Those people have no idea what they are talking about. Living next to your work gives you sooooo much freedom. The commute is only a 5 minute walk, you can go back home for lunch when you want, you save so much money on gas and insurance. You will be home so much quicker and have so much more time to relax.
I think people would like to live near their jobs, so long as that didn't also mean having to live near everyone else who works there. Like if you could have a nice detached single family home in a polite suburb, and ALSO have your job next door, in an equally cozy little house, that would be nice, but you might not prefer to live in a multi-story apartment building next to a lot of other multi-story residential and commercial structures. That is a fair choice.
The problem I see with NIMBYs is that they don't just believe that their "Home is my castle" but that "your home is my castle" as well and believe that they have more rights over their land than what you have over yours. Developers are interested in profit as it is the moral thing to do, which is to make money from a big investment that will benefit the the developer and by proxy the wider community but NIMBYs are self-centred and tend to only care about oneself which is why they oppose these "developers". I don't think NIMBYs are at all interested in profit, rather they are interested in power, at least the most die-hard NIMBYs; it is understandable to complain about the construction of an incineration plant in your neighbourhood BUT you have no right to complain about what someone else does on their land, especially when you believe that your home is your castle.
@@CoryPchajek Now you're just being unrealistic and dishonest. We all know the biggest generator of wealth for working-class people are their homes, and if you were a homeowner with a mortgage, you would have the same expectations. While many NIMBYs are ridiculous, the property owners should have some say about what goes into their neighborhood. Again, if you were a homeowner, you know damn well you wouldn't want a tall concrete slab built right next to your house.
Homes should be at best a neutral store of value keeping up with inflation. When people view it as a wealth generator, investor mania takes over the housing market and creates dangerous housing bubbles such as 2008 in the US and Evergrande going bankrupt in China.
New development is like a grocery store. Is it profit driven? Yes. Can its construction be disruptive? Yes. Is it necessary? If it’s being constructed, there is usually a need.
Define "grocery store"? ALL THREE of the closest grocery stores to me are all "luxury/premium" stores with ridiculous prices. The closest "discount" grocery store is a 15-minute drive / 30-minute bike / 60-minute walk / 90-minute bus away. When I heard they were building a grocery-store a 15-minute walk away, I was excited, until I saw they were moving the luxury/premium one from down the road up here. So now there are four useless stores in this upper-class food desert. 😒
@@Genesis-ni4ew - Dense housing is expensive because there's not enough of it. Anytime there's a shortage of something, the rich people get it first - and the poor only get what's left over. Which in the case of dense neighborhoods, usually means "nothing."
@@Genesis-ni4ew sorry to say, but making new affordable housing just isn’t really possible with the way regulation are set up in most of the United States and especially California. I think this is the real trickle down economics, but what new housing does is allow wealthier people to move into that housing and leave cheaper options open. It’s like when hermit crabs grow and move from shell to shell.
A lot of these communities have actually been losing density with the decrease in the average family size… this leads to them being unable to support local amenities. And, adding more humans, especially through missing middle - and frankly, even through high rises - doesn’t really make it feel that more dense. The abundance of cars makes it feel dense. Create car-free spaces and you’ll have plenty of density without that cramped car infested city feel.
The question should be 1. Is density admirable in itself? 2. Do property rights exist in coordination. with others? If some think the answer to. the density question is no then the immediate follow up is if they have the right to collectively decline increases in density.
@@redstone5062 Car-free does not meet service free. Obviously there should be access for plumbers, deliveries, emergency services, etc. We're talking about free from private motor vehicles.
@@redstone5062 You're right. Cars a great tool. But most people are not moving heavy objects or a lot of equipment. I don't what town you lived in, but they goofed up. The pedestrianised streets I've been to have all had easy access for the cars that need to be there.
Great video. The truth is, people rarely say "We're a tight knit community" until they're either on the local news after a tragedy or opposing a change in the local neighborhood.
That's code language for "we like our small town aesthetic and don't want to admit that it might be incompatible with living in a city of 500,000 people." That small town aesthetic might be great and wonderful in a city with only 10,000 people, but when you try to impose it on a city that has 50 times as many people, it's going to cause problems.
@@geraldhirsch8421 -- In other words you're going to tell someone else what they can or cannot do with their own land. I bet you think America is the land of the free too, right? As long as you don't deviate one iota from how your local town thinks you should live, right?
Another thing that upsets me is when only current residents are asked if the neighbourhood needs more housing. Of course they will say it doesn't need more housing-everyone they asked already lives there!! I would love to live in the place I grew up,but it is no experience to buy and the people who I grew up with, my friendly neighbours that would give me candy on Halloween and wave every time they saw me, refuse to allow any development of more affordable apartments.
Also, never forget that what these people are REALLY fighting for, is to preserve that "small town aesthetic" that is... unironically pretty wonderful. If you live in a city that has 10,000 people. When you try to impose that small town aesthetic on a city that has 50 times as many people, you're going to cause some pretty serious problems. People don't want to admit that imposing their small town aesthetic preferences on a city with 50 times as many people could be the source of their problems.
@@arthurwintersight7868 No kidding, and emphasis on the "aesthetic." Living in an actual small town is generally Not Great. Oh sure, it can make for entertaining stories for outsiders, but I imagine not being able to use half the utilities in your "small town" because you and the mayor got into a fight over Dumb Teenager Stuff when you were in highschool and they Never Got Over It isn't all that great. Not to mention very few people make the connection that "family feud" is just Gang Stuff, but with rural whites instead of suburban blacks. lol.
@@SkySong6161 I'm not sure if you want to phrase it as "small town bad". To each their own, really. But, if they want to have the small town aesthetic then they should move to an actual small town. One issue is that people can't let go of the fact that their once small town is no longer small anymore.
@@willch19 One of the reasons I emphasized the "aesthetic" is that most suburban and urban people don't know what living in a small town is actually like, and would hate it if they did. They like the fantasy they got sold by Hallmark and Hollywood. Actual small town life has... some things to recommend it, but not as many as lots of folks seem to think it does.
Heard an interview between a homeowner and the leader of the BC Green Party the other day where the homeowner literally said "I have no problem with individuals gaining equity on housing, but is there some way we can stop people from profiting?" His argument was that he should be allowed to get rich from merely owning land, but REITs that purchase rental properties should be banned for collecting rent. What's more is that *he himself is a landlord*. The framing that developers exist only to exploit apparently opens up a world of unfathomable entitlement and hypocrisy for those who endorse it.
California ended R-1 single-family zoning on January 1st, 2022. It replaced it with the legal right to build up to four units on a lot that was previously only approved for a single unit. Although many current residents are unhappy with the change, none of them fear that a large multi-story apartment will be constructed next door. The video implies that as a possible scenario. What I'm seeing here in the East Bay in the greater San Francisco Bay Area is the construction of four to seven story apartments along busy traffic corridors already zoned for multi-story construction while the neighboring streets filled with single-family homes are as they've always been. So far the "tsunami" of change "ruining the character" of a quiet tree-lined street filled with single-family homes on a single lot due to the end of R-1 zoning hasn't happened.
We say that developers build denser housing in response to demand, but certainly if your city bans apartments on quieter streets then nobody's going to be able to build apartments there (even if they would be in demand). I do have a problem with limiting apartments to busy traffic corridors, though. That means that people who can't afford more expensive low density housing are limited to living on noisy, polluted, and dangerous roads.
There’s a great video by About Here on this very observation. It’s very informative. The TLDR is: sure we eliminated SFH zoning, but that’s just one rule among many that still get in the way of building denser housing. The housing crisis is many years of slowly adding new rules and market demand. Undoing all that is going to take a lot of time and political will unfortunately. Fortunately, some places are doing better to change course
@@OhTheUrbanitythe wise words of Jason from fake London rings true everyday more "when everything you make is at a loss you dont make up for it in volume"
You left out the elephant in the room: the belief that density would bring in poorer and otherwise "undesirable" people (at least to NIMBYs) and thus drive down the value of their single family homes. They see their neighborhoods as exclusive and don't want anyone else moving in who would destroy that, misguided as it is. Exclusion and racism have to be factored into this problem.
What I find continually fascinating is that there's a big contingent of NIMBYs who fear exactly that, while others insist that denser housing (especially high-rises) is all luxury condos that bring gentrification.
You are partially correct, I believe that is the attitude of NIMBYs toward social housing developments. And I just see the creator gave the answers on the case of luxury hi-rise projects.
@@OhTheUrbanity It can be difficult sometimes because the concerns are not unfounded. Here in Melbourne, Richmond is a well known drug area. Most of the drug use and trade occurs around the tall social housing towers. These kinds of buildings are associated with crime and drug overdoses on the streets. This doesn't mean that a new 5 storey development will have drug crime, and it's likely the opposite for any new construction. But many people think density means 20+ storey towers and drug use.
What you quite often see let it be NY or LA even Texas that no new housing means a lot of homeless people and at somepoint they will sleep infront of your home.
In their defense they are not wrong. If a place is nice because it has god people schools and location all with single family homes then an apartment would ruin all of those aspects.
"The office workers make good salaries" ... ahhh... yes again, service workers are invisible fairies, and they should just enjoy that 2 hour bus commute each way, to come vacuum your office, do maintenance, and make your lunch - for minimum wage.
@nunyabusiness3786 Valid point! Thank you. I had genuinely forgotten that I had intentionally chosen to live in cities with fairly good transit systems (which I was privileged that I could arrange my finances, and live with others in order to be able to afford), and how many jobs I skipped the ads for, turned down, or the agencies didn't even mention to me - because I didn't have a car.
And I wouldn't call it negligence, if your vehicle is falling apart because you can't afford to have it fixed, or can't make time to get to a scrap yard, pull the part, and find a time when both you and your brother aren't at work to do the repair. And then when you do, the neighbour calls the cops because those brown guys are working on a car on the street!
"Companies are keeping houses vacant to artificially reduce supply!" "New housing would just be turned into unaffordable homes for the rich!" "All the apartments are being converted into AirBnBs!" etc. There are so many pervasive myths about housing supply in online discourse that are easily disproved by some public data, and the most infuriating thing is that a lot of the people parroting these myths are young people who would benefit from more housing supply and looser zoning/building restrictions. Keep up the good fight with this channel, guys.
Almost as if people a) follow whatever is popular at the moment and b) will justify their primal feeling with any convinient argument. Worst part is that it's human nature to forget one's previous position and act like one has held their current belief forever. Hence the same people can have contradictory opinions all the time.
Those aren't completely myths. It's better to regulate landlord and companies' greed. It's a waste of space and resources to keep building when we already have it. I thought urban channels like this cared about space efficiency. Watch Hakim's video on landlords. I'm not saying I agree with nimbys cause I disagree with many things from them. I agreed and disagreed with some things in this video.
I think it's fair to assume these people want to maintain a "small town aesthetic" ... in a city with 500 thousand people. Then they wonder why everything's such dogshit, commutes are awful, and they've got a massive homeless population. Small town aesthetic is fine in small towns, but it breaks down pretty fast when you try to impose it on a large city.
Personally wouldn't like to live literally next to my job but living within bikerange is just ideal for me. I can stop at the grocery store on the way back aswell. It's the best!
For this example (in the middle of a business park), it doesn't seem too appealing. Sure, you're close to work, but you'll still need to travel distance for everything else (groceries, entertainment, etc.). I'm sure apartments would still be popular (especially furnished units for newly relocated employees), but I'd prefer to live somewhere more vibrant.
I lived across the street from an old job for a year. Truth be told, I didn't like it, but that was at least in part a function of me not liking that job and the lack of amenities in the area (that neighborhood has improved in that regard since). I've done long driving commutes, working from home and everything between. My personal preference was a neighborhood where it was about a 10 minute bus ride (to a different job I enjoyed more), or about a 25 minute walk that I would make when the weather was nice. Man, I miss those walks. Anyway, whatever works for you. Cheers.
Who the hell wouldnt wanna live near their job(s) ?? That literally will make life easier & less susceptible to invest in a car , which is on average 3-5 more bills
I literally live in the closest apartment complex to my job, a 15-minute walk away, and I still have to drive there because there are no sidewalks anywhere except immediately surrounding businesses. I mean, I *have* walked to work when my car was undrivable, but it was a nightmare.
Near yes. On the same plot of land perhaps not so much. I think having your work colleagues being able to see you exit your apartment building on your day off from the office window could be kind of intrusive.
Employment and dormitory suburbs were separated for a reason. It wasn't healthy to live too near factories. Industrial areas have heavy traffic with large and heavy vehicles. The worker isn't affected because he is not at home when this noise and pollution occurs. But his family might be.
I feel like in a lot of cases this is generational. There was a time where treating a house like an investment that would pay for your retirement was a reality, and a large chunk of the older generations bought into it and benefited from it. The problem is, what now? This process has changed our communities and there's a genuine question of what the subsequent generations are supposed to do to have a decent life.
