CDs vs. NIMBY(betonit.ai) |
CDs vs. NIMBY(betonit.ai) |
Higher density brings both good and bad:
upside: - high paying, specialized jobs - specialized, high quality services - stores open late - better dating (more fish in the sea)
downside: - more traffic - more noise - more pollution - more anonymity, crime (people in small towns leave their doors unlocked and say hi on the sidewalk)
The people who benefit most from higher density tend to be young professionals, which tend to not currently live in the neighborhood and will move in if density goes up.
These are often true, but not inherently so. I've lived in remote rural, suburban, and dense city environments. My dense city had disadvantages, but it was quiet and had little traffic or pollution. In my experience the suburban environment is the worst for all three once you get off the residential streets, there's loud, polluting traffic (3/3).
In two of the places I lived, I couldn't keep the window open due to the constant tire noise. It wasn't an issue in the densest place I lived, which was a low-car-traffic place and pleasant to be outside in. Now, I live right next to a freight rail yard, but I don't find the train noise grating like the highway noise.
These are people who left the urban area to get away from the density of the city, but didn’t want to move far enough away from conveniences for it to actually be quiet.
These are area that typical have poor public transit (at least the places I’ve lived), so adding more density does add more traffic and noise. Offering alternatives to address that is a decades long project that requires a lot of political will and significant inconveniences for residents during construction.
I lived in a city that implemented a lot of road diets, while building more apartments and condos, and it was a mess. If you happened to live downtown and were staying in a walkable area downtown, it was fine. But getting to and from downtown, to go grocery shopping, was painful. It was possible to live outside that downtown ring for easier access to the surrounding area, but then going downtown for dinner had significant friction, as they didn’t have good solutions. It was either a very slow and infrequent bus, or use a car.
> Now, I live right next to a freight rail yard, but I don't find the train noise grating like the highway noise.
I used to live a block away from a Metra stop in Chicagoland. I now live near where two interstates cross and there are a lot of street racers. While I do hate the bikers, when those trains would stack up and 3 or 4 of them would spend 5 minutes blowing their whistles back and forth constantly while I was trying to sleep, it would drive me insane. I can hear the trains from where I am now, but I’m a bit further away and it’s not like those rush hour Metra trains.
I have the feeling there are a lot of different situations with trains. I had an AirBnb in London and 3 days in I realize the window (covered with curtains) had been wide open the whole time. When I looked outside there was a ton of train tracks, but I didn’t even notice any noise.
- more noise: From traffic? electrification is making transportation quieter than before. From people in the streets? again the streets are way less busy compare to pre-COVID at least in SF. People either do not work, or work from home, get delivered everything from movies (Netflix), to food (UberEats) or shopping (Amazon), etc. foot traffic is WAY lower than pre-COVID. So if we double the population, yes there would be some additional foot traffic. But how would it compare to 10 years ago ?
- more pollution: From traffic? electrification is offsetting some of it. From trash, well those people were trashing elsewhere too.
- more anonymity, crime: That is cultural. Tokyo is fairly dense city, and with fairly low crime compare to US standards.
"The people who benefit most from higher density tend to be young professionals": Go visit a major city in Europe (Paris, Barcelona, etc) that has high density, and you would see lots of different generations, not only young professionals. It is possible to live from cradle to grave in those cities. It does not have to transition spot when you are young, professional and looking at dating. It could be where you go to kindergarten, up to university, work and retire.
I feel like the main thing that NIMBY fear is change, any change. Hausmann, where are you ?
Broadly disparaging large, diverse groups of people like this is what makes things harder, not easier. This is tribalism.
These aren't all foregone conclusions. For example, Arlington, VA (11th highest density county in the US) most likely has the lowest combined traffic/homicide fatality rate in the country. Traffic peaked in 2000, and by 2015 it had gone down 20% while population rose 20%. This of course required a lot of planning and investment, but that is enabled by the higher property tax revenues that more housing brings.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-11-18/how-ar...
