Presentation by

Wendell Cox to the

Rocky Mountain Land Use InstituteUniversity of Denver - 7 March 2013

Demographic

Trends Los Angeles

206,000

-272,000

1,105,000

3,473,000 2,989,000

8,566,000

-1,000,000

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

9,000,000

Po

pu

lati

on

Gro

wth

No “Flocking” to the CitiesUS MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS: 2000-2010

Data from

Census Bureau

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Under 500 500 - 1,000 1,000 - 2,500 2,500 - 5,000 5,000 -10,000

10,000 &Over

Shar

e o

f C

oh

ort

20-29s Moving to SuburbsMAJOR METROPOLITAN COUNTIES BY DENSITY

66.9%

17.4%

5.4%1.4%

69.7%

12.6%

5.8%2.6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Drive Alone Car Pool Transit Work at Home

Wo

rk T

rip

Mar

ket

Shar

e

2000

2011

US: Work Trip Share: Ages 16-242000 & 2011

Calculated from

US Census (2000) and

American Community

Survey (2011)

-14.0%

-12.0%

-10.0%

-8.0%

-6.0%

-4.0%

-2.0%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

Major Metro CoreCities

Major MetroSuburbs

Smaller Areas

Ch

ange

in S

har

e o

f C

oh

ort

Empty Nesters: To Less Dense AreasMAJOR METROPOLITAN & SMALLER AREAS

65-74 Population in 2010

Compared to 55-64 in 2000

Source: US Census Data

21st Century

City

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

New York Chicago Boston San Francisco Philadelphia Washington

Tra

nsit

Sha

re o

f Wor

k T

rips

Transit is About DowntownTRANSIT WORK TRIP MARKET SHARE: 2000

54.5%45.5%

6 Transit Legacy Cities (Municipalities)DOMINATE US TRANSIT COMMUTING (2008-2010)

All

Other

US

(2%)

Municipalities

of

NYC

Chicago

Philadelphia

San Francisco

Boston

Washington

(45%)THE LAST MILE

PROBLEM

Suburban Toronto (Newmarket)

Statistics Canada:

High Density 6+ Miles

From DowntownRelies on Cars

Transit Oriented Development?ISSUE: ACCESS TO DOWNTOWN, NOT DENSITY

57%

79%

56%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Los Angeles New York Paris

An

nu

al S

har

e o

f G

DP

Impossibility of Auto Competitive TransitANNUAL COST RELATIVE TO GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT

Los

AngelesNew

York Paris

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

2005 2015 2025 2035

Gross CO2 Emissions: United StatesFROM LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES: 2005 TO 2035

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Detached:Conventional Lot

Detached: Small Lot 2-4 Units 5 & Over Units

Shar

e o

f H

ou

sin

g St

ock

Modeled 2010

Demand: 2000-2008

Demand for Detached Housing2 ANALYSES: CALIFORNIA

SCAG, ABAG,

SANDAG & SACOG

Planning Areas

-4,000,000

-3,000,000

-2,000,000

-1,000,000

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

Less Costly More Costly Smaller (NotClassified)

Fleeing the High Cost of Housing (Living)MAJOR MARKETS: NET DOMESTIC MIGRATION: 2000-2009

LA, SF-SJ

San Diego

2.0 Million

Loss

Median

Multiple

4.5 & Over

Median Multiple

Median House

Price/Median

Household

Income

99%1%

From

Smart

Growth

From

Auto

Fuel

Economy

(2005 MPG)

Smart Growth: Miniscule GHG Reduction2000-2050 TRB REPORT (DRIVING AND THE BUILT…)

Presumptions

Denser HousingDiscourage Cars

Strategies for

the Future

Seattle

THE CONTEXT:

WHY CITIES EXIST

Cities exist because of

the economic

opportunities they

facilitate.

Purpose of cities: The

economic good of

residents

City (Urban Organism)

Metropolitan Area or Labor Market

(Functional Expanse)

Urban Area or Agglomeration

(Physical Expanse)

Chicago

Shanghai

People Move to Cities for Better LivesSOME POLICIES IMPEDE PURPOSE OF CITY

The raison d’être of large cities is the increasing return to scale inherent to large labor markets. The cities’ economic efficiency requires, therefore, avoiding any spatial fragmentation of labor markets.

Urban Containment Raises House PricesSMART GROWTH LAND RATIONING

The Dynamics of OPEC

Paul Krugman

Nobel Laureate

Nick Boles

UK Planning

Minister

Kate Barker

Bank of England

Anthony Downs

Brookings

Institution

Land Rationing is the IssueDESTROYS HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

Donald Brash, Governor,

Reserve Bank of New Zealand

1988-2002

Introduction to

4th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey

... the affordability of housing

is overwhelmingly a function

of just one thing, the extent

to which governments place

artificial restrictions on the

supply of residential land.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1950 1960 1970 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Me

dia

n M

ult

iple

Less Restrictive Markets

More Restrictive Markets: Outside California

More Restrictive Markets: California

Housing Affordability 1950-2012MAJOR US METROPOLITAN AREAS: MEDIAN MULTIPLE

Median Multiple: Median House Price divided by Median Household Income

DENVER MEDIAN MULTIPLENEARLY 50% ABOVE 1980-2000

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

United States: Mortgage Interest Rates1972-2012: 30 YEAR FIXED

Mobility Improves ProsperityASSOCIATION BETWEEN MOBILITY & AFFLUENCE

Chicago

PRUD’HOMMEMobility Improves

ProductivityU. Of Paris

HARTGEN-FIELDSMobility Improves

ProductivityUNC-Charlotte

R² = 0.8856

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000

Vehicle Hours/Sq.Mi.

Population per Square Mile

Hong Kong

Higher Density Means More Traffic Congestion& SLOWER JOURNEY TO WORK TRAVEL TIMES

NEGATIVEHEALTH IMPACTS

From the Denver Post

PERHAPS AMALAISE MORE

THAN A CLIFF

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

$45,000

$50,000

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2010

United States

Germany

Japan

Argentina

Manila

Economic Growth is ImperativeCANNOT TAKE ECONOMIC GROWTH FOR GRANTED

Aligning policy with

the purpose of cities

URBAN POLICY

FROM MEANS:

URBAN FORM & MODE

OF TRANSPORT

TO OBJECTIVES:

ECONOMIC GROWTH &

AFFLUENCE

(With sufficient

environmental

Protection)

Chicago

STRATEGIES

Housing Affordability

Maintain/Restore

Competitive

Land Supply

Transport

Investments:

Minimum Cost per

Delay Hour Reduced