5 ms·

If you own a sfh, you want development around you... The denser your lands zoning is, the more it's worth. Add infrastructure and the value goes up too.

twblalock 9y ago
Actually, you want to maintain scarcity to keep supply low relative to demand.
- timothycrosley 9y ago
  It's more complicated than that. Yes by increasing density, you are increasing supply of housing units, but you are also increasing the demand for your property - as now it's not only a single family that would be looking to buy it but but someone building a highrise. Also, counterintuitively, because your allowing houses to be torn down for apartment buildings etc, the supply of SFH actually goes down, and there will always be demand from some for SFH over condos etc. And since most cities can't keep up with the number of people who want to live in them, by allowing more young people to move to the city in apartments, your also increasing future demand as they grow up.
ucaetano 9y ago
You're getting supply & demand wrong. You want offices near you but no more housing, so that people work near you and are forced to live closer to you, and have to buy houses near you for ever-increasing prices. And people who own homes (older than most of the population) are used to driving everywhere, they don't want people constantly walking in front of their houses. They all want their own cul-de-sacs.
- timothycrosley 9y ago
  It's more complicated than that. Yes by increasing density, you are increasing supply of housing units, but you are also increasing the demand for your property - as now it's not only a single family that would be looking to buy it but but someone building a highrise. Also, counterintuitively, because your allowing houses to be torn down for apartment buildings etc, the supply of SFH actually goes down, and there will always be demand from some for SFH over condos etc. And since most cities can't keep up with the number of people who want to live in them, by allowing more young people to move to the city in apartments, your also increasing future demand as they grow up.
  - ucaetano 9y ago
    > Yes by increasing density, you are increasing supply of housing units, but you are also increasing the demand for your property So both remain in balance, prices don't increase and you get little or no financial benefits. Also, a house surrounded by high rises in a very busy street has far less relative value than a house in a quiet street where your kids can play around. Cities bring strangers, crime, pollution, noise, etc. But if you increase job density without increasing housing density, then you reap massive financial benefits from increasing housing prices.
    - timothycrosley 9y ago
      Without bringing job density into the equation, the demand is much much higher from the land value increase when zones move up. Is not at all unheard of for a SFH that was worth max 500K on the SFH market to be bought for over a million by developers when an area has gotten upzoned. Now, going back to jobs, in practicality, allowing upzones, also tends to bring way more jobs - more coffee shops / corporate towers etc.
      - ucaetano 9y ago
        "Is not at all unheard of for a SFH that was worth max 500K on the SFH market to be bought for over a million by developers when an area has gotten upzoned." Yes, but that's only for holdouts, which is a game of chicken. And after the developers build around you, you're done, your home value plunges as you're surrounded by traffic and apartments. "Now, going back to jobs, in practicality, allowing upzones, also tends to bring way more jobs - more coffee shops / corporate towers etc." The two are unrelated. Cities have a lot of exclusive-use commercial or residential areas. You can increase the same jobs without having more residents, which increases value for the home-owners. Which is exactly what is happening in the US.
        timothycrosley 9y ago
        So you think, having more retail space, more office buildings, more construction, etc is unrelated to jobs. Yep makes sense... What do you really think is more valuable a block of houses in San Francisco among many other blocks of houses, or if there was still any, a block of houses where a highrise could be built in Manhattan? Note also what's happening in the US is cities are disproportionately getting more expensive, people want to live near density. Jobs that used to be out in corporate parks, are moving, because non of the younger generation wants that life style. This is also why one of the cities that's increasing density and rezoning the fastest, Seattle, keeps having the highest increase in value for single family homes.
- cylinder 9y ago
  ... no. If your single family lot gets rezoned for a high rise tower you are likely now much wealthier.
nradov 9y ago
No that's not how it works. Most SFH owners are more concerned with quality of life issues (traffic, crime, noise, school access) than with property values.

twblalock 9y ago

Actually, you want to maintain scarcity to keep supply low relative to demand.

timothycrosley 9y ago
It's more complicated than that. Yes by increasing density, you are increasing supply of housing units, but you are also increasing the demand for your property - as now it's not only a single family that would be looking to buy it but but someone building a highrise. Also, counterintuitively, because your allowing houses to be torn down for apartment buildings etc, the supply of SFH actually goes down, and there will always be demand from some for SFH over condos etc. And since most cities can't keep up with the number of people who want to live in them, by allowing more young people to move to the city in apartments, your also increasing future demand as they grow up.

ucaetano 9y ago

You're getting supply & demand wrong. You want offices near you but no more housing, so that people work near you and are forced to live closer to you, and have to buy houses near you for ever-increasing prices. And people who own homes (older than most of the population) are used to driving everywhere, they don't want people constantly walking in front of their houses. They all want their own cul-de-sacs.

timothycrosley 9y ago
It's more complicated than that. Yes by increasing density, you are increasing supply of housing units, but you are also increasing the demand for your property - as now it's not only a single family that would be looking to buy it but but someone building a highrise. Also, counterintuitively, because your allowing houses to be torn down for apartment buildings etc, the supply of SFH actually goes down, and there will always be demand from some for SFH over condos etc. And since most cities can't keep up with the number of people who want to live in them, by allowing more young people to move to the city in apartments, your also increasing future demand as they grow up.
- ucaetano 9y ago
  > Yes by increasing density, you are increasing supply of housing units, but you are also increasing the demand for your property So both remain in balance, prices don't increase and you get little or no financial benefits. Also, a house surrounded by high rises in a very busy street has far less relative value than a house in a quiet street where your kids can play around. Cities bring strangers, crime, pollution, noise, etc. But if you increase job density without increasing housing density, then you reap massive financial benefits from increasing housing prices.
  - timothycrosley 9y ago
    Without bringing job density into the equation, the demand is much much higher from the land value increase when zones move up. Is not at all unheard of for a SFH that was worth max 500K on the SFH market to be bought for over a million by developers when an area has gotten upzoned. Now, going back to jobs, in practicality, allowing upzones, also tends to bring way more jobs - more coffee shops / corporate towers etc.
    - ucaetano 9y ago
      "Is not at all unheard of for a SFH that was worth max 500K on the SFH market to be bought for over a million by developers when an area has gotten upzoned." Yes, but that's only for holdouts, which is a game of chicken. And after the developers build around you, you're done, your home value plunges as you're surrounded by traffic and apartments. "Now, going back to jobs, in practicality, allowing upzones, also tends to bring way more jobs - more coffee shops / corporate towers etc." The two are unrelated. Cities have a lot of exclusive-use commercial or residential areas. You can increase the same jobs without having more residents, which increases value for the home-owners. Which is exactly what is happening in the US.
      - timothycrosley 9y ago
        So you think, having more retail space, more office buildings, more construction, etc is unrelated to jobs. Yep makes sense... What do you really think is more valuable a block of houses in San Francisco among many other blocks of houses, or if there was still any, a block of houses where a highrise could be built in Manhattan? Note also what's happening in the US is cities are disproportionately getting more expensive, people want to live near density. Jobs that used to be out in corporate parks, are moving, because non of the younger generation wants that life style. This is also why one of the cities that's increasing density and rezoning the fastest, Seattle, keeps having the highest increase in value for single family homes.
cylinder 9y ago
... no. If your single family lot gets rezoned for a high rise tower you are likely now much wealthier.

nradov 9y ago

No that's not how it works. Most SFH owners are more concerned with quality of life issues (traffic, crime, noise, school access) than with property values.