7 ms·

Just Put It on a Map

143 points by surprisetalk 8mo ago

ancillary 8mo ago
Is "land value" the right term here? The NYC example uses assessed property value, which I think is a function of both the land under a property and the building itself. In that case, these "taller means more valuable" graphics are at least partially reflecting the fact that a tall building is probably more valuable than the short one next to it?
- svcphr 8mo ago
  Land and "improvements" are assessed separately, and I believe this is plotting just the assessed land values. In the small text about each map, it says to use the settings to switch to full assessed value or improvements. But still, it's very hard to actually assess land value in an area like Manhattan where there are basically no land-only transactions
- francisofascii 8mo ago
  It is a good question. The author seems to use the field "assr_land_value", and there is also an "assr_impr_value". So it very well may be correct.
xnx 8mo ago
Probably fun to make but harder to read compared to a bar chart.
- flir 8mo ago
  I suspect the visualisation is hiding a power law distribution that would be much more apparent in 2d.
the_sleaze_ 8mo ago
> Show an elected official What is the problem this visualization seeks to make obvious? Is it just neat to think about and make?
- larsiusprime 8mo ago
  Author here. This is the problem we are seeking to solve, we are property tax reform activists: https://open.substack.com/pub/progressandpoverty/p/enacting-land-value-return-in-your?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web https://open.substack.com/pub/progressandpoverty/p/enacting-...
  - PeterHolzwarth 8mo ago
    A minor thing - I know that article is part of a broader body of work and is not meant to solely present your ideas by itself. But nonetheless, since you linked to it, I had to scan down quite a bit to answer the question that was immediately on my mind: "tax reform for what purpose and why?" And, an aside, I'd personally recommend getting rid of the emoji bullet-point additions: in this day and age, well, you know.
    - larsiusprime 8mo ago
      Good points! Thanks.
korkoros 8mo ago
The overall claim is true - yes put it on a map. But I'm not a fan of these particular maps because the use of 3d makes them harder to read. The isometric view and rotation away from north at the top break conventions that people use to orient themselves in the map and connect it to their lived experiences on the ground. I'm reasonably familiar with NYC geography, and I could not immediately recognize the landscape I was looking at in these maps. Ironically, it was only because I already knew the answer to the question that I could do so: "oh that huge green spike must be Manhattan". I think a 2d choropleth map with a diverging color scale centered on the mean value would work better.
- larsiusprime 8mo ago
  The main purpose of the 3D is to communicate the extreme differences in scale of value, which chloropleth alone doesn’t always get across as it flattens the magnitude disparity. Keeping true north to avoid confusion is a good point.
- jeffbee 8mo ago
  Yeah, I agree. And if the surface is complex the Z features tend to obscure the complexity. I make maps like these for the cities of Berkeley and Oakland, but I use a color scale. And I usually aggregate at a larger granule than parcels. For e.g. https://observablehq.com/@jwb/2024-25-berkeley-property-tax-density https://observablehq.com/@jwb/2024-25-berkeley-property-tax-...
- paulirish 8mo ago
  +1. Also, I had to go look at their interactive viewer because that color scheme choice (dark purple = low, light green = high) seemed 100% bonkers. It's the legit "plasma" scheme, but based on my limited experience with colorbrewer schemes, I was confused.
svcphr 8mo ago
> "1. People have wildly incorrect intuitions about where land value is concentrated" Fwiw this sort of land value gradient has been studied in economics for ages. See papers on monocentric city model, going back to Alonso (1964), Muth (1969), and Mills (1967). Or even further back, von Thünen was talking back in 1826 about how land values spike as you get closer to the marketplace.
- PopAlongKid 8mo ago
  I was waiting to read about what these "wildly incorrect intuitions" were, but it's never explained. The maps correctly matched my own intuitions.
  - larsiusprime 8mo ago
    Author here. Our blog generally concerns property tax reform for our regular readership which is admittedly less clear to a new reader coming in cold: the intuitions I’m referring to is the average homeowner kind of assumes any tax reform (such as shifting taxes off buildings and onto land) is designed to impoverish them personally. The purpose of these maps is to show such people where land value in cities is really concentrated - Ie, not the m the suburbs. Mono centric city value might be intuitive to academics, but it’s not among regular everyday people.
    - esrauch 8mo ago
      Do you mean people underestimate how steep the gradient is, or they don't know it at all? It seems kind of dubious to me that "everyday" people don't understand that land in cities is worth more than land in suburbs. It seems very transparent that you get a smaller lot size for the same price.
