Density, Productivity, Affordability

Posted by on . 13 comments.

You, regular readers, are hopefully cognizant of my general feelings on the issue of building height. There are substantial and underappreciated costs to limiting heights — a tendency toward higher real estate prices, reduced density, reduced revenue-raising capacity, and so on. City leaders and residents all too often fall into the trap of thinking that height limits are costless, because it doesn’t take any money to pass them. In fact, there are substantial opportunity costs, and substantial benefits to easing height regulations. Many Washingtonians think it’s just urban fetishism to argue in favor of a change in the city’s height rules. In fact, those limits contribute to high office and housing rents which lead to reduced urban diversity, and they limit the (already highly constrained) capacity of the District government to raise revenues.

But lead me add a few thoughts to this, based on two recent blog posts. First, Dan Malouff (who is generally supportive of the District height limit) wrote that some leeway on the rule could potentially be desirable in order to boost the residential population in Washington’s downtown. And second, Ed Glaeser argued that Jane Jacobs was mistaken to favor six-story buildings over skyscrapers in New York, and that limits to construction in New York have added significant upward pressure to housing costs.

I’m obviously sympathetic to Glaeser’s argument. But consider this. If you doubled the density in the District of Columbia, you’d increase the area’s population by 600,000 people. If, on the other hand, you doubled the density of Fairfax County, you’d increase the area’s population by over 1 million. And you could accomplish that without building very many tall buildings at all, since most of Fairfax’s residents currently live in single-family homes.

The reason you can add more residential capacity by increasing density in Fairfax County is because it takes up so much more space. Indeed, if you built Fairfax County at District density, its population would rise from just over 1 million to nearly 4 million. And the District doesn’t have any residential buildings over 15 stories (or thereabouts). So to a certain extent, it’s less important to focus on increasing density — and heights — in places that are already quite dense than it is in places that are not. (We’re setting aside, for the time being, the relative difficulty, politically, of achieving increased density in central cities versus suburbs.)

But that’s not the whole story. For one thing, all land in a metropolitan area is not equal. A residential building in Midtown is not the same as a residential building in Hoboken. They provide different access and amenities, and if markets are demanding more space in Midtown, then substitute space in New Jersey will be an imperfect check on rising prices in Manhattan.

Yet another point concerns recent arguments that Glaeser has made about the productivity benefits of density:

What makes dense megacities like New York so successful? One reason is that urban scale and density strengthen markets by bringing together an abundance of buyers and sellers in an information-rich setting.

So let’s think about the effects of doubling density in Fairfax and the District. Now on the one hand, the benefits to doubling density in Fairfax are likely to be larger than those in Washington for reasons of scale alone — in the Fairfax example, more people are added. That makes for a deeper labour pool, a larger skills base, and so on. On the other hand, Fairfax density is likely to be less effective density. Fairfax is built in a fairly standard, suburban way. It’s not built at a walkable scale, the road system is arterial rather than gridded, transit options are limited, and so on. Doubling density, absent major infrastructure improvements, might actually reduce the metropolitan access of Fairfax residents.

Not so in the District. Yes, with more people roads, buses, and the Metro would be more heavily taxed. At the same time, every neighborhood would become individually more convenient. Brookland is fairly low density for a District neighborhood, but it’s basically built to be walkable. Were density in Brookland to double, the retail and commercial options within easy walking distance of Brookland residents would more than double.

And what’s true for the retail side of things is also true for the broader economy. Double the number of people within easy distance of the central business district, and you more than double the economic clout of the central business district.

The point isn’t that we should increase density in one place and not another. It’s that the challenges and returns to doing so are very different, and the picture more complicated than we often represent.

Comments

  1. Wendy says:
    May 7, 2010 at 5:06 pm

    Excellent post on a key issue for many metro areas–spreading density increases. Especially valuable is the point about the infrastructure in suburban places: auto-centered communities cannot manage that much more density because every additional person would need a car. Also an attraction of living in a high density area is the ability to walk to a wide variety of amenities as well as a metro station. Neither of which can easily emerge in a low-density, cul-de-sac infused suburban area.

  2. jim says:
    May 7, 2010 at 5:22 pm

    One point is that the District doesn’t cover the whole of the urban core of the region. Famously Rosslyn has high buildings that couldn’t be built just across the bridge. Just a couple of weeks ago, Alexandria approved the DSUP for a 1200 apartment (plus associated retail) complex to be built on what is now a parking lot next to the Eisenhower Ave Metro station (and the Beltway). Three storey lot-filling plus three towers (the roofs between the towers house amenities: pool, hot tubs, climbing wall etc.). The tallest of the towers will be 370 feet.

