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.
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.
NIMBYs don’t have any right nor reasonable expectation to use their precious houses as store of value. A house is a place to sleep in. That’s what the government policies should reflect.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
"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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
NIMBY's should want four-storey mixed apartments, because they're the ultimate compromise that actually makes their communities better and increases home values. I truly hate endless suburban, car dependent sprawl that misuses valuable land. I also hate super-high density transit oriented developments that have little regard for proper the urban form that makes central business districts nice - an example would be Brentwood, which is a hellish cluster of featureless ugly skyscrapers intersected two of the worst stroads in Vancouver. Yeah, there's a skytrain station and a cool redesigned outdoor mall, but outside of that, it's an area of the GVRD that I avoid like the plague because it's just so ugly and uncomfortable. My absolute favourite density would be a walkable moderate to density that has grown organically overtime, with a great mix of housing types. These are communities like Mount Pleasant, Kitsilano, Kerrisdale, Commercial Drive. You'll find a lot of single family homes alongside walkup apartments, townhomes, laneway houses, and the odd medium rise apartment sprinkled throughout. There's often a core strip of mixed used low to medium rise buildings, from simple single story commercial structures to the typical North American five-over-one with a much needed grocery store underneath. I live in one of these communities, and do remote work, so rarely do I even take the bus. I just walk to get 95% of everything I need without having to live in skyscraper hell. Even when you do have to build very high density, you can do it nicely, like with Olympic Village. That development in particular shows that you can house ten thousand people in one square kilometre of land in a bright, walkable neighbourhood with businesses, shops, amenities, and parks, while keeping towers at twenty stories or lower, with most at roughly 6-12 stories - all without a single stroad intersecting the community. Along with low rise densification and diversification of neighbourhoods, I'd most like to see ultra-walkable high density medium rise communities, as are common in Europe.
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.
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.
The only reason why I wouldn't want an apartment in my neighborhood is because my neighborhood is not walkable and has absolutely no public transit. Imagine having a traffic jam right outside my once slightly peaceful home. I would not be opposed to having public transit and walkability be a thing.
@@AmoebaInk Widening roads won't solve it, there is a 6 lane road right outside my block, I can't walk anywhere outside my neighborhood because it's way too dangerous to cross because people often like to go over 50mph on it because it's designed more like a highway. The nearest bus stop is miles away, and the only way to it is by car because the idiots in charge don't give a shit about pedestrians.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Nice video as always! Though a phantom argument for the demand is that we still haven't developed real time data statistics that can generate the reality of the demand with some estimation for the future. In some cities and suburbs we simply see buildings only due to profit driven development, and assumptions about a good development, where in reality, many of the appartments or housing units remain empty. This generates bit of a social misunderstanding
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
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 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.
Anyone can make letter head and call themselves the Whatever Street Neighborhood Association, and low and behold, the local newspaper quotes the Neighborhood Association, failing to mentioning that its an organization of 1 person that started a week ago, and conflates that person's opnion with that of the entire neighborhood! That should be malpractice for newspapers! And why listen to neighborhood groups, whom no one elected, instead of the city council person who actually ran in a democratic election for that neighborhood and won. Who has legitimacy to speak for others? What sort of democracy are we becoming when we defer to those to didn't win or even run for office.
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.
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.
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?
Difference is that you don’t need to drive unless you live in an environment that necessitates it but you always need a home. As such the economics of shelter is more comparable to food or heating. So long you have legislation to keep second homes, Air bnb and luxury housing in check, housing is subject to the same laws of supply and demand that food and heating is. Transportation is unique in induced demand.
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.
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.
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!
Never in my backyard!! Suck it up!! It actually can increase your property value. Look at Arbutus Walk in Vancouver's west side...beautiful designs and now all over 1 million.
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
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.
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.
To be fair to the nimby, the apartments that have been built in edmonton have been that ugly depressing modern style. I think there should be more apartments around that area, i just wish they didn't make them hideous
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.
We should! But you shouldn't be surprised that most of the people who oppose private development for being too tall/big/dense also oppose social housing for being too tall/big/dense.
