No, we can't. Once could lower the rate of increase of housing prices (and, more realistically, land values), but "gentrification" isn't really just about pricing, but a change in preferences: Areas close to urban centers had low prices because people wanted to live in deep suburbs, far away from city crime and bad schools. Now they are desirable, and thus people far more affluent are going to bit outbidding the communities that live there anyway. So the gentrification is inevitable, and IMO any attempts to stop it are bad: Nobody has right to a character of the neighborhood, whether we are talking a Mexican American community or people that want racial covenants in their subdivision. The entire idea is just straight out illiberal in the broadest of senses.
It's true that the gentrification process speeds up when there is no building, as those differences in preferences mean existing tenants are competing with even richer people, and would have to move even further out, but the change in preferences still exists, and thus the gentrification is straight out unavoidable.
Besides, in almost every place where we have serious housing problems, the small changes proposed here are insufficient. When the land is expensive, the normal behavior everywhere is to redevelop plots to the maximum economically viable density. Turning 1 house into 4, which would sell for 500k each, doesn't make sense when the possibility of an apartment building is there. Single stairway apartments turn those 4 cottage homes into 16 3-4 bedroom units. If one is simplifying permitting anyway, why not simplify it for that density, and get far more out of the same land. Those 4 new cottages, now new, would not get redeveloped again for another 30, 40 years, so they would become difficult to afford really quickly. That's why you don't see many places actually attempting this low key densification, as it's way too much work for what you get.
> A developer could likely fit 3-4 nice cottage homes on that lot, sell them for $500-700k, and make a profit
Denver takes 264 days to approve "multi-family or industrial projects with a valuation in excess of $1.5 million, such as a new apartment or office building, large additions" [1]. Construction loans in Colorado cost "8% to 13%" [2]. For a project with $1.5mm up-front costs, from land purchases to permit fees and legal costs, that comes to $87 to 141 thousand per project.
This isn't as bad as San Francisco, where permiting delays alone add hundreds of thousands of dollars to housing costs. But in addition to upzoning, it's something to be considered, particularly since Denver seems to categorise practically all impactful residential development as "major commercial."
>particularly since Denver seems to categorise practically all impactful residential development as "major commercial."
This isn't an accident. They know what they're doing.
Every municipality tries to do this to the extent they think they can get away with it because it's an end run around your property right. There's all sorts of residential exemptions and precedents and case law and courts and politicians tend not to be in a hurry to screw homeowners because there's tons of them.
By classifying you as commercial it gives them a) all sorts of capricious authority to micromanage the pettiest of details and/or force you to expend money with no recourse except "haha, sue us peasant".
It's absolutely vital to homeowners that no new housing be built, to keep Undesirables from moving in, but they need to do it in a way which leaves no blood on their hands, so they can continue to have their In This House signs with no cognitive dissonance.
And this is how they get it: don't literally refuse housing, but make it economically impossible in practice. Then they can go "welp, nothing's getting built, I guess there's nothing we could've done", and as an added bonus they also get to say "looks like the free market can never fix our housing shortage!"
This is happening in large parts of the EU as well. It's pretty mind blowing. Since the mid 2010s, the new build construction rate has slowed down to alarmingly low levels. A few years before that, there was an oversupply, yet they kept building. It's totally intentional.
Unsurprisingly, affordability is so bad. In lots of major cities, a one-bed rental takes around 50% of a mid-career post-tax salary. You have become an indentured servant for whatever real estate fund owns your property. Lots of regulatory capture behind the scenes.
Ironically, some parts of the UK are now much better than most EU, including Scandinavia, with lots of shared ownership and affordable housing schemes.
> Today, the neighborhood is mixed-income with a range of families from different backgrounds
This is a good thing!
Overall I think this is simply an outcome of NIMBYism, regulators over regulating to justify their existence, and a K shaped economy.
There's nothing wrong with the market building what there is actual money in. No one should be forced to lose money to serve those who cannot afford the product. (That's the space of charities)
Denver seems to have done an amazing job, relative to other places I've been, at actually adding a lot more housing. The market likely would be _worse_ had there not been so much built (and building)
>Remove Red Tape (Environmental impact assessments
I absolutely understand what prompts this desperation, but much like the desperation that prompted the election of Trump, it's very, very much more bad than it is good.
Nope. I will f-ing yeet that baby along with the bathwater.
Every idiot (they're not even useful anymore FFS, look at the results) says this based on abstract assessments of individual rules and laws. But in practice the overall effect of the system is that all those environmental assessments and stormwater permits and all the other things aren't even speed bumps for big business interests with lawyers and engineers on staff. Those interests can construe any evil as compliant and do so at cost. The rules are unscalable cliffs to "normal" people and businesses who can't justify paying mid four to low five figures up front for projects that might not even generate that much value.
What's the problem with removing zoning? Which I interpreted, charitably, as "remove low-density zoning" and not as "let anyone build a lead smelter in their yard". (Also, a suburban area is probably not a lead smelting operation's preferred location anyway).
