undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjavednissar1y ago0 comments

I don’t understand the logic here, the land itself will be valuable regardless of whether or not there is a house there or an apartment building. The principal component of the cost of buying a house or a condo is the associated land cost. Building more density gives more people access to that land.

If your contention is that more housing is bad because it draws more economic activity which raises land values then that’s fair but this is the same as arguing for less freedom of movement. Essentially any nation that adopts your policy prescription is taking a step towards turning into the Soviet Union.

That may sound like hyperbole but that is the end result of NIMBYism and illiberal land use policy.

0 comments

cyberax1y ago

It's the "spiral" part (i.e. self-reinforcing vicious process).

Dense cities allow employers to get access to a larger pool of workers, giving them a competitive advantage. This in turn makes cities more attractive for workers. Since land area is conserved and people won't commute for much more than 30 minutes, it means cities have to increase the density.

This in turn makes cities more attractive for employers, driving the demand for housing even higher.

Rinse, wash, repeat.

> That may sound like hyperbole but that is the end result of NIMBYism and illiberal land use policy.

There is literally no city in Japan, US or in major EU countries that managed to build its way out of high housing prices. Not a single one.

esyir1y ago

Except famously Japan, even Tokyo, where housing costs have consistently stayed low.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse