undefined | Better HN

0 pointsazernik9y ago0 comments

For background, I read his article [1] on why density, so he argues, doesn't matter. Instead, he proposes a different metric - the ratio of private (i.e. productive, main property) investment to public (infrastructure/supporting) investment, which should be high; 20:1 or ideally much higher.

However, most arguments for dense development are EXTREMELY relevant to this ratio - the idea being that dense development is cheaper, per unit population/economic activity, to build infrastructure for. Maybe it shouldn't be viewed as an end in itself, but it is a good heuristic.

[1] http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/12/16/best-of-2015-d...

0 comments

1 comments · 1 top-level

exclusiv9y ago

Perhaps his ratio makes sense but density is why that poor block example has a higher appraised land value than the single taco joint in the affluent area which is mostly parking.

So his argument doesn't stand up in that case. Sure the poor block has a higher assessment and more property taxes unless those businesses got tax rebates for operating there. But that's just one revenue metric for the block.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse