5 ms·

Of course they are, they don't want to get priced out of their neighborhood by gentrification. You can live in an undesirable area for 20 years and have somewha

Of course they are, they don't want to get priced out of their neighborhood by gentrification. You can live in an undesirable area for 20 years and have somewhat stable rent, but once the area gentrifies because of a crunch on housing availability, a developer's going to start buying properties, slapping on a coat of paint, and doubling the rent. It's happening _incredibly_ quickly in Boston's neighborhoods one by one. It happened to The South End, Southie, Jamaica Plain, Somerville (not technically Boston proper but 10 years ago they used to call it Slummerville), and now Dorchester and Roxbury are gentrifying. I own a single-family house in a previously undesirable area, and on 2 separate occasions I've had developers come to my door cold trying to buy my single-family house to tear it down and develop on the property.

wbl 9y ago
Solution: more development in rich neighborhoods
- saudioger 9y ago
  Which isn't going to happen if the residents have a say because the rich are the worst offenders when it comes to NIMBYism. Multiple residents of the North End of Boston went to a public meeting to complain about the addition of handicapped ramps on brick sidewalks because it would damage the historic authenticity of the neighborhood. The Cape of Massachusetts couldn't get an offshore windfarm because locals complained about how it would negatively impact the view.
  - eli_gottlieb 9y ago
    > Which isn't going to happen if the residents have a say because the rich are the worst offenders when it comes to NIMBYism. Ok, then we take away their say and put zoning decisions at the state or regional level. Fuck rich NIMBY's, I want a place to live.
georgeecollins 9y ago
But NIMBYism holds back the development that might lower rent. I understand why property owners don't want development, it can undermine the value of their property. But why don't renters want development?
- saudioger 9y ago
  because it's their apartments being developed, they get kicked out for rent hikes
- fbonetti 9y ago
  Most people don't have even a basic understanding of economics or the incentives that drive markets. They equate development with gentrification and displacement. They don't realize that by opposing development they're actually restricting supply, and thus increasing prices.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > They equate development with gentrification and displacement. Because even densifyig redevelopment usually does that, and not accidentally. > They don't realize that by opposing development they're actually restricting supply, and thus increasing prices. The people concerned about displacement have a preference for their current location that exceeds the cost savings they might realize by being displaced by a new development, even if that development drove down average prices in the broader area by upply side effects (which it might not; because new development can attract new people, induced demand can prevent local price reductions.)
BurningFrog 9y ago
But new developments lower rents, since they increase the housing supply. But a lot of people simply don't understand this and fight development despite it being in their best interest. Then again, I see that one of the two studies was done in San Francisco, and if the renters are in rent controlled apartments, they don't have much reason to care about housing prices and can oppose development because they don't like change.
- newnewpdro 9y ago
  That greatly depends on the kind of development.
  - crooked-v 9y ago
    Not really, as long as the housing isn't going literally empty because of absent Chinese investors or the like.
    - newnewpdro 9y ago
      If the new development is luxury low-density bullshit, it burns finite development space on low-density occupancies while raising average rents because they're expensive on top of it. If this situation also started with the demolition of low-end high-density housing, it compounds in the direction of increased rents. Rents don't go down when a neighborhood gentrifies... How is this not obvious? I get the impression the HN crowd is so solidly in the demographic of the gentrifying forces being overpaid tech folks that these types of discussions will always be strained.
      - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
        The luxury stuff in California is often actually relatively high density, the run-down cheaper places they are replacing are often lower density, so density is still going up. Since after the Johnson era, high density low income housing has been taboo.
      - BurningFrog 9y ago
cycrutchfield 9y ago
I think you are confusing cause and effect here.
eli_gottlieb 9y ago
>Of course they are, they don't want to get priced out of their neighborhood by gentrification. And what about those of us who got priced out of our neighborhood this past year? >It's happening _incredibly_ quickly in Boston's neighborhoods one by one. It happened to The South End, Southie, Jamaica Plain, Somerville (not technically Boston proper but 10 years ago they used to call it Slummerville), and now Dorchester and Roxbury are gentrifying. If they're still holding it, I plan on attending the Somerville city meeting tomorrow night to fucking scream at them to stop trying to impose density limits. How am I supposed to move back to Somerville after getting priced out into Medford with net-added units equaling zero? Hell, has anyone tried getting Cambridge to stop being a leafy fucking suburb that actually takes up almost half the Red Line?

