Some Thoughts on Sentimentality

Humanity as a whole is a pack rat. Our sentimentality often gets in the way of sound economics and progress. Before we go any further I would like to point out that I am not for wholesale destruction of history in the name of new developments, I am a large fan of historical sights and history centered vacations. I'm just thinking maybe we shouldn't classify everything that is old as historic, maybe some of it is just not worth saving. To prove my point I went to try and find a specific article I read months ago on the Domino Sugar Factory in Brooklyn only to find it crowded out by many other articles about inane New York landmark classifications. I think we may be going a little preservation heavy.

Edward Glaeser puts it this way in Triumph of the City:

There is great value in protecting the most beautiful parts of our urban past, but cities shouldn't be embalmed in amber. Too much preservation stops cities from providing newer, taller, better buildings for their inhabitants. Height restrictions, in Paris and New York and Mumbai, may seem like obscure arcana of interest only to planning professionals. Nothing could be more wrong. These rules are shaping the future of our cities and our world. If the cities' history becomes a straightjacket, then they lose one of their greatest assets: the ability to build up.

While in DC a couple months ago, Katy and I went looking at apartments in Arlington just to see what you could get for how much. Before even entering an apartment it was amazing to see how because of DC's arcane height restrictions all of the large apartment complexes were pushed out into Virginia. Then when actually looking at the apartments we were shocked at how expensive they were if you wanted any semblance of access to the DC metro. To reiterate we were shocked at prices in Arlington and we have lived in downtown Boston, one can only imagine the prices in DC.

Of course the high prices are justified, DC is booming which results in more people flocking to the city. At the same time the supply of real estate is kept artificially low by the restrictions placed on developers who through market forces would love to build higher. As a result of high demand and a low supply you have high prices. It is because of laws like DC's and thinking that we are all going to be swallowed up by the city that strangles innovation and slows an economy. If people can't afford to get to the city in the first place how are they going to innovate? If people are paying more and more on living costs how are they going to spend money in other sectors of the economy?


Or as Ryan Avent (I wish he had a wiki page for me to link to) puts in in his book The Gated City

Our thriving cities fall short of their potential because we constantly rein them in, and we rein them in because we worry that urban growth will be unpleasant. The residents of America’s productive cities fear change in their neighborhoods and fight growth. In doing so they make their cities more expensive and less accessible to people with middle incomes. Those middle-income workers move elsewhere, reducing their own earning power and the economy’s potential in the process.

Our sentimentality is what stops us from progress that could cure diseases and help lift the poor out of poverty among many many many other advancements. But personally I would like to see a change in mentality solely so we can have all of America as a giant national park sans NH.

Some Thoughts on Townies and Rutherford Ave

The impetus for the post comes from this Boston.com article.

If you have ever driven down Rutherford Ave then you know it is nothing to look at. More than likely you haven't looked at anything because you are flying down the street at 55 MPH+. Is that safe? No. Is that a desirable place to open up a retail store? No. Is that a place to raise your children or walk your dog? Of course not. That is exactly why the city and state would like to change that. Their thinking is if you make the place more desirable it will attract development, with development comes people and with people comes economic activity, with economic activity comes sales tax receipts and increased property tax takes, which in turn leads to a better standard of living for all those around.

But Townies see it a different way. They wrongly foresee increased car use on their side streets (one would assume with an Interstate running parallel to a road with stop lights people would use the Interstate), they see it as a grab by developers (because their homes, retail and restaurants appeared by magic) and they see an influx of the dreaded yuppie. I understand people fear what they don't know, and I am all for people being critical of change simply to make sure the change is for the better. But development is not always a bad thing, shrinking and slowing the flow of traffic is good for the surrounding area. If you are concerned about traffic flowing to side streets then add stop signs and speed bumps. Not only will this limit outside traffic it will make the environment safer for pedestrians.

What townies do see correctly however is a rise in rents (though that is undoubtedly all ready happening) which is a real problem and should be mitigated for current residents so as to ease the change over process. With that said if those renters have a stake in the surrounding business community the rise in rent will most likely be offset by a rise in demand for services in the same community. If they have no such stake it may behoove them to find work nearer where they live or to move closer to where they work, though a negative in the short term it is very much a positive in the long term.