3 ms·
Yes I am aware that new development/upzoning often increases nearby land values while at the same time putting downward pressure on market rents. See Mast et al
by BenFranklin100 2y ago
Yes I am aware that new development/upzoning often increases nearby land values while at the same time putting downward pressure on market rents. See Mast et al’s work from the Upjohn Institute. I am very aware that homeowners (at least those that outright own the land underneath their house i.e not condo owners) stand to financially benefit by selling to developers who put in higher density housing. My remarks about money were not directed at them. Existing homeowners simply oppose new housing of all sorts. Please reread.
Look, I live in Boston. I have also lived in Rittenhouse square. I know the buildings you speak of intimately. I suggest you do something that I have personally have done several times: go to local city council meeting about a beautiful new housing development proposal. Observe how vehemently neighbors oppose the construction of this gorgeous new multifamily housing development. They complain about parking, too much traffic, too much noise, a burden on the school system, the wrong sort of people, blah, blah, blah… it never ends. These people simply don’t want new homes near them. See Katherine Einstein’s “Neighborhood Defenders” to get an overview of this phenomena.
As I said, your focus on aesthetics is a distraction. The road forward is either to appeal to the personal economic interests of the three groups I mentioned, or pray the SCOTUS overturns Euclid vs. Ambler.
- llamaimperative 2y agoAre you deliberately ignoring the content of my comments? I am not denying that these people exist and they hold outsized power. I am claiming that we need to build a coalition to defeat them, and that is impossible to achieve when we keep building hideous bullshit. The people we actually need to activate are the vast majority of people who have no equity stake in their neighborhoods but have significant stake in the lifestyle their neighborhoods support. Appealing to the personal economic interests of those three groups has demonstrably not worked. The masses (with no equity stakes) are more easily mobilized by NIMBYs/landed interests against big evil developers because big "evil" developers visibly degrade neighborhoods. The non-equity-growth argument for more development is totally nonexistent, so non-equity holders (again the vast majority of people in high COL areas) have zero motivation to join your side. +1 on overturning Euclid, but I don't see a path to that.
- BenFranklin100 2y agoYou obviously I have not been very involved in the housing discourse over the last two decades. Good night, I ending this discussion.
- llamaimperative 2y agoSeems to me you’ve perfectly illustrated my point. “The most extreme people go to planning meetings and successfully overrule several aligned interests against them, but no we don’t need a broader coalition.” You don’t need to convince the people at the planning meetings. You need to convince the people who are not at the planning meetings. Anyway, excellent work over the last two decades, I guess.