    What the District’s height limit does is push this sort of development out to the edges of the urban core. Which ultimately isn’t helpful.

  3. Benjamin Hemric says:
    May 7, 2010 at 11:30 pm

    While I realize this isn’t the main focus of your post, I hope you will permit me to challenge what have apparently become two entrenched myths about Jane Jacobs’ work.

    As someone with a longtime interest in the work of Jane Jacobs, I’ve read all seven of her major books (each of them a number of times), probably almost all of her major interviews, etc., and I think it’s pretty clear from her writings, interviews, etc. that Jacobs was neither anti-high-rise nor anti-high-density.

    I suggest to those who are interested that they read, for instance, Chapter 11, “the Need for Concentration” ALL THE WAY THROUGH (even in the Modern Library edition, with it’s small pages, it is less than 30 pages) to read Jacobs’ views on high-rises (i.e., “elevator apartments”) and high-densities in her own words.

    May 7, 2010, 11:30 p.m.

  4. Benjamin Hemric says:
    May 7, 2010 at 11:53 pm

    P.S. — It is also not true that “Jane Jacobs was mistaken to favor six-story buildings over skyscrapers in New York” as Jane Jacobs did not favor six-story buildings over skyscrapers in New York (or elsewhere). To the extent that Jacobs “favored” anything, she favored a diversity of building types — which includes both low-rise and high-rise structures. In fact, in “Death and Life . . .” (page 283) Jacobs actually suggests the construction of some high-rises in the low-rise North End of Boston. (See page 283 in the Modern Library Edition of “Death and Life . . .”)

    If anyone is interested in a more extensive discussion of Jacobs’ position on high rises, I’d like to suggest an extensive comment I posted on a September 5, 2009, “City Comforts” thread, entitled “Edward Glaeser on Jacobs and Moses.” (Just type in “Glaeser” in the “City Comforts” search box.) My comment is the first one in the thread.

    May 7, 2010, 11:53 p.m.

  5. db says:
    May 8, 2010 at 11:56 am

    If the only thing more density achieves is bringing hardware stores closer to where DC development blog commenters live so they stop arguing for draconian zoning laws in failed bids to save some doomed hardware store they claim to love, it will have been more than worth it.

  6. Benjamin Hemric says:
    May 8, 2010 at 11:56 am

    Regarding the issues that form the main focus of the original post:

    A) I heartily agree with the statement that “it’s less important to focus on increasing density — and heights — in places that are already quite dense than it is in places that are not.”

    And this, by the way, happens to also be an important — and, apparently, much overlooked — part of the Jane Jacobs approach to high-rises, density, landmark preservation, mixed uses, etc. Although Jacobs generally believes that high-rises and high-densities can be beneficial to city districts, she argues that at a certain point (and, here, reasonable people may disagree as to what that point is) increased numbers of skyscrapers and increases in density of a particular activity (including residential use) 1) crowds out diversity of building types, uses, etc. (thereby undermining the very success that has attracted the additional high-rises and increased density in the first place); and, 2) in an ensuing mad rush which has the unintended effect of “killing the goose that is laying the golden egg,” the building of even more high-rises and the addition of even more density, at least initially, SIPHONS OFF potential similar types of development from other nearby areas that would greatly benefit from the construction of high-rises and increased densities. In other words, it wastes those wonderful (and, unfortunately, somewhat rare) opportunities to spur growth where it could be most useful.

    Not being that familiar with D.C., let me use the NYC area as an example. By allowing even higher densities and even more high-rises in those districts of Manahattan THAT ARE ALREADY the densest and most high-rise in NYC (and probably in the U.S.), the Jacobs argument is that this would eventually kill (or at least severely compromises) the goose that is laying the golden eggs AND it would also siphon off potential development from the low-density and/or low-rise areas of NYC (e.g., neighborhoods in Queens, Brooklyn, etc.) that could greatly benefit from high rises and higher densities. (As I write this, I should also point out that although I agree with much of this analysis, I also have some reservations about it too — to be discussed at another time.)

    Some may argue that this additional development would not happen in these other neighborhoods/districts, and that restricted development is lost development. I think the history of cities shows that this criticism is only true these days, to the extent that it is true, because the current political climate (even in places like NYC) no longer favors such “natural” growth.

