10 ms·

If density increases the people who will benefit the most are current landowners. If you have single family home on a big lot, its value will go up many times i

by rb808 9y ago

If density increases the people who will benefit the most are current landowners. If you have single family home on a big lot, its value will go up many times if you can suddenly build an apartment building on it.

mistermann 9y ago
That is: a) Correct. b) Beneficial to most participants in the market, well off (mainly due to luck in timing) NIMBY's being the exception.
epistasis 9y ago
Yes, in the short term, there are two things that happen: 1) land values go up, 2) housing costs go down. The first may benefit current land owners a lot, but the second is absolutely essential for lower incomes to succeed at all. This is not a zero-sum move, and is fact hugely beneficial to everyone. When there's fixed housing supply, that's when things are closer to a zero-sum economic game.
- davidw 9y ago
  "Density is how those with less money compete with the rich for expensive land" http://marketurbanism.com/2018/02/05/density-working-poor-outbid-rich-urban-land/ http://marketurbanism.com/2018/02/05/density-working-poor-ou...
swimfar 9y ago
You're correct, but this goes against the idea that it's greedy house owners that are causing all the problems. Maybe they're selfish (I would argue most people are), but it's in their best financial interest for the Bay Area population to increase. The land value will go up, and the relative supply of houses/people goes down. Let's say that right now only 10% (made up number) of the people in the Bay Area can own a house (because of supply, not price). In general that means that the houses are purchased by the wealthiest 10%. If the population goes up 50% now you have to be in the top 7% to afford a house. Yeah, it's a little more complex than this, but in general housing prices aren't going down by building apartments. No one buys a house because they can't find an apartment for sale. If people really want to address the housing issues, they need to start actually listening to people who object to more housing instead of just calling them names. There are legitimate downsides to more housing and higher population that will need to be addressed.
TomVDB 9y ago
Most current home owners have no interest in selling to a developer or developing ourselves. We just want to continue live in conditions that were present when we bought it: a nice house with a garden on a quiet street. Yes, that is selfish, but I'm not going to apologize for not wanting an apartment complex next door. That said, I'm not going to vote against a state level politician who wants to relax zoning laws to improve affordable housing.
- trustno1 9y ago
  At least you admit you’re a selfish asshole.
- Veelox 9y ago
  I appreciate the reasonable honest tone.
- Retric 9y ago
  Changing zoning would only directly impact a tiny fraction of current home owners. High rises allow for vastly increased density so only 1-5% of the city could change to cover a 50% population increase.
- davidw 9y ago
  The conditions do change though, even if the buildings don't: you'll gradually be surrounded by different people as prices climb and climb. Perhaps, sooner or later, they'll look down on you as the undesirable they don't want nearby.
  - TomVDB 9y ago
    Why do you make the assumption somebody is looking down on somebody else? It has nothing to do with the inhabitants. It's about the ugliness of these kind of buildings and everything that goes with increased density (traffic, street parking etc.)
    - CyberDildonics 9y ago
      I'm not clear here, do you own a townhouse or do you own everything you can see from the townhouse? You don't like the 'look' of 'ugly' building? I guess you better save up for the neighboring lots.
Spooky23 9y ago
That's not the way it works. The reality is that the apartment building goes up and you house is worth nothing unless the government allows an eminent domain for your property or a developer with the bucks to buy out the neighborhood shows up. Until that happens, your house lost a third of its value because there's an apartment next door. If you're unlucky, rates go up and you're stuck.
- TomVDB 9y ago
  I don't understand why you're being down voted. Is it really controversial to say that a regular single family house in a single family house neighborhood will go down in value when somebody decides to plant an apartment complex right next to do?
  - kelnos 9y ago
    I think the downvotes are unwarranted, but the point being made is that in a land-scarce environment like SF, a developer would pay out the nose to buy your single-family home, tear it down, and build something with higher density... if the land was zoned for it. Sure, once this happens enough times, and supply starts to meet demand, you're absolutely right in that a single-family home's value will drop when it's adjacent to an apartment complex. (Then again, it could also be quite valuable to someone who wants a single-family home when the norm becomes larger complexes.) Also note that the current value of your home is driven almost entirely by artificial scarcity. There's nothing intrinsic about it that makes it worth so much.
  - stouset 9y ago
    Honestly? I appreciate your willingness to engage in this thread, but I have to say I really don’t care if it does or if it doesn’t. Making a real estate purchase is a risk. Making a huge one is a huge risk. Right now, the Bay Area is prioritizing rewarding the obscenely wealthy and rewarding massive risk-taking by the moderately wealthy. If those risks don’t pan out, but people can afford to live here, I’m not that upset.
    - Spooky23 9y ago
nerfhammer 9y ago
Only for the first few redevelopments, after that prices will go down across the board.
- Robotbeat 9y ago
  Even the first few help. You have rich people taking up houses and apartments made for middle class (or possibly even working class), as only rich people can now afford to live in them. If there’s more housing stock, even “luxury” units, they can vacate the lower end units, making room for middle class.
CyberDildonics 9y ago
Is the point to make sure land owners don't benefit or is it to add more places to live in an expensive area that is only constrained politically?

