This recent article by Inga Saffron in the Philadelphia Inquirer is behind a paywall and so I, admittedly, haven't read it. But it seems to cover a common urban dilemma: Center City Philadelphia has too many surface parking lots while simultaneously having a need for more housing. The problem, as the argument goes, is that the city's tax system is under-assessing vacant land, creating an incentive to sit on it, and a disincentive to develop new housing. The solution: tax land more; tax improvements less.
(Forgive me if this isn't entirely accurate with Saffron's position.)
It's a classic "stick versus carrot" approach. Let's beat landowners and developers into building more housing. Now, in some situations, I can see the allure of this line of thinking. If we're talking about someone who has owned a surface parking lot for many decades and it's generating a nice stream of cash, there might be little incentive to develop it or sell the land to someone who will develop it. But as a general rule, I believe that carrots are far more productive than sticks.
I have at least two concerns with trying to tax landowners into compliance. One, you have to be careful not to create a double-edged sword. Taxing based on the "highest and best use" can work to suppress some of the small businesses that make cities great. For example, should a site with a local bookstore in a small heritage building, or a mom-and-pop restaurant in a single-storey building, be forced into higher-density housing? I don't think so.
Two, blaming low taxes for the lack of housing can distract from the more fundamental question: Why aren't more developers building housing if there's a need and an availability of land? When I lived in Philadelphia during grad school, I remember developers telling me the following: "The thing about Philly is that the build-costs are the same as New York (Philly is a strong labour union city), but the rents you can command are obviously nowhere near the same." Sticks don't work if the math doesn't math!
I don't know how the market has evolved since the late 2000s, but I do know that developers want to develop. And they will do so if the economics make sense and the right carrots exist.
I started thinking about this the other night. For the first 18 years of my life, in other words, up until I moved away to university, I lived for the most part in a detached single-family house in the suburbs of Toronto. But since then, I have almost exclusively lived in apartments/condominiums ranging from converted houses to high-rise buildings.
This was true when I was at the University of Toronto and it was true when I lived in Philadelphia for grad school. In my first year of grad school I lived in a converted house in a questionable area of West Philly. In my second year I lived in a high-rise brutalist building. And in my third year I lived in a small three level walk-up apartment above a pet store and a really great deli. This perhaps not surprising given I was a student.
But since moving back to Toronto, the same has been true. I initially invested and lived in a single-family house, but then decided I preferred living in a condominium and so I have done that ever since. Maybe this changes with kids or maybe it doesn't. But it's interesting to think about the housing types we have chosen or were handed. Location and other factors certainly play a role.
What housing type have you lived in the most throughout your life? Let us know in the comment section below.
Cover photo by Michal GADEK on Unsplash
Past research has shown that as cities get larger, people tend to walk faster. The probable explanation for this is that as cities get bigger, they also tend to get wealthier, and so the opportunity cost of not walking fast increases. In other words, people's time is worth more.
Of course, there's something naturally unsettling about this. But it appears to be demonstrably true. Here's another, more recent, study that compares pedestrian behavior in 1979-1980 to 2008-2010 for four urban public spaces in New York, Boston, and Philadelphia.
What the researchers did was use William Whyte's famous observational work from 1980 and then use computer vision to compare it to 2008-2010. And what they found was that, on average, walking speeds had increased by about 15% and that time spent lingering in these public spaces had basically halved across all locations.
These are pretty dramatic changes that speak to a different, or at least, evolving, urban life. Increasingly, we're all just atoms racing around and trying to get to our next engagement.
Now, part of this can likely be attributed to the greater opportunity cost thing. But another possible explanation might be the advent of the internet and smartphones. Could this be a symptom of our social lives moving away from our streets and being replaced by online platforms?