4 ms·

I think controversy is not that building more has no effect on rent prices - of course more supply drives prices down. It is more about whether we want to live

I think controversy is not that building more has no effect on rent prices - of course more supply drives prices down. It is more about whether we want to live in over-populated ant-farms or want to pay premium for less dense living.

electricslpnsld 9y ago
> to pay premium for less dense living What is stopping you from doing that in any one of: Hillsboro, Beaverton, Tigard, Lake Oswego, Vancouver, ...
- ggg9990 9y ago
  I mean, if someone already owns a home in Portland, and can use their vote to maintain the kind of lifestyle they want, why wouldn’t they? Altruism towards a potential future resident? Unlikely.
  - koverstreet 9y ago
    If everyone acts that way that'll be a good way to end up like California.
    - ggg9990 9y ago
      No, because without Prop 13 a retired teacher isn’t going to want her house to be worth $5 million if she plans on continuing to live there.
      - koverstreet 9y ago
        That mindset was what led to prop 13. When did altruism become such a dirty word? When did selfish, short term thinking become such the norm? That isn't the kind of thinking that built the stuff we take for granted.
      - electricslpnsld 9y ago
        And where are contemporary teachers supposed to live? The San Francisco school district is building what amount to dorms for teachers because the housing market is so distorted.
carlivar 9y ago
What American cities are your ant farms? New York? This seems like hyperbole to me. I think there is a happy medium between anti build NIMBYs of, say, San Francisco, and a so-called ant farm.
jjaredsimpson 9y ago
I don't think people are choosing to pay a premium in favor of lower density. Incumbent land holders using local zoning laws to prevent density to maintain their wealth. Also using the phrase overpopulated ant farms isn't useful or accurate.
- orangecat 9y ago
  Incumbent land holders using local zoning laws to prevent density to maintain their wealth. And they have an alliance of convenience with "anti-gentrification" activists who reject basic economics. Hopefully results like this will make some of them reconsider.
com2kid 9y ago
> It is more about whether we want to live in over-populated ant-farms or want to pay premium for less dense living. You are forgetting all the people, such as myself, who are willing to pay a premium for more dense living. I love being able to walk everywhere.
- usrusr 9y ago
  Density does not necessarily bring walkability. You can see aging "highrise suburbs" all over Europe, a well-intended experiment to make living close to nature accessible to the masses. They rarely have more than a badly serviced bus stop in walkable distance. This is what many people think of when they hear density.
Tehdasi 9y ago
> I think controversy is not that building more has no effect on rent prices - of course more supply drives prices down. After reading many internet conversations on property, the idea that supply drives down prices in property is far from an accepted viewpoint.
jmknoll 9y ago
"Over-populated ant farms" is a pretty strong phrase, and is usually more the result of bad policy than density in and of itself. San Francisco has about 6000 people/square km, and feels crowded. Paris has about 20,000 people/square km, and to me feels less crowded. In Paris, they've taken the general development policy of building everything up to 6-8 stories, with commercial on the ground floor and residential above. Strikes me as a good way to pack in a lot of people without things feeling too crowded.
- SwellJoe 9y ago
  The US is, by and large, absolutely insane in how it plans cities. "Mixed use" is a total novelty in most cities...only now being considered for a small percentage of development. Most cities still have city plans and zoning that enforce huge suburban neighborhoods with no commercial development within them. It leads to disastrously bad neighborhoods with disastrously bad traffic going into and out of the places where people are doing things like have jobs or shop. Even hip/progressive cities are this way. It's really a big deal when a development happens that steps out of it, and people in surrounding housing usually raise holy hell to keep it from happening. Americans are mostly goddamned idiots who hate nice things, is what I'm trying to say. (And, have the nerve to complain about traffic in the same breath as demanding nothing other than single-family homes be allowed within miles of their single-family home.)
  - s2g 9y ago
    > Americans are mostly goddamned idiots who hate nice things > their single-family home maybe they just like single family homes.

electricslpnsld 9y ago

> to pay premium for less dense living What is stopping you from doing that in any one of: Hillsboro, Beaverton, Tigard, Lake Oswego, Vancouver, ...

ggg9990 9y ago
I mean, if someone already owns a home in Portland, and can use their vote to maintain the kind of lifestyle they want, why wouldn’t they? Altruism towards a potential future resident? Unlikely.
- koverstreet 9y ago
  If everyone acts that way that'll be a good way to end up like California.
  - ggg9990 9y ago
    No, because without Prop 13 a retired teacher isn’t going to want her house to be worth $5 million if she plans on continuing to live there.
    - koverstreet 9y ago
      That mindset was what led to prop 13. When did altruism become such a dirty word? When did selfish, short term thinking become such the norm? That isn't the kind of thinking that built the stuff we take for granted.
    - electricslpnsld 9y ago
      And where are contemporary teachers supposed to live? The San Francisco school district is building what amount to dorms for teachers because the housing market is so distorted.

carlivar 9y ago

What American cities are your ant farms? New York? This seems like hyperbole to me. I think there is a happy medium between anti build NIMBYs of, say, San Francisco, and a so-called ant farm.

jjaredsimpson 9y ago

I don't think people are choosing to pay a premium in favor of lower density. Incumbent land holders using local zoning laws to prevent density to maintain their wealth. Also using the phrase overpopulated ant farms isn't useful or accurate.

orangecat 9y ago
Incumbent land holders using local zoning laws to prevent density to maintain their wealth. And they have an alliance of convenience with "anti-gentrification" activists who reject basic economics. Hopefully results like this will make some of them reconsider.

com2kid 9y ago

> It is more about whether we want to live in over-populated ant-farms or want to pay premium for less dense living. You are forgetting all the people, such as myself, who are willing to pay a premium for more dense living. I love being able to walk everywhere.

usrusr 9y ago
Density does not necessarily bring walkability. You can see aging "highrise suburbs" all over Europe, a well-intended experiment to make living close to nature accessible to the masses. They rarely have more than a badly serviced bus stop in walkable distance. This is what many people think of when they hear density.

Tehdasi 9y ago

> I think controversy is not that building more has no effect on rent prices - of course more supply drives prices down. After reading many internet conversations on property, the idea that supply drives down prices in property is far from an accepted viewpoint.

jmknoll 9y ago

"Over-populated ant farms" is a pretty strong phrase, and is usually more the result of bad policy than density in and of itself. San Francisco has about 6000 people/square km, and feels crowded. Paris has about 20,000 people/square km, and to me feels less crowded. In Paris, they've taken the general development policy of building everything up to 6-8 stories, with commercial on the ground floor and residential above. Strikes me as a good way to pack in a lot of people without things feeling too crowded.

SwellJoe 9y ago
The US is, by and large, absolutely insane in how it plans cities. "Mixed use" is a total novelty in most cities...only now being considered for a small percentage of development. Most cities still have city plans and zoning that enforce huge suburban neighborhoods with no commercial development within them. It leads to disastrously bad neighborhoods with disastrously bad traffic going into and out of the places where people are doing things like have jobs or shop. Even hip/progressive cities are this way. It's really a big deal when a development happens that steps out of it, and people in surrounding housing usually raise holy hell to keep it from happening. Americans are mostly goddamned idiots who hate nice things, is what I'm trying to say. (And, have the nerve to complain about traffic in the same breath as demanding nothing other than single-family homes be allowed within miles of their single-family home.)
- s2g 9y ago
  > Americans are mostly goddamned idiots who hate nice things > their single-family home maybe they just like single family homes.