on this study, there are only five large metro areas in the US that have (1) built at least 15% of their total housing since 2000 (meaning, they're a younger city) and (2) built at least 40% of their homes over the last decade in lower-VMT neighborhoods (very low and low).
These metro regions are:
This is not that many cities. At the same time, is it even the right benchmark to be aspiring to? "Lower VMT" just means you don't need to drive as much as you might in other neighborhoods. But it doesn't necessarily mean that you live in an amenity-rich and walkable community. What about the new homes being built in neighborhoods where people don't need a car at all? How many of these exist?
Very few, I'm sure.
Cover photo by Jo Heubeck & Domi Pfenninger on Unsplash
The School of Cities at the University of Toronto and the Institute for Governmental Studies at the University of California, Berkeley have been using mobile phone data to track the recovery of 62 downtowns across North America. This work has been being published at downtownrecovery.com, but it has also been widely cited.
First, to be clear on how this works, the data they are collecting is not dependent on people actually making calls or actively consuming data on their phone; instead it is simply based on people having a phone with them and being physically located in one these 62 downtowns. It also covers the period between January 2019 and November 2022, and includes cities with least 350,000 people.
I'm not exactly sure how long the phones need to be in a particular place or how they treat time in their data, but the unit of measure is something that they call a "Point of Interest." This includes things like restaurants and shops, so presumably this data isn't just saying, " I went downtown and sat in my office for 8 hours." It could also be, "I went downtown and ate good pasta."
I say this because, based on my understanding of the data, having a high Recovery Quotient (RQ) could mean a number of different things. It could mean that more people are back in the office, but it could also mean that the downtown isn't a monoculture and that it has other things going on besides just work.
In any event, here's what they have found:
One of the most common objections to new housing is that the place is already too crowded and potentially even full. But Jerusalem Demsas' recently article in The Atlantic about how much people seem to hate other people is a good reminder that the topic of overpopulation can be a complicated one.
Because what are we really saying when we say a place is too crowded or full? Is it just that this particular neighborhood is full, or are we talking about entire cities being full?
Moreover, who determines when a place is full? Berkeley, California is, for example, a hell of a lot less dense than a city like Paris. So if a place like Berkeley can be considered full by some people, what does that mean for Paris? Presumably it's entirely unliveable.
Or could it be that the entire world is simply full and we should be looking at more drastic measures to curb population growth (in the places that are actually reaching replacement-level fertility rates)?
It's all very complicated. Thankfully Demsas offers up some possible solutions in her article:
We have, of course, discovered an elusive technology to allow more people to live on less land: It’s called an apartment building. And if people would like fewer neighbors competing for parking spaces, then they should rest assured that buses, trains, protected bike lanes, and maintained sidewalks are effective, cutting-edge inventions available to all.
The headline finding is that San Francisco has the lowest RQ at 31% and Salt Lake City has the highest at 135%. There does appear to be a bias toward higher recoveries with mid-sized cities, and one of the reasons for this is that these recovery quotients appear to be correlated with average commute times:
Some of the other strongly correlated explanations, include the percentage of jobs in professional, scientific, and technical fields:
And the number of days that events were shut down during the pandemic (note the Canadian cities on the right below; welcome, New Orleans):
I suppose one way to grossly oversimplify these findings is to say that some people have been avoiding going downtown if they can't quickly drive there (and have to take transit), if their job more easily allows them to work from home, and if things were shut down for too long during the pandemic. Because if it was, they maybe forgot about all of the fun things that typically happen downtown.
Image: The School of Cities
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