If anything, zoomers are WORSE. They treat EVERYTHING as an investment now. You can't buy ANYTHING anymore because "investors" have snapped them all up to hoard away to try to sell for a profit later. Once upon a time, it was trading-cards, then comic-books, then sneakers, now video-games and VHS tapes and cassette tapes and houses and clothes and food and anything and everything that someone might want to buy, bought up by selfish, greedy, rich trash. 😠
As long as land increases in value faster than inflation, the proportion of production that land consumes will ever grow and thus the proportion of production that is returned to capital and labor will ever decrease. This is what we see now with low interest rates and low wages, but high rent. Georgism ftw!
There are so many "kinds" of demand that go undiscussed - Young adults moving out from their parent's place to get their own place - People sharing a place because there are not enough places to live - People who already live in the city but are trying to get closer to their jobs - The currently unhoused, especially those who do have some means, but can't afford at current rates Those were just off the top of my head, I am sure there are many more. But not like the "I got mine" crowd would care anyway.
There’s actually a noticeable dip in the 18-40 demographics where I live, precisely because there’s no affordable housing here. Kids cannot afford to move out and live in the same community where they grew up, and instead move away. Then nimbys complain about that and how they can’t see their kids/grandkids often. You can’t have expensive, exclusive SFH zoned areas, and expect your kids to be able to afford to live nearby.
People who need to get out of a dangerous situation. (family members, exes, neighbor with a grudge, you got doxxed by someone who wants you murdered, ect.)
I think they also did a video about this! How while homelessness is the most visible example of unmet housing need, there are also other groups who aren't getting the housing they need
lmao, that point about how "why are we stopping a developer from making a bad business decision" lol, it really tells you what the nimbys making the statement's objective is... It's not that they're against developers, they're for their own interest... not the community. Just a disguise to using the "community" to make themselves look like they're not selfish.
As a homeowner let me just say: a neighborhood with good density and good transit and good access to commerce is an *amazing* neighborhood with amazing character and a better and more lively place for everyone to live. Unless your biggest priority is having an unobstructed view of as many trees as possible, rather than human beings, I assure you that densification will only make your neighborhood better.
I think Machievelli wrote that the basic problem with effecting change is: the people who will benefit from it are not yet getting that benefit, so it's a bit vaporous and they aren't that motivated to fight for it, while the people benefitting from the status quo can see that the proposed change threatens something concrete that they presently enjoy, and so will fight vigorously to stop it. 'Though he probably put it more elegantly than that.
Don't forget you need a good balance between the housing density and the commercial/industrial density. The problem of congestion only gets worse if you continue to have a line between all homes and all businesses regardless of density. What we need to focus on, is average distance between the place someone lives and the place they work.
While you do need to maintain the balance, usually areas have high housing demand in the first place because of an abundance of jobs in the area, relative to the housing supply.
Home Owners need to stop assuming that their Houses' value will always go up. The notion that their investments must always gain value is bad for everyone because in a lot of cases building more things increases value. So many people want all the amenities of city life with the space and cost of suburban or rural life. You can't have it both ways.
I think conflating home value with property value is another big issue. There's so many copy and pasted suburb houses made cheaply that weren't made to last 50+ years without major renovations, but after how expensive the property itself is no one has money to just tear down the house and start anew. I've never seen a person move into a house and not immediately want to re-do half the house. If it was easier to separate the property value from the value of the house itself it might be easier to convince people to convert lots to duplex/triplex/townhouse/apartments/etc. instead of wasting hundreds of sqft on a giant lawn and driveway.
The suburb I live in has the amenities of a city but also having the space of a suburban life. You just have not been to a suburb that has such things.
Lots of NIMBYs are basically speculators at heart, while denigrating 'developers' who at least _do_ something (build housing) in their quest for profit.
The problem I see, is that many Americans can only afford their house under the assumption that its value is going up, either because they have to pay of their loan with another loan on the house or because they plan to sell it to pay of the loan outright.
I think, the question is, why people fear living next to an apartment building? I think, this comes from the car dependent structure in most of North America, so more people means more car traffic at about the same rate. If biking, public transit and most importantly mixed-used developments are common, this however changes to the opposite: Now more density also attracts more amenities and makes the neighborhood more desirable.
It's also got to do with the notion/stereotype that apartments are for people who don't own a house, because they can't afford to own a house, thus they must be poor, thus they must be bringing crime/unsavory activity to the area. That's sometimes got to do with racial stereotypes but income stereotypes are the bottom line. I've lived in mostly white areas that hate the trailer park nearby and in mostly minority/majority suburbs (Montgomery County MD) dislike the apartment towers and townhouses nearby. It just sucks because home ownership locks people into such a huge investment- which is great usually- but it gives people a huge personal stake in not seeing that they lose money. And overall people want to live someplace that is unchanging. There's also the rough truth that to a lot of people desirable means seeing as few people around as possible. Society has made us moreso into loners than ever before.
@@sebastianjoseph2828 yeah, it's really frustrating as someone renting the same apartment for a decade and who would buy in the neighbourhood if prices weren't increasing faster than my ability to save a down payment and afford the resulting mortgage, that "renters don't care about the neighbourhood". I've met other neighbours who rent and have lived in the neighborhood for decades. Some people at certain stages in their life are going to be less likely to stay (like students, or some people early in their careers), but a young couple would probably prefer to stay in the neighbourhood if they could find a place with just one more bedroom when they need it. And people who know they are more likely to be able to stay in the neighborhood long term (like if renters don't feel they're going to be priced out) are more likely to build connections in their community and do extra to contribute to it.
Higher density cities do not make neighborhoods more desirable. You probably should look into how desirable it was to live in: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City
It's weird how homeowners' concerns about "profit extraction" in their neighborhoods disappear when the new local development happens to be their in-law unit or rental loft.
For me the fundamental issue is that NIMBYs are creating artificial scarcity. That alone just shouldn't be legal. And ESPECIALLY when it has such deeply negative results.
‘Ari’ neighborhood in Bangkok is also one of NIMBYs zones blocking many hi-rise condo projects from getting approve. They often argue that new towers will increase traffic in the area even there is within reach of 500 meters to a transit station, resulting in most residents in those towers will commute by transit, not by driving anyway.
But that's the reality of Bangkok. New high rise buildings always come with wasteful 20 storey parking lots as a mean to attract buyers. This in no way helps stop the car centric life style and boost TOD. Not to mention that all the modern condo units aren't family-friendly. They are mostly shoebox-sized because developers will sacrifice tons of space for unnecessary amenities, including parking spots, which in turn drives the sprawl of suburban development aka หมู่บ้านจัดสรร.
@@khritdisyapipat63 20 storey parking lot could be too exaggerated, it usually occupied up-to 5th floor of the building. And to point out, most developers are willingly to provide TOD projects as it attracts residents IF not being mandated by the building code to required ‘minimum parking spaces’ for each building use, the regulation Thailand adopted from the West. Which no matter how close the building is to transit station, even directly connected, still required to provide a certain number of parking spaces by law. And sadly, it is a separated regulation from the city zoning. And there is an idea to push for reduce parking requirements for projects that within radius of transit station, but it not yet any closed to being apply to reality. Anyway: I replied accordingly to the video contents, which focused on NIMBYism, and Ari area is known for blocking many hi-rise projects in the past 10 years. New project just received its green light after the land plot was left empty for many years(NUE Evo Ari), and I am not sure if the recent one (Via ARI) get the EIA approval yet.
@@khritdisyapipat63 To be fair, my comment was related to the context of the video, which is about NIMBYism and lack of density housing in the city in some certain inner city neighborhoods that has the potential but couldn’t be built for the reason mentioned, not really about the car culture in the suburbs. And to point things out, Ari is known for blocking multiple projects before during the past 10 years, only 2 recent hi-rises projects just get their green light to continue the construction. I personally think you might be over exaggerated about 20 storeys parking as typically parking spaces only reached the height of 5-6th floor for condominium buildings. And it is sad that no matter how close the project is to the transit station, developers still being mandated by the building code law to provide up-to certain amount of parking space for specific type of building use, which I believe it was the law Thailand adopted from the US, that separated from the city zoning law itself. Normally, real estate developers likely to provide parking only up-to 40% of residential space of the building, and there is an idea to adjust the parking requirement to be lower or none at all if the project is closed to transit station, but it was just an idea. Meanwhile, developers have to seek for potential land in other areas, usually further out into the suburbs, to build their hi-rise projects, resulting in buyers and renters to live far away from city center comparing to Ari where is much closer to the CBD.
This is when I pull out a staple of Strong Towns fundamentals: incremental development to the next density level (SFH to 2-4 units, garden/1-story to low-rise, low-rise to mid-rise) for every neighborhood & no neighborhood is immune from density increases allowed. For those SFH neighborhoods that are expensive, the cost of the land would probably limit density any, so regulations not needed.
I remember reading something about how in many cases 4 units may not be enough when housing has already gotten too expensive. Essentially, the neighborhood is so far behind where it should be you need to bump it up to more like 12 units to make it profitable for the developer. Really, this just means that they have been getting away with low density for far too long and it's time to stop being so selfish. Another really important factor when upzoning is that you have to make it easy. A lot of places in the US have tried to upzone but haven't seen the redevelopment they were expecting because there are still buckets of red tape around anything other than an SFH. It's a long road to freedom.
@@jonmcclung5597 yup, for Vancouver BC's multiplex policy - if you wanted to build a multiplex on Vancouver's west side, a property with a teardown could cost $3M+. So a fourplex unit would cost $750,000 for its portion of the land alone. Combined with a max 1.0 FSR and building height limits, you probably can't build large enough units that the final price works out (competing with cheaper similar sized condos, or comparably priced but bigger duplexes further from downtown).
@@mickeygraeme2201 It depends. A modernistic apartment building plunked amidst gracious period homes can devalue the neighbors for a while. But eventually they'll realize they can sell their lots to a developer for more apartments at a profit, and move elsewhere. I've seen that happen.
@@mickeygraeme2201 there is a lot of evidence that restricting housing development will increase prices. Sure, house prices may not go down if new supply is added - the margins on building housing aren't huge, and developers build what will be profitable based on current prices - but if the option is housing prices will stabilize or go up slower, I'll choose that over restrictive supply benefiting current owners' value while increasingly pricing out everyone else. The video mentioned that during economic downturns private developers will build less because fewer people can afford new homes (though demand continues, since there are still new families). Often increasing prices are because despite some very visible dense housing being built, the overall balance of people to homes is not changing to reduce demand. There is also plenty of evidence that increasing supply does decrease rents, if not just the rate of rent increases - comparable cities that have restrictive or permissive zoning have seen measurable differences in rental price increases, and cities that have had apartment booms sufficient enough to meaningfully increase vacancy rates have seen rental prices drop.
With the high price for a house these days , the majority of young people cannot afford to buy a house but still can afford to rent a condo and take the public transport ...we need more condos close to a public transport and services .
Even though you may own a condo, the land the building is situated upon is still owned by someone else. As long as you don't own the land the building sits on, you will always be subjugated to paying someone to live in that condo.
Another argument I've frequently seen floated by those opposing denser housing is the idea that homeowners are not buying an individual house, but they are "buying into a neighborhood". Therefore, they have an expectation that the neighborhood will not dramatically change. Of course, there is always the claim that SFH is preferred. But I always retort back that if it is preferred, then there is no need to enforce that preference by law. Their response is always something about developer exploitation if they are allowed to build to market demands.
So is your expectation for those people that want to live in more suburban life always to move out of their home that they bought into upon hearing news of developments in the area?
@@DenastusNo, my point is that they should have no expectations that their neighborhood will not change. Change is a natural part of life and it is unreasonable to demand that change shouldn't happen.
@@Denastus So your position is to keep certain people how of a neighborhood because they will bring change with them? Do you insist that you have a right to vet anyone and everyone who wishes to move into your neighborhood to make sure they don't bring any change with them?
I see this same thing in my community. We had an apartment complex shot down because the community didn't want it because it would create more traffic (so they said). When in reality the current zoning which would allow a grocery store would create more traffic than the apartments. (The land was zoned as commercial and needed a zoning change approved to be able to build the apartments.) The reality is the apartments would be next to some high end single family neighborhoods and the residents didn't want lower class citizens (apartment dwellers) living near them.
"there are already vacant apartments, we dont need more" Ah yes, I see the logic... There are so many unsold and expensive "premium" water in the store, obvious conclusion is that we don't need to drink water
I think the reason lots of people fall into this trap of thinking is because they have a mortgage which stops changing with the demand. So their thinking is essentially “my mortgage from 15 years ago isn’t putting any extra stress on my finances so the housing market must not be suffering.” By contrast, many of us who watch videos like these are renters so we’re well aware of the prices steadily increasing every year and the absurd prices that brand new apartment buildings start at. I believe a land value tax is ultimately the answer here because it will adapt much more frequently to put pressure on the owners when demand is too high.
I am not sure about LVT, but if your society implemented Islamic law, there would be no such thing as a mortgage, because it involves interest. Is that a good solution?
@@adanufgail considering that we're talking about synergy. Having man-made parks that are surrounded by high-rise apartments is the least synergistic approach to development.
