34 ms·
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 simultaneou
by 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 agoI 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.