How do cities deal with strong population growth?

[daenku32]

If you're Atlanta, you just ignore it completely for a good solid twenty years until there are so many cars on the road that traffic just stops and you live in your Subaru.

That was last Wednesday here in Indy.

 

[PixyMisa]

Maybe, but it's not a terribly big city to begin with.

Considering the city proper or the metro area? The metro area seems to be pretty substantial - around half the size of Sydney (where I live).

I see. But does NYC really has a center and suburbs? My impression was that it was divided into five or so boroughs, none really being more central than the other.

Manhattan. There would be suburban hubs as well, but Manhattan is the center.

 

[balrog666]

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahaha, indeed.

Um, just what is your point - that Detroit's tax base and population have dropped drastically and for good reasons?

 

[SezMe]

My point was ... Ya know, never mind. It would be just a waste of pixels.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Um, just what is your point - that Detroit's tax base and population have dropped drastically and for good reasons?

[qimg]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/170/415799367_e30574fee0.jpg[/qimg]

Population drop for major cities is... perfectly normal. Especially during that time period. Not saying there is no other reason, but the rise of suburbia is a universal thing.

 

[Roboramma]

By way of comparison, the Toronto metropolitan census area has seen its population grow by 9.2% in just the last five years. (The population went from 5,113,149 according to the 2006 census to 5,583,064 according to the 2011 census. Growth from 2001 to 2006 was also 9.2%, and from 1996 to 2001 the population grew by 9.8%. There's a national census every five years in Canada.)

To put that into perspective:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai#Demographics

The 2010 census put Shanghai's total population at 23,019,148, a growth of 37.53% from 16,737,734 in 2000.[4][58]

That's an increase of more than six million in ten years. Which averages to more than 1500 people per day.

 

[Roboramma]

One of the ways that Shanghai has dealt with that phenomenal growth rate has been through the expansion of it's subway system:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Metro

As of 2012, there are 11 metro lines (excluding the Shanghai Maglev Train), 278 stations[note 1] and over 434 kilometres (270 mi) of tracks in operation,[5] the longest network in the world.[7] The Shanghai Metro delivered 2.101 billion rides in 2011,[8] the fifth busiest in the world. It set a daily ridership record of 7.548 million on October 22, 2010.[2][3] The system continues to grow, with new lines and extensions of old lines currently under construction.

Also of note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Metro#Future_expansion
and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Metro#History
Which tells us that as of 2000 there were only 2 lines in operation. Now there are 11. By 2020 they plan to have 20 lines in operation.

In spite of all this, road traffic has still gotten worse in the 7 years that I've been here. But that's due not just to the increased number of people, but also the huge surge in people buying cars in China.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

So I wonder, how is it in big cities globally, say New York City and London? These two are the most globalized cities in the world, and globally speaking a lot of people desire to live there. They are also major cultural and economic centers in the world.

The growth of London was deliberately halted in 1935 when the Green Belt planning laws were introduced. This effectively prevented anyone from building dwellings in a large swathe of countryside surrounding London. When the M25 orbital motorway was built in the 1980s, largely passing through the green belt, it put a further "line in the sand" which prevents London from ever getting any bigger.

I grew up in a town called Caterham, which sits on the North Downs, in the green belt. I could go north from my house and it was city all the way to central London, and south from my house out into the glorious Surrey countryside. I am very thankful for those green belt laws.

 

[lambent]

In Stockholm where I live, on average a bus load of people is added to the population every week. There is a lack of apartments in Stockholm, which means that they are bought and sold at fantasy prices (supply and demand). Lots of people in Sweden want to live in Stockholm, and I can certsinly understand why.

So I wonder, how is it in big cities globally, say New York City and London?

In Moscow, the same thing happens as in Stockholm.

Apartment prices are increasing.

 

[Brainster]

Sorry, but you seem to have your ideological blinders set to kill. Cities without proper planning were inefficient messes. Even today we can see the effects of planning cities around cars or around public transit. Take Detroit as an example of what happens when you leave it up to the market to design a city.

Detroit's problem is not strong population growth. His point is valid; a lot of cities, in a desire to prevent "rent gouging" (i.e., charging the market rate) instituted rent control. No surprise, this discourages new construction of apartments as landlords don't like rent control and as it happens, neither do lenders on apartment complexes (because if the complex's expenses increase dramatically and the landlord can't increase rents to cover the increase, then the risk of default rises significantly).

The main way cities should deal with strong population growth is to allow greater heights in buildings and ditch rent control. Combine that with a requirement for some minimum percentage of "affordable" (subsidized) housing.

 

[blutoski]

Detroit's problem is not strong population growth. His point is valid; a lot of cities, in a desire to prevent "rent gouging" (i.e., charging the market rate) instituted rent control. No surprise, this discourages new construction of apartments as landlords don't like rent control and as it happens, neither do lenders on apartment complexes (because if the complex's expenses increase dramatically and the landlord can't increase rents to cover the increase, then the risk of default rises significantly).

