"Here's a sneak peak ..." Here's a furtive orgasm? I hypothesize that "peek" is the word on the internet that is most often misspelled, but only when it follows "sneak."
Bryan, I was talking with my leftist friend the other day. And we don't agree on a lot but we both agree on open borders and urban densification, oddly enough.
We posited that support for denser housing and/or less zoning restrictions is, not so much, a left-right divide but a generational divide. i.e. Boomers vs Millenials. But, of course, we were basing this on our own personal anecdotal experience.
I was wondering: given that you're writing a book about zoning restrictions / urban densification, have you seen any research about generational attitudes about zoning/density?
From a European perspective, I am not sure all/most/many here would be so enthusiastic about Paris taken over by Manhattan/Tokyo/Shanghai/Dubai/... . Some might say: nightmarish. (I do admit: The people would love the better rents/choices. Or love to move there - Scott A. argued that a lot of new building in very attractive places might not bring lower rents, but instead more of moving in - still a good thing if more people can live where they want.) https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/01/steelmanning-the-nimbys/ Obviously, I'll buy the book.
I'd like a more rigorous illustration of Bastiat's Paris. This would be a fun project: look up all the large building projects that were proposed for Paris but never made. Easy level would be to look at the period between 1945 and now, but the real challenge would start at 1850.
I think that ensuring buildings are designed in a certain aesthetic has some value. There should be no size or height constraints, but with the ugliness of modern architecture, requiring certain guidelines may have benefits. Ugly buildings often get torn down 30 years later because they go out of style like fast fashion. And if they don’t they just stand out as an eyesore. Classic New York skyscrapers like the Chrysler or Empire State are so superior to commie blocks. While it may cost more, the city looks better which can attract tourism, ugly development can breed crime and a higher initial cost may be worth it for a building that stands for 200 years rather than 30.
I recently finished Selected Essays. How many economics books make one laugh out loud? We are amused. I should have read it decades ago. I'll bet that most economists have never read it and that most journalists have never heard of it. I'm currently reading Economic Sophisms and plan to get Economic Harmonies. Some of Bastiats comments are as if he is alive and commenting on today's economic sophisms. Ayn Rand lists two Bastiat books in the bibliography of her Capitalism.
It is quite difficult to convince urban left-wingers that we need more market-rate housing.
And suburban right-wingers are opposed to any kind of multifamily housing because they don’t know anything about it.
So as a result we get a brutal shortage of housing. Funnily enough suburban right-wingers agree with the urban leftists who say “there is no housing shortage, it’s just investors driving up the price!” Classic economic illiteracy.
Literally the only place in the country where housing is being built at any volume is in right wing suburbs/exurbs. You can't go five feet in a Florida suburb without tripping over gigantic housing development.
You can get a brand new 3 bed 3 bath townhome in a fancy new development full of amenities a reasonable distance from Tampa with good schools for the low 300s.
A similar townhome in a similar town in Jersey near NYC costs 700k. Also, the property tax rate is twice as high and you pay income tax (none in Florida).
I just went through a town election where the left wing NIMBY and the right wing YIMBY were in conflict. That has been the breakdown every single places I've ever been.
But yeah, let's both sides this. Those right wing suburbanites are just the pits.
You're right that families in good school districts don't support low rent section 8 housing being built in their towns. Boo hoo. Are you going to do anything to address their concerns or just call them racist.
Suburbanites are opposed to any kind of multifamily in their neighborhood at any price point. That’s extremely well-known and if you don’t know it you obviously know so little about housing it’s not worth engaging.
Given that you’ve made a reckless and sweeping generalization, I only need one counter example to prove you wrong, which I provided. That said, you haven’t actually provided any empirical evidence, you’ve just made some passionate claims. I will be happy to address your data when you provide it.
If you don’t know how much of America’s land is zoned single-family, there’s no starting point to engage with you on because you don’t know what you’re arguing.
Even 79% of Chicago’s residential land is zoned single-family. In the suburbs it’s obviously more. Zoning is too strict and getting suburban homeowners to allow ADUs and duplexes in their neighborhoods has been a massive political struggle for the last several years (I’ve even seen supposed “right wing” commenters on this blog say they hate upzoning). Hilariously there was an op-ed in the Dallas Morning News where a conservative dummy argued that loosening zoning laws would “take away your property rights”.
American conservatives claim to support small government and property rights but when it comes to zoning they do a 180 and suddenly love central planning. That’s why we’re in a housing shortage.
The existence of the status quo is not proof that a particular demographic supports that status quo. Come now! You can do better.
