3 ms·

> One of the reasons cities have sprawled is because their development has been entrusted to, well, developers This is specifically the opposite of the case. D

by jvm 10y ago

> One of the reasons cities have sprawled is because their development has been entrusted to, well, developers This is specifically the opposite of the case. Developers would happily build New York and San Francisco up into the stratosphere if it were legal. It's not, so they have to build out instead. This is 100% determined by the regulatory structure that legalizes sprawl and prohibits densification.

danharaj 10y ago
Developers aren't responsible for the construction of the municipal facilities and infrastructure necessary to support such a drastic increase in population density.
- hx87 10y ago
  No, but they and their client certainly pay the property taxes and fees to make such things a possibility. More density = more property tax revenue = more facilities and infrastructure possible.
- krschultz 10y ago
  There are plenty of examples in NYC of forcing the developer to build infrastructure in order to get more building rights. In the suburbs developers are often required to build the underlying infrastructure for their subdivisions. It's simple math. If the cost of building the development + required infrastructure is less than the price can sell it for then things will get built. It's the responsibility of the city to bundle the infrastructure requirements onto the building permit.
muninn_ 10y ago
But most of the country doesn't live in New York or San Francisco. In somewhere like, say, Columbus it's much cheaper for a developer to build cookie-cutter mansions than to plop down a new sky scraper in the city.
- hx87 10y ago
  Most of the country also doesn't have the problem of rampant housing cost inflation the way NYC or SF does.
  - maxsilver 10y ago
    Sure they do. There are gentrification problems happening in most small-to-midsize "rest of the country" cities. Places like Cincinnati / Minneapolis / Austin / etc just don't get as much attention for it because the scale is smaller, but the effect on residents is very similar. In these "rest of the country" places, you can't have a meaningful conversation about housing problems, because the residents will point to the suburbs/exurbs and say "those are still affordable -- that's where the middle class should go". Which is a better situation than say San Francisco, but it's still bad -- it's generating even more sprawl and further kills public transit (as this article highlights). New dense urban construction in small Midwest cities is close-to-identical (within 10-15%) to top ten market pricing, even though wages are still 20-40% lower on average, and construction costs + land costs are lower. Small and medium sized Midwest cities cut themselves off at their own feet, building lots of "urban" housing that's priced identically to places like Seattle / Portland / Denver. They then act really surprised/frustrated when working class people complain about housing costs and gentrification in their "low cost of living" cities. A $300k housing unit in "the rest of the country" is often just as unaffordable as say, a $600k housing unit in Seattle, if you measure that cost in terms of percent of paycheck -- which is what working class people rent/purchase housing with.
- WorldMaker 10y ago
  Especially when said developer can use the exact same cookie-cutter, with little to no deviation, in Cleveland, Cincinatti, Louisville, Nashville, and so forth...

by jvm 10y ago

danharaj 10y ago

Developers aren't responsible for the construction of the municipal facilities and infrastructure necessary to support such a drastic increase in population density.

hx87 10y ago
No, but they and their client certainly pay the property taxes and fees to make such things a possibility. More density = more property tax revenue = more facilities and infrastructure possible.
krschultz 10y ago
There are plenty of examples in NYC of forcing the developer to build infrastructure in order to get more building rights. In the suburbs developers are often required to build the underlying infrastructure for their subdivisions. It's simple math. If the cost of building the development + required infrastructure is less than the price can sell it for then things will get built. It's the responsibility of the city to bundle the infrastructure requirements onto the building permit.

muninn_ 10y ago

But most of the country doesn't live in New York or San Francisco. In somewhere like, say, Columbus it's much cheaper for a developer to build cookie-cutter mansions than to plop down a new sky scraper in the city.

hx87 10y ago
Most of the country also doesn't have the problem of rampant housing cost inflation the way NYC or SF does.
- maxsilver 10y ago
  Sure they do. There are gentrification problems happening in most small-to-midsize "rest of the country" cities. Places like Cincinnati / Minneapolis / Austin / etc just don't get as much attention for it because the scale is smaller, but the effect on residents is very similar. In these "rest of the country" places, you can't have a meaningful conversation about housing problems, because the residents will point to the suburbs/exurbs and say "those are still affordable -- that's where the middle class should go". Which is a better situation than say San Francisco, but it's still bad -- it's generating even more sprawl and further kills public transit (as this article highlights). New dense urban construction in small Midwest cities is close-to-identical (within 10-15%) to top ten market pricing, even though wages are still 20-40% lower on average, and construction costs + land costs are lower. Small and medium sized Midwest cities cut themselves off at their own feet, building lots of "urban" housing that's priced identically to places like Seattle / Portland / Denver. They then act really surprised/frustrated when working class people complain about housing costs and gentrification in their "low cost of living" cities. A $300k housing unit in "the rest of the country" is often just as unaffordable as say, a $600k housing unit in Seattle, if you measure that cost in terms of percent of paycheck -- which is what working class people rent/purchase housing with.
WorldMaker 10y ago
Especially when said developer can use the exact same cookie-cutter, with little to no deviation, in Cleveland, Cincinatti, Louisville, Nashville, and so forth...