I'm gonna call BS on this. https://streets.mn/2016/10/13/dense-dev ... riors-too/ (seriously please read that and many other pieces by actual market-oriented urbanists who think critically about the political, regulatory, cost, and industry structures at play yet still advocate for market-infill in places that aren't polluted arterials or in freeway armpits - you might find a shred of morality in some of us).beige_box wrote: ↑March 9th, 2017, 7:31 pmDude, I was only defending a project you and I probably both support. You're the one who seems eager to derail the thread just because you didn't like my rationale. Anyway, I don't see why it's controversial to point out that the market puts up far bigger barriers to building affordable housing at more valuable locations.
I've found planners (and of course Concerned Residents) are the ones who believe that dense development belongs on busy/polluted streets. There are scores and scores of apartment buildings put up in the 1910s-40s and again in the 50s-70s all in neighborhood interiors, and they are what led to widespread downzoning. We made it so more local, smaller builders (the Landers and Turkey Guys of the world) barely exist anymore. I find the argument that low-income renters or owners living in filtered down units are more prone to live in lower quality/lower efficiency/higher rate of needed repairs/etc compelling. We need high quality new housing for low income people and high quality old housing for low income people (we need stronger enforcement of codes already on the books with some sort of way to make sure owners can afford it), but there is literally no program on the planet where rich and old alike don't live in old units across the city.
[mods move this to small-scale infill or wherever, asap]