7 ms·

This is always great to see. Something I’ve never understood with opposition to denser zoning is the following. If the land is up zoned surely it’s market valu

This is always great to see. Something I’ve never understood with opposition to denser zoning is the following. If the land is up zoned surely it’s market value increases in turn because the range of what can be built on it increases? Your house might be worth $X amount as a single family home but if your land were incorporated into a new apartment complex which has 4-5x more homes in the same space, it is objectively worth more, right? Where then, does the common belief that an increase in housing decreases home value arise? Never made sense to me.

gloryjulio 3y ago
1. Total value would probably end up being more, but the values of existing stocks would drop due to the increased supply 2. Rent would certainly drop
- ryanschaefer 3y ago
  Surely there’s a level at which the market is price saturated. As in, marginally, a homes value can’t increase as rapidly zoned as a single family home as it could if it were zoned less restrictively. This would be based on overall location desirability I would think. I wonder if there have been any studies done on this topic.
  - gloryjulio 3y ago
    > I wonder if there have been any studies done on this topic. Just look at Tokyo. Cali is definitely desirable. Majority of the people leave because of the cost of the living, i,e housing is just too expensive. If only we could just adopt Tokyo's zoning model
ElevenLathe 3y ago
The fantasy is that you get to stay in your house while its value rises. Having to leave (because they need to build the apartment complex) is less appealing, not least because now you have to find a new place to live and, if nearby prices have gone up, you're not much better off than before (this is especially true of the huge number of people who bought houses at extremely low rates since 2008, since they'd have to refinance at current rates), or else you have to move further away from your friends/family/community.
threemux 3y ago
The value of some places is the very fact that they're low density. I don't think that applies to strip malls necessarily, but this is why people come out strong against upzoning suburban or rural areas. The people that live there like it the way it is, and you can't give more people that experience as more people ruins what's good about it.
- prottog 3y ago
  > The value of some places is the very fact that they're low density. Exactly. Just look at a satellite image of Atherton, CA or Lexington MA; they're low-density residential places with plenty of greenery where each lot is sizable and crucially, near major economic centers with plenty of high-paying jobs. They're desirable precisely because they allow you more breathing room while being geographically close to the hustle and bustle of a big city.
  - ryanschaefer 3y ago
    There is an interesting assumption here that is sadly codified into law. I.e that individuals' who desire the characteristics you describe are willing to pay more than the "true" value of the land if it were not protected by zoning. We might never know what case is true because both scenarios can't exist at once. I think the closest we can get would actually be Brookline, MA in the same vein as your example of Lexington. There are dense clusters in the area as well as single family homes. One could potentially look at any plots converted from single family homes to apartments/condos to determine each individual's willingness to be located in that relatively sparse city.
    - threemux 3y ago
      This is an interesting way to frame something I've seen stated as "if you don't own the land you don't get to decide what to do with it". I can't say for certain if people would be willing to pay above "market" for more space in all areas, but I think they would in some. Your comment is not part of this and is thoughtful, but it does touch on the anti-democratic streak present in the YIMBY/urbanist community. At its worst, this attitude is essentially "I know better what is good for this area than the people that live there" which has had disastrous consequences historically
duped 3y ago
I mean some people legitimately do not want to live in denser areas or want an apartment building next door to them. The value of the land isn't just the utility of it. Like I would probably sell my house and move if my neighborhood was upzoned and my neighbors sold to a developer putting in a multi unit building. That would suck. Great for society, terrible for me.
- lotsoweiners 3y ago
  In some ways it’s bad for society too in my opinion. As suburbs become more dense, people with money who don’t want to deal with the hassle of increased local traffic, higher property taxes, higher crime move even further out and get an even bigger house for cheaper. Rinse and repeat. My favorite example is that I live in the Phoenix metro. Tempe, the suburban city bordering Phoenix to the east has a major street called Rural Road. It is of course in no way rural anymore and I can continue East on the US 60 for another 30 minutes and not sure I’d encounter anything truly “rural”.
  - cactusfrog 3y ago
    The issue in CA is that everywhere is the suburbs. My grandma’s house is in a single family neighborhood 10 minutes away from a huge office building with Illumina on the outside. The fact that this company, which has revolutionized biological research is in an area without enough housing and requires its workers to drive 1-2 h through traffic is insane from a society development perspective. Suburbs can still exist but you need to have density around transit and provide an alternative to sitting in traffic.
- cactusfrog 3y ago
  How would it be terrible for you?
  - duped 3y ago
    I mean this is going to be hard to phrase without sounding like an old man shouting at the clouds, but it comes down to the fact that I don't want to live next door to dozens of people. It's one of the reasons I chose not to live in a denser area. People and their cars are loud. I don't want light pollution shining onto my property at night. I don't want a tall building next door with windows looming into my yard. I would be sad to see all the old growth trees cut down to make way for the construction or street widened for the traffic. And you can say if I don't like those things then don't live somewhere where it's a thing. Which is exactly why I live where I do, and if that situation changed I'd leave. But it's not hard to empathize with people that want to preserve the kind of community they bought into.
JohnFen 3y ago
Unless you're interested in selling your house, that it technically rises in value really only means that you pay more in property tax. It being worth more doesn't help you. Lots of people have purchased a home where they have with the intention of living there permanently. If the density around them increases, that decreases their enjoyment of their home and ultimately may force them to sell and move elsewhere. Which is a serious PITA and may not be feasible if it means they'd have to find a new job elsewhere. So for many people, there is nothing but downside to this happening for them, personally.
- dalyons 3y ago
  I mean not in cali, the property tax isn’t allowed to increase. That’s part of the problem.
- ryanschaefer 3y ago
  This is understandable and I almost wanted to include it as a caveat in my original comment. Tax burden from upzoning could really hurt some homeowners. On the flip side, zoning could be seen as subsidizing land that would otherwise be more productive if it were zoned to what the market demands.
  - TheCoelacanth 3y ago
    Not in California it can't. Property taxes can rise a maximum of 2% per year for as long as you own a property. That's rarely enough to even keep up with inflation.
  - theamk 3y ago
    You completely missed "decreases their enjoyment of their home" part. It's not just about money, some people actually prefer to live in low-density environments, as evidenced by the existence of expensive low-density towns.
- 88913527 3y ago
  An unrealized capital gain being "nothing but downside" is the possibly the most charitable spin of an interpretation. If you can't support the carrying cost of your private property, you sell it, just as you would with a car, for example. And in this case, the large gain eases the pain immensely. If you wish to inefficiently use land that otherwise would have a much higher utility to your surrounding community, you need to pay for that privilege.
firecall 3y ago
The logical flaw in that argument is assuming that home owners care about money. Many don’t, or money is not the primary motivation. Protecting their lifestyle location is likely a stronger motivator. I don’t want even a low rise apartment opposite my house, or a 7/11 on my street, even if it meant my house value doubled. I like my community and neighbours. And that is the point. I could move for sure, if my property value doubled, but I’d be losing so much more!

