‘Places as Commodities’ is the second chapter in Logan and Molotch’s book Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place, an acclaimed and prestigiously awarded study into urban sociology originally published in 1987. As may be expected from its sociologist authors, it is very much a theory-driven piece. While reference to illustrative examples generally centres on their native United States, the discussion easily translates into the present day, some twenty years on. Some themes may ring familiar the previous week’s reading of ‘The City as a Growth Machine’, which is chapter three from the same volume (see Vanessa’s post below).

Logan and Molotch are quite explicit in their challenge to traditionally accepted concepts of neoclassical economics being applied to urban development. In ‘Places as Commodities’ this challenge is specifically thrown to economic theory around place and real estate markets. They set out to “show” the reader how market operations “fail” to meet these neoclassical assumptions by exposing the “sociological processes that determine land uses and the distribution of fortunes” (Logan & Molotch 2007, p.17).

Central to the authors’ argument is the notion that place does not sit comfortably among traditional ideas of a market commodity. Place, they contend, is “indispensable” (p.17), it is not consumed in the manner typical of a product, it is eternally “second hand” (p.25), and its physicality – the land – cannot be reproduced. Rather, it is characterised by the pursuit of use values and exchange values and, more pointedly, by the tension between the two.

In simple terms, use values are the domain of the resident or first-hand user, be it an individual or a collective. They are the connections to other aspects of life facilitated by locational place, for example “access to school, friends, work place, and shops” (p.18). Logan and Molotch argue, “people pay … not because the housing unit is worth it, but because the property is held to have idiosyncratic benefits” (p.18). Exchange values, on the other hand, are the primary concern of place entrepreneurs (or, property investors) and focus on the potential of a place in terms of its sellability for capital gain. Use and exchange values can be two opposing interpretations of the one place – land use intensification is a relevant example of this.

Having established this, the authors turn to analyse the nature of place entrepreneurs, categorising them into three types. Serendipitous entrepreneurs (p.29) often end up as such almost by default – perhaps by fortuitous means, such as inheritance, or from an unforseen change in exchange value. Active entrepreneurs (p.30) opportunistically pursue changing use values and trends to “seek out the right place to be in the future”, and plunge small- to medium-scale investments into such markets accordingly. This proactivity is taken a step further by structural speculators (p.30) who move to effect future value by intervention, such as by lobbying governments. It is this group the authors view as “the most important” in structuring the urban market (p.31), particularly given their tendency to work together “in organised groups” to achieve mutual market gains (p.32).

Logan and Molotch then focus on the impacts and outcomes of the collective efforts of structural speculators. They argue that the growth machine phenomenon (p.32-33) is inherent in urban development due to the accumulation of structural speculators banding together, and that these collectives then compete for the political upper hand where regulation and intervention can potentially further their interests. (This type of scenario is reflected in the highly contentious Melbourne issue of the Urban Growth Boundaries, and new Urban Growth Zone.) This is then contrasted with an exploration of the collective efforts of residents through community organisation (p.37), where residents are empowered through grass-roots activity, and migration (p.38) where empowerment is essentially realised through the exercise of choice - where one or many may choose to live, or move to.

The authors move to close their argument’s loop in contending that place is best defined as the sum of all these parts: “A place is defined as much by its position in a particular organisational web … as by its physical makeup” (p.43). They conclude with a synthesis of these arguments and ideas, presented as the foundation for deeper enquiry in further chapters ahead to “develop an authentic urban sociology” (p.49).

Questions for discussion:

• As planners, where we required to fairly evaluate the use and exchange values of place? How do we go about this?
• Who (individually or as a group) in the Melbourne property market could be identified as serendipitous entrepreneurs, active entrepreneurs and structural speculators?
• Does strategic planning policy (eg Melbourne 2030) work to balance the tensions between use and exchange values? How?

Reference:
Logan, J. Molotch, H. 2007, “The City as a Growth Machine”, Urban Fortunes, University of California Press, Berkeley, p.17-49.

