Where should people be living?

[Linda_D]

You need to look at the statistics, lady. I'm thinking ahead of the curve.

I'm sorry that I offended you, but you are making claims that simply cannot be substantiated. Just because you and most people you know do NOT cook does NOT mean that that is true for most people, or most people in the future. Most people I know detest grocery shopping, but that doesn't mean that most people do.

People are going to continue to marry, have children, and invite friends and family over for various get-togethers so "the culture" is NOT going to change radically; people cannot afford to take the family out to eat every night or to have every Thanksgiving dinner or impromptu party catered, so they will need more than a hot plate and a microwave.

No matter what type of housing you look at, from rental units to mansions, nothing will kill the rental/sale of that property faster than a crappy kitchen. People avoid crappy kitchens like they do loathesome diseases, so there's absolutely no "resale" value in a tiny kitchen lacking full-size appliances and some workspace. It says "cheap" and it says "big $$$ to change". "Resale value" depends upon appealing to the 90% of people who want a decent-sized kitchen with regular appliances, not the 10% who just want a hotel-style kitchenette.

[Tide]

Just to add to this discussion. Since the downturn in the economy several years ago I find my family eating in a TON more than we had in the past just due to the fact that you can stretch your food dollars nearly twice as much. So, if economic impacts of gas prices rise and with the cost of eating out increasing in stride you could actually make the case for the kitchen becoming the center of the home again .

[Cismontane]

Linda and Pragmatic,

I can say pretty categorically that kitchens aren't shrinking in the developer typologies we've been seeing. Kitchen designs are getting more creative and interesting (perhaps they shoudl hire Linda as a kitchen consultant!), but they're definitely getting bigger and bleeding into communal space, even as communal space is shrinking. It makes sense, since people don't want and can no longer afford living rooms and even large family rooms that aren't actually just kitchen-extensions. Instead, the spare bedroom is now the new multi-purpose space for none family-room-kitchen sstuff. I've even see plans that envision the home entertainment center/large screen TV in the nook, right by the kitchen.

[ColoGI]

Just to add to this discussion. Since the downturn in the economy several years ago I find my family eating in a TON more than we had in the past just due to the fact that you can stretch your food dollars nearly twice as much. So, if economic impacts of gas prices rise and with the cost of eating out increasing in stride you could actually make the case for the kitchen becoming the center of the home again .

That is certainly my point. And LindaD's too, altho I'm not prone to speaking for people. I'd also add you can see the effects of what man-made climate change looks like on food prices - vast crop failures will become more common and we'll get what we see now.

When economic reality hits home for more people, they will not be consuming the luxury good and eating out more - they will be cutting corners and that means cooking and baking at home. Not hard to grok at all, esp folks like me who are...ahem...not in our 20s, frugal, and know the value of cooking (and not only for saving money, if you know what I mean).

[urban19]

Which environments, from urban to rural, produce the most economic output?

Which environments and housing types are in demand, and how can jurisdictions, in coordination with the private sector, meet that demand?

How can housing types be improved in order to better meet the demand of consumers and to perform better for society and the natural environment?

Do problematic housing typologies that are inherently and necessarily inferior exist, and should they be discouraged and/or outlawed?

Urban produces more economic output for sure. More range of businesses. Sure farming is important and rural and all that, but it's businesses and trade that wracks in the bucks and the more diverse economies the better. So many people are bashing California for a bad economy, but were not the only state with problems. It's larger states in general that get too much population and not enough jobs. The reason why California has been doing good is because we have many areas that diverse economies like all the different colleges scattered around the state, the firms, and farmings. Primary farming communities won't cut it these days. You need a college or some large firms moving in to create more professional jobs. If farming jobs is that a city can offer than the demographics and money pouring into the city are going to reflect it.

All though, I am wondering how San Francisco has a higher unemployment rate than Los Angeles. I heard LA was starting to just pass projects and skipping several steps to create jobs. So that some buildings would be dull and not pretty, but jobs would be made. I think for the most part LA is doing good because of Hollywood and everyone puts so much money into our culture and entertainment. San Francisco may be a very tourist city with a diverse job market, but you can't beat entertainment as a good source of income.