gloryjulio 3y ago

1. Total value would probably end up being more, but the values of existing stocks would drop due to the increased supply 2. Rent would certainly drop

ryanschaefer 3y ago
Surely there’s a level at which the market is price saturated. As in, marginally, a homes value can’t increase as rapidly zoned as a single family home as it could if it were zoned less restrictively. This would be based on overall location desirability I would think. I wonder if there have been any studies done on this topic.
- gloryjulio 3y ago
  > I wonder if there have been any studies done on this topic. Just look at Tokyo. Cali is definitely desirable. Majority of the people leave because of the cost of the living, i,e housing is just too expensive. If only we could just adopt Tokyo's zoning model

ElevenLathe 3y ago

The fantasy is that you get to stay in your house while its value rises. Having to leave (because they need to build the apartment complex) is less appealing, not least because now you have to find a new place to live and, if nearby prices have gone up, you're not much better off than before (this is especially true of the huge number of people who bought houses at extremely low rates since 2008, since they'd have to refinance at current rates), or else you have to move further away from your friends/family/community.

threemux 3y ago

The value of some places is the very fact that they're low density. I don't think that applies to strip malls necessarily, but this is why people come out strong against upzoning suburban or rural areas. The people that live there like it the way it is, and you can't give more people that experience as more people ruins what's good about it.

prottog 3y ago
> The value of some places is the very fact that they're low density. Exactly. Just look at a satellite image of Atherton, CA or Lexington MA; they're low-density residential places with plenty of greenery where each lot is sizable and crucially, near major economic centers with plenty of high-paying jobs. They're desirable precisely because they allow you more breathing room while being geographically close to the hustle and bustle of a big city.
- ryanschaefer 3y ago
  There is an interesting assumption here that is sadly codified into law. I.e that individuals' who desire the characteristics you describe are willing to pay more than the "true" value of the land if it were not protected by zoning. We might never know what case is true because both scenarios can't exist at once. I think the closest we can get would actually be Brookline, MA in the same vein as your example of Lexington. There are dense clusters in the area as well as single family homes. One could potentially look at any plots converted from single family homes to apartments/condos to determine each individual's willingness to be located in that relatively sparse city.
  - threemux 3y ago
    This is an interesting way to frame something I've seen stated as "if you don't own the land you don't get to decide what to do with it". I can't say for certain if people would be willing to pay above "market" for more space in all areas, but I think they would in some. Your comment is not part of this and is thoughtful, but it does touch on the anti-democratic streak present in the YIMBY/urbanist community. At its worst, this attitude is essentially "I know better what is good for this area than the people that live there" which has had disastrous consequences historically

duped 3y ago

I mean some people legitimately do not want to live in denser areas or want an apartment building next door to them. The value of the land isn't just the utility of it. Like I would probably sell my house and move if my neighborhood was upzoned and my neighbors sold to a developer putting in a multi unit building. That would suck. Great for society, terrible for me.

lotsoweiners 3y ago
In some ways it’s bad for society too in my opinion. As suburbs become more dense, people with money who don’t want to deal with the hassle of increased local traffic, higher property taxes, higher crime move even further out and get an even bigger house for cheaper. Rinse and repeat. My favorite example is that I live in the Phoenix metro. Tempe, the suburban city bordering Phoenix to the east has a major street called Rural Road. It is of course in no way rural anymore and I can continue East on the US 60 for another 30 minutes and not sure I’d encounter anything truly “rural”.
- cactusfrog 3y ago
  The issue in CA is that everywhere is the suburbs. My grandma’s house is in a single family neighborhood 10 minutes away from a huge office building with Illumina on the outside. The fact that this company, which has revolutionized biological research is in an area without enough housing and requires its workers to drive 1-2 h through traffic is insane from a society development perspective. Suburbs can still exist but you need to have density around transit and provide an alternative to sitting in traffic.
cactusfrog 3y ago
How would it be terrible for you?
- duped 3y ago
  I mean this is going to be hard to phrase without sounding like an old man shouting at the clouds, but it comes down to the fact that I don't want to live next door to dozens of people. It's one of the reasons I chose not to live in a denser area. People and their cars are loud. I don't want light pollution shining onto my property at night. I don't want a tall building next door with windows looming into my yard. I would be sad to see all the old growth trees cut down to make way for the construction or street widened for the traffic. And you can say if I don't like those things then don't live somewhere where it's a thing. Which is exactly why I live where I do, and if that situation changed I'd leave. But it's not hard to empathize with people that want to preserve the kind of community they bought into.

JohnFen 3y ago

Unless you're interested in selling your house, that it technically rises in value really only means that you pay more in property tax. It being worth more doesn't help you. Lots of people have purchased a home where they have with the intention of living there permanently. If the density around them increases, that decreases their enjoyment of their home and ultimately may force them to sell and move elsewhere. Which is a serious PITA and may not be feasible if it means they'd have to find a new job elsewhere. So for many people, there is nothing but downside to this happening for them, personally.

dalyons 3y ago
I mean not in cali, the property tax isn’t allowed to increase. That’s part of the problem.
ryanschaefer 3y ago
This is understandable and I almost wanted to include it as a caveat in my original comment. Tax burden from upzoning could really hurt some homeowners. On the flip side, zoning could be seen as subsidizing land that would otherwise be more productive if it were zoned to what the market demands.
- TheCoelacanth 3y ago
  Not in California it can't. Property taxes can rise a maximum of 2% per year for as long as you own a property. That's rarely enough to even keep up with inflation.
- theamk 3y ago
  You completely missed "decreases their enjoyment of their home" part. It's not just about money, some people actually prefer to live in low-density environments, as evidenced by the existence of expensive low-density towns.
88913527 3y ago
An unrealized capital gain being "nothing but downside" is the possibly the most charitable spin of an interpretation. If you can't support the carrying cost of your private property, you sell it, just as you would with a car, for example. And in this case, the large gain eases the pain immensely. If you wish to inefficiently use land that otherwise would have a much higher utility to your surrounding community, you need to pay for that privilege.

firecall 3y ago

The logical flaw in that argument is assuming that home owners care about money. Many don’t, or money is not the primary motivation. Protecting their lifestyle location is likely a stronger motivator. I don’t want even a low rise apartment opposite my house, or a 7/11 on my street, even if it meant my house value doubled. I like my community and neighbours. And that is the point. I could move for sure, if my property value doubled, but I’d be losing so much more!