4 ms·

When you make a place attractive to live in, people will want to move there and costs will rise. You can increase supply but that still leads to more costs, you

When you make a place attractive to live in, people will want to move there and costs will rise. You can increase supply but that still leads to more costs, you're just shifting them from housing to transport/shared services/groceries/etc. There are some kinds of tax breaks and protections that can help reduce the harm of gentrification by helping people who own their home to avoid losing it.

ng12 6y ago
> You can increase supply but that still leads to more costs, you're just shifting them from housing to transport/shared services/groceries/etc. I'm not totally convinced. If you can afford rent in NYC everything else is actually pretty affordable. An unlimited metro card is much cheaper than owning a car (plus insurance, gas, maintenance). Cheap food is widely available and there's a plethora of services available that don't exist in rural areas.
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  https://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/dallas-tx/new-york-ny/70000 https://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/dallas-tx/new-york... Food is 17% more expensive. It's harder to get delivery trucks through, more trucks have to get to the city, fuel is more expensive, etc. Sure a metro card is cheaper in terms of direct cost but you've sacrificed commute time and time really is money. If it takes you an extra 30 minutes to commute home via metro, that's less time to be with your kids or prepare (cheap) food.
jeffbee 6y ago
> increase supply but that still leads to more costs More absolute costs but with a tendency to amortize to a lower cost per person or per dwelling. If you have to dig up the street to run a water pipe to a place, it costs exactly the same whether there's one house or two houses or a 4-plex at that place.
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  > it costs exactly the same whether there's one house or two houses or a 4-plex at that place. In your specific example: + More cars parked on the street + More existing pipes under the asphalt to avoid or repair if you damage + More traffic on the street so you have to work more condensed hours and limit the time the street can be closed + Typically more density means less open room for moving machinery/workers/equipment Ripping out a street and running a new main is endlessly easier in the middle of a small town than it is in downtown NYC, from getting the equipment in place to doing it safely.
  - jeffbee 6y ago
    Yes, but given _any_ initial density it is _always_ more cost effective to run new service to a more-dense new development, than to a less-dense one.
    - vorpalhex 6y ago
      Any service from a water main to a bus line has a capacity, and the cost for increasing capacity is not always a linear function.

ng12 6y ago

> You can increase supply but that still leads to more costs, you're just shifting them from housing to transport/shared services/groceries/etc. I'm not totally convinced. If you can afford rent in NYC everything else is actually pretty affordable. An unlimited metro card is much cheaper than owning a car (plus insurance, gas, maintenance). Cheap food is widely available and there's a plethora of services available that don't exist in rural areas.

vorpalhex 6y ago
https://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/dallas-tx/new-york-ny/70000 https://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/dallas-tx/new-york... Food is 17% more expensive. It's harder to get delivery trucks through, more trucks have to get to the city, fuel is more expensive, etc. Sure a metro card is cheaper in terms of direct cost but you've sacrificed commute time and time really is money. If it takes you an extra 30 minutes to commute home via metro, that's less time to be with your kids or prepare (cheap) food.

jeffbee 6y ago

> increase supply but that still leads to more costs More absolute costs but with a tendency to amortize to a lower cost per person or per dwelling. If you have to dig up the street to run a water pipe to a place, it costs exactly the same whether there's one house or two houses or a 4-plex at that place.

vorpalhex 6y ago
> it costs exactly the same whether there's one house or two houses or a 4-plex at that place. In your specific example: + More cars parked on the street + More existing pipes under the asphalt to avoid or repair if you damage + More traffic on the street so you have to work more condensed hours and limit the time the street can be closed + Typically more density means less open room for moving machinery/workers/equipment Ripping out a street and running a new main is endlessly easier in the middle of a small town than it is in downtown NYC, from getting the equipment in place to doing it safely.
- jeffbee 6y ago
  Yes, but given _any_ initial density it is _always_ more cost effective to run new service to a more-dense new development, than to a less-dense one.
  - vorpalhex 6y ago
    Any service from a water main to a bus line has a capacity, and the cost for increasing capacity is not always a linear function.