# Why do American cities lack high density housing?



## MDguy (Dec 16, 2006)

Chrissib said:


> But it looks like that the sunbelt cities have densier suburbs than the north-eastern cities.


But Outside of the central buissness district, also known as downtown, suburbs don't exist in most cities, and definently not the northeast. You have to get outside of city limits to see suburbs and suburban housing and strip malls, etc


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

> But we're talking about density. Some suburban areas, especially around LA, can be very dense, eg. Maywood, which has a density of 9,300 inh/km².


Those are exceptions. Most of the LA suburban area is around 3,000 inh/km2. Still more dense than most NE suburban areas which are almost semi-rural. 



> Densier doesn't mean urban.


Anything that's mostly continuous build up can be considered urban, regardless of density. Otherwise it'd be rural. Places like Industry, California are rather funny, 31 sq. km, completely build-up, a population of 777, but only a density of 25 inh/km2. 80.000 people work there.


----------



## zaphod (Dec 8, 2005)

I agree urban doesn't have to mean dense. 

I happen to prefer detached housing, but I also prefer the arrangement of cities where the streets are connected and their are local business areas and parks nearby. LA is cool, there are little neighborhood centers serving a diverse population rather than a monolithic touristy city center where only the rich live.

LA is still expensive though. But it can at least grow organically on the same principals and now that the housing bubble is popped maybe the middle class could look back to California. Places choked out by super-sprawl(look at Atlanta in google earth) in comparison, I don't know what to think.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Chrissib said:


> But it looks like that the sunbelt cities have densier suburbs than the north-eastern cities.


Ironically the reason is because the rural/exurban areas in the Northeastern cities are more developed than out West, making the assumption that the suburban areas are less dense. Once you leave a Northeastern metro area, there's still plenty of small towns abound. 

When you leave the metro area of say, Los Angeles, there's almost nothing left but desert and uninhabited land. 

Plus, enviornment plays a role. There is less barriers to development here.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Look at the night map of the US, for example...


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Somnifor said:


> In general the US has much lower population density than Europe or Asia and as a result land and housing are cheap. In my city detatched houses start at around $60,000, a one bedroom condo on the other hand starts at $120,000. High density housing and expensive land tend to go hand in hand.


Well, you can't compare the quality of buildings in the US with those lets say in Austria. Thats another point certainly. For € 50,000 you do not even get a decent family house without the property costs being included. 

On the other side, the heating/cooling bill will be considerably higher in the US due to the difference in building quality.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

del


----------



## skyduster (Jul 7, 2007)

Slartibartfas said:


> I think the "but it developed in the car age" argument is very overrated by Americans. A lot of other cities in the world developed to a significant part also in the same time, yet many American cities are superior in their extreme dependence on the car and also in a high number of very low density suburbs.
> 
> Just take for example a lot of Dutch towns, some are even much newer than American ones yet they are still served by a well functioning PT system, but also countries with more free space available managed to do so. Madrid for example tripled in population since the 1930 within the municipality. In the region the population increased by maybe 7 mio. And now look out for the endless sprawl there... But don't limit yourself to this example, there are countless rather new cities with a certain density and a working PT system.


Precisely.

The major culprits were the lack of regional planning, and the overemphasis by authorities on building motorways after WWII, at the expense of rapid transit /heavy rail which was ignored.

Motorways made it -for a brief period- easy to live in a relatively distant suburb and travel to the city center to work. And it was easy for a developer to buy a bunch of cheap farmland, and build cheap houses on that cheap land, and sell it cheaply (there was nothing in the way as far as regulation). The federal government encouraged this, as part of its nearsighted solution to the country's housing shortage. And, of course, GM's lobbyists were also behind the federal government's decision to emphasize intra-urban motorways at the expense of heavy and light rail after WWII http://environment.about.com/od/fossilfuels/a/streetcars.htm (things haven't changed much).

There's also the infamous Streetcar Scandal, you guys can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_streetcar_scandal Standard Oil, Firestone Tire, and GM bought Los Angeles' light rail system, and dismantled it, to create a car-dependent city, which would benefit them. 