I can't get over the fact that some people are actually terrified that developers will build an apartment building next to their detached single-family house. The horror! I'm shaking in my boots just thinking about that possibility! Can someone explain to me what the rationale of this is? The only one I can think of is maybe depreciating property value for the standalone houses, but there are a lot of variables at play there. Heck, wouldn't a single-family detached home with a backyard and a front yard increase in value in that scenario? Like, "these filthy poors have to live in apartments, but I get to live luxuriously in my McMansion!"
A common belief is that developers keep apartments empty, on purpose, for a tax write-off. You do see retail spots kept empty for this purpose so it's believable if you're looking for a reason to be against developers or new housing.
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.
I mean everyone is just pushing for their own interests. I do think that if there is a vast majority comprised by people who dont want the change then why should it be done? At the end of the day, they are the ones that live there. If they dont want more people in their towns and have to pay more for the town services it is also their right.
Flip side of coin: if you build a 200 storey appartment tower in a suburb, you need to consider local road capacity , parking lot capacity etc, especially if suburb not well served by transit which means alpartment dwellers will be car dependant. on other hand, if you build 3 or 4 storey appartments, the impact on suburban roads will not be as bad and this may help justify more transit.
More housing needs to be built, but it can't be ugly 5-over-1s. Those buildings are so ugly that just 3 or 4 of them can ruin an entire neighborhoods character. There have been plenty of projects out there that at least try to replicate the style of a neighborhood while keeping costs low, but 99% of developers just don't care. They know that rich people will buy it either way. (and most of those buildings are NOT affordable.)
5-over-1s just means wood frame (type 5) over steel frame (type 1) and can look good. But current-day architects are trained to make ugly buildings on purpose because traditionally beautiful buildings are "kitch" (aka trash).
@@TheFarix2723 they can look good, but they almost never do. I dont know much about architecture, but all I know is that if they continue making our neigbhorhoods ugly, it's gonna ruin ever city we have. Check out 1333 N 2nd St, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on google street view. The building across the street is completely out of place in the historic neighborhood and strips the city of it's identity. In 20 years, none of those original houses besides a few will stand in any cities and they will all look the same.
I agree that we must get rid of arbitrary single family dwelling rules. I find the most affordable housing to be mid-rise with commercial plazas at the bottom floor. That's what I currently rent for under $1200CAD for a two bedroom. I only moved in a few years ago so I'm not 'grandfathered in' either. The retail plaza midrise blends commercial & residential zones seamlessly. It provides a more stable income to the landlord and provides shopping for residents. It provides parking for shoppers and tenants. Plus some residents are business owners in the same building so they may save money on taxes if their business and residence are located at the same address.
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 😂
I lived in NYC for 20 years. I paid taxes for services I never used for 20 years and I am cool with that. It is my job to support a functioning society. However, when I moved to a small village, it is because I wanted to live in a small village. I paid a premium for that pleasure. I pay school tax and I don’t have kids and I am ok with that. But, I purposely paid a premium to be in a quieter place. They built a luxury low rise in the middle village - it looks out of place. I don’t care that they are million dollar condos.
Could be that many new places are sold to overseas investors and left empty in worst case (bought to park capital out of their country). Another possibility is the new places will be rented out and bring in a different social demographic from before. The main complainant has valid concerns that the local politicians need to address for their constituents in this type of system.
This is the other side of the one more lane argument: lanes are not added unless there is demand and they don't actually create demand, they simply meet the demand that exists. The reason they can't keep up is because highway projects don't know of demand from people who just gave up trying to use that highway stretch. But even if they don't use it, the demand is still there much in the same way that there is housing demand even if people are not camping on the streets with "build more housing" signs next to a suburb. Therefore, much like one more lane, adding an apartment tower in a residential area does not create more demand, it simply meets what is already there. Induced demand is a fallacy in both cases regardless for you can build so much to not be able to fill up the apartments, and build so many lanes you exceed the demand. In the end, it doesn't matter how you see this. Both camps are just championing their biases.
sure your right...though what's needed MOST is...Mixed-Use Structures. Transportation (& parking!) is always a hassle the densier a built-environment becomes, & fast! Incorporating even small-scale industrial usage, along with markets/tech/retail/office/...spaces, mixed-throughout appropriately, would be of best-benefit to its human-residences. Man...I gotta write that idea down :-) Or make it our mantra?!...