Take the average combat vet from a mid size metro. He works in a dangerous team setting as a first responder. The daughter or son spend a fortune for a high rise dorm, but that somehow magically doesn't count. The property taxes go to both a high rise hospital & High School, but that also magically doesn't count. Why midsized metro deserve our attention, mid is defined by Brookings as 250000 to 750000, and that is over a quarter of the midwest & southeast. Finally the law is changed to high deductible health insurance, but the Affordable Care Act exchange ad only shows the monthly bill. This jet is a disaster, but Congress keeps buying it. That study proves most high paying jet jobs in the Northeast. Same thing with the Northeast big bank bailout of $16 trillion. Why have the same zoning in both midsized metro and Northeast?
The solution should be to stop or reduce subsidising the roads. Let the neighbourhoods pay for the roads they use. The city shouldn't have to pay for people to live as spread out as they want and draining city finances, while people living in denser areas pay for them _and_ themselves. If that's how you want to live, you should pay for it. The actual cost of it.
Let's think about the life experience of the people who live in a single family house and oppose any change to the character of their neighborhood. How did they get that house? Either they are old and got in early, or they have rich family, or they have tenants in the basement paying their mortgage (so they want rents to be super high), or they had a condo and sold it. 100% of the time they are either profiting off of the housing shortage or are out of touch with reality. They didn't care about "changing the character" of the farmland or forest that their house is built on. They won't care about the "character" of the neighborhood when in the future they literally sell to the highest bidder so that they can retire to a condo exactly the same as what they are complaining about.
That opening example sure sounded familiar. It turns out that Jasper Gates development is being used by every NIMBY for miles around as their convenient excuse for opposing apartments. (It's been a plan on the books for years, and it's not clear if the developer will ever actually get around to building it.) I was the only community member who spoke in favour of an apartment a few blocks away in a different direction, and the opposition was almost word-for-word identical.
What makes this worse is when the opponents of new developments aren't just local residents but also wealthy landlords (individuals or corporations) who view increased supply as a threat to their profits. The bay area in California is the perfect example of this. The flip side of this is when no-one is building anything that mere mortals can afford (in which case outrage against developers for only building expensive stuff may be justified)
Please can you cover the lack of rental or normal appartments in small towns or in the country side. Quite often the only housing option outside large cities are single family homes.
Edmonton ended a lot of zoning restrictions last year. That should ideally help some gentile density increases or otherwise throughout the city as it continues to develop. People keep moving here, so we clearly need more homes! And endless sprawl is not the solution.
The texas lady was basicly admiting that, of course, you could fill an apartment complex in my neigherhood and will do everything to prevent that reality from happening.
OK, this is technically a different subject, but the issue with AirBNB is more down to _where_ the properties are than the sheer quantity of them. It causes issues for specific areas of the city by hollowing them out. This isn't a problem when it's within the original spirit of the service, but we're long past that point.
The *real* reason these homeowners don't want new housing built, is because they want to drive up the price of their home as much as possible for when they sell it. You can't do that if there is more housing available. In short, NIMBY's are treating their homes like a stock portfolio, rather than as an affordable place to live, and they want *us* to pay for their lifestyle.
"People who live in appartments don't want to live close to their job"??? Can someone explain to me the thought behind it? Because I would think for the POV of the NIMBYs that is the opposite: People want to live in single family homes, but they choose apartments to be close to work.
3:05Yes, because it's true. Certainly in the UK, where any developer can come up with a plan to built 10,000 houses on a greenfield site and the council will pant, like a dog being offered a treat, "Oh yes yes yes please"
I don't know about Canada, but in most Australian planning systems (because each State is different) you cant object for economic reasons or social reasons. You can only object on amenity and neighbourhood character impacts.
How do you think that this concept compares to "induced demand" that many urbanists talk about? More lanes induce demand for for lanes. More houseing induces demand for more houseing? Why or why not?
You guys are by far my favorite urbanist UA-cam channel. I love that you always bring facts and logical reasoning to the table without the condescension that you get from a lot of other UA-camrs in this space. I also love that you seem to really believe in the power of the free market to solve market failures like this and emphasize that diverse consumer preferences should inform the design of our cities, balancing the needs of both current and potential residents. Honestly I can't remember ever disagreeing with you 😊 Even your video about how you don't need to move to the Netherlands was challenging but in the end I had to admit you're totally right, and it's been a helpful perspective shift. Keep up the good work!!! 🎉
I used to live in a town where a developer made a mistake. They knocked down three blocks of downtown, displacing existing businesses, for a mixed use commercial/residential building, then the bottom fell out of the commercial real estate market. Those blocks were empty except for a half-finished parking ramp for nearly ten years. You really, really don't want a developer to over-estimate demand.
A good argument for enabling small-scale 'developers', with build-by-right, rather than having lots of zoning hoops that only big developers and projects can feasibly jump through. If you make it easy to turn a house into a four story apartment building, you'll have less fiascos on the scale of blocks.
while I agree we need more apartments, I just hate the new condos being 500-600 sqft for 1 bedroom and 700ish for 2 bedrooms. These are not built for growing a family, but a temporary renting condos. There has to be some sort of rules if you are building an apartment in restricted zones the apartments should follow the average space that zone has for families. Also having kitchen and living room combined is an stupid thing. You cook and fry and boil stuff in kitchen which is loud, smells and needs extra counter space for work. Kitchens in these condos are useless because the whole condo is for ants. Even if you have a separate kitchen there is no kitchen door in North America for some genius reason so all the smell and noise goes through the unit, forcing you to cook less so you don't bother the other residents!
The issue with size is a mix of things: 1. Many regulations in North America make it specifically harder to build larger, family-sized units. Look up double-loaded corridors and point access blocks. 2. A general lack of housing supply puts large apartments particularly out of reach in terms of affordability. 3. Household sizes are shrinking (with fewer people having children and older people living longer), so there actually is a decent amount of demand for smaller apartments too. Simply mandating that apartments be bigger doesn't really fix these.
When I visit my friends in Europe (Spain and Portugal mainly, but also UK), their apartments tend to be smaller than American counterparts, and they seem fine with it. They are built with space optimization features to make up for the lack of overall space. We, in NA, are really spoiled with space. I live in a "legacy" 1-bd in Chicago that is larger than 1-bd new construction in the city, and certainly larger than my European friends' apts. However, those apts have certain amenities that mine lacks, so you have to weigh what your priorities are. The main problem for me is that these new apts can be hundreds of dollars more to rent than my legacy unit, so I've stayed put.
F U GOT MINE...is the attitude here. With a good amount of "I don't want THOSE PEOPLE living next door to me" on top. (This can be classist, or racist, or both, with THOSE PEOPLE being poor people or minorities-or both.)
In my street where two bus stop to two different lines that run every 10 minutes are less than 5 minutes of walking away someone said that expanding a building to meet housing demand was bad because there aren't enough parking spaces. People have wild ideas about city planning.
Do you seriously think the new residents won't have cars? And you're neglecting that many people can't walk that 5 minutes, or stand on a bus for 40 minutes to get where they're going. Also neglecting that those two bus lines can't possibly take people everywhere they need to go. So now you've got transferring, more waiting at bus stops, more time, more inconvenience, more expense, and more walking. Also neglecting that families often have 3, 4, 5 kids, who all need to go to different things. People who are already living in a SFH neighborhood don't want to deal with public transport, and often can't. So, yeah, parking is a real issue.
If only the home owners had to pay for the maintenance of their own private roads, along with a tax reform where high value lands are taxed higher. Then they might want to get a few more people to live in their huge estates.
6:22 this statement could be applied to any government regulation of market activity. It's impossible for any agency or planner to know what prices, supply and demand actually is, because it's determined by everyday decisions made by countless individuals.
"This bill will lead to a dramatic densification of suburbs and the semi-rural outskirts of cities and towns" is quite possibly the dumbest thing I will read this year. Also, an unspoken aspect of residents' resistance to development is the fear of losing value on their home "investment" (even if that fear is almost certainly misplaced).
I feel like alot of urbanist channels are just too one sided not thinking about the people or Families (especially) who WANT to live in the suburbs with great schools. Sure the city is amazing but suburbs are also amazing in my opinion, I think there should be more regional/commuter rail lines connecting suburbs to cities and more biking trails in suburban towns along with sidewalks.
This is unfortunately missing the point. True suburbs have plenty of supply to meet demand and there is little to no danger that apartments will suddenly take over. However, in urban neighbourhoods modeled after suburbia, there is way more demand than supply, creating a housing crisis. That's where single-family zoning just doesn't work. You can have both urbanism and suburbanism, in the right parts of town. But we have to be real about demand by neighbourhood and the need for housing as you get closer to an urban core. I agree that some people would prefer the larger spaces of the surburbs. But their demand can be easily met as is. And as a city grows in population, the line which delineates urban from suburban will change, and unfortunately many cannot accept this.
@@louisdesroches I agree with that, but with old suburbs comes new suburbs. I was mainly talking about suburb-exurban zoning in suburbs which some urbanist channels just want to eliminate every exurban community, however I agree with getting rid of single family zoning on Urban neighborhoods that are near city amenities.
Yeah, I live in Dallas, that councilwoman is by Farmer's Branch/Addison which is high-dollar property full of NIMBYs. That area was famous for coming out with an ordinance banning renting apartments to undocumented immigrants. Still in my area by Love Field we got a bizarre, yet sad tug-of-war going on between folks crammed into tiny apartments that need more apartments and developers tearing down 1940s 1000 sqft homes to built overpriced McMansions for over $800k. It's weird to see an old house worth $200k next to a new house that will be worth almost five times that one, in a neighborhood with low income underserved residents with nowhere else to go.
Apartment buildings aren't just built by Developers. They can also be built by a group of people, as in multiple people pooling their resources to build an apartment block in which each will be an apartment owner. It used to be more prevalent in the past, but nowadays cities like Vienna offer assistance like getting bank loans to support such groups of private citizen. PS: Fun anecdote for an opposite development. Lately there have been talks by officials and experts in Hungary to consider a "low density ban" for suburbs around Budapest as there is a "worrying development" of so called "sleeping towns". Meaning settlements where people do nothing except sleep at home, because there is no local commerce, entertainment and work which is all located somewhere else. It's just interesting to me that in places like US there is a fear of urbanisation, while here in Europe in places there is a fear of sub urbanisation. There are also examples of other European cities and countries with similar concerns, Budapest was just the most recent in my mind, as well as the first one where I heard serious proposals to ban building new low density developments to curb suburban sprawl.density ban" for suburbs around Budapest as there is a "worrying development" of so called "sleeping towns". Meaning settlements where people do nothing except sleep at home, because commerce
If a building meets fire and building code, then the city planners/zoning committee should be the only governing body who decides if the the structure will "fit " in the the neighborhood regardless if its a backyard shed or a new apartment/condo building. Individual residents shouldn't have a say on an individual matter, they can have their say next round of elections.
"We don't need any more apartments" is correct. The word "we" can mean a lot of things. It can mean "me and you", "me and the group I'm in, but not you", "me and a couple of the people around me but not everyone", and a lot more complex situations. It would be nice if we (people who use english to communicate) had different forms of "we" for different situations, but I'm going a bit off topic now. The sentence probably means: "we, the people who live in this neighborhood comfortably and have no desire to move, don't need any more apartments." That statement is true. It would also raise the value of their homes since there's a high demand and low supply of homes. Many of them are however making a mistake, because people often have children who eventually need their own home. So while the parents don't need any more apartments, their children definitely do need them somewhere
I think most of this discussion boils down to classism. Home owners see renters as poor, and they don't like the idea of poor people moving into the neighborhood. That's what they mean when they say "living in the neighborhood is privlage" or having too many "apartment buildings" will ruin the neighborhood.
I don't know if this is covered in another video but one thing I've encountered quite a bit in discussion of new housing is the claim that higher density housing has one of 2 effects; 1) They become apartments [in the UK the term "apartment" is often used to refer to higher end and more expensive high density housing blocks] and price locals and the working class out of the neighbourhood both in terms of housing costs and general living costs as businesses mark up prices for the new Yuppie clientele or go bust and get replaced by high-end brands. 2) They become flats [the term "flat" referring to cheaper high density housing blocks] and bring with them a rise in teen pregnancy, benefit mums (similar to the welfare queen stereotype in the US only typically depicted as White and Chav) and crime. Do you happen to know if there's any evidence for the idea that high density necessarily has the effect of either bringing either higher prices or higher crime?
@@bristoled93 And that is something I find quite strange, since many who pose this argument share this view about the birthrate, however many of them also seem to have an aversion to those outside the suburban middle class increasing the birthrate. A lamentation about the low birthrate but not the appetite to bring in the social innovations which would increase it.
The question that really must be asked though is if there is any upper limit on demand. Manhattan is very dense and it is one of the most expensive places. There may be no point in building more as demand will always catch up to exceed new supply. In fact the government already acts as though this is true by demanding "affordable" units.
I don't think it's the case that Manhattan can't meet demand (especially if the rest of New York was opened up to building too), but let's assume it is. Isn't it still better to meet 80% of demand than 40%? That leaves housing more accessible to more people.
The fact is that we need to both build more and build specifically affordable units. If a place is very high demand, it’s true that you’d have to build a very large amount of units for the chance to have the market to sort things out on its own, which is why things like inclusionary zoning in places that are already getting a lot of high-density developments are important. Though, as already pointed out in another comment by the channel, it’s still good to build and alleviate the problem even if you can’t solve it completely. Things can always be worse.
@@thedapperdolphin1590 My point is that the network effects of cities cause the high cost. "Affordable" units are only affordable because the force of law imposes the cost on someone else and gives it to the tennant. In reality if you build more units it increases network effects and makes an area more expensive. The only way to do such is with force such as government housing which is for example limited only to individuals already in a city limit.
@@mickeygraeme2201 Manhattan has other factors that make it very expensive. It's one of the world's largest financial and banking hub. This is not an issue with most other cities in North America.
@@Trackpad_User The agglomeration and network effects of cities generally though does not go away. Global cities have higher than average costs because of higher than average network effects but it is true all the way down. Pick any city on the Ranally ranking lower down and similar effects are seen.
1:30 demand for density can be driven by both lack of supply and cost. rural areas may not justify the biggest skyscrapers, but they can absolutely justify the most economical buildings from 3 story walkups to 10 story apartments that would be considered towers if built in the US. Rural apartments minimize construction and maintenance cost per sq ft, and also minimize land cost, and should be preferable to people who want to maximize the interior space they can afford.
I do think that AirBnB has had an effect on affordable apartment that are available. A friend who tracks affordable apartments (cause she deal with new immigrants to canada) noticed that the amount of unit available during the Covid lockdown went up DRAMATICALLY in Toronto (by several factor if I remember correctly).
AirBnB can harm affordability, agreed. The problem is that some people assume or act like all new housing will be turned into AirBnBs, so they use that to argue against allowing new housing.
There are certain neighborhoods that AirBnB and short term rentals can ravage. Battery Point in Hobart suffers from this problem and the government is trying to address it.
Yeah. Even if they don’t make up a huge amount of a city’s total housing stock, they naturally tend to concentrate in areas that are already in high-demand. So they make things worse in the already “trendy” or gentrifying neighborhoods.
The under-supply of hotels *and* rental housing contributes to Airbnbs being more lucrative to operate and having an impact on increasing rent for long term tenants in the area. If there was enough long term rental supply, and enough hotels to serve tourism demand, then Airbnb would be less of an issue since it would be riskier to operate - harder to compete against lower hotel rates, and less guarantee that you'll have enough guests paying higher than LTR would overall.
@@OhTheUrbanityIn desirable places, like resort towns, there is a certain induced demand effect where creating new housing just creates more incentive for people from out of town to move in, resulting in even less affordability.
The threat NiMBYs are concerned about is not exploitation but competition. That being that when developers build lots of housing, the cost of housing decreases in the area, meaning that they can no longer justify charging high rents, or expect to make a million dollar profit on the house from resale or equity. That's why they don't like apartments. It is because one way or another their interests are aligned with petty landlords.
As a NIMBY of sorts ..it is not the density that gets me but the dreary abysmal buildings that get slapped up .... badly designed boxes all from the same cookie cutter model.... and cheap built at that. The main beneficiaries are not the community but the development industry. If you look at a European city with older four or five storey apartment blocks, many are vastly superior to the junk built today
Actually it’s far simpler: the real concern is: I don’t want my property value trashed. Limiting s upply is making me a multimillionaire!It’s greed. It’s always greed.
Funny enough, those screen-grabs talking against luxury condos are spot on. They almost always get left nearly entirely vacant. Portland has a whole slew of these condo towers, and the average occupancy rates since they've been built is a whopping 20% at PEAK. Outside of peak that drops to around 12%. Never condos unless they're in the style where the residents would rather purchase the apartment than rent it (which would make it a condo at that point). All these upscale high rise "residential" towers that have been going in since 2000 here have been almost entire or entirely for upper class folks in pricing. It's disgusting but typical. Actually useful for middle class or even middle lower class and above housing buildings almost never get built, and when they do, they're almost exclusively 5 stories and under, and VERY cheaply built. The argument that developers won't build apartments or other higher density residential complexes, especially ones that are mid and high-rise due to it not being profitable is also entirely honest, true and real. They will NOT build them because it simply loses money and all developers and landlords give a damn about is profit. Go figure, it's big business. States usually need to have a ordinance/clause they enforce that gives a certain number or percentage of units in each development a minimum amount of units in each that must be considered "affordable income" at least, if not low-income. Those however ALWAYS come with time limits. In Oregon, that's 5 years. Once those five years are up, the owners/landlords jack all those units up into market-rate. The moment the requirement expires, this is what they do. There's no permanence, and of course no government will ever dare force a developer and landlord/owner to keep the affordable and low-income units permanently, because they know fully that will ensure they'll pull out and probably even launch lawsuits over lack of control over their investment in the property by way of ownership/landlord rights. All big developers and most landlords of those developments are far too greedy and profit seeking to dare accept such a concept. And the governments are too scared of losing their kickback paychecks from those developers for even considering implementing something like that with any permanence. I totally get both sides here too though - most developers and owners/landlords want a solid ROI on their properties, and that means profit. Why subsidize and pay for it instead out of your own pocket? That just makes no sense. For the biggest name developers though, they could afford a handful of them paid for like that without much if any financial issues arising. But you get the idea. I get the problem with goobermint being nervous that they'd lose any and all relationship with companies, corporations, landlords and developers in that situation too. And of course I fully understand what it is like as a citizen as well. I also find it ironic how so many creators like you guys agree with the sentiments of "gentrification is good", considering gentrification almost ALWAYS is what causes a sudden and very sharp spike in cost of living, property values and thus rent costs in the hoods it happens to. If there was A LOT of a controls implemented by the cities, counties and states on the forms/types of gentrification that is allowed (other names for G include "Urban Renewal" and "Neighborhood Revitalization") enforcing that no new developments can contain luxury units, nor are they allowed to go over a certain price per month rental, stores have price caps, and other sensible, like-wise requirements to be legally met, then it would actually be okay, if not actually good. But no controls or restrictions exist, and in fact, the government actively encourage and flaunt these new gentrification developments heavily, raving up and down about them while they force almost everyone living there out due to the extreme price increases across the board. Gentrification is in reality HORRIFIC and indefensible as a result.
This is not an economic issue. This is a social issue. I do not want to live in a denser neighborhood. I do not want to move. That should be enough to justify my opposition to making my neighborhood denser.
But you don't have a right over other people's properties. You bought only your own property, not someone else's. You aren't entitled to their land as well as your own.
You are disingenuously framing exerting massive amounts of control over things that aren't yours, other peoples' autonomy and personal choices as sticking up for your own personal choice and autonomy.
We've all seen it! A 10 story apartment high rise right next to a single family home. Or, an apartment block floating in a giant park lot. Sometimes people have good reasons for being NIMBYs. Plenty of bad ideas and bad designs that destroy the character of a neighbor.
Many SFH homes looking at redevelopment are old and would have been torn down for an infill SFH. Which would also hurt the "neighbourhood character." I find the post war bungaloos ugly and appealing only to boomers. Post war bungaloo neighbourhood character is not worth saving.
A 10 story apartment next to a single family home indicates there is high demand to live in that location, and new people should be welcomed into what is evidently a great place to live. Renovating part of a parking lot, even a better idea! The character of a neighborhood should not be set in stone, it should be determined by what would bring the most good to the society it is a part of!
OT: measures VIA soeed between Dorval and Ottawa yesterday: 107kmh westbound. (stops at Alexandria and Casselman). and 113kmh eastbound with stop only at Alexandria 3 stretches where train sustains 150kmh for more than a minute.
An increase in apartments is going to inevitably lower the quality of life. Parking will become more difficult to find and traffic will increase. People should have the choice of whether they want to live in a high-density or low-density environment.
@@Hawxxfan When given a choice, almost everyone will choose to live in a house like the one on the Brady Bench or one that resembles Homer Simpson's rather than sharing a wall with God knows whom. In an apartment building, you and your woman can't even have make love without your neighbors hearing you.
This points out one of the difficulties of who benefits. If local people pooled funds and or credit capacity they could fund much of the building in their neighborhood and thus benefit financially from those apartments. This is not commonly done, yet any group of locals could do this and dictated to the builders what they will accept. A coming trend that should be looked at is gaining vacant property to build a tiny home community. This increases density without the look.
If you want to live like a sardine in a dense, overcrowded neighborhood - go for it. If you want to live in a neighborhood zoned for single family homes - go for it!
@@ianhomerpura8937 We should discourage unsustainable population growth by making abortion legal and available to every woman that wants one, by deporting unauthroized foreign nationals and by providing tax-incentives to couples that don't have more than 2 children.
it all comes back to one thing: "don't let poors move next to me", because than the house will be on less rich neighborhood. Unaffordability is the feature, not a bug.
The idea that one private individual could somehow restrict what another private individual does within the confines of their own property because they don't like what they're doing is simply absurd to me. I don't know how anyone could ever consider that to be valid 😂
A word on immigration anywhere you life. Often construction workers are rare and quite as often many to have a history of immigration (parents or grantparents) or are recent immigrants. Without immigrants many construction sides would stand still, which would result in no new housing or space for Business getting build... which inturn means higher rent or housing cost for everybody.
It's taboo to say it but it needs to be said, a lot of these Nimby rules and complaints are racially motivated, to keep out the undesirable ethnicities and preserve the ones already established.
Not necessarily "racially" motivated, but yeah, they don't like change... and "Others" (be they of other ethnicities, economic status, or any various groups - ie: youth center, etc) will trigger them.
I lived in Gibert, AZ and still visit from time to time. Single family homes as far as the eye can see. There are some apartment complexes, but not nearly enough to provide competition and choice for potential residents. This is especially true if you get a job with one of the major employers and can't or don't want to buy a home in the area.
"people don't want to live in apartments next to their jobs" has me gobsmacked. Are there people who genuinely enjoy commuting?
Got the same vibe as “gas prices are too high!” “No I don’t want to live in a 15 minute city!”
They be bamboozling us out here
Some people know nothing but commuting. Some people have never lived a "non commuting" life. How sad for them really
Those people have no idea what they are talking about. Living next to your work gives you sooooo much freedom.
The commute is only a 5 minute walk, you can go back home for lunch when you want, you save so much money on gas and insurance. You will be home so much quicker and have so much more time to relax.
I think people would like to live near their jobs, so long as that didn't also mean having to live near everyone else who works there. Like if you could have a nice detached single family home in a polite suburb, and ALSO have your job next door, in an equally cozy little house, that would be nice, but you might not prefer to live in a multi-story apartment building next to a lot of other multi-story residential and commercial structures. That is a fair choice.
There seem to be a lot of suburbanites who conceive of a "city" as a place where you go to do stuff. As opposed to a place where you live.
The developers are interested in profit, but so are the nimbys.
Apparently there is conflict of interests between them.
The problem I see with NIMBYs is that they don't just believe that their "Home is my castle" but that "your home is my castle" as well and believe that they have more rights over their land than what you have over yours.
Developers are interested in profit as it is the moral thing to do, which is to make money from a big investment that will benefit the the developer and by proxy the wider community but NIMBYs are self-centred and tend to only care about oneself which is why they oppose these "developers".
I don't think NIMBYs are at all interested in profit, rather they are interested in power, at least the most die-hard NIMBYs; it is understandable to complain about the construction of an incineration plant in your neighbourhood BUT you have no right to complain about what someone else does on their land, especially when you believe that your home is your castle.
@@CoryPchajek Now you're just being unrealistic and dishonest. We all know the biggest generator of wealth for working-class people are their homes, and if you were a homeowner with a mortgage, you would have the same expectations. While many NIMBYs are ridiculous, the property owners should have some say about what goes into their neighborhood. Again, if you were a homeowner, you know damn well you wouldn't want a tall concrete slab built right next to your house.
Homes should be at best a neutral store of value keeping up with inflation. When people view it as a wealth generator, investor mania takes over the housing market and creates dangerous housing bubbles such as 2008 in the US and Evergrande going bankrupt in China.
@@CoryPchajek That isn't how real estate works.
New development is like a grocery store. Is it profit driven? Yes. Can its construction be disruptive? Yes. Is it necessary? If it’s being constructed, there is usually a need.
Define "grocery store"? ALL THREE of the closest grocery stores to me are all "luxury/premium" stores with ridiculous prices. The closest "discount" grocery store is a 15-minute drive / 30-minute bike / 60-minute walk / 90-minute bus away. When I heard they were building a grocery-store a 15-minute walk away, I was excited, until I saw they were moving the luxury/premium one from down the road up here. So now there are four useless stores in this upper-class food desert. 😒
@@I.____.....__...__exactly this video is so tone deaf. It’s not JUST about building more dense housing. It’s about building AFFORDABLE dense housing.
@@Genesis-ni4ew - Dense housing is expensive because there's not enough of it. Anytime there's a shortage of something, the rich people get it first - and the poor only get what's left over. Which in the case of dense neighborhoods, usually means "nothing."
@@Genesis-ni4ew sorry to say, but making new affordable housing just isn’t really possible with the way regulation are set up in most of the United States and especially California. I think this is the real trickle down economics, but what new housing does is allow wealthier people to move into that housing and leave cheaper options open. It’s like when hermit crabs grow and move from shell to shell.