      - larsiusprime 8mo ago
        Both. They do understand that it’s worth “more” in the city but they vastly underestimate the magnitude, and they vastly underestimate what that means in terms of where the total bulk of land value is concentrated, and therefore what the distribution of winners and losers will be in any tax shift scenario.
AlfredBarnes 8mo ago
Was cool to see a few of the cities, and then cross reference with some searches on pricing to get a better understanding of the actual cost.
paulluuk 8mo ago
This is great, and it also feels like a great way to answer the question "Where should I buy a house if I want to be close to the center but not in the expensive area?". > Let’s play a guessing game. How much more valuable is land in Manhattan than in the Bronx? Take a guess, then scroll down for the answer. As someone who has never been in New York and doesn't live in the US, I knew beforehand that I would fail this test very hard, haha.
- ndriscoll 8mo ago
  Manhattan is where basically everything you might associate with New York is (Empire State building, World Trade Center, Times Square, Central Park, etc.). The Bronx is where Jennifer Lopez reminds us that she came from as she keeps it real.
Drunk_Engineer 8mo ago
Nice idea, except the actual mapper site requires a google login to view.
- larsiusprime 8mo ago
  Author here: it’s a cheap rate limiter and something we are looking to remove soon.
  - daltonlp 8mo ago
    Actual rate limiting costs nothing. The login gate is intentionally a login gate.
jonathanberger 8mo ago
Note that the site that generated these does not support any San Francisco Bay Area cities. I learned this only after being forced to "Sign in with Google".
- VintageCool 8mo ago
  It says in the linked article that they only have support for 9 cities so far, and they list them as: Spokane, WA Syracuse, NY South Bend, IN Bellingham, WA Morgantown, WV Cincinnati, OH St Paul, MN Rochester, NY New York City, NY It also says that they are working on improving the data pipeline so that they can reduce the amount of time it takes to add new cities to their dataset and visualization.
etiennebausson 8mo ago
How much the land is worth is only one of the parameters. Notoriously, the maintenance cost for suburbs and their infrastructure is significantly lower than the tax they bring. Shouldn't that be a major point un tax decisions?
- JoelMcCracken 8mo ago
  IIUC the maintenance costs of suburbs is higher. Not sure if you meant that.
  - bombcar 8mo ago
    I've seen it argued both ways and I've yet to see real evidence, especially considering many suburbs are themselves actually cities/towns, and that cities seem to fight tooth-and-nail to prevent suburbs from leaving.
    - ghaff 8mo ago
      Yes. And it’s not like you can tear up all the roads leading out of a large city (or just let them decay).
    - jeffbee 8mo ago
      Have you ... looked for evidence? I guess I always felt that it was self-evident that horizontal development costs way more in terms of roads, pipes, and wires, and at the same time raises almost nothing in terms of revenues. Residential-only development patterns never pay their own way. https://resources.environment.yale.edu/kotchen/pubs/COCS.pdf https://resources.environment.yale.edu/kotchen/pubs/COCS.pdf
      - bombcar 8mo ago
        I've looked a few times, and it quickly (at least to me) appeared to depend on what you bucket and where you can torture the data and make it confess. Single buildings can cost as much as my entire "city" - one World Trade Center alone cost $4 billion. An example of how you can bucket things is do you look at property tax, income tax (and if you do, is it where the "nexus of generation" is done, where the worker lives, where he works, where she's headquartered, etc). Around here basically none of what we would call "support" is paid for by property tax except schools (95% or so) and sewer (which is billed as a property "tax" though it's actually per connection/size).
Night_Thastus 8mo ago
The other thing people often forget is that the 'land value' is also a measure of the city's well-being. Those big spikes you see in the center? They cost very little for the city to maintain, and generate oodles of tax money. Those big, wide areas out towards the fringes? They generate next to no tax income and cost a lot to maintain. The urban subsidizes the sub-urban. The sub-urban lifestyle would be completely impossible without the ultra-dense urban centers. If planners and citizens don't keep that in mind, you can easily end up with an insolvent city budget that is bleeding from maintaining all the utilities and roads stretching out to the exterior.
- ghaff 8mo ago
  The Bronx is sub-urban? As someone else noted, Manhattan and The Bronx are totally different in ways that probably has little to do with population differently.
- api 8mo ago