The main way cities should deal with strong population growth is to allow greater heights in buildings and ditch rent control. Combine that with a requirement for some minimum percentage of "affordable" (subsidized) housing.

That last bit is important, unfortunately.

I'm one of those Vancouverites with revenue properties - I own 6 units aside from my principal residence. I stopped buying revenue property almost a decade ago when the numbers no longer worked out. (they failed the "one percent rule") It may turn around at some point, but it'll take decades probably.

Here's where Vancouver went wrong: we *did* recognize there was an inventory shortage and rezoned upward. Plenty of condos got built. On paper, more than enough for renters to shift to buying, for new Vancouverites to buy in. But the prices just kept going up and people in the first home buying demographic were falling further behind with their down payment savings and starting to give up.

The problem was that the market has become global, so developers were building to offshore preference. Luxury condos in the $1-$10 million range. They were sold before the blueprints were dry, the developers worked with offshore real estate agents and investors to operate the projects from Asia. And most were never occupied, just sitting there as investments. That was the 'market solution' in Vancouver - build for Hong Kong billionaires to park as offshore hedges against a Communist takeover.

Vancouver has introduced a couple of tweaks to their vertical rezoning: a ratio of starter pricepoints in the project, and a penalty for unoccupied properties. Prices have dropped about 15% in two years. There's light at the end of the tunnel for the next generation.

 

[theprestige]

Favelas are not "dealing with".

I saw favelas first hand in the 80s. I saw those same neighborhoods again in the 2010s. My conclusion is that favelas are very much "dealing with". I think it's a mark of American privilege, that so many Americans no longer know how to recognize effective and profitable "dealing with".

 

[Brainster]

That last bit is important, unfortunately.

I'm one of those Vancouverites with revenue properties - I own 6 units aside from my principal residence. I stopped buying revenue property almost a decade ago when the numbers no longer worked out. (they failed the "one percent rule") It may turn around at some point, but it'll take decades probably.

Here's where Vancouver went wrong: we *did* recognize there was an inventory shortage and rezoned upward. Plenty of condos got built. On paper, more than enough for renters to shift to buying, for new Vancouverites to buy in. But the prices just kept going up and people in the first home buying demographic were falling further behind with their down payment savings and starting to give up.

The problem was that the market has become global, so developers were building to offshore preference. Luxury condos in the $1-$10 million range. They were sold before the blueprints were dry, the developers worked with offshore real estate agents and investors to operate the projects from Asia. And most were never occupied, just sitting there as investments. That was the 'market solution' in Vancouver - build for Hong Kong billionaires to park as offshore hedges against a Communist takeover.

Vancouver has introduced a couple of tweaks to their vertical rezoning: a ratio of starter pricepoints in the project, and a penalty for unoccupied properties. Prices have dropped about 15% in two years. There's light at the end of the tunnel for the next generation.

Obviously Vancouver is a hot market; in general unoccupied real estate is a bad investment because real estate taxes and insurance mean your cash flow is negative even if you bought without debt.

Planners can get pretty creative once they allow buildings to go skyward. I remember years ago taking night school courses at a building on Park Avenue in New York City. In exchange for allowing the developers to go higher, they got them to make the first four floors a high school and the next four floors affordable housing.

 

[The Don]

Going back to the OP, historically they simply don't.

When housing demand outstrips supply then the usual consequence is that the less well off will end up living in overcrowded and substandard housing. Slum landlords have been a constant feature since the Industrial Revolution at least. It's a feature of the free market.

There have been periodic attempts by (typically left-leaning) governments to address this through rent controls, minimum accommodation standards, the construction of social housing or a combination of some or all of these. These attempts are decried as undermining or skewing the free market and are usually reversed at the first opportunity by abandoning rent controls, loosening housing standards and sale of public housing.

 

[Brainster]

Going back to the OP, historically they simply don't.

When housing demand outstrips supply then the usual consequence is that the less well off will end up living in overcrowded and substandard housing. Slum landlords have been a constant feature since the Industrial Revolution at least. It's a feature of the free market.

As are slum tenants. I consulted for a 501(c)-3 back in the the day, converting for-profit apartments into affordable housing. I remember one project we took over with 300+ units, had up to 8 stories. Because of the height we were required to replace every fire extinguisher, inside every unit to get the certificate of occupancy.

Six months later, after lots of other improvements, we reinspected the property and over 200 of the 300+ units had completely discharged their unit fire extinguishers.

 

[Tippit]

The main way cities should deal with strong population growth is to allow greater heights in buildings and ditch rent control. Combine that with a requirement for some minimum percentage of "affordable" (subsidized) housing.

The reason why housing (and other assets) are unaffordable, is because the Federal Reserve has been destroying our money, and allowing elites to buy everything for nothing. Your solution is dumb.