Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

wsdog t1_j6ja2cf wrote

Reply to comment by PLS-Surveyor-US in Maura Healey wants to solve the state’s housing crisis. Here’s step one. by _Hack_The_Planet_

You can decrease demand. It's the same as with roads, building more and wider roads increases the number of automobiles.

−6

Skizzy_Mars t1_j6jcths wrote

Why don't you get the ball rolling? I'm sure Texas would welcome you with open arms.

2

Codspear t1_j6mds63 wrote

Texas… the fastest growing state largely because of its lack of strict zoning laws.

1

Skizzy_Mars t1_j6mo97n wrote

Texas has plenty of zoning laws, they just don’t use the word “zoning”.

1

wsdog t1_j6jfi1i wrote

Many colleagues of mine flocked to TX. I just like the cold weather, so I'm sticking around.

But reality is that if my way to the commuter rail station will be clogged with apartment buildings I will set off and move somewhere else. As will most of my neighbors.

−4

Skizzy_Mars t1_j6jhmf8 wrote

Perfect, then we can redevelop your house into more apartment buildings. Win-win.

8

antraxsuicide t1_j6jl78j wrote

You know you described a net positive outcome, right?

You and your neighbors are X. The people moving into the new, denser housing are Y. Y is obviously greater than X. So X people commute further, and Y people commute shorter.

2

wsdog t1_j6jnpns wrote

Isn't this gentrification?

−1

antraxsuicide t1_j6jqmoa wrote

If the people moving in are more affluent than existing residents and push them out financially, yeah. I very much doubt that since we're talking about lowering supply to decrease housing costs. The people living there already can afford to. If costs go down, then they'll still be able to afford to live there.

2

wsdog t1_j6ju1to wrote

A single family house is only expensive when surrounded by single family houses. If a single family is surrounded by 10 level buildings it's cheap as crap. So the current residents will be driven to areas with less transportation and services. It actually wouldn't be their choice, banks will just foreclosure underwater mortgages. Yeah, a forced move pretty much.

−1

hx87 t1_j6jxykb wrote

A single family home surrounded by 10 story apartment buildings will have its land priced as if a 10 story apartment can be built on it, ie a whole lot more expensive. In the grand scheme of things buildings aren't worth much compared to the underlying land.

2

wsdog t1_j6k7qg3 wrote

Only if there is demand for a 10 story apartment building. The demand is high for Boston burbs because it gives the small town feel while providing an easy commute to Boston. With apartment buildings built near every commuter rail station till the cape this will go away. There will be little sense living here. If I wanted to live in a 10+ story building (I did) I would move to NYC, and would be making more $.

0

hx87 t1_j6k9q06 wrote

If a SFH is surrounded by 10 story apartment buildings that aren't vacant, you can be pretty damn sure that there is plenty of demand for 10 story apartment buildings.

> With apartment buildings built near every commuter rail station till the cape this will go away.

I don't see what the problem with this is. Why is demand for small towns full of SFHs a good thing? If Boston were built to the density of NYC, we'd be cheaper than NYC, and making close to NYC money too.

2

wsdog t1_j6kagcz wrote

It's like saying why someone needs Legal Seafoods if there are 10 McDonald's nearby. 10x cheaper!

1

hx87 t1_j6kc9k8 wrote

"Sorry, you can't build a McDonald's here (even though there's plenty of demand to justify it). Legal Seafoods only (even though current owners paid McDonald's prices 50 years ago, and displaced No. 9 Park in the process)!"

3

wsdog t1_j6kd2co wrote

Nobody will patronize Legal Seafoods if it's next door to MD's. Makes sense.

If you follow your argument all homeowners must be pro-construction because they would want to flip their land for profit. The problem is that they have to live somewhere, and they don't want to live in apartments because if they would, they would buy in Seaport.

1

antraxsuicide t1_j6k0jfk wrote

>So the current residents will be driven to areas with less transportation and services.

What? The area is getting cheaper, not more expensive. That drives people to an area, not out of it.

1

wsdog t1_j6k74jx wrote

People are not keen on living in human anthills, that's why they chose a single family.

1

PLS-Surveyor-US t1_j6jrld6 wrote

This is the saddest line of thinking in transportation and the economy. Induced demand is a farce in a lot of ways. The primary way is that the capacity that no longer fits on the narrow road find a way through 3 paths. One is mass transit (this is good). Another is jamming the path (this is bad) and the final is to seek alternate routes (also bad). Right now "induced demand" completely jams up many local roads slowing down local travel and mass transit (buses/trolleys) that operate on those routes.

Developers and builders will always flock to build the easiest and most profitable projects (this is not evil or bad..this is human nature). You keep increasing the non residential buildings with relatively little increase in the residential then you get what you have today. Imbalance. Not sure how you eliminate demand or whether that's even a good idea.

2