4 ms·

True, on all points, but it wasn't just him, it's been a decades long process of multiple parts of the economy failing imo. One does wonder though how things wo

True, on all points, but it wasn't just him, it's been a decades long process of multiple parts of the economy failing imo. One does wonder though how things would be if we simply cancelled zoning and other needlessly bureaucratic development restrictions in the 80s, and enabled automatically correcting policy that was outside the hands of both property owners and politicians. Every time I see an anti tower sign in east van it makes me want to throw a rock through that person's window, and the fact this tension exists on a local level is ridiculous.

cyberax 2y ago
We have a natural experiment: Minneapolis vs. Madison. Minneapolis abolished the single-family zoning and parking requirements in 2018. And it worked, developers swarmed the city like vultures attracted to carrion. Madison did no such nonsense. Can you guess the impact of these policies on housing costs? The house price growth in Minneapolis _accelerated_, just like in the nearby Madison. Here are the price growth charts: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1COwL https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1COwL
- tacitusarc 2y ago
  I defy the data [1]. There is too much complexity in that single example and the law of supply/demand has been proven too frequently for it to not make sense that increasing demand to meet supply would reduce cost. 1. For clarity, this phrasing is from here https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/vrHRcEDMjZcx5Yfru/i-defy-the-data https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/vrHRcEDMjZcx5Yfru/i-defy-the...
  - cyberax 2y ago
    > I defy the data. Sorry. The reality doesn't care about your defiance. Upzoning does not lead to lower housing prices. Even the most extreme urbanists admit that: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/4/26/upzoning-might-not-lower-housing-costs-do-it-anyway https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/4/26/upzoning-might... > and the law of supply/demand has been proven too frequently Ah, here it is. Have you considered that there, you know, might be "too much complexity" for "Economy 101" to fully explain the situation? The _only_ way to decrease the housing prices is to BUILD MORE SUBURBS. Or even new cities entirely. You don't have any other options. Sorry again. Well, maybe one more: the Detroit route. Reduce the city population and the prices will go down.
    - tacitusarc 2y ago
      Firstly, your link is focused on zoning changes, specifically how they are insufficient to prompt addition supply to be built. From your linked blog post: > Freemark finds extremely mixed and uncertain evidence for the effects of upzoning, and one of several reasons he identifies is that the link between upzoning and actual housing production is tenuous. In other words, “Are they allowed to build it?” is a different question from, “Are they building it?” Secondly, building more suburbs and more cities increases the supply… which indicates agreement that the price problem is one of insufficient supply. EDIT: To be perfectly clear, the data I disagree with is that increasing supply in Minneapolis failed to impact price. This is the contention of the comment I responded to, and it is fundamentally different from the claim that zoning changes fail to increase supply.
      - cyberax 2y ago
        > Firstly, your link is focused on zoning changes, specifically how they are insufficient to prompt addition supply to be built. Yeah. The misery pushers (urbanists) can't admit outright that their ideology is leading to disaster, can they? So they now need not only zoning restrictions lifted, but the state must also build housing and give it out to "deserving" people for cheap. > Secondly, building more suburbs and more cities increases the supply… which indicates agreement that the price problem is one of insufficient supply. I'm not arguing against supply-and-demand in general (I'm not a communist idiot). I'm arguing against the _density_ increases. > EDIT: To be perfectly clear, the data I disagree with is that increasing supply in Minneapolis failed to impact price. But it did. The real estate transaction index clearly shows that there were no positive effects from the new construction. Moreover, I analyzed all the real estate sales in the US, Canada, and parts of Europe since 1995. I have not found a single example of a large (>100k population) city that decreased the housing sale prices by increasing density. Even during the crash of 2007, the dense housing crashed less than comparative nearby sparse housing. The scholarly literature is also unambiguous. The best effects of density increases are either mild (transient effects on rent), or indirect (migration chains).
