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

A look at Denver’s “Unlocking Housing Choices” plan

freerange.city

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 115 posts

Re: A look at Denver’s “Unlocking Housing Choices” plan

#101

Post by harimau777 »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #10
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #3

> A developer could likely fit 3-4 nice cottage homes on that lot, sell them for $500-700k, and make a profit Denver takes 264 days to approve "multi-family or industrial projects with a valuation in excess of $1.5 million, such as a new apartment or office building, large additions" [1]. Construction loans in Colorado cost "8% to 13%" [2]. For a project with $1.5mm up-front costs, from land purchases to permit fees…

>particularly since Denver seems to categorise practically all impactful residential development as "major commercial." This isn't an accident. They know what they're doing. Every municipality tries to do this to the extent they think they can get away with it because it's an end run around your property right. There's all sorts of residential exemptions and precedents and case law and courts and politicians tend not…

I think it's unlikely that their motivation is just to torture home owners.

Re: A look at Denver’s “Unlocking Housing Choices” plan

#102

Post by harimau777 »

Analemma_ wrote: post #17
cucumber3732842 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>particularly since Denver seems to categorise practically all impactful residential development as "major commercial." This isn't an accident. They know what they're doing. Every municipality tries to do this to the extent they think they can get away with it because it's an end run around your property right. There's all sorts of residential exemptions and precedents and case law and courts and politicians tend not…

It's absolutely vital to homeowners that no new housing be built, to keep Undesirables from moving in, but they need to do it in a way which leaves no blood on their hands so they can continue to have their In This House signs with no cognitive dissonance. And this is how they get it: don't make it literally illegal to build housing, but make it economically impossible in practice. Then they can go "welp, nothing's g…

Wait, so they are simultaneously purposely not doing anything to help housing, but they are doing it as an evil scheme to let them bypass the free market and... help housing?

That seems like a contradiction.

Re: A look at Denver’s “Unlocking Housing Choices” plan

#103

Post by harimau777 »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #100
xg15 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No one should be forced to lose money to serve those who cannot afford the product. (That's the space of charities) So, homelessness for the rest then?

(That's the space of charities)

And when the charities can't or don't?

Re: A look at Denver’s “Unlocking Housing Choices” plan

#104

Post by cman1444 »

cyberax wrote: post #93
cman1444 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That article has cherrypicked dates. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/COMPSFLAM1FQ Also, firm in a dense city can get better talent, but those negative externalities (and I would argue these externalities are not clearly caused by the mployer) are made up for through increased salaries the firm must pay compared to areas with lower living costs.

Care to explain the cherry-picking? The average square footage was growing steadily (except for the 2008 crisis) and the inflection point happened around 2012 when the death spiral started in earnest. It has been on the downward trend since then. > Also, firm in a dense city can get better talent, but those negative externalities (and I would argue these externalities are not clearly caused by the mployer) are made u…

> Care to explain the cherry-picking? The average square footage was growing steadily (except for the 2008 crisis) and the inflection point happened around 2012 when the death spiral started in earnest.

It is clearly cherry picked because the graph begins in 2015, which (as you can see in the one I linked) is the exact peak of the new build house sizes. A more honest article would show a larger date range.

Additionally, I feel it makes sense that new builds are getting smaller. People are generally having fewer children these days, so there shouldn't be as much need for huge houses.

> Except that the increased salary does NOT compensate for the increased cost of living. And firms absolutely don't pay for their impact on infrastructure.

It may not entirely make up for the cost of living, but in most cases I would say it certainly makes a big dent. And the rest of the difference can just be explained by the fact that people want to live in cities. So shouldn't it make sense that the cost of living is higher in these areas given that there is more demand for them?

> My favorite example: Seattle. Each household will end up paying around $150k in additional taxes for the new transit that will benefit primarily dense office holders in the downtown.

I think it's strange to frame public transit as primarily benefiting dense office-holders. There are tons of other entities in cities besides just companies in offices. It's a public good, and transit generally benefits everyone. Citizens, companies, government, educational institutions, etc.

Also please link to where I can read more about the $150k number.