Environmental impact assessments are great if they actually do what they say. But they can also be weaponized to block any new development in existing cities. Forcing suburban sprawl into less populated areas is a worse outcome if you want to protect the environment.
There are millions of homes that are super cheap and no one wants to live there. I think we missed a real opportunity for WFH to allow people to move where things are more affordable, rather than having everyone live in mega cities and complain of high prices.
A rare anti-Betteridge's law of headlines article.
Yes, there are laws that, if passed, would stop or slow or even reverse the increasing price of real estate. Would they pass? Hard to say and probably not quickly.
As has been repeated many times: it's in the financial interest of people who own property to increase their property's value by constraining supply via zoning/building codes, and they usually have a good amount of influence in the local politics that determine these rules.
The solve is fairly straightforward: allow absolute maximum density so long as it is built safely.
You'll get tall apartment buildings pretty quick. Then everyone can go to the schools and enjoy the low crime and fast fire response.
But that isn't allowed because incumbents don't want it.
There's not much new about this... it's the same story all over the US.
The premise is that the author is a libertarian, except that housing in the neighborhood they live in should be fixed at the price that they can afford, and that the character of the neighborhood from the point that they moved into it should be preserved.
It's only real gentrification when upper-middle class YIMBYs get forced out.
The author acknowledges that a lot of the gentrification is the result of zoning rules, and has only proposed what are primarily less restrictive zoning rules as a potential solution.
Eh, let's take their word for it:
>But I’d like to see new homes sold at prices I could conceivably afford.
Doesn't gentrification happen not from spontaneous combos of zoning rules but when someone with money wants to live somewhere, so they do? It's part of the golden rule: he with the gold makes all the rules, unless you can go asymmetric economic warfare and fire back with zoning & NIMBY laws.
No, we can't. Once could lower the rate of increase of housing prices (and, more realistically, land values), but "gentrification" isn't really just about pricing, but a change in preferences: Areas close to urban centers had low prices because people wanted to live in deep suburbs, far away from city crime and bad schools. Now they are desirable, and thus people far more affluent are going to bit outbidding the communities that live there anyway. So the gentrification is inevitable, and IMO any attempts to stop it are bad: Nobody has right to a character of the neighborhood, whether we are talking a Mexican American community or people that want racial covenants in their subdivision. The entire idea is just straight out illiberal in the broadest of senses.
It's true that the gentrification process speeds up when there is no building, as those differences in preferences mean existing tenants are competing with even richer people, and would have to move even further out, but the change in preferences still exists, and thus the gentrification is straight out unavoidable.
Besides, in almost every place where we have serious housing problems, the small changes proposed here are insufficient. When the land is expensive, the normal behavior everywhere is to redevelop plots to the maximum economically viable density. Turning 1 house into 4, which would sell for 500k each, doesn't make sense when the possibility of an apartment building is there. Single stairway apartments turn those 4 cottage homes into 16 3-4 bedroom units. If one is simplifying permitting anyway, why not simplify it for that density, and get far more out of the same land. Those 4 new cottages, now new, would not get redeveloped again for another 30, 40 years, so they would become difficult to afford really quickly. That's why you don't see many places actually attempting this low key densification, as it's way too much work for what you get.
> A developer could likely fit 3-4 nice cottage homes on that lot, sell them for $500-700k, and make a profit
Denver takes 264 days to approve "multi-family or industrial projects with a valuation in excess of $1.5 million, such as a new apartment or office building, large additions" [1]. Construction loans in Colorado cost "8% to 13%" [2]. For a project with $1.5mm up-front costs, from land purchases to permit fees and legal costs, that comes to $87 to 141 thousand per project.
This isn't as bad as San Francisco, where permiting delays alone add hundreds of thousands of dollars to housing costs. But in addition to upzoning, it's something to be considered, particularly since Denver seems to categorise practically all impactful residential development as "major commercial."
[1] https://www.denvergov.org/Government/Agencies-Departments-Of...
[2] https://www.clearhouselending.com/commercial-loans/colorado/...
>particularly since Denver seems to categorise practically all impactful residential development as "major commercial."
This isn't an accident. They know what they're doing.
Every municipality tries to do this to the extent they think they can get away with it because it's an end run around your property right. There's all sorts of residential exemptions and precedents and case law and courts and politicians tend not to be in a hurry to screw homeowners because there's tons of them.
By classifying you as commercial it gives them a) all sorts of capricious authority to micromanage the pettiest of details and/or force you to expend money with no recourse except "haha, sue us peasant".
It's absolutely vital to homeowners that no new housing be built, to keep Undesirables from moving in, but they need to do it in a way which leaves no blood on their hands, so they can continue to have their In This House signs with no cognitive dissonance.
And this is how they get it: don't literally refuse housing, but make it economically impossible in practice. Then they can go "welp, nothing's getting built, I guess there's nothing we could've done", and as an added bonus they also get to say "looks like the free market can never fix our housing shortage!"
This is happening in large parts of the EU as well. It's pretty mind blowing. Since the mid 2010s, the new build construction rate has slowed down to alarmingly low levels. A few years before that, there was an oversupply, yet they kept building. It's totally intentional.
