4 ms·

> The article covers this. Empirical studies suggest this effect does not occur. That study doesn't deal with long-term neighborhood revitalizations. It's dea

by bnralt 6y ago

> The article covers this. Empirical studies suggest this effect does not occur. That study doesn't deal with long-term neighborhood revitalizations. It's dealing with new developments in New York generally, though if you read the study it still mentions that the amenity effect does occur and could increase rents. It says that this is offset by increased supply, but that's looking at things in aggregate. The increased demand from a few new restaurants in a already developed area isn't going to come close to the transformation of a burned out crime ridden area into a prosperous one. Anytime spent in gentrifying neighborhoods (or time spent looking at how cities have been trying to develop these) will show you that, unsurprisingly, the impact is much higher there.

graeme 6y ago
That’s fair, I gave an upvote to your earlier comment. Though at that point what’s the policy: suppress housing supply and keep areas burnt out and crime ridden to deter outsiders? Not so great for quality of life or the tax base I’m not American so I forget how stark things are there. We have gentrification in Canada and it happens even without neighbourhood revitalization. People will move into an area and raise prices as long as it’s near a transport line. Generally every place is safe enough to do so or becomes safer over time. I’m assuming this does happen somewhat in america even without redevelopment. Are there places that with no construction in popular urban areas where prices truly don’t rise?
- Kalium 6y ago
  Yes, but they're only places where people don't want to move into given a choice. Generally such places get worse for the residents over time, eventually becoming slums.
- bnralt 6y ago
  > Are there places that with no construction in popular urban areas where prices truly don’t rise? As the other comment suggested, there are pretty run down areas that tend to not increase as much or even decrease (in extreme cases). Revitalized areas are going to tend to be more expensive than non-revitalized areas. You'll see a lot of this if you live in a city and follow redevelopment efforts and which neighborhoods change over time (IE, neighborhood A, B, and C are poor, C gets a big development push, C becomes more expensive than A and B). Also worth noting that amenities don't simply increase or decrease, but they shift. Supermarkets from the same chain in the same city can have cheaper, lower quality food in poorer areas and more expensive, higher quality food in wealthier neighborhoods. > Though at that point what’s the policy: suppress housing supply and keep areas burnt out and crime ridden to deter outsiders? Not so great for quality of life or the tax base It depends on your goals. I'm generally in favor of development, but others have goals that are different from my own. There are long time residents that feel that the disruptions these changes bring outweigh the good. Even things that get overlooked like there being fewer local cheap eateries because of increasing commercial rent, or more police attention driving away crime (a good thing) but also street vendors, or the percentage of the people you know and are able to talk to greatly decreasing (not uncommon in ethnic enclaves).

by bnralt 6y ago

graeme 6y ago

That’s fair, I gave an upvote to your earlier comment. Though at that point what’s the policy: suppress housing supply and keep areas burnt out and crime ridden to deter outsiders? Not so great for quality of life or the tax base I’m not American so I forget how stark things are there. We have gentrification in Canada and it happens even without neighbourhood revitalization. People will move into an area and raise prices as long as it’s near a transport line. Generally every place is safe enough to do so or becomes safer over time. I’m assuming this does happen somewhat in america even without redevelopment. Are there places that with no construction in popular urban areas where prices truly don’t rise?

Kalium 6y ago
Yes, but they're only places where people don't want to move into given a choice. Generally such places get worse for the residents over time, eventually becoming slums.
bnralt 6y ago
> Are there places that with no construction in popular urban areas where prices truly don’t rise? As the other comment suggested, there are pretty run down areas that tend to not increase as much or even decrease (in extreme cases). Revitalized areas are going to tend to be more expensive than non-revitalized areas. You'll see a lot of this if you live in a city and follow redevelopment efforts and which neighborhoods change over time (IE, neighborhood A, B, and C are poor, C gets a big development push, C becomes more expensive than A and B). Also worth noting that amenities don't simply increase or decrease, but they shift. Supermarkets from the same chain in the same city can have cheaper, lower quality food in poorer areas and more expensive, higher quality food in wealthier neighborhoods. > Though at that point what’s the policy: suppress housing supply and keep areas burnt out and crime ridden to deter outsiders? Not so great for quality of life or the tax base It depends on your goals. I'm generally in favor of development, but others have goals that are different from my own. There are long time residents that feel that the disruptions these changes bring outweigh the good. Even things that get overlooked like there being fewer local cheap eateries because of increasing commercial rent, or more police attention driving away crime (a good thing) but also street vendors, or the percentage of the people you know and are able to talk to greatly decreasing (not uncommon in ethnic enclaves).