4 ms·

I probably would be a NIMBY if I owned property myself. Unfortunately I'm not in that position. Higher density could help me become an owner (and hence a NIMBY)

I probably would be a NIMBY if I owned property myself. Unfortunately I'm not in that position. Higher density could help me become an owner (and hence a NIMBY), but it's not even clear that it will. The reason I say that is because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand NYC built all the housing they possibly can, and yet I personally still could never afford to own property there. Same with LA. I'm also opposed to the building of more roads. Not because (as you might claim) I own existing roads and have a vested interest, but because I know that more roads simply means more traffic. The places that have the most roads also have the worst traffic. I wish it were different.

0xB31B1B 5y ago
it is different, consumption of road space (road use is free, or at least priced in time instead of money, many routes to get to a destination). Urban land has an enormous cost priced in dollars, and as we practice land ownership in the west, it involves the monopoly right of a fixed space. One can own multiple pieces of property simultaneously, but one cannot take up multiple spaces in traffic. Entirely different concepts and mechanisms.
space_fountain 5y ago
Luckily for you there isn't much support for the idea of induced demand in housing. It's a thing in roads, but not in literally everything and definitely doesn't seem to be in housing. Also while NYC certainly has built tons of housing in the past, it too has been festering anti growth elements and literally the densest us city is only the 20th world wide.
TedShiller 5y ago
It is not different with housing, unfortunately. Singapore, Shanghai, NYC, SF, LA, won't get cheaper if they build more housing. Nevertheless, I completely hope that I'm totally wrong on everything I said. It would mean that I might finally be able to afford to buy a house in those places.
- space_fountain 5y ago
  Why do you believe that? There are literally tons of studies showing more housing reduces prices and basically none showing increased prices. Look I think you are right that SF will never be as cheap as rural Ohio or something, but the idea that building housing will make the problem worse seems just wrong.

0xB31B1B 5y ago

it is different, consumption of road space (road use is free, or at least priced in time instead of money, many routes to get to a destination). Urban land has an enormous cost priced in dollars, and as we practice land ownership in the west, it involves the monopoly right of a fixed space. One can own multiple pieces of property simultaneously, but one cannot take up multiple spaces in traffic. Entirely different concepts and mechanisms.

space_fountain 5y ago

Luckily for you there isn't much support for the idea of induced demand in housing. It's a thing in roads, but not in literally everything and definitely doesn't seem to be in housing. Also while NYC certainly has built tons of housing in the past, it too has been festering anti growth elements and literally the densest us city is only the 20th world wide.

TedShiller 5y ago

It is not different with housing, unfortunately. Singapore, Shanghai, NYC, SF, LA, won't get cheaper if they build more housing. Nevertheless, I completely hope that I'm totally wrong on everything I said. It would mean that I might finally be able to afford to buy a house in those places.

space_fountain 5y ago
Why do you believe that? There are literally tons of studies showing more housing reduces prices and basically none showing increased prices. Look I think you are right that SF will never be as cheap as rural Ohio or something, but the idea that building housing will make the problem worse seems just wrong.