Yule Heibel's Bookmarks tagged density → View Popular

You are here: Diigo Home > Yule Heibel's Bookmarks

Expand All 1 - 5 of 5

5Expand

The Bellows » NIMBYism

Ryan Avent argues a perspective against NIMBYism here, which never occurred to me before: that "the biggest problem with public involvement and development is that some of the biggest beneficiaries of new development have no seat at the table–those who’ll be living at to-be-constructed residences. Even if you bring all neighborhood stakeholders in, educate them, and get their opinion (eliminating squeaky wheel bias), you’re still not getting the views of all interested parties." He continues as follows:

"However the planning process addresses public participation, policy should begin with a pro-density bias to reflect that fact that other things equal, developments will always be less dense than is socially optimal. That’s because the people who would like to be residents of an area but aren’t benefit from development but have no political say in the matter."

Got that? In ciites, you should plan for optimal density (because that's ecologically efficient, too), but the NIMBYs will argue against density, and they will make those who want to move into the neighbourhood pay the additional cost of keeping density *below* optimal levels. As Avent puts it, "we need to determine whether the burden is on current homeowners to pay for the right to exclude additional residents, or if the burden is on non-residents to pay for the right to live there. Current policy is de facto the latter."

Tags: nimbyism, urban_development, density, affordability, the_bellows, ryan_avent on 2008-08-01 -All Annotations (0) -About

more fromwww.ryanavent.com

the biggest problem with public involvement and development is that some of the biggest beneficiaries of new development have no seat at the table–those who’ll be living at to-be-constructed residences.
policy should begin with a pro-density bias to reflect that fact that other things equal, developments will always be less dense than is socially optimal.
Another way of looking at this is by asking who has the right to restrict entry to a neighborhood, and how far does that right extend. When thinking about theoretical negotiations over the terms of development, we need to determine whether the burden is on current homeowners to pay for the right to exclude additional residents, or if the burden is on non-residents to pay for the right to live there. Current policy is de facto the latter.
But the current system is hugely inefficient, because we’re not even trying to figure out who the actual losers are, what a reasonable estimation of their losses is, what the social gains are, and so on. As such, you have projects which might potentially generate huge social benefits and considerable private benefits–to neighborhood residents, as well–derailed because a handful of very loud people shout loudly. And this costs those loud people only the time to organize and shout.
Add Sticky Note
- Oh god, how true! We see this time & time again with community associations "representing" the neighbourhoods here in Victoria.
  posted by lampertina on 2008-08-01

1Expand

Paul Krugman Joins Team Density | hugeasscity

danb comments on Paul Krugman's recent NYT column, which he wrote while in a Berlin mid-rise/ low-rise neigjborhood. I posted a comment back about amenities, and whether it's possible to create architecture w/ amenities when you're building on small (10K) city lots and trying to stick to low-rise (or low mid-rise at best). File under "commentary."

Tags: hugeasscity, density, seattle, paul_krugman, james_kunstler, commentary, low_rise, mid_rise, high_rise on 2008-05-22 -All Annotations (0) -About

more fromnoisetank.com

3Expand

New Urbanists Point the Way Forward by Catesby Leigh, City Journal 18 April 2008

"The New Urbanism and suburban sprawl have something in common: they’re uncool. New Urbanism is uncool because it is basically traditional; modernism is still the thing in architecture, notes Andrés Duany, the most influential New Urbanist."

For some reason, City Journal is impossible to annotate (neither highlights and consequently "stickies" work), which is too bad. Some good ideas in this article, but I can't mark it up.

Tags: urbanism, new_urbanism, suburbia, sprawl, smartgrowth, density, modernism, architecture, style, city_journal on 2008-04-28 -All Annotations (0) -About

more fromwww.city-journal.org

14Expand

"Don't be dense" by Zev Yaroslavsky - Los Angeles Times

"The debate about the availability of housing in Los Angeles and the city's development policies has been testy but long overdue." An interesting article by Yaroslavsky that initially makes the reader think that he's advocating a sort of nimby-istic "pulling up the drawbridges" mentality, but if the reader perserveres to read the entire piece, it seems his suggestions are really LA-specific. They're not necessarily in conflict with infill development; development around transit routes & hubs; and creation of density in areas that really need it (in our case, downtown). He does bring in late 80s experiences, however, which make you wonder if things haven't irrevocably moved beyond thel contexts he's referencing.

Tags: urbanplanning, urban_design, density, los_angeles, neighbourhoods, nimbyism, smartgrowth, eco_density, affordable_housing on 2008-04-14 -All Annotations (0) -About

more fromwww.latimes.com

The debate about the availability of housing in Los Angeles and the city's development policies has been testy but long overdue.
Fueling public outrage over growth policies that would significantly increase density are well-grounded fears that, in the clash between overdevelopment and neighborhood preservation, the developers will prevail.
Urged on by some elected officials, city planners have decided that the "smart" and "elegant" way to grow the city's housing stock is to double the allowable size of new buildings,bust through established height limits and reduce parking-space requirements -- effectively rolling back more than two decades of neighborhood-protection laws.

