7 ms·

The problem is absolutely land prices, but there is something we can do about it: get rid of our draconian anti-density zoning. The commonly perceived idea tha

The problem is absolutely land prices, but there is something we can do about it: get rid of our draconian anti-density zoning. The commonly perceived idea that land prices invariably increase when upzonings occur is only true in the context of how they occur today: very slowly, in extremely limited numbers, after years of lobbying the government for changes. Land prices are determined by their highest best use, and right now, with extremely scarce housing supply, that highest and best use will always be the most dense possible development imaginable. But that isn't guaranteed to be true. What would happen if all of the land was developable at density? It certainly wouldn't be scarce, and with heavily increased competition it likely wouldn't be very profitable to build either. Seattle's 83 sq miles of land, at the midrise levels of central Paris, would accommodate 4.6M people, 25% more than the entire 8000 sq mile metro region currently houses. It would take an inward migration of several millions of people before the highest and best use of most land parcels would be to build extremely densely everywhere. There just would not be enough demand to justify midrises everywhere. So while most centrally located land (like the handful of neighborhoods directly adjacent to downtown) might result in land price increases (because dense developments can actually attract enough demand to fill them), it would likely end up with lower land prices in neighborhoods further out like Beacon Hill or Ballard. So if you want to lower the costs of affordable or transitional housing development, you gotta do the same exact thing that you would do to lower the prices of market rate housing.

dionidium 9y ago
"Seattle's 83 sq miles of land, at the midrise levels of central Paris, would accommodate 4.6M people, 25% more than the entire 8000 sq mile metro region currently houses." Exactly, which is why there is zero mystery here. This is an entirely artificial, legal challenge. We already know what happens if we let cities develop organically, because we've already built places like Brooklyn and Queens.
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  > because we've already built places like Brooklyn and Queens. But then with NYC densities would NYC prices follow? Put it this way, do we have examples where higher densities didn't lead to unexpected higher prices due to critical population mass being achieved?
  - majormajor 9y ago
    I'd ask that in its reverse formulation too: if density is the answer, why is affordability in the US roughly inversely proportional to density? Induced demand, or something with a similar effect, seems to apply to housing at least as much as it does to traffic. And before we dismiss it entirely as "coasts are more desirable than landlocked middle America," let's take a look at both various coastal cities of varying density in California[0] and various less-desirable (Houston is technically coastal, I suppose, but not in the "good weather" or "pleasant" way) Texas[1]. San Diego is cheaper than SF or LA, but also much less dense. Fort Worth is cheaper than Dallas, but also much less dense, and pretty much right next door in the middle of a bunch of flat land. Maybe we should start knocking down a bunch of non-affordable housing, run off the people with enough money to move away, and watch that affordability go up? ;) [0 ] https://www.apartmentlist.com/rentonomics/california-rent-report-rentonomics/ https://www.apartmentlist.com/rentonomics/california-rent-re... [1] https://www.apartmentlist.com/rentonomics/california-rent-report-rentonomics/ https://www.apartmentlist.com/rentonomics/california-rent-re...
    - closeparen 9y ago
      You could reach for mysterious counterintuitive induced-demand effects in the housing market. Or you could observe that creating six-figure jobs, recruiting people from around the world, and paying them relocation expenses to come to your city, absolutely does "induce" demand for housing beyond any shadow of doubt 100% of the time. If Bay Area governments were as NIMBY about desks as they were about beds, we might not be in this mess. Now that we've built the desks, we need the beds to go with them. (Or burn down the desks? The sheer comedic value of a government on an explicit job-destroying program might be worth it).
    - austenallred 9y ago
      > if density is the answer, why is affordability in the US roughly inversely proportional to density? Because affordability is inversely proportional to demand, and higher-demand areas tend to have more dense housing.
      - 9y ago

dionidium 9y ago

"Seattle's 83 sq miles of land, at the midrise levels of central Paris, would accommodate 4.6M people, 25% more than the entire 8000 sq mile metro region currently houses." Exactly, which is why there is zero mystery here. This is an entirely artificial, legal challenge. We already know what happens if we let cities develop organically, because we've already built places like Brooklyn and Queens.

seanmcdirmid 9y ago
> because we've already built places like Brooklyn and Queens. But then with NYC densities would NYC prices follow? Put it this way, do we have examples where higher densities didn't lead to unexpected higher prices due to critical population mass being achieved?
- majormajor 9y ago
  I'd ask that in its reverse formulation too: if density is the answer, why is affordability in the US roughly inversely proportional to density? Induced demand, or something with a similar effect, seems to apply to housing at least as much as it does to traffic. And before we dismiss it entirely as "coasts are more desirable than landlocked middle America," let's take a look at both various coastal cities of varying density in California[0] and various less-desirable (Houston is technically coastal, I suppose, but not in the "good weather" or "pleasant" way) Texas[1]. San Diego is cheaper than SF or LA, but also much less dense. Fort Worth is cheaper than Dallas, but also much less dense, and pretty much right next door in the middle of a bunch of flat land. Maybe we should start knocking down a bunch of non-affordable housing, run off the people with enough money to move away, and watch that affordability go up? ;) [0 ] https://www.apartmentlist.com/rentonomics/california-rent-report-rentonomics/ https://www.apartmentlist.com/rentonomics/california-rent-re... [1] https://www.apartmentlist.com/rentonomics/california-rent-report-rentonomics/ https://www.apartmentlist.com/rentonomics/california-rent-re...
  - closeparen 9y ago
    You could reach for mysterious counterintuitive induced-demand effects in the housing market. Or you could observe that creating six-figure jobs, recruiting people from around the world, and paying them relocation expenses to come to your city, absolutely does "induce" demand for housing beyond any shadow of doubt 100% of the time. If Bay Area governments were as NIMBY about desks as they were about beds, we might not be in this mess. Now that we've built the desks, we need the beds to go with them. (Or burn down the desks? The sheer comedic value of a government on an explicit job-destroying program might be worth it).
  - austenallred 9y ago
    > if density is the answer, why is affordability in the US roughly inversely proportional to density? Because affordability is inversely proportional to demand, and higher-demand areas tend to have more dense housing.
    - 9y ago