4 ms·

Density creates land scarcity which in turns gives a lot of power to landlords who collect the lion's share or economic benefits created by density. Density sh

Density creates land scarcity which in turns gives a lot of power to landlords who collect the lion's share or economic benefits created by density. Density should come hand in hand with power-rebalancing measures, e.g. tax property hikes, more efficient zoning, and government-controlled rent, but practically it doesn't happen.

epistasis 8y ago
Density is the response to land scarcity that takes away power from landlords, not the other way around. When there's massive land scarcity, but density is not allowed, it gives landlords far far more power than if density were allowed. Land value taxation is one way to reduce speculative land use by landlords, but it's rarely used, unfortunately. And in California it would require overturning Prop 13, a hugely regressive tax policy that has been somehow falsely enshrined as helping the little guy out, when in reality it mostly helps landlords and speculative land hoarders.
- taysic 8y ago
  Focusing jobs in one area reduces competition among landlords while fostering multiple job centers with amenities encourages competition including price competition
  - epistasis 8y ago
    What "focuses" jobs in one area though? Is it a conscious choice to place a job in a location, or is it the density of the people and the skills that allows the jobs to exist at all? The idea that jobs can be placed anywhere flies in the face of pretty much every single city's economic development efforts over the past few decades. It's not realistic, or reasonable. What can be placed anywhere is housing. The only reason that we don't have higher density is a small number of landowners lobbying to keep everything identical to the way that it was when they moved in, and when they moved in they had just massively changed the landscape from fruit groves to suburban sprawl. They said: change to allow me, but no more. And now they benefit massively by restricting density around them.
    - taysic 8y ago
      If you’re talking about Silicon Valley that was converted from fruit groves to sprawl and a job center then how was that the result of density? In terms of density it’s not much different to many areas. The focusing is done due to a whole host of reasons but certainly encouraging jobs to spread out is not a bad idea for a number of reasons - including having options and livability
    - DataWorker 8y ago
      People usually cite network effects, or more simply the VC and big money people live in sf and nyc and prefer their workers live there too. How many billionaires live in Boise?
- dgudkov 8y ago
  >Density is the response to land scarcity that takes away power from landlords, not the other way around. "Density" in my comment is population density, not construction density. Unfortunately, construction density (and height) is restricted by zoning and all kinds of bylaws. Most residential areas in North America allow only single-family houses and prohibit multi-tenant buildings with 3-4 floors or more. Landlords benefit from such zoning rules immensely, because they drive land price up.

epistasis 8y ago

Density is the response to land scarcity that takes away power from landlords, not the other way around. When there's massive land scarcity, but density is not allowed, it gives landlords far far more power than if density were allowed. Land value taxation is one way to reduce speculative land use by landlords, but it's rarely used, unfortunately. And in California it would require overturning Prop 13, a hugely regressive tax policy that has been somehow falsely enshrined as helping the little guy out, when in reality it mostly helps landlords and speculative land hoarders.

taysic 8y ago
Focusing jobs in one area reduces competition among landlords while fostering multiple job centers with amenities encourages competition including price competition
- epistasis 8y ago
  What "focuses" jobs in one area though? Is it a conscious choice to place a job in a location, or is it the density of the people and the skills that allows the jobs to exist at all? The idea that jobs can be placed anywhere flies in the face of pretty much every single city's economic development efforts over the past few decades. It's not realistic, or reasonable. What can be placed anywhere is housing. The only reason that we don't have higher density is a small number of landowners lobbying to keep everything identical to the way that it was when they moved in, and when they moved in they had just massively changed the landscape from fruit groves to suburban sprawl. They said: change to allow me, but no more. And now they benefit massively by restricting density around them.
  - taysic 8y ago
    If you’re talking about Silicon Valley that was converted from fruit groves to sprawl and a job center then how was that the result of density? In terms of density it’s not much different to many areas. The focusing is done due to a whole host of reasons but certainly encouraging jobs to spread out is not a bad idea for a number of reasons - including having options and livability
  - DataWorker 8y ago
    People usually cite network effects, or more simply the VC and big money people live in sf and nyc and prefer their workers live there too. How many billionaires live in Boise?
dgudkov 8y ago
>Density is the response to land scarcity that takes away power from landlords, not the other way around. "Density" in my comment is population density, not construction density. Unfortunately, construction density (and height) is restricted by zoning and all kinds of bylaws. Most residential areas in North America allow only single-family houses and prohibit multi-tenant buildings with 3-4 floors or more. Landlords benefit from such zoning rules immensely, because they drive land price up.