4 ms·

> That's the rub That might be part of it, but it's not exactly obvious that you'd want to live in a place with 50-story buildings either.

davidw 10y ago
If there's no market for them, they won't get built. But people want to live in places like NY and San Fran for the economic opportunities they provide, not just for "the character of the neighborhood".
- bitwize 10y ago
  When the economic opportunities overrun the "character of the neighborhood", neighborhoods get destroyed and people get priced out of their own homes. It's called gentrification.
  - morgante 10y ago
    > people get priced out of their own homes Wrong. Adding supply lowers prices, not increases them. The fact that wealthy rentiers in the Bay Area have somehow convinced activists that they should oppose new development is farcical. Liberal activists are literally protesting to enrich capitalists.
  - davidw 10y ago
    Uh, if you have been following along, you may have noticed that most people cannot afford the bay area as it is. Adding some supply might help things, rather than make them worse.
  - lgieron 10y ago
    How can you be priced out of your own home? If you own it, you don't have to pay anything (unless you mean they cannot afford property taxes).
    - jdhzzz 10y ago
      Your home can be seized by eminent domain as was done by the town of New London a few years back. They did so in order for a private developer to build more expensive housing on that property and generate higher property taxes for the city. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
  - findjashua 10y ago
    How would more affordable housing (by replacing single family homes with high-rise complexes) increase gentrification? If anything, people are getting 'priced out' because of the absurdly high housing prices right now.
- TruthAndDare 10y ago
  > If there's no market for them, they won't get built. That's something else, isn't it? The people who already live there might not want 50-story buildings, even if there are other people who would move into them if they were built.
  - davidw 10y ago
    That's the crux of the matter, isn't it? How much right should I have to control what other people do because it might bother me? I think that currently, we err way too much on the side of letting people block things, here in the US.
    - TruthAndDare 10y ago
      > How much right should I have to control what other people do because it might bother me? That's a valid question for every law or other governmental decision. But we can think of an idealized case, where an entire town, or state, or country, agree that they don't want 50-story buildings, even if there exists outsiders who would like to move into such buildings. In this case, we need only recognize the right of the local people to decide what happens in their area, even if it is against the will of people from elsewhere.
      - ambrice 10y ago
        Why do the rights of the local people trump the rights of people from "elsewhere"? The major question is what harm is being done to the local people by the existence of 50 story buildings, vs the harm to people that find an ideal job in SF but can't afford to take it?
        TruthAndDare 10y ago
        > Why do the rights of the local people trump the rights of people from "elsewhere"? On at least some level, I find it reasonable that the people who live in a certain place decide over that place. In any case, that is rather conventional, isn't it? It's particularly clear on the level of countries, which is why I mentioned it in my comment. Only citizens or residents of a country, not the rest of the world, get to vote in elections. > The major question is what harm is being done to the local people by the existence of 50 story buildings That's really a matter of their personal opinion. Some of us find such buildings repulsive.
niels_olson 10y ago
Another issue is water: the more people, the more water. No one in California wants that. so the farm lobby can paradoxically be incentivized to vote for housing regulation as long as it doesn't affect their labor costs inland.
- TruthAndDare 10y ago
  > the farm lobby can paradoxically be incentivized to vote for housing regulation Why is it paradoxical? Because they could otherwise have more buyers of their products?
  - costcopizza 10y ago
    Maybe the farm lobby generally supports deregulation legislation and other "pro-business" agenda.
  - niels_olson 10y ago
    Labor is the biggest cost in almost any enterprise and your labor's housing is their biggest expense. But that doesn't mean the farmer actually has to eat that burden. And, geographically, farm areas surely have less population pressure for housing space.
hx87 10y ago
If you don't want to live in a place with 50-story buildings, don't do things that create demand for them. For example, you can discourage business investment in the area. Funny how no municipality ever does so.
- TruthAndDare 10y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean. You don't have to build 50-story buildings just because you have created a demand for them.
  - niftich 10y ago
    No, you can just let home prices inflate, or force everyone to commute from 2 hours away. The parent's point is that increased density often follows increased demand; and increased demand often follows a productive economy.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  That's not exactly something that most people have any power over.
  - hx87 10y ago
    If people can vote in officials who favor restrictive residential zoning, they can certainly vote in those who favor restricting business investment.
clock_tower 10y ago
Before you say that, read up on "really narrow streets" -- it's quite possible to make a place that's both very dense and very liveable. Of course, there are very few such places in the US...

