8 ms·

It's 2016, and people still think that if someone moves into your neighborhood, someone else has to move out. Rising demand is great. It means people want to e

by dkopi 11y ago

It's 2016, and people still think that if someone moves into your neighborhood, someone else has to move out. Rising demand is great. It means people want to enjoy your neighborhood. You can either meet that demand by increasing supply, or you can restrict the demand, and let certain people be outpriced by the market. Locals aren't victims of gentrification. They're victims of zoning laws and nimbyism.

seivan 11y ago
Locals are also (usually anyway) the source of those. At least in Stockholm. Avoid building apartments for those less off because of "greenery". http://www.dn.se/sthlm/hyresgaster-stoppar-nya-grannar/ http://www.dn.se/sthlm/hyresgaster-stoppar-nya-grannar/
sliverstorm 11y ago
So consider a nice, quaint neighborhood. Person A lives there. Person B wants to live there too, because it is so nice. Ok, let's say we double supply. All the houses are now either twice as high, or half as big, or maybe the trees were cut down and the bushes ripped out to make room. There's twice as many people & everything therein. Is it still the same nice neighborhood?
- davidw 11y ago
  Was it the same neighborhood when you moved there? Things change, especially in the US. "The immaculate conception theory of your neighborhood’s origins": http://cityobservatory.org/the-immaculate-conception-theory-of-your-neighborhoods-origins/ http://cityobservatory.org/the-immaculate-conception-theory-... And: if prices are going up that much, and you really want out, you can sell and move, to, say, Lakeview, Oregon.
  - sliverstorm 11y ago
    Yes, things change. But I contest the notion that adding more housing to a neighborhood is a magic bullet that will make everyone happy. Among many issues, the fundamental attractiveness of a particular neighborhood may be tied to low population density. In which case ripping down the neighborhood and rebuilding makes neither resident Person A nor prospective buyer Person B happy.
    - davidw 11y ago
      No, it won't, but it'll lead to the population as a whole being better off because it will allow more people to live in a very productive area, as well as leaving an out (sell and move) for those who can't stomach the thought of denser housing. Sooner or later, the US must confront the fact that not everyone can live in a single story ranch house with a big yard in an extremely desirable part of the country, without causing massive sprawl (LA).
      - ghaff 11y ago
        And a significant slice of the tech industry must confront the fact that not everyone in that industry can or should cram themselves into a narrow peninsula and a handful of other, mostly coastal, cities.
        davidw 11y ago
        It does appear that, despite the internet, being in the same place offers some advantages. I'm all for people spreading out to different cities, but realistically, the bay area is going to be the place to be in the US, for the foreseeable future.
  - dionidium 11y ago
    I understand that people who buy into a neighborhood want that neighborhood to freeze in time and maintain for all eternity whatever character it had on the day they bought. But we should be wholly unsympathetic to that view. It's a reasonable thing to wish for, but it's not a reasonable demand to give in to.
    - edanm 11y ago
      "It's a reasonable thing to wish for, but it's not a reasonable demand to give in to." This is a brilliant sentiment, and a brilliant quote. It applies in so many conversations... I just wanted to express my appreciation (and my intention of stealing this quote many times in the future!).
- dionidium 11y ago
  You're right, of course, but this sentiment amounts to little more than stomping your feet and wishing the world were different. As long as there is high demand, you can either build more or expect higher prices and more sprawl. I get that people don't like those choices, but that's what's on the table.
  - maerF0x0 11y ago
    High local prices can be addressed with "distributed sprawl". ie growth in other cities.
    - davidw 11y ago
