Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Poor land use in the world’s greatest cities carries a huge cost

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 151 posts

Re: Poor land use in the world’s greatest cities carries a huge cost

#71

Post by Tiktaalik »

graeme wrote: post #28

Something that annoys me about these articles is that they're basically saying "the world's densest cities should make themselves denser" Maybe we should just copy what those cities did. Imagine what america's GDP would be like if it had ten cities like the current NYC. I live in one of the densest neighborhoods in north America, the plateau in Montreal. It achieves this density with low rise buildings, and it's a ve…

Exactly. We don't necessarily need to build skyscrapers to achieve substantial density improvements. There are easier gains out there.

In Vancouver you have conflict over the height and density of new buildings, meanwhile South of the small downtown core there's 60 blocks of ultra low density detached single family houses. Even the small step of transitioning this to row houses or stacked townhouses would allow significant population increases.

Re: Poor land use in the world’s greatest cities carries a huge cost

#72

Post by panglott »

jes wrote: post #49
j_baker wrote: post #33

> Land taxes are efficient. They are difficult to dodge; you cannot stuff land into a bank-vault in Luxembourg. Whereas a high tax on property can discourage investment, a high tax on land creates an incentive to develop unused sites. Land-value taxes can also help cater for newcomers. New infrastructure raises the value of nearby land, automatically feeding through into revenues—which helps to pay for the improvemen…

I don't wish to be confrontational, but in my view, taking other people's property without their voluntary consent is wrong. As I understand the last paragraph of your comment, you wish to see the owner of the vacant lot forced into a situation where he had to act in some way other than how he currently chooses to act. In other words, you want to substitute your judgment for his, when it comes to the use of his prope…

Everybody who owns property does so in a specific legal context, including taxation. The long-term value of that property certainly depends on the stability of that context.

But taxation policy is something that people talk about all the time, to nudge people to do one thing or another, whether it be to save for retirement or whatever. Taxes on externalities are certainly a better way of handling things than explicit regulations, for example.

Re: Poor land use in the world’s greatest cities carries a huge cost

#73

Post by jes »

krschultz wrote: post #50
jes wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't wish to be confrontational, but in my view, taking other people's property without their voluntary consent is wrong. As I understand the last paragraph of your comment, you wish to see the owner of the vacant lot forced into a situation where he had to act in some way other than how he currently chooses to act. In other words, you want to substitute your judgment for his, when it comes to the use of his prope…

That the value of land is substantially based on the environment around it, one that is largely driven by societal factors. 1 acre of land in Manhattan is extremely expensive. 1 acre of land 20 miles north of Manhattan is not expensive. The difference is everything surrounding the land. If the people in a community have decided to spend a lot of their money to reduce crime, improve transit, improve schools, and impro…

Thank you for your comment, and for obviously being concerned with issues of fairness.

If a person makes an investment, and that investment goes up in value, even substantially, and even with no additional effort on the part of the investor, does that justify others taking some or all of the resulting value?

If I bought stock in Apple years ago, because I thought it was a smart thing to do, and I simply held the stock, should other people get a cut of my gains when I sell?

What if the stock goes down? Am I then entitled to someone else's gains?

Re: Poor land use in the world’s greatest cities carries a huge cost

#74

Post by breischl »

ctdonath wrote: post #36
happyscrappy wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only that. Suburban has more emissions per person but the city has far more emissions per square foot, meaning air quality is far worse and consequent health problems.

Do any such studies address sequestration (or other suitable term) of emissions? I may produce more emissions, but I also maintain near an acre (and aspiring to much more) of CO2/etc-absorbing forest & other foliage. Not sure how it all actually balances out, but I never see reported studies addressing suburban/rural foliage conservation impact vs urban bulldozing & paving every square foot for miles.

But if you were living in the city, wouldn't that acre be a forest anyway? Actually, it would be a little bit bigger forest because the land under your house, driveway, the road leading to it, and lawn/garden/whatever would also be forest.

Unless you are actively turning some non-productive land into productive land (eg, greening a desert), you're probably a negative on sequestration no matter what. It's just a question of how negative, and living in the city is probably less negative.

Re: Poor land use in the world’s greatest cities carries a huge cost

#75

Post by Frozenlock »

panglott wrote: post #61
Frozenlock wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The harm for the owner in leaving the lot vacant for a decade is opportunity cost. If he is in a valuable spot , it would be advantageous to sell and just do something else with the money. Imagine high land taxes in the middle of the desert. Is it an incentive to build? Quite the contrary.

This is the point of land-value taxes rather than simple land taxes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax The site-value of unoccupied desert is pretty low, so the land-value taxes on it would be low, which gives incentive to build there rather than elsewhere. Whereas an empty lot on valuable real estate in the city would face not merely the opportunity cost but also a high land-value tax. A lot of tax policy…

But the point was that the vacant lot was somehow "free" to the owner. It's not, he is sacrificing any value he might get by selling it.

If someone sees a better potential use of the land (able to get more value out of it), he can propose to buy it at a higher price.

A land-value taxes is just a multiplier of the opportunity cost, but without any real economic foundation (no one is proposing to buy the land at a higher price).

Re: Poor land use in the world’s greatest cities carries a huge cost

#76

Post by logfromblammo »

krschultz wrote: post #50
jes wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't wish to be confrontational, but in my view, taking other people's property without their voluntary consent is wrong. As I understand the last paragraph of your comment, you wish to see the owner of the vacant lot forced into a situation where he had to act in some way other than how he currently chooses to act. In other words, you want to substitute your judgment for his, when it comes to the use of his prope…

That the value of land is substantially based on the environment around it, one that is largely driven by societal factors. 1 acre of land in Manhattan is extremely expensive. 1 acre of land 20 miles north of Manhattan is not expensive. The difference is everything surrounding the land. If the people in a community have decided to spend a lot of their money to reduce crime, improve transit, improve schools, and impro…

I suggest that the underlying value of the land is zero, or so close to it as to be statistically insignificant. The market value of land is overwhelmingly dominated by proximity to improvements. If you subtract the value of improvements on the land itself from the market value, you are still left with the value of being near the improvements on all surrounding properties.

The true underlying value is the value it would have if you picked up the land with a god's hand and plopped it down in the middle of nowhere, in a land devoid of people and far from roads or rivers. Does it have valuable natural or mineral resources on or under it? Does it have energy production potential? Fresh water? Historical significance?

No? It's worth zero. People drive the economy. Land only has value to the extent that it does not present barriers between you and your trade partners. No one wants to live atop the mountain if the funicular is not built. No one wants to live across the lake if there are no boats, docks, and piers. No one wants to live deep in the forest if the road into it has not yet been cleared.

How then do you calculate a land tax fairly? Surface area alone? Population density data from the census?

Re: Poor land use in the world’s greatest cities carries a huge cost

#77

Post by ch4s3 »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #39
smutticus wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Per-capital carbon production is lowest in dense urban environments. Suburbia and low density rural areas are the real carbon pigs on a per-capita basis. We need to change the wrong headed notion that dense urbanity is somehow bad for the environment. On the contrary, it's how we need to build in order to save the earth.

> We need to change the wrong headed notion that dense urbanity is somehow bad for the environment. On the contrary, it's how we need to build in order to save the earth. I'd like to see the capital/environmental costs of heavy urban development compared to electric cars in the suburbs and rural areas. I'll drive a Nissan Leaf ($199/month) if it means I don't have to live in an urban area (I work from home).

You also have to consider transportation of goods/services. It's more energy intensive to get produce to 10,000 suburban residents than 10,00 NYC residents, for obvious reasons. And, don't forget utilities, runoff, water use, and simple pavement.

Re: Poor land use in the world’s greatest cities carries a huge cost

#78

Post by radicaledward »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #39
smutticus wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Per-capital carbon production is lowest in dense urban environments. Suburbia and low density rural areas are the real carbon pigs on a per-capita basis. We need to change the wrong headed notion that dense urbanity is somehow bad for the environment. On the contrary, it's how we need to build in order to save the earth.

> We need to change the wrong headed notion that dense urbanity is somehow bad for the environment. On the contrary, it's how we need to build in order to save the earth. I'd like to see the capital/environmental costs of heavy urban development compared to electric cars in the suburbs and rural areas. I'll drive a Nissan Leaf ($199/month) if it means I don't have to live in an urban area (I work from home).

I think a lot more goes into making urban life better for the environment than just cars. Off the top of my head I would expect the following to contribute:

Suburban heating and cooling involves larger spaces for less people (houses being bigger in the suburbs),

In an urban environment, there is a lower environmental cost for transportation and processing of food/water/other goods (fewer locations to deliver to).

In an urban environment, I would expect fewer materials are needed to maintain infrastructure (power lines, water pipes, roads, etc). Manufacturing all of these parts involves an environmental cost.

Suburban living currently almost certainly means a big lawn. Traditional green lawns are bad for the environment.

Urban communities can also centralize waste disposal and (I suspect) more easily implement recycling programs.

Finally, don't forget that an electric car is only actually better for the environment if the electricity is produced sustainably (this is mostly not the case in the US). I suspect that electric cars may actually be worse for the environment if powered by most US power plants.

Re: Poor land use in the world’s greatest cities carries a huge cost

#79

Post by deet »

dankohn1 wrote: post #41

I may live in the densest neighborhood of any HN participant: North Battery Park City [1] in Lower Manhattan. As an example, my son's 500 kid elementary school serves 9 buildings. And I'm here to tell you, the future feels great. Specifically, living vertically has all sorts of wonderful aspects in terms of community (the kids can trick-or-treat without leaving the building), access to resources (my kids can ride the…

High density doesn't always equate to pleasantness though. It still has to be done right to be livable.

I spent last year living near Columbus Circle (the southwest corner of Central Park in Midtown Manhattan) which is probably equally dense as Battery Park, and didn't care for it much primarily due to its mixed use. The population density is quite high there, but it is mixed in with office buildings that suck the character out of the area. In particular, returning there at night didn't feel like "coming home" to a neighborhood. We've since moved to a neighborhood that is almost exclusively residential (but still dense) and the difference in character and livability is very noticeable.

High density if not done right also can have a negative psychological impact (tall buildings means less sun), constant crowds might mean less chance to destress, no greenery, etc.

The point is, density isn't the only requirement, it has be done right, so practicing a bit of restraint in allowing building might make sense.

Re: Poor land use in the world’s greatest cities carries a huge cost

#80

Post by ScottBurson »

rwmj wrote: post #7

Knowledge-intensive industries such as technology and finance thrive on the clustering of workers who share ideas and expertise. So allow people to cluster in high quality virtual environments.

Yeah, it surprises me, whenever I stop to think about it, that this isn't more common by now.

In the group I work in we make heavy use of email, of course, and we do have a few remote people who call in via VOIP to meetings, and sometimes we do screen sharing with them, but that's about as far as it goes. We rarely do video, though all our laptops have webcams. We do have a room with a fancy videoconferencing setup with cameras that focus on the person currently speaking -- it's very nice, but it can only connect to another setup of its kind, and the remote people on my team aren't in the one other location I know of that has such a setup; so it's not nearly as valuable as one would like.

The upshot is, I'm left agreeing with those who say that the most effective collaboration still requires being in the same place. Our remote people are certainly productive and part of the team, but we just don't have the same kind of impromptu conversations that I have with my podmates.

And I wonder what the solution might be. Double Robotics [0] certainly has an interesting take on that question; I don't know anyone who has tried it, though.

[0] http://www.doublerobotics.com/

Post reply on HN