3 ms·

Apartments suck. Most people vastly prefer not to live near them or in them if they have the option. If they have 1000x the land (still remembering that a lot o

Apartments suck. Most people vastly prefer not to live near them or in them if they have the option. If they have 1000x the land (still remembering that a lot of that is grazing land), then what they need is transport, houses, shophouses, townhomes, and lowrises. If the land price is higher in the the middle of town, then so be it. At least the current residents aren't having the sky systematically parceled away by a corrupt bureaucracy for paltry favours. I'm not totally fond of the way NIMBYism ends up working, but the fact is that these people would otherwise have their land value degraded by amendments to local zoning. The rules for projects like this should at least include compensation for the decrease in assessed value of their property.

harryh 9y ago
This comment reminds me of the old Yogi Berra gem: "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded." If people didn't want to live in downtown apartments the prices wouldn't be so high.
- closeparen 9y ago
  This is a non sequitor. The “nobody likes high rises” argument is about the people who don’t want to look at high rises. Obviously their aesthetic satisfaction is more important that others having places to live.
  - elyobo 9y ago
    The OP mentioned living in them, so the reply was on point - clearly some people _do_ want to live in them. I love my apartment, but would admittedly be less keen on suburban apartment living as the convenience factor would probably not be so hot.
    - microcolonel 9y ago
      > ...if they have the option This would qualify as them having no option. If they want to live in the city, they want to live in the city; but if you're trying to make a city that people will continue to want to live in, apartment buildings may be the worst way to accomplish it.
      - closeparen 9y ago
        If it contains only small buildings, it isn't a city. Perhaps you mean village, town, or suburb?
        microcolonel 9y ago
        I have a hard time labeling it. A sprawling continuous town centre is really what I'm thinking of: low rises, shophouses, some mid-rises. But ideally fewer mechanistic glass plinths blocking out the sky. I just think you can justify the amenities and convenience of a well developed city without half the buildings being forty or more floors.
        closeparen 9y ago
        I like such places and I think they should exist. I grew up in one. The problem is insisting that global centers of industry and culture should also be that way.
        elyobo 9y ago
        Consistent low to mid density sprawl is pretty much the worst of all possible worlds. You need a mixture of densities.
        closeparen 9y ago
        It's Los Angeles, isn't it?
        dredmorbius 9y ago
        Paris achieves high densities with almost entirely low-rse structres.
        elyobo 9y ago
        Depends on your definitions I guess; I call Auckland's 1-2 story sprawl low, I don't call Paris' 5 story sprawl low. Aucklanders seem to generally be against even Paris levels of density.
elyobo 9y ago
Hell no there should be no compensation; the entire goal of the government should be to crash prices hard and if increasing density achieves that by simultaneously increasing supply _and_ decreasing values due to people having to see higher density property then that's a double win. As an aside, apartments can be awesome, precisely because of the services that higher density housing allows. I own and live in one in the Melbourne CBD, I have amazing views, no need to drive for any services (groceries, doctors, liquor stores, restaurants, cafes and more in the same block). While a house might be tempting in some ways it terms of convenience it would inevitably be an enormous step backwards.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  > While a house might be tempting in some ways in terms of convenience it would inevitably be an enormous step backwards. This is really what I was trying to get at: if you have a lot of land to potentially develop, and a relatively clean slate, you can get the best of both worlds in terms of convenience and hominess. I think the world's most connected sprawl would inevitably be a better place than the world's tallest city core.
  - elyobo 9y ago
    I think that's inherently wrong; you need a mixture of densities, but everything low density sprawl is a nightmare. Increasing average density has benefits even for the left over areas of low density, e.g. reduced traffic, lower infrastructure costs per resident, lower average distance to amenities.
wbl 9y ago
Being able to build a high-rise on your property increases its value. So sell out and move to the hicks if you don't like living around people.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  > ...the hicks... Did you mean: the sticks Living in low rises is by no means not living around people. Nobody builds shophouses or townhouses in the boonies, to think that is to have a truly distorted view of the world. The presence of high rises ultimately screws you in the end. Paris is cool (despite it being basically impossible to live there for real) because it's low-rise and cohesive. There is one big shiny eyesore of a plinth which has haunted the place since its construction. Sure, if there's a concentrated business community, a block approved for high rise development is going to be valuable to them, but it degrades the surrounding area.
  - elyobo 9y ago
    We might be talking at cross purposes to some extend; Paris is not what I would call low rise, it's far more dense than Auckland is (and Auckland is low rise). A continuous genuine low rise city like Auckland is a nightmare, and a hypothetical continuous high rise city (does one exist?) would be similar. Continuous mid rise like Paris, Barcelona etc is probably better than either, but having a good mix would improve things.
    - wbl 9y ago
      Manhattan comes close to continuous high rise.
      - elyobo 9y ago
        True, quite a lot of the southern end of it does... and Manhattan is awesome, vastly preferable to endless low rise sprawl.
  - wbl 9y ago
    Paris low rises are 5 stories, which is basically illegal in much of the Bay.
Johnny555 9y ago
I like apartments, and would probably still live in one if I lived in an area with reasonable rent control. The last time I lived in an apartment, the rent raised 20% one year, 20% a year later, and then I left when they wanted to raise it nearly 30%. (original rent was $2000, the last rent increase pushed it over $3500) Housing prices rose during that time, but not commensurate with rent. I ended up buying a condo outside of town. But I'd rather have the flexibility of an apartment -- if I get a job farther away, I'm pretty much stuck with the condo, but if I had an apartment, I could live closer to work.

