The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability (2002)(nber.org)
nber.org
The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability (2002)
http://www.nber.org/papers/w8835
104 comments
Since that's a marketing page for SB827, can someone explain to me how it doesn't ultimately create an incentive against public transit? All it would take to get around the zoning override would be to remove transit... I assume removing a bus stop (or even an entire route) is trivial. I could definitely foresee more homeowners blocking development of new routes/stations. With those considerations, it's possible we could end up with less transit, and the same amount of housing. I actually got banned in /r/california for asking about this
I'm afraid it may be one of those 'short term gain, long term consequence' type bills that CA has a history of cough prop 13. However, at least it's looking in the right direction, since the housing situation couldn't be much worse
I'm afraid it may be one of those 'short term gain, long term consequence' type bills that CA has a history of cough prop 13. However, at least it's looking in the right direction, since the housing situation couldn't be much worse
It's not a marketing page, really. I made it. Did you see my vlog? It's too bad it looks so pro... it looks like a real estate developer built it :)
But Senator's Wiener's FAQ answers the question you ask: https://extranewsfeed.com/my-transit-density-bill-sb-827-ans...
he says "First, most cities and towns don’t operate their own transit systems, given that transit agencies are typically separate from cities or regional in nature. Thus, very few cities even have the power to reduce transit service, even if they wanted to do so in order to avoid SB 827.
Second, while communities could organize to fight new transit stations or to reduce bus service, let’s also be real: people already fight transit expansions in their neighborhoods."
But Senator's Wiener's FAQ answers the question you ask: https://extranewsfeed.com/my-transit-density-bill-sb-827-ans...
he says "First, most cities and towns don’t operate their own transit systems, given that transit agencies are typically separate from cities or regional in nature. Thus, very few cities even have the power to reduce transit service, even if they wanted to do so in order to avoid SB 827.
Second, while communities could organize to fight new transit stations or to reduce bus service, let’s also be real: people already fight transit expansions in their neighborhoods."
It's definitely a "marketing page" in that it's only purpose is to convince people to support sb-827.
The plan is to pin the requirements to 'transit routes at a specific date' not float them to 'what is the transit route today', so changing the routes can't be used to manipulate the legislation.
> Since that's a marketing page for SB827, can someone explain to me how it doesn't ultimately create an incentive against public transit?
How does building high density housing near public transportation incentivize people to not use that public transportation?
How does building high density housing near public transportation incentivize people to not use that public transportation?
Not against using it, against building it in the first place. Say someone lives in the suburbs and doesn't want to be upzoned. They could vote to block a bus stop from being added
> I could definitely foresee more homeowners blocking development of new routes/stations.
Say, you own a piece of land with a house near public transit. Since the local township can no longer forbid building an apartment building on your land, you can probably sell your land to a developer for $$$$, so you make much more money than selling just a single house.
And because you didn't want to live near public transit, with the $$$$ you can spend $$$ to buy a house that is sufficiently far away from public transit and still make a good profit in the trade.
So if you like money more than your current house, why would you oppose?
Say, you own a piece of land with a house near public transit. Since the local township can no longer forbid building an apartment building on your land, you can probably sell your land to a developer for $$$$, so you make much more money than selling just a single house.
And because you didn't want to live near public transit, with the $$$$ you can spend $$$ to buy a house that is sufficiently far away from public transit and still make a good profit in the trade.
So if you like money more than your current house, why would you oppose?
This is happening where I live and the local people have all kinds of random reasons for opposing it. Some irrationally think their property will be worth less having an apartment building next door. Some don't care about value but just don't want the apartment building next door and refuse to move because they're settled in. Some think it'll create a slum. Some think the change is just an excuse for the local government to collect more money from more housing units. Most probably just don't like change because they're old and afraid of the unknown.
Many people don’t value money more than their current house. They bought a nice house in a nice area and don’t want to move. Depending on area and financial situation, they also might not like their increased real estate tax assessments. It beehives them to partake in NIMBYism.
It beehives them
That can't be right, bees don't have hooves.
lol. Yes. Stung by fat-fingers and overzealous auto-correction.
That's how it's supposed to work, but at least in Portland it's not panning out:
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/6/9/revisiting-what...
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/6/9/revisiting-what...
That article literally gets supply and demand wrong...
Indeed, thanks for posting this. I’m concerned that, while well-intentioned, the bill may not help.
How does that article in any way compare in rigor to the most famous paper on the US housing crises?
Good point. I didn't consider the fact that land zoned for higher density would fetch more money. From that perspective, if your goal is to increase the monetary value of your investment, it seems like a win
Everyone wins except for one class of people when you actually allow building density to respond to demand. The only group of people who don't want that to happen are those who own houses in urban sprawl that would lose value if the artificial limits on density were lifted that allowed people to actually live in the city affordably like a lot of them want to do.
More density does not mean more crime or more "deplorables" unless you actively enable people get into that position. It does not tarnish the environment worse than endless seas of sprawl housing and resultant insane amounts spent on transit. Literally the only reason to not enable growth is to profit from its absence.
More density does not mean more crime or more "deplorables" unless you actively enable people get into that position. It does not tarnish the environment worse than endless seas of sprawl housing and resultant insane amounts spent on transit. Literally the only reason to not enable growth is to profit from its absence.
The difficulty is in getting people to understand this.
For example, the entire point of doing this is to get housing costs down, and people hear that and think it will cause their property values to go down.
But those are actually two different things.
Housing costs are per square foot. They go down when there is a bunch of new housing because of supply and demand.
Property values include the value of the land. If you zone for high density, it causes the land to be worth significantly more because people will pay you a million dollars for it so they can bulldoze your house and build a tower there.
For example, the entire point of doing this is to get housing costs down, and people hear that and think it will cause their property values to go down.
But those are actually two different things.
Housing costs are per square foot. They go down when there is a bunch of new housing because of supply and demand.
