4 ms·

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

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.

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.