3 ms·

No. Those policies are in place because planning makes sense. Not everywhere should be tear down and build up in all conditions. How about the French quarter

No. Those policies are in place because planning makes sense. Not everywhere should be tear down and build up in all conditions. How about the French quarter of New Orleans or historic districts of other cities? This argument always shows up here and is idealistic bs.

aorloff 10y ago
Places that have rapidly soaring housing costs need to get rid of / streamline the permitting process a la trailer bill 707 in CA (which the special interests killed - largely unions because they use the local permitting process to exact concessions). But either we need to streamline the permitting process, or revitalize a serious transit policy (not the BS high-speed rail, but a regional transit solution that makes it feasible to live in Stockton and work in SF).
jjawssd 10y ago
I don't understand
- jmspring 10y ago
  There are groups of people that seem to think that sacrificing local experience should be shoved aside solely on the basis to add more Housing should be the most important thing.
  - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
    And it really sucks when more housing is added only to be used as Chinese investments while they sit empty not being used or rented out.
    - webmaven 10y ago
      Well, it doesn't play out negatively in every city. The proliferating loft towers in Las Vegas don't really affect the housing stock available to local residents (most of which ranges from single family detached homes to 2-floor apartment complexes), and the fact that the lofts stand empty most of the time (it isn't just foreign investors, there are also snowbirds and empty-nesters buying a vacation home) means that they don't strain the local infrastructure much.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - jacobolus 10y ago
    The “local experience” of every young person being priced out of their hometowns and needing to move >50 miles away from home to afford a shared room in a small apartment. The “local experience” of 35-year-old couples who can’t afford to start families because they have a tiny rent-controlled studio apartment they got 10 years ago and now can’t afford to move. The “local experience” of all the artists and musicians who originally made a neighborhood trendy all getting priced out and moving far away never to return. The “local experience” of having all the teachers in the region working second jobs as bartenders so they can afford to live in a tiny apartment somewhere within a 30m commute. The “local experience” of having all the stores in town selling basic items close because the only stores that can afford the rent are upscale clothing/jewelry/etc. or fancy restaurants. Etc. Yeah, what a wonderful “local experience”.
    - Hondor 10y ago
      That's unavoidable anywhere population is growing. We don't have a right to buy a house where we grew up. Or maybe those kids can ask their parents to sell their house to them at far below market value. You're asking someone to do that, why not their own parents? The opposite effect happens in small/shrinking towns. Kids who grow up there and move out for a career can afford to buy a house where they grew up but don't want to. Should these people be forced to move back to their small town so they don't displace the "rightful" residents of the booming city?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
lazaroclapp 10y ago
Sure. But historic districts are not the majority of zoned land in any city. I mean, the imperial palace gardens remain in the middle of super-dense super-expensive central Tokyo, as do many other historic landmarks and districts in dense cities (and non-historical but significant landmarks too: nobody is removing central park from NYC either). Actually, an even stronger argument is that, well, cities need more than housing. You need city planning and zoning because huge buildings need commensurate transportation, sanitation and water/power supply infrastructure. But neither this, nor preserving hundred years old historically important districts, are what people complain when they complain about zoning. You can plan for more public infrastructure at the same time you allow lots of new construction. Hell, you can tax the developers of the new buildings to front most of the public infrastructure upgrade costs, then distribute the maintenance over the now expanded population. People complain when a city fails to do this for years even in the face of strong demand pressure, because the lower the supply the more the real state investments of existing owners appreciate in the short term.
- webmaven 10y ago
  > Hell, you can tax the developers of the new buildings to front most of the public infrastructure upgrade costs There are a couple of ways this can fail as a result of various loopholes, but it is, in general, a good approach. Further, you can offer developers tax credits for densifying infill development since more of the infrastructure is already in place.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

aorloff 10y ago

Places that have rapidly soaring housing costs need to get rid of / streamline the permitting process a la trailer bill 707 in CA (which the special interests killed - largely unions because they use the local permitting process to exact concessions). But either we need to streamline the permitting process, or revitalize a serious transit policy (not the BS high-speed rail, but a regional transit solution that makes it feasible to live in Stockton and work in SF).

jjawssd 10y ago

I don't understand

jmspring 10y ago
There are groups of people that seem to think that sacrificing local experience should be shoved aside solely on the basis to add more Housing should be the most important thing.
- seanmcdirmid 10y ago
  And it really sucks when more housing is added only to be used as Chinese investments while they sit empty not being used or rented out.
  - webmaven 10y ago
    Well, it doesn't play out negatively in every city. The proliferating loft towers in Las Vegas don't really affect the housing stock available to local residents (most of which ranges from single family detached homes to 2-floor apartment complexes), and the fact that the lofts stand empty most of the time (it isn't just foreign investors, there are also snowbirds and empty-nesters buying a vacation home) means that they don't strain the local infrastructure much.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- jacobolus 10y ago
  The “local experience” of every young person being priced out of their hometowns and needing to move >50 miles away from home to afford a shared room in a small apartment. The “local experience” of 35-year-old couples who can’t afford to start families because they have a tiny rent-controlled studio apartment they got 10 years ago and now can’t afford to move. The “local experience” of all the artists and musicians who originally made a neighborhood trendy all getting priced out and moving far away never to return. The “local experience” of having all the teachers in the region working second jobs as bartenders so they can afford to live in a tiny apartment somewhere within a 30m commute. The “local experience” of having all the stores in town selling basic items close because the only stores that can afford the rent are upscale clothing/jewelry/etc. or fancy restaurants. Etc. Yeah, what a wonderful “local experience”.
  - Hondor 10y ago
    That's unavoidable anywhere population is growing. We don't have a right to buy a house where we grew up. Or maybe those kids can ask their parents to sell their house to them at far below market value. You're asking someone to do that, why not their own parents? The opposite effect happens in small/shrinking towns. Kids who grow up there and move out for a career can afford to buy a house where they grew up but don't want to. Should these people be forced to move back to their small town so they don't displace the "rightful" residents of the booming city?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

lazaroclapp 10y ago

Sure. But historic districts are not the majority of zoned land in any city. I mean, the imperial palace gardens remain in the middle of super-dense super-expensive central Tokyo, as do many other historic landmarks and districts in dense cities (and non-historical but significant landmarks too: nobody is removing central park from NYC either). Actually, an even stronger argument is that, well, cities need more than housing. You need city planning and zoning because huge buildings need commensurate transportation, sanitation and water/power supply infrastructure. But neither this, nor preserving hundred years old historically important districts, are what people complain when they complain about zoning. You can plan for more public infrastructure at the same time you allow lots of new construction. Hell, you can tax the developers of the new buildings to front most of the public infrastructure upgrade costs, then distribute the maintenance over the now expanded population. People complain when a city fails to do this for years even in the face of strong demand pressure, because the lower the supply the more the real state investments of existing owners appreciate in the short term.

webmaven 10y ago
> Hell, you can tax the developers of the new buildings to front most of the public infrastructure upgrade costs There are a couple of ways this can fail as a result of various loopholes, but it is, in general, a good approach. Further, you can offer developers tax credits for densifying infill development since more of the infrastructure is already in place.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]