Property values include the value of the land. If you zone for high density, it causes the land to be worth significantly more because people will pay you a million dollars for it so they can bulldoze your house and build a tower there.
Only if your land is directly built upon. For everyone else it cuts the housing shortage if more housing units are on the market and reduces prices.
[deleted]
In China, during the past decade, the property prices always rise even from just a hint of a new subway station. So blocking development of new routes/stations is just dampening the housing price, the last thing most homeowners want.
Of course, in the United States people are more comfortable with their own cars, and less reliant on public transport. So the effect remains to be seen.
Of course, in the United States people are more comfortable with their own cars, and less reliant on public transport. So the effect remains to be seen.
What's interesting is that you can make a very libertarian argument for a lot of this stuff too: http://marketurbanism.com/ although that probably doesn't play quite as well in much California.
Still though, it's one issue where we all ought to be able to find some common ground and fix things.
Still though, it's one issue where we all ought to be able to find some common ground and fix things.
absolutely. this is both liberal and libertarian. it's a massive social justice issue. it's also a policy-failure that can be addressed by simply reducing regulations, which this bill does (by preventing local governments from banning density near public transit, the exact place it needs to go).
Speaking of that, and Glaeser, who wrote that paper you linked to, this piece is pretty good:
https://www.brookings.edu/research/reforming-land-use-regula...
Which comes back to that:
"Reforming local land use controls is one of those rare areas in which the libertarian and the progressive agree. The current system restricts the freedom of the property owner, and also makes life harder for poorer Americans. The politics of zoning reform may be hard, but our land use regulations are badly in need of rethinking."
Edit:
For many more articles, I have a list here:
https://bendyimby.com/2017/06/12/yimby-reading/
https://www.brookings.edu/research/reforming-land-use-regula...
Which comes back to that:
"Reforming local land use controls is one of those rare areas in which the libertarian and the progressive agree. The current system restricts the freedom of the property owner, and also makes life harder for poorer Americans. The politics of zoning reform may be hard, but our land use regulations are badly in need of rethinking."
Edit:
For many more articles, I have a list here:
https://bendyimby.com/2017/06/12/yimby-reading/
"absolutely. this is both liberal and libertarian"
... but not necessarily democratic.
I am open minded about the housing policy debate in CA (and in Marin, where I live) but I am dismayed at the rejection of democratic outcomes when those outcomes are found to be inconvenient.
... but not necessarily democratic.
I am open minded about the housing policy debate in CA (and in Marin, where I live) but I am dismayed at the rejection of democratic outcomes when those outcomes are found to be inconvenient.
Why do you value democracy? My answer would be because democracy realizes liberal* ideas in a political process. But if liberal processes lead to illiberal outcomes, what do you do? I don't think you can argue that the past ~40 years of housing policy in California have produced liberal outcomes - there's been an immense concentration of wealth, particularly in property, displacement of underprivileged communities, exorbitant housing costs for many people, and hugely negative environmental impacts.
I'm willing to sacrifice liberal processes to get liberal outcomes. To somewhat invert the meaning of an aphorism, the means do not justify the ends.
* to be clear, we're talking about small-l liberal here, not "liberal" as in "left of center" as it is frequently (mis)used.
I'm willing to sacrifice liberal processes to get liberal outcomes. To somewhat invert the meaning of an aphorism, the means do not justify the ends.
* to be clear, we're talking about small-l liberal here, not "liberal" as in "left of center" as it is frequently (mis)used.
If you want to be extra clear, what is "left of center" is not actually liberal at all, and I wish we wouldn't call them that. Liberal values tend to be centered around individual liberties and universal values. Leftist values tend to be centered around communal equality and values of group identity. I would argue that they are political opposites rather than making the case that the far left is just an extreme version of liberalism, because it isn't at all.
CA is also a democracy, so it's just one democratic outcome overriding a different democratic outcome.
Two wolves and one sheep can also have a vote about what's for dinner and the outcome be democratic.
I don't know why people in San Diego or NorCal should have a vote about what happens with respect to zoning in Palo Alto or Mountain View. Why not let people in Butte, Montana put in their vote as well?
I don't know why people in San Diego or NorCal should have a vote about what happens with respect to zoning in Palo Alto or Mountain View. Why not let people in Butte, Montana put in their vote as well?
Because housing availability seriously impacts economic and social mobility. It's hard to work one's way out of poverty as it is. It's even harder when the cities with the Lion's share of the jobs hardly build any housing and cause rents to skyrocket as a result.
> I don't know why people in San Diego or NorCal should have a vote about what happens with respect to zoning in Palo Alto or Mountain View. Why not let people in Butte, Montana put in their vote as well?
I'd be totally okay with nation wide housing policies (and I have lived in one of those cities you mentioned, and I currently live in Silicon Valley so I'd be impacted by this change). I think poor housing policies are big drivers of economic immobility, and people everywhere in the country are affected by it. Someone in Montana may not live in San Francisco, but if they have to turn down a job in SF due to insane rents then they are impacted by SF's housing policies. Consequently, if there was a push to ban nativist policies like rent control, proposition 13, or other barriers in the housing market nation wide I would both think it is fair and I'd support it.
> I don't know why people in San Diego or NorCal should have a vote about what happens with respect to zoning in Palo Alto or Mountain View. Why not let people in Butte, Montana put in their vote as well?
I'd be totally okay with nation wide housing policies (and I have lived in one of those cities you mentioned, and I currently live in Silicon Valley so I'd be impacted by this change). I think poor housing policies are big drivers of economic immobility, and people everywhere in the country are affected by it. Someone in Montana may not live in San Francisco, but if they have to turn down a job in SF due to insane rents then they are impacted by SF's housing policies. Consequently, if there was a push to ban nativist policies like rent control, proposition 13, or other barriers in the housing market nation wide I would both think it is fair and I'd support it.
