4 ms·

You could do a multi-tiered subsidized housing approach or rent control. The real answer is that even massive building isn't a solution because you're external

You could do a multi-tiered subsidized housing approach or rent control. The real answer is that even massive building isn't a solution because you're externalizing huge costs onto existing property owners. There's no way to do this without redistribution so we need to make sure we explicitly protect the poor during that redistribution.

thaumasiotes 9y ago
> The real answer is that even massive building isn't a solution because you're externalizing huge costs onto existing property owners. I see a lot of people say that existing property owners block additional building in order to preserve the high value of their property. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me -- with the ability to build much more, the value of your house drops as more housing comes onto the market, but the value of your land rises by much more, as what was a plot of land that could support 3 households becomes a plot of land that can support 50. Manhattan isn't known for its low property values. Is that the cost you're thinking of? What did you have in mind?
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  I wrote a big paragraph responding to this but then I remembered something I'd read and as usual, someone else has said it better than I could. >Even if, in aggregate, land values increase, densification of an existing neighborhood creates risks for individual property owners they many not wish to bear. If an apartment block is built next door, my old neighbor may have gotten rich from selling, but my plot may not be suitable for putting up yet another tower, and my home may be worth less for its busy, unquaint new neighbor. People experience individual not aggregate outcomes, and individual outcomes are usually riskier than aggregate outcomes. Absent some insurance mechanism, it is rationally hard to persuade individuals to consent to policy changes that, in aggregate terms, would meet a return-to-risk hurdle but at an individual level might not. When market urbanists point to how much more productive and awesome the city as a whole might become, they are missing this point. http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/6287.html http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/6287.html
  - thaumasiotes 9y ago
    Can you point to some examples where the land value of an urban plot differs significantly from the land value of other nearby plots?
    - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
      I wouldn't even know where to get such data. Just imagine two close plots, one which has a view of the city and one where the view is blocked. They'll have very different values.

thaumasiotes 9y ago

> The real answer is that even massive building isn't a solution because you're externalizing huge costs onto existing property owners. I see a lot of people say that existing property owners block additional building in order to preserve the high value of their property. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me -- with the ability to build much more, the value of your house drops as more housing comes onto the market, but the value of your land rises by much more, as what was a plot of land that could support 3 households becomes a plot of land that can support 50. Manhattan isn't known for its low property values. Is that the cost you're thinking of? What did you have in mind?

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
I wrote a big paragraph responding to this but then I remembered something I'd read and as usual, someone else has said it better than I could. >Even if, in aggregate, land values increase, densification of an existing neighborhood creates risks for individual property owners they many not wish to bear. If an apartment block is built next door, my old neighbor may have gotten rich from selling, but my plot may not be suitable for putting up yet another tower, and my home may be worth less for its busy, unquaint new neighbor. People experience individual not aggregate outcomes, and individual outcomes are usually riskier than aggregate outcomes. Absent some insurance mechanism, it is rationally hard to persuade individuals to consent to policy changes that, in aggregate terms, would meet a return-to-risk hurdle but at an individual level might not. When market urbanists point to how much more productive and awesome the city as a whole might become, they are missing this point. http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/6287.html http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/6287.html
- thaumasiotes 9y ago
  Can you point to some examples where the land value of an urban plot differs significantly from the land value of other nearby plots?
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    I wouldn't even know where to get such data. Just imagine two close plots, one which has a view of the city and one where the view is blocked. They'll have very different values.