6 ms·

You have it almost completely backwards when it comes to the relationship between density and cost. For a fixed number of residents, nothing is more expensive p

You have it almost completely backwards when it comes to the relationship between density and cost. For a fixed number of residents, nothing is more expensive per capita in terms of long-term infrastructure costs than low-density (especially single-family residential) housing[0]. The skyrocketing you speak of may occur when you look at the cost per area, but certainly not per capita, and definitely not per dollar of property tax revenue. Basically the staggering long-term costs of maintaining suburbia infrastructure are so much larger than the property tax revenue from suburbia residents that many cities are doomed to either abandon the efforts to fend off the slow infrastructure decay, or go bankrupt. [0] https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason-your-city-has-no-money https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason...

Retric 6y ago
That’s overly simplified and missing the point. You can buy a 880 home for 90k in Gilroy CA just 52 miles from Stanford. In much of the country you could travel that distance daily, but because the roads are so overcrowded it’s still cheap. I am saying the exact same thing happens just a little bit closer whenever you build higher density without building new infrastructure to support it. Now sure like most things there is a density sweet spot. But nobody is building suburbs because their close to corn fields. It’s still the cities infrastructure that’s driving up land prices around it. Simply because that land happens to be near stuff people want.
- NumberWangMan 6y ago
  You're touching on another important issue. Zoning that mandates homes be built away from jobs and businesses means that more density causes drastic increases in traffic. But allowing mixed use development gives people an option to cut their commutes to almost zero, if they choose, letting the density scale a lot better than if everyone has to drive. Since most modern work is not noisy, polluting industry, the major benefit of separating residences from work has mostly gone away. But we're still suffering the costs of this form of zoning. It would be non-trivial to intentionally come up with a more wasteful way to structure our cities and towns. Another thing to think about is that if we could allow denser, mixed used development in all the suburbs, there wouldn't be so much pressure on housing in the dense urban core of cities. If just 10% of houses in suburbs turned into duplexes, that would mean a 10% increase in housing, and it would be hard to even notice. But again, we also need more intermingling of commerce and residences, to cut down on traffic.
  - andrew_roof 6y ago
    Perhaps bordering on conspiracy, but I wonder how much influence the motoring lobby has on urban design and lackluster public transit investment? With the demise of trams in the 1960s in many places due to lobbying, the General Motors streetcar conspiracy to buy up public transit networks in the United States, and well known connections between motoring lobbying and governments, this wouldn't surprise me. I'm sure there are other vested interests here, but motoring/transit is certainly one that comes to mind.
    - redis_mlc 6y ago
      > wonder how much influence the motoring lobby It actually was a vast, national conspiracy including the oil companies.
  - Retric 6y ago
    You end up with dense urban centers just based on the relative value of commercial vs residential square footage. An office space in NYC is often above 20/sf/month that’s the equivalent of renting a 500sf apartment at over 10,000$/month. The only way to get true mixed use zoning in ultra dense urban areas is to mandate it. Consider from a companies perspective they want easy access to employees and other business. The dense urban core offers both, so many companies are willing to pay a premium.
- nradov 6y ago
  Is that a typo? I'm pretty sure you can't buy a livable home or even a buildable plot for $90k anywhere in Gilroy.
  - jjav 6y ago
    It is a real property, but misleading. It is a mobile home, so the 90K price does not include any land ownership. One must rent that separately ($760/month). https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/8282-Murray-Ave-Spc-117_Gilroy_CA_95020_M94356-36850?view=qv https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/8282-Murra...
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- jjav 6y ago
  > You can buy a 880 home for 90k in Gilroy CA just 52 miles from Stanford. That's a mobile home, which does not include any land, that's a separate rent. https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/Gilroy_CA/price-na-100000 https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/Gilroy_CA/... (Add: The space rent is an additional $760/month and it is a 55+ park.)
  - Retric 6y ago
    That’s roughly equivalent to a condo fee in many apartment buildings. But, I should have included it to be clear.
souprock 6y ago
Nobody is doing anything out in suburbia like: Boston's Big Dig ($20,000,000,000) Boston's Deer Island sewage plant ($3,800,000,000) London's Crossrail (£20,000,000,000) San Francisco's Central Subway ($1,600,000,000) Seattle's SR 99 tunnel ($3,300,000,000) New York's Second Avenue Subway ($20,000,000,000) Checking the first against population, that comes to $28,877 per person. This is hardly the only bit of infrastructure. Residents also expect water, sewage, and local roads.
- NumberWangMan 6y ago
  You can both be right! Many massive transportation projects absolutely a waste of money when you weigh the costs and benefits. We shouldn't do those. But that doesn't mean that spending so much money on sprawling infrastructure to support suburbs the way we do makes sense either, does it?
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  The Big Dig was for suburbanites to drive into the city, and anyway was $1000/person which is pretty darn cheap over 20+years of use.
  - Retric 6y ago
    Look at a map of the big dig, it’s just through the very center of the city. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig#/media/File:Boston_Highway_System_Pre_Post_Big_Dig.gif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig#/media/File:Boston_Hig... So, it doesn’t matter if suburbanites where living in 40 story apartment buildings or single family homes as long as they where past the where the big dig ended it’s all the same traffic in the city center.
newyankee 6y ago
Also to add construction cost does not increase significantly by height up to 6 stories and only increases slightly more till 12 stories. One does not need super skyscrapers in USA, but definitely needs housing units like Netherlands but with 4 to 6 stories of residential apartments and walkable neighborhoods. Unfortunately American culture will not permit this.