davidw 10y ago

If there's no market for them, they won't get built. But people want to live in places like NY and San Fran for the economic opportunities they provide, not just for "the character of the neighborhood".

bitwize 10y ago
When the economic opportunities overrun the "character of the neighborhood", neighborhoods get destroyed and people get priced out of their own homes. It's called gentrification.
- morgante 10y ago
  > people get priced out of their own homes Wrong. Adding supply lowers prices, not increases them. The fact that wealthy rentiers in the Bay Area have somehow convinced activists that they should oppose new development is farcical. Liberal activists are literally protesting to enrich capitalists.
- davidw 10y ago
  Uh, if you have been following along, you may have noticed that most people cannot afford the bay area as it is. Adding some supply might help things, rather than make them worse.
- lgieron 10y ago
  How can you be priced out of your own home? If you own it, you don't have to pay anything (unless you mean they cannot afford property taxes).
  - jdhzzz 10y ago
    Your home can be seized by eminent domain as was done by the town of New London a few years back. They did so in order for a private developer to build more expensive housing on that property and generate higher property taxes for the city. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
- findjashua 10y ago
  How would more affordable housing (by replacing single family homes with high-rise complexes) increase gentrification? If anything, people are getting 'priced out' because of the absurdly high housing prices right now.
TruthAndDare 10y ago
> If there's no market for them, they won't get built. That's something else, isn't it? The people who already live there might not want 50-story buildings, even if there are other people who would move into them if they were built.
- davidw 10y ago
  That's the crux of the matter, isn't it? How much right should I have to control what other people do because it might bother me? I think that currently, we err way too much on the side of letting people block things, here in the US.
  - TruthAndDare 10y ago
    > How much right should I have to control what other people do because it might bother me? That's a valid question for every law or other governmental decision. But we can think of an idealized case, where an entire town, or state, or country, agree that they don't want 50-story buildings, even if there exists outsiders who would like to move into such buildings. In this case, we need only recognize the right of the local people to decide what happens in their area, even if it is against the will of people from elsewhere.
    - ambrice 10y ago
      Why do the rights of the local people trump the rights of people from "elsewhere"? The major question is what harm is being done to the local people by the existence of 50 story buildings, vs the harm to people that find an ideal job in SF but can't afford to take it?
      - TruthAndDare 10y ago
        > Why do the rights of the local people trump the rights of people from "elsewhere"? On at least some level, I find it reasonable that the people who live in a certain place decide over that place. In any case, that is rather conventional, isn't it? It's particularly clear on the level of countries, which is why I mentioned it in my comment. Only citizens or residents of a country, not the rest of the world, get to vote in elections. > The major question is what harm is being done to the local people by the existence of 50 story buildings That's really a matter of their personal opinion. Some of us find such buildings repulsive.

niels_olson 10y ago

Another issue is water: the more people, the more water. No one in California wants that. so the farm lobby can paradoxically be incentivized to vote for housing regulation as long as it doesn't affect their labor costs inland.

TruthAndDare 10y ago
> the farm lobby can paradoxically be incentivized to vote for housing regulation Why is it paradoxical? Because they could otherwise have more buyers of their products?
- costcopizza 10y ago
  Maybe the farm lobby generally supports deregulation legislation and other "pro-business" agenda.
- niels_olson 10y ago
  Labor is the biggest cost in almost any enterprise and your labor's housing is their biggest expense. But that doesn't mean the farmer actually has to eat that burden. And, geographically, farm areas surely have less population pressure for housing space.

hx87 10y ago

If you don't want to live in a place with 50-story buildings, don't do things that create demand for them. For example, you can discourage business investment in the area. Funny how no municipality ever does so.

TruthAndDare 10y ago
I'm not sure what you mean. You don't have to build 50-story buildings just because you have created a demand for them.
- niftich 10y ago
  No, you can just let home prices inflate, or force everyone to commute from 2 hours away. The parent's point is that increased density often follows increased demand; and increased demand often follows a productive economy.
st3v3r 10y ago
That's not exactly something that most people have any power over.
- hx87 10y ago
  If people can vote in officials who favor restrictive residential zoning, they can certainly vote in those who favor restricting business investment.

clock_tower 10y ago

Before you say that, read up on "really narrow streets" -- it's quite possible to make a place that's both very dense and very liveable. Of course, there are very few such places in the US...