Conversation

Maybe. Increased housing density isn’t always good. Rich people might leave your city entirely if they can’t have a big house on a big lot. You have to put them somewhere too. And where do you draw the line with unit size minimums, building height maximums, parking, etc?
2
lol, nobody would force anyone to sell their mansions. all upzoning does is make it legal for someone who lives in a mansion to turn that into apartments if they wish.
1
7
Yeah but you may effectively force a sale by significantly downgrading the quality of life for a neighboring property through overbuilding. Let’s say your neighbors on both sides tear down their 4br houses and build 40br sky rises? Now you’re dealing with 10x noise, traffic, etc.
1
"overbuilding" in the middle of San Francisco blocks away from muni metro isn't really a thing. Plus, all upzoning proposals \have <10 story buildings in this area, not skyscrapers. i fear that you're just coming up with hypotheticals to justify NIMBYism
1
11
I’m just saying that it’s super costly to hold the threat of arbitrary, unpredictable zoning changes over the real estate market. When you buy a house, you’re betting on the future. Would be different if the gov only leased land out and told everyone up front about changes coming
1
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
It’s the eventual buyers and the price of uncertainty. If I think there’s a 50% chance my neighbor’s house is torn down to build a 200-unit skyscraper in the next 10 years, I might discount the value by 50% vs having certainty it wouldn’t happen for 50 years.
2
Having a view of the city from the park is sickening. Should probably tear those old, wooden wastes of land down and put up a giant, 10-story concrete apartment complex.
1
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Show replies