@@KhanJoltraneyoure assuming that the houses stay cheap. they dont, ESPECIALLY in california
A lot of these communities have actually been losing density with the decrease in the average family size… this leads to them being unable to support local amenities. And, adding more humans, especially through missing middle - and frankly, even through high rises - doesn’t really make it feel that more dense. The abundance of cars makes it feel dense. Create car-free spaces and you’ll have plenty of density without that cramped car infested city feel.
such a great point!!
The question should be 1. Is density admirable in itself? 2. Do property rights exist in coordination. with others? If some think the answer to. the density question is no then the immediate follow up is if they have the right to collectively decline increases in density.
@@redstone5062 Car-free does not meet service free. Obviously there should be access for plumbers, deliveries, emergency services, etc. We're talking about free from private motor vehicles.
except people like cars. Cities are anti human. This is why every urbanite i see is an out of touch self entitled elitist
@@redstone5062 You're right. Cars a great tool. But most people are not moving heavy objects or a lot of equipment. I don't what town you lived in, but they goofed up. The pedestrianised streets I've been to have all had easy access for the cars that need to be there.
Great video. The truth is, people rarely say "We're a tight knit community" until they're either on the local news after a tragedy or opposing a change in the local neighborhood.
“We’re a tight knit community here in this suburb, and apartments would ruin that”
“What’s the name of your next door neighbor?”
“Uhhhhhhhhhh…”
That's code language for "we like our small town aesthetic and don't want to admit that it might be incompatible with living in a city of 500,000 people." That small town aesthetic might be great and wonderful in a city with only 10,000 people, but when you try to impose it on a city that has 50 times as many people, it's going to cause problems.
If a community does not wish to be upzoned, that is THEIR prerogative.
@@geraldhirsch8421 -- In other words you're going to tell someone else what they can or cannot do with their own land. I bet you think America is the land of the free too, right? As long as you don't deviate one iota from how your local town thinks you should live, right?
Another thing that upsets me is when only current residents are asked if the neighbourhood needs more housing. Of course they will say it doesn't need more housing-everyone they asked already lives there!! I would love to live in the place I grew up,but it is no experience to buy and the people who I grew up with, my friendly neighbours that would give me candy on Halloween and wave every time they saw me, refuse to allow any development of more affordable apartments.
Also, never forget that what these people are REALLY fighting for, is to preserve that "small town aesthetic" that is... unironically pretty wonderful. If you live in a city that has 10,000 people. When you try to impose that small town aesthetic on a city that has 50 times as many people, you're going to cause some pretty serious problems. People don't want to admit that imposing their small town aesthetic preferences on a city with 50 times as many people could be the source of their problems.
@@arthurwintersight7868 No kidding, and emphasis on the "aesthetic." Living in an actual small town is generally Not Great. Oh sure, it can make for entertaining stories for outsiders, but I imagine not being able to use half the utilities in your "small town" because you and the mayor got into a fight over Dumb Teenager Stuff when you were in highschool and they Never Got Over It isn't all that great. Not to mention very few people make the connection that "family feud" is just Gang Stuff, but with rural whites instead of suburban blacks. lol.
@@SkySong6161 I'm not sure if you want to phrase it as "small town bad". To each their own, really. But, if they want to have the small town aesthetic then they should move to an actual small town. One issue is that people can't let go of the fact that their once small town is no longer small anymore.
@@willch19 One of the reasons I emphasized the "aesthetic" is that most suburban and urban people don't know what living in a small town is actually like, and would hate it if they did. They like the fantasy they got sold by Hallmark and Hollywood. Actual small town life has... some things to recommend it, but not as many as lots of folks seem to think it does.
Heard an interview between a homeowner and the leader of the BC Green Party the other day where the homeowner literally said "I have no problem with individuals gaining equity on housing, but is there some way we can stop people from profiting?" His argument was that he should be allowed to get rich from merely owning land, but REITs that purchase rental properties should be banned for collecting rent. What's more is that *he himself is a landlord*. The framing that developers exist only to exploit apparently opens up a world of unfathomable entitlement and hypocrisy for those who endorse it.
Yes, profit is the return on labor and capital. It is not a bad thing. The bad thing is the private capture of the value of land. Georgism ftw!
California ended R-1 single-family zoning on January 1st, 2022. It replaced it with the legal right to build up to four units on a lot that was previously only approved for a single unit. Although many current residents are unhappy with the change, none of them fear that a large multi-story apartment will be constructed next door. The video implies that as a possible scenario. What I'm seeing here in the East Bay in the greater San Francisco Bay Area is the construction of four to seven story apartments along busy traffic corridors already zoned for multi-story construction while the neighboring streets filled with single-family homes are as they've always been. So far the "tsunami" of change "ruining the character" of a quiet tree-lined street filled with single-family homes on a single lot due to the end of R-1 zoning hasn't happened.
We say that developers build denser housing in response to demand, but certainly if your city bans apartments on quieter streets then nobody's going to be able to build apartments there (even if they would be in demand). I do have a problem with limiting apartments to busy traffic corridors, though. That means that people who can't afford more expensive low density housing are limited to living on noisy, polluted, and dangerous roads.
You have to consider that property boundaries and setbacks still have to be followed and some areas do regulate building hight too.
@@paxundpeace9970 You are correct. Zoning is alive and well and always will be at least until A.I. decides otherwise.
There’s a great video by About Here on this very observation. It’s very informative.
The TLDR is: sure we eliminated SFH zoning, but that’s just one rule among many that still get in the way of building denser housing.
The housing crisis is many years of slowly adding new rules and market demand. Undoing all that is going to take a lot of time and political will unfortunately. Fortunately, some places are doing better to change course
@@OhTheUrbanitythe wise words of Jason from fake London rings true everyday more "when everything you make is at a loss you dont make up for it in volume"
You left out the elephant in the room: the belief that density would bring in poorer and otherwise "undesirable" people (at least to NIMBYs) and thus drive down the value of their single family homes. They see their neighborhoods as exclusive and don't want anyone else moving in who would destroy that, misguided as it is. Exclusion and racism have to be factored into this problem.
What I find continually fascinating is that there's a big contingent of NIMBYs who fear exactly that, while others insist that denser housing (especially high-rises) is all luxury condos that bring gentrification.
You are partially correct, I believe that is the attitude of NIMBYs toward social housing developments. And I just see the creator gave the answers on the case of luxury hi-rise projects.
@@OhTheUrbanity It can be difficult sometimes because the concerns are not unfounded. Here in Melbourne, Richmond is a well known drug area. Most of the drug use and trade occurs around the tall social housing towers. These kinds of buildings are associated with crime and drug overdoses on the streets.
This doesn't mean that a new 5 storey development will have drug crime, and it's likely the opposite for any new construction. But many people think density means 20+ storey towers and drug use.
What you quite often see let it be NY or LA even Texas that no new housing means a lot of homeless people and at somepoint they will sleep infront of your home.
In their defense they are not wrong. If a place is nice because it has god people schools and location all with single family homes then an apartment would ruin all of those aspects.
"The office workers make good salaries" ... ahhh... yes again, service workers are invisible fairies, and they should just enjoy that 2 hour bus commute each way, to come vacuum your office, do maintenance, and make your lunch - for minimum wage.
Unless we crack down on immigrants, to make sure that they can be paid less than minimum wage.
@nunyabusiness3786 Valid point! Thank you.
I had genuinely forgotten that I had intentionally chosen to live in cities with fairly good transit systems (which I was privileged that I could arrange my finances, and live with others in order to be able to afford), and how many jobs I skipped the ads for, turned down, or the agencies didn't even mention to me - because I didn't have a car.
And I wouldn't call it negligence, if your vehicle is falling apart because you can't afford to have it fixed, or can't make time to get to a scrap yard, pull the part, and find a time when both you and your brother aren't at work to do the repair. And then when you do, the neighbour calls the cops because those brown guys are working on a car on the street!
Good salaries start at 150k per year.
"Small government" people asking government to protect their specific niche desires, part #4985.
Like dreamers begging not to be deported even though they have no right to be here. So pathetic.
"Companies are keeping houses vacant to artificially reduce supply!"
"New housing would just be turned into unaffordable homes for the rich!"
"All the apartments are being converted into AirBnBs!" etc.
There are so many pervasive myths about housing supply in online discourse that are easily disproved by some public data, and the most infuriating thing is that a lot of the people parroting these myths are young people who would benefit from more housing supply and looser zoning/building restrictions. Keep up the good fight with this channel, guys.
Almost as if people a) follow whatever is popular at the moment and b) will justify their primal feeling with any convinient argument.
Worst part is that it's human nature to forget one's previous position and act like one has held their current belief forever. Hence the same people can have contradictory opinions all the time.
Counter-intuitive wisdom has a certain glamour, and our appreciation for it can easily lead us down the garden path.
Those aren't completely myths. It's better to regulate landlord and companies' greed. It's a waste of space and resources to keep building when we already have it. I thought urban channels like this cared about space efficiency.
Watch Hakim's video on landlords. I'm not saying I agree with nimbys cause I disagree with many things from them. I agreed and disagreed with some things in this video.
I think it's fair to assume these people want to maintain a "small town aesthetic" ... in a city with 500 thousand people. Then they wonder why everything's such dogshit, commutes are awful, and they've got a massive homeless population. Small town aesthetic is fine in small towns, but it breaks down pretty fast when you try to impose it on a large city.
Almost everyone would benefit from increased housing supply
7:34 “People who live in apartments don’t want to live next to their job” why not? That sounds absolutely ideal to me.
Personally wouldn't like to live literally next to my job but living within bikerange is just ideal for me. I can stop at the grocery store on the way back aswell. It's the best!
For this example (in the middle of a business park), it doesn't seem too appealing. Sure, you're close to work, but you'll still need to travel distance for everything else (groceries, entertainment, etc.). I'm sure apartments would still be popular (especially furnished units for newly relocated employees), but I'd prefer to live somewhere more vibrant.
I lived across the street from an old job for a year. Truth be told, I didn't like it, but that was at least in part a function of me not liking that job and the lack of amenities in the area (that neighborhood has improved in that regard since). I've done long driving commutes, working from home and everything between. My personal preference was a neighborhood where it was about a 10 minute bus ride (to a different job I enjoyed more), or about a 25 minute walk that I would make when the weather was nice. Man, I miss those walks. Anyway, whatever works for you. Cheers.
Or hear me out, remote work.
@@Denastus the ultimate commute, from one side of the bed to the other 😂
Who the hell wouldnt wanna live near their job(s) ?? That literally will make life easier & less susceptible to invest in a car , which is on average 3-5 more bills
If companies did not force return to office, I'm pretty sure that our roadways will be far less congested then they are currently
The average total cost of a car is on the order of $12,000 per year.
I literally live in the closest apartment complex to my job, a 15-minute walk away, and I still have to drive there because there are no sidewalks anywhere except immediately surrounding businesses. I mean, I *have* walked to work when my car was undrivable, but it was a nightmare.
Near yes. On the same plot of land perhaps not so much. I think having your work colleagues being able to see you exit your apartment building on your day off from the office window could be kind of intrusive.
Employment and dormitory suburbs were separated for a reason. It wasn't healthy to live too near factories. Industrial areas have heavy traffic with large and heavy vehicles. The worker isn't affected because he is not at home when this noise and pollution occurs. But his family might be.
I feel like in a lot of cases this is generational. There was a time where treating a house like an investment that would pay for your retirement was a reality, and a large chunk of the older generations bought into it and benefited from it. The problem is, what now? This process has changed our communities and there's a genuine question of what the subsequent generations are supposed to do to have a decent life.
If anything, zoomers are WORSE. They treat EVERYTHING as an investment now. You can't buy ANYTHING anymore because "investors" have snapped them all up to hoard away to try to sell for a profit later. Once upon a time, it was trading-cards, then comic-books, then sneakers, now video-games and VHS tapes and cassette tapes and houses and clothes and food and anything and everything that someone might want to buy, bought up by selfish, greedy, rich trash. 😠
As long as land increases in value faster than inflation, the proportion of production that land consumes will ever grow and thus the proportion of production that is returned to capital and labor will ever decrease. This is what we see now with low interest rates and low wages, but high rent.
Georgism ftw!
There are so many "kinds" of demand that go undiscussed
- Young adults moving out from their parent's place to get their own place
- People sharing a place because there are not enough places to live
- People who already live in the city but are trying to get closer to their jobs
- The currently unhoused, especially those who do have some means, but can't afford at current rates
Those were just off the top of my head, I am sure there are many more. But not like the "I got mine" crowd would care anyway.
There’s actually a noticeable dip in the 18-40 demographics where I live, precisely because there’s no affordable housing here. Kids cannot afford to move out and live in the same community where they grew up, and instead move away. Then nimbys complain about that and how they can’t see their kids/grandkids often.
You can’t have expensive, exclusive SFH zoned areas, and expect your kids to be able to afford to live nearby.
People who were married/in a relationship but are now splitting up and needing a new place (possibly _very quickly_)
People who need to get out of a dangerous situation. (family members, exes, neighbor with a grudge, you got doxxed by someone who wants you murdered, ect.)