  Utilities and roads out into the suburban may be underpriced, but there’s a dark side to cities too. The suburbs and rural areas are often where people can afford homes. I’ve had this hypotheses for a long time that the car is, at least economically, only incidentally about mobility. In reality it’s a tool for obtaining leverage in the real estate market. Without sprawl urban landlords would have a captive audience and would extract all surplus. See: the law of rent. I have a related hypothesis that the car drove the mid century middle class explosion in the US and some other countries, not by providing car jobs or any of the other conventional mechanisms but by allowing people to escape the law of rent. Telework does this today for those who can use it, allowing people to leave high cost cities where good jobs are concentrated. The car did that until we reached the scaling limits of sprawl. Also why I am a huge fan of Georgist taxation. Unfortunately we are moving in the opposite direction, taxing productivity and investment and wealth instead of taxing land and rent.
  - jeffbee 8mo ago
    Yeah well the problem is that after a moderately prosperous person buys a car and a house out in the suburb, the act of having spent half a million dollars makes them believe that they are entitled to drive their car into the city and enjoy the commerce and culture that the city fosters, plus free parking and toll-free roads and subsidized gas. None of those are great! In my town this manifests as people who live just over the county line in unincorporated places who nevertheless feel entitled to participate in city deliberations over road design and parking policies.
AnthonyMouse 8mo ago
This is mostly a result of zoning, isn't it? The high land value areas are the ones where you're less prohibited from building taller buildings. If the thing people actually want is indoor space then the piece of land where you can build a skyscraper is worth a lot more than the one which is limited to a single family home. Someone should probably tell the homeowners with a high ratio of land to house who like to see their property values increase.
- larsiusprime 8mo ago
  It's not just zoning, though that exacerbates it. City centers are where economic activity tends to be concentrated so even without zoning you would see these exponential land value effects as you approach the centers of economic activity (and indeed, we did see these same relative patterns prior to the passing of modern zoning laws).
  - AnthonyMouse 8mo ago
    Weren't transportation and communication a lot slower if you go that far back? Zoning laws started getting imposed not long after the invention of the telephone and the internal combustion engine and before either of them were in the possession of the majority of people. The value of land in an urban area is obviously going to be higher than it is in a rural area just as a matter of scarcity, but it's not at all obvious that the reason it's currently so much more expensive in Manhattan than in the places directly adjacent to it isn't primarily a result of zoning just because that might not have been the reason in 1890.
    - larsiusprime 8mo ago
      If you're talking about the Manhattan effect specifically, I'm sure that zoning has a large effect on the extremeness of it. If you're talking about "land gets exponentially more valuable in the city center", then you see that pattern everywhere and indeed we saw it in the historical pre-zoning period as well. Agglomeration effects are sticky regardless of what time period you're in, what changes is the coefficients on the exponential equation.
cheriot 8mo ago
Now map property taxes per acre and tell me who's subsidizing who in this country. Urban3 has been doing the work: https://codesigncollaborative.org/urban-revolution-through-data/ https://codesigncollaborative.org/urban-revolution-through-d... Municipal costs per resident are effectively the inverse of these maps because the more spread out people are the more roads, pipes, etc are required to reach them.
- larsiusprime 8mo ago
  We're directly inspired by Urban3 and our hope in releasing these tools is to enable more people to be able to do this work directly themselves and share it with their elected officials!
  - cheriot 8mo ago
    Appreciate what you're doing!
chaos_emergent 8mo ago
The writer mentioned that people's intuitions about the distribution of land and where it's most valuable are wildly off, what exactly are people's intuitions that run counter to the data presented? It seems fairly intuitive to me that property values, as you get closer to an urban center
- larsiusprime 8mo ago
  Author here: most people know that the city is "more" valuable, but drastically underestimate how valuable. I've asked people how much more valuable they think Manhattan is than the Bronx and they will say things like "5x" or "10x", which is off by an order of magnitude. They also underestimate what this means. In many cities you can have 50%+ of land value concentrated in a rather small portion of area, and this has huge implications for what would happen is you, say, changed property tax policy to shift the tax burden towards land and away from buildings. Most people assume it would kill the suburbs, but in many of our models single family homes come out slightly ahead, or stay neutral.

