3 ms·

Really enjoyable article. There's a thread that's running through it - that places that are rare and desireable are expensive. While this article talks about a

Really enjoyable article. There's a thread that's running through it - that places that are rare and desireable are expensive. While this article talks about a specific kind of place, the pattern is true on general. It's another way to say "supply and demand" Whenever we talk on HN about high rents or house prices, we need to keep this in mind - what makes a place "affordable" is that either not that many other people want to live in a place like it, or that there's a lot of other places like it that exist. I am not implying policy but simply that this is the baseline of all real estate conversation whether we want it to be or not.

wayoutthere 5y ago
Existing homeowners don’t want more “nice” places because it reduces the value of their own homes. When you have more options and less of a perception of scarcity, prices adjust. We really erred in allowing homes to become a vehicle of generational wealth. It creates perverse incentives that prevent cities from growing in ways that serve their populations, and instead only serve people wealthy enough to own property in desirable areas.
- xyzelement 5y ago
  > Existing homeowners don’t want more “nice” places because it reduces the value of their own homes. Well - what does that actually mean? I own a home, and I am not interested in a huge apartment building going up next door (for reasons that aren't property values) but I have no objection to the boundary of my town expanding, or a new town being established a little bit down the road. Yes sure those things will create competition for my home and lower my values in some way but it's just not something I or any other sane homeowner go around thinking about. Nor frankly do I have any influence over that.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - gkop 5y ago
    Huge apartment buildings are “lumpy” and indeed impose externalities locally. I’ve been thinking a lot recently about if we could evenly distribute housing, we could cut through some of the NIMBY opposition. Quad plexes by right [0 for example] makes a lot of sense to me. If you’re OK with a quad plex next door, IMO you’re not part of the problem. Unfortunately, in many places SFH owners will come out in force to fight nearby quad plexes. [0] https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/08/portland-changes-zoning-code-to-allow-duplexes-triplexes-fourplexes-in-areas-previously-reserved-for-single-family-homes.html https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/08/portland-changes...
    - wayoutthere 5y ago
      Car culture makes this difficult. Either you make requirements for on-site parking (more expensive; limits housing styles in residential areas) or the neighborhood becomes a parking lot. Until we have a less car-centric economy, anything more than a duplex will change the character of most residential neighborhoods.
    - xyzelement 5y ago
      >> Quad plexes by right [0 for example] makes a lot of sense to me. If you’re OK with a quad plex next door, IMO you’re not part of the problem I would actually not be OK with quads next door to my house right now, because that is not the type of life I bought into. That may sound crazy so let me explain. For 39 years, I valued density/walkability/convenience of city life, and lived in NYC for most of that time. Now that I have a family, I value certain other things in my life. We specifically chose a town that was "dense enough" but not "too dense" - zoning here allows neither mansions nor quads you're talking about. This has impact on things like - how busy the traffic is on local streets, how much green space there is, etc. Everyone who lives in this town chose it for the same reason. Is not wanting quads next door NIMBYism? I don't think so... When I lived in the city, I wanted more tall buildings next to me, when I live in this town, I want more "this-town-style" homes next to me. Why am I ok with this? Simply because nobody moves to this town unless you want this life. If you want a more dense town with duplexes, triplexes etc, then there are other towns around us that are already zoned this way and people who live there want that. If you want even more density, NYC outer boroughs are just a few miles away. So people have choice.
  - jjav 5y ago
    > it's just not something I or any other sane homeowner go around thinking about. > Nor frankly do I have any influence over that. Very much this. There is no cabal of homeowners opposed to lower prices despite it being often repeated. People buy a house to live in it, they're not paying attention to who is building what. Also nobody is asking homeowners opinion on what build sites get approved or not. If there ever was a proposition related to housing approval it would be in the ballot open to all citizens. Early in the history of the USA only landowners could vote, but it's been a very long time since that's been the case.
    - engineeringwoke 5y ago
      > Very much this. There is no cabal of homeowners opposed to lower prices despite it being often repeated. Then let's raise interest rates to 5% again. It's some coincidence that we "need" zero-interest rate policy and quantitative easing when the boomers are in control... even worse in Japan, which is even more boomer dominated. Sure... just lots of coincidences.