There is nothing smart or elegant about such growth. On the contrary. It's development run amok and with an utter disregard for how it affects the livability of the city's neighborhoods. Should these efforts -- the city's version of a state law encouraging greater density; ad hoc zoning changes to double the size of residential development on commercial property to facilitate more density; widespread approval of zoning variances for parking, height and property-line setbacks -- succeed, they will irreparably harm some of our most cherished neighborhoods and diminish our traditional sense of place.
Add Sticky Note
- - at first blush, this reads like possible nimbyism, but when Y. gets into the nuts & bolts of zoning policies as they relate specifically to his place, Los Angeles, his stance can be seen as well-differentiated, modulated urbanism. However, I could see how this opening volley could become a rallying cry for change-resistant neighbourhoods and neighbours everywhere, too...
  posted by lampertina on 2008-04-14
* Can more housing be built without destroying neighborhoods?

Absolutely. Housing development should be encouraged on the thousands of properties throughout the city that have sufficient lot size and depth relative to surrounding neighborhoods. Such properties can accommodate well-designed, denser and even taller buildings without the collateral damage of traffic congestion, loss of privacy and other community effectsoften associated with such development. In some cases, these projects would even enhance commercial thoroughfares -- such as the Figueroa corridor near USC -- that are in desperate need of revitalization. At short, larger housing projects should be built where they fit.
* Where can this housing be built?

It belongs in the city's many employment and residential centers -- downtown, Hollywood, Wilshire Center, Harbor Gateway, Warner Center and the Van Nuys Civic Center. These and similar areas can absorb more housing under current zoning laws. In Century City, for instance, developers are converting traffic-generating commercial buildings to residential uses, resulting in more housing and a net reduction in peak-hour traffic.
Housing should also be built around subway, bus and light-rail stations. Many of these transit stops -- Warner Center, where the Orange Line busway ends in Woodland Hills, is one -- are already employment magnets, and they would be appropriate sites for additional housing as well. But it makes no sense to reflexively boost residential density and building size along every Metro Rapid bus route, as the city's version of the state's density-bonus law allows, when the streets that the buses travel often cross low-density, pedestrian-friendly commercial districts serving some of the city's most charming neighborhoods. The city should be guided by one principle: The scale of development should be informed by the character of its surrounding neighborhood. The one-size-fits-all approach embodied in the density-bonus law and the indiscriminate approval of denser residential housing on commercial property is not an appropriate growth strategy for Los Angeles.
Add Sticky Note
- "The scale of development should be guided... informed by the character of its surrounding neighborhood." --> well, that's *tricky* insofar as it can result in a drawbridge or stand-off. At what point do you say, "the character has to change"? And at what point do you say, "the character *deserves* protection"? Why should it? Who determines that?
  posted by lampertina on 2008-04-14
* What can the city do to provide more affordable housing?

It can require developers as a matter of city policy to set aside a certain percentage of units in new buildings for people with low-to-moderate incomes. L.A. doesn't need to offer development bonuses allowing taller and bigger buildings to achieve this.
Add Sticky Note
- ? really
  posted by lampertina on 2008-04-14
The city also owns a considerable amount of underutilized real estate on which affordable housing could be built. As a council member, I pioneered the creation of several housing developments above city-owned parking lots that were 100% affordable, a policy that should be applied more widely. The county has also made surplus property available to nonprofit developers to build affordable family and senior housing. The office building formerly housing the Department of Public Social Services, at Pico Boulevard and Veteran Avenue in West Los Angeles, is one example.
It's noteworthy that a major contributing factor to the loss of our affordable housing stock is the demolition and conversion of apartments to make way for condominiums and other luxury housing. Accommodating renters displaced by such developments must be one of the city's top housing priorities.
The burgeoning neighborhood rebellion we are witnessing throughout the city is the predictable consequence of an increasingly insular and exclusionary planning process.
Add Sticky Note
- It could also be the result of a vociferous resistance to change.
  posted by lampertina on 2008-04-14

Crosscut Seattle - Vancouver is Shangri-not

Tags: density, knute_berger, reference, skyscrapers, vancouver on 2007-10-23 -All Annotations (0) -About

more fromwww.crosscut.com

1 - 5 of 5

List 20 50 100

Notation: * = Private bookmark and comment|… = Clipping [?] | … = Public highlight [?]

Yule Heibel's Related Tags

Selected tags

density

Related tags

See More Top Contributors

arithwsun arithwsun Gregory Louie davido Dobromir Hadzhiev Olifante *

Related Groups on Diigo

ErgodicPNT

Members (7)

bookmarks (161)
Remembrance

Members (1)

bookmarks (69)
Hänsel und Gretel

Members (4)

bookmarks (98)