The middle class left the cities for what was considered a luxury at a low price: having a detached home with a yard, and here is where the "American Dream" myth was born, and the rest is history. Unfortunately, there was no regional planning to, say, put a stop to a new suburb that would add too many new housing units to a metropolitan area's housing market, or to prevent a new shopping mall from being built, that would take away business from commercial areas that already exist. Even today, such regional planning doesn't exist, because there is no authority that regulates such matters at the metropolitan-area level. Municipalities within the same metropolitan area have had to _compete_ with (rather than complement) each other, and -of course- as cities were neglected for all the reasons I mentioned above, they lost out in this hostile anti-city era.


----------



## TexasBoi (Jan 7, 2004)

Slartibartfas said:


> I think the "but it developed in the car age" argument is very overrated by Americans. A lot of other cities in the world developed to a significant part also in the same time, yet many American cities are superior in their extreme dependence on the car and also in a high number of very low density suburbs.



It's not overrated in a sense if you understand what was going on. No other country faced the opposition of density and mass transit as much as the US. Politics and powerful lobbyists are the reason why American cities specifically sunbelt cities are the way they are. What other countries did during that time has no bearing or relevance on what was happening in the US. If you look at most old pictures of sunbelt cities, you'll see a vibrant streetscape with thousands of people walking around with trollies strolling down the middle of the street. What do you think happened to those?


----------



## El Mariachi (Nov 1, 2007)

Because we can afford not to live in high density housing. That type of lifestyle is not preferable to most Americans. Its a cultural thing. Few would trade in their detached house and yards for some building that is populated by many other people. Not only this, but Americans enjoy cars and driving. Public transit is a step back for most of us outside New York City. Its slow and ineffective for our daily lives. 

Detached housing can be high density. I prefer neighborhoods like this because they often have more character than ones of just apartment blocks.


----------



## brianmoon85 (Oct 14, 2006)

I hate suburbs, most people who live in suburbs also tend to be more obese and lazier due to going anywhere with cars. Thank Lord I live in Great New York City!!!


----------



## kossia (Jul 22, 2009)

El Mariachi said:


> Because we can afford not to live in high density housing. That type of lifestyle is not preferable to most Americans. Its a cultural thing. Few would trade in their detached house and yards for some building that is populated by many other people. Not only this, but Americans enjoy cars and driving. Public transit is a step back for most of us outside New York City. Its slow and ineffective for our daily lives.
> 
> Detached housing can be high density. I prefer neighborhoods like this because they often have more character than ones of just apartment blocks.


you are completely right!  People in Holland hate high density housing to! You can better live in a neighbourhood with less traffic and more grean areas! 
But I think that lots of people like in China have no choice!


----------



## skyduster (Jul 7, 2007)

El Mariachi said:


> Because we can afford not to live in high density housing. That type of lifestyle is not preferable to most Americans. Its a cultural thing. Few would trade in their detached house and yards for some building that is populated by many other people. Not only this, but Americans enjoy cars and driving. Public transit is a step back for most of us outside New York City. Its slow and ineffective for our daily lives.


The question is, El Mariachi, _how_ America came to be this way. Would Americans oppose density if most American cities were more like Paris and Barcelona or even Manhattan? Rather than the Bronx? Would Americans oppose public transit if it was as nice, quick, and extensive as those in London, Tokyo, Paris, and Madrid? Wouldn't you prefer a 20-minute subway ride, over a 1-hour commute by car?

As was stated earlier, the reason high density has a bad reputation in America is because cities were neglected and were _allowed_ to fall into disrepair. Cities require maintenance, just like suburbs do. There's plenty suburbs too that are in disrepair, like Compton, California, and other ghettos in sunbelt cities. Low-density doesn't equate with better standard of living. New York's Upper East Side is far better off than Compton, or the poverty-stricken and crime-plagued areas of Detroit and Chicago's South Side which are _low_ density. The "low-density equates better quality of life" argument is a _myth_, that doesn't take into consideration the existence of poor suburbs, and poor low-density areas within major cities.

