4 ms·

I prefer suburban living to city living. But I'm really glad to see the revival of cities in the US, particularly the one I live just outside of. The profession

I prefer suburban living to city living. But I'm really glad to see the revival of cities in the US, particularly the one I live just outside of. The professional, upper middle class people who are moving in are rehabbing old housing stock and neighborhoods that had been decaying for decades, and it's good for everyone, in my view -- even suburban property owners such as myself.

bostonpete 8y ago
> it's good for everyone, in my view -- even suburban property owners such as myself I agree it's good in general but maybe not so good for people who are being displaced due to rent hikes caused by gentrification.
- rhapsodic 8y ago
  >I agree it's good in general but maybe not so good for people who are being displaced due to rent hikes caused by gentrification. You're correct. Thanks for pointing that out.
- jeffbax 8y ago
  > rent hikes caused by zoning codes and regulations that push the price of building up higher and higher -bostonjeff
  - gowld 8y ago
    Building isn't expensive. The space above the land is (infinitely) expensive due to zoning constraints.
    - StudentStuff 8y ago
      Requiring garden space and car storage for every bedroom built is a quick way to double a project's costs. Why have zoning codes that prohibit the best use of the land?
      - losteric 8y ago
        Zoning codes are a double-edged sword. On one hand, they stop someone from building a high-rise in the middle of a low-density residential area... on the other hand, the very same regulations prevent the market from scaling up to meet new demand. New zoning legislation moves slowly when constituents benefit from rising real-estate prices (to the detriment of the broader public). Legislation like "new construction must not be more than N floor(s) higher than surrounding properties" might help, rather than the simple fixed height limit many areas set.
        StudentStuff 8y ago
        If a proposed high rise is near a BRT line or rail, a reasonable zoning code shouldn't mangle it or block its construction.
        rosser 8y ago
        ...and we're already pretty far down the rabbit hole of how zoning gets so complex. There are always exceptions. There are always circumstances. There are always NIMBYs. AFAICT, you cannot regulate how land is used — which isn't necessarily a bad thing — without bumping into those things, which seems invariably to compromise, or at least complicate, the effort. I would still very much prefer zoning over someone who can afford to do so deciding, simply on that basis, that he's going to build, say, a tannery up-wind of my home. Imposing your externalities upon others is, IMO, a bright-line breach of the NAP. (Since it's so often Libertarian-leaning folk who are all, "But zoning!") EDIT: phrasing
        rayiner 8y ago
        Getting rid of zoning doesn't mean getting rid of nuisance law. If someone builds a tannery upwind from your propeety, you can sue him formcausing a nuisance. And he can either pay you, stop, or buy you out depending on what is economically efficient. The peoblem with zoning is that it allows you to stop lots of things that would not qualify as a nuisance. And it prevents lots of things that would be an economic win (buildimg a high rise in a previous low rise neighborhood if property owners were willing to sell out).
    - dredmorbius 8y ago
      ThatsThePoint.jpg
- losteric 8y ago
  > people who are being displaced due to rent hikes caused by gentrification. Isn't that displacement gentrification itself? When demand exceeds supply, housing goes to the highest bidder...
CNJ7654 8y ago
Spot on. It's good for those living in the cities, obviously, but the rising wages generated by this is good for those of us who live in suburban/rural regions and commute to the city

bostonpete 8y ago

> it's good for everyone, in my view -- even suburban property owners such as myself I agree it's good in general but maybe not so good for people who are being displaced due to rent hikes caused by gentrification.

rhapsodic 8y ago
>I agree it's good in general but maybe not so good for people who are being displaced due to rent hikes caused by gentrification. You're correct. Thanks for pointing that out.
jeffbax 8y ago
> rent hikes caused by zoning codes and regulations that push the price of building up higher and higher -bostonjeff
- gowld 8y ago
  Building isn't expensive. The space above the land is (infinitely) expensive due to zoning constraints.
  - StudentStuff 8y ago
    Requiring garden space and car storage for every bedroom built is a quick way to double a project's costs. Why have zoning codes that prohibit the best use of the land?
    - losteric 8y ago
      Zoning codes are a double-edged sword. On one hand, they stop someone from building a high-rise in the middle of a low-density residential area... on the other hand, the very same regulations prevent the market from scaling up to meet new demand. New zoning legislation moves slowly when constituents benefit from rising real-estate prices (to the detriment of the broader public). Legislation like "new construction must not be more than N floor(s) higher than surrounding properties" might help, rather than the simple fixed height limit many areas set.
      - StudentStuff 8y ago
        If a proposed high rise is near a BRT line or rail, a reasonable zoning code shouldn't mangle it or block its construction.
        rosser 8y ago
        ...and we're already pretty far down the rabbit hole of how zoning gets so complex. There are always exceptions. There are always circumstances. There are always NIMBYs. AFAICT, you cannot regulate how land is used — which isn't necessarily a bad thing — without bumping into those things, which seems invariably to compromise, or at least complicate, the effort. I would still very much prefer zoning over someone who can afford to do so deciding, simply on that basis, that he's going to build, say, a tannery up-wind of my home. Imposing your externalities upon others is, IMO, a bright-line breach of the NAP. (Since it's so often Libertarian-leaning folk who are all, "But zoning!") EDIT: phrasing
        rayiner 8y ago
        Getting rid of zoning doesn't mean getting rid of nuisance law. If someone builds a tannery upwind from your propeety, you can sue him formcausing a nuisance. And he can either pay you, stop, or buy you out depending on what is economically efficient. The peoblem with zoning is that it allows you to stop lots of things that would not qualify as a nuisance. And it prevents lots of things that would be an economic win (buildimg a high rise in a previous low rise neighborhood if property owners were willing to sell out).
  - dredmorbius 8y ago
    ThatsThePoint.jpg
losteric 8y ago
> people who are being displaced due to rent hikes caused by gentrification. Isn't that displacement gentrification itself? When demand exceeds supply, housing goes to the highest bidder...

CNJ7654 8y ago

Spot on. It's good for those living in the cities, obviously, but the rising wages generated by this is good for those of us who live in suburban/rural regions and commute to the city