6. Housing Choice 14th April, 2008 19:57:44   [#] [0 comments] 

Davison investigates the development of metropolitan Melbourne during the 1880’s. His primary focus is upon factors which influenced the location of residential settlements and the role of the home and its setting (1987, p. 140). Initially, he identifies that Melbourne society was strongly influenced by English patterns of settlement. He states that ‘According to ruling London standards, the prestigious styles of living were, distinctly, town life and country life’; identifying East Melbourne and the Western District’s ‘homesteads’ as early settlements in which this was reflected. For Melburnians, the suburban home was promoted as an escape from the world of work. Davison identifies the suburban lifestyle was also linked to a clear division in roles, the husbands role being understood as ‘producer and provider’, and the woman being the ‘Ruler of the Home’, having the complete responsibility of child rearing (1978, p. 139). He uses examples of home manuals from the 1880’s to support his arguments.

It is identified that Melbourne residents of the 1880’s generally had a preference for separate, single storey, family dwellings; this being possible due to the cities ‘sheer physical extent’ and low population density. Two explanations for this preference of development of are put forth; firstly it is that suggested that it was a response to the harsh industrial environments from which many Melburnians had originally escaped and secondly a ‘response to the cheapness of the land’ (Davison, 1978 p. 141).

Davison also identifies that ‘houses were formidable symbols of economic status’ (1978 p. 142). He suggests that given the close link between householders’ occupational status and the net value of their homes, the style and distribution of houses across Melbourne can be used as a useful guide to the cities social structure at this time (1978 p. 144). During this period Melbourne was being promoted as a city in which social segregation did not exist, publications at the time advocating that ‘in a community where all classes are virtually equal, we see no reason why the dwellings of the rich and poor should not be intermingled’ (1978, p. 146). However, the emerging slum areas of the inner city suggest otherwise.

It is identified that the 1880’s was a period in which a significant population growth occurred across Melbourne, driving significant suburban expansion. While this is linked to some extent to immigration, it is also argued that the ‘children of the goldrush’ setting up their own homes had a significant influence upon the growth of Melbourne’s outer areas (1978, p.146). It is interesting to note that this pattern of young couples moving to outer suburban areas to establish new family homes continues today.

The second part of Davisons investigation looks at the influence of transport infrastructure upon the development of metropolitan Melbourne. He identifies that significant investment was put into the development of railway systems during this period, however very little research had been conducted into the need for these services. The principle adopted was that the installation of railway lines would lead to the establishment new suburbs along the line, rather than basing the location of services on existing populations, it was believed that the ‘railways would create their own demand’ (1978, p. 160). To some extent this theory was successful as new residential areas emerged along new railway lines particularly within the south-eastern suburbs, however, it was no without its failures as demonstrated by the poor interest in the Outer Circle line.

Davison concludes that while the Melbourne experienced substantial suburban expansion during the1880’s this level of growth could not be maintained, as demonstrated through the failure of any railway services which had initially been profitable. Similar problems were identified with the provision of gas supplies in which companies extended services ahead of demand (1978, p. 171). The 1891 census identified that many house within the ‘boom suburbs’ were unoccupied. Too many houses were being built and there was not enough demand (1978, p. 172).

This text was written during 1978, a period in which Australians were developing a stronger interest in who we were as a nation. At this time a significant focus on planning had emerged particularly within suburban areas. This work provides a deeper understanding of how Melbourne developed at a time of significant growth, and the issues which arose as a result of this. In particular, investigating the early development of our railway system may be valuable for transport planning in the future.

Questions:

• Are social divides existent across Melbourne suburbs today?
• Does the size/location of one’s home have a significant impact upon how they are perceived in society today?
• Is the Australian dream to own your own suburban home still alive?
• Davison asks the question was it ‘an accident of geography’ that placed the wealthiest estates within view of those living in the poorest conditions or ‘an exercise in status definition’? Please comment.

Reference:

Davison G. 1978, “Suburban Dreams and Urban Realities”, The Rise and Fall of Marvellous Melbourne, Melbourne University Press, Carlton. Chapter 7, p.137

6. Housing Choice 14th April, 2008 15:21:01   [#] [2 comments] 

Due to an administrative over-sight, this reading wasn't on the list, and therefore wasn't assigned. A brief summary follows.

"Edge Nodes" describes and relates the reasons behind the development of a suburban paradox.

"dense, but sparse, upscale and downmarket at the same time. [...] Inside a knot of freeways and arterials sit unrelated high-rise and low-rise buildings, a vast assemblage of houses, apartments, garages, shopping malls, fast-food franchises, and corporate head-quarters."

Edge nodes are downtown levels of commercial space located on cheap land at the edge of cities, accessible (and traversable) only by car. They are, in some ways the natural progression of pre-and-post-war developments in automobile-based commerce, locating shopping malls, fast food restaurants and garages near major roads. But Hayden describes two other mechanisms by which edge nodes have developed their particular form.

Firstly, a 1954 change in the taxation law, designed to help the building industry during a brief recession, resulted in buildings being depreciated much faster than before. Able to write off losses as profit, developers rapidly built out suburban areas, abandoning expensive downtown land for easy profit.

Secondly, the development of the inter-state highway system allowed a newly mobile population to access these sprawling developments, effectively shifting the locus of American cities to their edges. Big box stores followed, efficiently shipping goods along the freeways to the edge nodes and into the back entrance, even as the front is dressed up as a mock-village.

Left behind, and destroyed, by these developments, Hayden argues, is the intimate small town quality of life. Goods are cheap and plentiful, though often low in quality, but there is no space for pedestrians, and no space for small retail businesses who can't compete with "category killers". The legacy of edge nodes is "a world of junk, a degraded environment".

Reference

Hayden, D. 2003, “Edge Nodes”, Building Suburbia, Vintage, New York, ch. 8 (27p)

6. Housing Choice 14th April, 2008 12:36:51   [#] [1 comment] 

Forster introduces us to the issues of housing affordability, equity, appropriateness and ecological sustainability that are current within all Australian cities due to housing demand and supply. Although the book from which the chapter ‘Housing Questions’ resides was only published in 1995, it is still relevant today and provides an insight as to how some of the housing issues of today have emerged through past economic and demographic changes. This reading takes into account the effects of the ‘long boom’ mass housing production and the recession of the late 1980s, early 1990s, so it’s written at an important stage in Australia’s history. It shows that a trend of higher house prices has been developing in conjunction with many social and demographic changes such as the nature of household composition. The reading makes it clear that with all these changes occurring, a vast majority of houses are still being built as separate detached housing in support of the ‘Great Australian Dream’, and are therefore not meeting the needs and demands of the whole population accurately. Since the time of publishing through to today it has become apparent that such trends are well entrenched and becoming worse.

Forster begins by examining the nature of the urban housing stock. Here, Forster states that “[a] vast number of houses were built between 1947 and 1971, more than doubling the number of dwellings in each city” (1995, p.72). During this ‘long boom’ home ownership levels rose sharply, public rental housing emerged, private renting became much less important and the suburban detached house also became firmly established as the norm. The 1991 ABS Census shows that separate houses make up 76.1% of Melbourne’s urban dwellings. Forster also states that tenure hasn’t changed much since 1971; within each city approximately 40% of households own their own dwellings outright while 30% are still paying off a housing loan. From this we can see that owner-occupied housing is predominant, with 80% of these being separate house dwellings, showing a clear dominance within the urban housing stock and different housing tenures.

Forster then explains the changing nature of urban households. Households have been getting smaller; the average Melbourne household contained 3.3 persons in 1971, but this fell to 2.8 by 1991. There are many reasons for this change in household composition, such as a rise in the proportion of older couples or lone persons, young people marrying later and postponing child-bearing until later, couples having fewer children and increased divorce rates. Around 40% of Australian households consist of two parent families. This relates to why people prefer detached houses and why developers still build large numbers of these dwellings, which is explained later on.

Housing needs and preferences are discussed next by Forster, who uses the ‘family life cycle’ to explain housing preferences. Such preferences during the ‘long boom’, in conjunction with the post-war baby boom, could be largely attributed to the growth of low density suburbia in Australia. However, as a result of the low density suburbs and detached housing constantly being built, there now appears to be a mismatch of housing stock with inadequate diversity to meet households’ changing needs. But, as Forster explains, many surveys suggest that “households of all types still show an overwhelming preference for owning their own conventional detached family house” (1995, p.81), the main reason for this being the Great Australian Dream. From this we can see that housing supply responds to preferences rather than demand, or alternatively the constraints of housing supply restricts our choice and strongly shapes our preferences. Either way housing should be more diverse to meet the changing needs of households and the demand created for appropriate housing to suit.

