7 ms·

The scarcity of housing in cities is artificial. Most cities have a class of elderly landowners who enjoy their unobstructed views and high property values and

by woah 10y ago

The scarcity of housing in cities is artificial. Most cities have a class of elderly landowners who enjoy their unobstructed views and high property values and have the time to sit in planning meetings all day and will fight tooth and nail against any new construction, using both liberal (gentrification) and conservative (crime and crowding) arguments.

matt_wulfeck 10y ago
The development obstruction is real. If you don't believe me then join Nextdoor for a neighborhood that's in the bay. You will find a group of highly dedicated and organized individuals who's sole purpose in life is to prevent any new high capacity zoning or construction.
nmerouze 10y ago
I've lived in Paris where it is the same, or even worse because there are historic buildings everywhere. Now I live in Japan where it is the polar opposite. I live in a very dense area of Osaka in a building built in 2013 for the same price than my way smaller and very old place in Paris. If only Europe and North America could be like that...
- yourapostasy 10y ago
  Interesting, any insight to why the Japanese body politic expresses a stronger preference for new and denser construction? I've heard anecdotally that Japanese culture specifically (and Asian culture more loosely) tends to shun "used" housing far more than the US market, but haven't been able to find any reference to support that hearsay.
  - donw 10y ago
    That is broadly true -- used houses have negative value here in Japan, as you need to first tear the thing down so that you can build whatever it is that you want. In Japan, things shake. A lot. Earthquake damage adds up pretty quickly, and is stupidly expensive to engineer against, so most houses are built with an expected lifespan of probably somewhere around 50 years. They're certainly safe, but there is a strong expectation that a family will live there until the kids move out and the parents retire. Highrises are economically preferable for a number of reasons. Japan has both an excellent rail transit network and sane zoning laws. So you end up with a cluster of highrises around a train station, where the bottom 1-3 levels are devoted to shopping, recreation, and everything else that you would see in a typical shopping mall. Life revolves around the rail network, at least in Tokyo. You don't as much go from the Ikebukuro Ward to the Shinjuku Ward as you go from Home to Ikebukuro Station to Shinjuku Station to Where It Is You Want To Go. I don't see this ever happening in the US, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Personally, I would much prefer a larger number of slightly smaller cities, with companies either going fully-remote, or establishing a federated group of (drastically cheaper) offices in multiple cities. You end up with a lot more local flavor, but without the SF or NYC rents.
- vacri 10y ago
  ... but Paris is one of the densest cities in the world? Nearly twice the density of Osaka. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_population_d...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - nmerouze 10y ago
    It's not really a fair comparison because Osaka has twice the area of Paris. My ward has the same density than Paris.
  - greggman 10y ago
    The problem with those listings is they count by the city's full area and not just the urban area. So for example Hong Kong is often listEd low. Go to HK and you'll quickly understand why that way of measuring is wrong.
riprowan 10y ago
I'd be curious what is the source of the claim that "most cities have a class of elderly landowners..." I suspect these are cities which employ controls to cap the taxes on the property owned by elderly people. If the city employs an age-blind property tax, then elderly people on fixed incomes get taxed out of their residences, which is an equally problematic phenomenon.
- trome 10y ago
  Most people are on fixed incomes, full stop. If you are in a home that you can't afford the taxes on, you should sell said home. Anything else is how you end up with 60 thru 90 year olds living in housing that was never designed for them, both in that it is too large, and is missing elderly friendly features such as a single story layout. Sure, you can add these things on after the fact if its a single family home, but it often would make more sense to dump the 3 to 4 bedroom home (that you are expanding to 4 or 5 bedrooms with this reno) and get a place with a much lower maintenance burden and way fewer rooms. Sadly, we often distort reality here in the US with subsidies that incentivize poor decisions such as living out retirement in the home you raised your kids in, despite the burden that puts on those living there, their family, and the community around them. We should encourage the best possible outcome for everyone involved, by getting rid of tax deductions for having a mortgage against your home, or being over a certain age, as that will commoditize housing and allows people to live closer to where they need to be at a much lower cost. Otherwise, subsidies like this drive up housing costs and you end up like many American Cities.
  - adrianN 10y ago
    If I were 80 years old I would be very upset if I were forced to move from my home where I had spent the last forty odd years because of rising taxes. I think we can find ways to deal with this problem without forcing people to sell their homes. Problems related to old people can often be solved by making sure that they don't perpetuate and waiting.
    - notahacker 10y ago
branchless 10y ago
And money creation infinite, only held back by demand.
makomk 10y ago
The scarcity of housing in cities is not entirely artificial. Sooner or later you hit infrastructure limits. Remember that article about parts of New York City literally running out of space on the streets for pedestrians?
- jdavis703 10y ago
  Short term, close the street to non-human powered transportation. Long term, add a new subway line or station.
- ng12 10y ago
  There are still neighborhoods in Queens, Jersey, and Brooklyn that are under 20m from Manhattan and still woefully underdeveloped. Also, that article was specifically about FiDi which is like that because it's so old so the streets aren't wide enough.
  - wcummings 10y ago
    I lived in a 1 bdrm in a nice neighborhood in Queens walking distance from the subway, <20m to Manhattan, for quite a bit less than I would pay for a 1 bdrm in Boston. NYC's extensive housing stock and transit network do yield results.
  - evanelias 10y ago
    "Woefully underdeveloped" is an exaggeration though. There aren't many underdeveloped neighborhoods under 20min from Manhattan, and even then, they're still denser than just about anywhere else in the US. On the NJ side, Hudson County is very high-density, aside from the Meadowlands which aren't suitable for construction. For one extreme example, Guttenberg NJ technically is the municipality with highest population density in the entire US! Or for a more mundane example, Newport in Jersey City is pretty much all high-rises. Similar story in Brooklyn for the parts closest by subway to Manhattan. Downtown Brooklyn added so many new giant rental towers that rents actually dropped the past year. Williamsburg got a bunch of waterfront towers last decade and now doesn't have the infrastructure to support more housing. DUMBO is all large buildings that have been converted to lofts. Brooklyn Heights is lower in density, still very few single-family buildings in the first place, and largely landmarked/historic. Queens is the one place where I'd partially agree with you, but even then, Long Island City has a ton of high-rises. Slightly further out, Sunnyside, Woodside, and Jackson Heights are relatively lower density, yes. But still denser than many major US cities.

