10 ms·
> Increasing density in the long run increases property prices. I think you have your causality backwards there - city centers are inherently valuable (close p
by klipt 9y ago
> Increasing density in the long run increases property prices.
I think you have your causality backwards there - city centers are inherently valuable (close proximity to jobs, food, recreation, etc) which favors dense development to take advantage of that value.
On the other hand if you build a bunch of dense housing in the middle of the desert, it won't be worth much at all.
- dv_dt 9y agoEconomics is a mesh of effects operating in a loop. There is no easily discerned causality. If no developer wants to build more houses (possibly asking for a zoning change) thereby increasing density, why would an existing homeowner have a decision at all to make in allowing it or preventing it?
- btmorex 9y agoOn the other hand, all of your inherent values of a city center can be said to be caused by higher population density. Food and recreation spots will be opened close to where people live. Jobs are variable in terms of location, but there's certainly an advantage to moving close to population centers--at the very least, access to a vast workforce. My point is not really to argue that the opposite is true, rather that you can make an argument either way, whether higher demand leads to higher density or higher density leads to higher demand. There are certainly low density urban centers that no one wants to live in despite their proximity to jobs, food, and recreation.
- aninhumer 9y agoObviously density isn't sufficient to create value on its own, but in the context of neighbourhoods of a city, more dense areas tend to become more valuable than less dense ones, because density supports better services. So if one suburb lets developers build high rises and another of similar value doesn't, the former is likely to end up more valuable in the future.