Forster goes on to describe housing provision and the role of Government. Through economic circumstances it has become much harder to afford a house than it was in the 1960s. This leads to public housing as another alternative form of accommodation, which generally has lower rent prices and is therefore more affordable to people struggling with the current housing situation. But there is an inadequate supply of dwellings, which is constantly getting worse as demand increases, as well as a lack of more diverse housing to meet the different household needs now required by the increasing numbers of aged people and those with disabilities requiring such accommodation. Private rent on the other hand provides flexibility, but is also generally more expensive and a source of poor housing conditions and housing-related poverty for disadvantaged households.

Finally, Forster explains urban housing issues in the 1990s. If housing affordability doesn’t improve, it will tend to ‘push’ disadvantaged people into less desirable and accessible locations, such as the fringe suburbs or low socio-economic areas. Forster concludes that continued low-density suburban growth is likely to intensify the problems of ‘locational disadvantage’, as well as increasing “…the cost to governments of providing physical and human services to new low-density suburbs” (1995, p.90). In addition, such growth impacts on environmental sustainability where good agricultural land will be lost to houses and gardens that use large amounts of energy and water. Such suburban development also increases our dependence on the automobile as a mode of transport, which has many obvious problems too, but at least we can see some attempts being made by government to deal with the other stated issues through the urban growth boundary and policies for a more compact city. However, not enough is being done to tackle the many other various problems raised throughout this article, which will have severe social consequences if they are not dealt with properly in the future.

Questions:

• Do you believe the ‘Great Australian Dream’ of owning a conventional suburban house and garden is still firmly entrenched in society today as it used to be in the past?
• Does housing supply respond to people’s personal preferences rather than demand, as we can see through the continued mass building of detached houses, or do you believe that people’s housing preferences are being strongly shaped by the constraints of housing supply?
• Is housing affordability becoming a big issue that could have adverse impacts if nothing is done to help curb the issue?

Reference:
Forster, C. 1995, “Housing Questions”, Australian Cities: Continuity and Change, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

6. Housing Choice 13th April, 2008 18:17:12   [#] [7 comments] 

Fincher’s article concerns the impact of gender and the life course in the minds of Melbourne’s high-rise housing developers.

Fincher attempts to make a political statement, initially referring to the Victorian Government’s narratives, which has prompted the idea that the inner city is for the childless affluent. She emphasises that the assumptions made when developing narratives and plans for these high rise developments precluded the consideration of women as well as lower socio-economics groups. Within the political realm, Fincher attempts to alert the government of the dangers of creating and conforming to ‘narratives’ which exclude these groups, citing reasons of inequality and poor infrastructure provisions.

Fincher’s article also nests within historical and academic realms, referring to research and experiences from American and European cities. She cites Perin, who conducted similar research in the 1970s and attempts to demonstrate how, over time, a similar situation has developed in Melbourne, where inner city apartments are developed for the affluent and free of children, even if these groups are not the predominant population group. She is attempting to raise alarm to the fact that the trend of assumptions versus population statistics is the same as in the past, questioning whether the government or developers’ will act to redirect and appropriately provide for diverse population, particularly in relation to tenure types and infrastructure.

Fincher’s main contention is that women are scarcely considered by property developers, whom are predominately male, when they create ‘narratives’ which shape the form of high rise inner city apartments. She also argues that the narratives put forward by the developers include women in only two situations; when coupled with men as ‘empty-nesters’ or ‘young professionals’ and when thought of in relation to protection and security.

She argues that the developers market and develop these apartments in the inner city with the ‘narrative’ that what they are constructing is inappropriate for couples with children or dependents. However, she is cynical about this narrative, claiming perhaps it is just a plot to ‘free’ the developer from providing social and public infrastructure provisions for a diverse population.