[Gotta Speakup]

San Francisco lost a lot of jobs because the recession hit technology companies harder than entertainment companies. Also, San Francisco has traditionally been a place where people will move to even if they don't have a job lined up in advance, just because they want to live there.

[xequar]

Linda and Pragmatic,

I can say pretty categorically that kitchens aren't shrinking in the developer typologies we've been seeing. Kitchen designs are getting more creative and interesting (perhaps they shoudl hire Linda as a kitchen consultant!), but they're definitely getting bigger and bleeding into communal space, even as communal space is shrinking. It makes sense, since people don't want and can no longer afford living rooms and even large family rooms that aren't actually just kitchen-extensions. Instead, the spare bedroom is now the new multi-purpose space for none family-room-kitchen sstuff. I've even see plans that envision the home entertainment center/large screen TV in the nook, right by the kitchen.

Part of that, though, is a shift in how we entertain. Instead of the kitchen being seen as a place for staff or as a place to be hidden, instead of preparing a formal meal then sitting around a formal dining room table, we are now far less formal, and everyone wants to interact even as someone's preparing food that might *gasp* be eaten in front of a TV.

I honestly don't think it's a question about costs. It's more a matter of how people entertain now compared to pre-World War II, at least on the kitchen question.

[Linda_D]

Part of that, though, is a shift in how we entertain. Instead of the kitchen being seen as a place for staff or as a place to be hidden, instead of preparing a formal meal then sitting around a formal dining room table, we are now far less formal, and everyone wants to interact even as someone's preparing food that might *gasp* be eaten in front of a TV.

I honestly don't think it's a question about costs. It's more a matter of how people entertain now compared to pre-World War II, at least on the kitchen question.

I think you are very right. I use my dining room about twice a year for formal meals. The rest of the time, it serves as a walk through to the sun porch and a collector of mail, cats, and other selective stuff. so I would much prefer it to be all one big space, but that's really not going to happen.

I think that Cismontane and I only disagree on our definitions of "kitchen". I consider a "kitchen" to be primarily the food preparation area while he is including the entire communal space.

[nec209]

I know many will argue for people to live in apartments in downtown areas, but I don't think that's practical for a family of five which needs space.

I think smaller homes with smaller backyards and building near downtowns is the way to go. I would not mind living near a downtown, but I would want to be in a house that is nice.

Most people do not like the down-town area do to city feel and like the calm relaxed suburb feel.Most people do not like townhouse or apartments at all !!! But where take a townhouse over a apartment any time.

The only people that love apartment /condo are young preppy city type people that like the big city like look and feel than suburb look and feel.

[Cismontane]

Most people do not like the down-town area do to city feel and like the calm relaxed suburb feel.Most people do not like townhouse or apartments at all !!!

People generally figure out how to like what they can afford. Take away the Federal housing guarantees and subsidies in the US, they'll go for townhomes. If you can double the density with townhomes, I think that probably works quite nicely. Apartments have diminishing returns since the cost of construction per square feet is that much higher. They'd have to be that much smaller, all other factors being equal. In most US markets, a 1,300 sq ft townhouse easily translates into a sub-900 sq ft apartment in terms of construction costs, after the shared space is adjusted out. The trick here is to spend the same amount you would spend per square feet of current single family homes while building attached units with a little more than half the size per unit. Otherwise, the math goes back to bubble-land.

Like it or not, for the last couple of decades people have been buying things they simply could not afford, under fiscally unsustainable concessionary loan terms that basically amounted to kicking the can forward. Until builders start offering and consumers start buying housing units of a type actually fit their means, there will not be a property recovery. The misery will drag on an on.. for many years to come. Before such questions like consumer preference even begin meaningful, we have to peel away the layers of failed government subsidy programs before we can even figure out what things should cost. Everybody wants a Porche. Under normal circumstances, few can afford one. But government was effectively giving away Porches to millions of lucky American families with cheap money virtually without credit standards. Now government is broke and the Porches are getting repossessed. We need a new plan. Otherwise, the much vaunted "recovery" is going to be years and years away.

