Hey Lew, I agree with a fair amount of this, particularly that increasing supply matters and overly restrictive zoning and permitting can make an affordability problem much worse. Austin certainly provides some compelling evidence: we've built like crazy, and rents have come down.
But having lived through the Austin version of this experiment, I'm less convinced that removing regulatory barriers and letting the market respond gets us all the way there. Developers ultimately respond to profit incentives, which is fine — but those incentives don't necessarily produce the housing a community actually needs. Certainly in Austin, we've seen plenty of promises around "affordable" housing get watered down or never materialize. The market is very good at building when there's money to be made; it's less good at making sure teachers, service workers, young families and lower-income residents can afford to live there.
There's also a cost to all that development that doesn't show up in the price of a new apartment. My own neighborhood has been inundated with new construction, while roads, traffic infrastructure and services haven't remotely kept pace. We're dealing with far more traffic, litter, accidents and other quality-of-life issues, and a number of longtime families on my street are selling because they're fed up. That's a cost too — it's just being borne by the existing community rather than the developer.
So I'm with you on "build more," and on removing unnecessary barriers to doing it. I just think the Austin experience argues for something a little more nuanced than letting supply do the heavy lifting: make it easier to build, yes, but also make sure growth brings genuinely affordable housing and the infrastructure needed to support it. More supply is hugely important — I just don't think it's a panacea for affordability or good urban policy.
Thanks for reading Laura. High growth comes with trade offs - no doubt! There is not progress that does not present negatives. Yes neighborhoods will change. If Austin had no jobs and lost lots of industry - like the rust belt in the 90s - I bet you would like that change a lot less! Wanting all the good things of growth and opportunity and none of the negatives sadly is not a real choice. And yes, certain part of Austin will become harder to afford and more crowded. But others open up. All housing ends up creating affordable housing. It just might be in different places. It is change. I think you are hoping for all the growth and jobs with limited changes. I don’t view it as realistic and it is the seed behind all NIMBY-ism (but, our area is special!). It is about picking the best trade that creates the most opportunity for the most people. I think Austin has that trade infinitely better than NY or SF (not to say they can’t work on quality of life issues - they can). It will stop if people say no more change. Which is exactly what they said in those places. And they are increasingly places only for the wealthy (or children of the wealthy). That is particularly unfortunate as opportunity clusters in these major cities - and Austin is now one of them!
I don't think we're that far apart. I'm definitely not arguing for "no more change" or trying to preserve my neighborhood untouched - quite the opposite. I believe in building more and removing the unnecessary barriers to doing it.
Where I think we differ is that I don't view all of the downsides we're experiencing as inevitable tradeoffs of growth. More people and more density? Absolutely. But inadequate infrastructure, dangerous traffic, and growth that fails to produce housing that lower-income folks can actually afford are not inevitable. Those are all things that good policy can address.
So I'm not arguing against growth or change. I'm arguing for growth with better planning around change. To me, that's not NIMBYism, it's recognizing that markets are very good at creating supply, but aren't necessarily designed to account for all of the costs or community needs that come with it.
BTW, have you read Abundance by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson? I kept thinking about it while reading your piece -- I suspect you'd find a lot to agree with
I hear you. I just think some things will be out of balance at all times. Nothing will ever be in equilibrium - Austin has to adjust to high growth. We will see if the government (and community) can respond. My main point in the piece is stopping all building AND using rent control will surely end up in the worst of all worlds. NY can build a lot more - even in Manhattan, but it is pretty much impossible. So many people are cut out of the great opportunities the city provides.
Hey Lew, I agree with a fair amount of this, particularly that increasing supply matters and overly restrictive zoning and permitting can make an affordability problem much worse. Austin certainly provides some compelling evidence: we've built like crazy, and rents have come down.
But having lived through the Austin version of this experiment, I'm less convinced that removing regulatory barriers and letting the market respond gets us all the way there. Developers ultimately respond to profit incentives, which is fine — but those incentives don't necessarily produce the housing a community actually needs. Certainly in Austin, we've seen plenty of promises around "affordable" housing get watered down or never materialize. The market is very good at building when there's money to be made; it's less good at making sure teachers, service workers, young families and lower-income residents can afford to live there.
There's also a cost to all that development that doesn't show up in the price of a new apartment. My own neighborhood has been inundated with new construction, while roads, traffic infrastructure and services haven't remotely kept pace. We're dealing with far more traffic, litter, accidents and other quality-of-life issues, and a number of longtime families on my street are selling because they're fed up. That's a cost too — it's just being borne by the existing community rather than the developer.
So I'm with you on "build more," and on removing unnecessary barriers to doing it. I just think the Austin experience argues for something a little more nuanced than letting supply do the heavy lifting: make it easier to build, yes, but also make sure growth brings genuinely affordable housing and the infrastructure needed to support it. More supply is hugely important — I just don't think it's a panacea for affordability or good urban policy.
Thanks for reading Laura. High growth comes with trade offs - no doubt! There is not progress that does not present negatives. Yes neighborhoods will change. If Austin had no jobs and lost lots of industry - like the rust belt in the 90s - I bet you would like that change a lot less! Wanting all the good things of growth and opportunity and none of the negatives sadly is not a real choice. And yes, certain part of Austin will become harder to afford and more crowded. But others open up. All housing ends up creating affordable housing. It just might be in different places. It is change. I think you are hoping for all the growth and jobs with limited changes. I don’t view it as realistic and it is the seed behind all NIMBY-ism (but, our area is special!). It is about picking the best trade that creates the most opportunity for the most people. I think Austin has that trade infinitely better than NY or SF (not to say they can’t work on quality of life issues - they can). It will stop if people say no more change. Which is exactly what they said in those places. And they are increasingly places only for the wealthy (or children of the wealthy). That is particularly unfortunate as opportunity clusters in these major cities - and Austin is now one of them!
I don't think we're that far apart. I'm definitely not arguing for "no more change" or trying to preserve my neighborhood untouched - quite the opposite. I believe in building more and removing the unnecessary barriers to doing it.
Where I think we differ is that I don't view all of the downsides we're experiencing as inevitable tradeoffs of growth. More people and more density? Absolutely. But inadequate infrastructure, dangerous traffic, and growth that fails to produce housing that lower-income folks can actually afford are not inevitable. Those are all things that good policy can address.
So I'm not arguing against growth or change. I'm arguing for growth with better planning around change. To me, that's not NIMBYism, it's recognizing that markets are very good at creating supply, but aren't necessarily designed to account for all of the costs or community needs that come with it.
BTW, have you read Abundance by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson? I kept thinking about it while reading your piece -- I suspect you'd find a lot to agree with
I hear you. I just think some things will be out of balance at all times. Nothing will ever be in equilibrium - Austin has to adjust to high growth. We will see if the government (and community) can respond. My main point in the piece is stopping all building AND using rent control will surely end up in the worst of all worlds. NY can build a lot more - even in Manhattan, but it is pretty much impossible. So many people are cut out of the great opportunities the city provides.
And yes, I am pro-Abundance!
Thank you Lew! I learned a lot reading this! Best, Pam Cohen