This contradicts every common theory of economics I've heard.
The value of a home to an owner should be higher than the price, otherwise they should sell and move. (We're talking theory here, there are a lot of good reasons why people don't do what they should).
Building more houses will decrease prices, but increase value. Until the two meet and then the new houses will stay unsold and will stop getting built.
I think their theory with housing was similar. Added supply would create the conditions for increased demand to fill it, and everything would equal out. Maybe a short term dip (as is the case with traffic), but not a a long-term downtrend.
Bringing people to the city could also act as more of a feeder for future single-family home buyers in the area, and those still do have a more limited supply.
I think the big question will be what happens if we build a ton home housing right as the baby boomers are vacating their homes. Is this a short term crunch, where building to meet it will create a surplus of housing over the next 10-15 years that will tank the market?
Which one has more expensive housing units?
Part of the purpose of development is to make more shit happen and increase demand. It's rarely just "new increaesed supply vs constant demand"
Or rather: a demand that would result in anyone producing new housing units does not happen in a vacuum. And outpacing that rate of demand rarely happens from construction alone.
If increasing the amount and density of housing increases the desirability of a place thus increasing the value of the housing, this still has limits.
The SF bay area has had a housing shortage for 30 years. Its driven by people wanting to move in that have lots of money AND the refusal of local cities to allow housing to be built, also there isnt new land to build on. However the number of vacant plots in Mountain View is disgraceful.
If we allowed people to build high-rise apartments in downtown Mountain View rent would drop.
More saliently, I don't believe you're right to imply that "young professionals" only want to live in dense areas. Sometimes they have to, but that's something we can change.
Ah, yes, we live in a black-and-white world where this always happens, and so does this:
> upside: - high paying, specialized jobs - specialized, high quality services - stores open late - better dating (more fish in the sea)
There plenty of VERY affluent rural-ish areas.
There are also plenty of very nice places to live with high density that have FAR less crime rates that typical rural America, minimal traffic or noise, and far less pollution than you can find anywhere remotely rural and industrial or even agricultural areas.
The reality is - there's a lot of Karens that will do anything they can to deny everyone else of anything else they can possibly deny.
That's a large component of NIMBYism. These types will find any reason to justify it.
NIMByism can be killed with a land value tax/a property tax that approximates LVT and vice versa.
It was kicked into overdrive in California thanks to prop 13 which capped property taxes.
It's not a bad idea, but it doesn't moot the underlying questions, because it will never be deployed at the scale where it would be dispositive.
tl;dr: “while demand remains steady” is doing a lot of heavy lifting that doesn’t really make sense in a real dynamic urban system.
None of these restrictive arguments would stop me from doing the next 2-3 steps even, after buying those many discs.
Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything
I don't care. I want to live in my house, not sell it.
Whether your surrounding community should honor that preference is a different question. Depending on where you live, your preference, and even those of the consensus of incumbent residents, can be more or less persuasive.
If you live out in the middle of nowhere --- an exurb, say, with large lots and built around people who have consciously chosen to opt into long commutes and out of metro hub and metro county services --- your neighborhood's preference against density can indeed be somewhat compelling. Though I'd note that states are moving towards a directional consensus that local governments should not be able to impose single-family exclusionary zoning preferences no matter where you are. To that whole scenario: big shrug.
On the other hand, if you're in an inner ring suburb, the equation changes sharply. Your community likely siphons high-dollar tax checks out of the regional school system fabric and into a mostly economically homogenous enclave of concentrated opportunity. You'd benefit from close connectivity to the metro hub, short commutes, economic spillover, all while walling yourself off from the area.
In that scenario, it is reasonable (and probably the straightforward correct policy) to ignore your personal preferences, and to think about the preferences of the entire region and of the prospective future residents density would enable.
It all depends.
I live in an urban village, and my taxes and utility fees _already_ disproportionately go to fix the issues caused by new development. I'll be paying around $150000 in incremental property taxes for a failed light rail that does not go anywhere close to me.