Your last sentence struck an interesting chord of agreement-and-disagreement with me. I also oppose rent control and ill-considered tax controls like Prop13, because I think the downsides for communities far exceed the upsides in both cases.
That means I would consistently vote against them in my own community, but I still support the rights of people in other communities to make choices different than my own. If they prefer the outcomes under rent control or Prop-13 type initiatives, who am I to say that they're wrong for their own community? Of course I can have an opinion that they're wrong, but I'd rather not force them to comply with my opinion over their own and their neighbors'.
Side note: the reason I don't live in Silicon Valley right now is that when I went interviewing out there and had job offers from two companies at a healthy increase over my then-salary, neither would allow me to afford to purchase a comparable level of housing and lifestyle to what I have out here. That was in 1998 or 1999.
That means I would consistently vote against them in my own community, but I still support the rights of people in other communities to make choices different than my own. If they prefer the outcomes under rent control or Prop-13 type initiatives, who am I to say that they're wrong for their own community? Of course I can have an opinion that they're wrong, but I'd rather not force them to comply with my opinion over their own and their neighbors'.
Side note: the reason I don't live in Silicon Valley right now is that when I went interviewing out there and had job offers from two companies at a healthy increase over my then-salary, neither would allow me to afford to purchase a comparable level of housing and lifestyle to what I have out here. That was in 1998 or 1999.
[deleted]
It's because these housing shortages are paid for by everyone who doesn't live in the jurisdiction and cannot vote for them, so there's a perverse incentive for incumbents to treat shortages as free money that comes from nowhere.
It's not unlike upper atmosphere pollution, as if every local community were able to have their own policy on it. The cost of pollution is paid for by no one in particular but principally other people far away. Each community's individual impact is tiny and easy to deny, but they all tend to choose the same thing which has a greater collective impact. Aren't their rights to choose more important than any cost to society, without question?
It's not unlike upper atmosphere pollution, as if every local community were able to have their own policy on it. The cost of pollution is paid for by no one in particular but principally other people far away. Each community's individual impact is tiny and easy to deny, but they all tend to choose the same thing which has a greater collective impact. Aren't their rights to choose more important than any cost to society, without question?
Clean air, clean rivers/oceans, controlled CO2/GHG, banning leaded gasoline for highway use, and similar items I think of as different in a critical way than zoning or local housing shortages. There's no amount of money (or other resource) that an individual can expend to buy clean oceans, air, or lower GHG. There are no practical alternatives.
There is an amount of money that an individual can spend to buy a house in Palo Alto. That amount of money might be higher than some people would prefer or elect, or (in many cases) even be able to spend, but there are practical alternatives in any case (to include living in other communities).
In a case where no practical alternatives exist, I agree there's a much greater cause for collective input and decision-making (to include at a global scale in many cases, as these aren't even a state or nation-state level of issue, though it's the states and nation-states that enact policies and laws to implement/enforce collectively-agreed treaties on some of these topics).
Where practical alternatives exist, I find the most local government level to be the most desirable one to make the decisions that disproportionately affect the people who live there over people who don't live there but might like to.
There is an amount of money that an individual can spend to buy a house in Palo Alto. That amount of money might be higher than some people would prefer or elect, or (in many cases) even be able to spend, but there are practical alternatives in any case (to include living in other communities).
In a case where no practical alternatives exist, I agree there's a much greater cause for collective input and decision-making (to include at a global scale in many cases, as these aren't even a state or nation-state level of issue, though it's the states and nation-states that enact policies and laws to implement/enforce collectively-agreed treaties on some of these topics).
Where practical alternatives exist, I find the most local government level to be the most desirable one to make the decisions that disproportionately affect the people who live there over people who don't live there but might like to.
Americans are Constitutionally entitled to the equal protection of the laws everywhere in America. Cities are not sovereign nations. They don't get to control migration or treat natives preferentially.
While it's nice to govern as locally as possible as a matter of general principle, when cities are hoarding wealth and opportunity and dumping the downside on the larger community, the larger community is right to reconsider the limits of the authority it delegated. Part of what it means to be in the State of California (or the United States of America) is accepting migration from, and influence by, others in that category.
While it's nice to govern as locally as possible as a matter of general principle, when cities are hoarding wealth and opportunity and dumping the downside on the larger community, the larger community is right to reconsider the limits of the authority it delegated. Part of what it means to be in the State of California (or the United States of America) is accepting migration from, and influence by, others in that category.
Does Broadmoor have a right to override Daly City? Or Piedmont, Oakland? Both are donut holes within larger cities. Rich neighborhoods protecting their interests against those of the community. Local governments in CA are convoluted and corrupt. Have a committee of experts draw the lines based on actual geography and common sense, and then we can let them decide what is right for their own “communities”
[deleted]
"CA is also a democracy, so it's just one democratic outcome overriding a different democratic outcome."
So, then, is the United States.
Would someone like to bet me that there is nearly 1:1 mapping between (people who think CA should undermine local control over housing) and (people who think CA should exert local control over marijuana policy) ?
Of course that's true. Now defend the principle, and benefits, of local control in some spheres where it's convenient but not in other spheres where it is not.
So, then, is the United States.
Would someone like to bet me that there is nearly 1:1 mapping between (people who think CA should undermine local control over housing) and (people who think CA should exert local control over marijuana policy) ?
Of course that's true. Now defend the principle, and benefits, of local control in some spheres where it's convenient but not in other spheres where it is not.
It has to be a balance. Throughout history, different levels of governments have stepped in to correct an injustice. The Civil Rights Act was one example; California not enforcing certain immigration rules is another example, in the other direction.
It doesn't matter whether the decision is coming from a democratic government above or a democratic government below; what matters is doing the right thing.
It doesn't matter whether the decision is coming from a democratic government above or a democratic government below; what matters is doing the right thing.
