5 ms·

Interesting article, different point of view for sure, but I have a bit of trouble with sentences such as: "More housing would mean lower rent and a bigger eco

by mgbmtl 10y ago

Interesting article, different point of view for sure, but I have a bit of trouble with sentences such as: "More housing would mean lower rent and a bigger economy" : I'm all for increasing density (up to European equivalents), but more density adds complexity and more costs (waste disposal, parking space, public transport, local commerce, health issues). I'm not an urban planner, but most of the high-density areas I've seen in my city, even those outside the core, are pretty expensive places (i.e. buildings with 10+ floors). The author also mentions the need for serious urban planning, while seeing a need for "liberalizing housing regulations". That's a bit contradictory. Also, we need a culture shift in terms of how we see high density. The urban core is not just for 20-somethings looking for an opportunity. An old industrial area was converted to high-rise buildings in the past 10 years in my city, and they didn't plan a single school. Now young professionals moved in, they like the area, have kids, but want to stay in that area. (it's no different than living in Manhattan with kids, which is not a problem if you can afford it)

jimrandomh 10y ago
The causality goes the other way: places become dense because people want to live there and bid the prices up, and developers respond to those prices by building taller. The really high prices happen when people want to live somewhere and bid the prices up, but no one can build to make room for them because of zoning regulations.
- aninhumer 10y ago
  I think the causality goes both ways. People want to live there because of the advantages of density, and the area becomes denser to accommodate them.
woah 10y ago
It's real simple. If density is increased, more people can be serviced with a given length of sewer and water pipes. Busses don't have to drive as far. Cars don't have to drive as far. Businesses have more customers. The high-density places in your city that are expensive are only expensive because the developer probably had to fight a multi-year battle to be allowed to build there, with millions of dollars at risk because permitting could be stopped by a cranky neighbor at any point in the process. Dealing with those kinds of legal impediments to construction, it only makes sense to build higher profit luxury housing, and since there is a lack of housing the market can bear it.
- aninhumer 10y ago
  >Dealing with those kinds of legal impediments to construction, it only makes sense to build higher profit luxury housing, and since there is a lack of housing the market can bear it. I think this causation is slightly backwards. The price will be high regardless because of the limited supply, so they build luxury apartments to best appeal to the people who can afford those prices.
  - aorloff 10y ago
    Or maybe its more accurate to say, the prices will be high so the appropriate label will be "luxury." I'm seeing "luxury" 2-bedrooms going up in the Bay Area with linoleum bathroom flooring. "Luxury" is all in the eye of the beholder.
  - hx87 10y ago
    Supply would be /less/ limited if it were less difficult to get a project approved, so you'd see more non-luxury apartments.
    - aninhumer 10y ago
      Yes, I didn't dispute that? I'm just saying the luxury apartments are a result of the high prices, not the other way around.
      - hx87 10y ago
        Sorry, I must have parsed your comment wrongly.
- scld 10y ago
  While the "length" of these services is reduced, the bandwidth is not. Waste disposal and collection, both trash and sewage, needs to be able to support the housing. So the parent comment's point is that you can't just free up the land on which the housing will be built, you need urban planning around it to account for the increased population. Unless they privatize that part of the infrastructure or shift the costs over to developers of high-rises, there will need to be active public development in areas where density is at a maximum as far as local infrastructure is concerned (even if density is being kept artificially low by NIMBYism).
Retric 10y ago
Pollution is often a good proxy for total costs ignoring profit taking. NYC is the most environmentally friendly place to live in the US. Why? Well large buildings have less surface area to volume and thus need less heating and cooling. Public transit is vastly more efficient than cars idling. Further, fewer cars per capita is far less stuff to manufacture and maintain. Restaurants are vastly more efficient than home cooking, and density reduces energy costs of takeout making even that better than heating up a stove to make a single meal. Yes, that iPad had to travel from china, but it did so in a huge efficient boat and could be unloaded right at their harbor. I could keep going but for all their talk about environmental awareness SF adds a terrible burden. Now sure, it's a high cost of living area but that's mostly rent being paid both directly and indirectly. (Your chef also has high rent, and his doctor also has high rent...) Yes, taller buildings cost more to construct, but they also last a long time. Keep digging and limiting new construction is a large part of why things get so expensive. Many really expensive buildings where built to hold poor immigrants.
- PaulHoule 10y ago
  Air quality is awful in NYC. It's the only city in the U.S. where I've had an Asthma exacerbation.
  - honkhonkpants 10y ago
    Air quality in NYC is primarily caused by things west of there.
  - cddotdotslash 10y ago
    There are a few days of the year that feel bad, yes, but overall, NYC air quality is decent. Air quality index site: https://waqi.info https://waqi.info Pretty much half the west coast and a good number of other cities in the country have worse air quality. In fact, right now (which is a particularly hot muggy day in NYC) it's around 55. Parts of Arkansas, Colorado, and Ohio are over 100, and a majority of California is over 70.
  - bradleyjg 10y ago
    It should be improving. The city recently banned, with no grandfathering, boilers using #6 fuel oil. Before it put in the new regulations, it had found that 86% of the total building sourced soot pollution came from 1% of buildings. http://www.nyc.gov/html/gbee/html/codes/heating.shtml http://www.nyc.gov/html/gbee/html/codes/heating.shtml
honkhonkpants 10y ago
I don't think there's tension between urban planning and liberalizing housing regulations. Developers today don't have any certainty because any random citizen or group can challenge any development on any basis. What should happen is there should be a plan and guidelines and anyone developing within those guidelines is immune to random challenges. Look at this bullshit in Oakland for example: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2016/08/local-coalition-challenges-redevelopment-of-a-chinatown-block.html http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2016/08/local-coalition-c... The developer plans to replace a dilapidated 2-story building with a much larger building in central Oakland, but the "local" "community" which consists of people who don't even live in that neighborhood want to extort a bunch of "community benefits" i.e. sacks full of money, or else they'll tie it up in courts forever. Here's an example of another shakedown in Oakland where the electrical workers' union will take you to court over CEQA until you've hired enough electricians to satisfy them. http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2016/05/appeal-challenges-development-of-oaklands-auto-row.html http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2016/05/appeal-challenges...
- erentz 10y ago
  And for example, even in this case what the developer is being blocked from building is far too low-rise for a site that is right in the middle of the downtown core grid of Oakland, and only 2-blocks from a BART station. This should be a 30+ story mixed-use tower going up.
- mgbmtl 10y ago
  The first item you mention seems like a governance issue that can be addressed. I'm in Canada, and there are zoning regulations and five-year development guidelines, and that's it. Promoters can ask to derogate from the plan and potentially face protest, but that's only if they derogate. I rarely hear of much protest (in Montreal, at least). If they do protest, they have to protest the city, because they're the ones who approved the project (and yes, there are the occasional corruption cases and politicians who go to jail). I don't really understand the electrical workers' union issue. Here there are provincial guidelines for safety and that's it. Construction is heavily regulated, union membership is mandatory, but it's often in the promoters' interests. The US tendency to deregulate/liberalize and let people sue each other is mind boggling sometimes.
lmm 10y ago
> but more density adds complexity and more costs (waste disposal, parking space, public transport, local commerce, health issues). Not per-person, which is the measure that matters. Density largely makes those things more efficient.

by mgbmtl 10y ago

jimrandomh 10y ago

The causality goes the other way: places become dense because people want to live there and bid the prices up, and developers respond to those prices by building taller. The really high prices happen when people want to live somewhere and bid the prices up, but no one can build to make room for them because of zoning regulations.

aninhumer 10y ago
I think the causality goes both ways. People want to live there because of the advantages of density, and the area becomes denser to accommodate them.

woah 10y ago

It's real simple. If density is increased, more people can be serviced with a given length of sewer and water pipes. Busses don't have to drive as far. Cars don't have to drive as far. Businesses have more customers. The high-density places in your city that are expensive are only expensive because the developer probably had to fight a multi-year battle to be allowed to build there, with millions of dollars at risk because permitting could be stopped by a cranky neighbor at any point in the process. Dealing with those kinds of legal impediments to construction, it only makes sense to build higher profit luxury housing, and since there is a lack of housing the market can bear it.

aninhumer 10y ago
>Dealing with those kinds of legal impediments to construction, it only makes sense to build higher profit luxury housing, and since there is a lack of housing the market can bear it. I think this causation is slightly backwards. The price will be high regardless because of the limited supply, so they build luxury apartments to best appeal to the people who can afford those prices.
- aorloff 10y ago
  Or maybe its more accurate to say, the prices will be high so the appropriate label will be "luxury." I'm seeing "luxury" 2-bedrooms going up in the Bay Area with linoleum bathroom flooring. "Luxury" is all in the eye of the beholder.
- hx87 10y ago
  Supply would be /less/ limited if it were less difficult to get a project approved, so you'd see more non-luxury apartments.
  - aninhumer 10y ago
    Yes, I didn't dispute that? I'm just saying the luxury apartments are a result of the high prices, not the other way around.
    - hx87 10y ago
      Sorry, I must have parsed your comment wrongly.
scld 10y ago
While the "length" of these services is reduced, the bandwidth is not. Waste disposal and collection, both trash and sewage, needs to be able to support the housing. So the parent comment's point is that you can't just free up the land on which the housing will be built, you need urban planning around it to account for the increased population. Unless they privatize that part of the infrastructure or shift the costs over to developers of high-rises, there will need to be active public development in areas where density is at a maximum as far as local infrastructure is concerned (even if density is being kept artificially low by NIMBYism).