wayoutthere 5y ago

Existing homeowners don’t want more “nice” places because it reduces the value of their own homes. When you have more options and less of a perception of scarcity, prices adjust. We really erred in allowing homes to become a vehicle of generational wealth. It creates perverse incentives that prevent cities from growing in ways that serve their populations, and instead only serve people wealthy enough to own property in desirable areas.

xyzelement 5y ago
> Existing homeowners don’t want more “nice” places because it reduces the value of their own homes. Well - what does that actually mean? I own a home, and I am not interested in a huge apartment building going up next door (for reasons that aren't property values) but I have no objection to the boundary of my town expanding, or a new town being established a little bit down the road. Yes sure those things will create competition for my home and lower my values in some way but it's just not something I or any other sane homeowner go around thinking about. Nor frankly do I have any influence over that.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- gkop 5y ago
  Huge apartment buildings are “lumpy” and indeed impose externalities locally. I’ve been thinking a lot recently about if we could evenly distribute housing, we could cut through some of the NIMBY opposition. Quad plexes by right [0 for example] makes a lot of sense to me. If you’re OK with a quad plex next door, IMO you’re not part of the problem. Unfortunately, in many places SFH owners will come out in force to fight nearby quad plexes. [0] https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/08/portland-changes-zoning-code-to-allow-duplexes-triplexes-fourplexes-in-areas-previously-reserved-for-single-family-homes.html https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/08/portland-changes...
  - wayoutthere 5y ago
    Car culture makes this difficult. Either you make requirements for on-site parking (more expensive; limits housing styles in residential areas) or the neighborhood becomes a parking lot. Until we have a less car-centric economy, anything more than a duplex will change the character of most residential neighborhoods.
  - xyzelement 5y ago
    >> Quad plexes by right [0 for example] makes a lot of sense to me. If you’re OK with a quad plex next door, IMO you’re not part of the problem I would actually not be OK with quads next door to my house right now, because that is not the type of life I bought into. That may sound crazy so let me explain. For 39 years, I valued density/walkability/convenience of city life, and lived in NYC for most of that time. Now that I have a family, I value certain other things in my life. We specifically chose a town that was "dense enough" but not "too dense" - zoning here allows neither mansions nor quads you're talking about. This has impact on things like - how busy the traffic is on local streets, how much green space there is, etc. Everyone who lives in this town chose it for the same reason. Is not wanting quads next door NIMBYism? I don't think so... When I lived in the city, I wanted more tall buildings next to me, when I live in this town, I want more "this-town-style" homes next to me. Why am I ok with this? Simply because nobody moves to this town unless you want this life. If you want a more dense town with duplexes, triplexes etc, then there are other towns around us that are already zoned this way and people who live there want that. If you want even more density, NYC outer boroughs are just a few miles away. So people have choice.
- jjav 5y ago
  > it's just not something I or any other sane homeowner go around thinking about. > Nor frankly do I have any influence over that. Very much this. There is no cabal of homeowners opposed to lower prices despite it being often repeated. People buy a house to live in it, they're not paying attention to who is building what. Also nobody is asking homeowners opinion on what build sites get approved or not. If there ever was a proposition related to housing approval it would be in the ballot open to all citizens. Early in the history of the USA only landowners could vote, but it's been a very long time since that's been the case.
  - engineeringwoke 5y ago
    > Very much this. There is no cabal of homeowners opposed to lower prices despite it being often repeated. Then let's raise interest rates to 5% again. It's some coincidence that we "need" zero-interest rate policy and quantitative easing when the boomers are in control... even worse in Japan, which is even more boomer dominated. Sure... just lots of coincidences.