Yeah. If nimbys don't want stuff built, imo they should buy the land themselves. I don't know what happened to property rights in CA.
Somewhere, there are probably some reasonable positions like "it'd be great if they didn't build a fireworks factory right next to my house", but we've gone so far beyond those in the US.
We've gone so far we've went into the opposite direction - "it'd be great if there wasn't a fireworks factory next door to the house I'm building".
As someone who has spent close to the last decade trying to figure out where to put down "roots" it's utter insanity to me. It's clear as day that one of the most evil parts of American society is tying what is typically far and away your largest "investment" to housing. It creates insanely perverse incentives.
It seems to me that most folks have lost their collective minds and forgot the reason we needed housing in the first place.
As someone who has spent close to the last decade trying to figure out where to put down "roots" it's utter insanity to me. It's clear as day that one of the most evil parts of American society is tying what is typically far and away your largest "investment" to housing. It creates insanely perverse incentives.
It seems to me that most folks have lost their collective minds and forgot the reason we needed housing in the first place.
It's important to see that it's not a mere case of taking an existing principle and extending it too far; it's an entirely new principle.
What is NIMBYism? NIMBYism is opposition to necessary structures (that we all want) being built in specific places (e.g. near me). NIMBYism is saying that, while you understand that we need a water treatment plant -- you agree that we should build one -- you want to locate it on the other side of town (i.e. not in my backyard).
That's not what this is.
This is the desire to limit building entirely. It's the desire to prevent certain areas from growing, getting bigger. It's an opposition to density. It's a reactionary, conservative, nostalgic preference for the past. It's the belief that San Francisco should look like it did on the day you bought your house for the rest of all time. And it's an attempt to lock in enormous housing gains.
These are not the same thing. One is not "taking the other too far." It's a totally different thing.
What is NIMBYism? NIMBYism is opposition to necessary structures (that we all want) being built in specific places (e.g. near me). NIMBYism is saying that, while you understand that we need a water treatment plant -- you agree that we should build one -- you want to locate it on the other side of town (i.e. not in my backyard).
That's not what this is.
This is the desire to limit building entirely. It's the desire to prevent certain areas from growing, getting bigger. It's an opposition to density. It's a reactionary, conservative, nostalgic preference for the past. It's the belief that San Francisco should look like it did on the day you bought your house for the rest of all time. And it's an attempt to lock in enormous housing gains.
These are not the same thing. One is not "taking the other too far." It's a totally different thing.
It's really baffling. In NYC you have to put your money where your mouth is and buy airspace rights. For large buildings this usually entails building a public park in the empty space.
Under that logic, if individual property rights are all that matter, you might as well throw out 90% of the San Francisco City code while you’re at it. Like, if your neighbor decides to jackhammer at 2 AM, well, it’s her property.
That's too extreme an example. Noise restrictions affect what comes into your property so it's fair to have them. Sunlight, views and privacy are more reasonable things to be concerned about. People should be able to buy a guarantee of those things, I think. I suppose they can by putting a covenant on he neighboring properties but most people get them for free so they wouldn't feel it's fair to have to pay just to guarantee it.
If you care about the rest of the country you should ask why the fire hose of investment money is directed at SF and New York and not elsewhere. Instead of asking what's wrong with San Francisco. Why not ask what's wrong with the rest of the US?
Sure I can name a bunch of reasons why little housing is built in California, we can start with the Libertarian wet dream that is Prop 13. Prop 13 does two things, removes any incentive for muni's to approve new housing. And starves the government of funding to pay for public goods like schools and mass transit. The zoning restrictions Libertarians bitch about are partly the direct result of that.
Okay fine. But then still the question is, even if we admit California has issues, why is it that corporations which are totally free to locate elsewhere aren't doing so? You would think with a large cost differential corporations would move. Why not?
Because neoliberal conservative dominated governments in the rest of the US means that VC's, engineers, and mangers don't want to live in those places at all. So they and their companies are paying a large premium not to.
No workers don't want to work in 'right to work state' They don't want to send their kids to schools that teach creationism and abstinence only sex education. They don't want to live in communities with bad family planning.
Sure I can name a bunch of reasons why little housing is built in California, we can start with the Libertarian wet dream that is Prop 13. Prop 13 does two things, removes any incentive for muni's to approve new housing. And starves the government of funding to pay for public goods like schools and mass transit. The zoning restrictions Libertarians bitch about are partly the direct result of that.
Okay fine. But then still the question is, even if we admit California has issues, why is it that corporations which are totally free to locate elsewhere aren't doing so? You would think with a large cost differential corporations would move. Why not?
Because neoliberal conservative dominated governments in the rest of the US means that VC's, engineers, and mangers don't want to live in those places at all. So they and their companies are paying a large premium not to.
No workers don't want to work in 'right to work state' They don't want to send their kids to schools that teach creationism and abstinence only sex education. They don't want to live in communities with bad family planning.
I don't think prop 13 is a libertarian wet dream. It was simply a short sighted tax revolt. The only reason I'm hesitant to put the libertarian label on it is because it uses policy to pick winners and losers. If it were to decrease taxes proportionally or remove them, then sure, I'd call it libertarian. I agree it's complete shit though. It creates all sorts of broken incentives
Lots of people like being in a right-to-work state. It means not having to pay a private tax to a corrupt union that mostly serves to create dumb rules that cause problems. If you are a decent worker, you don't appreciate rules that make companies lay off the newer workers first, preventing the lazy ones from being eliminated. Hardly anybody likes having to bring in an electrician just to plug in a power strip. The idea that I can't move a large box or a desk (due to being hired for some other role) is absurd.
The states you speak of are the ones most friendly to home schooling. You can teach evolution and anti-abstinence all you want. FYI though, there are creationist engineers. I've met many.
I'm not sure what you mean by "bad" family planning. I don't see why you should care what other people do. Maybe I am "bad" for having 11 kids, but I won't force you to have that many.