Yet the surrounding streets are already overloaded with traffic because the city allowed developers to construct dense housing about 2 decades _before_ the supposed arrival of the rail.
I see absolutely NO upsides from increased density pretty much ANYWHERE. Density is universally bad except in artificial formations like Singapore.
I agree that this is needed, but regulation would be required to compel neighborhoods to allow increased density as well...
A big factor in why housing was affordable for most of the 20th century was the Savings and Loan associations, a product of New Deal era banking regulation. S&Ls were the only financial institutions allowed to take deposits in most communities due to limits on bank branching. They had access to very cheap financing because of regulations prohibiting interest on checking accounts, and limiting interest rates on other types of deposits. They were also only allowed to lend money for local real estate projects. This meant that you had a captive market where local savings could fund local housing development. The system fell apart after Reagan era deregulation forced the S&Ls to compete with national institutions offering higher returns. The S&Ls were pressured into offering higher returns themselves by shifting from residential financing to more speculative commercial real estate projects. The result was the failure of many S&Ls, and the rest of them being absorbed into the larger banking system.
The S&L system meant that it was possible to finance housing ahead of demand, which caused a relative decline in housing costs. Between 1950 and 1980, rents in urban areas rose by about 30% less than the CPI as a whole. Meanwhile, in the last 10 years, rents in urban areas rose by about 30% more than the CPI. (see https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUUR0000SEHA , https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIAUCSL ). Housing prices will always increase more than inflation as long as new housing development has to compete with all other types of investment.
The YIMBYs are right that blocking any given building from being built will push housing prices up higher in that area, so new development is overall good for housing prices. What they miss is that deregulation will never reduce housing prices back to what they previously were or lower because developers will never come in and build new housing in a market where rents are stagnant or decreasing.
this is a shitty article with no understanding of reality
Umm, what? If you start with "If this all sounds like wishful thinking", maybe departing into even more unhinged fantasy isn't the next step that helps you? The supposition that _deregulation_ could cause the price to go to zero is crazy; houses are built with labor using materials, on land. In the absence of regulation they shouldn't cost significantly _more_ than their labor+materials+land value, but they shouldn't cost _zero_. If you wanted the world where you don't pay for housing, I think you need a _lot_ of regulation -- after all building millions of Stalin blocks took a lot of intervention.
Throughout the piece, Caplan seems to assume that the only impact of regulation worth discussing is on prices, which seems suspect. But assuming that the only source of prices is regulation is worse.
If you think that NIMBY policies are ultimately harmful, maybe the only thing rougher than talking to NIMBYs is seeing a supposed expert try to argue against them but do it really really badly.
To me the issue is that densification (in the US; can't speak to other countries) usually comes with more downsides than upsides.
Mainly this is because of the US's focus on cars: the biggest downside is usually increased traffic. Unfortunately it feels towns in the US do the bare minimum to address it, like adding some traffic lights and maybe a lane or two.
Instead I wish the US had more good examples of densification for existing residents, where along with the increased housing larger steps were made to improve the community. E.g. significantly expanded mass transit, bicycling infrastructure, community third places, etc. And I get it, these things are really expensive and hard to do. But turning densification into something that more clearly benefits the day-to-day experience of existing residents would do a LOT to combat NIMBYism.
Freezing the SFH neighborhood also doesn't protect the community long term, as NIMBYs believe. When supply gets restricted, prices go up. It prices out the local teachers, service workers, aging family, and even the NIMBY's own children get priced out, until now it's just a neighborhood of million dollar+ SFHs with no young families, no local workforce. It's economic segregation.
Continuing to allow local vetoes and restrictive zoning just pushes us out further and further into unsustainable suburban sprawl, without the transit to match, and boosting emissions.
Not popular in individualistic America, but when we have the housing crisis we do, the needs of the many are going to have to take priority over the needs of the few NIMBYs.
