3 ms·

> You can call it NIMBYism, but for Kreuzberg it's really more about fighting gentrification and displacement, and preserving a city at the edge of society. The

> You can call it NIMBYism, but for Kreuzberg it's really more about fighting gentrification and displacement, and preserving a city at the edge of society. There's a fundamental difference between fighting development in the mission and presidio... SF tried "fighting" gentrification by blocking development, and it just made the problem twice as bad. Look at the results: do they look good to you? Why would you want to copy such an abysmal failure? NIMBYs are the cause of much displacement, especially of the poor. In some cases this is because of ignorance, in other cases it's greed. Either way, it's not acceptable.

sdenton4 8y ago
"We must burn the village to save it." New housing tends to be higher rent; if you want to increase affordable housing stock, mowing down older, lower-rent buildings isn't the way to do it. (Especially in Berlin, where housing is often already far higher density than you see anywhere in the bay area.)
- TulliusCicero 8y ago
  > New housing tends to be higher rent Yes, much like new cars tend to be more expensive than old cars. Is this...surprising to anyone? That used things are generally cheaper than new things? > if you want to increase affordable housing stock, mowing down older, lower-rent buildings isn't the way to do it. It actually can be, at least if you're increasing the total housing stock: http://cityobservatory.org/urban-myth-busting-high-income2/ http://cityobservatory.org/urban-myth-busting-high-income2/ Granted, for Berlin perhaps not always the case, and I think policies to that effect, that push for redevelopment to mean more total housing, would be a good idea. And again, please don't ignore SF as a cautionary tale. SF tried the whole "let's not knock down buildings" thing, as hard as they could, in the face of overwhelming demand. Now: did it work?

sdenton4 8y ago

"We must burn the village to save it." New housing tends to be higher rent; if you want to increase affordable housing stock, mowing down older, lower-rent buildings isn't the way to do it. (Especially in Berlin, where housing is often already far higher density than you see anywhere in the bay area.)

TulliusCicero 8y ago
> New housing tends to be higher rent Yes, much like new cars tend to be more expensive than old cars. Is this...surprising to anyone? That used things are generally cheaper than new things? > if you want to increase affordable housing stock, mowing down older, lower-rent buildings isn't the way to do it. It actually can be, at least if you're increasing the total housing stock: http://cityobservatory.org/urban-myth-busting-high-income2/ http://cityobservatory.org/urban-myth-busting-high-income2/ Granted, for Berlin perhaps not always the case, and I think policies to that effect, that push for redevelopment to mean more total housing, would be a good idea. And again, please don't ignore SF as a cautionary tale. SF tried the whole "let's not knock down buildings" thing, as hard as they could, in the face of overwhelming demand. Now: did it work?