4 ms·

Implicit in this analysis is that density is valuable, and we can create value by increasing the densities of our cities. They consider the possibility that the

Implicit in this analysis is that density is valuable, and we can create value by increasing the densities of our cities. They consider the possibility that the increase in property values due to an increase in density may outpace the decay in property values due to an increase in housing supply. This is possible in a single metro, since population is highly dynamic and new residents can come from other cities and states, but if federal policies caused a universal increase in metro density, the relatively static population at the national scale would prevent the decay in property values from being wiped out by the agglomeration effect. You can imagine everyone moving a quarter mile closer to the closest metro population center. Average density and thus value would increase, while costs would stay constant. I heard of a study some time ago that said that restrictions on urban development have cost the American economy on the order of trillions of dollars over the past few decades. When you also consider that existing property owners in cities have an incentive to maintain or increase their property values by limiting new construction, there is a powerful argument for the federal government to act on behalf of the interests of the nation as a whole in having more dense, dynamic, inclusive urban centers and prevent cities from enacting anti-development policies. Furthermore, while developers are typically scorned by my comrades on the left, such a policy would be progressive in that it would tend to reduce the wealth of rich property owners, while decreasing costs for renters and making cities more accessible to people with fewer resources.

erikpukinskis 8y ago
The NIMBYs described don’t value density, they value access. Speaking for myself, I only value density as a means to establishing a global “right of return”, which I believe is a moral good: Human ecologies are healthier when children who grow up in a place have the option to remain, or to return after exploring. Oakland, right now, is forcing out large numbers of indigenous people, young and old, perhaps never to return. I don’t care about the density of Oakland, I just care that people who have spent part of their development here can continue to embody the geography. As long as there is a supply of wealthy would-be immigrants (which shows no sign of slowing) then that means I am for increasing density. But it’s a means to an end.
- istjohn 8y ago
  I hear you. I imagine people have many different reasons for self-identifying as YIMBYs. In the context of the article, the theory of agglomeration effects cited by the author posits that increasing a city's density makes a city more attractive, and thus exerts an upward pressure on property values. > This supply-demand model ignores something important: the value of living in a particular place is greatly determined by how many people live around it. As the number of people living in a place increases, so does the value of being there. This is often labeled the "agglomeration effect". I'm not familiar with the empirical evidence for the agglomeration effect, but if it's real, it indicates that aside from whatever specific arguments one can make for or against dense cities, the market values density. The author suggests some plausible reasons why the market might value density, but really it's kind of besides the point why density is valued by the market (which represents the demonstrated preferences of you and I and every other economic actor). If the market values density, and there are perverse incentives which prevent cities from increasing density (the interests of existing property owners), it behooves us to intervene at the national level. One can make a number of other orthogonal arguments for increasing density: smaller environmental footprint, increased diversity and social mobility in communities, equality of opportunity and access, and your argument for a "right of return," to name a few.
  - zjaffee 8y ago
    As someone who supports some aspects of YIMBYism almost entirely because I like very dense cities, I still think it's important to make note of the major negatives of density. Namely, what happens to overbuilt places during periods of population decline (as maintenance of existing real estate becomes virtually impossible to afford). What happens to those living in the area should there be a major environmental or political crisis (it's much harder to evacuate manhattan than most other places). And how can we scale our infrastructure concurrently with increases to density such that transportation and other government resources are never lacking.
    - rsync 8y ago
      "As someone who supports some aspects of YIMBYism almost entirely because I like very dense cities" I also appreciate (and spend a lot of time in) dense cities and I wish that a lot of SF were much denser. But I appreciate grass roots, local control more and I am alarmed at how quickly principles of democracy are thrown out the window when they produce "the wrong kind of results".
Nokinside 8y ago
Was the paper: Housing Constraints and Spatial Misallocation https://eml.berkeley.edu//~moretti/growth.pdf https://eml.berkeley.edu//~moretti/growth.pdf >We quantify the amount of spatial misallocation of labor across US cities and its aggregate costs. Misallocation arises because high productivity cities like New York and the San Francisco Bay Area have adopted stringent re- strictions to new housing supply, effectively limiting the number of workers who have access to such high productivity. Using a spatial equilibrium model and data from 220 metropolitan areas we find that these constraints lowered aggregate US growth by 36% from 1964 to 2009
- istjohn 8y ago
  Yes, that's almost certainly it. It was discussed on Vox's The Weeds podcast.
paulddraper 8y ago
> the federal government to act on behalf of the interests of the nation as a whole...prevent cities from enacting anti-development policies Putting aside the moral/ethical of dictating zoning laws at the national level, I'm skeptical that the national government even has Constitutional authority to intervene is such a drastic way.
- closeparen 8y ago
  The federal government exerts considerable influence over housing by directing transportation/infrastructure grants and mortgage subsidies/guarantees. Historically and currently, that influence has been focused on engineering a sprawled-out, suburban model. It could do a 180 if we asked it to.
  - paulddraper 8y ago
    That's true. Grant requirements can do wonders.
fmajid 8y ago
The NIMBYs value their privacy and want to keep the riff-raff out. Areas like Forest Hill or St Francis Wood in San Francisco had explicit minimum house construction prices to achieve this goal. For them, density is a counter-feature.

