4 ms·

I think some of it is a misunderstanding of economics, but some of it is also different willingness to take risks and looking at different time horizons. If my

I think some of it is a misunderstanding of economics, but some of it is also different willingness to take risks and looking at different time horizons. If my single-family home is the only one in the neighborhood with an apartment building next to it, its value might indeed drop. If I can wait till the neighborhood becomes hip and desired and maybe someone wants to buy my home for big money to build a larger building, cool. However, if I cannot wait a few years or worry that the apartment building goes up and then the economics change and the city takes a turn for the worse and nothing gets build anymore, I might be against the apartment building. It's also always nicer to have those things build a little further away. Being the quiet neighborhood a short hop away from the cool hip hood gives you most of the benefits without the risks and downsides. Of course if everyone thinks like that we get the current situation. IMO it's selfish, not that they aren't thinking logically.

jrockway 4y ago
> If my single-family home is the only one in the neighborhood with an apartment building next to it, its value might indeed drop. People love single-family homes in dense urban environments. A neighborhood that I think is a good example of comfortable density with a good variety of building sizes is Brooklyn Heights in New York City. You can buy a studio apartment for $250,000 or a townhouse for $17,000,000, and everything in between. You would make an incomprehensible amount of money selling your house if your neighborhood turned into Brooklyn Heights.
- ajmurmann 4y ago
  In dense urban areas, yes. That's not the scenario I described though.
  - jrockway 4y ago
    If all the buildings in your neighborhood turn into apartment buildings, you're a dense urban area now.
    - ajmurmann 4y ago
      Three initial plan is likely only for a single building though. There is no guarantee there won't be a recession and nothing else gets built for a long time.
      - jrockway 4y ago
        I guess, what are you worried about? A stronger tax base is good for your community; you have 100 people paying property taxes where there used to be 1 person. The worst case is that they park your cars in front of your trash cans on trash day and it doesn't get picked up?
        ajmurmann 4y ago
        I personally not worried about anything. I'd immediately go for something that's like Japanese zoning and probably actively penalize sprawl. However, I'm trying to steelman the NIMBY fucks. > The worst case is that they park your cars in front of your trash cans on trash day and it doesn't get picked up? Future buyers might be worried about that or they might worried about the thing becoming a crack house or other xenophobic shit. I know lots of people who for reasons I don't agree with or even find appalling don't want to live next to an apartment building.
bmitc 4y ago
I wouldn’t necessarily say it’s entirely selfish. Why do people feel homeowners should effectively subsidize development by letting their value tank? There can be a lot of selfish, not in my backyard type of behavior, but I think blaming homeowners is not effective. Most people owning homes these days are having to put everything they have into being able to afford it, and they’re effectively forced to do that due to the market, skyrocketing and ultimately unaffordable rents with terrible living standards, schools, etc. Turning around and tanking their value due to some mega corp wanting to slap an apartment building down isn’t a good strategy. A lot of urban “designers” just want to put apartments everywhere, but it isn’t a good strategy. It certainly isn’t organic. And most modern apartment buildings are built as cheaply as possible.
- ajmurmann 4y ago
  > Why do people feel homeowners should effectively subsidize development by letting their value tank? How does subsidization come into this? Just relax the zoning, make it simple to get permits and stop blocking everything at community meetings. > A lot of urban “designers” just want to put apartments everywhere, but it isn’t a good strategy. It certainly isn’t organic Agreed. The planning and homogenous construction that gets often pushed for is a problem. This in part can be addressed by smaller parcels. Order Without Design, book and podcast, go into this and how some cities solved it. Somehow real estate and housing tempts everyone to throw out all the lessons we learned from communism about the perils of central planning.

jrockway 4y ago

> If my single-family home is the only one in the neighborhood with an apartment building next to it, its value might indeed drop. People love single-family homes in dense urban environments. A neighborhood that I think is a good example of comfortable density with a good variety of building sizes is Brooklyn Heights in New York City. You can buy a studio apartment for $250,000 or a townhouse for $17,000,000, and everything in between. You would make an incomprehensible amount of money selling your house if your neighborhood turned into Brooklyn Heights.

ajmurmann 4y ago
In dense urban areas, yes. That's not the scenario I described though.
- jrockway 4y ago
  If all the buildings in your neighborhood turn into apartment buildings, you're a dense urban area now.
  - ajmurmann 4y ago
    Three initial plan is likely only for a single building though. There is no guarantee there won't be a recession and nothing else gets built for a long time.
    - jrockway 4y ago
      I guess, what are you worried about? A stronger tax base is good for your community; you have 100 people paying property taxes where there used to be 1 person. The worst case is that they park your cars in front of your trash cans on trash day and it doesn't get picked up?
      - ajmurmann 4y ago
        I personally not worried about anything. I'd immediately go for something that's like Japanese zoning and probably actively penalize sprawl. However, I'm trying to steelman the NIMBY fucks. > The worst case is that they park your cars in front of your trash cans on trash day and it doesn't get picked up? Future buyers might be worried about that or they might worried about the thing becoming a crack house or other xenophobic shit. I know lots of people who for reasons I don't agree with or even find appalling don't want to live next to an apartment building.

bmitc 4y ago

I wouldn’t necessarily say it’s entirely selfish. Why do people feel homeowners should effectively subsidize development by letting their value tank? There can be a lot of selfish, not in my backyard type of behavior, but I think blaming homeowners is not effective. Most people owning homes these days are having to put everything they have into being able to afford it, and they’re effectively forced to do that due to the market, skyrocketing and ultimately unaffordable rents with terrible living standards, schools, etc. Turning around and tanking their value due to some mega corp wanting to slap an apartment building down isn’t a good strategy. A lot of urban “designers” just want to put apartments everywhere, but it isn’t a good strategy. It certainly isn’t organic. And most modern apartment buildings are built as cheaply as possible.

ajmurmann 4y ago
> Why do people feel homeowners should effectively subsidize development by letting their value tank? How does subsidization come into this? Just relax the zoning, make it simple to get permits and stop blocking everything at community meetings. > A lot of urban “designers” just want to put apartments everywhere, but it isn’t a good strategy. It certainly isn’t organic Agreed. The planning and homogenous construction that gets often pushed for is a problem. This in part can be addressed by smaller parcels. Order Without Design, book and podcast, go into this and how some cities solved it. Somehow real estate and housing tempts everyone to throw out all the lessons we learned from communism about the perils of central planning.