Same as how many people in China have no choice but to live in dense urban areas, many Americans have no choice but to live in less-dense areas, because the denser urban areas are expensive (except for the ghetto), and the schools are bad (because public schools in America are run by municipality, not by the state, and a municipality with a smaller proportion of middle class and affluent residents, will struggle to adequately fund its schools). Of course, there's always going to be a number of people who prefer the pseudo-rural environment that suburbs provide...but there's lots of Americans who _don't_ prefer the suburbs but are _forced_ to live there (because of schools, cost of living, etc)...and then there's lots of Americans who don't even know what they're missing, because they haven't traveled much, and the only cities they've seen are poorly-kept socioeconomic ghettos that are completely neglected by authorities.



kossia said:


> you are completely right!  People in Holland hate high density housing to! You can better live in a neighbourhood with less traffic and more grean areas!


Sounds nice, but eventually the demand for low density living catches up to you, and you get horrible suburban traffic during certain times of the day. The argument that "suburbs don't have city traffic" is another pure _myth_. Low-density suburban development also has a negative ripple effect on the rest of the metropolitan area.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

brianmoon85 said:


> I hate suburbs, most people who live in suburbs also tend to be more obese and lazier due to going anywhere with cars. Thank Lord I live in Great New York City!!!


Hmmm, I heard on the radio a while ago, that a survey found out obesity in the U.S. is caused by eating the wrong food (too much calories), not the lack of exercise. 

If you do everything by car, but eat healthy food, you're probably not getting obese. (unless it's in your genetics). Of course, it would be better to exercise every once in a while.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

kossia said:


> But I think that lots of people like in China have no choice!


Thats because China is still a developing country. I think in 30-40 years, the chinese cities will change a lot and are becoming less dense, not only because of shrinking household sizes.


----------



## El Mariachi (Nov 1, 2007)

kossia said:


> you are completely right!  People in Holland hate high density housing to! You can better live in a neighbourhood with less traffic and more grean areas!
> But I think that lots of people like in China have no choice!


Yeah, lower density has those advantages. Not everybody wants to live in some super dense, busy neighorhood or building. It would be like living in a hotel.


----------



## El Mariachi (Nov 1, 2007)

skyduster said:


> The question is, El Mariachi, _how_ America came to be this way. Would Americans oppose density if most American cities were more like Paris and Barcelona or even Manhattan? Rather than the Bronx? Would Americans oppose public transit if it was as nice, quick, and extensive as those in London, Tokyo, Paris, and Madrid? Wouldn't you prefer a 20-minute subway ride, over a 1-hour commute by car?
> 
> As was stated earlier, the reason high density has a bad reputation in America is because cities were neglected and were _allowed_ to fall into disrepair. Cities require maintenance, just like suburbs do. There's plenty suburbs too that are in disrepair, like Compton, California, and other ghettos in sunbelt cities. Low-density doesn't equate with better standard of living. New York's Upper East Side is far better off than Compton, or the poverty-stricken and crime-plagued areas of Detroit and Chicago's South Side which are _low_ density. The "low-density equates better quality of life" argument is a _myth_, that doesn't take into consideration the existence of poor suburbs, and poor low-density areas within major cities.
> 
> ...


It probally came to be that way because of the prosperity, widespready availbility of cars, and population boom in this country. I don't think American's oppose density, but many obviously prefer to live in their own houses. Why? Like I said, its a cultural thing. Owning a house is a big deal in the U.S. and this line of thinking probally carried over from our ancestors who came from a time when this wasn't possible. 

I think Americans would feel the same way about mass transit because it will always be limiting of a persons life. Few want to live their lives based on a transit schedule. Automobiles open up so many more possibilities than a subway or train can. I am not sold on even European mass transit. When I was in London, it was a hassle trying to get around late at night when the Tube' closed and we had to wait around for a bus. Add to this that the social stigma that adults who use mass transit are poor. Car culture and these viewpoints begin early in high school and this will be difficult to change. 

As for the last part, I don't know how any of this changes. You can't force people to do things or change their opinions on things. It is what it is, I guess. I don't see why we need to expect people to live in *high density housing* for there to be healthy cities. American cities have excellent housing stock, why can't we just be happy with people moving back into the cities themselves?

This is a picture of a Milwaukee neighorhood. I feel that this is adequate density for an American city.


