10 ms·

> but the mad-rush of millennials is making the city more and more unlivable IMO, the problem is the policies of the city that are unfriendly to growth and mak

by tmh79 9y ago

> but the mad-rush of millennials is making the city more and more unlivable IMO, the problem is the policies of the city that are unfriendly to growth and make housing a zero sum game, the problem isn't than people expressing their preferences.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
sliverstorm 9y ago
It may not be a zero sum game, but it at least approximates/approaches zero sum. How exactly would you change downtown Manhattan such that anyone & everyone who wanted to live there could?
- twinkletwinkle 9y ago
  You've drawn a false dichotomy between the current situation and an unrealistic scenario. The truth is there could be more growth and room for more people without it being room for literally everyone.
  - sliverstorm 9y ago
    Right, and that's what I mean by it approximates/approaches zero sum. I'm not arguing against development, I just think a lot of the pro-development folks imagine that cities are making things zero sum with their policies, when real property will always have that element.
    - Dylan16807 9y ago
      Housing does not inherently have a major zero-sum factor until you're inside one of the densest downtowns in the country. In the general case it's all about policies and whether they allow demand to turn into construction.
- RealityNow 9y ago
  > How exactly would you change downtown Manhattan such that anyone & everyone who wanted to live there could? That's not what we should be striving for. We should be striving to allow people to comfortably live and work outside of just downtown Manhattan. The biggest obstacles to that are zoning laws and a decrepit subway system that makes traveling between boroughs outside of Manhattan practically impossible.
  - sliverstorm 9y ago
    Ok, maybe I was unfairly projecting, a few days ago I was talking to someone who was making basically that argument, that we have the housing technology to fit everyone in <downtown city>. Improved public transit in & out to neighboring nodes is a good goal that partially sidesteps the zero sum nature of property.
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  100% Land value tax. It would eliminate property hoarding and inefficient use of inner city land (e.g. low rises in high demand areas). Better public transportation would also relieve pressure on the city center.
hinkley 9y ago
About 8 years ago I went to OSCon in Portland and someone told me it was currently employing some ridiculous percentage of all of the construction cranes available. And about this time three years ago I was standing in an office in downtown Seattle and we could count fourteen cranes. There's still a lot of space for midrise buildings. I'm just not sure transportation is keeping up.
- mmmpop 9y ago
  Denver's skyline is littered with somewhere around a dozen too. The west-side of downtown has grown a tremendous amount in just about 3 years. Seems like mostly shoddily-constructed apartment buildings (source: a guy who helped design 4 of them).
  - tmh79 9y ago
    a "shoddily constructed" building is still a place for people to live.
    - mmmpop 9y ago
      But it doesn't inspire much faith in those investing in living in Denver (by say, purchasing a very expensive home) when big capital doesn't see it fit to finance a building meant to last a century. Do they not have confidence that people will still be wanting to pay these same exorbitant rents in 2040?
  - eunoia 9y ago
    We've got way more than a dozen... Anecdotally they do seem to be mostly sub-par, overpriced apartment buildings by and large. https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/maps/crane-watch https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/maps/crane-watch I keep wondering when the supply of 2k+/month shoddily constructed one bedroom rental apartments will catch up with the demand for them. That may not seem like a lot for the Bay types, but Denver has traditionally been a lot cheaper. The last 5-10 years have seen crazy population and rent growth.
- irrational 9y ago
scarmig 9y ago
NYC is not SF. It's not perfect, but it's not anti-growth.
- irq11 9y ago
  Careful. You're getting perilously close to the hackernews shibboleth on development policy. Remember: if housing is expensive, it must be because there aren't enough skyscrapers. There can be no other logical explanation.
  - xienze 9y ago
    The downvotes mean you're on to something ;). I share the sentiment. I find it likewise amusing that the same crowd that argues that building additional highway capacity won't accomplish anything because it'll just get filled with more cars seems to think that additional housing capacity won't similarly be filled up immediately.
    - randomstudent 9y ago
      > the same crowd that argues that building additional highway capacity won't accomplish anything because it'll just get filled with more cars It will allow more people to commute into the city, which is the goal, right? > seems to think that additional housing capacity won't similarly be filled up immediately. And more people will be able to live there... Isn't that the goal?
      - Spooky23 9y ago
        In both cases there are tradeoffs and diminishing returns. We discovered in 1930s New York with the Triborough bridge that highways will always reach a level of equilibrium (i.e. Max peak capacity) and will drive sprawl -- the new trio generation doesn't necessarily improve efficiency. In the case of NYC, it created inefficiency as it pushed the metro area up 75 miles up the Hudson River and at least 50 into Long Island and Jersey. Housing is boom/bust. Housing booms always attract dumb money and always bust.
cptskippy 9y ago
> the problem is the policies of the city That's more like a symptom. Policies are shaped by people and people are motivated by forces. The motivating force in this case is probably money. There are lots of people who make money off real-estate and they're motivated to keep supply down to drive up costs. What better way than by influencing public policy to suit their agenda. If you try to change city policy to make housing affordable then you're basically declaring war on a very influential portion of the population that has a lot to lose.