Re: A look at Denver’s “Unlocking Housing Choices” plan

#105

Post by Schiendelman »

em-bee wrote: post #99
Schiendelman wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get that you really dislike what I'm saying. I'm sorry. I wish you understood that there were real criticisms.

i might understand that if you showed me the actual criticism and evidence that substantiated it. the system in vienna may not be perfect, but it does better than any other large city in austria and germany and maybe even in europe. criticizing is easy, but i don't think it's fair when the situation everywhere else is worse.

You haven't asked a single question. It's always a waste to engage when people start with "you're wrong". If you engage differently next time I would try!

Re: A look at Denver’s “Unlocking Housing Choices” plan

#106

Post by cyberax »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #97
cyberax wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, I don't actually know good sources that aggregate all this data. I'm collecting all the references and I'm planning to write a book.

If you have a refutation of Triumph of the City , it will be groundbreaking. Until it’s published, throwing in like one credible source would make your comments more serious.

I read "Triumph of the City" about 15 years ago. It's a well-researched book, and it literally makes the same points as I do. In particular, it describes the density death spiral much better than I can. It's a bit outdated regarding the carbon footprint because it was written before the EVs and self-driving but that's a fairly minor point.

Its biggest problem is that it was written before the negatives of the density death spiral became apparent.

The cities in the early 2000-s were the main benefactors of the global crime collapse. So suddenly, Times Square in NYC transformed from a blighted area into the world's most valuable real estate. How could you be negative about urbanism seeing that? Housing in cities was also relatively cheap because cities used to be less desirable than suburbs.

If I were to summarize, "Triumph of the City" is factually correct. Just as the statement: "coal power plants are a triumph of engineering, providing cheap, reliable, and accessible power".

Edit: another important thing that he's missing is the end of the population growth. So now it's a nearly zero-sum game: a new housing unit in Manhattan means one more dilapidated house in rural Ohio.

Re: A look at Denver’s “Unlocking Housing Choices” plan

#107

Post by em-bee »

Schiendelman wrote: post #105
em-bee wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i might understand that if you showed me the actual criticism and evidence that substantiated it. the system in vienna may not be perfect, but it does better than any other large city in austria and germany and maybe even in europe. criticizing is easy, but i don't think it's fair when the situation everywhere else is worse.

You haven't asked a single question. It's always a waste to engage when people start with "you're wrong". If you engage differently next time I would try!

i am sorry it comes across that way. it's kind of difficult to use a different approach when you make claims that i believe to be without any basis. my believe could be wrong of course, but as i am from vienna i do pay attention to what happens there to an extent, and in particular i compare it to other german cities, so i believe myself to be informed about this matter.

your first claim: vienna has become unaffordable because of its subsidized housing.

that claim in itself makes no sense because subsidies are what makes housing affordable. if your argument is that it caused the prices of the private market to go up, then that is false too because munich and berlin have average rents that are even higher, and other german cities are on par. vienna private rent prices are not out of the ordinary for a city that size. in other words subsidizing housing can't have had any worse effect on the private rental market than whatever those cities in germany do.

your second claim: Vienna can't grow anymore as a result.

vienna is building almost 10k homes every year and has been doing so for the last decade or more. that may not be enough, but that's certainly not for lack of space. there is still plenty of space for the city to grow, especially in the east part of the city where farmland is within the city borders.

i am countering your claims. what do you expect me to ask here? do you have any evidence for your claims?

you say you wished that i understood that there were real criticisms.

well, what are these criticisms? again, compared to other large german cities which are mostly worse i find it hard to believe that there is any valid criticism against vienna's approach. but let's hear it, i am willing to accept that i am wrong because i may have missed something. so what am i missing?

Re: A look at Denver’s “Unlocking Housing Choices” plan

#108

Post by cyberax »

cman1444 wrote: post #104
cyberax wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Care to explain the cherry-picking? The average square footage was growing steadily (except for the 2008 crisis) and the inflection point happened around 2012 when the death spiral started in earnest. It has been on the downward trend since then. > Also, firm in a dense city can get better talent, but those negative externalities (and I would argue these externalities are not clearly caused by the mployer) are made u…

> Care to explain the cherry-picking? The average square footage was growing steadily (except for the 2008 crisis) and the inflection point happened around 2012 when the death spiral started in earnest. It is clearly cherry picked because the graph begins in 2015, which (as you can see in the one I linked) is the exact peak of the new build house sizes. A more honest article would show a larger date range. Additional…

> It is clearly cherry picked because the graph begins in 2015, which (as you can see in the one I linked) is the exact peak of the new build house sizes.