I think they also did a video about this! How while homelessness is the most visible example of unmet housing need, there are also other groups who aren't getting the housing they need
lmao, that point about how "why are we stopping a developer from making a bad business decision" lol, it really tells you what the nimbys making the statement's objective is... It's not that they're against developers, they're for their own interest... not the community. Just a disguise to using the "community" to make themselves look like they're not selfish.
"they're for their own interest". And of course, YIMBs and developers and Scott Wiener are not.
As a homeowner let me just say: a neighborhood with good density and good transit and good access to commerce is an *amazing* neighborhood with amazing character and a better and more lively place for everyone to live. Unless your biggest priority is having an unobstructed view of as many trees as possible, rather than human beings, I assure you that densification will only make your neighborhood better.
I think Machievelli wrote that the basic problem with effecting change is: the people who will benefit from it are not yet getting that benefit, so it's a bit vaporous and they aren't that motivated to fight for it, while the people benefitting from the status quo can see that the proposed change threatens something concrete that they presently enjoy, and so will fight vigorously to stop it. 'Though he probably put it more elegantly than that.
I basically made a similar point in this one Reddit thread today... and about the same subject.
Don't forget you need a good balance between the housing density and the commercial/industrial density. The problem of congestion only gets worse if you continue to have a line between all homes and all businesses regardless of density. What we need to focus on, is average distance between the place someone lives and the place they work.
While you do need to maintain the balance, usually areas have high housing demand in the first place because of an abundance of jobs in the area, relative to the housing supply.
I like that you use the term "standalone house". I think that's the best term for such a structure.
Yes, after thinking about it, I think it's more natural than "detached house"
Home Owners need to stop assuming that their Houses' value will always go up. The notion that their investments must always gain value is bad for everyone because in a lot of cases building more things increases value.
So many people want all the amenities of city life with the space and cost of suburban or rural life. You can't have it both ways.
I think conflating home value with property value is another big issue. There's so many copy and pasted suburb houses made cheaply that weren't made to last 50+ years without major renovations, but after how expensive the property itself is no one has money to just tear down the house and start anew. I've never seen a person move into a house and not immediately want to re-do half the house. If it was easier to separate the property value from the value of the house itself it might be easier to convince people to convert lots to duplex/triplex/townhouse/apartments/etc. instead of wasting hundreds of sqft on a giant lawn and driveway.
The suburb I live in has the amenities of a city but also having the space of a suburban life. You just have not been to a suburb that has such things.
Lots of NIMBYs are basically speculators at heart, while denigrating 'developers' who at least _do_ something (build housing) in their quest for profit.
The problem I see, is that many Americans can only afford their house under the assumption that its value is going up, either because they have to pay of their loan with another loan on the house or because they plan to sell it to pay of the loan outright.
I think, the question is, why people fear living next to an apartment building? I think, this comes from the car dependent structure in most of North America, so more people means more car traffic at about the same rate.
If biking, public transit and most importantly mixed-used developments are common, this however changes to the opposite: Now more density also attracts more amenities and makes the neighborhood more desirable.
It's also got to do with the notion/stereotype that apartments are for people who don't own a house, because they can't afford to own a house, thus they must be poor, thus they must be bringing crime/unsavory activity to the area. That's sometimes got to do with racial stereotypes but income stereotypes are the bottom line. I've lived in mostly white areas that hate the trailer park nearby and in mostly minority/majority suburbs (Montgomery County MD) dislike the apartment towers and townhouses nearby. It just sucks because home ownership locks people into such a huge investment- which is great usually- but it gives people a huge personal stake in not seeing that they lose money. And overall people want to live someplace that is unchanging.
There's also the rough truth that to a lot of people desirable means seeing as few people around as possible. Society has made us moreso into loners than ever before.
I think when suburbanites say this, it's because of the low-income/high-crime correlation, and increased competition for parking
More people = more crimes.
@@sebastianjoseph2828 yeah, it's really frustrating as someone renting the same apartment for a decade and who would buy in the neighbourhood if prices weren't increasing faster than my ability to save a down payment and afford the resulting mortgage, that "renters don't care about the neighbourhood". I've met other neighbours who rent and have lived in the neighborhood for decades.
Some people at certain stages in their life are going to be less likely to stay (like students, or some people early in their careers), but a young couple would probably prefer to stay in the neighbourhood if they could find a place with just one more bedroom when they need it. And people who know they are more likely to be able to stay in the neighborhood long term (like if renters don't feel they're going to be priced out) are more likely to build connections in their community and do extra to contribute to it.
Higher density cities do not make neighborhoods more desirable. You probably should look into how desirable it was to live in: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City
It's weird how homeowners' concerns about "profit extraction" in their neighborhoods disappear when the new local development happens to be their in-law unit or rental loft.
"Start paying attention or you may live next to an apartment"
oh the horror
Youre right on the money when you say the most of the time people are just projecting their preferences onto other people, options really are the key
"What is greed? Of course none of us are greedy. It's only the other fellow who's greedy."
Karl Marx Smith
For me the fundamental issue is that NIMBYs are creating artificial scarcity. That alone just shouldn't be legal. And ESPECIALLY when it has such deeply negative results.
‘Ari’ neighborhood in Bangkok is also one of NIMBYs zones blocking many hi-rise condo projects from getting approve.
They often argue that new towers will increase traffic in the area even there is within reach of 500 meters to a transit station, resulting in most residents in those towers will commute by transit, not by driving anyway.
But that's the reality of Bangkok. New high rise buildings always come with wasteful 20 storey parking lots as a mean to attract buyers. This in no way helps stop the car centric life style and boost TOD. Not to mention that all the modern condo units aren't family-friendly. They are mostly shoebox-sized because developers will sacrifice tons of space for unnecessary amenities, including parking spots, which in turn drives the sprawl of suburban development aka หมู่บ้านจัดสรร.
@@khritdisyapipat63 20 storey parking lot could be too exaggerated, it usually occupied up-to 5th floor of the building. And to point out, most developers are willingly to provide TOD projects as it attracts residents IF not being mandated by the building code to required ‘minimum parking spaces’ for each building use, the regulation Thailand adopted from the West. Which no matter how close the building is to transit station, even directly connected, still required to provide a certain number of parking spaces by law. And sadly, it is a separated regulation from the city zoning.
And there is an idea to push for reduce parking requirements for projects that within radius of transit station, but it not yet any closed to being apply to reality.
Anyway: I replied accordingly to the video contents, which focused on NIMBYism, and Ari area is known for blocking many hi-rise projects in the past 10 years. New project just received its green light after the land plot was left empty for many years(NUE Evo Ari), and I am not sure if the recent one (Via ARI) get the EIA approval yet.
@@khritdisyapipat63 To be fair, my comment was related to the context of the video, which is about NIMBYism and lack of density housing in the city in some certain inner city neighborhoods that has the potential but couldn’t be built for the reason mentioned, not really about the car culture in the suburbs.
And to point things out, Ari is known for blocking multiple projects before during the past 10 years, only 2 recent hi-rises projects just get their green light to continue the construction.
I personally think you might be over exaggerated about 20 storeys parking as typically parking spaces only reached the height of 5-6th floor for condominium buildings. And it is sad that no matter how close the project is to the transit station, developers still being mandated by the building code law to provide up-to certain amount of parking space for specific type of building use, which I believe it was the law Thailand adopted from the US, that separated from the city zoning law itself.
Normally, real estate developers likely to provide parking only up-to 40% of residential space of the building, and there is an idea to adjust the parking requirement to be lower or none at all if the project is closed to transit station, but it was just an idea.
Meanwhile, developers have to seek for potential land in other areas, usually further out into the suburbs, to build their hi-rise projects, resulting in buyers and renters to live far away from city center comparing to Ari where is much closer to the CBD.
This is when I pull out a staple of Strong Towns fundamentals: incremental development to the next density level (SFH to 2-4 units, garden/1-story to low-rise, low-rise to mid-rise) for every neighborhood & no neighborhood is immune from density increases allowed.
For those SFH neighborhoods that are expensive, the cost of the land would probably limit density any, so regulations not needed.
I remember reading something about how in many cases 4 units may not be enough when housing has already gotten too expensive. Essentially, the neighborhood is so far behind where it should be you need to bump it up to more like 12 units to make it profitable for the developer. Really, this just means that they have been getting away with low density for far too long and it's time to stop being so selfish. Another really important factor when upzoning is that you have to make it easy. A lot of places in the US have tried to upzone but haven't seen the redevelopment they were expecting because there are still buckets of red tape around anything other than an SFH.
It's a long road to freedom.
@@jonmcclung5597 yup, for Vancouver BC's multiplex policy - if you wanted to build a multiplex on Vancouver's west side, a property with a teardown could cost $3M+. So a fourplex unit would cost $750,000 for its portion of the land alone. Combined with a max 1.0 FSR and building height limits, you probably can't build large enough units that the final price works out (competing with cheaper similar sized condos, or comparably priced but bigger duplexes further from downtown).
You can also pull out their statistics on what low density housing costs the city vs what higher density earns the city.
"Don't forget to bike and subscribe."
Hehehe!
The charm of an old, established neighborhood can increase the value of the houses, but the demand for apartment buildings may also do the same.
There's no evidence that building more houses decreases housing costs. Which is obvious when one thinks about it.
@@mickeygraeme2201 It depends. A modernistic apartment building plunked amidst gracious period homes can devalue the neighbors for a while. But eventually they'll realize they can sell their lots to a developer for more apartments at a profit, and move elsewhere. I've seen that happen.
@@Bobrogers99 yeah while that may enrich the sellers that doesn't make the housing any cheaper.
@@mickeygraeme2201 there is a lot of evidence that restricting housing development will increase prices.
Sure, house prices may not go down if new supply is added - the margins on building housing aren't huge, and developers build what will be profitable based on current prices - but if the option is housing prices will stabilize or go up slower, I'll choose that over restrictive supply benefiting current owners' value while increasingly pricing out everyone else. The video mentioned that during economic downturns private developers will build less because fewer people can afford new homes (though demand continues, since there are still new families). Often increasing prices are because despite some very visible dense housing being built, the overall balance of people to homes is not changing to reduce demand.
There is also plenty of evidence that increasing supply does decrease rents, if not just the rate of rent increases - comparable cities that have restrictive or permissive zoning have seen measurable differences in rental price increases, and cities that have had apartment booms sufficient enough to meaningfully increase vacancy rates have seen rental prices drop.
@@mickeygraeme2201 There is tons of such evidence. Why do you think it "obvious" that housing is exempt from supply and demand?
With the high price for a house these days , the majority of young people cannot afford to buy a house but still can afford to rent a condo and take the public transport ...we need more condos close to a public transport and services .
Even though you may own a condo, the land the building is situated upon is still owned by someone else. As long as you don't own the land the building sits on, you will always be subjugated to paying someone to live in that condo.
Glad to see this movement taking off, even in America.
Another argument I've frequently seen floated by those opposing denser housing is the idea that homeowners are not buying an individual house, but they are "buying into a neighborhood". Therefore, they have an expectation that the neighborhood will not dramatically change.
Of course, there is always the claim that SFH is preferred. But I always retort back that if it is preferred, then there is no need to enforce that preference by law. Their response is always something about developer exploitation if they are allowed to build to market demands.
So is your expectation for those people that want to live in more suburban life always to move out of their home that they bought into upon hearing news of developments in the area?
@@DenastusNo, my point is that they should have no expectations that their neighborhood will not change. Change is a natural part of life and it is unreasonable to demand that change shouldn't happen.
@@TheFarix2723 change should only happen if the residents demand it. It should never be forced.
@@Denastus So your position is to keep certain people how of a neighborhood because they will bring change with them? Do you insist that you have a right to vet anyone and everyone who wishes to move into your neighborhood to make sure they don't bring any change with them?
@@TheFarix2723 One of the neighborhoods that I live in already does that. It created a stronger sense of community.
I see this same thing in my community. We had an apartment complex shot down because the community didn't want it because it would create more traffic (so they said). When in reality the current zoning which would allow a grocery store would create more traffic than the apartments. (The land was zoned as commercial and needed a zoning change approved to be able to build the apartments.) The reality is the apartments would be next to some high end single family neighborhoods and the residents didn't want lower class citizens (apartment dwellers) living near them.
As an Edmontonian looking for an apartment that man is wrong.
"there are already vacant apartments, we dont need more"
Ah yes, I see the logic...
There are so many unsold and expensive "premium" water in the store, obvious conclusion is that we don't need to drink water
I think the reason lots of people fall into this trap of thinking is because they have a mortgage which stops changing with the demand.
So their thinking is essentially “my mortgage from 15 years ago isn’t putting any extra stress on my finances so the housing market must not be suffering.”
By contrast, many of us who watch videos like these are renters so we’re well aware of the prices steadily increasing every year and the absurd prices that brand new apartment buildings start at.
I believe a land value tax is ultimately the answer here because it will adapt much more frequently to put pressure on the owners when demand is too high.
I am not sure about LVT, but if your society implemented Islamic law, there would be no such thing as a mortgage, because it involves interest. Is that a good solution?
@@adanufgail considering that we're talking about synergy. Having man-made parks that are surrounded by high-rise apartments is the least synergistic approach to development.
