>The clearest example you can see is with NIMBYs, especially those in liberal leaning cities.

I don't think it's accurate to classify property owners in some of the world's most expensive real-estate markets as "the bottom rungs of society."

And my experience with local city council and school board sessions aren't that different. It's usually the same sorts of people. They're not billionaires, but they're usually pretty materially comfortable. I'd categorize them as being "dream hoarder" types. (https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/the-hoa...)

> These are people who vote blue, champion diversity, and have generally progressive views. But when push comes to shove they circle the wagons to defend their interests just like the billionaires do.

My favorite example in the Bay Area is the San Francisco Sierra Club fighting to preserve a parking garage [1], which is, by and large, the exact opposite of environmental advocacy.

[1] https://www.thebaycitybeacon.com/politics/the-sierra-club-fi...

The way environmental concerns have been corrupted into institutional delay levers is sad.

"How Burrowing Owls Lead To Vomiting Anarchists" is one of the few (and best) explanation of the impacts of these kinds of tactics that I've read [0]

[0] https://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/

> These are people who vote blue, champion diversity, and have generally progressive views. But when push comes to shove they circle the wagons to defend their interests

A specific example in the city of Seattle - a neighborhood group sued to delay increasing housing density (read: make housing more affordable). While the suit called for an environmental study, you can easily read between the lines and see that homeowners in the area do not want change, and view increased density as a threat to the character of their neighborhoods. The lawsuit has already delayed a significant increase to the housing stock for the entire city by 2 years. [0]

[0] https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/queen-ann...

I don't agree with them, but increased density is absolutely a "threat" to the character of any neighborhood, not just something they "view" as such. Having more people live in a neighborhood changes everything about it, I don't understand why people neglect this point, like it isn't real or maybe doesn't count because everything NIMBYs say is invalid because we all want cheaper rent. But I am not saying you're doing this, it's just what I see when people talk about NIMBY.

As a result of denser housing, rent should go down N%, but your quality of life (if you're not fooling yourself) will also go down slightly as you have to deal with the reality of living near more people. (Longer waits at local stores, more crowded sidewalks, etc. We can pretend this is a "good" thing and that humans are social creatures, but there is a point where it becomes less tolerable to most people.)

You're absolutely right, it would change the character of the neighborhoods. But the argument you present is exposes the hypocrisy at the center of people in these neighborhoods and hits at some of what Giridharadas is getting at.

I suspect many of the generalized Seattle NIMBY's champion affordable housing and decry gentrification, but when the rubber hits the road and they are asked to give up something (neighborhood charm) to actually do something about these problems (increase density to lower housing costs), they actively fight against it.

"I like affordable housing as long as I can still live in the same neighborhood and don't have to give anything up."

Don't forget they also only like it as long as the value of their properties continues to raise. Can't be going underwater on your mortgage from buying in a bubble in the name of cultural diversity or fighting poverty.

Would increased density actually lead to lower housing costs though? My initial thought is no, especially in a major city such as Seattle.

Increasing the supply of housing should lower prices, yes. In nearly every neighborhood, single family, detached homes are the most expensive form of housing.

There is an effect where improving the consumption benefits of the city may draw new migration from other parts of the country, but it is generally accepted that this effect is much smaller than the effect of increased competition between landlords and developers.

If you think that housing somehow operates differently from a normal market - increasing supply will not change the price - it is incumbent on you to explain why you think this might be true.

Possibly what the grandparent was thinking of is land values. If a neighbourhood is rezoned to allow more density, one would be able to build a duplex or low-rise condo/apartment building where there used to be a single family home. This makes the underlying land more valuable, while probably also making the per-square-foot cost of housing go down. I also suspect as more SFHs get turned into more dense housing, the scarcity of SFHs would make their value jump up as well. One thing that could counteract this would be if property value assessments rose enough such that it became very expensive to own a SFH on land zoned for density, which would encourage most owners to turn them into more dense housing. Though possible one house in a 'hood of low-rise buildings would be less desirable and would only be sold as a teardown. Either way I figure more density would overall be a windfall for landowners (read: homeowners) even as housing prices drop.

