Market Urbanism

Liberalizing cities | From the bottom up

“Market Urbanism” refers to the synthesis of classical liberal economics and ethics (market), with an appreciation of the urban way of life and its benefits to society (urbanism). We advocate for the emergence of bottom up solutions to urban issues, as opposed to ones imposed from the top down.

Correction, Reason.org’s Plug, and Glaeser on Jacobs

By

In the comments of my most recent post, insightful commenter, OldUrbanism pointed out some items that need attention:

The last two factors, legal costs associated with eminent domain and opportunity costs of land, are in fact often included in typical project cost estimates for both public and private projects. The former is fairly straightforward, as it is a project-related cost. The latter, opportunity cost of land, is simply the purchase price of land.

In the case of this example, where land acquisition costs are assumed as part of the project cost, OldUrbanism is exactly correct. I’m truly embarrassed for being sloppy in that statement and will correct it.

Of course, I still stand by my exposure of the ignorance of land opportunity cost by those who assert that existing highways “pay for themselves.” I invite you to check out the discussion of that matter (and other items) with OldUrbanism in the comments of the post.
—————
The other day, Reason Foundation’s Samuel Staley had some very generous things to say about Market Urbanism:

I just ran across the Market Urbanism web site, and it has a lot of really good analysis and resources available for anyone following urban policy issues. The sub-title of the web site is “Urbanism for Capitalists/Capitalism for Urbanists”. The blog includes lots of references to F.A. Hayek, free markets, and even takes the Cato Institute to task for advocating “socialism for roads.”

and

This site is well organized and designed. I think it’s a great addition to the debate and discussion, and its refreshing to see a new voice enter into the fray.

Thanks Samuel!! I share Reason’s objective of “Free Minds and Free Markets.”

I just have to admit I found it a little ironic that he had such nice things to say after I blasted reason.org on twitter for their recent pro-government infrastructure pieces (here, here and here).
————–
Ed Glaeser wrote a book review for the New Republic discussing his mixed opinions towards Jane Jacobs and Robert Moses. Of course, my opinions of Glaeser’s piece are also mixed: wrong on infrastructure, right on NIMBYism.

Tyler Cowen and Matt Yglesias also chime in.

  • Benjamin Hemric

    I first saw a link to Glaesner's “New Republic” review of “Wresting With Moses” two days ago on the excellent “City Comforts” website. (The webmaster there, David Sucher, has “somewhat” libertarian leanings and, in fact, one of his “libertarianeque” comments about Jane Jacobs were even included in Jane Jacobs' quasi-autobiography / biography,” “Ideas that Matter”!). Since I couldn't find a way to post on the “New Republic” website (I think you have to be a subscriber) my own (long!) mini-review of Glaesner's essay, I submitted my review to David, and he kindly posted it on the “City Comforts” blog.

    I hope people who are interested in this topic will visit that thread, which is dated September 5, 2009 and entitled, “Edward Glaesner on Jacobs and Moses,” since, although I generally admire Glaesner, I believe this essay contains a number of very substantial errors.

    Here's a link:

    http://citycomfortsblog.typepad.com/cities/2009…

    Tues., Sept. 8, 2009 — 8:42 p.m.

  • Pingback: windowsnearyou.com()

Meta