3 ms·

Those traditional black neighborhoods were bought up, demolished and turned into luxury apartments at insane prices. At one point I was on the east side and sa

Those traditional black neighborhoods were bought up, demolished and turned into luxury apartments at insane prices. At one point I was on the east side and saw an old black woman rocking on her front porch in front of a 70's shotgun shack, next to an ugly post-modern 2 story house with a lambo and a tesla sitting outside of it. I don't think increasing housing density is the answer. We really don't need more luxury apartments or million dollar condos.

adjkant 6y ago
> I don't think increasing housing density is the answer. We really don't need more luxury apartments or million dollar condos. This was my first natural instinct maybe 5 years ago, but seeing the differences in gentrification stories has made it clear it's far worse to keep density the same. If nothing in the city changes and rich people decide they want to flock to your city (in this case, tech workers), it's a given that the existing poorer people will be forced out and prices will increase. Measures like rent control only slow the process, holding back a rising tide. I've seen this personally in my backyard in Brooklyn. What has happened there is that massive luxury towers have been built along a busy street (central to transit but still not "neighborhoody"). While rents have still gone up, it seems this real estate and luxury market has helped stave off the insane hikes SF has seen, for example. Million dollar condos, probably not a good idea. But luxury buildings with high density turn into normal real estate in 20 years, and that top of the market ease keeps a lot of that tech money out of existing minority and poor neighborhoods. The question for Austin if they accept that is where to put them. Finding a balanced place would be key here IMO.
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  What about the people who own houses? For all their faults, those houses were affordable and many residents owned them. Now they've been forced out by increased property taxes. Those luxury buildings are going exclusively into poor neighborhoods because they have the cheapest land and least restrictions.
  - adjkant 6y ago
    I don't see where I say anything about those, you might be assuming things here. The whole point is to maintain many of those houses affordability and current residents. If done right, property taxes should not increase significantly, and the local government has the levers to ensure that if they make it a priority. > Those luxury buildings are going exclusively into poor neighborhoods because they have the cheapest land and least restrictions. That sounds like what the cities should precisely fix. Use zoning and legislation to herd these buildings into more desirable places. Real estate will still come and build. Many cities have done this before, this is very much possible. If not private, then we get back to the idea of public housing being built. This is much more of a political longshot, but I think it would actually be quite interesting to see public housing at the top of the market. "Affordable housing" approaches are a bandaid on the issue. By the city building the luxury buildings themselves, they can select the exact places they want them instead of just generally herding.
    - PeterisP 6y ago
      Cities generally want poor neigbourhoods to get developed and upgraded; if a poor neighbourhood becomes a rich neighbourhood, that's a win for the city, no matter if it's populated by the same or different inhabitants. Cities can focus and redirect development in various ways, but they are explicitly redirecting that development to the poor neighbourhoods because they don't want these neighbourhoods to stay poor.
    - hindsightbias 6y ago
      For many in SF, they should imagine a Fillmore district with ~3000 more Victorians. Because that's what got bulldozed by enlightenment. https://hoodline.com/2016/01/how-urban-renewal-destroyed-the-fillmore-in-order-to-save-it/ https://hoodline.com/2016/01/how-urban-renewal-destroyed-the...
      - nate_meurer 6y ago
        This is a really good point. Urban redevelopment can go awry and lead to reduced density if not planned well.
Gimpei 6y ago
When the population of a city suddenly jumps, increasing density is the ONLY answer. Without extra housing, where do you think all those extra people will live? In the apartments of current residents of course. This is not a view held solely by freemarket enthusiast or "neoliberals" or whatever. Even the DSA understands this. Their only disagreement is that they think the government should be the ones building the housing. I can't get my head around the prevalence of this anti-density view. It's the climate denialism of the left.
dodobirdlord 6y ago
> We really don't need more luxury apartments or million dollar condos. Of course we do. If condos are a million dollars we need more of them so that the price decreases. All housing is "luxury" housing when there isn't enough housing.

adjkant 6y ago

> I don't think increasing housing density is the answer. We really don't need more luxury apartments or million dollar condos. This was my first natural instinct maybe 5 years ago, but seeing the differences in gentrification stories has made it clear it's far worse to keep density the same. If nothing in the city changes and rich people decide they want to flock to your city (in this case, tech workers), it's a given that the existing poorer people will be forced out and prices will increase. Measures like rent control only slow the process, holding back a rising tide. I've seen this personally in my backyard in Brooklyn. What has happened there is that massive luxury towers have been built along a busy street (central to transit but still not "neighborhoody"). While rents have still gone up, it seems this real estate and luxury market has helped stave off the insane hikes SF has seen, for example. Million dollar condos, probably not a good idea. But luxury buildings with high density turn into normal real estate in 20 years, and that top of the market ease keeps a lot of that tech money out of existing minority and poor neighborhoods. The question for Austin if they accept that is where to put them. Finding a balanced place would be key here IMO.

vorpalhex 6y ago
What about the people who own houses? For all their faults, those houses were affordable and many residents owned them. Now they've been forced out by increased property taxes. Those luxury buildings are going exclusively into poor neighborhoods because they have the cheapest land and least restrictions.
- adjkant 6y ago
  I don't see where I say anything about those, you might be assuming things here. The whole point is to maintain many of those houses affordability and current residents. If done right, property taxes should not increase significantly, and the local government has the levers to ensure that if they make it a priority. > Those luxury buildings are going exclusively into poor neighborhoods because they have the cheapest land and least restrictions. That sounds like what the cities should precisely fix. Use zoning and legislation to herd these buildings into more desirable places. Real estate will still come and build. Many cities have done this before, this is very much possible. If not private, then we get back to the idea of public housing being built. This is much more of a political longshot, but I think it would actually be quite interesting to see public housing at the top of the market. "Affordable housing" approaches are a bandaid on the issue. By the city building the luxury buildings themselves, they can select the exact places they want them instead of just generally herding.
  - PeterisP 6y ago
    Cities generally want poor neigbourhoods to get developed and upgraded; if a poor neighbourhood becomes a rich neighbourhood, that's a win for the city, no matter if it's populated by the same or different inhabitants. Cities can focus and redirect development in various ways, but they are explicitly redirecting that development to the poor neighbourhoods because they don't want these neighbourhoods to stay poor.
  - hindsightbias 6y ago
    For many in SF, they should imagine a Fillmore district with ~3000 more Victorians. Because that's what got bulldozed by enlightenment. https://hoodline.com/2016/01/how-urban-renewal-destroyed-the-fillmore-in-order-to-save-it/ https://hoodline.com/2016/01/how-urban-renewal-destroyed-the...
    - nate_meurer 6y ago
      This is a really good point. Urban redevelopment can go awry and lead to reduced density if not planned well.

Gimpei 6y ago

When the population of a city suddenly jumps, increasing density is the ONLY answer. Without extra housing, where do you think all those extra people will live? In the apartments of current residents of course. This is not a view held solely by freemarket enthusiast or "neoliberals" or whatever. Even the DSA understands this. Their only disagreement is that they think the government should be the ones building the housing. I can't get my head around the prevalence of this anti-density view. It's the climate denialism of the left.

dodobirdlord 6y ago

> We really don't need more luxury apartments or million dollar condos. Of course we do. If condos are a million dollars we need more of them so that the price decreases. All housing is "luxury" housing when there isn't enough housing.