5 ms·

I respectfully disagree as does the economists. Lowering the cost of land thorough fixing the artificial scarcity will encourage builders to build. Some might

I respectfully disagree as does the economists. Lowering the cost of land thorough fixing the artificial scarcity will encourage builders to build. Some might want to restrict housing, but other will build. Just curious if you read the articles referenced, for they mention large US cities where the prices have not increased because they don't have the zoning density restrictions. Harvard Economist Edward Glaeser: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/build-big-bill-article-1.1913739 http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/build-big-bill-article-1....

maxsilver 10y ago
> I respectfully disagree as does the economists With all due respect to you and the economists, "developers under-building to preserve high housing costs" is an ongoing event I'm witnessing live. The opinions of skilled economists is valuable, but I can't value their opinion higher than events I'm actually living through, witnessing in my own life on a daily basis. > Just curious if you read the articles referenced, for they mention large US cities where the prices have not increased because they don't have the zoning density restrictions. Your article mentions Atlanta and Houston, two cities which are cheap because of their vast suburban sprawl. Which I agree does lower prices, sprawl is great for keeping costs low. (I can only afford housing myself due to suburban sprawl). But it is decidedly not urban, and the sprawl development model carries with it lots of bad side effects -- too many to list here. And I'm aware that these cities aren't entirely sprawl, but looking at Zillow listings, the areas of Atlanta and Houston dense enough to be considered 'urban' are almost entirely areas where housing isn't affordable at all. --- It sounds like you might be very focused on NYC's housing problem. And, in NYC, zoning might be the biggest holdup to housing solutions (it is in SF). But affordable housing isn't just a problem in NYC, it's a problem in 99% of America's urban environments. Atlanta and Houston, for example, both have affordable housing problems right now too, despite having the zoning changes your advocating for. (I live in the Midwest, which like Atlanta and Houston, has most of the zoning changes you advocate for already in place, but is still unaffordable). That's why I continue to say that zoning alone isn't the fix for this problem.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  >With all due respect to you and the economists, "developers under-building to preserve high housing costs" is an ongoing event I'm witnessing live. The opinions of skilled economists is valuable, but I can't value their opinion higher than events I'm actually living through, witnessing in my own life on a daily basis. True. That's why publicly-owned mass construction needs to be a thing.
  - maxsilver 10y ago
    > That's why publicly-owned mass construction needs to be a thing. Agree 100%. I would support a "public housing option" in a heartbeat.
- davidf18 10y ago
  I would like to suggest that we try fixing the rent-seeking zoning density restrictions and if that for some reason doesn't work, then try another plan to further stimulate the construction. But, again, my bet is the economists are right on this one and that simply eliminating the zoning density restrictions will allow for more construction of more affordable housing. If a developer can make a profit, I don't see why some enterprising firm wouldn't go ahead and do the construction -- if not incumbents then developers who are new to that market.
  - maxsilver 10y ago
    > I would like to suggest that we try fixing the rent-seeking zoning density restrictions and if that for some reason doesn't work Again, this was already done years ago in multiple different cities and hasn't worked. (As you already mentioned yourself). But sure, do a few more. I'm not against it, It just won't fix the problem alone. > If a developer can make a profit, I don't see why some enterprising firm wouldn't go ahead and do the construction If the empty / unused property appreciates in value more than the profit from construction would provide, then the housing won't get built. If the needs are greater for housing, but the profit is greater in other uses (like retail or tourism) then the housing won't get built. This is a big reason why "filtering" doesn't happen in housing, but does for other things like automobiles. Developers can often make more money misusing property than using it. Eliminating zoning actually makes that problem slightly worse by incentivizing developers to speculate like this on even greater portions of every city.

maxsilver 10y ago

> I respectfully disagree as does the economists With all due respect to you and the economists, "developers under-building to preserve high housing costs" is an ongoing event I'm witnessing live. The opinions of skilled economists is valuable, but I can't value their opinion higher than events I'm actually living through, witnessing in my own life on a daily basis. > Just curious if you read the articles referenced, for they mention large US cities where the prices have not increased because they don't have the zoning density restrictions. Your article mentions Atlanta and Houston, two cities which are cheap because of their vast suburban sprawl. Which I agree does lower prices, sprawl is great for keeping costs low. (I can only afford housing myself due to suburban sprawl). But it is decidedly not urban, and the sprawl development model carries with it lots of bad side effects -- too many to list here. And I'm aware that these cities aren't entirely sprawl, but looking at Zillow listings, the areas of Atlanta and Houston dense enough to be considered 'urban' are almost entirely areas where housing isn't affordable at all. --- It sounds like you might be very focused on NYC's housing problem. And, in NYC, zoning might be the biggest holdup to housing solutions (it is in SF). But affordable housing isn't just a problem in NYC, it's a problem in 99% of America's urban environments. Atlanta and Houston, for example, both have affordable housing problems right now too, despite having the zoning changes your advocating for. (I live in the Midwest, which like Atlanta and Houston, has most of the zoning changes you advocate for already in place, but is still unaffordable). That's why I continue to say that zoning alone isn't the fix for this problem.

eli_gottlieb 10y ago
>With all due respect to you and the economists, "developers under-building to preserve high housing costs" is an ongoing event I'm witnessing live. The opinions of skilled economists is valuable, but I can't value their opinion higher than events I'm actually living through, witnessing in my own life on a daily basis. True. That's why publicly-owned mass construction needs to be a thing.
- maxsilver 10y ago
  > That's why publicly-owned mass construction needs to be a thing. Agree 100%. I would support a "public housing option" in a heartbeat.
davidf18 10y ago
I would like to suggest that we try fixing the rent-seeking zoning density restrictions and if that for some reason doesn't work, then try another plan to further stimulate the construction. But, again, my bet is the economists are right on this one and that simply eliminating the zoning density restrictions will allow for more construction of more affordable housing. If a developer can make a profit, I don't see why some enterprising firm wouldn't go ahead and do the construction -- if not incumbents then developers who are new to that market.
- maxsilver 10y ago
  > I would like to suggest that we try fixing the rent-seeking zoning density restrictions and if that for some reason doesn't work Again, this was already done years ago in multiple different cities and hasn't worked. (As you already mentioned yourself). But sure, do a few more. I'm not against it, It just won't fix the problem alone. > If a developer can make a profit, I don't see why some enterprising firm wouldn't go ahead and do the construction If the empty / unused property appreciates in value more than the profit from construction would provide, then the housing won't get built. If the needs are greater for housing, but the profit is greater in other uses (like retail or tourism) then the housing won't get built. This is a big reason why "filtering" doesn't happen in housing, but does for other things like automobiles. Developers can often make more money misusing property than using it. Eliminating zoning actually makes that problem slightly worse by incentivizing developers to speculate like this on even greater portions of every city.