3 ms·
Land is fixed, but land-per-dwelling is not if you build more densely
by masterj 2y ago
Land is fixed, but land-per-dwelling is not if you build more densely
- prawn 2y agoThe same land is more valuable if regulations permit higher density development.
- harrison_clarke 2y agoif you permit more density on a small amount of land, the value of that land will go up. there's only a few places to put the new units, so the good land is scarce, and the price goes up if you do it over a whole city, i'm not sure it still holds. not as much, anyway, since the developers have more choices on where to build
- prawn 2y agoI'm not sure that's an experiment we'd see unfold due to NIMBYism. (Not commenting on whether that's an appropriate reaction, just that it's inevitable.) So I wonder if within realistic constraints it's still a fairly safe assumption?
- harrison_clarke 2y agothe city i'm in has done it up to 4 units. it's pretty recent (less than a year, i think), so i don't expect to see much effect yet NIMBYs did indeed get involved: you can build up to 4 units in basically any residential zone except for the "rich people" part of town more cities seem to be doing this sort of thing. hopefully we'll have more/better papers on it in the near future. (and hopefully it works)
- epistasis 2y agoBut trying to suppress land prices by limiting its uses just pushes those price increases nearby. The most disastrous idea in urban planning is that prices can be kept low by limiting use, and trying to preserve "affordability" for a narrow slice of the middle class. It has failed entirely.
- llamaimperative 2y agoNo one in this thread is proposing that
- prawn 2y agoI'm not aware of anywhere that does this? Limitations on use are popular with residents wanting to maintain the character/density of their area.
- missedthecue 2y agoBut the study looked at detached SFH, not multifamily