Fincher contends that in Australia, like America, the life-cycle is very much a consideration and an interwoven theme in the developers’ narrative. She argues that developers design and construct these forms of housing with the assumption that the affluent who have ‘earned the right’ to live in an apartment or young professionals who are yet to have children, both with a desire for low maintenance living, occupy these high rise apartments. Gendered considerations are precluded in developers’ narratives.

She argues that when the developers consider inner city apartment lifestyles for empty-nesters as a point of convenience; no lawn to mow and no garden to maintain. However, this is a convenience shift only for men; not for women. Women are still tied to their domestic role.

Fincher concludes by arguing that the narratives of the developers are not only contradictory, but they also do not reflect the life-course and gendered groups who are actually occupying in these developments.

In class we discussed homogeneity and whether it was a good thing that all people of one socio-economic groups, ethnic group, religion or the like should reside in one area to maintain homogeneity. This article also explores this issue, arguing that developers advocate this in their narratives; all those who are affluent and childless will have similar personal and social views, eliminating conflict. This is not reflective of the ‘real life’ situation and excludes considerations in relation to gender, amongst other things.

Questions:

• Is it appropriate that the government allows minimal infrastructure to be provided for all groups solely because they and the developers have created a ‘picture’ which assumes only the two abovementioned groups will reside in the inner city high rise apartments?
• Should developers be allowed to construct housing purely on their own ‘narratives’ base on assumptions or should the government step in to encourage the provision of housing to meet a range of social groups and their subsequent needs, in this case, with a particular consideration for women?
• Should inner city high rise apartments, which offer a certain lifestyle and convenience as a result of location and style, be available exclusively to those affluent groups of society who are not ‘burdened’ with children? Is it right to design all of these areas with disregard to children and what are the greater implications?
• Do you think that the needs of women are different to men in relation to inner city high rise apartments and how could these needs be better encapsulated in developers’ narratives and implemented on the ground?

Reference:

Fincher, R. 2004 ‘Gender and Life Course in the Narratives of Melbourne’s High-rise Housing Developers’, Australian Geographical Studies, v. 42, i. 3, p 325-339

6. Housing Choice 12th April, 2008 13:51:57   [#] [9 comments] 

This weeks reading is the final chapter in the first part of the book “Sprawl: A Compact History”. The book in its’ entirety is divided in to three parts; the first part introduces the history of sprawl, separating eras of the development of cities throughout America (with some reference to the rest of the world) but for the most part concentrating on the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth century. The second part discusses several anti sprawl movements during this period and the third titled “the prescription: remedies for sprawl” examines what was actually done to counteract over development on the fringes of suburban areas. From what I gather, the book is written from the point of view of someone who opposes anti sprawl ideologies; often cutting down their opinions by simplifying them and responding with examples from another place and time, and not drawing conclusions but asking more questions.

The chapter for this reading systematically breaks down several causes of sprawl, providing a summary of examples from the previous chapters to argue each point. It is of my opinion that some of Breugmann’s views and arguments come across as factually unfounded mostly due to his tendency to make generalisations about the different classes of the community of recent history and occasionally of those dating back to seventeenth century. Nevertheless, the chapter that provides the foundation for this summary is broken down in to five sections that present insight in to Breugmann’s interpretation of the causes of sprawl.

Anti-urban attitudes and Racism as a Cause starts with a generalisation of the very basis of sprawl claiming, “it is the result of national character traits.” (p. 96). At another point he comments on how the suburbanites see their surroundings as suburbia being a place to live and the city being a place to spend money. He refers to white America being a possible cause of sprawl, but goes on to say that in areas where there are affluent African-Americans, their tends to be a pattern of sprawl as well and a result suggests that there is no correlation between these factors and “sprawl”.

The next section titled, Economic Factors and the Capitalist System as a Cause evaluates the problem with the apparent effect the capitalist system, more particularly the laissez-faire system has on sprawl. He discusses the effects that private enterprise has had on urban development highlighting self-interest at the expense of others claiming this argument to be “illogical” as a city dweller faced with similar circumstances would act in the same manner as one who lives on the fringes. Breugmann the goes on to dismantle the argument of profit per square meter with the developer being at blame for sprawl. He challenges this notion by suggesting that developers would prefer to build vertically rather than on larger lots in a bid to achieve a bigger profit margin, “… they know that raising densities on a given piece of land can result in more units and higher profit.” (p. 101).