“That’s why we’re in…”
You just love saying things without providing any evidence, and some of them are obviously false, like this. The occupancy stats in suburbs don’t support the idea that the shortage hurts most there. On the other hand, the vacancy and occupancy and increases in rent and value do support that urban areas are the places that are falling behind on building and where the necessity for more stock is most urgent.
Asserting otherwise is really weird and suggests that as much as you claim others’ ignorance that you’re not really familiar with the conversation.
All you have to do is look at Bryan’s post on market urbanism to see a bunch of right-wing commenters fearmongering about *gasp* multifamily housing in their neighborhoods.
Obviously far-left NIMBYs in cities are a problem but the upzoning bills in Texas, New York and Colorado failed specifically because right wing suburban homeowners are afraid of multifamily in their neighborhoods.
They legitimately think duplexes and ADUs are a socialist UN conspiracy. The GOP voters want to retain the restrictive status quo to inflate their property values.
Doing research to reply to a local letter-to-the-editor in which investors are condemned, I discovered many important Leftist groups that identify govt as the culprit. Eg, Biden's White Houese and the NYT. After my own LTE, with numerous quotes, was published, the anti-investor writer could only condemn independent judgment. That, in fact, is the statist's main enemy, as Atlas Shrugged shows.
I am actually pleasantly surprised with NYT, Bloomberg and The Atlantic's coverage of housing issues, they are pro-development and understand we have a massive shortage of apartments.
"Here's a sneak peak ..." Here's a furtive orgasm? I hypothesize that "peek" is the word on the internet that is most often misspelled, but only when it follows "sneak."
"Lose" spelled "loose" is probably the most common on the internet. Especially if you read sports related stuff.
You are almost certainly correct. Quite a trap.
Bryan, I was talking with my leftist friend the other day. And we don't agree on a lot but we both agree on open borders and urban densification, oddly enough.
We posited that support for denser housing and/or less zoning restrictions is, not so much, a left-right divide but a generational divide. i.e. Boomers vs Millenials. But, of course, we were basing this on our own personal anecdotal experience.
I was wondering: given that you're writing a book about zoning restrictions / urban densification, have you seen any research about generational attitudes about zoning/density?
Is it too late to correct "Critic's" to "Critics' "?
The problem with your argument is that you have terrible taste in architecture. Not as bad as architects, but pretty bad.
Who’s the overweight character?
From a European perspective, I am not sure all/most/many here would be so enthusiastic about Paris taken over by Manhattan/Tokyo/Shanghai/Dubai/... . Some might say: nightmarish. (I do admit: The people would love the better rents/choices. Or love to move there - Scott A. argued that a lot of new building in very attractive places might not bring lower rents, but instead more of moving in - still a good thing if more people can live where they want.) https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/01/steelmanning-the-nimbys/ Obviously, I'll buy the book.
I'd like a more rigorous illustration of Bastiat's Paris. This would be a fun project: look up all the large building projects that were proposed for Paris but never made. Easy level would be to look at the period between 1945 and now, but the real challenge would start at 1850.
Looks very fun! :D
I think that ensuring buildings are designed in a certain aesthetic has some value. There should be no size or height constraints, but with the ugliness of modern architecture, requiring certain guidelines may have benefits. Ugly buildings often get torn down 30 years later because they go out of style like fast fashion. And if they don’t they just stand out as an eyesore. Classic New York skyscrapers like the Chrysler or Empire State are so superior to commie blocks. While it may cost more, the city looks better which can attract tourism, ugly development can breed crime and a higher initial cost may be worth it for a building that stands for 200 years rather than 30.
Where did you get that comic book art showing Bastiat? Very nice. I look forward to seeing more in a supermarket magazine rack.
I recently finished Selected Essays. How many economics books make one laugh out loud? We are amused. I should have read it decades ago. I'll bet that most economists have never read it and that most journalists have never heard of it. I'm currently reading Economic Sophisms and plan to get Economic Harmonies. Some of Bastiats comments are as if he is alive and commenting on today's economic sophisms. Ayn Rand lists two Bastiat books in the bibliography of her Capitalism.
It is quite difficult to convince urban left-wingers that we need more market-rate housing.
And suburban right-wingers are opposed to any kind of multifamily housing because they don’t know anything about it.
So as a result we get a brutal shortage of housing. Funnily enough suburban right-wingers agree with the urban leftists who say “there is no housing shortage, it’s just investors driving up the price!” Classic economic illiteracy.