Unsurprisingly, affordability is so bad. In lots of major cities, a one-bed rental takes around 50% of a mid-career post-tax salary. You have become an indentured servant for whatever real estate fund owns your property. Lots of regulatory capture behind the scenes.
Ironically, some parts of the UK are now much better than most EU, including Scandinavia, with lots of shared ownership and affordable housing schemes.
> Today, the neighborhood is mixed-income with a range of families from different backgrounds
This is a good thing!
Overall I think this is simply an outcome of NIMBYism, regulators over regulating to justify their existence, and a K shaped economy.
There's nothing wrong with the market building what there is actual money in. No one should be forced to lose money to serve those who cannot afford the product. (That's the space of charities)
Denver seems to have done an amazing job, relative to other places I've been, at actually adding a lot more housing. The market likely would be _worse_ had there not been so much built (and building)
Fixing housing is incredibly easy:
1. Remove Zoning / Deed Restrictions / Parking Minimums
2. Remove Red Tape (Environmental impact assessments, time cap approvals to a couple weeks, at cost fees)
3. Land Value Taxes
Watch as Gentrification suddenly goes away and infill development occurs. These complicated schemes are unnecessary.
>Remove Zoning
>Remove Red Tape (Environmental impact assessments
I absolutely understand what prompts this desperation, but much like the desperation that prompted the election of Trump, it's very, very much more bad than it is good.
Nope. I will f-ing yeet that baby along with the bathwater.
Every idiot (they're not even useful anymore FFS, look at the results) says this based on abstract assessments of individual rules and laws. But in practice the overall effect of the system is that all those environmental assessments and stormwater permits and all the other things aren't even speed bumps for big business interests with lawyers and engineers on staff. Those interests can construe any evil as compliant and do so at cost. The rules are unscalable cliffs to "normal" people and businesses who can't justify paying mid four to low five figures up front for projects that might not even generate that much value.
Did it happen to you?
You're saying regulation is a moat for monopolists?
What's the problem with removing zoning? Which I interpreted, charitably, as "remove low-density zoning" and not as "let anyone build a lead smelter in their yard". (Also, a suburban area is probably not a lead smelting operation's preferred location anyway).
Environmental impact assessments are great if they actually do what they say. But they can also be weaponized to block any new development in existing cities. Forcing suburban sprawl into less populated areas is a worse outcome if you want to protect the environment.
I'm down with killing restrictive zoning laws. But removing regulation has not historically been a great curb for the uber-wealthy.
Agreed, the biggest boom towns have been in the South where restrictions are low and profits high, leaving some really ugly suburbs.
But they have cheap housing. I'll take ugly suburbs over people sleeping on the street.
Is gentrification a bad thing?
Neighbourhoods change, some get richer and some get poorer. That is the way of things. Both poor and rich alike need somewhere to live.
There are millions of homes that are super cheap and no one wants to live there. I think we missed a real opportunity for WFH to allow people to move where things are more affordable, rather than having everyone live in mega cities and complain of high prices.
If you're curious, why this scenario hasn't panned out. I'd highly recommend you read: The Triumph of the City
https://www.amazon.com/Triumph-City-Greatest-Invention-Healt...
Thankfully this article is about the zoning codes, not code as in computer programs.
No because gentrification is a side effect of private property, not insufficient technology.
Plans like this would be interesting to me if I believed it were possible to get all the necessary parties to agree.
You cant just 4x every plot because that would destroy the ultilties that have been allocated.
A rare anti-Betteridge's law of headlines article.
Yes, there are laws that, if passed, would stop or slow or even reverse the increasing price of real estate. Would they pass? Hard to say and probably not quickly.
As has been repeated many times: it's in the financial interest of people who own property to increase their property's value by constraining supply via zoning/building codes, and they usually have a good amount of influence in the local politics that determine these rules.
The solve is fairly straightforward: allow absolute maximum density so long as it is built safely.
You'll get tall apartment buildings pretty quick. Then everyone can go to the schools and enjoy the low crime and fast fire response.
But that isn't allowed because incumbents don't want it.
There's not much new about this... it's the same story all over the US.
> it's the same story all over the US.
At least some places are different:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47433058
The premise is that the author is a libertarian, except that housing in the neighborhood they live in should be fixed at the price that they can afford, and that the character of the neighborhood from the point that they moved into it should be preserved.
It's only real gentrification when upper-middle class YIMBYs get forced out.
Except that's not what the author argued, at all.
The author acknowledges that a lot of the gentrification is the result of zoning rules, and has only proposed what are primarily less restrictive zoning rules as a potential solution.
Eh, let's take their word for it: >But I’d like to see new homes sold at prices I could conceivably afford.
Doesn't gentrification happen not from spontaneous combos of zoning rules but when someone with money wants to live somewhere, so they do? It's part of the golden rule: he with the gold makes all the rules, unless you can go asymmetric economic warfare and fire back with zoning & NIMBY laws.