Retric 10y ago

Pollution is often a good proxy for total costs ignoring profit taking. NYC is the most environmentally friendly place to live in the US. Why? Well large buildings have less surface area to volume and thus need less heating and cooling. Public transit is vastly more efficient than cars idling. Further, fewer cars per capita is far less stuff to manufacture and maintain. Restaurants are vastly more efficient than home cooking, and density reduces energy costs of takeout making even that better than heating up a stove to make a single meal. Yes, that iPad had to travel from china, but it did so in a huge efficient boat and could be unloaded right at their harbor. I could keep going but for all their talk about environmental awareness SF adds a terrible burden. Now sure, it's a high cost of living area but that's mostly rent being paid both directly and indirectly. (Your chef also has high rent, and his doctor also has high rent...) Yes, taller buildings cost more to construct, but they also last a long time. Keep digging and limiting new construction is a large part of why things get so expensive. Many really expensive buildings where built to hold poor immigrants.

PaulHoule 10y ago
Air quality is awful in NYC. It's the only city in the U.S. where I've had an Asthma exacerbation.
- honkhonkpants 10y ago
  Air quality in NYC is primarily caused by things west of there.
- cddotdotslash 10y ago
  There are a few days of the year that feel bad, yes, but overall, NYC air quality is decent. Air quality index site: https://waqi.info https://waqi.info Pretty much half the west coast and a good number of other cities in the country have worse air quality. In fact, right now (which is a particularly hot muggy day in NYC) it's around 55. Parts of Arkansas, Colorado, and Ohio are over 100, and a majority of California is over 70.
- bradleyjg 10y ago
  It should be improving. The city recently banned, with no grandfathering, boilers using #6 fuel oil. Before it put in the new regulations, it had found that 86% of the total building sourced soot pollution came from 1% of buildings. http://www.nyc.gov/html/gbee/html/codes/heating.shtml http://www.nyc.gov/html/gbee/html/codes/heating.shtml

honkhonkpants 10y ago

I don't think there's tension between urban planning and liberalizing housing regulations. Developers today don't have any certainty because any random citizen or group can challenge any development on any basis. What should happen is there should be a plan and guidelines and anyone developing within those guidelines is immune to random challenges. Look at this bullshit in Oakland for example: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2016/08/local-coalition-challenges-redevelopment-of-a-chinatown-block.html http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2016/08/local-coalition-c... The developer plans to replace a dilapidated 2-story building with a much larger building in central Oakland, but the "local" "community" which consists of people who don't even live in that neighborhood want to extort a bunch of "community benefits" i.e. sacks full of money, or else they'll tie it up in courts forever. Here's an example of another shakedown in Oakland where the electrical workers' union will take you to court over CEQA until you've hired enough electricians to satisfy them. http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2016/05/appeal-challenges-development-of-oaklands-auto-row.html http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2016/05/appeal-challenges...

erentz 10y ago
And for example, even in this case what the developer is being blocked from building is far too low-rise for a site that is right in the middle of the downtown core grid of Oakland, and only 2-blocks from a BART station. This should be a 30+ story mixed-use tower going up.
mgbmtl 10y ago
The first item you mention seems like a governance issue that can be addressed. I'm in Canada, and there are zoning regulations and five-year development guidelines, and that's it. Promoters can ask to derogate from the plan and potentially face protest, but that's only if they derogate. I rarely hear of much protest (in Montreal, at least). If they do protest, they have to protest the city, because they're the ones who approved the project (and yes, there are the occasional corruption cases and politicians who go to jail). I don't really understand the electrical workers' union issue. Here there are provincial guidelines for safety and that's it. Construction is heavily regulated, union membership is mandatory, but it's often in the promoters' interests. The US tendency to deregulate/liberalize and let people sue each other is mind boggling sometimes.

lmm 10y ago

> but more density adds complexity and more costs (waste disposal, parking space, public transport, local commerce, health issues). Not per-person, which is the measure that matters. Density largely makes those things more efficient.