3 ms·
Some places become more valuable as you pack humans more densely in it. Some places become more valuable with the opposite. "Idyllic mountain towns", of course,
by gottorf 3y ago
Some places become more valuable as you pack humans more densely in it. Some places become more valuable with the opposite. "Idyllic mountain towns", of course, are the latter.
Naturally beautiful places whose beauty in part depends on them not being highly developed will always have this tension between the vacationers, the rich second-home owners, and the people who work in the tourism industry. Tourist town economics are a reality.
- jlhawn 3y agoI don't think this is true. Demand and Agglomeration effects will always increase land/location value. The question is whether or not there is an increase in land value per capita. When you limit density then only those most willing and able to bid up the price of locations will increase the land value per capita. If you allow density the land value per capita will decrease (more affordable) while the total land value still increases. Edit: Any perceived amenity affect from limiting population density is really just a scarcity effect.
- orange_joe 3y agoThe workers are already there, they just don't get to live dignified lives.
- jlarocco 3y agoThe workers are not always there. A lot of resort companies, like Vail Resorts, will bring in H2B and J1 visa workers [0] and put them up in employee housing for the winter. They could hire plenty of US workers if they'd pay enough, but H2B workers are cheaper and complain less because getting fired means getting deported. Even the local workers are unlikely to live in town. Sometimes you'll see 4 or 5 lifties or ski instructors sharing a small apartment, but a lot of times they commute from cheaper towns nearby. [0] https://www.summitdaily.com/news/vail-resorts-h2b-workers-unsatisfied-with-response-to-covid-19/ https://www.summitdaily.com/news/vail-resorts-h2b-workers-un...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]