by tmh79 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

sliverstorm 9y ago

It may not be a zero sum game, but it at least approximates/approaches zero sum. How exactly would you change downtown Manhattan such that anyone & everyone who wanted to live there could?

twinkletwinkle 9y ago
You've drawn a false dichotomy between the current situation and an unrealistic scenario. The truth is there could be more growth and room for more people without it being room for literally everyone.
- sliverstorm 9y ago
  Right, and that's what I mean by it approximates/approaches zero sum. I'm not arguing against development, I just think a lot of the pro-development folks imagine that cities are making things zero sum with their policies, when real property will always have that element.
  - Dylan16807 9y ago
    Housing does not inherently have a major zero-sum factor until you're inside one of the densest downtowns in the country. In the general case it's all about policies and whether they allow demand to turn into construction.
RealityNow 9y ago
> How exactly would you change downtown Manhattan such that anyone & everyone who wanted to live there could? That's not what we should be striving for. We should be striving to allow people to comfortably live and work outside of just downtown Manhattan. The biggest obstacles to that are zoning laws and a decrepit subway system that makes traveling between boroughs outside of Manhattan practically impossible.
- sliverstorm 9y ago
  Ok, maybe I was unfairly projecting, a few days ago I was talking to someone who was making basically that argument, that we have the housing technology to fit everyone in <downtown city>. Improved public transit in & out to neighboring nodes is a good goal that partially sidesteps the zero sum nature of property.
crdoconnor 9y ago
100% Land value tax. It would eliminate property hoarding and inefficient use of inner city land (e.g. low rises in high demand areas). Better public transportation would also relieve pressure on the city center.

hinkley 9y ago

About 8 years ago I went to OSCon in Portland and someone told me it was currently employing some ridiculous percentage of all of the construction cranes available. And about this time three years ago I was standing in an office in downtown Seattle and we could count fourteen cranes. There's still a lot of space for midrise buildings. I'm just not sure transportation is keeping up.

mmmpop 9y ago
Denver's skyline is littered with somewhere around a dozen too. The west-side of downtown has grown a tremendous amount in just about 3 years. Seems like mostly shoddily-constructed apartment buildings (source: a guy who helped design 4 of them).
- tmh79 9y ago
  a "shoddily constructed" building is still a place for people to live.
  - mmmpop 9y ago
    But it doesn't inspire much faith in those investing in living in Denver (by say, purchasing a very expensive home) when big capital doesn't see it fit to finance a building meant to last a century. Do they not have confidence that people will still be wanting to pay these same exorbitant rents in 2040?
- eunoia 9y ago
  We've got way more than a dozen... Anecdotally they do seem to be mostly sub-par, overpriced apartment buildings by and large. https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/maps/crane-watch https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/maps/crane-watch I keep wondering when the supply of 2k+/month shoddily constructed one bedroom rental apartments will catch up with the demand for them. That may not seem like a lot for the Bay types, but Denver has traditionally been a lot cheaper. The last 5-10 years have seen crazy population and rent growth.
irrational 9y ago

scarmig 9y ago

NYC is not SF. It's not perfect, but it's not anti-growth.

irq11 9y ago
Careful. You're getting perilously close to the hackernews shibboleth on development policy. Remember: if housing is expensive, it must be because there aren't enough skyscrapers. There can be no other logical explanation.
- xienze 9y ago
  The downvotes mean you're on to something ;). I share the sentiment. I find it likewise amusing that the same crowd that argues that building additional highway capacity won't accomplish anything because it'll just get filled with more cars seems to think that additional housing capacity won't similarly be filled up immediately.
  - randomstudent 9y ago
    > the same crowd that argues that building additional highway capacity won't accomplish anything because it'll just get filled with more cars It will allow more people to commute into the city, which is the goal, right? > seems to think that additional housing capacity won't similarly be filled up immediately. And more people will be able to live there... Isn't that the goal?
    - Spooky23 9y ago
      In both cases there are tradeoffs and diminishing returns. We discovered in 1930s New York with the Triborough bridge that highways will always reach a level of equilibrium (i.e. Max peak capacity) and will drive sprawl -- the new trio generation doesn't necessarily improve efficiency. In the case of NYC, it created inefficiency as it pushed the metro area up 75 miles up the Hudson River and at least 50 into Long Island and Jersey. Housing is boom/bust. Housing booms always attract dumb money and always bust.

cptskippy 9y ago

> the problem is the policies of the city That's more like a symptom. Policies are shaped by people and people are motivated by forces. The motivating force in this case is probably money. There are lots of people who make money off real-estate and they're motivated to keep supply down to drive up costs. What better way than by influencing public policy to suit their agenda. If you try to change city policy to make housing affordable then you're basically declaring war on a very influential portion of the population that has a lot to lose.