Why would supply and demand not apply to Seattle?

People in small neighborhoods tend to value the charm, convenience, and connection they have with their communities. I don't want to pretend things won't change, but those qualities can be preserved even as a neighborhood gets dense (Brooklyn might be a good example). Plus, there are additional benefits (transit, shops, services) that tend to come with density.

When I was little I remember my parents getting us hyped up to go around the neighborhood to get signatures for a town vote which would protect the area due to wetlands. We were middle class and Democrat - but certainly not rich and not environmentalists. I cannot remember my parents ever saying anything about wetlands after that. It's clear it was all motivated by property issues, but I didn't realize that until years later.

I suspect there are many people in Seattle who recognize the need for more housing and more affordable housing, given the number of neighborhoods that are tipping over the million dollar mark. That said, where I get flustered is the number of new housing units with inadequate parking or where perfectly good houses are being torn down. Case in point: corner of Market and Phinney. Cute, well-maintained craftsman with a land-use sign in front of it indicating it will be torn down and replaced with a multi-plex unit with only two parking spots. It's likely already an $800K house in that neighborhood, but due to pure greed will become a 5x $800K property for someone. And therein lies an unfortunate twist on the Seattle market: at the moment, supply and demand are not in balance, so even as supply increases, housing still isn't affordable for many.

I have no problem with creating greater density. I have no problem with incentivizing public transportation. But, when you tear down perfectly charming houses in already very crowded neighborhoods, it's just annoying on so many levels.

> but due to pure greed will become a 5x $800K property for someone.

When you put 5 units where there was 1, the value generally doesn't multiply like that. The individual units aren't worth the same as the single original, assuming the same time frame, comparable features and condition. And going from 1 to 5 units seems like a pretty incremental change - it's not like a house being converted to a high-rise building.

> But, when you tear down perfectly charming houses

Given that the project fits local zoning laws, I don't see what the relevance of the existing house's "charm" is. Unless the house is of local historical or cultural importance - which planning commissions consider - it's nobody's right to prevent its replacement on the basis of such a perception.

If opinions on the charm are important, one should advocate their planning commission to establish aesthetic guidelines.

>When you put 5 units where there was 1, the value generally doesn't multiply like that

But it does in Seattle. Have you looked at any of those new units they've put in through Phinney ridge and Ballard? That's exactly how it works - tear out one, put up X, and sell at a multiple of what the original would have gained.

I have seen $K single-family homes get replaced by $K condos in SF, but only because the original home was uninhabitable (ie property value discounted to offset demolition/construction) while the new condos were legitimately luxurious...

How do you reconcile being "flustered" that housing density is being increased, and at the same time acknowledging the need for much more housing? And you claim have no problem with greater density and incentivizing public transportation, but still want to use up valuable space for parking?

Because I'd rather that density increase by replacing dilapidated buildings or ones that are actually in need of improvement rather than perfectly good ones. I don't know how to actually enforce that in any way, but it's a nuance that is one reason why it sticks in people's craw to see new housing units built.

Regarding parking - the problem is, you put up a new space, but only provide parking for maybe 10% of the occupancy (which matches my casual observation of numerous land-use billboards). Ok - the problem is, there isn't enough public transportation for the other 90% of people. So we're creating a problem where we still have way too many cars, people, etc, we're just kicking the problem off into the distance.

Or maybe said another way -- it's a perverse incentive, because it lets the land developer off the hook while creating greater strain on streets, parking, IE: it's adding density but not actually planning ahead to accommodate that density.

Do you want to live in LA? Because that's how you get LA traffic.

People own cars for convenience. If they have to pay $$$ for garage parking or deal with limited street parking, many of those people will stop owning a car.

