6 ms·

It is amazing how one person can have a view that developers have all the power and can never be stopped. Others have the view that NIMBY's have all the power a

It is amazing how one person can have a view that developers have all the power and can never be stopped. Others have the view that NIMBY's have all the power and nothing can get developed. Yet somehow everything ends up paved over with a high rise on it eventually, like it or not.

erulabs 4y ago
But that's exactly the point - not everything ends up with a high rise on it. Clearly, not enough of a percent of "everything" has a high rise, or there would be no housing shortage! You feel there are too many, but if there was no desire for high rises, no one would build them!
myroon5 4y ago
~3/4 of Seattle land doesn't really allow new housing: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/city-report-widespread-single-family-zoning-is-damaging-seattle-and-needs-changing https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/city-repor...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
ryukafalz 4y ago
> Yet somehow everything ends up paved over with a high rise on it eventually, like it or not. I'd like to know what definition you're using for "everything" here because the vast majority of residential land is zoned exclusively for single-family homes and indeed that's mostly what gets built.
jamestimmins 4y ago
This is patently untrue. Cities like LA and SF should have high rises everywhere, but instead they have 1 story homes from 1955 selling for $2 million.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jandrese 4y ago
  LA and SF seem trapped by their design. Sure they need way higher density, but that would require transit that handles density better than cars on a road. But in order to build high capacity transit they want people to prove that it would be fully utilized and that won't be true if you're servicing areas that are currently all single family homes. So high density housing can't be build because there is no transit, and high capacity transit can't be built because there is no high density housing.
  - BryantD 4y ago
    SF is trapped because there are well-organized community groups in the Western half of the city that will actively block density increase for the same sorts of reasons described here. You can get to higher density incrementally, but not if it’s always stopped at the beginning.
  - jamestimmins 4y ago
    Yes and no. That's certainly a factor, but outside of work, people also tend to stay pretty close to their neighborhoods (I've been able to walk to my grocery store in the last 3 neighborhoods I've lived in). There's also been substantial work to build new mass transit, but housing hasn't increased substantially around the transit stops. Edit: I'm referring to LA. My impression is SF is small enough that this isn't a big issue.
    - josuepeq 4y ago
      SF is small, hilly, and consists of many square miles of single family homes; with cars being the predominant way around town. Less than 2000 feet from the geographical center of town, I live in a fully detached single family home with a huge backyard. My Walkscore of 35 equates to the nearest full line supermarket being a solid mile away, mostly flat, the nearest corner store is 0.8 miles away with 364 feet of elevation changes, too. :30 minutes between runs of the bus means that all of my neighbors and I tend to drive everywhere. Trust me, this is not ideal.
hackerlight 4y ago
Developers can bribe individual politicians but NIMBYs hold all the power. NIMBYs control the votes. Developers don't. > Yet somehow everything ends up paved over with a high rise on it eventually, like it or not. Also this is just false.

erulabs 4y ago

But that's exactly the point - not everything ends up with a high rise on it. Clearly, not enough of a percent of "everything" has a high rise, or there would be no housing shortage! You feel there are too many, but if there was no desire for high rises, no one would build them!

myroon5 4y ago

~3/4 of Seattle land doesn't really allow new housing: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/city-report-widespread-single-family-zoning-is-damaging-seattle-and-needs-changing https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/city-repor...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

ryukafalz 4y ago

> Yet somehow everything ends up paved over with a high rise on it eventually, like it or not. I'd like to know what definition you're using for "everything" here because the vast majority of residential land is zoned exclusively for single-family homes and indeed that's mostly what gets built.

jamestimmins 4y ago

This is patently untrue. Cities like LA and SF should have high rises everywhere, but instead they have 1 story homes from 1955 selling for $2 million.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jandrese 4y ago
LA and SF seem trapped by their design. Sure they need way higher density, but that would require transit that handles density better than cars on a road. But in order to build high capacity transit they want people to prove that it would be fully utilized and that won't be true if you're servicing areas that are currently all single family homes. So high density housing can't be build because there is no transit, and high capacity transit can't be built because there is no high density housing.
- BryantD 4y ago
  SF is trapped because there are well-organized community groups in the Western half of the city that will actively block density increase for the same sorts of reasons described here. You can get to higher density incrementally, but not if it’s always stopped at the beginning.
- jamestimmins 4y ago
  Yes and no. That's certainly a factor, but outside of work, people also tend to stay pretty close to their neighborhoods (I've been able to walk to my grocery store in the last 3 neighborhoods I've lived in). There's also been substantial work to build new mass transit, but housing hasn't increased substantially around the transit stops. Edit: I'm referring to LA. My impression is SF is small enough that this isn't a big issue.
  - josuepeq 4y ago
    SF is small, hilly, and consists of many square miles of single family homes; with cars being the predominant way around town. Less than 2000 feet from the geographical center of town, I live in a fully detached single family home with a huge backyard. My Walkscore of 35 equates to the nearest full line supermarket being a solid mile away, mostly flat, the nearest corner store is 0.8 miles away with 364 feet of elevation changes, too. :30 minutes between runs of the bus means that all of my neighbors and I tend to drive everywhere. Trust me, this is not ideal.

hackerlight 4y ago

Developers can bribe individual politicians but NIMBYs hold all the power. NIMBYs control the votes. Developers don't. > Yet somehow everything ends up paved over with a high rise on it eventually, like it or not. Also this is just false.