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

How Anti-Growth Sentiment, Reflected in Zoning Laws, Thwarts Equality

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 83 posts

Re: How Anti-Growth Sentiment, Reflected in Zoning Laws, Thwarts Equality

#31

Post by xg15 »

stale2002 wrote: post #27
HillaryBriss wrote: post #26

> The lost opportunities for development may theoretically reduce the output of the United States economy by as much as $1.5 trillion a year We should also do away with National Parks and Forests, which are nothing more than zoning laws at the Federal level. For that matter, state and local parks get in the way too. How much lost economic output are restrictions on real estate development in Golden Gate Park costing…

You are thinking about things in exactly the wrong way. For every 1 story increase in building height in a San Francisco apartment complex, there is 10 less houses that have to be build in Suburbia. 10 parcels of land that can now be converted to national parks, and public spaces. People need a place to live whether you like it or not. We can either make room for them in the cities, by increasing density and building…

> 10 parcels of land that can now be converted to national parks, and public spaces.

Can be converted to public spaces. However who would make sure that this conversion actually happens? What are the incentives?

Re: How Anti-Growth Sentiment, Reflected in Zoning Laws, Thwarts Equality

#32

Post by wallflower »

ars wrote: post #12
OedipusRex wrote: post #5

It's not so much that urban development kills "character", it's that current urban development methods are ugly. They have no class to them. The "not in my backyard" argument will always be brought about by people who's previously beautiful surroundings are replaced by brick rectangles with evenly spaced windows. The trick is to make urban areas attractive but not gentrified.

In Europe people go to the park to have solitude with nature and go home to interact with people [on the street by the house]. In the US people go to the park to interact with people, and go home to have solitude [hopefully with nature in their backyard, but even if not they want a quiet apartment without lots of people near them, or at least the illusion of it]. Some people prefer the US way, some the European way.…

The European way, in many ways, was a consequence of geography and, to a lesser degree, climate.

The US is a car-centric culture that is fueled by (relatively) cheap gasoline (energy prices).

Take for instance shopping malls. Shopping malls in Asia (usually in urban centers) build up vertically while in the United States they are build out horizontally with acres and acres of parking spaces.

Some of the best US cities have European-like features (NYC with Central Park and its other parks like Union Square, Tompkins Square, traffic shut down on some streets or at least seating that takes up part of the street).

Re: How Anti-Growth Sentiment, Reflected in Zoning Laws, Thwarts Equality

#33

Post by stale2002 »

xg15 wrote: post #31
stale2002 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are thinking about things in exactly the wrong way. For every 1 story increase in building height in a San Francisco apartment complex, there is 10 less houses that have to be build in Suburbia. 10 parcels of land that can now be converted to national parks, and public spaces. People need a place to live whether you like it or not. We can either make room for them in the cities, by increasing density and building…

> 10 parcels of land that can now be converted to national parks, and public spaces. Can be converted to public spaces. However who would make sure that this conversion actually happens? What are the incentives?

If dense housing is available, this drives down the cost of living/price of houses. If suburbian homes are less valuable, it is cheaper to convert.

Also, driving down the price of housing prevents EXISTING public spaces and parks from being converted into homes, as cities will be less incentivized to do so.

There is already a lot of public spaces that are being converted to houses, so preventing a conversion to urban sprawl is equivalent to converting back to a public space.

Re: How Anti-Growth Sentiment, Reflected in Zoning Laws, Thwarts Equality

#34

Post by stale2002 »

ams6110 wrote: post #29
stale2002 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are thinking about things in exactly the wrong way. For every 1 story increase in building height in a San Francisco apartment complex, there is 10 less houses that have to be build in Suburbia. 10 parcels of land that can now be converted to national parks, and public spaces. People need a place to live whether you like it or not. We can either make room for them in the cities, by increasing density and building…

Assuming that suburban houses and apartments in urban multistory complexes are fungible (which they are not).

Oh they certainly aren't fungible!

In fact, urban apartment complexes in dense cities are much much MORE valuable and desirable than suburban homes. There are 10s of millions of people who would rather live in a desirable place like downtown NYC than the place they are currently living in, if it was as affordable as suburban homes.

The facts that back this up, are housing prices. Housing prices in cities are 4x higher than they are in the countryside, which, due to the laws of supply and demand, means that lots of people prefer city living to suburban living.

Re: How Anti-Growth Sentiment, Reflected in Zoning Laws, Thwarts Equality

#35

Post by dietrichepp »

mc32 wrote: post #22

These things are not so simple. Even in that places where they build baby, build! There is inequality. Brazil, China, etc. Brazil is diverse, China is pretty homogenous, both have large inequalities. It's not a one dimensional problem.

That's a rather poor mischaracterization of the argument. Of course it's not a one dimensional problem, everyone knows that equality is a complicated problem.

Re: How Anti-Growth Sentiment, Reflected in Zoning Laws, Thwarts Equality

#36

Post by MichaelBurge »

mtviewdave wrote: post #30
MichaelBurge wrote: post #6

They should just repeal zoning laws entirely. Maybe make an exception for polluting heavy industry, or for people using government money or government-backed loans. It should probably even be a constitutional amendment. People who want quiet suburbs can pool together a corporation to own a planned community. That limits the scope of their NIMBYism to just their community, and as shareholders they could vote on whethe…

The "corporation" you've described is a government. Literally. A government (in the United States) is just a mechanism for an area's resident citizenry to express their collective will. Whether you call it "government" with "citizens", or a "corporation" with "shareholders", it's the same thing.

