Good lord. If you don't want people commuting in by car, build public housing. Build more housing. De-financialize housing. Build commuter rail. Make property-ownership based on occupancy and use. Hold all city land in trust and only allow people to lease it 100 years at a time (this is what many Native nations already do to address housing insecurity on reservations).
One you've done all that, by all means, charge people to drive in the city. Actually, eliminate driving in the city. Build carpool parking at the ends of your metro line. Remove street parking. Make all the streets open to pedestrians. Create subsidies for cargo-bikes. Turn arterials and highways into green belts.
But please, please don't start with a congestion tax.
these cities build building after building of STEM techbro grad catnip $2800/month apartments and $700k condos and then it never lowers
The problem with the trickle down housing theory is that just because people can pay insane luxury rent doesn't mean that they want to. It's plainly obvious that most of these new builds are cheap as shit despite the luxury label, they're often built on marginal, flood project land, and lots of high earners are very, very stingy. They definitely aren't "catnip" for STEMbros, rather I see it as another example of "forced demand" - i.e. only overpriced garbage is all that is offered.
I'd argue the reason it never lowers is more that these luxury units set a floor, not a ceiling for all other apartments. Any amenities they offer aren't valued by most people all that much, so effectively a bunch of overpriced new builds means exisiting landlords can jack up rent.
The other problem is that building new housing makes the problem worse if you eliminate older housing which may be perfectly functional, but it's not profitable (like cash for clunkers)
The theory behind CfC was to lower total emissions and raise mean MPG range of vehicles, while also bailing out the Auto Industry by clearing their excess inventory.
That's not a terrible plan on its face if you're hopelessly wedded to car culture... :agony-shivering:
With housing, even old units functional still have the problem of being land hogs. Replacing ranch homes with new dense vertical and MUDs consolidates people over territory and that's generally good... except when you're wedded to car culture and everyone still needs parking space. :agony-deep:
Everything really does just come back to cars being terrible.
YIMBYs live in attached units (either apartments or condos) and want to increase density at all (usually human) costs and do whatever possible to knock down any building that’s not a mixed use highrise.
Firstly, plenty of YIMBYs live in ranch style homes in the suburbs. They complain about zoning and blame car culture on unions and donate monthly to Andrew Yang. But they scream like stuck pigs when anything threatens their property values or encroaches on their school districts.
Secondly, YIMBYs don't demolish shit. That's developers. And developers don't care if you're knocking down a single family unit to build five townhomes or an old eight unit apartment to build a big new McMansion so long as they're always building.
they treat the real estate market the way libertarians treat the economy as a whole.
Right. The term is camouflage. It doesn't get you dense urban housing with good public transit. It just gets privatization and subsidy for whomever is paying the local YIMBY Org's media budget.
Hold all city land in trust and only allow people to lease it 100 years at a time (this is what many Native nations already do to address housing insecurity on reservations).
The one good thing Nonce Island does except sink into the seas.
Hold all city land in trust and only allow people to lease it 100 years
this is how Chinese cities work and it's their main source of revenue besides funding from the central government. Except I think it's only 70 years. Seems like a good idea.
Good lord. If you don't want people commuting in by car, build public housing. Build more housing. De-financialize housing. Build commuter rail. Make property-ownership based on occupancy and use. Hold all city land in trust and only allow people to lease it 100 years at a time (this is what many Native nations already do to address housing insecurity on reservations).
One you've done all that, by all means, charge people to drive in the city. Actually, eliminate driving in the city. Build carpool parking at the ends of your metro line. Remove street parking. Make all the streets open to pedestrians. Create subsidies for cargo-bikes. Turn arterials and highways into green belts.
But please, please don't start with a congestion tax.
deleted by creator
The problem with the trickle down housing theory is that just because people can pay insane luxury rent doesn't mean that they want to. It's plainly obvious that most of these new builds are cheap as shit despite the luxury label, they're often built on marginal, flood project land, and lots of high earners are very, very stingy. They definitely aren't "catnip" for STEMbros, rather I see it as another example of "forced demand" - i.e. only overpriced garbage is all that is offered.
I'd argue the reason it never lowers is more that these luxury units set a floor, not a ceiling for all other apartments. Any amenities they offer aren't valued by most people all that much, so effectively a bunch of overpriced new builds means exisiting landlords can jack up rent.
No they aren't. YIMBYs become NIMBYs overnight as soon as you get anywhere near their property.
Doesn't that mean they were never YIMBYs then? That's just "Yes in Someone Else's Backyard."
The bitter irony of neoliberalism.
The other problem is that building new housing makes the problem worse if you eliminate older housing which may be perfectly functional, but it's not profitable (like cash for clunkers)
The theory behind CfC was to lower total emissions and raise mean MPG range of vehicles, while also bailing out the Auto Industry by clearing their excess inventory.
That's not a terrible plan on its face if you're hopelessly wedded to car culture... :agony-shivering:
With housing, even old units functional still have the problem of being land hogs. Replacing ranch homes with new dense vertical and MUDs consolidates people over territory and that's generally good... except when you're wedded to car culture and everyone still needs parking space. :agony-deep:
Everything really does just come back to cars being terrible.
deleted by creator
Firstly, plenty of YIMBYs live in ranch style homes in the suburbs. They complain about zoning and blame car culture on unions and donate monthly to Andrew Yang. But they scream like stuck pigs when anything threatens their property values or encroaches on their school districts.
Secondly, YIMBYs don't demolish shit. That's developers. And developers don't care if you're knocking down a single family unit to build five townhomes or an old eight unit apartment to build a big new McMansion so long as they're always building.
Right. The term is camouflage. It doesn't get you dense urban housing with good public transit. It just gets privatization and subsidy for whomever is paying the local YIMBY Org's media budget.
deleted by creator
The one good thing Nonce Island does except sink into the seas.
this is how Chinese cities work and it's their main source of revenue besides funding from the central government. Except I think it's only 70 years. Seems like a good idea.