by woah 10y ago

matt_wulfeck 10y ago

The development obstruction is real. If you don't believe me then join Nextdoor for a neighborhood that's in the bay. You will find a group of highly dedicated and organized individuals who's sole purpose in life is to prevent any new high capacity zoning or construction.

nmerouze 10y ago

I've lived in Paris where it is the same, or even worse because there are historic buildings everywhere. Now I live in Japan where it is the polar opposite. I live in a very dense area of Osaka in a building built in 2013 for the same price than my way smaller and very old place in Paris. If only Europe and North America could be like that...

yourapostasy 10y ago
Interesting, any insight to why the Japanese body politic expresses a stronger preference for new and denser construction? I've heard anecdotally that Japanese culture specifically (and Asian culture more loosely) tends to shun "used" housing far more than the US market, but haven't been able to find any reference to support that hearsay.
- donw 10y ago
  That is broadly true -- used houses have negative value here in Japan, as you need to first tear the thing down so that you can build whatever it is that you want. In Japan, things shake. A lot. Earthquake damage adds up pretty quickly, and is stupidly expensive to engineer against, so most houses are built with an expected lifespan of probably somewhere around 50 years. They're certainly safe, but there is a strong expectation that a family will live there until the kids move out and the parents retire. Highrises are economically preferable for a number of reasons. Japan has both an excellent rail transit network and sane zoning laws. So you end up with a cluster of highrises around a train station, where the bottom 1-3 levels are devoted to shopping, recreation, and everything else that you would see in a typical shopping mall. Life revolves around the rail network, at least in Tokyo. You don't as much go from the Ikebukuro Ward to the Shinjuku Ward as you go from Home to Ikebukuro Station to Shinjuku Station to Where It Is You Want To Go. I don't see this ever happening in the US, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Personally, I would much prefer a larger number of slightly smaller cities, with companies either going fully-remote, or establishing a federated group of (drastically cheaper) offices in multiple cities. You end up with a lot more local flavor, but without the SF or NYC rents.
vacri 10y ago
... but Paris is one of the densest cities in the world? Nearly twice the density of Osaka. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_population_d...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- nmerouze 10y ago
  It's not really a fair comparison because Osaka has twice the area of Paris. My ward has the same density than Paris.
- greggman 10y ago
  The problem with those listings is they count by the city's full area and not just the urban area. So for example Hong Kong is often listEd low. Go to HK and you'll quickly understand why that way of measuring is wrong.