143 points by surprisetalk 8mo ago

Is "land value" the right term here? The NYC example uses assessed property value, which I think is a function of both the land under a property and the building itself. In that case, these "taller means more valuable" graphics are at least partially reflecting the fact that a tall building is probably more valuable than the short one next to it?

svcphr 8mo ago
Land and "improvements" are assessed separately, and I believe this is plotting just the assessed land values. In the small text about each map, it says to use the settings to switch to full assessed value or improvements. But still, it's very hard to actually assess land value in an area like Manhattan where there are basically no land-only transactions
francisofascii 8mo ago
It is a good question. The author seems to use the field "assr_land_value", and there is also an "assr_impr_value". So it very well may be correct.

xnx 8mo ago

Probably fun to make but harder to read compared to a bar chart.

flir 8mo ago
I suspect the visualisation is hiding a power law distribution that would be much more apparent in 2d.

the_sleaze_ 8mo ago

> Show an elected official What is the problem this visualization seeks to make obvious? Is it just neat to think about and make?

larsiusprime 8mo ago
Author here. This is the problem we are seeking to solve, we are property tax reform activists: https://open.substack.com/pub/progressandpoverty/p/enacting-land-value-return-in-your?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web https://open.substack.com/pub/progressandpoverty/p/enacting-...
- PeterHolzwarth 8mo ago
  A minor thing - I know that article is part of a broader body of work and is not meant to solely present your ideas by itself. But nonetheless, since you linked to it, I had to scan down quite a bit to answer the question that was immediately on my mind: "tax reform for what purpose and why?" And, an aside, I'd personally recommend getting rid of the emoji bullet-point additions: in this day and age, well, you know.
  - larsiusprime 8mo ago
    Good points! Thanks.

korkoros 8mo ago

The overall claim is true - yes put it on a map. But I'm not a fan of these particular maps because the use of 3d makes them harder to read. The isometric view and rotation away from north at the top break conventions that people use to orient themselves in the map and connect it to their lived experiences on the ground. I'm reasonably familiar with NYC geography, and I could not immediately recognize the landscape I was looking at in these maps. Ironically, it was only because I already knew the answer to the question that I could do so: "oh that huge green spike must be Manhattan". I think a 2d choropleth map with a diverging color scale centered on the mean value would work better.

larsiusprime 8mo ago
The main purpose of the 3D is to communicate the extreme differences in scale of value, which chloropleth alone doesn’t always get across as it flattens the magnitude disparity. Keeping true north to avoid confusion is a good point.
jeffbee 8mo ago
Yeah, I agree. And if the surface is complex the Z features tend to obscure the complexity. I make maps like these for the cities of Berkeley and Oakland, but I use a color scale. And I usually aggregate at a larger granule than parcels. For e.g. https://observablehq.com/@jwb/2024-25-berkeley-property-tax-density https://observablehq.com/@jwb/2024-25-berkeley-property-tax-...
paulirish 8mo ago
+1. Also, I had to go look at their interactive viewer because that color scheme choice (dark purple = low, light green = high) seemed 100% bonkers. It's the legit "plasma" scheme, but based on my limited experience with colorbrewer schemes, I was confused.

svcphr 8mo ago

> "1. People have wildly incorrect intuitions about where land value is concentrated" Fwiw this sort of land value gradient has been studied in economics for ages. See papers on monocentric city model, going back to Alonso (1964), Muth (1969), and Mills (1967). Or even further back, von Thünen was talking back in 1826 about how land values spike as you get closer to the marketplace.

PopAlongKid 8mo ago
I was waiting to read about what these "wildly incorrect intuitions" were, but it's never explained. The maps correctly matched my own intuitions.
- larsiusprime 8mo ago
  Author here. Our blog generally concerns property tax reform for our regular readership which is admittedly less clear to a new reader coming in cold: the intuitions I’m referring to is the average homeowner kind of assumes any tax reform (such as shifting taxes off buildings and onto land) is designed to impoverish them personally. The purpose of these maps is to show such people where land value in cities is really concentrated - Ie, not the m the suburbs. Mono centric city value might be intuitive to academics, but it’s not among regular everyday people.
  - esrauch 8mo ago
    Do you mean people underestimate how steep the gradient is, or they don't know it at all? It seems kind of dubious to me that "everyday" people don't understand that land in cities is worth more than land in suburbs. It seems very transparent that you get a smaller lot size for the same price.
    - larsiusprime 8mo ago
      Both. They do understand that it’s worth “more” in the city but they vastly underestimate the magnitude, and they vastly underestimate what that means in terms of where the total bulk of land value is concentrated, and therefore what the distribution of winners and losers will be in any tax shift scenario.