This is how it's done in the rest of the world, certainly Korea, Japan, and China. I see this in England and France as well. They develop a high density area with new facilities that can grow and evolve for how people want to live there, rather than mowing down houses (in communities of color) or plopping 5-7 story apartments without parking or parks right next to single story SFH, as developers like to do in the US.
I assume it's because it's more profitable for the developers. They don't have to build anything, but the part they can immediately sell, and they ride on the value of the neighborhood created by the people who already live there. I think some infill near commercial districts or malls also faces much less "NIMBY" criticism.
To give a more personal example: I like the location and view of where you live. I like the plants you water, and you keep the house looking clean. I want to just build another large room on top of your house, where me and a bunch of friends will live. We'll just share the stairs, hallways, and front door, and of course our share of the water and electric bill. We probably won't be too loud most nights, and usually when friends come over they won't use your bathroom or take anything from your rooms, or at least we'll ask them not to. Sorry about the construction noise while we do it, and just think you'll get to meet so many new people! Sorry that the part of your house you still own will be worth less than your neighbors when we're done, but that's the price you need to pay for living in a nice place and keeping it up.
The argument that SFH infrastructure repair is subsidized by new building is a much better one. Of course that was true of the tax increases and subsidy of the original town, when the SFH were built as well.
Both things are bad, and we must "prioritize" a balance, not one or the other. It's perfectly possible to build inward/upward in some places, and outward in other places. It's perfectly possible to build affordable/high-density housing without ruining existing areas. It's perfectly possible to accept that some places are highly desirable because an infinite number of people can not live there - that certain amounts (high amounts) of development defeat the entire point by removing the desirability of those locations. We can strike a reasonable balance between allowing developers to do whatever they want without regard for infrastructure or community, vs, on the other end, not allowing any new construction in already-populated areas.
We can expand existing desirable areas reasonably, while also building new desirable areas, but that's difficult because it requires time and investment, and in the meantime it's not as "desirable" as people would like. The simple fact is that people are reproducing within and migrating into desirable areas at a rate that is not compatible with keeping those areas desirable, and developers are leveraging this conflict to pretend they can't build anywhere else, hence the crisis.
More shortly: You're understating the importance of quality of life (the concept of "home" is one of the most important things in the history of humanity), and implying a false conflict that we can't both have both quality of life and more development.
Or in reality, desirable locations remain desirable, and the current residents who had a hand in making it desirable have a right to prevent a reduction of their quality of life for the benefit of people who would prefer to live there but are unable to successfully compete with others in the housing market.
I don't believe you.
Financial investor mindset is a real and dramatic example, but a minority in the set of reasons that individual people care about the community they worked so hard to live in.
Citation needed*
It seems natural to me that the majority of emotions regarding one's home and community are in regards to the idea of home and community, rather than their monetary value, since that's the obvious human perspective. And of course you can care about both things at once, which maybe you assumed I was omitting? I only said the the majority of people care about their home/community, and implied that I believe it's the stronger emotion, not that the majority of people do not also care about the investment (which does materially affect their actual life, as opposed to the more common image of a wealthy "investor").
I could be wrong. It's a sentiment, so it's not something easily measured (unless you fall for the trap of over-interpreting statistics, which is common in an engineering-minded folks).
What people want, even in those denser supply-choked cities, is basically just stability. "I don't want to be forced out because a bunch of rich people move in next door, and I don't want it it turn into something dramatically different experience-wise than what I bought."
If everyone in those areas just wanted to maximize the financial side they'd be looking to flip their single family home for a fourplex and put the profit into another, etc etc.
"We don't want this to turn into Manhattan" is NOT what anyone owning land in a maybe-could-turn-into-Manhattan place if they were just interested in the money.
(That's less viable in the middle-of-the-country suburbs because the "increased land value" of the old empty pasture next door could still result in lower land value for your on-the-suburban-fringe neighborhood, if there's high amounts of empty land and more new identical suburbs popping up. But that's not where the problem is most acute, anyway!)
