4 ms·

> If the real problem was always zoning, wouldn't dense cities like NYC and Shanghai be cheaper than average, not way over average? It's not about supply by it

> If the real problem was always zoning, wouldn't dense cities like NYC and Shanghai be cheaper than average, not way over average? It's not about supply by itself, it's supply vs demand. Big cities have big populations and economies, which means a lot of demand. But as far as zoning goes, note that like other metros, NYC has actually effectively downzoned areas over time; in fact, a huge proportion of buildings there would now be illegal due to different types of density restrictions: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/19/upshot/forty-percent-of-manhattans-buildings-could-not-be-built-today.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/19/upshot/forty-... A lot of NIMBY's tend to go, "well, there's still some areas where it's possible to build more, so there's no real issue there". This is approximately like restricting car manufacturing to one state, and then when car prices go through the roof, saying "well, there's still more land to build car factories there, so I don't see the problem, it couldn't possibly be this rule".

mapme 5y ago
It’s wild that manhattans population was ~2.5 million in 1910 and is now only ~1.6 million.
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  Doesn't it make sense though? In 1910, manhattan was expensive but a lot of people still lived/worked there. The apartments would be crazily subdivided so you could fit 10 people into a 3 or even 2 bedroom. Now they are all owned by wallstreet bankers with small families, and they spend much of their time somewhere else (they might not even list their manhattan apartment as their "main domicile" during the census).
  - bobthepanda 5y ago
    yeah, the two big changes are * multigenerational to nuclear households * decline in number of kids This pattern of living is still common to a lesser degree in outer-borough immigrant neighborhoods, which is why they were so hard hit during NYC's massive COVID wave.
  - TulliusCicero 5y ago
    Demand for Manhattan apartments is crazy high, it's just illegal for taller ones to be built to meet demand most of the time. People think Manhattan is mostly skyscrapers, but the reality is very different. Only a small portion of the land has high rises on it, just glance at Google Maps with 3D view on.
    - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
      Manhattan is mostly multi level apartment buildings, at least 4 stories or so. I don't know why your point would contradict mine. Yes, units in the taller skyscrapers are more expensive and sell for tens of millions of dollars, if not more. I wonder how NYC would do with cheap 30 story Chinese concrete apartment blocks? (30 stories, because any taller requires steel, at least with construction practices that use cheap migrant labor).
seanmcdirmid 5y ago
NYC housing has pushed outwards into Queens and the Bronx, manhattan is less populated these days because it lacks full time residents (the apartments are still sold, but their owners list upstate/Connecticut/long island properties as their permanent addresses, and they have many less occupants in them even when full, not like the turn of the century when more than a few people were crammed into small apartments). > A lot of NIMBY's tend to go, "well, there's still some areas where it's possible to build more, so there's no real issue there". This is approximately like restricting car manufacturing to one state, and then when car prices go through the roof, saying "well, there's still more land to build car factories there, so I don't see the problem, it couldn't possibly be this rule". My only point was that making cities more dense seems to make them more desirable, causing more people to want to live there. Yes density is a great thing! But it doesn't solve affordability problems on its own. Can you imagine if San Francisco (6.2k/sqm) had NYC-level density (27k/sqm), would it be more or less affordable? I'm going to go with the less. What is really holding us back are the American libertarians who are afraid of a public housing system like the one in Singapore.
- bobthepanda 5y ago
  > My only point was that making cities more dense seems to make them more desirable, causing more people to want to live there. Increasing housing in this manner would probably boost land prices, but over a greater number of units, so result in overall decrease in housing cost. NYC is a bit of a weird spot in real estate, in that having a Manhattan address (and probably a Williamsburg or Bushwick address to a lesser degree these days) is a status symbol for foreigners, in the same way that London or Paris might be. Most American cities do not have this kind of cachet and so at some point prices will fall if you build enough. The problem is really that housing production would have to increase by an incredible amount to get to affordable. To use the example of Tokyo as affordable, let's look at comparative housing production statistics. * The 23 special wards of Tokyo, 8.9M people, built 110,000 new homes that year. * The entire country of England, population 53M, built 115,000 homes a year. * The metropolitan area of NY, population 20.3M, approved 27,000 units in 2012, but approvals != actual construction. https://nextcity.org/urbanist-news/entry/tokyo-housing-high-rise-cost-new-york-housing https://nextcity.org/urbanist-news/entry/tokyo-housing-high-...

mapme 5y ago

It’s wild that manhattans population was ~2.5 million in 1910 and is now only ~1.6 million.

seanmcdirmid 5y ago
Doesn't it make sense though? In 1910, manhattan was expensive but a lot of people still lived/worked there. The apartments would be crazily subdivided so you could fit 10 people into a 3 or even 2 bedroom. Now they are all owned by wallstreet bankers with small families, and they spend much of their time somewhere else (they might not even list their manhattan apartment as their "main domicile" during the census).
- bobthepanda 5y ago
  yeah, the two big changes are * multigenerational to nuclear households * decline in number of kids This pattern of living is still common to a lesser degree in outer-borough immigrant neighborhoods, which is why they were so hard hit during NYC's massive COVID wave.
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  Demand for Manhattan apartments is crazy high, it's just illegal for taller ones to be built to meet demand most of the time. People think Manhattan is mostly skyscrapers, but the reality is very different. Only a small portion of the land has high rises on it, just glance at Google Maps with 3D view on.
  - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    Manhattan is mostly multi level apartment buildings, at least 4 stories or so. I don't know why your point would contradict mine. Yes, units in the taller skyscrapers are more expensive and sell for tens of millions of dollars, if not more. I wonder how NYC would do with cheap 30 story Chinese concrete apartment blocks? (30 stories, because any taller requires steel, at least with construction practices that use cheap migrant labor).

seanmcdirmid 5y ago

NYC housing has pushed outwards into Queens and the Bronx, manhattan is less populated these days because it lacks full time residents (the apartments are still sold, but their owners list upstate/Connecticut/long island properties as their permanent addresses, and they have many less occupants in them even when full, not like the turn of the century when more than a few people were crammed into small apartments). > A lot of NIMBY's tend to go, "well, there's still some areas where it's possible to build more, so there's no real issue there". This is approximately like restricting car manufacturing to one state, and then when car prices go through the roof, saying "well, there's still more land to build car factories there, so I don't see the problem, it couldn't possibly be this rule". My only point was that making cities more dense seems to make them more desirable, causing more people to want to live there. Yes density is a great thing! But it doesn't solve affordability problems on its own. Can you imagine if San Francisco (6.2k/sqm) had NYC-level density (27k/sqm), would it be more or less affordable? I'm going to go with the less. What is really holding us back are the American libertarians who are afraid of a public housing system like the one in Singapore.

bobthepanda 5y ago
> My only point was that making cities more dense seems to make them more desirable, causing more people to want to live there. Increasing housing in this manner would probably boost land prices, but over a greater number of units, so result in overall decrease in housing cost. NYC is a bit of a weird spot in real estate, in that having a Manhattan address (and probably a Williamsburg or Bushwick address to a lesser degree these days) is a status symbol for foreigners, in the same way that London or Paris might be. Most American cities do not have this kind of cachet and so at some point prices will fall if you build enough. The problem is really that housing production would have to increase by an incredible amount to get to affordable. To use the example of Tokyo as affordable, let's look at comparative housing production statistics. * The 23 special wards of Tokyo, 8.9M people, built 110,000 new homes that year. * The entire country of England, population 53M, built 115,000 homes a year. * The metropolitan area of NY, population 20.3M, approved 27,000 units in 2012, but approvals != actual construction. https://nextcity.org/urbanist-news/entry/tokyo-housing-high-rise-cost-new-york-housing https://nextcity.org/urbanist-news/entry/tokyo-housing-high-...