[bsteckler]

I agree, but I think there are other factors which need to be discussed too. I don't think you'll get far if you describe this as something that has to be done whether people like it or not. We should focus on the social and economic benefits that come from urban life, while explaining how the problems that have been caused by classical urban renewal will be undone as people move back into urban areas.

It doesn't really seem like anything much will happen with cutting mortgage subsidies, mainly because politicians of any affiliation have taken the stance of "cut everything except what we like". If there isn't already an Urbanist Party or an equivalent, one should be created. I proposed this idea a couple of posts up, but it didn't seem to get much service.

[UptSA]

I know many will argue for people to live in apartments in downtown areas, but I don't think that's practical for a family of five which needs space.

I think smaller homes with smaller backyards and building near downtowns is the way to go. I would not mind living near a downtown, but I would want to be in a house that is nice.

I agree with you. In South Africa, and I geuss the same holds true for other countries, space equals wealth. Consequently, when I design layouts in certain towns, i am challenged with development companies demanding 900m² plots (erven). Designing with such sized land units is extremely challenging and oversized blocks may also hamper neighbourhood cohesion. The issue is however one of public perception. People must realise that smaller plots may be used effectively and with good planning can become an integral par tof the street landscape.

[Cismontane]

It doesn't really seem like anything much will happen with cutting mortgage subsidies, mainly because politicians of any affiliation have taken the stance of "cut everything except what we like". If there isn't already an Urbanist Party or an equivalent, one should be created. I proposed this idea a couple of posts up, but it didn't seem to get much service.

I like the idea.

I don't agree with you on the GSE subsidies. I think the GSE mortgage subsidies are gone, since nobody can possibly come up with the $4 trillion needed to recap the sytem. So Obama will probably get his way there, even if it will take quite a bit of inertia. He may wait until after 2012, after which he'll hopefully be reelected. The magnitude of national debt that it'll take to bring them back in their full glory will be prohibitive and ultimately people will have to recognize that. The recap plus future capital commitments for a renewed lending program covering, say, 60% of future activity, would amount to something like 1x or 1.3x GDP. That pretty much ensures that any real effort to resurrect them is a non-starter.

I think you'd be right about the MID (mortgage interest deduction). That's going to be more difficult to get rid of, it once the GSE system is gone, the MID frankly becomes much less painful to live with. If anything the MID might encourage private sector mortgage lending (conventional mortgages without the Fannie and Freddie backing, if you can imagine it). And that could be a good thing. I think ultimately we'll have to find a way to get rid of the MID, but maybe not in the first instance.

[Cismontane]

Designing with such sized land units is extremely challenging and oversized blocks may also hamper neighbourhood cohesion. The issue is however one of public perception. People must realise that smaller plots may be used effectively and with good planning can become an integral par tof the street landscape.

Agreed.. and it does put a premium on the planning We like that. hehe.

The biggest barrier here, once the GSEs go away, is local zoning and land-use.. NIMBY resistence to changing existing land-use to reflect the new reality. This runs a risk of pushing these new denser townhome 'burbs out beyond the current fringe, as existing 'burbs restrict or prevent densification. This will put huge strains on highways, rail lines and other transport infrastructure.. as well as water systems.

Again, I don't think there's really a good case for promoting apartments much beyond their share of the market today. The cost-space restriction on the supply side limit how much smaller apartment units can get. I firmly believe that the future is attached and semi-detached single-family product... in the area of 10 to 17 units per acre gross, and possibly as high as 22 units per acre gross.

[Howl]

San Francisco lost a lot of jobs because the recession hit technology companies harder than entertainment companies. Also, San Francisco has traditionally been a place where people will move to even if they don't have a job lined up in advance, just because they want to live there.

On this tangent - If the only mode of transportation you can afford is walking then you need to locate someplace where you can maximize the potential for getting money and/or food without a car which is why very poor people around the world tend to gravitate to urban centres. It's the only place they can survive without a car. Humanitarian services (such as food kitchens) are found in urban centres because that’s where poor people go, not necessarily the other way around (e.g. poor people don’t go to the city simply because that’s where services for them are offered). The alternative is to move to a rural location and grow your own food. The places in between (suburbia) are not economically viable for the very poor - there's not enough land to grow enough food to keep you going all year but its too spread out to get around without transportation.

If the poor class grows in the USA people will probably flow out of the suburbian communities into the urban cities (or some into the rural areas).

[Cismontane]

If the only mode of transportation you can afford is walking then you need to locate someplace where you can maximize the potential for getting money and/or food without a car which is why very poor people around the world tend to gravitate to urban centres

I don't really see cars as becoming more expensive .. I also think we can gradually find a solution to electric vehicles in time before oil prices start really going out of control (well.. at least for reasons other than political instability, which is wholly out of my domain of knowledge and expertise to predict). Lithium is a bigger problem.. we need an alternative medium of battery power retention desperately. Still, I think people who can afford a car today will probably still be able to afford a car in 20 yaers. People like me, of course, won't buy a car on principle, but that's just because I'm a green freak, stubborn and incredibly cheap (I'm also single right now.. so if you like incredibly cheap people without cars... just kidding).

I think the bigger issue is what happens when suburbs age and mature.. how will the poor (and even the lower middle class) who will move there for the jobs and the cheaper rents survive? According to recently released data derived from the census, outlying exurban areas of NYC's region have large (as in 65-70%) cohorts with the following household budget: 1/3rd housing, 1/3rd transportation, 25% taxes, 8% everything else (food, healthcare, savings...). And most of these seem to be mortgaged homeowners, not renters. Transport includes the payments on their cars and the high train fares they pay to commute from park-and-ride lots into the city or to other regional employment centers. In fact, those ratios look a lot better in lower-middle and working class urban areas beceause (i) there are more renters who use a smaller proportion of their income on housing and (ii) transport expenses as a percentage of income can be a lot lower without having to carry a car loan plsu pay commuter train rates. That's really just skin-of-your-teeth survival at those numbers. I can't imagine living like that all through my life. Maybe that's fine when you're 25, but can you imagine being 45 with 3 kids, school debt and consumer debt and that type of budget, with no prospects of anything better?

I think the solution lies partially with land-use. We need to think of arranging ways to reduce trip lengths through land-use planning for new development. Places of work need to be closer to where people are live. I'm not talking about TODs and transit-supportive planning. That's fine. We all think it's a good thing blah blah blah. I question whether TODs will make, however, a really big impact in the end. What I'm talking about here is at a much bigger grain - simply reducing the more pernicious effects of Euclidean zoning by trying wherever possible to find ways to put employment within, say, 1-6 miles of people's homes. If we do this, then alternative transportation options like bicyclng become options, carpooling, etc., get easier.

The other way would be to look into reducing the burden with a concerted policy effort, led at the Federal block grant level, to transfer some of the housing subsidy savings (from reduced para-sovereign debt service on what will by 2020 be a phased-out GSEs, for example.. perhaps even from increased tax revenues from a phased out mortgage interest deduction, although I know that's more controversial and frankly a much smaller number than the potential debt service savings to the US Treasury from simply aborting new bond issues and conduit transactions under the GSE programs), toward helping households in the 'burbs make ends meet. Offer them transit vouchers, existing home ad valorem property tax abatements, energy abatements, and so forth. The problem with the GSE subsidies is that they don't actually make things more affordable for people, instead they just incentivize builders to give people the biggest and most expensive house that will still qualify for the program and bankers to sell the biggest mortgages they can, instead of helping homebuyers economize and reduce their housing burden (and amount of housing poverty). The constraint on borrowing becomes not the capacity of the buyer to afford his mortgage but the actual internal bureaucratic details of the program requirements.

Direct subsidies for household and transport/car expenses could be designed to prevent this type of mis-incentivizaton from happening. For one thing, they should not be leveragable by developers and bankers. For example, for 100% AMI households, you could introduce a 50% Federally-supported commuter train voucher, which can easily reduce annual transit expenses by $2,800 on MetroNorth, to Putnam and some of the other northern counties. That subsidy could ramp up for lower income households.

[otterpop]

Cars aren't going anywhere, but up and down the streets.

I have never lived in a place where I didn't need a car to live the life I like to live. I am not a big city person. There is a great paucity of mass transit whereever I have lived. I have nothing against riding the city bus. When I lived in Missoula I rode the bus for free because I was a student. But I like to canoe and raft and go camping. You need a car for that.

In my college days I knew some people who didn't own cars on "principle." I knew them chiefly because they were always trying to bum a ride.

[Cismontane]

In my college days I knew some people who didn't own cars on "principle." I knew them chiefly because they were always trying to bum a ride.

hehe. I don't even have a valid driver's license right now. I'm not. by-the-way trying to urge my lifestyle on anyone else. I know I'm weird in that respect

[Pragmatic Idealist]

When I lived in Missoula I rode the bus for free because I was a student. But I like to canoe and raft and go camping. You need a car for that.

Here is where car sharing has the most potential. Everyone, even big-city people, can think of times when a standard-size vehicle (car, truck, etc.) would come in handy. But, owning, maintaining, and storing a car is just too much of a chore for urban dwellers.

Car/bike/N.E.V.-sharing also has the potential to make transit more effective by solving the "last mile" challenge.

T.O.D.'s really need car sharing because the costs of providing parking can be prohibitive.

[Linda_D]

Here is where car sharing has the most potential. Everyone, even big-city people, can think of times when a standard-size vehicle (car, truck, etc.) would come in handy. But, owning, maintaining, and storing a car is just too much of a chore for urban dwellers.

Car/bike/N.E.V.-sharing also has the potential to make transit more effective by solving the "last mile" challenge.

T.O.D.'s really need car sharing because the costs of providing parking can be prohibitive.

Car sharing is not a practical alternative for anything. All these car sharing schemes will crash and burn when somebody has an accident and anybody whose name is on the title gets sued even if it was somebody else driving.

If you don't want to own a car, then fine, don't. Go rent one when you need one. Enterprise even rents vans and pickups.

I'm with Otterpop. I don't think cars are ever going to be replaced by MT for people who live outside of major metropolitan areas or for those who don't live/work near transit lines.

[Cismontane]

T.O.D.'s really need car sharing because the costs of providing parking can be prohibitive.

The single biggest problem I have with TOD planning (besides the obvious questions of whether they're affordable and whether enough people actually want to live in them) is where people might need to travel to. Do they really work and recreate in other TOD nodes or at the urban center? Where are their friends and relatives living? If you live and shop in a TOD, will you still need a car to get to work everyday because the tech park you work in isn't itself on another TOD, and your friends and relatives don't live in a TOD? Does that really result in a reduction to car ownership? The empirical data I've seen from studies in California is decidedly mixed and almost always less than convincing. TODs do exhibit lower levels of car ownership, but mostly because of reduced parking availability (which is kind of like shoe-horning it, if you ask me.. if that's all I cared about, I would just outlaw 3 car garages and lmiit on-street parking in any other suburban typology)... this just means, as you put it, more people are sharing or carpooling, and not voluntarily. Also, their friends don't visit because there isn't enough guest parking (I have one friend who lives in a TOD.. none of us will go to see her there since there is never sufficient parking.. except for me, since I don't have a car). Transit mode shares are higher but only marginally so (say 7-8% of daily trips as opposed to 3%). All-in-all, not very persuasive, New Urbanist rhetoric aside.

