We identified three major flaws in a landmark paper about the construction effects of upzoning. No-one disagreed with these flaws. Now we respond to three new questions.
Thanks for diving into this further! When looking at the graphs, here and the papers, it does seem like something changed. When thinking in cycles, I do not think anyone would have expected the rise would have continued that long. Naturally the disruption can be caused by many other things, like pandemic after shocks, so it's indeed poor evidence for the effect of the policy, but not implausible and I do not buy it as evidence it is a 'myth'. I buy your point it likely mostly changed location of the builds, but that is still half a win, as it likely means people live closer to where they want to live.
Changing the location of new builds is one of the purposes of zoning rules, so it's for the planners to debate whether the AUP's version of that was good or not. We just looked at whether the AUP increased new builds.
I agree, the skyrocketing of consents (though not completions) from 2020 is quite noticeable. It' was a little faster than the skyrocketing in the rest of NZ. It could have many causes. It will be interesting to see how many consents materialise as completions.
I find the lack of a similar/consistent increase in demolitions just as challenging to the YIMBY narative. If it is not replacing existing buildings, the story is at least more complex than they suggest. It could mean it mostly affects development speed, meaning it is more of a one of boost, instead of a consistent improvement. Or it could mean it's mostly about undeveloped land, rather than densifying existing streets. In turn that would diminish secondary benefits raised with upzoning, like reduced cost of providing utilities and public transport, and making cities more walkable.
The yellow shaded area between dwelling completions (recorded by Auckland Council in building code compliance certificates) and net dwelling additions (counted via new electricity connections) represents demolitions. This number has been a rising share of completions, which is consistent with more new development being demo+rebuild rather than greenfields development.
The problem is that this blog post is published after the extension paper, when the extended paper (May 2023) are largely already addressed.
Although you acknowledge it, it also hardly engages with the updated research. I don’t quite understand why the blog post is framed in this manner. It’s unclear to me why you continue to focus much of their criticism on the initial paper in this post, when your concerns were largely addressed in the extension paper and shown to be irrelevant to its conclusions. It’s possible they worked hard on their initial criticisms, and wanted to publish them regardless. But, to an uninformed reader, it gives off the false impression that there were glaring issues in the paper’s methodology that have not been addressed. I very much doubt the layperson is going to read all the way through the extension paper and form a complete view of the evidence.
You should understand that we were discussing these issues with the authors prior to the extension paper. It seems clear that the extension paper was a response to these private conversations, even though it still doesn't address the issues of:
1. Linear extrapolation of a cyclical time series (in fact the problem is more extreme), and
2. Using consents not net additions, or completions.
What I find interesting is how the first paper was cited uncritically, then when it was clear there were major problems, those people moved on to cite the next one uncritically.
In fact, if you trust the methodology of both papers, you must also conclude that the decline in dwelling consents in Auckland that is happening now is caused by the 2013 upzoning—because their counterfactual, extrapolated to the end of 2023, is now ABOVE actual consents. Do you believe that the current decline in consents was cause by that upzoning? I don't.
But then why not discuss the extention paper itself? Considering it was released before your first post. To me, a discussion of your criticisms, Ryan's response (the May 2023 paper), and which of your criticisms continue to be applicable would have been much more interesting.
Cited fairly uncritically because it's a peer reviewed academic paper. Most people are going to take that as evidence enough that its' conclusions are at least semi-correct. I appreciate yours and Helm's criticisms as they lead to the new, better paper in 2023
Linear extrapolations are less than ideal, but also we don't have a lot of options. Preferably a synthetic control could be used to generate a better counter factual, but I'm not convinced that a cyclical counter factual (as you've proposed), nor one that is based on 2015 levels (as you've suggested) makes sence.
Shouldn't the counter factual be based on data from before 2013 before the first stage of upzoning? Linear extrapolation as done in the 2023 paper is again less than ideal, but I do not understand your criticism of selecting the period from before 2013? That would be a more appropriate way to measure the impact of upzoning, just that the upzoning effect would count both the first stage and the AUP.
Do you believe that the increase in consents was cause by something other than upzoning? I see no plausible other explanation. Keeping in mind that according to the 2023 paper it would have to be a fairly sizable factor to explain the increase that did happen. You have suggested that it is simply a "building boom", what factors do you think drove that boom in Auckland as compared to elsewhere?
A modern economy circulating products and services throughout the world doesn’t need money or sovereign countries (national currencies) to be successful. Today, we’ve the scientific knowledge and technological skills to convert our natural and artificial resources into daily life-sustaining deliverables: food, housing, education, healthcare, infrastructure, and employment demands. What we lack is unity, a global framework built upon fair and humane laws and safe and healthy industrial practices. I hypothesize that humanity can end poverty and reduce pollution by abandoning wealth and property rights, and instead adopt and implement an advanced resource management system that can provide “universal protections for all”. Replacing customary political competition altogether, this type of approach, which I named facts-based representation, allows us a better way to govern ourselves and our communities, basing policy and decision making on the latest information, in turn improving the everyday outcomes impacting our personal and professional lives.