Right across the hall from me is an engineer who left SF. He uses his AR-15 at home in his yard. (might go over badly in SF, you think?) He keeps goats and lots of chickens. Clearly, he does in fact "want to live in those places" instead of in SF where he grew up.
The states you speak of are the ones most friendly to home schooling. You can teach evolution and anti-abstinence all you want. FYI though, there are creationist engineers. I've met many.
I'm not sure what you mean by "bad" family planning. I don't see why you should care what other people do. Maybe I am "bad" for having 11 kids, but I won't force you to have that many.
Right across the hall from me is an engineer who left SF. He uses his AR-15 at home in his yard. (might go over badly in SF, you think?) He keeps goats and lots of chickens. Clearly, he does in fact "want to live in those places" instead of in SF where he grew up.
I don't really follow what message you're trying to convey, but it sounds a lot like that you're starting the problem is with the demand for real estate in Silicon Valley, not the supply.
This isn't the case. Silicon Valley, Seattle, etc. are just on the leading edge of a larger tend towards greater urbanization. It's a pattern that's also happening in Austin, Portland, and more cities just to less extreme degrees. The simple fact is that in a developed country dense population centers are more efficient - both economically and environmentally.
This isn't the case. Silicon Valley, Seattle, etc. are just on the leading edge of a larger tend towards greater urbanization. It's a pattern that's also happening in Austin, Portland, and more cities just to less extreme degrees. The simple fact is that in a developed country dense population centers are more efficient - both economically and environmentally.
I'd be careful with "simple facts." Rarely do they turn out to be simple. Show me the evidence that dense urban areas are economically AND environmentally more efficient. The environment part seems especially suspect.
To a large degree we're still living in the shadow of the industrial revolution, when workers flocked to cities for work. As a telecommuter, my quality of life is a thousand fold higher than my co-workers in the D.C. or Dallas metro areas where it seems many people find themselves alone in a sea of humans and chronically maligning poorly planned mass transit.
To a large degree we're still living in the shadow of the industrial revolution, when workers flocked to cities for work. As a telecommuter, my quality of life is a thousand fold higher than my co-workers in the D.C. or Dallas metro areas where it seems many people find themselves alone in a sea of humans and chronically maligning poorly planned mass transit.
The economic efficiency is demonstrated by the greater job growth in urban areas. I'll easily find stats on this when I get off mobile. And this is the first time I've heard someone claim that sprawl and dispersed populations are environmentally better than urban areas. Not only do dispersed populations need greater land development, they need significantly more energy used in transportation to deliver the same quality of life. I saw a stat that compared the per capita carbon footprint of wealthy countries and it was essentially inversely proportional to levels of urbanization. And like the economy one, sit tight for an hour or do for me to get home and share this data.
Sources for greater economic growth in urban areas:
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/emp...
Countries by CO2 emissions per-capita: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
Countries by urbanization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_by_country
And that's not even getting into things like the amount of land that gets developed for low density homes and services, roads, water reservoirs, electric lines, etc.
Wealthy rural countries (USA, Australia, Russia), produce more carbon than dense wealthy countries. Granted, I wouldn't be surprised if carbon emissions and environmental impact of the average city resident was higher than the average rural resident - but that's largely a result of the fact that rural residents are generally less wealthy. This is definitely true on a global scale (the countries with the lowest carbon footprints are poor, rural ones), and I wouldn't be surprised if it were true on a nation wide scale. I didn't explicitly state it in in the first post, but I did clarify in the second that this was for the same standard of living.
On a side note, an interesting thing to look into is how Singapore manages to provide so much services with such a small budget - 14.2% of GDP per capita as opposed to 26% in the US. A huge part of this is because it's so much more efficient to provide services when you're dealing with population concentrated in such a small area. Imagine how much more money (and energy) it takes to deliver electricity, running water, sewage, emergency services, education, etc. to households in Oregon where 4 million people are distributed across 98,466 square miles as opposed to concentrating them all in 278 square miles. Even if things like land and labor cost more, so much overhead and operational costs are saved by not having to service such a massive area.
Sources for greater economic growth in urban areas:
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/emp...
Countries by CO2 emissions per-capita: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
Countries by urbanization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_by_country
And that's not even getting into things like the amount of land that gets developed for low density homes and services, roads, water reservoirs, electric lines, etc.
Wealthy rural countries (USA, Australia, Russia), produce more carbon than dense wealthy countries. Granted, I wouldn't be surprised if carbon emissions and environmental impact of the average city resident was higher than the average rural resident - but that's largely a result of the fact that rural residents are generally less wealthy. This is definitely true on a global scale (the countries with the lowest carbon footprints are poor, rural ones), and I wouldn't be surprised if it were true on a nation wide scale. I didn't explicitly state it in in the first post, but I did clarify in the second that this was for the same standard of living.
On a side note, an interesting thing to look into is how Singapore manages to provide so much services with such a small budget - 14.2% of GDP per capita as opposed to 26% in the US. A huge part of this is because it's so much more efficient to provide services when you're dealing with population concentrated in such a small area. Imagine how much more money (and energy) it takes to deliver electricity, running water, sewage, emergency services, education, etc. to households in Oregon where 4 million people are distributed across 98,466 square miles as opposed to concentrating them all in 278 square miles. Even if things like land and labor cost more, so much overhead and operational costs are saved by not having to service such a massive area.
Thanks for the data! Is it unreasonable to think that as energy efficiency of things (cars, heating systems, airplanes) improve and we move towards renewable energy that the inefficiency of rural life could become offsetting and the value of nature on the human psyche is allowed to return to our culture?
I realize that's more of a value judgement and not objective. But there are definitely costs associated with living in dense urban places. Regardless of efficiencies we are definitely still living in a post-industrial-revolution world, and people did not voluntarily cram themselves into giant cities then, so some sort of reversion when it's possible makes sense. Vast populations of urban people in China would rather not have to move into the city.
