2 ms·

That absolutely does not work. The prices of all of the homes anywhere near the high density area would sky rocket. Do you realize how much a single story house

That absolutely does not work. The prices of all of the homes anywhere near the high density area would sky rocket. Do you realize how much a single story house with a yard within a block of Chelsea Market in NYC would be worth? High rise costs to build are several hundred per square foot, so the cost to the tenants would be higher. Why would anyone pay several times the cost of a house a block away for a spot in the high rise?

stale2002 9y ago
> The prices of all of the homes anywhere near the high density area would sky rocket. Why? I want you to genuinely think about this question. Why is it that, non-high density areas, that are near high density areas, increase in price? Is it perhaps because, high density areas, with tall buildings, are so amazing, so wonderful, so in demand, so useful, and so great to live in, that people WANT to live near them? The NIMBY argument against high density areas, is that people don't like living there. But it is literally the opposite. High density areas are so great, that low density areas NEAR the high density areas, increase in price because EVERYONE WANTS TO LIVE THERE! Thats why the price goes up. Not because of the increase in cost to live in the places, but because they places are amazing, and there aren't enough of them, and people are willing to pay a premium amount of money to live there. So if everyone wants to live in these areas, then why aren't we building more of them? These areas literally make everything more desireable! And, because of supply and demand, if we build a whole bunch of these super great, amazing areas that everyone is willing to pay lost of money to live in, then the price will go down, and everyone will benefit. Your argument is literally that we shouldn't make cities and place to live better, because if the places to live are better, then more people will want to live there. I am of the opposite. I think we should make the world a better place, and we should make everywhere in the world better to live in. But even so, the people who want to live in places that suck should absolutely have the freedom to do that. 99% of the land in the US is low density, and people who like those areas should keep it. But the OTHER people, who actually want to live in nice, high density areas, that are good to live in, should get at least 1% of the land to do with as we please. I am all in favor of freedom of choice for the low density people. Why can't they give the same freedom of choice to those who disagree with them?
- hueving 9y ago
  >Why? I want you to genuinely think about this question. You're not offering anything profound here. You are just admitting that a high density area can't just be built in the middle of a small city without affecting the prices. >and so great to live in, that people WANT to live near them? Of course people that love dense cities want to live in or near dense cities. People who like that will buy up the surrounding houses and keep pushing the prices up until they are on parity with the cost of the city itself. However, you know who doesn't want to live there? People who deliberately chose not to live in a dense city in the first place. >increase in price because EVERYONE WANTS TO LIVE THERE! That's not how supply and demand works. They increase in price because of limited supply and a large enough pool of people who like cities to outstrip supply. Expensive != everyone wants. >and people are willing to pay a premium amount of money to live there. Some people are. Some people are also willing to pay a premium amount of money to have a helicopter. It doesn't mean everyone wants or can afford a helicopter. >Your argument is literally that we shouldn't make cities and place to live better, because if the places to live are better, then more people will want to live there. No it's not. You're either being deliberately obtuse or you have never interacted with people that choose to live in small cities. Adding more density, increasing the cost of housing per square foot, increasing traffic, etc are all awful turnoffs for people who seek small cities. >and we should make everywhere in the world better to live in. And there is a good chunk of the population in smaller cities that would be happy for you to go ruin someone else's area with your idea of "better". >But even so, the people who want to live in places that suck Don't be vacuous, you have to fathom that that people like different lifestyles. >should get at least 1% of the land to do with as we please. There is plenty of empty land in the US for you to build your dream cities. You don't need to wreck a small city to build more dense cities. If everyone wanted to live in density like you claim, you could make billions building out cities wherever you want. Just stop screwing up existing communities. >Why can't they give the same freedom of choice to those who disagree with them? You have the choice, just build the density somewhere else. If you displace an entire community that likes small cities don't expect them to thank you for fundamentally altering their way of life for the worse (in their eyes).

stale2002 9y ago

> The prices of all of the homes anywhere near the high density area would sky rocket. Why? I want you to genuinely think about this question. Why is it that, non-high density areas, that are near high density areas, increase in price? Is it perhaps because, high density areas, with tall buildings, are so amazing, so wonderful, so in demand, so useful, and so great to live in, that people WANT to live near them? The NIMBY argument against high density areas, is that people don't like living there. But it is literally the opposite. High density areas are so great, that low density areas NEAR the high density areas, increase in price because EVERYONE WANTS TO LIVE THERE! Thats why the price goes up. Not because of the increase in cost to live in the places, but because they places are amazing, and there aren't enough of them, and people are willing to pay a premium amount of money to live there. So if everyone wants to live in these areas, then why aren't we building more of them? These areas literally make everything more desireable! And, because of supply and demand, if we build a whole bunch of these super great, amazing areas that everyone is willing to pay lost of money to live in, then the price will go down, and everyone will benefit. Your argument is literally that we shouldn't make cities and place to live better, because if the places to live are better, then more people will want to live there. I am of the opposite. I think we should make the world a better place, and we should make everywhere in the world better to live in. But even so, the people who want to live in places that suck should absolutely have the freedom to do that. 99% of the land in the US is low density, and people who like those areas should keep it. But the OTHER people, who actually want to live in nice, high density areas, that are good to live in, should get at least 1% of the land to do with as we please. I am all in favor of freedom of choice for the low density people. Why can't they give the same freedom of choice to those who disagree with them?

hueving 9y ago
>Why? I want you to genuinely think about this question. You're not offering anything profound here. You are just admitting that a high density area can't just be built in the middle of a small city without affecting the prices. >and so great to live in, that people WANT to live near them? Of course people that love dense cities want to live in or near dense cities. People who like that will buy up the surrounding houses and keep pushing the prices up until they are on parity with the cost of the city itself. However, you know who doesn't want to live there? People who deliberately chose not to live in a dense city in the first place. >increase in price because EVERYONE WANTS TO LIVE THERE! That's not how supply and demand works. They increase in price because of limited supply and a large enough pool of people who like cities to outstrip supply. Expensive != everyone wants. >and people are willing to pay a premium amount of money to live there. Some people are. Some people are also willing to pay a premium amount of money to have a helicopter. It doesn't mean everyone wants or can afford a helicopter. >Your argument is literally that we shouldn't make cities and place to live better, because if the places to live are better, then more people will want to live there. No it's not. You're either being deliberately obtuse or you have never interacted with people that choose to live in small cities. Adding more density, increasing the cost of housing per square foot, increasing traffic, etc are all awful turnoffs for people who seek small cities. >and we should make everywhere in the world better to live in. And there is a good chunk of the population in smaller cities that would be happy for you to go ruin someone else's area with your idea of "better". >But even so, the people who want to live in places that suck Don't be vacuous, you have to fathom that that people like different lifestyles. >should get at least 1% of the land to do with as we please. There is plenty of empty land in the US for you to build your dream cities. You don't need to wreck a small city to build more dense cities. If everyone wanted to live in density like you claim, you could make billions building out cities wherever you want. Just stop screwing up existing communities. >Why can't they give the same freedom of choice to those who disagree with them? You have the choice, just build the density somewhere else. If you displace an entire community that likes small cities don't expect them to thank you for fundamentally altering their way of life for the worse (in their eyes).