harryh 9y ago

This comment reminds me of the old Yogi Berra gem: "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded." If people didn't want to live in downtown apartments the prices wouldn't be so high.

closeparen 9y ago
This is a non sequitor. The “nobody likes high rises” argument is about the people who don’t want to look at high rises. Obviously their aesthetic satisfaction is more important that others having places to live.
- elyobo 9y ago
  The OP mentioned living in them, so the reply was on point - clearly some people _do_ want to live in them. I love my apartment, but would admittedly be less keen on suburban apartment living as the convenience factor would probably not be so hot.
  - microcolonel 9y ago
    > ...if they have the option This would qualify as them having no option. If they want to live in the city, they want to live in the city; but if you're trying to make a city that people will continue to want to live in, apartment buildings may be the worst way to accomplish it.
    - closeparen 9y ago
      If it contains only small buildings, it isn't a city. Perhaps you mean village, town, or suburb?
      - microcolonel 9y ago
        I have a hard time labeling it. A sprawling continuous town centre is really what I'm thinking of: low rises, shophouses, some mid-rises. But ideally fewer mechanistic glass plinths blocking out the sky. I just think you can justify the amenities and convenience of a well developed city without half the buildings being forty or more floors.
        closeparen 9y ago
        I like such places and I think they should exist. I grew up in one. The problem is insisting that global centers of industry and culture should also be that way.
        elyobo 9y ago
        Consistent low to mid density sprawl is pretty much the worst of all possible worlds. You need a mixture of densities.
        closeparen 9y ago
        It's Los Angeles, isn't it?
      - dredmorbius 9y ago
        Paris achieves high densities with almost entirely low-rse structres.
        elyobo 9y ago
        Depends on your definitions I guess; I call Auckland's 1-2 story sprawl low, I don't call Paris' 5 story sprawl low. Aucklanders seem to generally be against even Paris levels of density.

elyobo 9y ago

Hell no there should be no compensation; the entire goal of the government should be to crash prices hard and if increasing density achieves that by simultaneously increasing supply _and_ decreasing values due to people having to see higher density property then that's a double win. As an aside, apartments can be awesome, precisely because of the services that higher density housing allows. I own and live in one in the Melbourne CBD, I have amazing views, no need to drive for any services (groceries, doctors, liquor stores, restaurants, cafes and more in the same block). While a house might be tempting in some ways it terms of convenience it would inevitably be an enormous step backwards.

microcolonel 9y ago
> While a house might be tempting in some ways in terms of convenience it would inevitably be an enormous step backwards. This is really what I was trying to get at: if you have a lot of land to potentially develop, and a relatively clean slate, you can get the best of both worlds in terms of convenience and hominess. I think the world's most connected sprawl would inevitably be a better place than the world's tallest city core.
- elyobo 9y ago
  I think that's inherently wrong; you need a mixture of densities, but everything low density sprawl is a nightmare. Increasing average density has benefits even for the left over areas of low density, e.g. reduced traffic, lower infrastructure costs per resident, lower average distance to amenities.

wbl 9y ago

Being able to build a high-rise on your property increases its value. So sell out and move to the hicks if you don't like living around people.

microcolonel 9y ago
> ...the hicks... Did you mean: the sticks Living in low rises is by no means not living around people. Nobody builds shophouses or townhouses in the boonies, to think that is to have a truly distorted view of the world. The presence of high rises ultimately screws you in the end. Paris is cool (despite it being basically impossible to live there for real) because it's low-rise and cohesive. There is one big shiny eyesore of a plinth which has haunted the place since its construction. Sure, if there's a concentrated business community, a block approved for high rise development is going to be valuable to them, but it degrades the surrounding area.
- elyobo 9y ago
  We might be talking at cross purposes to some extend; Paris is not what I would call low rise, it's far more dense than Auckland is (and Auckland is low rise). A continuous genuine low rise city like Auckland is a nightmare, and a hypothetical continuous high rise city (does one exist?) would be similar. Continuous mid rise like Paris, Barcelona etc is probably better than either, but having a good mix would improve things.
  - wbl 9y ago
    Manhattan comes close to continuous high rise.
    - elyobo 9y ago
      True, quite a lot of the southern end of it does... and Manhattan is awesome, vastly preferable to endless low rise sprawl.
- wbl 9y ago
  Paris low rises are 5 stories, which is basically illegal in much of the Bay.

Johnny555 9y ago

I like apartments, and would probably still live in one if I lived in an area with reasonable rent control. The last time I lived in an apartment, the rent raised 20% one year, 20% a year later, and then I left when they wanted to raise it nearly 30%. (original rent was $2000, the last rent increase pushed it over $3500) Housing prices rose during that time, but not commensurate with rent. I ended up buying a condo outside of town. But I'd rather have the flexibility of an apartment -- if I get a job farther away, I'm pretty much stuck with the condo, but if I had an apartment, I could live closer to work.