When I see big developments in my neighbourhood, I see more people who will need a car to get to their mailbox. Our curbless streets, which were made way too wide to facilitate on street parking are getting lined with ‘no parking’ signs. Without all the zoning restrictions, we could have more, smaller developments with mixed use buildings and avoid most of those NIMBY fears they have ironically designed
People want to protect their property values. They often say they believe in solving the housing crisis, but not at the expense of property values. Fuck your property values! They *must* come down! That's the entire point! They're not separate concepts.
There is one problem: Airbnb is the death of inner cities, in particular for those cities that have limited space. See Amsterdam, Paris, Berlin, Rome, Barcelona and others. Better to build hôtels for tourist, not Airbnb.
"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.
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
The developers are interested in profit, but so are the nimbys.
NIMBYs don’t have any right nor reasonable expectation to use their precious houses as store of value. A house is a place to sleep in. That’s what the government policies should reflect.
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.
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.
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!
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.
"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
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.
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.
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.
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!
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 😂
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
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
"Start paying attention or you may live next to an apartment"
oh the horror
Cara Mendehlson is such a pain in the arse to those of us who want a better city. She also hates public transit and wants more stroads.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
The only way a city can continue to function is density. Single family homes are subsidized by apartment owners. That not fair.
Boosted population density also increases tax density, meaning that local public services don't have to be subsidized by the city.
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.
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.
NIMBY's should want four-storey mixed apartments, because they're the ultimate compromise that actually makes their communities better and increases home values. I truly hate endless suburban, car dependent sprawl that misuses valuable land. I also hate super-high density transit oriented developments that have little regard for proper the urban form that makes central business districts nice - an example would be Brentwood, which is a hellish cluster of featureless ugly skyscrapers intersected two of the worst stroads in Vancouver. Yeah, there's a skytrain station and a cool redesigned outdoor mall, but outside of that, it's an area of the GVRD that I avoid like the plague because it's just so ugly and uncomfortable.
My absolute favourite density would be a walkable moderate to density that has grown organically overtime, with a great mix of housing types. These are communities like Mount Pleasant, Kitsilano, Kerrisdale, Commercial Drive. You'll find a lot of single family homes alongside walkup apartments, townhomes, laneway houses, and the odd medium rise apartment sprinkled throughout. There's often a core strip of mixed used low to medium rise buildings, from simple single story commercial structures to the typical North American five-over-one with a much needed grocery store underneath.
I live in one of these communities, and do remote work, so rarely do I even take the bus. I just walk to get 95% of everything I need without having to live in skyscraper hell.
Even when you do have to build very high density, you can do it nicely, like with Olympic Village. That development in particular shows that you can house ten thousand people in one square kilometre of land in a bright, walkable neighbourhood with businesses, shops, amenities, and parks, while keeping towers at twenty stories or lower, with most at roughly 6-12 stories - all without a single stroad intersecting the community. Along with low rise densification and diversification of neighbourhoods, I'd most like to see ultra-walkable high density medium rise communities, as are common in Europe.
Glad to see this movement taking off, even in America.
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.
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.
The only reason why I wouldn't want an apartment in my neighborhood is because my neighborhood is not walkable and has absolutely no public transit. Imagine having a traffic jam right outside my once slightly peaceful home. I would not be opposed to having public transit and walkability be a thing.
The increased density might put pressure to expand public transit.
Walkable ≠ Accessable. Accessable = walkable
@@Denastus thank you
@@tisvana18 not in my town, nope. nimbys insist that the people in apartments must drive for every trip.
@@AmoebaInk Widening roads won't solve it, there is a 6 lane road right outside my block, I can't walk anywhere outside my neighborhood because it's way too dangerous to cross because people often like to go over 50mph on it because it's designed more like a highway. The nearest bus stop is miles away, and the only way to it is by car because the idiots in charge don't give a shit about pedestrians.
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 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.
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.
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).
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
side note; 1:36 is such a gorgeous sidewalk. the tree shade makes me envious
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.
'utterly destroyed' by, *checks notes* building more housing. the sheer depravity
I need more strategies, talking points, successful lobbying tactics to take to city deciders.
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.