My own views are far more modest. For the 'burbs, I want incremental densification but still below TOD levels (moving from single family detached at the 8s and 10s now prevailing in California to 10s to 14s.. in other words, still single family with small yards, but with attached instead of detached configurations and smaller units (the latter being driven by chainges in the post-GSE financing environment, and not by design consdierations per se), and I want shorter trips to and from work by reducing the worst effects of large-grain Euclidean zoning. In short, a slightly denser version of Rancho Bernardo, CA, Mission Viejo, CA, Reston VA and Columbia MD instead of a New Urbanist TOD structure and form. I'm pretty comfortable that I can achieve the same empirically observed gains in transit modal share with these more modest interventions as I could with TODs. TODs are only worth considering (given the extra cost, forced inconvenience and unnecessarily smaller unit sizes) if you can show empirically that far greater gains in transit use are possible. So far, that evidence is rather sorely lacking.

In fact, the only interesting evidence I've seen that truly differentiates suburban TODs from other forms of suburban development was property value appreciation prior to the bust.. and that's hardly a good thing. TODs tended to appreciate more quickly in price per square feet and that they actually support higher levels of homebuyer leverage, probably because they qualified for more subsidies and incentives or because people with better credit tend to move that (although I don't know for a fact what the reasons are). This might have persuaded more developers to build them, but it hardly sells me on the concept as a planner, since I want to increase affordability, not shaft it. As it is, I get less for the money and I get more of a bubble effect. Nowadays, I suspect a lot of these TODs just kind of sit empty... or with very high rates of vacancy.

I'm not saying that TODs are never appropriate. Sometimes they are. I'm just saying that they don't even come close to being a panacea and there are far cheaper ways of getting to smilar outcomes, by the numbers.

[Howl]

On the parking issue, there are a number of residential apartment towers in downtown Toronto that have be built with ZERO parking spaces provided, and they’ve been sold out. The reason is most condominium apartment towers in this neck of the woods sell their parking spaces separately from the units, although condo owners always get first right of refusal. Over the course of a few years so many new condo owners bought no spaces or only one space when 1.2 or 1.5 were provided for that there is now a surplus of spaces in many buildings. These surplus spaces can legally be sold to people living in neighbouring buildings. The developers of the building that have been approved for construction with no parking have bought the rights to enough surplus parking in adjacent building that they can supply all their requirements without building any parking themselves.

[Cismontane]

On the parking issue, there are a number of residential apartment towers in downtown Toronto that have be built with ZERO parking .

I think zero's very possible for center cities. If I recall correctly, I think, per zoning, zeros can be attached to studio apartments in San Diego, for example, although higher ratios apply to larger apartments. San Diego also has a zero parking requirement in Center City for newly developed non-reidential space.


My comment below related to da 'burbs.


Note that these ratios don't work for new development areas (like TODs). The reason cities like San Diego and Portland went with low-to-no parking ratios for some types of new deveopment was because they did surveys that confirmed too much existing parking capacity. The new limits were set with that existing capacity in mind. The reason the ratios are low or zero is because there are too many existing lots and garages. Obviously, this same logic cannot be applied to a new area.

[Pragmatic Idealist]

Car sharing is not a practical alternative for anything. All these car sharing schemes will crash and burn when somebody has an accident and anybody whose name is on the title gets sued even if it was somebody else driving.

If you don't want to own a car, then fine, don't. Go rent one when you need one. Enterprise even rents vans and pickups.

I'm with Otterpop. I don't think cars are ever going to be replaced by MT for people who live outside of major metropolitan areas or for those who don't live/work near transit lines.

Thank you again for your contributions to these discussions. It may benefit you to know that Enterprise has a car-sharing subsidiary, as does U-Haul and even a few car manufacturers. Evidently, they don't share your characteristic pessimism.

