> Despite studies showing that bike paths increase property values,
Citation needed. This is an extraordinary claim; you are going to need more than one single study done on a tiny sample with no control variables.
Citation needed. This is an extraordinary claim; you are going to need more than one single study done on a tiny sample with no control variables.
I would definitely be more interested in a property with bike infrastructure, although that is just one tiny sample with no control variables:)
Well, yes, when you're talking about residential areas. Home owners don't want a wall of strangers around their home all the time - it makes it difficult to spot the ones with ill-intent.
I mean, if that wasn't true, homes in gated communities wouldn't be more expensive than standalone houses.
> I would definitely be more interested in a property with bike infrastructure, although that is just one tiny sample with no control variables:)
You'd think that (I certainly did), but the price for homes in gated communities are far far higher than the equivalent in non-gated.
Which is why I want to see this hypothetical study that shows that residential areas closed to non-residents are cheaper than residential areas open to the public.
Because, a simple look at home prices shows this to be wildly untrue.
The majority of people do not live in gated communities and even gated communities have access routes outside the gates.
That wasn't the claim the poster made. The specific claim was that bike traffic through residential areas by non-residents increase the value of properties in that residential area.
>> Read on - what they were really afraid of was the dirty/smelly poors coming onto their precious island.
>> You see the same BS with bike paths through residential neighborhoods.
GP could not have been clearer in his implication that having public traffic pass through the residential area increases the value of that property in that area.
Which is complete nonsense when you look at residential property prices in area which has a through-flow for non-residents/the public and compare to areas which are effectively gated off for residents only.
Buying a house in an area that is limited to residents traffic only is damned expensive.
I'm not sure that your own implication that property prices are inversely proportional to the ease of commute to where all the people and jobs are is well evidenced by representative studies either. Even if the GP was talking about gated communities, which he wasn't, they're still usually nowhere near as expensive as being cycling distance from central San Francisco or London.