----------



## Abidrovia (Jan 25, 2009)

I don't hate the suburbs but I hate when the suburbs are immediately outside of a downtown area. I mean the outer core should be for nightlife, urban living choices (to keep younger generations from leaving) and so the city can have some character.


----------



## philadweller (Oct 30, 2003)

Every US city is different. Some have very high density housing but most don't. Detroit had a very high density of housing with streets lined with Manhattan type apartments for as far as the eye can see. Now there are remains and scattered vacant lots. It all depends on the city. US Cities with subways have the most density.


----------



## philadweller (Oct 30, 2003)

In my opinion people that use mass transit here in the states are rich. Cities with subways in the US happen to be the richest ones.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

adrimm said:


> ^^ That feels slummy to me and over-auto'ed
> 
> A definite sharp contrast to the other neighbourhood which feels diverse varied, cared-for and energetic (lots of people around on the streets, streets are probably pleasant for walking.
> 
> I swear, if I string LeCorbusier up, I would. I wonder if it was greenfield, or if they destroyed older districts to build those abominations. Urban renewal can truly suck.


Well, housing many hundreds of thousands of people after World War II was about more serious and immediate issues than simply the aesthetic. Those abominations were required, and required quickly because real people needed a roof over their heads.


----------



## klamedia (Nov 21, 2005)

And we all know that romanticized version of why suburbs exist but the truth is as Northern cities became more and more diverse i.e. blacks moving up from the South fleeing segregation began to move into predominantly white inner cities(when they could) and whites moved out. This was really the chief reason for the rise of the suburbs. That's why the rise of suburbia is closely tied in with segregation, de facto segregation. There exists story after story of instances where a black family would move into a white neighborhood and the next week the entire block is up for sale. Now multiply that and where do you think that all of those people moved to?


----------



## El Mariachi (Nov 1, 2007)

Xusein said:


> Amazing how Milwaukee looks very similar to Buffalo when it comes to housing stock, despite being very far away from each other.
> 
> Must be that Great Lakes similarity or something.
> 
> If I didn't know where this pic was and somebody told me it was Buffalo, I would probably believe him. :lol:


yeah thats very true! I have seen plenty of Buffalo photo threads that have neighorhoods that are similar looking to those in Milwaukee. Same goes with Cleveland. 

This Milwaukee neighorhood looks pretty similar to what I have seen of those cities.


----------



## monkeyronin (May 18, 2006)

Taller said:


> Well, housing many hundreds of thousands of people after World War II was about more serious and immediate issues than simply the aesthetic. Those abominations were required, and required quickly because real people needed a roof over their heads.


It wouldn't have been any slower or more expensive to build buildings like that in "proper" urban form, rather than being surrounded by massive parks and roads and segregated land use. That was simply the ideology of the time, which was highly flawed.


----------



## Captain Obvious (Sep 13, 2002)

Good thread. I'd like to jump in (a little late) and directly address Abidrovia's original question. There is a very clear answer to why American cities lack high density housing. It's a long multi-part answer, but all the concepts are interrelated ... 



Abidrovia said:


> *Why do American cities lack high density housing?* It seems like all major American cities just have a downtown area with high-rise/mid-rise office buildings and maybe a few mid-ride apartment towers (that are usually luxury) and once you leave the CBD there is nothing else but miles and miles of suburban houses, strip malls and nothingness.


*1) Zoning, zoning, zoning!! *America invented the concept of Euclidean Zoning, which strictly separates uses. After the 1940s, in most cities the government made it _*illegal*_ to build high density development outside of the downtown district. In many cases, the only residential housing legal to build outside of downtowns were single family homes. Regardless, most buildings were limited to a strict 35 foot height limit, further limiting density. Even in Houston (famous as the “city without zoning”) there were development rules similar to zoning which had made low-density housing virtually mandatory in the suburbs. Furthermore, zoning artificially inflated the land value of most American downtowns - since they were often the only high-density districts. Consequently, it was only economically feasible to build commercial office buildings and their associated parking facilities – and that’s in the downtowns where residential was even allowed in the first place! The surface parking lots that blight American downtowns are often land speculators just waiting to sell to a commercial office developer. 