Following this, Breugmann discusses Government as a Cause; this is where I found his comments to be a particular point of contention. He rejects the notion that government funding of freeways, subsidising public infrastructure and the provision of tax breaks had considerably caused urban sprawl. Following this he comments that the zoning of land has had little effect on the spread of development. He suggests “What zoning did was take… private tools, make them public, rationalise them, and extend them across the entire city.” (p. 106). During this period of Melbourne’s population explosion, there has been a requirement to create a higher density in established suburbs, my opinion is that because this has been a difficult hurdle to overcome because State and Local government policies and overlays have yet to be modernised to address this issue. For example, ResCode regulations of set backs, heights and overlooking have minimised the capacity for densification to occur, all the while the government is advocating the contrary.

Briefly, his final two sections discuss Technology and Affluence and Democratic Institutions as a Cause, here he rehashes what he said previously on the road and train network playing a part in sprawl adding that increased mobilisation only further increased the sense of the central city rather than providing an avenue for sprawl.

Finally, Breugmann makes a reference to historical towns saying the community was governed by “Priest kings and religious associations, temples and churches, walls and markets, feudalism and guilds” (p. 109). The author concludes to say that sprawl is caused by a myriad of things but mottle because people now have the opportunity of “privacy, mobility and choice that were only available to the wealthiest and most powerful members of society.” (p. 112).

To some extent I agree with most of what Breugmann concludes but am still adamant on the point that Government intervention has and must accept the most responsibility regarding the sprawl of urban development.

Questions

• To what extent do you think current day market conditions are effecting the way urban development is planned?
• What can the Government implement to increase its’ influence on managing urban spread?
• Do you think that extrapolation of patterns of historical development of land use is an effective way to manage future land use? And why?

Reference
Breugmann, R. 2005, "The Causes of Sprawl", Sprawl: a Compact History, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, ch.6

6. Housing Choice 11th April, 2008 22:33:18   [#] [3 comments] 

Salt begins by discussing the change in population demographics of the inner city. He explains that from June 1993 there were only 1,320 people living within the CBD of Melbourne but by June 2000 this had increased to 6,443, and those living within a five kilometre radius of the city had increased from 167,659 at June 1993 to 199,289 in June 2000. Salt believes that a reason behind this change in population demographic is due to the culture change between the baby boomers and generation Xers. He gives the example of the baby boomers growing up with television shows such as I Dream of Jeanie in the 1960’s and Neighbours a bit later during the 1980’s where the suburban style living was the role model at the time, and he compares them to the new role models emerging in the 1990’s such as Friends and Seinfeld where these shows are set in inner city Manhattan apartments. Salt discuss that this has lead to a large rise of inner city apartments and the development of new suburbs such as Docklands, he notes that the inner city is now viewed as vibrant, cool and exciting and developers have fed on this new market turning inner city where houses into apartments.

Salt then points out that’s whist it may look like all Australians are embracing the new trend of modern inner city living a review of the statics is required. He discusses that about 1.019 million Australians are living within a 5 kilometre radius of the GPO of a capital city, this is only about 5% of the total population. Salt compares this to the 59% of people who choose to live within the suburbs and the 19% of Australians who live in a provincial city on the coast and comes to the conclusion that whist it may initially look like there is a large shift towards inner city the actual case is that both the suburb and beach side living characterize the Australian culture, “the main game will remain the backyard barbie with Marj and Kev from Moorabbin, and lately the beach barbie with Tracey and Wayne from Runaway Bay.” Salt however later notes that whist both the suburb and beach side living characterize the Australian culture the new trend of modern inner city living is having an impact within the population demographics, as Victoria in a 12 month period to June 2000 attracted 58,266 more residents stating that “No longer do we hanker for the sun in preference to jobs, information, entertainment, culture, to cosmopolitan downtown hip and happening thing to do, places to go, and people to do all of this with”.