They fill similar conceptual roles, but the details are different.

Re: How Anti-Growth Sentiment, Reflected in Zoning Laws, Thwarts Equality

#37

Post by jwdunne »

firasd wrote: post #9
OedipusRex wrote: post #5

It's not so much that urban development kills "character", it's that current urban development methods are ugly. They have no class to them. The "not in my backyard" argument will always be brought about by people who's previously beautiful surroundings are replaced by brick rectangles with evenly spaced windows. The trick is to make urban areas attractive but not gentrified.

Good insight. I suspect that some American hesitation about "density" and "apartment buildings" is based on specific history from the 20th century and 'white flight' era. Do people from other countries really fear and disdain apartment buildings the same way? I don't... Related, interesting quote from someone talking to Jane Jacobs: http://www.citylab.com/design/2016/05/happy-100th-birthday-j... New, high-rise public…

In Salford, we had a regeneration project that replaced all the rundown terraced housing, from Salford's industrial era, with high rises.

Due to the collapse of industry round here, deprivation and crime shot through the roof (to the point Latvia recommended its citizens not visit this city in particular).

The high rises have become synonymous with that crime and deprivation. No one wants them at their back yard because of who typically lives in them, not because of the aesthetics.

In fact, they have recently had a makeover and now look great. Unfortunately, the same people still live there.

Re: How Anti-Growth Sentiment, Reflected in Zoning Laws, Thwarts Equality

#38

Post by TulliusCicero »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #4
michaelbuddy wrote: post #2

Does anyone really think that once they own property in a certain area that they are gonna believe in the 'anything goes' mentality? 'Growth' is subjective. "Hey look at all the great businesses in my neighborhood bringing in taxes! I mean sure they are all pot pharmacies and bars that my kid gets to pass on his way to elementary school but you know GROWTH!"

I think the issue is, everyone believes they should be able to become a stakeholder in a resource that is, by definition, naturally constrained. Only so many people get a say in a geographic area, and the stark reality is that once you reach a certain critical mass, you're incentivized to protect your quality of life over allowing for more people to join you. Strangely, its thought of as acceptable for tech workers (…

> Strangely, its thought of as acceptable for tech workers (with their new found purchasing power due to disparate wages compared to traditional workers) to displace long-time residents of a community, but those same tech workers are aghast when communities would prefer they not come.

If you limit building, that effect just gets worse, though. The rich are always going to be able to outbid the poor/working-class, and if you limit the supply of housing, competition for that housing intensifies. A study from the California Legislative Analyst's Office found exactly this (more development = less displacement): http://www.lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3345

> In this follow up to California’s High Housing Costs, we offer additional evidence that facilitating more private housing development in the state’s coastal urban communities would help make housing more affordable for low–income Californians. Existing affordable housing programs assist only a small proportion of low–income Californians. Most low–income Californians receive little or no assistance. Expanding affordable housing programs to help these households likely would be extremely challenging and prohibitively expensive. It may be best to focus these programs on Californians with more specialized housing needs—such as homeless individuals and families or persons with significant physical and mental health challenges.

> Encouraging additional private housing construction can help the many low–income Californians who do not receive assistance. Considerable evidence suggests that construction of market–rate housing reduces housing costs for low–income households and, consequently, helps to mitigate displacement in many cases.

Re: How Anti-Growth Sentiment, Reflected in Zoning Laws, Thwarts Equality

#39

Post by TulliusCicero »

morgante wrote: post #19
toomuchtodo wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the issue is, everyone believes they should be able to become a stakeholder in a resource that is, by definition, naturally constrained. Only so many people get a say in a geographic area, and the stark reality is that once you reach a certain critical mass, you're incentivized to protect your quality of life over allowing for more people to join you. Strangely, its thought of as acceptable for tech workers (…

What's strange about this at all? The pro-growth mentality is consistent: anyone can come, if they can afford it. The anti-growth mentality is incoherent: it was fine for me to move here 20 years ago, but how dare tech workers try to do the same thing!

Exactly.

"The change that accommodated me was fine. The change that accommodates you is bad!"

Re: How Anti-Growth Sentiment, Reflected in Zoning Laws, Thwarts Equality

#40

Post by TulliusCicero »

sandworm101 wrote: post #15

I don't think liberal zoning is the problem. I've seen my city go through massive changes in the last 30 years, top of the list being a radical increase, a liberalization, of zoning. They are allowing more and bigger developments. Multi-story and multi-unit developments are everywhere, but that isn't making housing any more affordable. A piece of land with a liberal zoning is worth more. It is a target for redevelopm…

> Multi-story and multi-unit developments are everywhere, but that isn't making housing any more affordable.

More development doesn't make housing more affordable. It makes it less unaffordable compared to the alternative of restricting supply. For how that turns out, just take a look at SF.

Like, desirable cities are always going to be expensive, but you can choose between whether they're moderately expensive vs insanely expensive.

> So... liberal zoning --> rising land values/prices --> redevelopment is better than renting --> fewer rental units = higher rent. It's true up and down the west coast.

??? The west coast, by and large, does not have liberal zoning. This is particularly true in coastal California, which has the worst affordability problems.

One of the issues is that cities tend to only have small pockets of liberal zoning in downtown cores, so we get all our density from large towers that are inherently very expensive to build. If we got more middling density in existing SFH areas, it'd be much easier to get cheaper housing: http://missingmiddlehousing.com/

Post reply on HN