Earlier today Richard Florida published a piece in CityLab called: Anatomy of a NIMBY. The article cites a recent paper by Paavo Monkkonen (of UCLA) that focuses on the relationship between NIMBYism and housing affordability – a much talked about subject these days.
More specifically, the paper identifies “four different strains of NIMBYism” and then offers up some possible solutions, which include things like a more inclusive process and better data. I’ve publicly supported these kinds of approaches on this blog many times before.
But in addition to the above, I wanted to point out two other ideas from the paper and Florida’s article.
The first is about shifting land use decisions up to the regional level, and maybe even the state level. This one is particularly timely given that there’s
Earlier today Richard Florida published a piece in CityLab called: Anatomy of a NIMBY. The article cites a recent paper by Paavo Monkkonen (of UCLA) that focuses on the relationship between NIMBYism and housing affordability – a much talked about subject these days.
More specifically, the paper identifies “four different strains of NIMBYism” and then offers up some possible solutions, which include things like a more inclusive process and better data. I’ve publicly supported these kinds of approaches on this blog many times before.
But in addition to the above, I wanted to point out two other ideas from the paper and Florida’s article.
The first is about shifting land use decisions up to the regional level, and maybe even the state level. This one is particularly timely given that there’s
a lot of discussion in Toronto right now
about shifting land use decisions in the exact opposite direction – from province (OMB) to city.
The second is a suggestion from Yale professor David Schleicher that he refers to as “tax increment local transfers.” Essentially, the idea is to somehow allow current residents to participate in the future tax revenues generated from new development in their neighborhood.
There’s lots of interesting reading buried in the above links.
“Minimum parking requirements create especially severe problems. In The High Cost of Free Parking, I argued that parking requirements subsidize cars, increase traffic congestion and carbon emissions, pollute the air and water, encourage sprawl, raise housing costs, degrade urban design, reduce walkability, damage the economy, and exclude poor people. To my knowledge, no city planner has argued that parking requirements do not have these harmful effects. Instead, a flood of recent research has shown they do have these effects. We are poisoning our cities with too much parking.”
And here’s his summary of what it costs to build a parking stall in various US cities (both underground and aboveground):
a lot of discussion in Toronto right now
about shifting land use decisions in the exact opposite direction – from province (OMB) to city.
The second is a suggestion from Yale professor David Schleicher that he refers to as “tax increment local transfers.” Essentially, the idea is to somehow allow current residents to participate in the future tax revenues generated from new development in their neighborhood.
There’s lots of interesting reading buried in the above links.
“Minimum parking requirements create especially severe problems. In The High Cost of Free Parking, I argued that parking requirements subsidize cars, increase traffic congestion and carbon emissions, pollute the air and water, encourage sprawl, raise housing costs, degrade urban design, reduce walkability, damage the economy, and exclude poor people. To my knowledge, no city planner has argued that parking requirements do not have these harmful effects. Instead, a flood of recent research has shown they do have these effects. We are poisoning our cities with too much parking.”
And here’s his summary of what it costs to build a parking stall in various US cities (both underground and aboveground):
To put these numbers into perspective, he also looks at the median net worth of US households (2011) to show just how expensive this parking is for some groups.
Because remember, these parking costs get embedded into the cost of housing, retail stores, and so on.
To put these numbers into perspective, he also looks at the median net worth of US households (2011) to show just how expensive this parking is for some groups.
Because remember, these parking costs get embedded into the cost of housing, retail stores, and so on.