I mean... That was exactly the point.

> A more honest article would show a larger date range.

Sure. It provides an even better illustration about how the runaway urbanism resulted in breaking the previous trend of increasing living area.

> Additionally, I feel it makes sense that new builds are getting smaller. People are generally having fewer children these days, so there shouldn't be as much need for huge houses.

You might have cause and effect confused here.

> I think it's strange to frame public transit as primarily benefiting dense office-holders.

Why is it strange? In the counter-factual world without the dense office core, the new transit would have been useless.

> There are tons of other entities in cities besides just companies in offices.

And none of them requires the amount of traffic that justifies $150k per household.

> Also please link to where I can read more about the $150k number.

https://mynorthwest.com/kiro-opinion/sound-transit-3-34-5-bi...

Re: A look at Denver’s “Unlocking Housing Choices” plan

#109

Post by cman1444 »

cyberax wrote: post #108
cman1444 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Care to explain the cherry-picking? The average square footage was growing steadily (except for the 2008 crisis) and the inflection point happened around 2012 when the death spiral started in earnest. It is clearly cherry picked because the graph begins in 2015, which (as you can see in the one I linked) is the exact peak of the new build house sizes. A more honest article would show a larger date range. Additional…

> It is clearly cherry picked because the graph begins in 2015, which (as you can see in the one I linked) is the exact peak of the new build house sizes. I mean... That was exactly the point. > A more honest article would show a larger date range. Sure. It provides an even better illustration about how the runaway urbanism resulted in breaking the previous trend of increasing living area. > Additionally, I feel it m…

>I mean... That was exactly the point.

Great. So we agree it is cherry picked.

> Sure. It provides an even better illustration about how the runaway urbanism resulted in breaking the previous trend of increasing living area.

I don't follow the logic here. Why would 2015 be the tipping point? What's so special about that year? The US has been increasingly urbanizing since WW2.

https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/uni...

> You might have cause and effect confused here.

Just to be clear, you're suggesting that people are having fewer kids (fertility had a recent peak in 2007) because new builds (which are just a small percentage of total housing stock!) have lost a few square feet? I find that to be laughable.

> Why is it strange? In the counter-factual world without the dense office core, the new transit would have been useless.

1. There are more than just offices in CBDs. There are also retail, restaurants, entertainment venues, residential, etc.

2. This ignores the benefit to the worker. And employer/employee relationship goes two-ways. You assign all the benefits to the employers (who gain access to a larger talent pool), while ignoring the fact that this benefits workers too by increasing the pool of jobs they can reliably and comfortably commute to.

3. Economic gains for employers are not purely extractive. A thriving and dynamic centeral business district helps provide income for residents, drive increased investment, and foster innovation.

> And none of them requires the amount of traffic that justifies $150k per household.

Sports venues. Concerts. Festivals. Parades. Any large gathering of people. Not to mention that it's still a good thing to have for general use to go anywhere, even at non-max-capacity times.

https://mynorthwest.com/kiro-opinion/sound-transit-3-34-5-bi...

Not seeing that $150k per household number anywhere in that article. Looks like $10k per person is the number they come up with. Expensive to be sure, but not quite the number you somehow arrived at.

Re: A look at Denver’s “Unlocking Housing Choices” plan

#110

Post by ethbr1 »

Schiendelman wrote: post #72
Analemma_ wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's absolutely vital to homeowners that no new housing be built, to keep Undesirables from moving in, but they need to do it in a way which leaves no blood on their hands so they can continue to have their In This House signs with no cognitive dissonance. And this is how they get it: don't make it literally illegal to build housing, but make it economically impossible in practice. Then they can go "welp, nothing's g…

This is why we must overturn zoning - governments should not have the right to tell you how much you can build. Then we have a shot of forcing permitting to be faster. Make the delay a taking!

Want to see what no zoning looks like? Find your nearest organic strip mall development road, then imagine that in a neighborhood.
Post reply on HN