4 ms·

> Consider cities... like London and New York. (snip) Note that I'm only asking about city travel Generally speaking, I don't see any future where people no lo

> Consider cities... like London and New York. (snip) Note that I'm only asking about city travel Generally speaking, I don't see any future where people no longer drive, because the cost of not-driving is so exorbitantly expensive that very few people will ever be able to afford it. EVs are cheap, and get cheaper every day. Dense urban "car-free" housing is already unaffordable for almost everyone, and only gets more expensive every day as development continues. Unless we get extremely lucky and the housing market crashes hard, the future will probably be one where it's cheaper to have buy 6 to 12 brand-new zero-emission EVs, than it will be to afford an urban car-free 2-bedroom condo in any top-20 city. Given Urbanists political goals (and the fact that Urbanists are winning their goals), I suspect public car commuting and VMT to grow every single year, for 80% of the low and/or middle class population.

bluGill 7y ago
High density being expensive and getting those rents shows there is demand: we should be building more of it to fill demand, and in turn bring prices down. In less dense areas the car shines above anything else. However in those dense areas where people have shown they want to live cars are too big and we need something else.
- maxsilver 7y ago
  > we should be building more of it to fill demand, and in turn bring prices down. That's not really how construction works in the US. All construction generates higher prices than existed before (this is explicit intentional policy, at both the local, state, and federal level). There is no such thing as new housing in the US that lowers property values, therefore there is no such thing as a new building that lowers "prices". No one does this (except perhaps, non-profits and such). And even if you wanted to anyway, no bank would ever finance it.
  - bluGill 7y ago
    That is correct only to the first order. New construction is always higher priced and luxury. However the new construction in turns pulls someone out of some older place elsewhere which then goes down a little in value and becomes more affordable. The best time to build affordable housing is 20 years ago, the second best time is now.
  - surrealize 7y ago
    Of course increasing supply lowers the equilibrium price, relative to the case where supply doesn't increase. https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1325&context=up_workingpapers https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1325... > This suggests that new construction reduces demand and loosens the housing market in lowand middle-income areas, even in the short run.

bluGill 7y ago

High density being expensive and getting those rents shows there is demand: we should be building more of it to fill demand, and in turn bring prices down. In less dense areas the car shines above anything else. However in those dense areas where people have shown they want to live cars are too big and we need something else.

maxsilver 7y ago
> we should be building more of it to fill demand, and in turn bring prices down. That's not really how construction works in the US. All construction generates higher prices than existed before (this is explicit intentional policy, at both the local, state, and federal level). There is no such thing as new housing in the US that lowers property values, therefore there is no such thing as a new building that lowers "prices". No one does this (except perhaps, non-profits and such). And even if you wanted to anyway, no bank would ever finance it.
- bluGill 7y ago
  That is correct only to the first order. New construction is always higher priced and luxury. However the new construction in turns pulls someone out of some older place elsewhere which then goes down a little in value and becomes more affordable. The best time to build affordable housing is 20 years ago, the second best time is now.
- surrealize 7y ago
  Of course increasing supply lowers the equilibrium price, relative to the case where supply doesn't increase. https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1325&context=up_workingpapers https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1325... > This suggests that new construction reduces demand and loosens the housing market in lowand middle-income areas, even in the short run.