5 ms·

It’s time to build! Except … housing which can harm my property value

midoridensha 4y ago
Exactly, it should be built in someone else's back yard...
quickthrower2 4y ago
It can increase it too through the zoning changes. 2000 sqm low density residential < 2000 sqm high rise mixed use. The horrible thing is if your neighbour gets rezoned but you don't.
- MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
  This is sort of how it's playing out where I live now. The city has opened up densification in an area that has historically been suburbs. Old bungalows from the 50s/60s are being bought out by developers and turned into mini 6-unit condo buildings. So on one hand, densification, yay! On the other, starter homes suitable for young families are being lost and replaced with smaller apartments suitable for young couples, boo? Any potential family looking to buy those properties is completely outbid by the developer. The sale of 6x units covers the purchase price, tear down and new build with a healthy profit margin, the single family never had a chance. It seems like the middle is falling out of the market and developers seek profit in one of 2 ways. Mcmansion that maximize square footage on a single lot, or condos that maximize the number of small-as-possible units in one building. Then the government wonders why the birthrate is decreasing..
  - quickthrower2 4y ago
    A culture shift where a 2/3 bed appt is seen as OK for families would help. Ideally there would be parks / exercise opportunities nearby.
    - Griffinsauce 4y ago
      "Seen as ok" doesn't change the experience of those living in it.
      - femiagbabiaka 4y ago
        Living in a 3 bedroom apartment is a luxurious experience in much of the world and preferable to homelessness or extreme precarity, imo. 3 bedrooms doesn't have to mean cramped and miserable, it only means that right now because we don't build enough and landlords in cities frequently split up 1 or 2 bedroom apartments into 3 with architectural slight of hand (or just by lying).
      - fstarship 4y ago
        Suburbia is overrated for families “soccer moms” exist because otherwise the experience for kids is being under house arrest until you get your car. In denser countries you can take public transit/ walk yourself to places you wont to go long before you get a drivers license.
      - piva00 4y ago
        What do you mean by the experience of those living in it? The experience of living in a 3-bedroom apartment in the middle of a walkable and lively city is pretty comfortable.
  - jeromegv 4y ago
    6 families live on that land instead of 1. It’s a net benefit for society. You’re talking as if families are being screwed by developers. What I see is 5 mores families getting a home. You can’t have a society where everyone owns a single family home of 4000sqf. Infrastructure and public dollar can’t sustain all the roads, aqueduc, transit, for such low density. If some people have the money for it, fine, but we can’t have the whole population of North America living that way. It was always a lie of the American dream.
    - quantified 4y ago
      No one moves to Atherton to be part of the larger society. They go there to escape it. The American Dream didn't give everyone a 7-bedroom manse. It did give them something they owned. Which now costs like the mansion once did.
  - ajmurmann 4y ago
    The zoning prohibiting the 6-unit housing is in essence limiting the supply to five parties in order to reduce the price to a single party fur buying a bigger home. This is no different than raising taxes and handing the money to people buying single-family homes. The only difference is that the zoning does so indirectly which hides it and makes it politically viable because the masses aren't economically literate enough to understand.
    - quickthrower2 4y ago
      In general, owning in-demand land makes you effectively a mini tax collector.
ipython 4y ago
I’ve watched this happen in my own neighborhood which is trying to build in additional transit options and build high density housing to ease the pressure on prices. We have neighbors vehemently opposed to the transit, convinced that it will bring the “bad elements” to town. Then further fighting the housing complaining of how it would make traffic worse. Note that neither is even close to a problem… I just sit and sigh. Honestly I think these developments will help our values but they don’t see it that way.
- ceeplusplus 4y ago
  In my experience... public transit in areas with poor transit options is overwhelmingly used by "bad elements" (homeless and petty criminals). People who aren't "bad" (i.e. they are of the same economic class as the homeowners in the city) generally can afford cars in suburban areas. So I can understand why they oppose public transit. High density housing has no excuse though, if traffic is a problem then streets should be expanded. We need more 5+1 apartments and dense townhomes built.
  - na85 4y ago
    >if traffic is a problem then streets should be expanded Quite the opposite. Traffic will expand like a gas to meet the available capacity. You can only make the roads so wide, but never will it be wide enough to abate traffic congestion. If traffic is a problem it's time to make driving less attractive by building bike lanes, subways/light rail/monorail, and investing in transit.
    - ceeplusplus 4y ago
      > Traffic will expand like a gas to meet the available capacity Yes, but now the roads carry more people. You can't fix congestion, but you can make it so the roads can sustain the local population, even if they're traveling at 20mph during rush hour. > bike lanes Sure, but when's someone going to make an ebike that can carry lots of groceries? Or really anything more than 1 large bag. Even a Trader Joe's run for only myself is 4-5 bags, and those portions are small compared to Costco. Also, bike theft is a huge problem. And coincidentally the places with the best transit and bike lane buildouts have the worst policies towards property theft. > subways/light rail/monorail, and investing in transit Until disruptive people are banned from transit (so everything doesn't smell like piss and weed) and light rail is permitted to go faster than cars by NIMBYs, transit will never be an appealing option vs. cars. BART travels at 20mph next to 65 mph freeways sometimes. I'm all for transit and bikes if these problems can be fixed. But they are political problems, not engineering ones. So I have little faith they will ever be fixed.

Exactly, it should be built in someone else's back yard...

It can increase it too through the zoning changes. 2000 sqm low density residential < 2000 sqm high rise mixed use. The horrible thing is if your neighbour gets rezoned but you don't.

MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
This is sort of how it's playing out where I live now. The city has opened up densification in an area that has historically been suburbs. Old bungalows from the 50s/60s are being bought out by developers and turned into mini 6-unit condo buildings. So on one hand, densification, yay! On the other, starter homes suitable for young families are being lost and replaced with smaller apartments suitable for young couples, boo? Any potential family looking to buy those properties is completely outbid by the developer. The sale of 6x units covers the purchase price, tear down and new build with a healthy profit margin, the single family never had a chance. It seems like the middle is falling out of the market and developers seek profit in one of 2 ways. Mcmansion that maximize square footage on a single lot, or condos that maximize the number of small-as-possible units in one building. Then the government wonders why the birthrate is decreasing..
- quickthrower2 4y ago
  A culture shift where a 2/3 bed appt is seen as OK for families would help. Ideally there would be parks / exercise opportunities nearby.
  - Griffinsauce 4y ago
    "Seen as ok" doesn't change the experience of those living in it.
    - femiagbabiaka 4y ago
      Living in a 3 bedroom apartment is a luxurious experience in much of the world and preferable to homelessness or extreme precarity, imo. 3 bedrooms doesn't have to mean cramped and miserable, it only means that right now because we don't build enough and landlords in cities frequently split up 1 or 2 bedroom apartments into 3 with architectural slight of hand (or just by lying).
    - fstarship 4y ago
      Suburbia is overrated for families “soccer moms” exist because otherwise the experience for kids is being under house arrest until you get your car. In denser countries you can take public transit/ walk yourself to places you wont to go long before you get a drivers license.
    - piva00 4y ago
      What do you mean by the experience of those living in it? The experience of living in a 3-bedroom apartment in the middle of a walkable and lively city is pretty comfortable.
- jeromegv 4y ago
  6 families live on that land instead of 1. It’s a net benefit for society. You’re talking as if families are being screwed by developers. What I see is 5 mores families getting a home. You can’t have a society where everyone owns a single family home of 4000sqf. Infrastructure and public dollar can’t sustain all the roads, aqueduc, transit, for such low density. If some people have the money for it, fine, but we can’t have the whole population of North America living that way. It was always a lie of the American dream.
  - quantified 4y ago
    No one moves to Atherton to be part of the larger society. They go there to escape it. The American Dream didn't give everyone a 7-bedroom manse. It did give them something they owned. Which now costs like the mansion once did.
- ajmurmann 4y ago
  The zoning prohibiting the 6-unit housing is in essence limiting the supply to five parties in order to reduce the price to a single party fur buying a bigger home. This is no different than raising taxes and handing the money to people buying single-family homes. The only difference is that the zoning does so indirectly which hides it and makes it politically viable because the masses aren't economically literate enough to understand.
  - quickthrower2 4y ago
    In general, owning in-demand land makes you effectively a mini tax collector.

ipython 4y ago

I’ve watched this happen in my own neighborhood which is trying to build in additional transit options and build high density housing to ease the pressure on prices. We have neighbors vehemently opposed to the transit, convinced that it will bring the “bad elements” to town. Then further fighting the housing complaining of how it would make traffic worse. Note that neither is even close to a problem… I just sit and sigh. Honestly I think these developments will help our values but they don’t see it that way.

ceeplusplus 4y ago
In my experience... public transit in areas with poor transit options is overwhelmingly used by "bad elements" (homeless and petty criminals). People who aren't "bad" (i.e. they are of the same economic class as the homeowners in the city) generally can afford cars in suburban areas. So I can understand why they oppose public transit. High density housing has no excuse though, if traffic is a problem then streets should be expanded. We need more 5+1 apartments and dense townhomes built.
- na85 4y ago
  >if traffic is a problem then streets should be expanded Quite the opposite. Traffic will expand like a gas to meet the available capacity. You can only make the roads so wide, but never will it be wide enough to abate traffic congestion. If traffic is a problem it's time to make driving less attractive by building bike lanes, subways/light rail/monorail, and investing in transit.
  - ceeplusplus 4y ago
    > Traffic will expand like a gas to meet the available capacity Yes, but now the roads carry more people. You can't fix congestion, but you can make it so the roads can sustain the local population, even if they're traveling at 20mph during rush hour. > bike lanes Sure, but when's someone going to make an ebike that can carry lots of groceries? Or really anything more than 1 large bag. Even a Trader Joe's run for only myself is 4-5 bags, and those portions are small compared to Costco. Also, bike theft is a huge problem. And coincidentally the places with the best transit and bike lane buildouts have the worst policies towards property theft. > subways/light rail/monorail, and investing in transit Until disruptive people are banned from transit (so everything doesn't smell like piss and weed) and light rail is permitted to go faster than cars by NIMBYs, transit will never be an appealing option vs. cars. BART travels at 20mph next to 65 mph freeways sometimes. I'm all for transit and bikes if these problems can be fixed. But they are political problems, not engineering ones. So I have little faith they will ever be fixed.