wbl 9y ago

Solution: more development in rich neighborhoods

saudioger 9y ago
Which isn't going to happen if the residents have a say because the rich are the worst offenders when it comes to NIMBYism. Multiple residents of the North End of Boston went to a public meeting to complain about the addition of handicapped ramps on brick sidewalks because it would damage the historic authenticity of the neighborhood. The Cape of Massachusetts couldn't get an offshore windfarm because locals complained about how it would negatively impact the view.
- eli_gottlieb 9y ago
  > Which isn't going to happen if the residents have a say because the rich are the worst offenders when it comes to NIMBYism. Ok, then we take away their say and put zoning decisions at the state or regional level. Fuck rich NIMBY's, I want a place to live.

georgeecollins 9y ago

But NIMBYism holds back the development that might lower rent. I understand why property owners don't want development, it can undermine the value of their property. But why don't renters want development?

saudioger 9y ago
because it's their apartments being developed, they get kicked out for rent hikes
fbonetti 9y ago
Most people don't have even a basic understanding of economics or the incentives that drive markets. They equate development with gentrification and displacement. They don't realize that by opposing development they're actually restricting supply, and thus increasing prices.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > They equate development with gentrification and displacement. Because even densifyig redevelopment usually does that, and not accidentally. > They don't realize that by opposing development they're actually restricting supply, and thus increasing prices. The people concerned about displacement have a preference for their current location that exceeds the cost savings they might realize by being displaced by a new development, even if that development drove down average prices in the broader area by upply side effects (which it might not; because new development can attract new people, induced demand can prevent local price reductions.)

BurningFrog 9y ago

But new developments lower rents, since they increase the housing supply. But a lot of people simply don't understand this and fight development despite it being in their best interest. Then again, I see that one of the two studies was done in San Francisco, and if the renters are in rent controlled apartments, they don't have much reason to care about housing prices and can oppose development because they don't like change.

newnewpdro 9y ago
That greatly depends on the kind of development.
- crooked-v 9y ago
  Not really, as long as the housing isn't going literally empty because of absent Chinese investors or the like.
  - newnewpdro 9y ago
    If the new development is luxury low-density bullshit, it burns finite development space on low-density occupancies while raising average rents because they're expensive on top of it. If this situation also started with the demolition of low-end high-density housing, it compounds in the direction of increased rents. Rents don't go down when a neighborhood gentrifies... How is this not obvious? I get the impression the HN crowd is so solidly in the demographic of the gentrifying forces being overpaid tech folks that these types of discussions will always be strained.
    - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
      The luxury stuff in California is often actually relatively high density, the run-down cheaper places they are replacing are often lower density, so density is still going up. Since after the Johnson era, high density low income housing has been taboo.
    - BurningFrog 9y ago

cycrutchfield 9y ago

I think you are confusing cause and effect here.

eli_gottlieb 9y ago

>Of course they are, they don't want to get priced out of their neighborhood by gentrification. And what about those of us who got priced out of our neighborhood this past year? >It's happening _incredibly_ quickly in Boston's neighborhoods one by one. It happened to The South End, Southie, Jamaica Plain, Somerville (not technically Boston proper but 10 years ago they used to call it Slummerville), and now Dorchester and Roxbury are gentrifying. If they're still holding it, I plan on attending the Somerville city meeting tomorrow night to fucking scream at them to stop trying to impose density limits. How am I supposed to move back to Somerville after getting priced out into Medford with net-added units equaling zero? Hell, has anyone tried getting Cambridge to stop being a leafy fucking suburb that actually takes up almost half the Red Line?