10 ms·

I know a few areas that were gentrified in earlier times and ended up with things more suited for residents of a certain class than commuters. I also know of ot

by yakak 4y ago

I know a few areas that were gentrified in earlier times and ended up with things more suited for residents of a certain class than commuters. I also know of other downtown locations that became terrible to live in because a grocery store was uneconomical use of space. I'd generally say that if they can fill it to a good density it can have a good local market compared to suburbs with poor density.

betwixthewires 4y ago
But how do you fill it to a good density when the cost to live there is higher and there's no need to live there to earn a living anymore?
- yakak 4y ago
  People I knew in the conversion of industrial areas to unaffordable lofts did not have commuter jobs, maybe photographers, who combined their studio and home, etc, until they were priced out by trust fund children, possibly in disguise as boutique owners and entrepreneurs, then there are retirees looking for a certain feel and walkable community, etc. At each stage the surrounding retail and gastronomy changed towards something that could support higher floor cost.
- mushbino 4y ago
  People, culture, and amenities attract people. Maybe lowering prices would help too. Artists, galleries, restaurants, theaters are all attracted by dense areas with prices that are attractive. Cities can also step up to help with incentives instead of completely leaving it up to the free market to sort out.
  - betwixthewires 4y ago
    But those people and culture and amenities are just other people, and when the core economic engine of the city is gone, those people leave too. Imagine you're a Jamaican halal chicken shop owner and your core business is professional office workers walking by on the way home from work and stopping in for a bite. When that office worker is no longer there because he can make the same salary and cut his expenses in half by moving 1000 miles away, you're going to go out of business. Maybe you move 1000 miles away also so that you can afford your rent. This is how the cascade happens. Theaters and museums and all those aren't why cities have a lot of people, those exist in cities because that's where the people are. when people become more spread out, those things will follow suit.
    - lmm 4y ago
      The economy is supposed to be about enhancing other people's lives, not vice versa. Living in a city where you can walk down the road to get a chicken sandwich is a big win over living in a suburb where you have to drive everywhere. That's still true if you're working remotely.
      - MichaelZuo 4y ago
        Right but the vast majority of folks won’t pay more to live in a similarly sized apartment as a house in suburbia to experience that. They will spend less money on a nice house in suburbia unless they had no other choice. If the big apartment were a fraction of the price of the house in suburbia, maybe. But it costs way too much to build tall buildings for that to ever be feasible. Asian and European cities work because everyone expects a smaller amount of living space. And the large houses in suburbia are simply priced out of reach for 95%+ of the population.
        kibwen 4y ago
        This has it the wrong way around. The price of infrastructure means that dense places cost less to upkeep than sparse places. The reason that cities cost more than the suburbs is 1) that there's more demand for cities, and 2) in the US, taxes paid by city-dwellers subsidize the expensive suburban infrastructure.
        MichaelZuo 4y ago
        No, all in construction costs for a typical 40 story high rise divided by number of saleable square feet equate to much higher cost per square feet than the average suburban housing development. I’ve seen very credible figures that indicates it’s at least a 2x multiple even for a barebones apartment building with no amenities at all And that’s before the expensive taxes, permits, etc., that cities charge on top for downtown or high rise construction, which as you say partially subsidizes suburbia. So in reality it’s more around triple the cost per square foot in a North American city. The only reason apartments bigger than a shoebox are affordable at all is because land acquisition costs when divided by hundreds of units is obviously far lower than for even the narrowest cookie cutter tract.
- lmm 4y ago
  The density itself makes it worth paying a premium to live there. Just being able to not own a car is a huge saving that can go straight into rent, and even if it costs more the quality of life benefits are worth it. And hell, worst case land prices and rents in the city center come down a bit, that's not really a problem.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    Many/most people living in a lot of cities still own cars so that they can easily travel outside the city. It's a perfectly valid preference to live in the denser part of a city but it is a preference and not an absolute.
    - lmm 4y ago
      Sure, but not everyone has to prefer that for there to be enough demand to keep prices up.

by yakak 4y ago

betwixthewires 4y ago

But how do you fill it to a good density when the cost to live there is higher and there's no need to live there to earn a living anymore?

yakak 4y ago
People I knew in the conversion of industrial areas to unaffordable lofts did not have commuter jobs, maybe photographers, who combined their studio and home, etc, until they were priced out by trust fund children, possibly in disguise as boutique owners and entrepreneurs, then there are retirees looking for a certain feel and walkable community, etc. At each stage the surrounding retail and gastronomy changed towards something that could support higher floor cost.
mushbino 4y ago
People, culture, and amenities attract people. Maybe lowering prices would help too. Artists, galleries, restaurants, theaters are all attracted by dense areas with prices that are attractive. Cities can also step up to help with incentives instead of completely leaving it up to the free market to sort out.
- betwixthewires 4y ago
  But those people and culture and amenities are just other people, and when the core economic engine of the city is gone, those people leave too. Imagine you're a Jamaican halal chicken shop owner and your core business is professional office workers walking by on the way home from work and stopping in for a bite. When that office worker is no longer there because he can make the same salary and cut his expenses in half by moving 1000 miles away, you're going to go out of business. Maybe you move 1000 miles away also so that you can afford your rent. This is how the cascade happens. Theaters and museums and all those aren't why cities have a lot of people, those exist in cities because that's where the people are. when people become more spread out, those things will follow suit.
  - lmm 4y ago
    The economy is supposed to be about enhancing other people's lives, not vice versa. Living in a city where you can walk down the road to get a chicken sandwich is a big win over living in a suburb where you have to drive everywhere. That's still true if you're working remotely.
    - MichaelZuo 4y ago
      Right but the vast majority of folks won’t pay more to live in a similarly sized apartment as a house in suburbia to experience that. They will spend less money on a nice house in suburbia unless they had no other choice. If the big apartment were a fraction of the price of the house in suburbia, maybe. But it costs way too much to build tall buildings for that to ever be feasible. Asian and European cities work because everyone expects a smaller amount of living space. And the large houses in suburbia are simply priced out of reach for 95%+ of the population.
      - kibwen 4y ago
        This has it the wrong way around. The price of infrastructure means that dense places cost less to upkeep than sparse places. The reason that cities cost more than the suburbs is 1) that there's more demand for cities, and 2) in the US, taxes paid by city-dwellers subsidize the expensive suburban infrastructure.
        MichaelZuo 4y ago
        No, all in construction costs for a typical 40 story high rise divided by number of saleable square feet equate to much higher cost per square feet than the average suburban housing development. I’ve seen very credible figures that indicates it’s at least a 2x multiple even for a barebones apartment building with no amenities at all And that’s before the expensive taxes, permits, etc., that cities charge on top for downtown or high rise construction, which as you say partially subsidizes suburbia. So in reality it’s more around triple the cost per square foot in a North American city. The only reason apartments bigger than a shoebox are affordable at all is because land acquisition costs when divided by hundreds of units is obviously far lower than for even the narrowest cookie cutter tract.
lmm 4y ago
The density itself makes it worth paying a premium to live there. Just being able to not own a car is a huge saving that can go straight into rent, and even if it costs more the quality of life benefits are worth it. And hell, worst case land prices and rents in the city center come down a bit, that's not really a problem.
- ghaff 4y ago
  Many/most people living in a lot of cities still own cars so that they can easily travel outside the city. It's a perfectly valid preference to live in the denser part of a city but it is a preference and not an absolute.
  - lmm 4y ago
    Sure, but not everyone has to prefer that for there to be enough demand to keep prices up.