tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post1450329187736451684..comments2024-03-29T03:50:00.893-04:00Comments on Urban kchoze: How density limits bring about gentrificationsimval84http://www.blogger.com/profile/10615053214354191224noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-63688421470770878632015-03-04T06:57:16.785-05:002015-03-04T06:57:16.785-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03389094702640451587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-30913594925660947982014-06-29T21:47:00.014-04:002014-06-29T21:47:00.014-04:00It is possible to re-develop with the same density...It is possible to re-develop with the same density without becoming unaffordable, But in order to do that, you need to have a cultural mentality of letting houses depreciate so that after 30 or 40 years, the house is basically scrap and worth only the value of the land. But in North America (like in Europe), houses are generally seen as investments, it's not that they don't depreciate over time, they do, but people spend a lot of money on maintenance and renovations to maintain their value. Often, the only thing about the house that really appreciates is the land on which it is built. Still, that doesn't mean that there aren't a few "fixer uppers" around with value down on the floor (especially in Detroit). Just randomly, I checked on zillow.com for Kansas City, MO, and some old houses are being sold for 10 000$. That's not much more expensive than the price of the lot. Of course, these houses are really crap now.<br /><br />Note also that some Vancouver houses are listed as "lot value only"... it's just that the lot is worth 700 000$ by itself!<br /><br />Still, in general, with density limits, renovations are more likely as redevelopment than tearing down and rebuilding, people buy rundown housing for cheap, use the old house as a shell for a major renovation, then flip it on the market. If we allowed it, there's no reason why old houses couldn't be renovated into duplexes or other multi-family housing.<br /><br />But still, you're correct that redeveloping well-maintained, still valuable housing into same-density housing by tearing down and rebuilding will inevitably make it unaffordable for the type of people who used to live there.<br /><br />PS: there is also a phenomenon called "filtering" where middle-class housing degrades a bit over time and become poor housing, a bit like middle-class cars become poor people's cars after 10 or 15 years, once they're on used car lots. It's just not that common nowadays in urban areas, with rich people coming back to cities.simval84https://www.blogger.com/profile/10615053214354191224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-71393672090530635472014-06-29T12:27:43.754-04:002014-06-29T12:27:43.754-04:00Not sure who started the luxury car analogy, but I...Not sure who started the luxury car analogy, but I first heard it from Let's Go LA: http://letsgola.wordpress.com/2014/06/14/the-lamborghini-and-the-dingbat/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-73573949404197678842014-06-26T14:29:43.968-04:002014-06-26T14:29:43.968-04:00Your point about monster houses (I've usually ...Your point about monster houses (I've usually heard them referred to as tear-downs) can also be instructive at the opposite end of the spectrum, namely depressed run-down neighborhoods. Because of restrictive zoning laws, you can't put back anything much more dense than what already exists. Therefore, unless the neighborhood becomes suddenly super-desirable, leading to tear-downs and new luxury houses, the only other alternative is stagnation at best, and blight and eventual abandonment at worst. It just seems that no matter what, it's simply not economically viable to redevelop a property to the same density it had before, let alone a lower density. This seems to be true even where the building has been neglected to the point of dilapidation or even falling down on its own. There's just too many sunk costs, even if the land has gone vacant. Without the opportunity for densification, while throwing big subsidies at a property for redevelopment, the best we seem to get is the crappiest cheap vinyl-clad construction you can imagine. Jeffrey Jakucykhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04092631645389171565noreply@blogger.com