Take the average combat vet from a mid size metro.
He works in a dangerous team setting as a first responder.
The daughter or son spend a fortune for a high rise dorm, but that somehow magically doesn't count.
The property taxes go to both a high rise hospital & High School, but that also magically doesn't count.
Why midsized metro deserve our attention, mid is defined by Brookings as 250000 to 750000, and that is over a quarter of the midwest & southeast.
Finally the law is changed to high deductible health insurance, but the Affordable Care Act exchange ad only shows the monthly bill.
This jet is a disaster, but Congress keeps buying it.
That study proves most high paying jet jobs in the Northeast.
Same thing with the Northeast big bank bailout of $16 trillion.
Why have the same zoning in both midsized metro and Northeast?
I love the idea that the houses create the cultural fabric of the neighborhood and not the people living within them.
A house... is a house.
The solution should be to stop or reduce subsidising the roads. Let the neighbourhoods pay for the roads they use. The city shouldn't have to pay for people to live as spread out as they want and draining city finances, while people living in denser areas pay for them _and_ themselves. If that's how you want to live, you should pay for it. The actual cost of it.
Let's think about the life experience of the people who live in a single family house and oppose any change to the character of their neighborhood. How did they get that house? Either they are old and got in early, or they have rich family, or they have tenants in the basement paying their mortgage (so they want rents to be super high), or they had a condo and sold it. 100% of the time they are either profiting off of the housing shortage or are out of touch with reality. They didn't care about "changing the character" of the farmland or forest that their house is built on. They won't care about the "character" of the neighborhood when in the future they literally sell to the highest bidder so that they can retire to a condo exactly the same as what they are complaining about.
That opening example sure sounded familiar. It turns out that Jasper Gates development is being used by every NIMBY for miles around as their convenient excuse for opposing apartments. (It's been a plan on the books for years, and it's not clear if the developer will ever actually get around to building it.) I was the only community member who spoke in favour of an apartment a few blocks away in a different direction, and the opposition was almost word-for-word identical.
What makes this worse is when the opponents of new developments aren't just local residents but also wealthy landlords (individuals or corporations) who view increased supply as a threat to their profits. The bay area in California is the perfect example of this.
The flip side of this is when no-one is building anything that mere mortals can afford (in which case outrage against developers for only building expensive stuff may be justified)
This is the problem in Texas as well. The anti-high speed rail opponents are mostly rich ranchowners.
Please can you cover the lack of rental or normal appartments in small towns or in the country side.
Quite often the only housing option outside large cities are single family homes.
side note; 1:36 is such a gorgeous sidewalk. the tree shade makes me envious
Edmonton ended a lot of zoning restrictions last year. That should ideally help some gentile density increases or otherwise throughout the city as it continues to develop. People keep moving here, so we clearly need more homes! And endless sprawl is not the solution.
The texas lady was basicly admiting that, of course, you could fill an apartment complex in my neigherhood and will do everything to prevent that reality from happening.
OK, this is technically a different subject, but the issue with AirBNB is more down to _where_ the properties are than the sheer quantity of them. It causes issues for specific areas of the city by hollowing them out. This isn't a problem when it's within the original spirit of the service, but we're long past that point.
Yes, Developers know best. Good God.
The only way a city can continue to function is density. Single family homes are subsidized by apartment owners. That not fair.
The *real* reason these homeowners don't want new housing built, is because they want to drive up the price of their home as much as possible for when they sell it. You can't do that if there is more housing available. In short, NIMBY's are treating their homes like a stock portfolio, rather than as an affordable place to live, and they want *us* to pay for their lifestyle.
"People who live in appartments don't want to live close to their job"??? Can someone explain to me the thought behind it? Because I would think for the POV of the NIMBYs that is the opposite: People want to live in single family homes, but they choose apartments to be close to work.
3:05Yes, because it's true. Certainly in the UK, where any developer can come up with a plan to built 10,000 houses on a greenfield site and the council will pant, like a dog being offered a treat, "Oh yes yes yes please"
NOT THE ZUNE!!!! Ill never forgive what they did to the zune
Glad I wasn't the only one triggered by this.
Zuning restrictions got in the way of Microsoft's success.
Boosted population density also increases tax density, meaning that local public services don't have to be subsidized by the city.
Their tune would change so fast when unhoused people start cropping up on their doorsteps.
As if not building more housing will just make em go away
@@nianbozhang9070 or just magically turn them into human beings again.
I need more strategies, talking points, successful lobbying tactics to take to city deciders.
I don't know about Canada, but in most Australian planning systems (because each State is different) you cant object for economic reasons or social reasons. You can only object on amenity and neighbourhood character impacts.
How do you think that this concept compares to "induced demand" that many urbanists talk about? More lanes induce demand for for lanes. More houseing induces demand for more houseing? Why or why not?
@allergy5634 Ty, you've given me lots to consider
You guys are by far my favorite urbanist UA-cam channel. I love that you always bring facts and logical reasoning to the table without the condescension that you get from a lot of other UA-camrs in this space.
I also love that you seem to really believe in the power of the free market to solve market failures like this and emphasize that diverse consumer preferences should inform the design of our cities, balancing the needs of both current and potential residents.
Honestly I can't remember ever disagreeing with you 😊
Even your video about how you don't need to move to the Netherlands was challenging but in the end I had to admit you're totally right, and it's been a helpful perspective shift.
Keep up the good work!!! 🎉
I used to live in a town where a developer made a mistake. They knocked down three blocks of downtown, displacing existing businesses, for a mixed use commercial/residential building, then the bottom fell out of the commercial real estate market. Those blocks were empty except for a half-finished parking ramp for nearly ten years. You really, really don't want a developer to over-estimate demand.
A good argument for enabling small-scale 'developers', with build-by-right, rather than having lots of zoning hoops that only big developers and projects can feasibly jump through. If you make it easy to turn a house into a four story apartment building, you'll have less fiascos on the scale of blocks.
while I agree we need more apartments, I just hate the new condos being 500-600 sqft for 1 bedroom and 700ish for 2 bedrooms. These are not built for growing a family, but a temporary renting condos. There has to be some sort of rules if you are building an apartment in restricted zones the apartments should follow the average space that zone has for families. Also having kitchen and living room combined is an stupid thing. You cook and fry and boil stuff in kitchen which is loud, smells and needs extra counter space for work. Kitchens in these condos are useless because the whole condo is for ants. Even if you have a separate kitchen there is no kitchen door in North America for some genius reason so all the smell and noise goes through the unit, forcing you to cook less so you don't bother the other residents!
The issue with size is a mix of things:
1. Many regulations in North America make it specifically harder to build larger, family-sized units. Look up double-loaded corridors and point access blocks.
2. A general lack of housing supply puts large apartments particularly out of reach in terms of affordability.
3. Household sizes are shrinking (with fewer people having children and older people living longer), so there actually is a decent amount of demand for smaller apartments too.
Simply mandating that apartments be bigger doesn't really fix these.
When I visit my friends in Europe (Spain and Portugal mainly, but also UK), their apartments tend to be smaller than American counterparts, and they seem fine with it. They are built with space optimization features to make up for the lack of overall space. We, in NA, are really spoiled with space. I live in a "legacy" 1-bd in Chicago that is larger than 1-bd new construction in the city, and certainly larger than my European friends' apts. However, those apts have certain amenities that mine lacks, so you have to weigh what your priorities are. The main problem for me is that these new apts can be hundreds of dollars more to rent than my legacy unit, so I've stayed put.
Anybody who calls out nimbys on their junk theories is a friend of mine. Thank you!!🙂❤️💯
F U GOT MINE...is the attitude here.
With a good amount of "I don't want THOSE PEOPLE living next door to me" on top. (This can be classist, or racist, or both, with THOSE PEOPLE being poor people or minorities-or both.)
In my street where two bus stop to two different lines that run every 10 minutes are less than 5 minutes of walking away someone said that expanding a building to meet housing demand was bad because there aren't enough parking spaces. People have wild ideas about city planning.
Do you seriously think the new residents won't have cars? And you're neglecting that many people can't walk that 5 minutes, or stand on a bus for 40 minutes to get where they're going. Also neglecting that those two bus lines can't possibly take people everywhere they need to go. So now you've got transferring, more waiting at bus stops, more time, more inconvenience, more expense, and more walking. Also neglecting that families often have 3, 4, 5 kids, who all need to go to different things. People who are already living in a SFH neighborhood don't want to deal with public transport, and often can't. So, yeah, parking is a real issue.
If only the home owners had to pay for the maintenance of their own private roads, along with a tax reform where high value lands are taxed higher. Then they might want to get a few more people to live in their huge estates.
Yep, property taxes should be based on infrastructure used
6:22 this statement could be applied to any government regulation of market activity.
It's impossible for any agency or planner to know what prices, supply and demand actually is, because it's determined by everyday decisions made by countless individuals.
"This bill will lead to a dramatic densification of suburbs and the semi-rural outskirts of cities and towns" is quite possibly the dumbest thing I will read this year.
Also, an unspoken aspect of residents' resistance to development is the fear of losing value on their home "investment" (even if that fear is almost certainly misplaced).
I feel like alot of urbanist channels are just too one sided not thinking about the people or Families (especially) who WANT to live in the suburbs with great schools. Sure the city is amazing but suburbs are also amazing in my opinion, I think there should be more regional/commuter rail lines connecting suburbs to cities and more biking trails in suburban towns along with sidewalks.
This is unfortunately missing the point. True suburbs have plenty of supply to meet demand and there is little to no danger that apartments will suddenly take over. However, in urban neighbourhoods modeled after suburbia, there is way more demand than supply, creating a housing crisis. That's where single-family zoning just doesn't work.
You can have both urbanism and suburbanism, in the right parts of town. But we have to be real about demand by neighbourhood and the need for housing as you get closer to an urban core. I agree that some people would prefer the larger spaces of the surburbs. But their demand can be easily met as is. And as a city grows in population, the line which delineates urban from suburban will change, and unfortunately many cannot accept this.
@@louisdesroches I agree with that, but with old suburbs comes new suburbs. I was mainly talking about suburb-exurban zoning in suburbs which some urbanist channels just want to eliminate every exurban community, however I agree with getting rid of single family zoning on Urban neighborhoods that are near city amenities.
Yeah, I live in Dallas, that councilwoman is by Farmer's Branch/Addison which is high-dollar property full of NIMBYs. That area was famous for coming out with an ordinance banning renting apartments to undocumented immigrants.
Still in my area by Love Field we got a bizarre, yet sad tug-of-war going on between folks crammed into tiny apartments that need more apartments and developers tearing down 1940s 1000 sqft homes to built overpriced McMansions for over $800k.
It's weird to see an old house worth $200k next to a new house that will be worth almost five times that one, in a neighborhood with low income underserved residents with nowhere else to go.
Absolute banger! So good I watched it twice in a row
Apartment buildings aren't just built by Developers. They can also be built by a group of people, as in multiple people pooling their resources to build an apartment block in which each will be an apartment owner. It used to be more prevalent in the past, but nowadays cities like Vienna offer assistance like getting bank loans to support such groups of private citizen.
PS: Fun anecdote for an opposite development. Lately there have been talks by officials and experts in Hungary to consider a "low density ban" for suburbs around Budapest as there is a "worrying development" of so called "sleeping towns". Meaning settlements where people do nothing except sleep at home, because there is no local commerce, entertainment and work which is all located somewhere else. It's just interesting to me that in places like US there is a fear of urbanisation, while here in Europe in places there is a fear of sub urbanisation.
There are also examples of other European cities and countries with similar concerns, Budapest was just the most recent in my mind, as well as the first one where I heard serious proposals to ban building new low density developments to curb suburban sprawl.density ban" for suburbs around Budapest as there is a "worrying development" of so called "sleeping towns". Meaning settlements where people do nothing except sleep at home, because commerce
If a multi-family dwelling is built/owned by the people that live in it, than it’s a condominium (not an apartment).
Increase density or prices rise, simple.
They rise anyways toys argument doesn't hold water
'utterly destroyed' by, *checks notes* building more housing. the sheer depravity
If a building meets fire and building code, then the city planners/zoning committee should be the only governing body who decides if the the structure will "fit " in the the neighborhood regardless if its a backyard shed or a new apartment/condo building.
Individual residents shouldn't have a say on an individual matter, they can have their say next round of elections.
I agree thats why I think all nuclear power plants should be allowed to be built wherever. They comply with all building regulations.
@@mickeygraeme2201Nice strawman there.
@@danielkelly2210 I thought it was pithy!
@@mickeygraeme2201 Generally, nuclear power plants don't meet several regulations necessary for residential neighborhoods.
@@koolmckool7039 plants meet building codes they don't meet local "restrictive zoning" codes
"We don't need any more apartments" is correct.
The word "we" can mean a lot of things. It can mean "me and you", "me and the group I'm in, but not you", "me and a couple of the people around me but not everyone", and a lot more complex situations. It would be nice if we (people who use english to communicate) had different forms of "we" for different situations, but I'm going a bit off topic now.
The sentence probably means: "we, the people who live in this neighborhood comfortably and have no desire to move, don't need any more apartments."