Thanks for mentioning Euclid v. Ambler. This Supreme Court case is the reason for all of our troubles on this topic.
Nice video as always! Though a phantom argument for the demand is that we still haven't developed real time data statistics that can generate the reality of the demand with some estimation for the future. In some cities and suburbs we simply see buildings only due to profit driven development, and assumptions about a good development, where in reality, many of the appartments or housing units remain empty. This generates bit of a social misunderstanding
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
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 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.
Absolute banger! So good I watched it twice in a row
Anyone can make letter head and call themselves the Whatever Street Neighborhood Association, and low and behold, the local newspaper quotes the Neighborhood Association, failing to mentioning that its an organization of 1 person that started a week ago, and conflates that person's opnion with that of the entire neighborhood! That should be malpractice for newspapers! And why listen to neighborhood groups, whom no one elected, instead of the city council person who actually ran in a democratic election for that neighborhood and won. Who has legitimacy to speak for others? What sort of democracy are we becoming when we defer to those to didn't win or even run for office.
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.
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.
Increase density or prices rise, simple.
They rise anyways toys argument doesn't hold water
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?
Difference is that you don’t need to drive unless you live in an environment that necessitates it but you always need a home. As such the economics of shelter is more comparable to food or heating. So long you have legislation to keep second homes, Air bnb and luxury housing in check, housing is subject to the same laws of supply and demand that food and heating is. Transportation is unique in induced demand.
@@allergy5634 Ty, you've given me lots to consider
@@Reepecheepno prob mate 👍
Lmao the zune shade 😂
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.
Private Dev in TO has delivered tons of tiny condos with drywall so thin you can KoolAid man through walls
Great video, sad how many still spread FUD about housing.
We’re way past frontier days. Time for civilization. Plus make them pay taxes to cover cost of roads.
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.
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!
Never in my backyard!! Suck it up!! It actually can increase your property value. Look at Arbutus Walk in Vancouver's west side...beautiful designs and now all over 1 million.
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
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.
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.
Merci pour la vidéo! Bonne saint Valentin à clous deux 🌷
To be fair to the nimby, the apartments that have been built in edmonton have been that ugly depressing modern style. I think there should be more apartments around that area, i just wish they didn't make them hideous
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.
Land Value Tax would fix this but nimbys would still probably find a way to whine about it. Blessed be Henry George
ok so hear me out, if developers being greedy and seeking profit, why don't we build more
✨ social housing ✨
We should! But you shouldn't be surprised that most of the people who oppose private development for being too tall/big/dense also oppose social housing for being too tall/big/dense.
I can't get over the fact that some people are actually terrified that developers will build an apartment building next to their detached single-family house. The horror! I'm shaking in my boots just thinking about that possibility!
Can someone explain to me what the rationale of this is? The only one I can think of is maybe depreciating property value for the standalone houses, but there are a lot of variables at play there. Heck, wouldn't a single-family detached home with a backyard and a front yard increase in value in that scenario? Like, "these filthy poors have to live in apartments, but I get to live luxuriously in my McMansion!"
So do a case study on Texas specifically san antonio and the 2023 housing crash. How rents exceeded demand.
"We don't need anymore apartments"
That's the royal we, what they mean is "*I* don't need anymore apartments" !
A common belief is that developers keep apartments empty, on purpose, for a tax write-off.
You do see retail spots kept empty for this purpose so it's believable if you're looking for a reason to be against developers or new housing.
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.
thank you so much for articulating many of the frustrations i have, in a very palatable way
I mean everyone is just pushing for their own interests. I do think that if there is a vast majority comprised by people who dont want the change then why should it be done? At the end of the day, they are the ones that live there. If they dont want more people in their towns and have to pay more for the town services it is also their right.
Flip side of coin: if you build a 200 storey appartment tower in a suburb, you need to consider local road capacity , parking lot capacity etc, especially if suburb not well served by transit which means alpartment dwellers will be car dependant. on other hand, if you build 3 or 4 storey appartments, the impact on suburban roads will not be as bad and this may help justify more transit.
Relaxing regulations and reducing immigration seems a good compromise
More housing needs to be built, but it can't be ugly 5-over-1s. Those buildings are so ugly that just 3 or 4 of them can ruin an entire neighborhoods character. There have been plenty of projects out there that at least try to replicate the style of a neighborhood while keeping costs low, but 99% of developers just don't care. They know that rich people will buy it either way. (and most of those buildings are NOT affordable.)
5-over-1s just means wood frame (type 5) over steel frame (type 1) and can look good. But current-day architects are trained to make ugly buildings on purpose because traditionally beautiful buildings are "kitch" (aka trash).
@@TheFarix2723 they can look good, but they almost never do. I dont know much about architecture, but all I know is that if they continue making our neigbhorhoods ugly, it's gonna ruin ever city we have. Check out 1333 N 2nd St, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on google street view. The building across the street is completely out of place in the historic neighborhood and strips the city of it's identity. In 20 years, none of those original houses besides a few will stand in any cities and they will all look the same.
In a lot of cases these buildings are specifically designed to pass muster with the city's architectural review board.
In the first ten seconds I thought, "Oh, this is about that building proposal here in Palo Alto, CA." Even the map looked familiar.
City people who don't want development should move to the country
I agree that we must get rid of arbitrary single family dwelling rules. I find the most affordable housing to be mid-rise with commercial plazas at the bottom floor. That's what I currently rent for under $1200CAD for a two bedroom. I only moved in a few years ago so I'm not 'grandfathered in' either.
The retail plaza midrise blends commercial & residential zones seamlessly. It provides a more stable income to the landlord and provides shopping for residents. It provides parking for shoppers and tenants. Plus some residents are business owners in the same building so they may save money on taxes if their business and residence are located at the same address.
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 😂
I lived in NYC for 20 years. I paid taxes for services I never used for 20 years and I am cool with that. It is my job to support a functioning society. However, when I moved to a small village, it is because I wanted to live in a small village. I paid a premium for that pleasure. I pay school tax and I don’t have kids and I am ok with that. But, I purposely paid a premium to be in a quieter place. They built a luxury low rise in the middle village - it looks out of place. I don’t care that they are million dollar condos.
Could be that many new places are sold to overseas investors and left empty in worst case (bought to park capital out of their country). Another possibility is the new places will be rented out and bring in a different social demographic from before. The main complainant has valid concerns that the local politicians need to address for their constituents in this type of system.
Based on my personal observations residents of high density cities display much more anger.
This is the other side of the one more lane argument: lanes are not added unless there is demand and they don't actually create demand, they simply meet the demand that exists. The reason they can't keep up is because highway projects don't know of demand from people who just gave up trying to use that highway stretch. But even if they don't use it, the demand is still there much in the same way that there is housing demand even if people are not camping on the streets with "build more housing" signs next to a suburb. Therefore, much like one more lane, adding an apartment tower in a residential area does not create more demand, it simply meets what is already there. Induced demand is a fallacy in both cases regardless for you can build so much to not be able to fill up the apartments, and build so many lanes you exceed the demand. In the end, it doesn't matter how you see this. Both camps are just championing their biases.
sure your right...though what's needed MOST is...Mixed-Use Structures. Transportation (& parking!) is always a hassle the densier a built-environment becomes, & fast! Incorporating even small-scale industrial usage, along with markets/tech/retail/office/...spaces, mixed-throughout appropriately, would be of best-benefit to its human-residences. Man...I gotta write that idea down :-) Or make it our mantra?!...
When I see big developments in my neighbourhood, I see more people who will need a car to get to their mailbox. Our curbless streets, which were made way too wide to facilitate on street parking are getting lined with ‘no parking’ signs.
Without all the zoning restrictions, we could have more, smaller developments with mixed use buildings and avoid most of those NIMBY fears they have ironically designed
Only problem is a single developer can build enough apartments and condos to monopolize the housing costs for a neighborhood.
People want to protect their property values. They often say they believe in solving the housing crisis, but not at the expense of property values. Fuck your property values! They *must* come down! That's the entire point! They're not separate concepts.
There is one problem: Airbnb is the death of inner cities, in particular for those cities that have limited space. See Amsterdam, Paris, Berlin, Rome, Barcelona and others. Better to build hôtels for tourist, not Airbnb.
Extra housing puts the power in the hands of the people.