*2) Highway Spending. *The government has spent trillions and trillions of dollars on our highway system. When someone talks about land or houses being cheaper in America, this is why. The massive highway spending is essentially a government subsidy that makes it economically practical to build low-density housing on what would otherwise have been inaccessible farmland. _Without highway spending, it would have been impossible for suburban developers to build as much of the sprawl as they have. [/ i] So although it’s technically correct to say that America has tons of developable land and a strong car culture – you have to remember that it was the highway system which made both these things possible in the first place. 

*3) Public Housing.* America is unique from other industrialized countries because from the 1960s-1980s the government concentrated virtually 100% of our public housing projects in our urban cores. Like it or not, public housing contains a high percentage of undesirable people that most market-rate tenants and homeowners don’t want to be remotely near. Most American cities still had vibrant dense urban neighborhoods – until the public housing came. Then thousands of people literally fled to the suburbs within a few short years. It’s like adding insult to injury. The government unintentionally makes the suburbs cheaper, the downtowns more expensive, and then uses public housing to make the more expensive land undesirable for market-rate residential uses. 

*4) Public Schools.* Students attend American public schools (generally speaking) based on geographic districts. Since most of the public housing is concentrated in the urban core, most of the worst schools with the worst students are also located there. So even if someone still wants to live downtown despite the consequences of the zoning, highways, and public housing – they still have to deal with terrible schools for their children. This is why the limited market-rate housing in American downtowns tends to focus on retirees and childless young professionals (the people with money who DON’T have kids).

*5) Government Mortgage Rules.* As if all of the above weren't enough, the government had even more bad policy that encouraged sprawl and discouraged urban development. In America, there are many programs to encourage home ownership and subsidize or back up home loans (perhaps you've heard of them. They're what caused the recession). However, for many years, it was much much much easier to get these benefits for single family homes. It was difficult - and sometimes impossible - to get them for condos or townhomes.

So there you have it. I know it’s a long response, but these are easily the biggest factors in explaining why American cities lack high density housing. Zoning, highways, public housing, public schools, and mortgage rules. 

For what it’s worth, most American cities have really been turning it around since the late-1990s. While most of these 5 problems still exist, many cities have gone a long way to increase their urban core populations._


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

^^ Interesting summary.

I'd guess, point 1 and 5 could be adresed pretty fast. Point 4 and 2 on the mid term with the necessary budgets. Point 3 could be also adresed by improving these social housing complexes in the centre as well as distributing them more across the region and not concentrating them in one ghetto.


----------



## Onn (Oct 11, 2008)

Personally, I do value the extra space of living in a suburb. And I don't think it's boring at all, there is plenty to keep you occupied. I don't know where this idea came up that all suburbs are boring? With every suburb comes areas of stores, restaurants, and other convinces to support it. Maybe if you’re into city life a city would be better for you. But personally having a yard, a garage, a basement, and some extra space to spread out is a big plus. It is comfortable living. Further, I don't particularly enjoy hearing everything going on in the neighbor's house. I'm just not that interested, thanks. 
I would say the biggest problem of living in an American suburb is transportation. Taking the car everywhere does many times seem pointless. I would much rather take a train or subway or even walk, if I had to go all the way across town. I hate driving my car on roads filled with hundreds of other drivers. In my area that's a big problem, because there are a dozen or so cities side by side in the region. I live two streets away from a major road, with 4 lanes going in each direction and an avenue in the middle. It's constantly loaded with traffic, which can be rather annoying when you’re outside. They can't seem to make the roads around here large enough to handle the amount of traffic that has been created over the last 20 years. Some people commute up to 45 minutes to work everyday, at rush hour it could take you 2 hours to get home taking the freeway.

If I were going to live in a city, I would probably want to live in a very large city. Probably not one modeled in a European fashion. Chicago or New York, preferably. The reasons to live there would have to be substantial enough to outweigh the advantages of living in a suburb. I would want access to things I could never get living in a suburb. And I probably would want a larger apartment with a jaw dropping view, in a newer building.


----------



## adrimm (Dec 17, 2006)

Onn said:


> Personally, I do value the extra space of living in a suburb. And I don't think it's boring at all, there is plenty to keep you occupied. I don't know where this idea came up that all suburbs are boring? With every suburb comes areas of stores, restaurants, and other convinces to support it. Maybe if you’re into city life a city would be better for you. But personally having a yard, a garage, a basement, and some extra space to spread out is a big plus. It is comfortable living. Further, I don't particularly enjoy hearing everything going on in the neighbor's house. I'm just not that interested, thanks.
> I would say the biggest problem of living in an American suburb is transportation. Taking the car everywhere does many times seem pointless. I would much rather take a train or subway or even walk, if I had to go all the way across town. I hate driving my car on roads filled with hundreds of other drivers. In my area that's a big problem, because there are a dozen or so cities side by side in the region. I live two streets away from a major road, with 4 lanes going in each direction and an avenue in the middle. It's constantly loaded with traffic, which can be rather annoying when you’re outside. They can't seem to make the roads around here large enough to handle the amount of traffic that has been created over the last 20 years. Some people commute up to 45 minutes to work everyday, at rush hour it could take you 2 hours to get home taking the freeway.
> 
> If I were going to live in a city, I would probably want to live in a very large city. Probably not one modeled in a European fashion. Chicago or New York, preferably. The reasons to live there would have to be substantial enough to outweigh the advantages of living in a suburb. I would want access to things I could never get living in a suburb. And I probably would want a larger apartment with a jaw dropping view, in a newer building.


Suburb is all relative - even areas that are today considered inner or central -city neighbourhoods, were once suburbs. These tend to be built with a more traditional form since many were built around streetcar lines and may even have vestigial commercial areas (streetcar suburb/village). My issue is not with these as they tend to be compact, charming, and many have have private yards (thanks to mature landscaping):

http://tinyurl.com/dl23xf (This is in Buffalo imagine it restored, picket fences and all). 










If anything, if you *must* have a suburb, is should be built to a more traditional standard like the google link), also allowing the flexibility of a basement or garden suites, on a grided street system with services nearby.

One traditional house could actually be home to an established family and then have a suite rented out to a student, or young couple. 

Something like this (below) is 1/2 to 1/4 as many households as above. Yest there is lots of space,but the tradeoff is that the tax revenue ratio to the miles of services needed is very low - things like good transit cost alot, and with fewer houses to bear the burden most wouldn't be able to contribute enough money to really even make a dent in the cost of providing rail. At least at higher densities, the tax pot is a bit larger, and the demand likely greater.










Good transit costs money, and it is not cost-effective (or very realistic) to expect such a widely dispersed, low density of properties (and tax payers) to bear the burden of many forms of transit. More households = more money for infrastructure & justification for amenities - so I'd say it is about finding some balance.


----------



## Onn (Oct 11, 2008)

^^
Oh yes, I agree. I live much closer to number 1 than number 2. In 1980s and 1990s they built huge new developments 30 minutes away from here, much like in the second photo. And now house values have plummeted so much that no one wants them and the people that bought them back then can’t sell their homes. Many developments also sit half empty, imagine moving into one and expecting neighbors, but finding out there aren't any. I live in an older neighborhood, which would have been considered a similar upscale development back in the 1950s. But the houses are much closer together. And the area as a whole is close to more urban city living too. It's more attractive to future buyers, I think. It's not a bad mix.


----------



## I-275westcoastfl (Feb 15, 2005)

ADCS said:


> The suburbs were the agreement the US government made with the returning GIs after World War II - since you fought the war, you can go to college, get a good job, and live in completely boring peace for the rest of your life. Needless to say, after the carnage of the war, most thought it was a pretty good deal.


Actually the suburbs were started because the influx of all the GI's starting new families meant cheap and quick housing was needed. So developers bought up cheap farmland on the sides of the future highways which developers built cheap wood houses which were quick to build and marketed the life of having your own land and a nice house with a car and so on. It's actually kind of interesting if you think about it. But even then many parts of the country have always been low density in a sense, I mean look at historic homes, they are my favorite because you can live the urban lifestyle but not be jammed up in a building.


----------