It's valuable to know where people are coming from, so you can persuade them out of unproductive policy positions (or at least deactivate them so they're less in the way of change). It's important to be respectful of people. It's often counterproductive to be respectful of bad ideas.
If you built more houses in Dubuque, would it increase or decrease Dubuque house values?
That's an interesting question, because it's often — not necessarily in this case, but often — asked by people who ignore capitalism when it's inconvenient to their case. Other askers simultaneously claim things like "Dubuque has a lower cost of living" and "Dubuque is a better place to live". That ignores the fact that Manhattan is more expensive because more people want to live there, to the point that they're willing to pay several times more for the benefits they believe it gives them.
When someone argues that city X is n% more expensive than city Y, it's another way of saying that residents believe they're getting at least n% more value from Y than they would from X.
It's also worth observing that land supply is a fixed constraint[1], and a platted parcel is what everyone should be looking at. The more inhabitants we can keep on a parcel, the more potential customers and employees we have for the businesses adjoining that parcel.
--
0: In some models, it's also said that this house has limited utility, but I'm reticent to put this front-and-center on HN. I've nonetheless left it here as a footnote to split the difference.
1: At least, it's fixed barring, like, land reclamation, which is extremely expensive.
My family and I participate extensively in our community, both socially and civically. We all know and love each other, and regularly welcome newcomers. We are not wealthy - we're barely middle-class. We would like to die here. Our home's value has not changed (adjusted for inflation) in the decade since we purchased it. We couldn't care less if its value goes down if it means keeping our home and community.
Try not to spit in a person's face and tell them who they are based on essentially nothing.
Citation needed
Yes as we add density we do add some items like extra schools, sure, as the population is growing.
No one is going to build a town of 100,000 off a new non-existent highway they also built somewhere in CA. It's going to go somewhere that has some density already (and has that density usually as it is near something desirable).
They also dont built is near where THE sfhs are (as in all), they built it near SOME of it. Thus the NIMBY desire for it to fall somewhere else. We cant make ALL the sprawl dense, we don't have the people for it. If the Bay Area counties had pop density of urban areas of East Bay across all of it, it would fit every CA resident with none left to populate LA, San Diego, Sacramento etc (not a recommendation, just a note that density can't be everywhere).
Certainly, some people are moving to the Bay Area, but the rate of home building well exceeds the population growth rate of California (or England) which are occasionally negative. It's mostly a question of new people wanting to move to particular places they like. But ask, why do they like them, and how was that created? Also ask, what fraction of the residential homes are occupied. In California (especially in desirable areas), the answer to that is likely <90%. Nobody (especially not developers) want to raise taxes on empty houses/apartment/condos/retail, but maybe it would fill up if they did (and lower prices for people who want to rent/move in.
Not to go full Hausmann (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haussmann's_renovation_of_Pari...) and eminent-domain the half of the city and rebuild a 1/5 of the city in higher density buildings, in 15 years. But we could ramp it up and start with the low hanging fruits, with empty buildings, parking lots, gas stations, etc. Show results. Show the building owners that they could building higher on their lot, do the math for them, stream line the permitting, help with financing.
Here is also pace to consider. We are biological creatures, and we only support change at a certain pace, without going fully stressed.
This would do a lot on its own. Remove parking minimums and pull out the parking lots. This is why transit is important, and single occupancy vehicles as the primary means of human transport in urban areas is just not sustainable nor is it efficient.
We waste so much space to parking that does absolutely nothing but act as property storage.
[1] Here are some for reference: City / Metro Area Residential Land Zoned Single-Family Only (%) - San Jose, CA 94% - Arlington, TX 89% - Charlotte, NC 84% - Seattle, WA 81% - Chicago, IL 79% - Portland, OR 77% - Los Angeles, CA 75% - Minneapolis, MN 70% - Washington, D.C. 36% - New York City, NY 15%
Seattle, Chicago, and Los Angeles are surprisingly high, but hundreds of square miles of SFH offsets a lot of lakefront high-rises.
