dense city

Randal O'Toole often says the "right" thing about inner-city development.  He says he would abolish parking minimums of any sort and relax inner-city anti-density zoning; I would do the same.

 And asserting that most American families with children prefer single-family homes to small apartments does not make one an anti-city bigot.

This is an important week for the future of downtown development. Over the last few years, the City has advocated dense downtown development as an alternative to suburban sprawl, traffic, and high infrastructure costs.

On December 17, the Austin City Council is scheduled to vote on proposals to require developers to provide community benefits such as affordable housing, child care services, or cultural spaces.

Is downtown density a good thing?

That's the big question this month as the Austin City Council reviews proposals that would dramatically change the rules for downtown development.

Wendy Waters recounts Costco's attempt to break into the Manhattan market.

A coalition of neighborhood activists, labor groups and (almost certainly) local businesses are trying to repel Costco's foray.

While their agendas are transparent, the arguments they've trotted out are mostly of the, "It won't work here, so don't try" variety.

Wendy does a nice job dissecting them.

Population density, the number of people per square mile, is an indicator of suburban sprawl. A large city with a low population density will be spread across a broader geographic area than an equally sized city with a higher level of density.

The lower the density, the more land it takes to fit all of a city's residents. The more land, the longer people must drive for work or to get groceries, the more lawn there is too water, the more the natural environment is reclaimed for malls and yards and roads.