erikpukinskis 8y ago

The NIMBYs described don’t value density, they value access. Speaking for myself, I only value density as a means to establishing a global “right of return”, which I believe is a moral good: Human ecologies are healthier when children who grow up in a place have the option to remain, or to return after exploring. Oakland, right now, is forcing out large numbers of indigenous people, young and old, perhaps never to return. I don’t care about the density of Oakland, I just care that people who have spent part of their development here can continue to embody the geography. As long as there is a supply of wealthy would-be immigrants (which shows no sign of slowing) then that means I am for increasing density. But it’s a means to an end.

istjohn 8y ago
I hear you. I imagine people have many different reasons for self-identifying as YIMBYs. In the context of the article, the theory of agglomeration effects cited by the author posits that increasing a city's density makes a city more attractive, and thus exerts an upward pressure on property values. > This supply-demand model ignores something important: the value of living in a particular place is greatly determined by how many people live around it. As the number of people living in a place increases, so does the value of being there. This is often labeled the "agglomeration effect". I'm not familiar with the empirical evidence for the agglomeration effect, but if it's real, it indicates that aside from whatever specific arguments one can make for or against dense cities, the market values density. The author suggests some plausible reasons why the market might value density, but really it's kind of besides the point why density is valued by the market (which represents the demonstrated preferences of you and I and every other economic actor). If the market values density, and there are perverse incentives which prevent cities from increasing density (the interests of existing property owners), it behooves us to intervene at the national level. One can make a number of other orthogonal arguments for increasing density: smaller environmental footprint, increased diversity and social mobility in communities, equality of opportunity and access, and your argument for a "right of return," to name a few.
- zjaffee 8y ago
  As someone who supports some aspects of YIMBYism almost entirely because I like very dense cities, I still think it's important to make note of the major negatives of density. Namely, what happens to overbuilt places during periods of population decline (as maintenance of existing real estate becomes virtually impossible to afford). What happens to those living in the area should there be a major environmental or political crisis (it's much harder to evacuate manhattan than most other places). And how can we scale our infrastructure concurrently with increases to density such that transportation and other government resources are never lacking.
  - rsync 8y ago
    "As someone who supports some aspects of YIMBYism almost entirely because I like very dense cities" I also appreciate (and spend a lot of time in) dense cities and I wish that a lot of SF were much denser. But I appreciate grass roots, local control more and I am alarmed at how quickly principles of democracy are thrown out the window when they produce "the wrong kind of results".

Nokinside 8y ago

Was the paper: Housing Constraints and Spatial Misallocation https://eml.berkeley.edu//~moretti/growth.pdf https://eml.berkeley.edu//~moretti/growth.pdf >We quantify the amount of spatial misallocation of labor across US cities and its aggregate costs. Misallocation arises because high productivity cities like New York and the San Francisco Bay Area have adopted stringent re- strictions to new housing supply, effectively limiting the number of workers who have access to such high productivity. Using a spatial equilibrium model and data from 220 metropolitan areas we find that these constraints lowered aggregate US growth by 36% from 1964 to 2009

istjohn 8y ago
Yes, that's almost certainly it. It was discussed on Vox's The Weeds podcast.

paulddraper 8y ago

> the federal government to act on behalf of the interests of the nation as a whole...prevent cities from enacting anti-development policies Putting aside the moral/ethical of dictating zoning laws at the national level, I'm skeptical that the national government even has Constitutional authority to intervene is such a drastic way.

closeparen 8y ago
The federal government exerts considerable influence over housing by directing transportation/infrastructure grants and mortgage subsidies/guarantees. Historically and currently, that influence has been focused on engineering a sprawled-out, suburban model. It could do a 180 if we asked it to.
- paulddraper 8y ago
  That's true. Grant requirements can do wonders.

fmajid 8y ago

The NIMBYs value their privacy and want to keep the riff-raff out. Areas like Forest Hill or St Francis Wood in San Francisco had explicit minimum house construction prices to achieve this goal. For them, density is a counter-feature.