Literally the only place in the country where housing is being built at any volume is in right wing suburbs/exurbs. You can't go five feet in a Florida suburb without tripping over gigantic housing development.
You can get a brand new 3 bed 3 bath townhome in a fancy new development full of amenities a reasonable distance from Tampa with good schools for the low 300s.
A similar townhome in a similar town in Jersey near NYC costs 700k. Also, the property tax rate is twice as high and you pay income tax (none in Florida).
I just went through a town election where the left wing NIMBY and the right wing YIMBY were in conflict. That has been the breakdown every single places I've ever been.
But yeah, let's both sides this. Those right wing suburbanites are just the pits.
You're right that families in good school districts don't support low rent section 8 housing being built in their towns. Boo hoo. Are you going to do anything to address their concerns or just call them racist.
Suburbanites are opposed to any kind of multifamily in their neighborhood at any price point. That’s extremely well-known and if you don’t know it you obviously know so little about housing it’s not worth engaging.
I mean, I am a suburban dude on the right and I literally have built duplexes and triplexes in the suburbs that I’ve lived in.
Does anybody actually fall for this “everybody knows I’m right so if you disagree I’m going to run away” bluster?
Does anyone actually believe your one anecdote invalidates empirical evidence?
Look at the recent upzoning bills in Texas, Colorado and New York that all failed because suburbanites didn’t want duplexes in their neighborhoods.
If suburbanites weren’t afraid of duplexes and triplexes we wouldn’t have a housing shortage or single-family zoning to begin with.
Cheers, it’s been a pleasure proving you wrong.
Given that you’ve made a reckless and sweeping generalization, I only need one counter example to prove you wrong, which I provided. That said, you haven’t actually provided any empirical evidence, you’ve just made some passionate claims. I will be happy to address your data when you provide it.
If you don’t know how much of America’s land is zoned single-family, there’s no starting point to engage with you on because you don’t know what you’re arguing.
Even 79% of Chicago’s residential land is zoned single-family. In the suburbs it’s obviously more. Zoning is too strict and getting suburban homeowners to allow ADUs and duplexes in their neighborhoods has been a massive political struggle for the last several years (I’ve even seen supposed “right wing” commenters on this blog say they hate upzoning). Hilariously there was an op-ed in the Dallas Morning News where a conservative dummy argued that loosening zoning laws would “take away your property rights”.
American conservatives claim to support small government and property rights but when it comes to zoning they do a 180 and suddenly love central planning. That’s why we’re in a housing shortage.
“If you don’t know how much…”
The existence of the status quo is not proof that a particular demographic supports that status quo. Come now! You can do better.
“That’s why we’re in…”
You just love saying things without providing any evidence, and some of them are obviously false, like this. The occupancy stats in suburbs don’t support the idea that the shortage hurts most there. On the other hand, the vacancy and occupancy and increases in rent and value do support that urban areas are the places that are falling behind on building and where the necessity for more stock is most urgent.
Asserting otherwise is really weird and suggests that as much as you claim others’ ignorance that you’re not really familiar with the conversation.
All you have to do is look at Bryan’s post on market urbanism to see a bunch of right-wing commenters fearmongering about *gasp* multifamily housing in their neighborhoods.
Obviously far-left NIMBYs in cities are a problem but the upzoning bills in Texas, New York and Colorado failed specifically because right wing suburban homeowners are afraid of multifamily in their neighborhoods.
They legitimately think duplexes and ADUs are a socialist UN conspiracy. The GOP voters want to retain the restrictive status quo to inflate their property values.
Hence, we’re in a housing shortage.
What happened to the lizard conspiracy?
Yesterday you said CO was an everything bill, now you admit it was just an upzoning bill.
Without actually reading it (I havent bothered), I am not sure that is even correct.
I have townhouses/condos in my suburban neighborhood. In Colorado.
Edit: And ditto for my former SC suburban neighborhood.
Doing research to reply to a local letter-to-the-editor in which investors are condemned, I discovered many important Leftist groups that identify govt as the culprit. Eg, Biden's White Houese and the NYT. After my own LTE, with numerous quotes, was published, the anti-investor writer could only condemn independent judgment. That, in fact, is the statist's main enemy, as Atlas Shrugged shows.
The New York Times is not the government.
I am actually pleasantly surprised with NYT, Bloomberg and The Atlantic's coverage of housing issues, they are pro-development and understand we have a massive shortage of apartments.
>The New York Times is not the government.
This is not a valid comment on my post or its implications.
9 month pregnancy for "Baby Build" 😂