No, it just makes those amenities more expensive to maintain at that location. This is as it should be since the opportunity cost is so high. For example, here

No, it just makes those amenities more expensive to maintain at that location. This is as it should be since the opportunity cost is so high. For example, here is an example of homeowners paying a developer to not build on an adjacent lot to preserve their preferences: https://therealdeal.com/2019/07/22/chelsea-residents-paid-gary-barnett-11m-to-protect-their-views-from-a-planned-tower/ https://therealdeal.com/2019/07/22/chelsea-residents-paid-ga... Right now, the above is possible by regulatory capture, shifting the cost of preservation onto adjacent landowners who do want to build and the larger community for underutilizing a precious, shared resource (land).