      I think the problem with that logic is that the people at the 'top of the heap' - VC's, CEO's and the like are not the ones being priced out, mostly. Granted, a company might open an office somewhere else, but that's after it's already large and established. So you're kicking the marginal (in the economic sense) people out into marginal places where they have less access to what made the original area such a great place to have a job.
      - maerF0x0 11y ago
        maybe, i have neither a moral stance nor suggested solution for that. Seems to me that is a trait of capitalism/market economies; those who can pay the most get what they want.
        kbenson 11y ago
        Yes, but the reason things cost more is because we are restricting supply through regulation. That's not to say that all the regulation should be repealed, but you can't examine the problem in a vacuum and expect useful information. It truly does come down to supply and demand.
        asabjorn 11y ago
        Artificially restricting housing supply through SF-like approval processes is not capitalism, and rent control is a band aid. It is laws that highly favors the incumbents that already live there. Even if we determined who should be allowed to live here with some other mechanism than money we would still be housing supply constrained.
- akgerber 11y ago
  Very dense neighborhoods can still be quaint with trees and bushes. This census tract is around twice as dense as San Francisco: https://goo.gl/maps/d2rQ7wc6Tc12 https://goo.gl/maps/d2rQ7wc6Tc12
  - epicureanideal 11y ago
    Thanks for that link for a visual comparison. It actually looks cleaner, too! And perfectly pleasant to live in.
  - 100k 11y ago
    And Paris -- one of the most beautiful and quaint cities -- has three times the population density of San Francisco.
- sp332 11y ago
  Let's say your city has a massive homeless population, and increasing rents are making it difficult for long-time residents to make a living. Now make the buildings twice as high - it's a lot nicer now, isn't it?
blhack 11y ago
>It's 2016, and people still think that if someone moves into your neighborhood, someone else has to move out. How does this work in your head? When the new homes are being built, where do the people who were living on the land they're being built on go?
- dionidium 11y ago
  They go into higher-density buildings, just like everybody else. That, or nothing changes and they get priced out. Those are the options.
  - pessimizer 11y ago
    So projects, then.
    - davidw 11y ago
      No. Replace a single story ranch house with, say, a duplex. Or a single story duplex with a quadplex. It can be pretty incremental. http://missingmiddlehousing.com/ http://missingmiddlehousing.com/
    - dionidium 11y ago
      That's a glib response, but I do want to bring attention to how often this discussion generates such glib responses. If it's not, "so, projects, then" it's "so, you want San Francisco to look like Manhattan, then?" or some equivalent. Notice how these responses do absolutely nothing to address the issue. They exist only to express dissatisfaction with realistic options. Again, you can either build to meet demand or expect higher prices. Those are the options.
      - knodi123 11y ago
        > Again, you can either build to meet demand or expect higher prices. Those are the options. Or enact preferential laws, or use vandalism in order to drive demand down, or make newcomers feel unsafe or unwelcome. Those alternatives are not entirely rational, nor necessarily effective- but they are human nature, and not that rare.
Disruptive_Dave 11y ago
It seems like a lot of folks believe that things - people, places, stuff - are naturally meant to remain in one state forever? I get the anger at not being able to afford the place you live in any longer, but all these arguments seem to be built on an assumption that things shouldn't change. "Just ride the wave, bruh."
erehweb 11y ago
Gentrification makes housing more expensive in the short term. First order, that's good for landlords and bad for renters. Mixed for owner-occupiers - they have more wealth, but higher property taxes.
- ThrustVectoring 11y ago
  Not in California it isn't. Prop 13 limits property tax rates for owners.
  - erehweb 11y ago
    Agreed. Was thinking of the Portland context.
    - steveax 11y ago
      Oregon passed Measure 5 in 1990, which is similar to California's prop 13.

