Hacker News Reader

Comment by yholio | Hacker News Reader

Upzoning increases the value of the land, but decreases the value of pre-existing built square footage, since it's no longer an exclusivist area. If you have a brand new mansion built to the highest standards on the premise that it will be located in a tranquil neighborhood you might be on the net losing side if an apartment building is approved next door.

In any case, you need to tear down your existing home in order to realize any gains, which few people are willing to do.

View on HN

yes, the value of upzoning accrues to land value, not the real property that sits on it, but the rest of your conclusion doesn't follow.

when demand outstrips supply adding a different type of supply (like an apartment building) won't depress prices materially (for detached single family residences). they're different market segments.

also, you don't need to tear down the home to realize gains, since, as you yourself said, the value accrues to the land, not the building. the price would immediately incorporate that value, without the need to replace the structure atop.

if you also want to gain rental income, then yes, you'd need to replace the structure, but that's an investment to unlock a different income stream.

>when demand outstrips supply adding a different type of supply (like an apartment building) won't depress prices materially (for detached single family residences). they're different market segments.

That's not how the real world works. In the real world, people who want to live in a single family home also want to live in a low density area. No one wants a single family home if there's a bunch of apartment buildings across the street.

in the real world, buying the houses across the street let's you decide what sits there.

No it doesn't, that's the whole point of this bill.

Yes, and to add to this: most landowners don't benefit from upzoning; only a few do. That's why, in general, most of them oppose upzoning.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com