4 ms·

> Is it really so shocking to live that close to a gardener? What is outlandish about that? I think it's not that people refuse to live next to a gardener, it'

> Is it really so shocking to live that close to a gardener? What is outlandish about that? I think it's not that people refuse to live next to a gardener, it's that the job of gardener does not allow for an income that someone could afford to live close by given the housing market. It might not be 50 miles, but there are areas of affluence where it would take awhile for a low-income person to reach. There are also areas of affluence right next to considerably run-down (but famous) areas, such as Hollywood. Then again, I'm not sure how much housing there is in the run-down portions.

trophycase 8y ago
Well of course not. That's exactly why the person you are responding to talked about zoning. Without NIMBYs, you could upzone and solve most housing cost issues.
- kbenson 8y ago
  Southern California is dense and sprawling. Not very vertically dense, mind you, but I'm not sure there's a lot of existing room for new development without displacing people, and I'm also not sure any new development would lower housing costs enough to support the workforce in question. It would take a massive amount of high-density housing to get costs low in certain areas, and low-cost housing doesn't exactly draw in the developers. It may have started as NIMBY, but I think natural market forces eventually reinforce it to the degree that NIMBY isn't necessarily the largest factor at play at this point.
  - Retric 8y ago
    Name one place on Southern California that breaks 25,000 people per square km. It’s all low density. Manila by comparison is 71,263/km2 in it’s core. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manila https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manila
    - kbenson 8y ago
      Given the 500 square miles of Los Angeles and the 4 million people population, that's about a 60' by 60' plot of land per person. Given that doesn't include roads, highways, industrial or commercial zoning, and that people will group in housing (families), I think that's fairly dense for the type of housing which is currently in place, which is homes homes with yards. It's not dense relative to other types of metro areas, but I think it's probably fairly dense for single level housing in an industrialized nation. My point wasn't to imply that Southern California was very densely housed, but that there may not be a huge amount of unutilized land left to build high density housing one, at least not enough to really change the dynamics. And once the conversation shifts from just what to build and where to also who to displace to build it, it's an much harder conversation. I could be entirely wrong, I don't live in LA, but my impression every time I visit is that there's not a lot of unused land, even if the land that is used isn't used efficiently (population density wise). If that's true, it's not just a NIMBY situation (even if it might have traditionally been one), as it's also a "don't displace historical group X that's been living in this area for decades" situation (whether entirely accurate or not).
      - Retric 8y ago
        We have not been limited to single story buildings for thousands of years. Saying this is the kind of housing currently in place really is irrelevant, because that argument would apply to farming communities etc. Instead High density means something and nowhere in California applies which is why housing is expensive. PS: It’s a question of underutilization, where it would be economically profitable to take each of these buildings down and replace them with more useful structures.
        justtopost 8y ago
        As efficient as it may be, demolishing homes is about as bad an image as you could project. Few with political ambition would touch it with a pole.
        CalRobert 8y ago
  - timerol 8y ago
    The assumption that increasing development leads to displacement is misplaced. Homeowners could turn a single family home into a triplex, adding two new units without displacing anyone. There are also always people trying to sell and move in any housing market. Building new housing leads to less displacement: http://cityobservatory.org/if-you-want-less-displacement-build-more-housing/ http://cityobservatory.org/if-you-want-less-displacement-bui...
    - justtopost 8y ago
      As a homeowner, I bought my home so I would not have to live in a goddamn apartment. Its going to be a very tough sell to have me rent to strangers, even with the equity boost. I value my space, therefore real estate is expensive.
      - CalRobert 8y ago
        So.. don't? Not sure what the problem is here. Out of respect for property rights though, please don't make it illegal for your neighbour to do this to their home should they choose.
Retric 8y ago
In many areas like DC, poor streets are a few blocks from rich areas. Land is plentiful, and density is cheap. It’s only artificial constraints that cause high housing costs.

trophycase 8y ago

Well of course not. That's exactly why the person you are responding to talked about zoning. Without NIMBYs, you could upzone and solve most housing cost issues.

kbenson 8y ago
Southern California is dense and sprawling. Not very vertically dense, mind you, but I'm not sure there's a lot of existing room for new development without displacing people, and I'm also not sure any new development would lower housing costs enough to support the workforce in question. It would take a massive amount of high-density housing to get costs low in certain areas, and low-cost housing doesn't exactly draw in the developers. It may have started as NIMBY, but I think natural market forces eventually reinforce it to the degree that NIMBY isn't necessarily the largest factor at play at this point.
- Retric 8y ago
  Name one place on Southern California that breaks 25,000 people per square km. It’s all low density. Manila by comparison is 71,263/km2 in it’s core. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manila https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manila
  - kbenson 8y ago
    Given the 500 square miles of Los Angeles and the 4 million people population, that's about a 60' by 60' plot of land per person. Given that doesn't include roads, highways, industrial or commercial zoning, and that people will group in housing (families), I think that's fairly dense for the type of housing which is currently in place, which is homes homes with yards. It's not dense relative to other types of metro areas, but I think it's probably fairly dense for single level housing in an industrialized nation. My point wasn't to imply that Southern California was very densely housed, but that there may not be a huge amount of unutilized land left to build high density housing one, at least not enough to really change the dynamics. And once the conversation shifts from just what to build and where to also who to displace to build it, it's an much harder conversation. I could be entirely wrong, I don't live in LA, but my impression every time I visit is that there's not a lot of unused land, even if the land that is used isn't used efficiently (population density wise). If that's true, it's not just a NIMBY situation (even if it might have traditionally been one), as it's also a "don't displace historical group X that's been living in this area for decades" situation (whether entirely accurate or not).
    - Retric 8y ago
      We have not been limited to single story buildings for thousands of years. Saying this is the kind of housing currently in place really is irrelevant, because that argument would apply to farming communities etc. Instead High density means something and nowhere in California applies which is why housing is expensive. PS: It’s a question of underutilization, where it would be economically profitable to take each of these buildings down and replace them with more useful structures.
      - justtopost 8y ago
        As efficient as it may be, demolishing homes is about as bad an image as you could project. Few with political ambition would touch it with a pole.
        CalRobert 8y ago
- timerol 8y ago
  The assumption that increasing development leads to displacement is misplaced. Homeowners could turn a single family home into a triplex, adding two new units without displacing anyone. There are also always people trying to sell and move in any housing market. Building new housing leads to less displacement: http://cityobservatory.org/if-you-want-less-displacement-build-more-housing/ http://cityobservatory.org/if-you-want-less-displacement-bui...
  - justtopost 8y ago
    As a homeowner, I bought my home so I would not have to live in a goddamn apartment. Its going to be a very tough sell to have me rent to strangers, even with the equity boost. I value my space, therefore real estate is expensive.
    - CalRobert 8y ago
      So.. don't? Not sure what the problem is here. Out of respect for property rights though, please don't make it illegal for your neighbour to do this to their home should they choose.

Retric 8y ago

In many areas like DC, poor streets are a few blocks from rich areas. Land is plentiful, and density is cheap. It’s only artificial constraints that cause high housing costs.