Can we legislate good design?

Short answer: you can’t.

One of the greatest concerns of neighborhood groups and anti-development activists has to do not just with the fact that greater density is arriving within their locale, but rather with the design of these new additions to their street. Such materials as panel board and exposed structural concrete simply are not generally as aesthetically pleasing as more traditional materials as wood siding, brick façades, or porcelain accents. However, these newer, more ubiquitous materials in new construction are extremely cost effective for developers. This last point is key to understanding the rationale behind design decisions.

A basic economic concept would declare that a producer should not pay for an additional element to be added to his product if it cannot at least increase the purchase price of that product by the price of the element. A translation of this concept into the built environment would be stated as follows: a rational developer will not invest in brick facades if the increase in rent price per unit over one built with cheaper material is not greater than or equal to the marginal cost of brick façade per unit.

Adding high-end appliances often results in rent price increases greater than or equal to the cost of these appliances over a baseline. However, consumers are simply not as educated or particular about the quality of materials used in construction as long as the rent price itself is economical. Competition outside of the luxury segment is currently based on price due to the high demand and low supply within the current market.

We cannot force consumers to care about materials and aesthetics when rent payments comprise such a large portion of their paycheck. In the current market, many simply want to put a roof over their heads within a reasonable proximity to the city center. Developers are simply building what there is demand for in the marketplace: shelter. To exceed the minimum aesthetic expectations of consumers would not be a logical economic choice in an environment where participants compete on price.

Efforts to legislate good design through such means as a design review committees–while well-intentioned–are often meaningless. if a developer is building to code, there is little a design review commission can do to alter design. So we are faced with a conundrum: how to improve the aesthetics of new development when aesthetics are not generally valued in the marketplace.

I would argue that aesthetics are valued in a true market; however, we do not have a properly functioning real estate market. When demand for units is high and supply is low, aesthetic concerns take second-position to simply finding an available and cost-effective unit in the first place. Were the market to be more liberalized, supply could increase and consumers could have the liberty of shopping around and comparing multiple product offerings. At that point, developers would compete not only through price but also through quality and could do so easier if their associated regulatory costs were reduced.

A simple equation for improving the aesthetic landscape of our city: lower land prices through liberalized zoning policies + reduction in regulatory costs and process for developers = greater supply and lower prices for consumers + product differentiation with greater attention to good design.

Joseph Grant is a Seattle native with a real estate and economics background who has been interested in local land use policy and patterns since a young age. After recently living in Paris and Moscow, he has developed a unique perspective regarding urban planning and development in a global context. He sees in Seattle the possibility to develop a world class city if we can innovate and create a meaningful urbanism framework for the future.