I realize that's more of a value judgement and not objective. But there are definitely costs associated with living in dense urban places. Regardless of efficiencies we are definitely still living in a post-industrial-revolution world, and people did not voluntarily cram themselves into giant cities then, so some sort of reversion when it's possible makes sense. Vast populations of urban people in China would rather not have to move into the city.
SV is not urban. It is sub-urban and that's the problem.
Why do cities exist at all? There are immense economic benefits to being in close proximity to many potential employees and partners. There are reasons we live in clusters and not spaced out in equidistant family farms. Lack of space isn't one of them.
It seems like we should see a bunch of people "voting with their feet." Trouble is that on net people are mostly moving out of California and New York and into places like South Carolina, Idaho, and Tennessee.
http://www.businessinsider.com/state-domestic-migration-map-...
OTOH they are also moving out of Wyoming and Kansas and into Colorado and Oregon.
What to make of this?
Maybe... people mostly go where jobs and cost of living and social connections line up, politics either direction just isn't a great predictor?
http://www.businessinsider.com/state-domestic-migration-map-...
OTOH they are also moving out of Wyoming and Kansas and into Colorado and Oregon.
What to make of this?
Maybe... people mostly go where jobs and cost of living and social connections line up, politics either direction just isn't a great predictor?
I know that for myself and many others I know, it is California's weather, nature, and ocean that drew us there. Nowhere else in the continental US can you have great year round weather.
Oh wow. Personal preference is thick in that last statement there. I can't stand places with wet and dry seasons. I can't imagine wanting to live somewhere without snow in the winter. "Great year round weather" is a value judgement.
To soothe your feelings, I now live in the northern Midwest where we have real winter. And since it is indeed a value judgement, I still hold to the fact that Califonia has great weather. I like warmth, sun, reasonable levels of humidity. I think the majority of people are with me on this one.
Not sure my feelings were hurt. I was just pointing out a value judgement when I saw it.
In my case, nothing is wrong with the rest of the US, but I happen to have created a life here in California. My friends and job are here. Sure, the sunshine is nice, but that's not the thing keeping me here. And the tax rate in Reno policy in very appealing (and they have mountains! near Tahoe!), but am I going to abandon my community for those reasons alone? Nope.
The vast majority of the US (by landmass) sucks to actually live in, and the economies of those areas are also awful. This is why many who can move to the coast do. Even within “the coasts”, outside of NYC, the east coast doesn’t have a comparable economic area to the Bay Area + LA + Seattle + Portland.
New Hampshire, libertarian paradise, has none of those things. And no income tax and low sales tax.
I'd suggest that you research why it's necessary for companies to cram so much demand for housing in a few areas.
It's seems absurd in this day and age that we're still concentrating business to such an extent in places like the NY Metro Area and the Bay Area. IBM in the olden times leveraged locating facilities in nowheresville as a competitive advantage. I'm surprised it isn't catching on now that engineers are being so highly compensated.
It's seems absurd in this day and age that we're still concentrating business to such an extent in places like the NY Metro Area and the Bay Area. IBM in the olden times leveraged locating facilities in nowheresville as a competitive advantage. I'm surprised it isn't catching on now that engineers are being so highly compensated.
If physical distance to customers is no longer a significant problem companies will switch their priorities to other aspects like physical distance to potential investors.
Because there are numerous network effects* for specialized concentration of labor.
*Network effects are unfortunately only understood as a handwavey buzzphrase in tech, but they have been researched and defined in extreme detail by economists. Think non-ergodic math.
*Network effects are unfortunately only understood as a handwavey buzzphrase in tech, but they have been researched and defined in extreme detail by economists. Think non-ergodic math.
network effects from specialized labor = civilization
perhaps for a reason, civilization has something to do with cities
perhaps for a reason, civilization has something to do with cities
The problem is that nobody is thinking long-term.
Think about how startups work today. Rather than leasing a commercial office at half the price, they pay exorbitant premiums for WeWork. Nobody does proper capacity planning on AWS (let alone physical infrastructure), everyone only hires the most senior people, everyone pays exorbitant premiums to recruiters rather than building inbound candidate flow.
It's incredible how far we've pushed the time premium for money. I'm honestly not sure whether it's rational or not. But I think there are two good lessons from this.
#1: Patience is a massive advantage if you can pull it off. You can get out of the environment that's pushing senior level dev salaries to 200k or higher, pay less for everything, etc.
#2: There is good money in selling time to financed startups. If you can do anything that would conceivably let young, cash-rich startups trade time for money, that's a business.
Think about how startups work today. Rather than leasing a commercial office at half the price, they pay exorbitant premiums for WeWork. Nobody does proper capacity planning on AWS (let alone physical infrastructure), everyone only hires the most senior people, everyone pays exorbitant premiums to recruiters rather than building inbound candidate flow.
It's incredible how far we've pushed the time premium for money. I'm honestly not sure whether it's rational or not. But I think there are two good lessons from this.
#1: Patience is a massive advantage if you can pull it off. You can get out of the environment that's pushing senior level dev salaries to 200k or higher, pay less for everything, etc.
#2: There is good money in selling time to financed startups. If you can do anything that would conceivably let young, cash-rich startups trade time for money, that's a business.