Salt finally discusses the Australian culture of living by the beach. He reveals the fact that 19% of Australians, that being one in five, now live in a provincial city on the coast however notes that “a large part of the coastal community comprises people who choose to mix both city and beach”. He points out that “of the 642 local government areas in Australia, 157 have some sort of beach frontage. The total number of people living in these areas at June 200 was 6.7 million or 35% of the nation”. I believe what Salt is alluding to is that many Australian are attempting to mix the best of both worlds with city and beach living, thus creating a new living culture within Australia.

Discussion questions

• Do you believe that cultural changes between baby boomers and generation Xers have led to a substantial change in population demographics such as inner city living?
• Do you think new Melbourne suburbs such as Docklands would have been created if it wasn’t for TV shows such as Friends and Seinfeld?
• Is the Australian culture shifting away from the suburbs towards city and beach living?

Reference
Salt, B. 2004, “City and Beach”, The Big Shift, Hardie Grant Books, South Yarra, ch. 2 (29p)

6. Housing Choice 11th April, 2008 20:26:10   [#] [3 comments] 

This reading is a chapter from a book called Planetizen: Contemporary Debates in Urban Planning. As a contributing author, Harriet Tregoning discusses the zoning system in the United States and how it is at odds with forecast demographic trends. She has a strong background in planning, due to her current role as director of the Office of Planning for the District of Columbia and former directorial positions in various institutions and organisations. Given this, it is unsurprising that the piece has a clear political context and tries to have an effect on planning practice. It is also American focused, and all the arguments and statistics deal with the situation there. Tregoning approaches the topic from an economic viewpoint, and since the piece was written as recently as 2007 one can expect the arguments to be relevant in the sense that they are contemporary.

Tregoning begins by providing the reader with a brief explanation of the history of housing growth and development in America. For most of the past fifty years the federal planning grant program for local government zoning has favoured single-family, owner-occupied, detached housing units rather than multifamily and attached housing. It has also encouraged a rigorous separation of land uses. But, as the author goes on to point out, it’s a well known fact that the population is becoming older and the numbers of people in households are shrinking. The percentage of the population aged over 65 in the U.S. is projected to increase from 12.4 in 2000 to 19.6 in 2030. In light of this, Tregoning questions whether new housing is being sufficiently planned to cater for the changing demographic.

The author then goes on to argue that the energies of the building and construction sector are being deliberately channeled into oversupplied and increasingly obsolete housing types. The type of large-lot, greenfield site nuclear family houses of the past instead of building on “small lots or building townhouses, apartment buildings or condos” (p40). She blames this on current local zoning practices, which have often led to increases in the minimum lot size to attempt to ensure that the property value will be adequately high enough to cover government service costs and possibly exclude people with lower means from the community. Tregoning predicts a mismatch in housing type, relative to the coming demand for housing.

Tregoning’s conclusion is that zoning reforms are needed that allow new developments to respond to current and future market demand. Currently, regulations don’t permit or severely constrain more compact mixed-use development. She also brings up the point that oversupply could negatively affect the value of similar homes in a certain market, therefore the issue is important to everybody. Finally, Tregoning warns that communities risk damaging the prosperity and economic stability of their region if the inconsistency between what their regulations allow and what the coming market demands is not addressed.

I think that Tregoning’s points are valid and relevant. The main idea in the piece, that there exists a market mismatch between the types of housing being encouraged by the zoning regulations and the housing types needed for future growth, is an important consideration for a lot of cities. Even though in this chapter the focus is on the particulars of the United States, I think that the problem also applies to Melbourne. There are a lot of new single-family detached houses being built on the fringes of the city, when our goal should be for more compact mixed-use developments.

Questions:

• What do you see as the similarities and differences between what Tregoning says is a market mismatch in America and the situation in Australia?
• How should developers be convinced to build more compact and mixed-use housing developments and less single-family type housing?

Reference:
Tregoning, H. 2007, “Zoning in a Time Warp: The Coming “Over-supply” of Single Family Homes”, Planetizen: Contemporary Debates in Urban Planning, Island Press, Washington, ch1.7

6. Housing Choice 11th April, 2008 19:06:58   [#] [1 comment]