4 ms·

I think the author needs an updated understanding of what is missing. Being interested in a particular property value would absolutely lead to more interest in

by HEmanZ 4y ago

I think the author needs an updated understanding of what is missing. Being interested in a particular property value would absolutely lead to more interest in dense dynamic cities. A city block in tokyo is probably worth more than a city block in most American cities. A capitalist with an interest in seeing their land values go way up would absolutely champion a more dense, desirable city. I think the problem is actually that people with aggregate political power in cities in America don’t really care about property values in the monetary sense. They treat their homes, community, and city on more political/ideological/ethical terms and preferences than on economic terms. The dense Tokyo-style city is absolutely foreign to most Americans and they disdain actions that would lead toward alternate city structures. This is as opposed to the property owning class, which should be more than happy to see their value go up by making more dense cities, especially when it is funded by taxpayers. This seems like a case of just assuming capitalists/landowners are to blame and then coming up with an argument.

milkytron 4y ago
Right, it's certainly multifaceted. Political, ideological, and ethical values all impact how people desire their community to be. Economics also has some impact. I'm not saying it's capitalists or landowners who are to blame for how US cities have been developed, simply that the power they hold and their influence on politics pose great challenges (amongst many other challenges) for creating more dynamic cities.
twblalock 4y ago
Exactly. The root cause of NIMBYism is not preservation of property values. It is preservation of neighborhood character -- low density, peace and quiet, low traffic, etc. People who just spent hundreds of thousands of dollars for a down payment on a house in the suburbs do not want their neighborhood to change into something that is not a suburb. If they wanted to live in a dense urban area, they would have done that. As housing gets more expensive, this tendency will only increase -- if you had to work really hard for a really long time to buy a house, you will probably be more unhappy to find out that your neighborhood is changing than if you didn't have to try that hard to get into it -- especially when your options to move elsewhere are at least as expensive.
- JKCalhoun 4y ago
  The obvious solution then is to convert areas that already lack "character", are high density, noisy, high-traffic, etc. The article points out alleys, train underpasses. Why does this not happen in the U.S.? Is that also NIMBYism?
  - twblalock 4y ago
    NIMBYism is not restricted to rich people in the suburbs. Poor people who live in areas that can be revitalized also frequently oppose new construction because they worry that if their neighborhoods become more attractive to people with higher incomes, gentrification will force them out. That has happened to people, so it's a valid concern.
- ajmurmann 4y ago
  > People who just spent hundreds of thousands of dollars for a down payment on a house in the suburbs do not want their neighborhood to change into something that is not a suburb. If they wanted to live in a dense urban area, they would have done that. I did spent a lot of money on a house in the suburbs. I would have preferred to buy something more dense and walkable, but getting anything decent like that was not an option. Because so much low-density gets built and the higher infrastructure need per unit in low-density areas gets subsidized by hifh-density areas, the economics work out greatly in favor of the suburbs in a lot of places.

by HEmanZ 4y ago

milkytron 4y ago

Right, it's certainly multifaceted. Political, ideological, and ethical values all impact how people desire their community to be. Economics also has some impact. I'm not saying it's capitalists or landowners who are to blame for how US cities have been developed, simply that the power they hold and their influence on politics pose great challenges (amongst many other challenges) for creating more dynamic cities.

twblalock 4y ago

Exactly. The root cause of NIMBYism is not preservation of property values. It is preservation of neighborhood character -- low density, peace and quiet, low traffic, etc. People who just spent hundreds of thousands of dollars for a down payment on a house in the suburbs do not want their neighborhood to change into something that is not a suburb. If they wanted to live in a dense urban area, they would have done that. As housing gets more expensive, this tendency will only increase -- if you had to work really hard for a really long time to buy a house, you will probably be more unhappy to find out that your neighborhood is changing than if you didn't have to try that hard to get into it -- especially when your options to move elsewhere are at least as expensive.

JKCalhoun 4y ago
The obvious solution then is to convert areas that already lack "character", are high density, noisy, high-traffic, etc. The article points out alleys, train underpasses. Why does this not happen in the U.S.? Is that also NIMBYism?
- twblalock 4y ago
  NIMBYism is not restricted to rich people in the suburbs. Poor people who live in areas that can be revitalized also frequently oppose new construction because they worry that if their neighborhoods become more attractive to people with higher incomes, gentrification will force them out. That has happened to people, so it's a valid concern.
ajmurmann 4y ago
> People who just spent hundreds of thousands of dollars for a down payment on a house in the suburbs do not want their neighborhood to change into something that is not a suburb. If they wanted to live in a dense urban area, they would have done that. I did spent a lot of money on a house in the suburbs. I would have preferred to buy something more dense and walkable, but getting anything decent like that was not an option. Because so much low-density gets built and the higher infrastructure need per unit in low-density areas gets subsidized by hifh-density areas, the economics work out greatly in favor of the suburbs in a lot of places.