Thanks for diving into this further! When looking at the graphs, here and the papers, it does seem like something changed. When thinking in cycles, I do not think anyone would have expected the rise would have continued that long. Naturally the disruption can be caused by many other things, like pandemic after shocks, so it's indeed poor evidence for the effect of the policy, but not implausible and I do not buy it as evidence it is a 'myth'. I buy your point it likely mostly changed location of the builds, but that is still half a win, as it likely means people live closer to where they want to live.
Changing the location of new builds is one of the purposes of zoning rules, so it's for the planners to debate whether the AUP's version of that was good or not. We just looked at whether the AUP increased new builds.
I agree, the skyrocketing of consents (though not completions) from 2020 is quite noticeable. It' was a little faster than the skyrocketing in the rest of NZ. It could have many causes. It will be interesting to see how many consents materialise as completions.
I find the lack of a similar/consistent increase in demolitions just as challenging to the YIMBY narative. If it is not replacing existing buildings, the story is at least more complex than they suggest. It could mean it mostly affects development speed, meaning it is more of a one of boost, instead of a consistent improvement. Or it could mean it's mostly about undeveloped land, rather than densifying existing streets. In turn that would diminish secondary benefits raised with upzoning, like reduced cost of providing utilities and public transport, and making cities more walkable.
I wonder if you've misinterpreted the chart?
The yellow shaded area between dwelling completions (recorded by Auckland Council in building code compliance certificates) and net dwelling additions (counted via new electricity connections) represents demolitions. This number has been a rising share of completions, which is consistent with more new development being demo+rebuild rather than greenfields development.
Thanks for this clarity
The problem is that this blog post is published after the extension paper, when the extended paper (May 2023) are largely already addressed.
Although you acknowledge it, it also hardly engages with the updated research. I don’t quite understand why the blog post is framed in this manner. It’s unclear to me why you continue to focus much of their criticism on the initial paper in this post, when your concerns were largely addressed in the extension paper and shown to be irrelevant to its conclusions. It’s possible they worked hard on their initial criticisms, and wanted to publish them regardless. But, to an uninformed reader, it gives off the false impression that there were glaring issues in the paper’s methodology that have not been addressed. I very much doubt the layperson is going to read all the way through the extension paper and form a complete view of the evidence.
You should understand that we were discussing these issues with the authors prior to the extension paper. It seems clear that the extension paper was a response to these private conversations, even though it still doesn't address the issues of:
1. Linear extrapolation of a cyclical time series (in fact the problem is more extreme), and
2. Using consents not net additions, or completions.
What I find interesting is how the first paper was cited uncritically, then when it was clear there were major problems, those people moved on to cite the next one uncritically.
In fact, if you trust the methodology of both papers, you must also conclude that the decline in dwelling consents in Auckland that is happening now is caused by the 2013 upzoning—because their counterfactual, extrapolated to the end of 2023, is now ABOVE actual consents. Do you believe that the current decline in consents was cause by that upzoning? I don't.
But then why not discuss the extention paper itself? Considering it was released before your first post. To me, a discussion of your criticisms, Ryan's response (the May 2023 paper), and which of your criticisms continue to be applicable would have been much more interesting.
Cited fairly uncritically because it's a peer reviewed academic paper. Most people are going to take that as evidence enough that its' conclusions are at least semi-correct. I appreciate yours and Helm's criticisms as they lead to the new, better paper in 2023
Linear extrapolations are less than ideal, but also we don't have a lot of options. Preferably a synthetic control could be used to generate a better counter factual, but I'm not convinced that a cyclical counter factual (as you've proposed), nor one that is based on 2015 levels (as you've suggested) makes sence.
Shouldn't the counter factual be based on data from before 2013 before the first stage of upzoning? Linear extrapolation as done in the 2023 paper is again less than ideal, but I do not understand your criticism of selecting the period from before 2013? That would be a more appropriate way to measure the impact of upzoning, just that the upzoning effect would count both the first stage and the AUP.
Do you believe that the increase in consents was cause by something other than upzoning? I see no plausible other explanation. Keeping in mind that according to the 2023 paper it would have to be a fairly sizable factor to explain the increase that did happen. You have suggested that it is simply a "building boom", what factors do you think drove that boom in Auckland as compared to elsewhere?
Oh and this article raises some interesting points I thought you might consider:
https://onefinaleffort.com/blog/a-response-to-murray-and-helm-on-aucklands-upzoning
I have read this. Which points specifically do you think are most important from that article that undermine my analysis here?
A modern economy circulating products and services throughout the world doesn’t need money or sovereign countries (national currencies) to be successful. Today, we’ve the scientific knowledge and technological skills to convert our natural and artificial resources into daily life-sustaining deliverables: food, housing, education, healthcare, infrastructure, and employment demands. What we lack is unity, a global framework built upon fair and humane laws and safe and healthy industrial practices. I hypothesize that humanity can end poverty and reduce pollution by abandoning wealth and property rights, and instead adopt and implement an advanced resource management system that can provide “universal protections for all”. Replacing customary political competition altogether, this type of approach, which I named facts-based representation, allows us a better way to govern ourselves and our communities, basing policy and decision making on the latest information, in turn improving the everyday outcomes impacting our personal and professional lives.
#ScientificSocialism
Keep batting!