3 ms·
If you build dense enough in an area with a hot job market you’ll still get large differences in house/apartment prices but you won’t get houses costing 100x pl
by barry-cotter 7y ago
If you build dense enough in an area with a hot job market you’ll still get large differences in house/apartment prices but you won’t get houses costing 100x plus what they do elsewhere. Pal Alto 1950s ranch homes cost a lot more than the equivalent in Boise.
If you want to see what building dense can do don’t look at Seattle. Look at New York City. Brooklyn isn’t Manhattan dense but it’s more affordable. But NYC’s entire metro area is comparatively dense in the US. People commute from Jersey City in under an hour. If all of NYC was zoned to allow the level of density you see in Manhattan prices wouldn’t drop as much as you’d naively expect because there’d be even more economic activity but they’d drop plenty. Tokyo has increased ~50% in population over the past thirty years and land and rent prices have been pretty much flat. That’s what allowing dense building makes possible.
- asveikau 7y ago> Pal Alto 1950s ranch homes cost a lot more than the equivalent in Boise. This is obvious, but it's also obvious that, with respect, few people want to live in Boise and if they did, and could make Palo Alto money, housing would become much more expensive. > Look at New York City. A very expensive place, not 10x cheaper than Palo Alto and not Boise. Nothing you said is news to me or refutes the point. Yes, these differences can be big, and housing policy affects the number. But you can't say it's the reason a non job center city is cheap, or claim that the factor is 10x.