    B)Although I am a big fan of skyscrapers and high-density, it seems to me that Washington, D.C., is not a place where the normal rules should apply. Although in real life it is, at least to some degree, a “real” (i.e., economic) city, it’s primary purpose is being the seat of national government. And this greater purpose means, so it seems to me, that it is the rare city where greater value can be legitmately placed on things like aesthetics and symbolism. So although height limits may be in fact economically damaging, that’s beside the point in this instance. It’s like saying that because limits on skyscrapers and density are damaging that people should be allowed to build skyscrapers in modern day Venice (which is also not a “real” city anymore).

    May 8, 2010, 11:57 a.m.

  7. Dave says:
    May 10, 2010 at 11:55 am

    It occurs to me that the height restriction issue shouldn’t be an either/or. There are plenty of ways to chip away at DC height restrictions without turning downtown into Rosslyn overnight. One would be to marginally raise the maximum height of buildings (say, by 2-3 floors). Another would be to have a system of progressively relaxed height restrictions based on proximity to downtown.

    If the whole point of the height restrictions is to maintain the prominence of the Washington Monument and the Capitol dome, that’s a good argument for maintaining the status quo in the L’Enfant city, which effectively frames those two landmarks. But all over the rest of the District, there are places you could put up some high rises without obscuring anyone’s view. Van Ness, for example, or Tenleytown, or Columbia Heights, or somewhere underdeveloped like Brookland or Brentwood. If you could relax height restrictions in these areas, you could build up new downtowns (analogous to Rosslyn, Silver Spring, or Bethesda) within the District, a short commute from the current downtown, and without ruining the traditional skyline any more than Rosslyn already has.

  8. Alex B. says:
    May 12, 2010 at 11:45 pm

    You can also add a great deal of density without going all that high – see Paris.

    NIMBYs in Brookland (for example) would howl at that prospect, however.

  9. John says:
    May 14, 2010 at 1:49 pm

    You can also add a great deal of density without going all that high – see Paris.

    Yeah, if you pack people like sardines into tiny, expensive apartments. No thanks.

  10. Alex B. says:
    May 16, 2010 at 7:39 pm

    Of course, you can still increase DC’s density a great deal without making buildings taller, as DC isn’t anywhere near as dense as Paris.

    Height and density are not the same thing.

    The larger point is that in the case of DC’s neighborhoods (like Brookland), the height limit is largely irrelevant when discussing density, as a doubling or tripling of the residential density in the area wouldn’t require buildings anywhere near the height limit.

  11. Low Budget Dave says:
    May 17, 2010 at 11:29 am

    Imagine the same argument set in a place like Orlando. The density map is so flat you can’t even find downtown. (http://www.cityoforlando.net/gis/pdf/Planning/OrlandoPopulation2000.pdf)

    If the city and county had spent a few million dollars on mass transit 20 years ago, the density would have built up around each station. Instead, they spent hundreds of millions on roads, to enable people to commute in from low density suburbs that are now several hours away.

    Try to even suggest a solution for this that does not involve increasing the taxes on sprawl.

  12. Cynic says:
    May 17, 2010 at 11:42 am

    One factor peculiar to Washington is the concentration of federal buildings. Neither the initial siting and the persistence of federal buildings can be accounted for on strictly economic grounds. This introduces two, related distortions into the urban composition of the District. The first is that the government is largely insulated from the normal pressures of rising land values, and in the case of existing buildings, that insulation is complete. It does not pay taxes on its land. It doesn’t have to account to shareholders for the unrealized potential value of its assets. If it did, it would long ago have turned its less remarkable low-lying office buildings into towers. Its use of the limited resource of land in the District is astonishingly inefficient.

    The second impact derives from the first – it starves the city of revenues. Every low-slung federal office building in DC represents a missed opportunity. The workers who don’t fit within it must either be housed in another federal building, removing an additional parcel of land from the tax rolls, or housed outside the District, removing jobs and the ancillary revenues they generate from DC. If we had federal office towers, we’d either have more federal workers, or we’d free up land in the city’s core for other (revenue-generating) uses.

    Other cities struggle with this to lesser extents. Boston, for example, relies heavily on health care and higher education, both tax-exempt industries. But the impacts there are mitigated, to a degree, by the pressure of land values and less restrictive zoning – new buildings tend to be towers. It’s a model DC could productively emulate.

  13. live nfl games online says:
    October 1, 2011 at 12:14 pm

    Good post. I study something more challenging on completely different blogs everyday. It is going to always be stimulating to read content material from other writers and follow a bit one thing from their store. I’d desire to make use of some with the content material on my weblog whether or not you don’t mind. Natually I’ll provide you with a hyperlink in your internet blog. Thanks for sharing.