by dkopi 11y ago

seivan 11y ago

Locals are also (usually anyway) the source of those. At least in Stockholm. Avoid building apartments for those less off because of "greenery". http://www.dn.se/sthlm/hyresgaster-stoppar-nya-grannar/ http://www.dn.se/sthlm/hyresgaster-stoppar-nya-grannar/

sliverstorm 11y ago

So consider a nice, quaint neighborhood. Person A lives there. Person B wants to live there too, because it is so nice. Ok, let's say we double supply. All the houses are now either twice as high, or half as big, or maybe the trees were cut down and the bushes ripped out to make room. There's twice as many people & everything therein. Is it still the same nice neighborhood?

davidw 11y ago
Was it the same neighborhood when you moved there? Things change, especially in the US. "The immaculate conception theory of your neighborhood’s origins": http://cityobservatory.org/the-immaculate-conception-theory-of-your-neighborhoods-origins/ http://cityobservatory.org/the-immaculate-conception-theory-... And: if prices are going up that much, and you really want out, you can sell and move, to, say, Lakeview, Oregon.
- sliverstorm 11y ago
  Yes, things change. But I contest the notion that adding more housing to a neighborhood is a magic bullet that will make everyone happy. Among many issues, the fundamental attractiveness of a particular neighborhood may be tied to low population density. In which case ripping down the neighborhood and rebuilding makes neither resident Person A nor prospective buyer Person B happy.
  - davidw 11y ago
    No, it won't, but it'll lead to the population as a whole being better off because it will allow more people to live in a very productive area, as well as leaving an out (sell and move) for those who can't stomach the thought of denser housing. Sooner or later, the US must confront the fact that not everyone can live in a single story ranch house with a big yard in an extremely desirable part of the country, without causing massive sprawl (LA).
    - ghaff 11y ago
      And a significant slice of the tech industry must confront the fact that not everyone in that industry can or should cram themselves into a narrow peninsula and a handful of other, mostly coastal, cities.
      - davidw 11y ago
        It does appear that, despite the internet, being in the same place offers some advantages. I'm all for people spreading out to different cities, but realistically, the bay area is going to be the place to be in the US, for the foreseeable future.
- dionidium 11y ago
  I understand that people who buy into a neighborhood want that neighborhood to freeze in time and maintain for all eternity whatever character it had on the day they bought. But we should be wholly unsympathetic to that view. It's a reasonable thing to wish for, but it's not a reasonable demand to give in to.
  - edanm 11y ago
    "It's a reasonable thing to wish for, but it's not a reasonable demand to give in to." This is a brilliant sentiment, and a brilliant quote. It applies in so many conversations... I just wanted to express my appreciation (and my intention of stealing this quote many times in the future!).
dionidium 11y ago
You're right, of course, but this sentiment amounts to little more than stomping your feet and wishing the world were different. As long as there is high demand, you can either build more or expect higher prices and more sprawl. I get that people don't like those choices, but that's what's on the table.
- maerF0x0 11y ago
  High local prices can be addressed with "distributed sprawl". ie growth in other cities.
  - davidw 11y ago
    I think the problem with that logic is that the people at the 'top of the heap' - VC's, CEO's and the like are not the ones being priced out, mostly. Granted, a company might open an office somewhere else, but that's after it's already large and established. So you're kicking the marginal (in the economic sense) people out into marginal places where they have less access to what made the original area such a great place to have a job.
    - maerF0x0 11y ago
      maybe, i have neither a moral stance nor suggested solution for that. Seems to me that is a trait of capitalism/market economies; those who can pay the most get what they want.
      - kbenson 11y ago
        Yes, but the reason things cost more is because we are restricting supply through regulation. That's not to say that all the regulation should be repealed, but you can't examine the problem in a vacuum and expect useful information. It truly does come down to supply and demand.
      - asabjorn 11y ago
        Artificially restricting housing supply through SF-like approval processes is not capitalism, and rent control is a band aid. It is laws that highly favors the incumbents that already live there. Even if we determined who should be allowed to live here with some other mechanism than money we would still be housing supply constrained.
akgerber 11y ago
Very dense neighborhoods can still be quaint with trees and bushes. This census tract is around twice as dense as San Francisco: https://goo.gl/maps/d2rQ7wc6Tc12 https://goo.gl/maps/d2rQ7wc6Tc12
- epicureanideal 11y ago
  Thanks for that link for a visual comparison. It actually looks cleaner, too! And perfectly pleasant to live in.
- 100k 11y ago
  And Paris -- one of the most beautiful and quaint cities -- has three times the population density of San Francisco.
sp332 11y ago
Let's say your city has a massive homeless population, and increasing rents are making it difficult for long-time residents to make a living. Now make the buildings twice as high - it's a lot nicer now, isn't it?

blhack 11y ago

>It's 2016, and people still think that if someone moves into your neighborhood, someone else has to move out. How does this work in your head? When the new homes are being built, where do the people who were living on the land they're being built on go?

dionidium 11y ago
They go into higher-density buildings, just like everybody else. That, or nothing changes and they get priced out. Those are the options.
- pessimizer 11y ago
  So projects, then.
  - davidw 11y ago
    No. Replace a single story ranch house with, say, a duplex. Or a single story duplex with a quadplex. It can be pretty incremental. http://missingmiddlehousing.com/ http://missingmiddlehousing.com/
  - dionidium 11y ago
    That's a glib response, but I do want to bring attention to how often this discussion generates such glib responses. If it's not, "so, projects, then" it's "so, you want San Francisco to look like Manhattan, then?" or some equivalent. Notice how these responses do absolutely nothing to address the issue. They exist only to express dissatisfaction with realistic options. Again, you can either build to meet demand or expect higher prices. Those are the options.
    - knodi123 11y ago
      > Again, you can either build to meet demand or expect higher prices. Those are the options. Or enact preferential laws, or use vandalism in order to drive demand down, or make newcomers feel unsafe or unwelcome. Those alternatives are not entirely rational, nor necessarily effective- but they are human nature, and not that rare.

Disruptive_Dave 11y ago

It seems like a lot of folks believe that things - people, places, stuff - are naturally meant to remain in one state forever? I get the anger at not being able to afford the place you live in any longer, but all these arguments seem to be built on an assumption that things shouldn't change. "Just ride the wave, bruh."

erehweb 11y ago

Gentrification makes housing more expensive in the short term. First order, that's good for landlords and bad for renters. Mixed for owner-occupiers - they have more wealth, but higher property taxes.

ThrustVectoring 11y ago
Not in California it isn't. Prop 13 limits property tax rates for owners.
- erehweb 11y ago
  Agreed. Was thinking of the Portland context.
  - steveax 11y ago
    Oregon passed Measure 5 in 1990, which is similar to California's prop 13.