Skip to Content
Streetsblog New York City home
Streetsblog New York City home
Log In
Streetsblog

The Indisputable Density Dividend

11:27 AM EDT on September 6, 2011

Have you had your morning coffee? Serotonin reuptake inhibitor? Fifth of whiskey? Whatever it is that gets your gears turning? Well, I hope so, because today we're going to have a look at the latest exercise in mind-bending obfuscation from New Geography's Wendell Cox.

false

This time, inveterate sprawl apologist Cox has taken issue with an op-ed written by Think Progress's Ryan Avent for the New York Times. In the piece, Avent, a former Streetsblog contributor, makes the hard-to-dispute claim that density contributes to productivity and economic growth in urban areas. But, Avent continues, anti-density NIMBYism in large coastal cities has contributed to a run-up in real estate prices that limits people's access to the urban core and threatens continued growth.

Avent's article is generating a lot of buzz. And every time someone writes something prominent about the usefulness of cities, Cox seems to be contractually obligated to write a response arguing that Phoenix is better than New York on any measurable statistic.

This is no exception. You should really read Cox's whole post over at New Geography just for the pearls of wisdom like this: "Cities (urban areas) do not get more dense as they add population. They actually become less dense." And this: "In fact, urban areas grow by dispersing, not densifying."

However flimsy, Cox's rebuttal garnered a response from Avent. At The Bellows, Avent writes:

Large portions of the United States — including economically critical areas — do get more dense as they add population. New York City didn’t get any bigger between 2000 and 2010, but it did add over 200,000 people. As a result, it got considerably denser. Had it been easier to build in New York City, the rising demand to live there would have translated into even more population growth in the core, and correspondingly less growth in housing costs. It’s funny that Cox understands that building regulations are a problem but doesn’t connect onerous restrictions in the core with growth on metropolitan peripheries.

Cox also misunderstands another critical point of the piece, and of the book from which it’s adapted. He implies that higher incomes in dense, productive areas don’t count because they’re canceled out by higher living costs. That’s true; the point I’m making is that people are moving from more productive cities to less productive cities because of the impact of housing costs on real earnings. What Cox neglects is the importance of the fact that businesses in expensive cities are willing and able to pay high nominal incomes. Why would they do that if they didn’t have to? A tradable good or service produced in Silicon Valley will fetch the same price in an export market as a similar good or service produced in Houston. You don’t get to charge more for a widget just because you chose to make it in an expensive city. That’s a big reason why lots of employers choose not to locate their businesses in Silicon Valley, or indeed in the United States. But many of them do choose to locate in the expensive city and pay the high wage, and as I point out in my book, expensive places like Silicon Valley employ a larger share of American workers in high value, export industries than do cheap places like Houston.

They do this because it’s worth it to them to locate in the expensive city. Firms in Silicon Valley enjoy higher productivity levels and informational spillovers — facilitated by density — that simply can’t be duplicated in other, cheaper cities. If they could be, they would be, and the high cost Silicon Valley economy would quickly implode.

Elsewhere on the Network today: Decatur Metro writes that the Atlanta region's well-documented auto-centrism should be blamed for many regional active transportation failures, rather than the convenient scapegoat that is MARTA. Biking in Dallas shares one woman's joyful journey from cycling neophyte to living nearly car-free. And the Philadelphia Bicycle Journal carries an update on the continuing controversy over the city's plan to install a bike lane through Philly's Chinatown neighborhood.

Stay in touch

Sign up for our free newsletter

More from Streetsblog New York City

Con Edison Cons Its Way Out of Paying Traffic Tickets

The massive energy company is bilking the city of tens of thousands of dollars in potential camera-issued traffic violations by obscuring its trucks’ license plates.

March 1, 2024

West Side Glory: State Begins the Process of Reimagining a True NYC Car Sewer

The state DOT will study the West Side Highway for "potential enhancements ... including [for] pedestrians and cyclists." West Side officials are cheering!

March 1, 2024

Friday’s Headlines: Closing the Bike Share Black Hole Edition

Council Member Lincoln Restler has negotiated with local religious leaders to add Citi Bike docks to south Williamsburg. Plus other news.

March 1, 2024

Manhattan Pol Upset at Delayed Rollout of Electrified Citi Bike Docks

"I urge the Department of Transportation and Con Edison to expedite the electrification of [Citi Bike] stations," Erik Bottcher wrote to the colossuses of conveyance and current last Friday.

February 29, 2024
See all posts