by rb808 9y ago

mistermann 9y ago

That is: a) Correct. b) Beneficial to most participants in the market, well off (mainly due to luck in timing) NIMBY's being the exception.

epistasis 9y ago

Yes, in the short term, there are two things that happen: 1) land values go up, 2) housing costs go down. The first may benefit current land owners a lot, but the second is absolutely essential for lower incomes to succeed at all. This is not a zero-sum move, and is fact hugely beneficial to everyone. When there's fixed housing supply, that's when things are closer to a zero-sum economic game.

davidw 9y ago
"Density is how those with less money compete with the rich for expensive land" http://marketurbanism.com/2018/02/05/density-working-poor-outbid-rich-urban-land/ http://marketurbanism.com/2018/02/05/density-working-poor-ou...

swimfar 9y ago

You're correct, but this goes against the idea that it's greedy house owners that are causing all the problems. Maybe they're selfish (I would argue most people are), but it's in their best financial interest for the Bay Area population to increase. The land value will go up, and the relative supply of houses/people goes down. Let's say that right now only 10% (made up number) of the people in the Bay Area can own a house (because of supply, not price). In general that means that the houses are purchased by the wealthiest 10%. If the population goes up 50% now you have to be in the top 7% to afford a house. Yeah, it's a little more complex than this, but in general housing prices aren't going down by building apartments. No one buys a house because they can't find an apartment for sale. If people really want to address the housing issues, they need to start actually listening to people who object to more housing instead of just calling them names. There are legitimate downsides to more housing and higher population that will need to be addressed.

TomVDB 9y ago

Most current home owners have no interest in selling to a developer or developing ourselves. We just want to continue live in conditions that were present when we bought it: a nice house with a garden on a quiet street. Yes, that is selfish, but I'm not going to apologize for not wanting an apartment complex next door. That said, I'm not going to vote against a state level politician who wants to relax zoning laws to improve affordable housing.

trustno1 9y ago
At least you admit you’re a selfish asshole.
Veelox 9y ago
I appreciate the reasonable honest tone.
Retric 9y ago
Changing zoning would only directly impact a tiny fraction of current home owners. High rises allow for vastly increased density so only 1-5% of the city could change to cover a 50% population increase.
davidw 9y ago
The conditions do change though, even if the buildings don't: you'll gradually be surrounded by different people as prices climb and climb. Perhaps, sooner or later, they'll look down on you as the undesirable they don't want nearby.
- TomVDB 9y ago
  Why do you make the assumption somebody is looking down on somebody else? It has nothing to do with the inhabitants. It's about the ugliness of these kind of buildings and everything that goes with increased density (traffic, street parking etc.)
  - CyberDildonics 9y ago
    I'm not clear here, do you own a townhouse or do you own everything you can see from the townhouse? You don't like the 'look' of 'ugly' building? I guess you better save up for the neighboring lots.

Spooky23 9y ago

That's not the way it works. The reality is that the apartment building goes up and you house is worth nothing unless the government allows an eminent domain for your property or a developer with the bucks to buy out the neighborhood shows up. Until that happens, your house lost a third of its value because there's an apartment next door. If you're unlucky, rates go up and you're stuck.

TomVDB 9y ago
I don't understand why you're being down voted. Is it really controversial to say that a regular single family house in a single family house neighborhood will go down in value when somebody decides to plant an apartment complex right next to do?
- kelnos 9y ago
  I think the downvotes are unwarranted, but the point being made is that in a land-scarce environment like SF, a developer would pay out the nose to buy your single-family home, tear it down, and build something with higher density... if the land was zoned for it. Sure, once this happens enough times, and supply starts to meet demand, you're absolutely right in that a single-family home's value will drop when it's adjacent to an apartment complex. (Then again, it could also be quite valuable to someone who wants a single-family home when the norm becomes larger complexes.) Also note that the current value of your home is driven almost entirely by artificial scarcity. There's nothing intrinsic about it that makes it worth so much.
- stouset 9y ago
  Honestly? I appreciate your willingness to engage in this thread, but I have to say I really don’t care if it does or if it doesn’t. Making a real estate purchase is a risk. Making a huge one is a huge risk. Right now, the Bay Area is prioritizing rewarding the obscenely wealthy and rewarding massive risk-taking by the moderately wealthy. If those risks don’t pan out, but people can afford to live here, I’m not that upset.
  - Spooky23 9y ago

nerfhammer 9y ago

Only for the first few redevelopments, after that prices will go down across the board.

Robotbeat 9y ago
Even the first few help. You have rich people taking up houses and apartments made for middle class (or possibly even working class), as only rich people can now afford to live in them. If there’s more housing stock, even “luxury” units, they can vacate the lower end units, making room for middle class.

CyberDildonics 9y ago

Is the point to make sure land owners don't benefit or is it to add more places to live in an expensive area that is only constrained politically?