Retric 6y ago

That’s overly simplified and missing the point. You can buy a 880 home for 90k in Gilroy CA just 52 miles from Stanford. In much of the country you could travel that distance daily, but because the roads are so overcrowded it’s still cheap. I am saying the exact same thing happens just a little bit closer whenever you build higher density without building new infrastructure to support it. Now sure like most things there is a density sweet spot. But nobody is building suburbs because their close to corn fields. It’s still the cities infrastructure that’s driving up land prices around it. Simply because that land happens to be near stuff people want.

NumberWangMan 6y ago
You're touching on another important issue. Zoning that mandates homes be built away from jobs and businesses means that more density causes drastic increases in traffic. But allowing mixed use development gives people an option to cut their commutes to almost zero, if they choose, letting the density scale a lot better than if everyone has to drive. Since most modern work is not noisy, polluting industry, the major benefit of separating residences from work has mostly gone away. But we're still suffering the costs of this form of zoning. It would be non-trivial to intentionally come up with a more wasteful way to structure our cities and towns. Another thing to think about is that if we could allow denser, mixed used development in all the suburbs, there wouldn't be so much pressure on housing in the dense urban core of cities. If just 10% of houses in suburbs turned into duplexes, that would mean a 10% increase in housing, and it would be hard to even notice. But again, we also need more intermingling of commerce and residences, to cut down on traffic.
- andrew_roof 6y ago
  Perhaps bordering on conspiracy, but I wonder how much influence the motoring lobby has on urban design and lackluster public transit investment? With the demise of trams in the 1960s in many places due to lobbying, the General Motors streetcar conspiracy to buy up public transit networks in the United States, and well known connections between motoring lobbying and governments, this wouldn't surprise me. I'm sure there are other vested interests here, but motoring/transit is certainly one that comes to mind.
  - redis_mlc 6y ago
    > wonder how much influence the motoring lobby It actually was a vast, national conspiracy including the oil companies.
- Retric 6y ago
  You end up with dense urban centers just based on the relative value of commercial vs residential square footage. An office space in NYC is often above 20/sf/month that’s the equivalent of renting a 500sf apartment at over 10,000$/month. The only way to get true mixed use zoning in ultra dense urban areas is to mandate it. Consider from a companies perspective they want easy access to employees and other business. The dense urban core offers both, so many companies are willing to pay a premium.
nradov 6y ago
Is that a typo? I'm pretty sure you can't buy a livable home or even a buildable plot for $90k anywhere in Gilroy.
- jjav 6y ago
  It is a real property, but misleading. It is a mobile home, so the 90K price does not include any land ownership. One must rent that separately ($760/month). https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/8282-Murray-Ave-Spc-117_Gilroy_CA_95020_M94356-36850?view=qv https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/8282-Murra...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
jjav 6y ago
> You can buy a 880 home for 90k in Gilroy CA just 52 miles from Stanford. That's a mobile home, which does not include any land, that's a separate rent. https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/Gilroy_CA/price-na-100000 https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/Gilroy_CA/... (Add: The space rent is an additional $760/month and it is a 55+ park.)
- Retric 6y ago
  That’s roughly equivalent to a condo fee in many apartment buildings. But, I should have included it to be clear.

souprock 6y ago

Nobody is doing anything out in suburbia like: Boston's Big Dig ($20,000,000,000) Boston's Deer Island sewage plant ($3,800,000,000) London's Crossrail (£20,000,000,000) San Francisco's Central Subway ($1,600,000,000) Seattle's SR 99 tunnel ($3,300,000,000) New York's Second Avenue Subway ($20,000,000,000) Checking the first against population, that comes to $28,877 per person. This is hardly the only bit of infrastructure. Residents also expect water, sewage, and local roads.

NumberWangMan 6y ago
You can both be right! Many massive transportation projects absolutely a waste of money when you weigh the costs and benefits. We shouldn't do those. But that doesn't mean that spending so much money on sprawling infrastructure to support suburbs the way we do makes sense either, does it?
srtjstjsj 6y ago
The Big Dig was for suburbanites to drive into the city, and anyway was $1000/person which is pretty darn cheap over 20+years of use.
- Retric 6y ago
  Look at a map of the big dig, it’s just through the very center of the city. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig#/media/File:Boston_Highway_System_Pre_Post_Big_Dig.gif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig#/media/File:Boston_Hig... So, it doesn’t matter if suburbanites where living in 40 story apartment buildings or single family homes as long as they where past the where the big dig ended it’s all the same traffic in the city center.

newyankee 6y ago

Also to add construction cost does not increase significantly by height up to 6 stories and only increases slightly more till 12 stories. One does not need super skyscrapers in USA, but definitely needs housing units like Netherlands but with 4 to 6 stories of residential apartments and walkable neighborhoods. Unfortunately American culture will not permit this.