riprowan 10y ago

I'd be curious what is the source of the claim that "most cities have a class of elderly landowners..." I suspect these are cities which employ controls to cap the taxes on the property owned by elderly people. If the city employs an age-blind property tax, then elderly people on fixed incomes get taxed out of their residences, which is an equally problematic phenomenon.

trome 10y ago
Most people are on fixed incomes, full stop. If you are in a home that you can't afford the taxes on, you should sell said home. Anything else is how you end up with 60 thru 90 year olds living in housing that was never designed for them, both in that it is too large, and is missing elderly friendly features such as a single story layout. Sure, you can add these things on after the fact if its a single family home, but it often would make more sense to dump the 3 to 4 bedroom home (that you are expanding to 4 or 5 bedrooms with this reno) and get a place with a much lower maintenance burden and way fewer rooms. Sadly, we often distort reality here in the US with subsidies that incentivize poor decisions such as living out retirement in the home you raised your kids in, despite the burden that puts on those living there, their family, and the community around them. We should encourage the best possible outcome for everyone involved, by getting rid of tax deductions for having a mortgage against your home, or being over a certain age, as that will commoditize housing and allows people to live closer to where they need to be at a much lower cost. Otherwise, subsidies like this drive up housing costs and you end up like many American Cities.
- adrianN 10y ago
  If I were 80 years old I would be very upset if I were forced to move from my home where I had spent the last forty odd years because of rising taxes. I think we can find ways to deal with this problem without forcing people to sell their homes. Problems related to old people can often be solved by making sure that they don't perpetuate and waiting.
  - notahacker 10y ago

branchless 10y ago

And money creation infinite, only held back by demand.

makomk 10y ago

The scarcity of housing in cities is not entirely artificial. Sooner or later you hit infrastructure limits. Remember that article about parts of New York City literally running out of space on the streets for pedestrians?

jdavis703 10y ago
Short term, close the street to non-human powered transportation. Long term, add a new subway line or station.
ng12 10y ago
There are still neighborhoods in Queens, Jersey, and Brooklyn that are under 20m from Manhattan and still woefully underdeveloped. Also, that article was specifically about FiDi which is like that because it's so old so the streets aren't wide enough.
- wcummings 10y ago
  I lived in a 1 bdrm in a nice neighborhood in Queens walking distance from the subway, <20m to Manhattan, for quite a bit less than I would pay for a 1 bdrm in Boston. NYC's extensive housing stock and transit network do yield results.
- evanelias 10y ago
  "Woefully underdeveloped" is an exaggeration though. There aren't many underdeveloped neighborhoods under 20min from Manhattan, and even then, they're still denser than just about anywhere else in the US. On the NJ side, Hudson County is very high-density, aside from the Meadowlands which aren't suitable for construction. For one extreme example, Guttenberg NJ technically is the municipality with highest population density in the entire US! Or for a more mundane example, Newport in Jersey City is pretty much all high-rises. Similar story in Brooklyn for the parts closest by subway to Manhattan. Downtown Brooklyn added so many new giant rental towers that rents actually dropped the past year. Williamsburg got a bunch of waterfront towers last decade and now doesn't have the infrastructure to support more housing. DUMBO is all large buildings that have been converted to lofts. Brooklyn Heights is lower in density, still very few single-family buildings in the first place, and largely landmarked/historic. Queens is the one place where I'd partially agree with you, but even then, Long Island City has a ton of high-rises. Slightly further out, Sunnyside, Woodside, and Jackson Heights are relatively lower density, yes. But still denser than many major US cities.