[Pragmatic Idealist]

The single biggest problem I have with TOD planning (besides the obvious questions of whether they're affordable and whether enough people actually want to live in them) is where people might need to travel to. Do they really work and recreate in other TOD nodes or at the urban center? Where are their friends and relatives living? If you live and shop in a TOD, will you still need a car to get to work everyday because the tech park you work in isn't itself on another TOD, and your friends and relatives don't live in a TOD? Does that really result in a reduction to car ownership? The empirical data I've seen from studies in California is decidedly mixed and almost always less than convincing. TODs do exhibit lower levels of car ownership, but mostly because of reduced parking availability (which is kind of like shoe-horning it, if you ask me.. if that's all I cared about, I would just outlaw 3 car garages and lmiit on-street parking in any other suburban typology)... this just means, as you put it, more people are sharing or carpooling, and not voluntarily. Also, their friends don't visit because there isn't enough guest parking (I have one friend who lives in a TOD.. none of us will go to see her there since there is never sufficient parking.. except for me, since I don't have a car). Transit mode shares are higher but only marginally so (say 7-8% of daily trips as opposed to 3%). All-in-all, not very persuasive, New Urbanist rhetoric aside.

My own views are far more modest. For the 'burbs, I want incremental densification but still below TOD levels (moving from single family detached at the 8s and 10s now prevailing in California to 10s to 14s.. in other words, still single family with small yards, but with attached instead of detached configurations and smaller units (the latter being driven by chainges in the post-GSE financing environment, and not by design consdierations per se), and I want shorter trips to and from work by reducing the worst effects of large-grain Euclidean zoning. In short, a slightly denser version of Rancho Bernardo, CA, Mission Viejo, CA, Reston VA and Columbia MD instead of a New Urbanist TOD structure and form. I'm pretty comfortable that I can achieve the same empirically observed gains in transit modal share with these more modest interventions as I could with TODs. TODs are only worth considering (given the extra cost, forced inconvenience and unnecessarily smaller unit sizes) if you can show empirically that far greater gains in transit use are possible. So far, that evidence is rather sorely lacking.

In fact, the only interesting evidence I've seen that truly differentiates suburban TODs from other forms of suburban development was property value appreciation prior to the bust.. and that's hardly a good thing. TODs tended to appreciate more quickly in price per square feet and that they actually support higher levels of homebuyer leverage, probably because they qualified for more subsidies and incentives or because people with better credit tend to move that (although I don't know for a fact what the reasons are). This might have persuaded more developers to build them, but it hardly sells me on the concept as a planner, since I want to increase affordability, not shaft it. As it is, I get less for the money and I get more of a bubble effect. Nowadays, I suspect a lot of these TODs just kind of sit empty... or with very high rates of vacancy.

I'm not saying that TODs are never appropriate. Sometimes they are. I'm just saying that they don't even come close to being a panacea and there are far cheaper ways of getting to smilar outcomes, by the numbers.

These things are all mutually-supportive. Clean-energy vehicle sharing, high-quality transit, and transit-oriented development are the trifecta.

The effectiveness of transit-oriented development in reducing V.M.T. depends on several factors that may not be controlled by the developer. Moreover, some developments are better designed than others. Creating walkable, human-scaled places requires improvements to the public realm, too. And, researchers need to define "T.O.D." because it encompasses several principles to which developers adhere inconsistently.

I want a greater diversity of land uses and housing typologies than those we have currently. I want a greater intensity of land uses near transit stations. I want each of these stations to serve as destinations with a strong sense of place. I want at least three transect zones within the pedestrian sheds from the stations. I want a comprehensive system of high-quality transit. I want clean-energy car/N.E.V./bicycle sharing available at every transit station. I want parking for standard-size cars to be restricted in several ways and shared among land uses and owners. I want ample parking for bicycles and N.E.V.'s. I want fully-separated bicycle/N.E.V. lanes where thoroughfare design speeds are too high. I want design speeds near residential uses to be low. I want walkable environments, as well as public gathering places. I want income diversity at each transit node. Give me all of the above, and, then, you can study whether or not T.O.D. is effective at reducing V.M.T.