But this is the whole reason people complain about NIMBYs - there are no other backyards left!
It depends on where said SFHs are. Cities need to eventually grow upwards! If we never allowed land-reuse Manhattan would still be 2 stories on the whole borough.
I live in Toronto and the harshest NIMBYs are adjacent to downtown and/or subway stops. They fight tooth and nail against even 6 story condominiums on the major high streets (Margret Atwood, who lives in a large SFH close to downtown was among them recently-ish). The ultimate result is that we have a handful of extremely dense clusters of condominiums centred around a few subway stops that then super-concentrate people and cause extreme crowding on transit, amenities, etc. It would be better if you had mid-rise multi-unit dwellings more spread out.
It's actually become an acute problem in so many ways. The people who own the SFHs tend be over 50 and childless. The result is that many schools in these neighbourhoods are at barely 20% capacity, while the condominiums (where most younger families can afford to live) are causing the schools near them to be overflowing with kids.
> This is how it's done in the rest of the world, certainly Korea, Japan, and China. I see this in England and France as well.
The countries broadly speaking default to higher density than North America for historical and economic reasons. They have their own issues, but the majority of Koreans live in high rises and Japan rebuilds their buildings constantly: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/nov/16/japan-reusabl...
Because I've lived in a few of the largest urban areas and the answer is "nowhere near the jobs."
Certainly, not what I've seen. So people coming for "the jobs" DESERVE the kind of nearby, low cost, transit friendly housing that does not currently exist, while the people who live there DESERVE to have it taken from them at a price lower than the housing will currently bring?
Why?
I completely disagree with broader point of "cultural reasons" why Asia built high density, because it is all so recent. Mostly in the 1970s-2010s. They built entirely NEW infrastructure, with transit (e.g. subway, highspeed rail), malls, streets, commercial and residential buildings. Look anywhere in Korea, look at the rise of Shin-Yokohama (outside Tokyo), look at the highrise Urbs outside of Paris (out all the way to Rennes).
Why is the center of Paris still only few stories high after the Hausmann era when it was laregely built over 150 years ago. Why don't they put 50 story skyscrapers in Paris... because they don't want to, and they push the "density" to the edges where new facilities can support them. But the housing prices in Paris are astronomical (just as they are in London).
If you want to talk about closing schools, because there aren't children for them... then great! Build new high density where the school used to be. Build a school into the building, put a subway under the school with a connecting mall. Then at least the surrounding neighborhood that has been paying 70 years of taxes doesn't have to deal with the extra traffic/parking of the new construction. Maybe they'll even enjoy the new mall, and foot traffic will help support existing commercial infrastructure.
You realize the same people in those neighbourhoods fight things like this for the exact same reasons? These people (much like London/Paris) are externalizing housing costs onto others. Now those people in far out areas need enormous infrastructure to move them to work, etc.
> Then at least the surrounding neighborhood that has been paying 70 years of taxes doesn't have to deal with the extra traffic/parking of the new construction. Maybe they'll even enjoy the new mall, and foot traffic will help support existing commercial infrastructure.
(In Toronto at least) the lower density areas are subsidized by the higher density areas (much of which is also commercial). It costs more per capita to lay sewer, pave roads, police, etc these SFH areas. Also, they would fight the same conversions of schools in their neighbourhoods for the same traffic/shadows/etc reasons. And you can't economically build a subway to a smallish "dense" footprint in a former school ground, and even if you could you'd be recreating the same "ultra dense" problems that Toronto already has.
Look at this image: http://images.unoapp.com/boxdata/asset52207/images/4800Yonge...
There is essentially only expensive SFH and relatively expensive to build high rises with almost nothing in between. You're saying that to protect (and continue to subsidize) a bunch of people's lifestyles that new residents should only be expanded into the outskirts of urban zones?
