Hacker News Reader

Comment by xyzelement | Hacker News Reader

> Existing homeowners don’t want more “nice” places because it reduces the value of their own homes.

Well - what does that actually mean? I own a home, and I am not interested in a huge apartment building going up next door (for reasons that aren't property values) but I have no objection to the boundary of my town expanding, or a new town being established a little bit down the road. Yes sure those things will create competition for my home and lower my values in some way but it's just not something I or any other sane homeowner go around thinking about.

Nor frankly do I have any influence over that.

View on HN

Huge apartment buildings are “lumpy” and indeed impose externalities locally. I’ve been thinking a lot recently about if we could evenly distribute housing, we could cut through some of the NIMBY opposition. Quad plexes by right [0 for example] makes a lot of sense to me. If you’re OK with a quad plex next door, IMO you’re not part of the problem. Unfortunately, in many places SFH owners will come out in force to fight nearby quad plexes.

[0] https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/08/portland-changes...

>> Quad plexes by right [0 for example] makes a lot of sense to me. If you’re OK with a quad plex next door, IMO you’re not part of the problem

I would actually not be OK with quads next door to my house right now, because that is not the type of life I bought into. That may sound crazy so let me explain.

For 39 years, I valued density/walkability/convenience of city life, and lived in NYC for most of that time. Now that I have a family, I value certain other things in my life. We specifically chose a town that was "dense enough" but not "too dense" - zoning here allows neither mansions nor quads you're talking about. This has impact on things like - how busy the traffic is on local streets, how much green space there is, etc. Everyone who lives in this town chose it for the same reason.

Is not wanting quads next door NIMBYism? I don't think so... When I lived in the city, I wanted more tall buildings next to me, when I live in this town, I want more "this-town-style" homes next to me. Why am I ok with this? Simply because nobody moves to this town unless you want this life. If you want a more dense town with duplexes, triplexes etc, then there are other towns around us that are already zoned this way and people who live there want that. If you want even more density, NYC outer boroughs are just a few miles away. So people have choice.

>I would actually not be OK with quads next door to my house right now, because that is not the type of life I bought into.

This is, definitionally, NIMBYism. Resisting necessary change in your town because it doesn't jive with what you want is more or less the problem.

Now, maybe your town doesn't need quads or apartments or anything of the sort. Maybe the properties and zoning laws that exist are able to meet demand. But if your town is growing faster than single-family construction can keep up; if people aren't able to afford to live close to their jobs; if you see your town becoming more exclusive, something that often comes at the expense of local businesses or municipal budgets; then reality dictates that we embrace change.

Of course, it sounds like you're in an area close to NYC, so you would hold that there's already suitable choice of housing in your area to meet peoples' needs. I think the areas where this debate is more prevalent are the ones in the PNW, Southeast, and Mountain west/Southwest portions of the US where cities are busting at the seams and zoning is a huge barrier for the stock of housing.

You may be totally right about PWN etc. and I think you're right about my assessment about the NYC area being already fine. But I guess I am not super comfortable with this sentence: "Resisting necessary change in your town." Who gets to decide what is truly necessary? Is it people who already live in the town? That seems the most democratic and least tyrannical. Or is it people from elsewhere that are somehow empowered to decide how the town ought to be, and if so how does that work?

How do determine what growth is necessary and what is optional? Should we compress more and more people into existing cities, or would it make more sense to build new cities in regions with fewer geographical constraints? How do we balance the interests of existing residents versus those who would like to move in? Considering that most US population growth is due to immigration, what is the optimal level of net migration?

> Resisting necessary change in your town because it doesn't jive with what you want is more or less the problem.

Should there be a process to determine what change is necessary? Who should be able to participate in that process?

Thanks for the reply!

I can empathize. Have you experienced a neighborhood with a mix of half SFH, and the other half a smattering of 2, 3, 4 and occasional 10+? I currently rent in such a neighborhood and it’s fairly awesome. It supports a fabulous small business district, and the families playing and riding their bikes to school seem very happy too. If you are familiar with a neighborhood such as mine, can you describe the difference in quality of life that you experience in your SFH-only neighborhood?

I guess my town sounds just like what you describe, especially since my town does have some low-rise apartment buildings, though not exactly in my area.

I guess the difference would be - the greater density becomes, the fewer of your neighbors you know, etc. Also, because of how our town is, everyone who lives here is either a young family who moved here for the space and community, or people who have lived here a long time (ie raised their families then stayed). Once you mix in 10+ apartment buildings, I assume you get a higher mix of single people etc, which is a totally different vibe.

That’s so interesting. In my case, other nearby neighborhoods are slightly more trendy and attract the single etc vibe, so our vibe is very safe. Hm

Car culture makes this difficult. Either you make requirements for on-site parking (more expensive; limits housing styles in residential areas) or the neighborhood becomes a parking lot.

Until we have a less car-centric economy, anything more than a duplex will change the character of most residential neighborhoods.

> it's just not something I or any other sane homeowner go around thinking about.

> Nor frankly do I have any influence over that.

Very much this. There is no cabal of homeowners opposed to lower prices despite it being often repeated. People buy a house to live in it, they're not paying attention to who is building what. Also nobody is asking homeowners opinion on what build sites get approved or not. If there ever was a proposition related to housing approval it would be in the ballot open to all citizens. Early in the history of the USA only landowners could vote, but it's been a very long time since that's been the case.

> Very much this. There is no cabal of homeowners opposed to lower prices despite it being often repeated.

Then let's raise interest rates to 5% again. It's some coincidence that we "need" zero-interest rate policy and quantitative easing when the boomers are in control... even worse in Japan, which is even more boomer dominated. Sure... just lots of coincidences.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com