        brailsafe 2y ago
  - tacitusarc 2y ago
    *increasing supply to meet demand
- waveBidder 2y ago
  Those abolishments are way less intense than you're thinking. There's still a ton of restrictions that make building even the triplexes that they technically legalized actually get built. Things like floor/area ratios and setbacks, which make building dwellings that people want difficult. https://streets.mn/2023/10/24/mapping-minneapolis-duplexes-and-triplexes/ https://streets.mn/2023/10/24/mapping-minneapolis-duplexes-a...
  - cyberax 2y ago
    The abolishments actually fundamentally changed Minneapolis: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2024/01/04/minneapolis-land-use-reforms-offer-a-blueprint-for-housing-affordability https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/... Most of the new units are in massive multi-apartment buildings. And these buildings have a huge disproportionate impact on the quality of life. It's now going to be sliding into shittier and shittier conditions. More crime, more congestion, higher housing prices.
    - germinalphrase 2y ago
      You live near one of these developments? Your reaction may be correct, but my experience has been that the density has brought amenities. A brewery, a cafe, and a good restaurant moved into vacant/underutilized spaces. My street hasn’t been had issues with long-term parkers. Crime’s no issue. IDK. My experience doesn’t align with your certainty.
      - cyberax 2y ago
        I actually do live in a neighborhood affected by densification, although not in Minneapolis. The "amenities" got worse, a couple of local small stores were demolished and replaced with apartment buildings. A couple of these apartment buildings are "low barrier housing", meaning that they are given to junkies. So the property crime in the area skyrocketed (not helped by newly opened transit), and we don't have a single 24-hour pharmacy in the area anymore. The street parking is now oversubscribed, so my friends often have to circle around the area for quite a while to find a spot when they visit me. These changes actually made me look into the question of density. Before that first-hand experience, I used to be a pro-urbanist victim of propaganda. And yes, I lived in Europe and I got my driving license when I was about 30.
- germinalphrase 2y ago
  FWIW: as a Minneapolis resident, my experience is that there is active hostility and grassroots rejection of adding dense housing in neighborhoods that are traditionally single family homes. I would be curious to see how much dense housing has actually been built post-2018 relative to the historical norm, as the small number of apartment buildings I've seen go up along light rail and buss corridors have fought tooth and nail against certain demographics in the neighborhoods.
  - cyberax 2y ago
    It'll get worse: https://minnesotareformer.com/2023/08/31/ending-minimum-parking-requirements-was-a-policy-win-for-the-twin-cities/ https://minnesotareformer.com/2023/08/31/ending-minimum-park... The usual misery pushers are already celebrating the win.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - brailsafe 2y ago
      So... you want all new buildings to have parking minimums? First of all, pass, but secondly what about that article justifies your cynicism, and lastly what exactly is the root of your anger? Do you just love being isolated to the point that you think everyone else hates or should hate living somewhere where they don't need a car? I'd be pretty annoyed about only being able to own something that had to have a dedicated parking space. What a waste.

cyberax 2y ago

We have a natural experiment: Minneapolis vs. Madison. Minneapolis abolished the single-family zoning and parking requirements in 2018. And it worked, developers swarmed the city like vultures attracted to carrion. Madison did no such nonsense. Can you guess the impact of these policies on housing costs? The house price growth in Minneapolis _accelerated_, just like in the nearby Madison. Here are the price growth charts: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1COwL https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1COwL

tacitusarc 2y ago
I defy the data [1]. There is too much complexity in that single example and the law of supply/demand has been proven too frequently for it to not make sense that increasing demand to meet supply would reduce cost. 1. For clarity, this phrasing is from here https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/vrHRcEDMjZcx5Yfru/i-defy-the-data https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/vrHRcEDMjZcx5Yfru/i-defy-the...
- cyberax 2y ago
  > I defy the data. Sorry. The reality doesn't care about your defiance. Upzoning does not lead to lower housing prices. Even the most extreme urbanists admit that: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/4/26/upzoning-might-not-lower-housing-costs-do-it-anyway https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/4/26/upzoning-might... > and the law of supply/demand has been proven too frequently Ah, here it is. Have you considered that there, you know, might be "too much complexity" for "Economy 101" to fully explain the situation? The _only_ way to decrease the housing prices is to BUILD MORE SUBURBS. Or even new cities entirely. You don't have any other options. Sorry again. Well, maybe one more: the Detroit route. Reduce the city population and the prices will go down.
  - tacitusarc 2y ago
    Firstly, your link is focused on zoning changes, specifically how they are insufficient to prompt addition supply to be built. From your linked blog post: > Freemark finds extremely mixed and uncertain evidence for the effects of upzoning, and one of several reasons he identifies is that the link between upzoning and actual housing production is tenuous. In other words, “Are they allowed to build it?” is a different question from, “Are they building it?” Secondly, building more suburbs and more cities increases the supply… which indicates agreement that the price problem is one of insufficient supply. EDIT: To be perfectly clear, the data I disagree with is that increasing supply in Minneapolis failed to impact price. This is the contention of the comment I responded to, and it is fundamentally different from the claim that zoning changes fail to increase supply.
    - cyberax 2y ago
      > Firstly, your link is focused on zoning changes, specifically how they are insufficient to prompt addition supply to be built. Yeah. The misery pushers (urbanists) can't admit outright that their ideology is leading to disaster, can they? So they now need not only zoning restrictions lifted, but the state must also build housing and give it out to "deserving" people for cheap. > Secondly, building more suburbs and more cities increases the supply… which indicates agreement that the price problem is one of insufficient supply. I'm not arguing against supply-and-demand in general (I'm not a communist idiot). I'm arguing against the _density_ increases. > EDIT: To be perfectly clear, the data I disagree with is that increasing supply in Minneapolis failed to impact price. But it did. The real estate transaction index clearly shows that there were no positive effects from the new construction. Moreover, I analyzed all the real estate sales in the US, Canada, and parts of Europe since 1995. I have not found a single example of a large (>100k population) city that decreased the housing sale prices by increasing density. Even during the crash of 2007, the dense housing crashed less than comparative nearby sparse housing. The scholarly literature is also unambiguous. The best effects of density increases are either mild (transient effects on rent), or indirect (migration chains).
      - brailsafe 2y ago
- tacitusarc 2y ago
  *increasing supply to meet demand
waveBidder 2y ago
Those abolishments are way less intense than you're thinking. There's still a ton of restrictions that make building even the triplexes that they technically legalized actually get built. Things like floor/area ratios and setbacks, which make building dwellings that people want difficult. https://streets.mn/2023/10/24/mapping-minneapolis-duplexes-and-triplexes/ https://streets.mn/2023/10/24/mapping-minneapolis-duplexes-a...
- cyberax 2y ago
  The abolishments actually fundamentally changed Minneapolis: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2024/01/04/minneapolis-land-use-reforms-offer-a-blueprint-for-housing-affordability https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/... Most of the new units are in massive multi-apartment buildings. And these buildings have a huge disproportionate impact on the quality of life. It's now going to be sliding into shittier and shittier conditions. More crime, more congestion, higher housing prices.
  - germinalphrase 2y ago
    You live near one of these developments? Your reaction may be correct, but my experience has been that the density has brought amenities. A brewery, a cafe, and a good restaurant moved into vacant/underutilized spaces. My street hasn’t been had issues with long-term parkers. Crime’s no issue. IDK. My experience doesn’t align with your certainty.
    - cyberax 2y ago
      I actually do live in a neighborhood affected by densification, although not in Minneapolis. The "amenities" got worse, a couple of local small stores were demolished and replaced with apartment buildings. A couple of these apartment buildings are "low barrier housing", meaning that they are given to junkies. So the property crime in the area skyrocketed (not helped by newly opened transit), and we don't have a single 24-hour pharmacy in the area anymore. The street parking is now oversubscribed, so my friends often have to circle around the area for quite a while to find a spot when they visit me. These changes actually made me look into the question of density. Before that first-hand experience, I used to be a pro-urbanist victim of propaganda. And yes, I lived in Europe and I got my driving license when I was about 30.
germinalphrase 2y ago
FWIW: as a Minneapolis resident, my experience is that there is active hostility and grassroots rejection of adding dense housing in neighborhoods that are traditionally single family homes. I would be curious to see how much dense housing has actually been built post-2018 relative to the historical norm, as the small number of apartment buildings I've seen go up along light rail and buss corridors have fought tooth and nail against certain demographics in the neighborhoods.
- cyberax 2y ago
  It'll get worse: https://minnesotareformer.com/2023/08/31/ending-minimum-parking-requirements-was-a-policy-win-for-the-twin-cities/ https://minnesotareformer.com/2023/08/31/ending-minimum-park... The usual misery pushers are already celebrating the win.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - brailsafe 2y ago
    So... you want all new buildings to have parking minimums? First of all, pass, but secondly what about that article justifies your cynicism, and lastly what exactly is the root of your anger? Do you just love being isolated to the point that you think everyone else hates or should hate living somewhere where they don't need a car? I'd be pretty annoyed about only being able to own something that had to have a dedicated parking space. What a waste.