Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> Getting rid of zoning laws only works if you have a lot of extra land to sprawl out onto.

Other way around. Zoning encourages horizontal growth by constraining vertical growth. Once supply has reached horizontal and vertical limits, prices skyrocket to reach equilibrium with demand.

> Otherwise, even if you build up to get more dense ala NYC, HK, Tokyo, or Shanghai, the area will just become more attractive and more people will want to live there.

Density implies noise, pollution, traffic, people, and a certain type of urban lifestyle... all of which decrease attractiveness.




> Density implies noise, pollution, traffic, people, and a certain type of urban lifestyle... all of which decrease attractiveness.

Prices in big dense cities say otherwise, there is plenty of demand to be where all the economic action is, many people also prefer urban lifestyles.

The lack of zoning doesn't encourage density at all, if there is land to build out instead of up, everyone will prefer the former because its cheaper and can provide amenities like free parking. Zoning can prevent that, it can also discourage vertical growth but at the same time discouraging horizontal growth as well.


> Prices in big dense cities say otherwise, there is plenty of demand to be where all the economic action is, many people also prefer urban lifestyles.

Prices just show urban areas are highly valued, there is no proof those areas defy supply and demand.

Density increases attractiveness for some people, but the trade-offs are clearly not for everyone given NIMBYism and higher prices outside some urban areas. Increasing supply may increase demand to a point, but there is still an equilibrium - density is still part of the solution.

> The lack of zoning doesn't encourage density at all, if there is land to build out instead of up, everyone will prefer the former because its cheaper and can provide amenities like free parking. Zoning can prevent that, it can also discourage vertical growth but at the same time discouraging horizontal growth as well.

Moot point, this entire discussion is about urban areas where land has already run out.

> if there is land to build out instead of up, everyone will prefer the former because its cheaper and can provide amenities like free parking.

"Everyone", except people that care about the time cost of commuting and the financial obligation of car ownership.


> Moot point, this entire discussion is about urban areas where land has already run out.

That isn't true. Houston is still sprawling, many cities off the coat have plenty of land to grow, and they do.

> "Everyone", except people that care about the time cost of commuting and the financial obligation of car ownership.

Of course. But property developers can make more money off the former than they can off the latter, if given the choice.


> Prices in big dense cities say otherwise,

Price doesn't strongly correlate to density.

Prices are very high in low density areas like Los Angeles, Silicon valley, North Virginia, Palm Beach, etc.

Before Manhattan got "nice" 20 years ago, it was dense, and there was cheap real estate to be had. It was the gentrification that drive the price increase, not the density.


>Density implies noise, pollution, traffic, people, and a certain type of urban lifestyle... all of which decrease attractiveness.

That is an incredible amount of personal opinion injected as fact.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: