7 ms·

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 stron

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
    - ryanschaefer 3y ago
      I really appreciate this perspective. It’s important for people to live where they agree to common principles. In the end that’s why you choose to live where you live. In some sense it cuts both ways. I’m more of the opinion that these areas are allowed to exist to the extent that the market allows them to exist. It’s obviously not desirable to have your neighbor sell of their house to someone who builds a 20 story apartment or something like that. But, if both you, your neighbor, and society as a whole can financially benefit from this fact, why prevent it from happening in a legal sense. Zoning only masks the true value of an area. It’s strange, however, because I recognize the history of razing historic areas in the hopes of progress (see Paris’ Île de la Cité) and how invasive it is to have your home change because of one person selling out. I love old buildings and often marvel at how quaint and peaceful these areas can be. I don’t want them to be lost and I want future generations to experience the same emotions I feel when looking at these areas. Ultimately, I think it would be beneficial just to have an idea of how land could be used for purposes other than what it is currently zoned for. Obfuscation of the price of a piece of land due to zoning is, in my opinion, more detrimental than helpful.
    - lotsofpulp 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". How about “if you cannot afford to defend the land, you do not get to decide what to do with it”? Who is paying for all the police/military/courts/legal system keeping that highly desirable land secure from “outsiders”? Land owners in the US have an enormous subsidy from non land owners simply by being able to secure their asset without commensurate payment for security, and doubly so in California with their prop 13 property tax increase cap.
    - TheCoelacanth 3y ago
      Calling letting people use their own property as they choose "anti-democratic" is a bizarre argument. Individual rights are one of the traditional pillars of democracy.
  - throwaway22032 3y ago
    It's not really possible to determine this because it's a prisoner's dilemma of sorts. If I have 50 neighbours with no zoning rules, 49 of them stay put, but one sells up to a developer, the 49 who chose not to sell now have to live with the additional density, while the one family that sold up "wins" and moves elsewhere with their stacks of cash. Without zoning, or planning permission, or _some_ way of the locals preventing land use changes in this way, you eventually end up surrounded by tower blocks.
ramraj07 3y ago
You spelled out NIMBY without spelling out NIMBY. Too bad for the suburbanites I suppose.
- rufus_foreman 3y ago
  NIMBY is not an insult. I chose where to live, I know the reasons I moved here, I will fight to keep the place I moved to the way it was when I chose to move here. I'm a proud NIMBY.
  - amanaplanacanal 3y ago
    Things around you are going to change. That’s the nature of life. You can fight against it, for a while.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - ramraj07 3y ago
    One might consider to provide 1 point for self-awareness, but as the great philosopher of our time Bo Burnham said, “self awareness does not absolve anyone of anything.”
    - rufus_foreman 3y ago
      Don't need to be absolved of anything. I want my life to get better, not worse. I'll fight for that and it's nothing that requires some sort of religious absolution.
- hedora 3y ago
  Name calling aside, putting high density housing in suburban neighborhoods with no transit stops and no additional parking is a terrible idea. (You seem to be advocating for this, given the content of the article.) It would be much better to upzone stuff in areas that are already medium density, since those areas have busses, trains, walkable shops, etc.

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
  - ryanschaefer 3y ago
    I really appreciate this perspective. It’s important for people to live where they agree to common principles. In the end that’s why you choose to live where you live. In some sense it cuts both ways. I’m more of the opinion that these areas are allowed to exist to the extent that the market allows them to exist. It’s obviously not desirable to have your neighbor sell of their house to someone who builds a 20 story apartment or something like that. But, if both you, your neighbor, and society as a whole can financially benefit from this fact, why prevent it from happening in a legal sense. Zoning only masks the true value of an area. It’s strange, however, because I recognize the history of razing historic areas in the hopes of progress (see Paris’ Île de la Cité) and how invasive it is to have your home change because of one person selling out. I love old buildings and often marvel at how quaint and peaceful these areas can be. I don’t want them to be lost and I want future generations to experience the same emotions I feel when looking at these areas. Ultimately, I think it would be beneficial just to have an idea of how land could be used for purposes other than what it is currently zoned for. Obfuscation of the price of a piece of land due to zoning is, in my opinion, more detrimental than helpful.
  - lotsofpulp 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". How about “if you cannot afford to defend the land, you do not get to decide what to do with it”? Who is paying for all the police/military/courts/legal system keeping that highly desirable land secure from “outsiders”? Land owners in the US have an enormous subsidy from non land owners simply by being able to secure their asset without commensurate payment for security, and doubly so in California with their prop 13 property tax increase cap.
  - TheCoelacanth 3y ago
    Calling letting people use their own property as they choose "anti-democratic" is a bizarre argument. Individual rights are one of the traditional pillars of democracy.
- throwaway22032 3y ago
  It's not really possible to determine this because it's a prisoner's dilemma of sorts. If I have 50 neighbours with no zoning rules, 49 of them stay put, but one sells up to a developer, the 49 who chose not to sell now have to live with the additional density, while the one family that sold up "wins" and moves elsewhere with their stacks of cash. Without zoning, or planning permission, or _some_ way of the locals preventing land use changes in this way, you eventually end up surrounded by tower blocks.

ramraj07 3y ago

You spelled out NIMBY without spelling out NIMBY. Too bad for the suburbanites I suppose.

rufus_foreman 3y ago
NIMBY is not an insult. I chose where to live, I know the reasons I moved here, I will fight to keep the place I moved to the way it was when I chose to move here. I'm a proud NIMBY.
- amanaplanacanal 3y ago
  Things around you are going to change. That’s the nature of life. You can fight against it, for a while.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- ramraj07 3y ago
  One might consider to provide 1 point for self-awareness, but as the great philosopher of our time Bo Burnham said, “self awareness does not absolve anyone of anything.”
  - rufus_foreman 3y ago
    Don't need to be absolved of anything. I want my life to get better, not worse. I'll fight for that and it's nothing that requires some sort of religious absolution.
hedora 3y ago
Name calling aside, putting high density housing in suburban neighborhoods with no transit stops and no additional parking is a terrible idea. (You seem to be advocating for this, given the content of the article.) It would be much better to upzone stuff in areas that are already medium density, since those areas have busses, trains, walkable shops, etc.