41–50 of 289 posts
Now make a bookmark and check back in 5 years. What will happen: prices in Berkeley will go in lockstep with other areas around it (likely way up). Meanwhile, congestion will worsen and crime will also likely rise.
Rent will go down which will reduce suffering. Look at changes in rent in Austin vs San Francisco. One builds and the other doesn't.
I’m still shocked by the notion that a highly dense population is inherently good. Pollution increases, energy requirements increase, crime per-capita increases, babies per-capita tend to decrease, time spent in traffic or commuting increases, space per person decreases. I get that you get more food or entertainment options, but in general it doesn’t appear that increasing density actually improves quality of life. T…
Have you considered that density needs to be increased not to provide you with low pollution, low crime, a short commute, food or entertainment options, but instead so that people aren’t forced to live on the street?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rent will go down which will reduce suffering. Look at changes in rent in Austin vs San Francisco. One builds and the other doesn't.
Austin has infinite land and equally infinite highways/pavement/traffic.
Wouldn’t the residents revolt as it could bring their house prices down
I don't know if things work the same way in California as they do up here in Washington, but up here I see a large number of complaints from current home owners about rising house prices. That's because rising house prices means rising property taxes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know if things work the same way in California as they do up here in Washington, but up here I see a large number of complaints from current home owners about rising house prices. That's because rising house prices means rising property taxes.
Unfortunately prop 13 broke that dynamic, among other ill effects.
I will not get a larger house because my property taxes would triple if I wanted another bedroom. A marginally larger house is not worth the marginal cost to move.
And with my 2.8% refinanced mortgage and 60% equity, and current rates today, there's no chance I'd sell.
It's a dream of mine to build a custom home, I can afford it, but I'm not willing to put up with a multi year struggle to get a house approved.
I’m still shocked by the notion that a highly dense population is inherently good. Pollution increases, energy requirements increase, crime per-capita increases, babies per-capita tend to decrease, time spent in traffic or commuting increases, space per person decreases. I get that you get more food or entertainment options, but in general it doesn’t appear that increasing density actually improves quality of life. T…
I learned this right here on HN! How silly is it that most any statistic talking about behaviors of populations are nothing more than population-density graphs.
"Where's all the crime!?" Sure enough it's where all the people are.
Now make a bookmark and check back in 5 years. What will happen: prices in Berkeley will go in lockstep with other areas around it (likely way up). Meanwhile, congestion will worsen and crime will also likely rise.
I'm the bicycle commuter dude who likes walkable and dense cities. Of course course I want just enough of my own private solitude to retreat to as well. But sign me up for density!
I’m still shocked by the notion that a highly dense population is inherently good. Pollution increases, energy requirements increase, crime per-capita increases, babies per-capita tend to decrease, time spent in traffic or commuting increases, space per person decreases. I get that you get more food or entertainment options, but in general it doesn’t appear that increasing density actually improves quality of life. T…
The lowest carbon emissions and least pollution per capita are in city centers. Also the lowest water usage per capita.
> crime per-capita increases
This is not a map of population density, https://vividmaps.com/dangerous-us-counties/
> babies per-capita tend to decrease
I keep hearing people say it's too expensive to have kids. Maybe lower housing prices would help.
> time spent in traffic or commuting increases
Housing closer to jobs makes commutes shorter.
> space per person decreases
You got me. I don't have to pay for more house than I want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a real danger lurking among the zoning reform efforts we are seeing all over the english-speaking world. There are so many levers baked into the zoning code to prevent development that it's easy to produce a policy that appears to unwind the restrictions without actually permitting any real progress. My city upzoned the entire city from 1 to 3 units per lot across the whole city a few years ago, which is grea…
I know I said this in another thread but all zoning reform should really be coupled with a Land Value Tax That would encourage development and encourage making additional reforms to accommodate any unseen / unaddressed issues with the reform
Seems like magical thinking.
> In the 1970s, left-wing activists opposed the construction of dingbat apartments and allied with liberal homeowners to pass the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance (NPO), which effectively finished off housing construction in the city I am not surprised.
> In the 1970s, left-wing activists opposed the construction of dingbat apartments and allied with liberal homeowners to pass the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance (NPO), which effectively finished off housing construction in the city Short of sleazebag propaganda, there is no logic or context, historical or otherwise, that can justify describing this as "left wing." They are right wing activists by definition. I d…
While not all anti-growth sentiment is left-wing (there are some right-leaning areas of California, particularly in the Central Valley and the Sierra Nevada foothills, that also have slow-growth or no-growth policies for maintaining "quality of life" and "rural character"), much of the anti-growth sentiment along the coast traditionally had an environmentalist and grassroots community preservationist flavor to it, with opposition to "developers" who threaten it.