Sure, then public transportation sucks... but that's also good! When enough people depend on an inconvenient publicly funded service, that service magically improves after a couple election cycles. Then more people use it, creating support for further improvements, etc.

But that's not all!

More people on the sidewalks creates opportunities for small businesses to bring services closer to where people live (reducing demand without diminishing support for public transportation). Those businesses tend to pay workers better, which enables some to move into the city instead of driving from cheaper areas.

The end result, a decade or two down the line, is a vibrant urban community. A region where the idea of even 10% parking spaces is absurd because friends and family, work and pleasure, everything can be accessed with some walking and public transportation...

-

Our car culture is a social addiction. Cars seem convenient in an environment shaped around cars... but if we step back and question the environment, the alternatives are much more attractive.

> Because I'd rather that density increase by replacing dilapidated buildings or ones that are actually in need of improvement.

People looking for housing in dense cities value location and access. Sometimes that means a house gets replaced.

Dilapidated buildings are replaced with housing all the time, but only when the land they occupy is desirable for housing due to its desirable location. Just think of all the old centrally located decaying warehouses converted into condos in your city of choice.

The alternative, building in areas people don't want to live, isn't going to happen soon. It was tried, most recently in the years before 2008.

Maybe it's as simple as wanting less development to maintain and increase the value of their currently owned property.

This is why I think much of Christian thought is actually quite intelligent.

(Summary by a very intellectually and spiritually deficient moron): I am pathetic, my desires are all almost certainly evil, I can probably not even think one good thought let alone have a good intention without divine help. God, please please please please have mercy and grant me some very much needed horror of self and conformity to your will and help me to not become a puffed up moron who is full of himself if one seemingly desirable thing happens to me, which is certainly what is going to happen unless the literal creator of the universe helps me to do it a little bit less.

Of course none of the American Protestant Christians I know will like it if you say that since they seem to think Christianity is about being a millionaire who gives 30% to charity and doesn’t have premarital sex too much

> grant me ... conformity to your will

The "your will" is the part that gets interpreted, either by the individual, often with the help of an outside institution, to serve whatever objective they seek.

Perhaps that objective is a good one, or maybe it's horrifying. Such a professed humility to a God's will could also just be serving as a cover for whatever else the person is doing. History is replete with examples of that.

But at that point, you are back to where we started: needing to understand and judge the intent of people and the institutions that they take guidance from.

EDIT: wording clarification

Yes. This exactly.

> horror of self

Not being obtuse: what do you mean here?

I would say it is a wish for spiritual insight into the nature of self-ishness, how it is a root cause of evil in the world, and presumably the related Christian tenet that it's not a 'fixable' problem without cultivating a divine relationship to the creator or source.

But I would just be guessing.

Then again, if everyone were selfish in a cat-like way that everyone else can fuck off, we wouldn't have wars, genocide, slavery, abuse of power, or terrorism. So there's something more to it than just being selfish. Something to do with our tribal, hierarchal tendencies where one alpha ape can convince the rest of us to do violence against those other groups, who get blamed for all our problems.

> Not being obtuse: what do you mean here?

I think internet555 was trying to suggest something about the duality of man, sir.

That’s what all my posts are about

to help make sense of this apparent contradiction, i'd suggest separating christianity the religion from the underlying philosophy of jesus.

most people generally admire jesus's moral philosophy, but non-religious folks (e.g., humanists) find the various religions and sub-sects to be distasteful because, while there are some good people within, those organizations largely exist to concentrate and perpetuate power (which religious leaders would argue helps them with their mission of salvation).

It's almost as if democracy is about balancing competing self-interests. It's also easier be more enlightened, as long as it's not impacting one's own self-interest.

False comparison because billionaire has a lot more money compared to your typical middle-class NIMBY. Even if quite a bit of the billionaire's wealth vanishes, it won't impact his lifestyle much. Not so with NIMBY.

(For the record, I don't like NIMBY's)

Our revealed preferences often paint a bleak portrait.