Transit-oriented development is great but not quite radical enough. It’s usually focused at rail nodes and if you take Oakland, as an example, you would barely move the needle on housing supply. One problem is that there is already some dense housing around these, and other nodes, in the Bay Area. The other is that these locations can only accommodate so much of the area’s housing supply. To address the housing crunch, there needs to be ubiquitous up-zoning of any — no EVERY — parcel, in any zoning category — by right. What that means is if you own a burger stand by the lake (using Oakland as an example again) and that burger stand is a one-story building with a big lot out front that is 90-percent empty virtually 100% of the time (if my memory serves me correctly) and you want to sell your lot to me and I can justify 50 units based on precedent of adjacency alone, then I should be able to supply those 50 dwelling units (60 with an affordable density bonus, 150 with a high rise even) and not have to litigate the local NIMBYISM for 5 years to do it. The cost of land in Oakland (my example again) is not that high on a per-unit, land basis cost. The issue is that people will come out of the woodwork (read: other parts of the Bay) to fight you and then the cost to litigate, the time value of money and the entitlement fees kill the desire to even start a project. If you could up-zone every single family lot to 3-flats, you could dramatically increase supply. Hell, you can focus on just one and two-story neighborhood commercial and rapidly decrease price pressure. And SV is not approaching $1500/sf without all the barriers to redevelopment of underutilized land (parking lots or otherwise).
To be fair, not everyone wants Manhattan so density, and even change, can be terrifying. But, to be fair, there were special and specific circumstances that created Manhattan that just don’t exist in SV or Oakland. So, that fear may not be justified. Still, is a step in the right direction...
To be fair, not everyone wants Manhattan so density, and even change, can be terrifying. But, to be fair, there were special and specific circumstances that created Manhattan that just don’t exist in SV or Oakland. So, that fear may not be justified. Still, is a step in the right direction...
First, thanks for taking the time to put that together; it's always reassuring to see someone take the time for democracy.
Quick question: why does "Tell me how they vote" require my email address? Couldn't that information just appear when the area is clicked on, or am I misinterpreting that feature?
Quick question: why does "Tell me how they vote" require my email address? Couldn't that information just appear when the area is clicked on, or am I misinterpreting that feature?
i believe the bill hasn’t been voted on yet
Every time I see this posted, I ask about noise. Dense housing near rapid-transit, particularly rail, has led to lots of people getting exposed to massive volumes of noise, even at night. This is the type of long-term negative that get people to move out to the suburbs (e.g. self-defeating the policy) or call for more construction such as sound walls. You can see Reno for a perfect example of this. Everyone moved out to the burb, traffic sucks, then they ended up just building sounds walls anyways.
Does any piece of this legislation deal with the inherent problem of rapid-transit noise + dense housing?
Does any piece of this legislation deal with the inherent problem of rapid-transit noise + dense housing?
Sound walls, as implemented in SV, don't reduce noise, they merely displace it. I don't understand why they didn't choose only sound-absorbing materials... but they didn't. The noise in Kevin Moran Park (next to Hwy 85), originally negligible, became a serenity-killing din.
We should upzone everything!
Noise sucks, but for some people it's the right tradeoff. We should allow people to choose that if they want.
Noise sucks, but for some people it's the right tradeoff. We should allow people to choose that if they want.
> inherent problem of rapid-transit noise
What inherent problem? Rapid transit is certainly quieter than vehicle traffic. Noise pollution comes from sirens and heavy trucking, not public transportation.
What inherent problem? Rapid transit is certainly quieter than vehicle traffic. Noise pollution comes from sirens and heavy trucking, not public transportation.
When they re-route the rapid transit bus 1 block so it ends up going down my street during street repairs, my kid and my wife and myself get regularly woken up starting at 4:45am. Then the bus keeps going till midnight. Yippee what fun!
If you can notice people at a bus stop outside your house then you need better sound insulation. If you want to keep your windows open at night and have that be quite then move the the middle of nowhere.
I say this as someone that lived near an airport, even guests did not notice unless the windows where open.
I say this as someone that lived near an airport, even guests did not notice unless the windows where open.
Definitely. If it really bothers you, you can invest in double-paned windows and a good ventilation system. I used to live right under the San Diego flight path [1] and slept beautifully every night.
1. Not my video, but my neighborhood: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_M8PCO3BvE
1. Not my video, but my neighborhood: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_M8PCO3BvE
The state-of-the-art arrived at triple-paned by now.
If a bus is your noise threshold you should be living on a farm, not one of the biggest metropolitan areas in the country.
I assumed rail is part of this bill, my bad.
Buses regularly have speakers announcing the stop (85th and X) that can be heard at quite a distance.
I guess people think this is a joke or nimbyism, but it is a legit concern. We all know by know how important sleep is to health. well, that rapid transit noise (even bus) is a factor. Trucks and cars, late at night, have a flow. Buses stop, the speaker garbles all too loudly, air brakes hiss, and the slow elephantine weight of the vehicle is dragged into motion by a guttural engine rumble.
Buses regularly have speakers announcing the stop (85th and X) that can be heard at quite a distance.
I guess people think this is a joke or nimbyism, but it is a legit concern. We all know by know how important sleep is to health. well, that rapid transit noise (even bus) is a factor. Trucks and cars, late at night, have a flow. Buses stop, the speaker garbles all too loudly, air brakes hiss, and the slow elephantine weight of the vehicle is dragged into motion by a guttural engine rumble.
Surface level rail often has horn-sounding mandates near road crossings. Caltrain and freight raik through the Peninsula does, for example.
What's so bad about building sound walls?
Dense housing near rapid transit, particularly rail, has led to lots of people getting exposed to massive volumes of noise, even at night. You can see Reno for a perfect example of this.
Reno, Nevada hasn't had a rail system since 1927, and there is exactly one "rapid" bus line (out of 30 routes total) Are you really arguing that significant numbers of downtown residents were so outraged by inescapable bus noise that they migrated to...whatever constitutes a "suburb" of Reno, or are you suggesting that Reno is the suburb people were fleeing to, and if so, from where? Or is there some other Reno we're talking about here?
Reno, Nevada hasn't had a rail system since 1927, and there is exactly one "rapid" bus line (out of 30 routes total) Are you really arguing that significant numbers of downtown residents were so outraged by inescapable bus noise that they migrated to...whatever constitutes a "suburb" of Reno, or are you suggesting that Reno is the suburb people were fleeing to, and if so, from where? Or is there some other Reno we're talking about here?
if noise deters others and means i can buy a condo, cool beans. i’ll get some earplugs.
Upzoning creates multifamily housing. To many, that is not really housing, it's something for other people. The younger, the poorer (in suburban areas), the richer (in gentrifying urban neighborhoods), the transient, the childfree. Upzoning will encourage the demolition of single-family detached homes, which in their mind is the only kind that real families care about. Even if you can get someone to acknowledge that greater supply will make condos cheaper, affordable condos don't offset the increasing cost and scarcity of backyards. To be forced into a tower is as bad as being displaced entirely.
Developers aren't helping the matter. Multifamily buildings in America are too often cheap and hastily-built crap polluting the suburban landscape, or gleaming ultra-luxury alien invaders menacing vulnerable urban neighborhoods. It might help with sentiment if we had more multifamily buildings that were pleasant to live in and that middle-class voters could actually identify with.
I'm as YIMBY as anyone, but the actual recent condo buildings I can point to are making it hard to challenge the preference for single-family homes. Anything that looks as good costs twice as much, or more with HOA fees.
Developers aren't helping the matter. Multifamily buildings in America are too often cheap and hastily-built crap polluting the suburban landscape, or gleaming ultra-luxury alien invaders menacing vulnerable urban neighborhoods. It might help with sentiment if we had more multifamily buildings that were pleasant to live in and that middle-class voters could actually identify with.
I'm as YIMBY as anyone, but the actual recent condo buildings I can point to are making it hard to challenge the preference for single-family homes. Anything that looks as good costs twice as much, or more with HOA fees.
Multifamily buildings in America are too often cheap and hastily-built crap
WHo exactly is being forced into a tower? I have a detached house with a small yard, a short walk from a block lined with condo buildings and one rental building.
Nobody's being forced into my neighborhood. The working class homeowners have been pushed out of the houses by yuppies like me long ago. Now they're being pushed out of that one rental building, which has been remodeled, and where they've stopped taking Section 8. And they're pushed out by people who for whatever reason are quite happily packing themselves into these buildings.
Nobody's being forced into my neighborhood. The working class homeowners have been pushed out of the houses by yuppies like me long ago. Now they're being pushed out of that one rental building, which has been remodeled, and where they've stopped taking Section 8. And they're pushed out by people who for whatever reason are quite happily packing themselves into these buildings.
I think this is in the very least partially a result of a broken market. Due to regulations and zoning you can barely call development a market. It takes lots of effort and ideally connections to build something. Meanwhile it's largely a seller's market. If we dramatically reduced zoning restrictions we could get much closer to the market doing its work and maybe have some real competition.
For example where I live so malls get built by the same developer. Even if someone wanted I'm sure it would be nigh impossible to get permits etc. to build a competing mall next door and try to drive them out of business like in a real market. I'd love to see real, break neck, free market competition for all projects and no schmoozing with the major.
For example where I live so malls get built by the same developer. Even if someone wanted I'm sure it would be nigh impossible to get permits etc. to build a competing mall next door and try to drive them out of business like in a real market. I'd love to see real, break neck, free market competition for all projects and no schmoozing with the major.
SB-827 is great, but I’m assuming its chance of passing is about zero. Am I wrong? What else can be done?
The only people who know about SB-827 are housing policy wonks and homeowners associations. If the people who it really affects—like Millennials—knew what was happening, it would have a much better chance.
Social justice?
Why not just scrap zoning altogether? Houston has, and it seems to be working out pretty well for them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-zESacteu4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-zESacteu4
YES.
Seeing an NBER paper on Hacker News of all places makes me want to cry tears of joy.
That zoning and insane levels of regulation are absolutely the causes of the housing crises in the US is the mainstream consensus among economists.
For those unfamiliar, Glaeser is widely considered the foremost urban economist, so I'm shocked to see his famous paper linked on here. He's absolutely brilliant.
Seeing an NBER paper on Hacker News of all places makes me want to cry tears of joy.
That zoning and insane levels of regulation are absolutely the causes of the housing crises in the US is the mainstream consensus among economists.
For those unfamiliar, Glaeser is widely considered the foremost urban economist, so I'm shocked to see his famous paper linked on here. He's absolutely brilliant.
[deleted]
Spend some time walking visiting third world countries sometime and observe how much homelessness you see. When pretty much anybody can build a currogated tin shack wherever they want, almost everybody is going to sleep with a roof over their head.
The problem with all real estate development is all the profits flow to the developers and all the costs flow to the existing residents (more traffic, infrastructure, etc). I am surprised that anyone is in favour of development in their neighbourhood unless they are a developer.
The solution is to share the benefits of new development with the existing residents so they gain from development. Get this right and communities will be fighting each other to have developers come in and build new houses.
The solution is to share the benefits of new development with the existing residents so they gain from development. Get this right and communities will be fighting each other to have developers come in and build new houses.
more units equals more property taxes for the municipality to pay for services, and more people buying stuff and paying sales tax, and use fees like the $11 BART ticket.
Property tax are not supposed to be a profit center, but cover the costs of providing services. Adding more people just increases the costs so it works out a zero for the existing residents.
Silicon Valley cities can collect those profits just fine by building offices instead.
The impact of Tech giants on housing affordability (2016): (graph)
https://deleonrealty.com/2016/facebooks-effect-appreciation-...
https://deleonrealty.com/2016/facebooks-effect-appreciation-...
In California, we have a chance to fix things. SB-827 is a new bill that prevents local governments from banning density near public transit. It is the most radical housing bill in decades, because it rebalances zoning control from the local to the state level. It could result in 3 million new units being created in California, a state that builds <100k per year.
https://standupcalifornia.com (this is a website i set up to support this issue, which i see as the most important political issue for myself and my friends, and our ability to stay in our communities)