AlfredBarnes 8mo ago

Was cool to see a few of the cities, and then cross reference with some searches on pricing to get a better understanding of the actual cost.

paulluuk 8mo ago

This is great, and it also feels like a great way to answer the question "Where should I buy a house if I want to be close to the center but not in the expensive area?". > Let’s play a guessing game. How much more valuable is land in Manhattan than in the Bronx? Take a guess, then scroll down for the answer. As someone who has never been in New York and doesn't live in the US, I knew beforehand that I would fail this test very hard, haha.

ndriscoll 8mo ago
Manhattan is where basically everything you might associate with New York is (Empire State building, World Trade Center, Times Square, Central Park, etc.). The Bronx is where Jennifer Lopez reminds us that she came from as she keeps it real.

Drunk_Engineer 8mo ago

Nice idea, except the actual mapper site requires a google login to view.

larsiusprime 8mo ago
Author here: it’s a cheap rate limiter and something we are looking to remove soon.
- daltonlp 8mo ago
  Actual rate limiting costs nothing. The login gate is intentionally a login gate.

jonathanberger 8mo ago

Note that the site that generated these does not support any San Francisco Bay Area cities. I learned this only after being forced to "Sign in with Google".

VintageCool 8mo ago
It says in the linked article that they only have support for 9 cities so far, and they list them as: Spokane, WA Syracuse, NY South Bend, IN Bellingham, WA Morgantown, WV Cincinnati, OH St Paul, MN Rochester, NY New York City, NY It also says that they are working on improving the data pipeline so that they can reduce the amount of time it takes to add new cities to their dataset and visualization.

etiennebausson 8mo ago

How much the land is worth is only one of the parameters. Notoriously, the maintenance cost for suburbs and their infrastructure is significantly lower than the tax they bring. Shouldn't that be a major point un tax decisions?

JoelMcCracken 8mo ago
IIUC the maintenance costs of suburbs is higher. Not sure if you meant that.
- bombcar 8mo ago
  I've seen it argued both ways and I've yet to see real evidence, especially considering many suburbs are themselves actually cities/towns, and that cities seem to fight tooth-and-nail to prevent suburbs from leaving.
  - ghaff 8mo ago
    Yes. And it’s not like you can tear up all the roads leading out of a large city (or just let them decay).
  - jeffbee 8mo ago
    Have you ... looked for evidence? I guess I always felt that it was self-evident that horizontal development costs way more in terms of roads, pipes, and wires, and at the same time raises almost nothing in terms of revenues. Residential-only development patterns never pay their own way. https://resources.environment.yale.edu/kotchen/pubs/COCS.pdf https://resources.environment.yale.edu/kotchen/pubs/COCS.pdf
    - bombcar 8mo ago
      I've looked a few times, and it quickly (at least to me) appeared to depend on what you bucket and where you can torture the data and make it confess. Single buildings can cost as much as my entire "city" - one World Trade Center alone cost $4 billion. An example of how you can bucket things is do you look at property tax, income tax (and if you do, is it where the "nexus of generation" is done, where the worker lives, where he works, where she's headquartered, etc). Around here basically none of what we would call "support" is paid for by property tax except schools (95% or so) and sewer (which is billed as a property "tax" though it's actually per connection/size).