That statement is true. It would also raise the value of their homes since there's a high demand and low supply of homes. Many of them are however making a mistake, because people often have children who eventually need their own home. So while the parents don't need any more apartments, their children definitely do need them somewhere
I think most of this discussion boils down to classism. Home owners see renters as poor, and they don't like the idea of poor people moving into the neighborhood. That's what they mean when they say "living in the neighborhood is privlage" or having too many "apartment buildings" will ruin the neighborhood.
classism with a side order of racism, at least in the USA
I don't know if this is covered in another video but one thing I've encountered quite a bit in discussion of new housing is the claim that higher density housing has one of 2 effects;
1) They become apartments [in the UK the term "apartment" is often used to refer to higher end and more expensive high density housing blocks] and price locals and the working class out of the neighbourhood both in terms of housing costs and general living costs as businesses mark up prices for the new Yuppie clientele or go bust and get replaced by high-end brands.
2) They become flats [the term "flat" referring to cheaper high density housing blocks] and bring with them a rise in teen pregnancy, benefit mums (similar to the welfare queen stereotype in the US only typically depicted as White and Chav) and crime.
Do you happen to know if there's any evidence for the idea that high density necessarily has the effect of either bringing either higher prices or higher crime?
As the birth rate is very low, increasing it would be a good thing.
@@bristoled93 And that is something I find quite strange, since many who pose this argument share this view about the birthrate, however many of them also seem to have an aversion to those outside the suburban middle class increasing the birthrate. A lamentation about the low birthrate but not the appetite to bring in the social innovations which would increase it.
The question that really must be asked though is if there is any upper limit on demand. Manhattan is very dense and it is one of the most expensive places. There may be no point in building more as demand will always catch up to exceed new supply. In fact the government already acts as though this is true by demanding "affordable" units.
I don't think it's the case that Manhattan can't meet demand (especially if the rest of New York was opened up to building too), but let's assume it is. Isn't it still better to meet 80% of demand than 40%? That leaves housing more accessible to more people.
The fact is that we need to both build more and build specifically affordable units. If a place is very high demand, it’s true that you’d have to build a very large amount of units for the chance to have the market to sort things out on its own, which is why things like inclusionary zoning in places that are already getting a lot of high-density developments are important.
Though, as already pointed out in another comment by the channel, it’s still good to build and alleviate the problem even if you can’t solve it completely. Things can always be worse.
@@thedapperdolphin1590 My point is that the network effects of cities cause the high cost. "Affordable" units are only affordable because the force of law imposes the cost on someone else and gives it to the tennant. In reality if you build more units it increases network effects and makes an area more expensive. The only way to do such is with force such as government housing which is for example limited only to individuals already in a city limit.
@@mickeygraeme2201 Manhattan has other factors that make it very expensive. It's one of the world's largest financial and banking hub.
This is not an issue with most other cities in North America.
@@Trackpad_User The agglomeration and network effects of cities generally though does not go away. Global cities have higher than average costs because of higher than average network effects but it is true all the way down. Pick any city on the Ranally ranking lower down and similar effects are seen.
1:30 demand for density can be driven by both lack of supply and cost. rural areas may not justify the biggest skyscrapers, but they can absolutely justify the most economical buildings from 3 story walkups to 10 story apartments that would be considered towers if built in the US. Rural apartments minimize construction and maintenance cost per sq ft, and also minimize land cost, and should be preferable to people who want to maximize the interior space they can afford.
I do think that AirBnB has had an effect on affordable apartment that are available. A friend who tracks affordable apartments (cause she deal with new immigrants to canada) noticed that the amount of unit available during the Covid lockdown went up DRAMATICALLY in Toronto (by several factor if I remember correctly).
AirBnB can harm affordability, agreed. The problem is that some people assume or act like all new housing will be turned into AirBnBs, so they use that to argue against allowing new housing.
There are certain neighborhoods that AirBnB and short term rentals can ravage. Battery Point in Hobart suffers from this problem and the government is trying to address it.
Yeah. Even if they don’t make up a huge amount of a city’s total housing stock, they naturally tend to concentrate in areas that are already in high-demand. So they make things worse in the already “trendy” or gentrifying neighborhoods.
The under-supply of hotels *and* rental housing contributes to Airbnbs being more lucrative to operate and having an impact on increasing rent for long term tenants in the area.
If there was enough long term rental supply, and enough hotels to serve tourism demand, then Airbnb would be less of an issue since it would be riskier to operate - harder to compete against lower hotel rates, and less guarantee that you'll have enough guests paying higher than LTR would overall.
@@OhTheUrbanityIn desirable places, like resort towns, there is a certain induced demand effect where creating new housing just creates more incentive for people from out of town to move in, resulting in even less affordability.
The threat NiMBYs are concerned about is not exploitation but competition. That being that when developers build lots of housing, the cost of housing decreases in the area, meaning that they can no longer justify charging high rents, or expect to make a million dollar profit on the house from resale or equity. That's why they don't like apartments. It is because one way or another their interests are aligned with petty landlords.
As a NIMBY of sorts ..it is not the density that gets me but the dreary abysmal buildings that get slapped up .... badly designed boxes all from the same cookie cutter model.... and cheap built at that. The main beneficiaries are not the community but the development industry. If you look at a European city with older four or five storey apartment blocks, many are vastly superior to the junk built today
To be fair, we live in the 2020's, and have different construction methods
Suburbs are also mostly cookie cutter though and are cheap to build. Why are they allowed then?
Big facts . Developers gain, we still lose, why not evict the local tennants in the process 🙄video is oversimplified
Actually it’s far simpler: the real concern is: I don’t want my property value trashed. Limiting s upply is making me a multimillionaire!It’s greed. It’s always greed.
We’re way past frontier days. Time for civilization. Plus make them pay taxes to cover cost of roads.
Funny enough, those screen-grabs talking against luxury condos are spot on. They almost always get left nearly entirely vacant. Portland has a whole slew of these condo towers, and the average occupancy rates since they've been built is a whopping 20% at PEAK. Outside of peak that drops to around 12%. Never condos unless they're in the style where the residents would rather purchase the apartment than rent it (which would make it a condo at that point). All these upscale high rise "residential" towers that have been going in since 2000 here have been almost entire or entirely for upper class folks in pricing. It's disgusting but typical. Actually useful for middle class or even middle lower class and above housing buildings almost never get built, and when they do, they're almost exclusively 5 stories and under, and VERY cheaply built.
The argument that developers won't build apartments or other higher density residential complexes, especially ones that are mid and high-rise due to it not being profitable is also entirely honest, true and real. They will NOT build them because it simply loses money and all developers and landlords give a damn about is profit. Go figure, it's big business. States usually need to have a ordinance/clause they enforce that gives a certain number or percentage of units in each development a minimum amount of units in each that must be considered "affordable income" at least, if not low-income. Those however ALWAYS come with time limits. In Oregon, that's 5 years. Once those five years are up, the owners/landlords jack all those units up into market-rate. The moment the requirement expires, this is what they do. There's no permanence, and of course no government will ever dare force a developer and landlord/owner to keep the affordable and low-income units permanently, because they know fully that will ensure they'll pull out and probably even launch lawsuits over lack of control over their investment in the property by way of ownership/landlord rights. All big developers and most landlords of those developments are far too greedy and profit seeking to dare accept such a concept. And the governments are too scared of losing their kickback paychecks from those developers for even considering implementing something like that with any permanence. I totally get both sides here too though - most developers and owners/landlords want a solid ROI on their properties, and that means profit. Why subsidize and pay for it instead out of your own pocket? That just makes no sense. For the biggest name developers though, they could afford a handful of them paid for like that without much if any financial issues arising. But you get the idea. I get the problem with goobermint being nervous that they'd lose any and all relationship with companies, corporations, landlords and developers in that situation too. And of course I fully understand what it is like as a citizen as well.
I also find it ironic how so many creators like you guys agree with the sentiments of "gentrification is good", considering gentrification almost ALWAYS is what causes a sudden and very sharp spike in cost of living, property values and thus rent costs in the hoods it happens to. If there was A LOT of a controls implemented by the cities, counties and states on the forms/types of gentrification that is allowed (other names for G include "Urban Renewal" and "Neighborhood Revitalization") enforcing that no new developments can contain luxury units, nor are they allowed to go over a certain price per month rental, stores have price caps, and other sensible, like-wise requirements to be legally met, then it would actually be okay, if not actually good. But no controls or restrictions exist, and in fact, the government actively encourage and flaunt these new gentrification developments heavily, raving up and down about them while they force almost everyone living there out due to the extreme price increases across the board. Gentrification is in reality HORRIFIC and indefensible as a result.
This is not an economic issue. This is a social issue. I do not want to live in a denser neighborhood. I do not want to move. That should be enough to justify my opposition to making my neighborhood denser.
But you don't have a right over other people's properties. You bought only your own property, not someone else's. You aren't entitled to their land as well as your own.
You are disingenuously framing exerting massive amounts of control over things that aren't yours, other peoples' autonomy and personal choices as sticking up for your own personal choice and autonomy.
Thanks for mentioning Euclid v. Ambler. This Supreme Court case is the reason for all of our troubles on this topic.
We've all seen it! A 10 story apartment high rise right next to a single family home. Or, an apartment block floating in a giant park lot. Sometimes people have good reasons for being NIMBYs. Plenty of bad ideas and bad designs that destroy the character of a neighbor.
Yeah apartment buildings in certain areas should not exceed 5 stories, tall ones should exist downtown or designated districts.
Many SFH homes looking at redevelopment are old and would have been torn down for an infill SFH. Which would also hurt the "neighbourhood character."
I find the post war bungaloos ugly and appealing only to boomers. Post war bungaloo neighbourhood character is not worth saving.
A 10 story apartment next to a single family home indicates there is high demand to live in that location, and new people should be welcomed into what is evidently a great place to live. Renovating part of a parking lot, even a better idea! The character of a neighborhood should not be set in stone, it should be determined by what would bring the most good to the society it is a part of!
OT: measures VIA soeed between Dorval and Ottawa yesterday: 107kmh westbound. (stops at Alexandria and Casselman). and 113kmh eastbound with stop only at Alexandria 3 stretches where train sustains 150kmh for more than a minute.
An increase in apartments is going to inevitably lower the quality of life. Parking will become more difficult to find and traffic will increase. People should have the choice of whether they want to live in a high-density or low-density environment.
If you don’t want to see apartments, you can move to a small town or rural/remote area.
Which is more important, people or cars?
I agree there should be a choice, but in most of the US people don't have that choice -- only low-density is allowed by law.
@@Hawxxfan When given a choice, almost everyone will choose to live in a house like the one on the Brady Bench or one that resembles Homer Simpson's rather than sharing a wall with God knows whom. In an apartment building, you and your woman can't even have make love without your neighbors hearing you.
If nobody wants to live in apartments anyway, you don’t need to ban them.
This points out one of the difficulties of who benefits. If local people pooled funds and or credit capacity they could fund much of the building in their neighborhood and thus benefit financially from those apartments. This is not commonly done, yet any group of locals could do this and dictated to the builders what they will accept. A coming trend that should be looked at is gaining vacant property to build a tiny home community. This increases density without the look.
If you want to live like a sardine in a dense, overcrowded neighborhood - go for it. If you want to live in a neighborhood zoned for single family homes - go for it!
If you don't want to see taller or denser buildings near you, you should move to the countryside.
So should we just build suburban sprawl forever? Should they be the only option?
It's all or nothing with you idiots isn't it?
@@OhTheUrbanity Do your consider Los Altos Hills the countyside?
@@ianhomerpura8937 We should discourage unsustainable population growth by making abortion legal and available to every woman that wants one, by deporting unauthroized foreign nationals and by providing tax-incentives to couples that don't have more than 2 children.
it all comes back to one thing: "don't let poors move next to me", because than the house will be on less rich neighborhood. Unaffordability is the feature, not a bug.
Lmao the zune shade 😂
The idea that one private individual could somehow restrict what another private individual does within the confines of their own property because they don't like what they're doing is simply absurd to me. I don't know how anyone could ever consider that to be valid 😂
A word on immigration anywhere you life. Often construction workers are rare and quite as often many to have a history of immigration (parents or grantparents) or are recent immigrants.
Without immigrants many construction sides would stand still, which would result in no new housing or space for Business getting build... which inturn means higher rent or housing cost for everybody.
Land Value Tax would fix this but nimbys would still probably find a way to whine about it. Blessed be Henry George
It's taboo to say it but it needs to be said, a lot of these Nimby rules and complaints are racially motivated, to keep out the undesirable ethnicities and preserve the ones already established.
That isn't taboo. It's said all the time. Taboo is to say that it is good to keep the dregs out.
Not necessarily "racially" motivated, but yeah, they don't like change... and "Others" (be they of other ethnicities, economic status, or any various groups - ie: youth center, etc) will trigger them.
I lived in Gibert, AZ and still visit from time to time. Single family homes as far as the eye can see. There are some apartment complexes, but not nearly enough to provide competition and choice for potential residents. This is especially true if you get a job with one of the major employers and can't or don't want to buy a home in the area.