Night_Thastus 8mo ago

The other thing people often forget is that the 'land value' is also a measure of the city's well-being. Those big spikes you see in the center? They cost very little for the city to maintain, and generate oodles of tax money. Those big, wide areas out towards the fringes? They generate next to no tax income and cost a lot to maintain. The urban subsidizes the sub-urban. The sub-urban lifestyle would be completely impossible without the ultra-dense urban centers. If planners and citizens don't keep that in mind, you can easily end up with an insolvent city budget that is bleeding from maintaining all the utilities and roads stretching out to the exterior.

ghaff 8mo ago
The Bronx is sub-urban? As someone else noted, Manhattan and The Bronx are totally different in ways that probably has little to do with population differently.
api 8mo ago
Utilities and roads out into the suburban may be underpriced, but there’s a dark side to cities too. The suburbs and rural areas are often where people can afford homes. I’ve had this hypotheses for a long time that the car is, at least economically, only incidentally about mobility. In reality it’s a tool for obtaining leverage in the real estate market. Without sprawl urban landlords would have a captive audience and would extract all surplus. See: the law of rent. I have a related hypothesis that the car drove the mid century middle class explosion in the US and some other countries, not by providing car jobs or any of the other conventional mechanisms but by allowing people to escape the law of rent. Telework does this today for those who can use it, allowing people to leave high cost cities where good jobs are concentrated. The car did that until we reached the scaling limits of sprawl. Also why I am a huge fan of Georgist taxation. Unfortunately we are moving in the opposite direction, taxing productivity and investment and wealth instead of taxing land and rent.
- jeffbee 8mo ago
  Yeah well the problem is that after a moderately prosperous person buys a car and a house out in the suburb, the act of having spent half a million dollars makes them believe that they are entitled to drive their car into the city and enjoy the commerce and culture that the city fosters, plus free parking and toll-free roads and subsidized gas. None of those are great! In my town this manifests as people who live just over the county line in unincorporated places who nevertheless feel entitled to participate in city deliberations over road design and parking policies.

AnthonyMouse 8mo ago

This is mostly a result of zoning, isn't it? The high land value areas are the ones where you're less prohibited from building taller buildings. If the thing people actually want is indoor space then the piece of land where you can build a skyscraper is worth a lot more than the one which is limited to a single family home. Someone should probably tell the homeowners with a high ratio of land to house who like to see their property values increase.

larsiusprime 8mo ago
It's not just zoning, though that exacerbates it. City centers are where economic activity tends to be concentrated so even without zoning you would see these exponential land value effects as you approach the centers of economic activity (and indeed, we did see these same relative patterns prior to the passing of modern zoning laws).
- AnthonyMouse 8mo ago
  Weren't transportation and communication a lot slower if you go that far back? Zoning laws started getting imposed not long after the invention of the telephone and the internal combustion engine and before either of them were in the possession of the majority of people. The value of land in an urban area is obviously going to be higher than it is in a rural area just as a matter of scarcity, but it's not at all obvious that the reason it's currently so much more expensive in Manhattan than in the places directly adjacent to it isn't primarily a result of zoning just because that might not have been the reason in 1890.
  - larsiusprime 8mo ago
    If you're talking about the Manhattan effect specifically, I'm sure that zoning has a large effect on the extremeness of it. If you're talking about "land gets exponentially more valuable in the city center", then you see that pattern everywhere and indeed we saw it in the historical pre-zoning period as well. Agglomeration effects are sticky regardless of what time period you're in, what changes is the coefficients on the exponential equation.

cheriot 8mo ago

Now map property taxes per acre and tell me who's subsidizing who in this country. Urban3 has been doing the work: https://codesigncollaborative.org/urban-revolution-through-data/ https://codesigncollaborative.org/urban-revolution-through-d... Municipal costs per resident are effectively the inverse of these maps because the more spread out people are the more roads, pipes, etc are required to reach them.

larsiusprime 8mo ago
We're directly inspired by Urban3 and our hope in releasing these tools is to enable more people to be able to do this work directly themselves and share it with their elected officials!
- cheriot 8mo ago
  Appreciate what you're doing!

chaos_emergent 8mo ago

The writer mentioned that people's intuitions about the distribution of land and where it's most valuable are wildly off, what exactly are people's intuitions that run counter to the data presented? It seems fairly intuitive to me that property values, as you get closer to an urban center

larsiusprime 8mo ago
Author here: most people know that the city is "more" valuable, but drastically underestimate how valuable. I've asked people how much more valuable they think Manhattan is than the Bronx and they will say things like "5x" or "10x", which is off by an order of magnitude. They also underestimate what this means. In many cities you can have 50%+ of land value concentrated in a rather small portion of area, and this has huge implications for what would happen is you, say, changed property tax policy to shift the tax burden towards land and away from buildings. Most people assume it would kill the suburbs, but in many of our models single family homes come out slightly ahead, or stay neutral.