the art of writing is discovering what you believe
Speculators are already amassing land near cities for warehouses. Roads are cheaper than railroads and in many cases are already in place.
The prospect of self-driving trucks could further intensify a land grab near big cities, one that is already fueled in part by the increase in long-haul trucking during the pandemic.
Yes, because propertarians like the Seattle city council president (I’m sure every city has city council members or mayors who think the same way) value extractive economies over productive ones… district 5 has large, visible swathes of unused, developable land held as investments when it could be developed. If land was subject to rents that reflected its productive value, rather than taxed as a speculative hedge, Seattle would be the wealthy city people think it is. But the reality is it’s a poor city with some wealthy people making a lot of money extracting wages from rents. Wealthy land owners would rather invest in eco blocks to ensure no one parks on their land (when an earlier posse of vigilantes were turned away), because property rights outweigh human rights.
When I hear people talking up the virtues of ADUs and micro flats — more rental opportunities — this is the future I think they want.
Imagine distilling your life to fit in just 7 square metres. There would just about be space for a bed, a toilet and shower, a sink, a microwave and some storage. But no room for a kitchen to cook in, decorations, a place to store equipment for hobbies, or to have anyone round to visit.
[…]
The flat is an example of what experts say is a growing phenomenon of tiny homes, driven by soaring rent and property prices. Microflats are becoming more sought-after and even smaller, they say.
[…]
The owner has already recouped their investment by getting £800 in rent each month. The current tenant lives elsewhere for most of the time and spends just a night or two each week in the flat as it is closer to work.
I agree with this:
Julia Rugg, a research fellow at York University’s Centre for Housing Policy, said the Clapton sale reflected the “inflated nature of the housing market in London” and said it would be a “worrying development” if microflats were seen as a solution to housing affordability.
And while this might work in a city like London with nearby food options, not all cities offer that.
“This is accommodation that is barely suitable as a hotel room, and does not constitute sustainable liveable space. The property lacks comfort or amenity and forces reliance on disposable items. The neighbourhood may well be awash with bars and cafes but relying on these for living space makes life very expensive,” she said.
Zoning and land-use policies often prevent people from relying on the market to provide the things they can’t provide for themselves…
[Update] Seven-square-metre ‘posh cell’ in Lower Clapton fetches £90,000 at auction.
All you really need to read is the author info…or just do a quick Ctrl-F for “radical”…
I read that as “Christopher Kirk wants to go back to the 1970s and to that end has served on public historic preservation and design review boards which are a big reason why nothing ever changes.”
And I am not the only one to see that…Given the tone of that opening, I am sure you will be shocked to learn that Christopher Kirk is a 73-year-old white guy.
Horseshit like “a convenient but inflammatory and erroneous way to justify a radical, top-down, across-the-board redefinition of our residential land-use patterns” or “a radical, ill-conceived, statewide rezoning which will have unpredictable effects on the character of your neighborhood” could come out out of the press office of Rafael Edward Cruz (R Self-interest).
The fastest and most efficient way to develop housing is to build large, multifamily projects, and studies repeatedly show that Seattle’s multifamily zones have enough capacity to meet projected needs. These zones are on major transit lines and close to shopping and work areas. Multifamily housing can either be apartments or condominiums, so a variety of economic levels and ownership options can coexist. Seattle’s carefully developed urban-villages plan is based on this concept.
So why isn’t it being built? We know from the Times’ own coverage that construction lags demand. Maybe the “carefully developed urban-villages plan” is terrible?
More, denser housing won’t necessarily mean more affordable housing. Many large cities are denser than Seattle, yet their housing costs are often much higher. Also, even massive housing construction will not fix problems related to inadequate mental-health care, drug addiction or people choosing to live outside normal society.
He’s right on this but not for the reasons he would want to be: there is no affordable housing without affordable land. A quick perusal of rents in Paris — 6 times as dense as Seattle — doesn’t reveal rents that are 6x as high as Seattle. And yes, more valuable locations have higher rents, just as rents in Spokane and Sultan are less than Seattle. Location has value. And land is finite, unlike demand for land as population grows, which is why housing costs rise. The price to acquire land rises with population, as David Ricardo explained 200 years ago, and rents rise to meet rising wages, as Henry George explained in the late 1800s. And the casual hand-off of blame to the victims of mental health and opioids, rather than the society that creates those issues, tracks perfectly.
They completely change the nature of neighborhoods while creating housing that doesn’t work well for families with children, or most older people, and they are not particularly affordable.
This thinly-veiled “do you want those people as your neighbors?” passage is a key part of the argument: We asked for workers; we got people instead says it all. Seattlites want to be served but don’t want to see the servants. “Neighborhood character” is often used to make people think about the people they might have to see, who might listen to music they don’t like or cook food they don’t enjoy.
Further, massive, one-size-fits-all rezoning is unprecedented and a terrible shift in public policy.
This is actually beautiful in its self-delusion. What the ^%&^% does he think single family homes are but “one size fits all” zoning? What he objects to is expanding the club and this has one of my key takeaways from my time in Seattle…that clubs — swimming pools, tennis clubs, etc — are as strong here as they are anywhere. We have public pools, more than in Atlanta, but we have more private pools — “swim clubs” — as well.
Redlining and discriminatory covenants affected many single-family neighborhoods in the past, but that does not mean single-family neighborhoods are inherently discriminatory today. Neighborhoods were discriminatory because of shameful, racist, private business practices related to sales, covenants and mortgages, not because of zoning laws. To address past inequities, it makes sense to develop proactive programs to help disadvantaged groups make up for past discrimination and have more housing options, including ownership, rather than eliminating the entire category of single-family housing for everyone.
The Seattle Process, on display…create a program with consultations and committees and whatever dilatory processes are needed to ensure nothing ever happens.
Single-family housing is more expensive because it has more open space and vegetation, more living space, more peace and quiet, and more stable populations of long-term neighbors who know each other — all reasons why people pay more to live in single-family neighborhoods.
A bit of a tautology here…let’s be clear, that single family homes are essentially houses surrounded by private parks, versus more dense housing that allows more public parks and that denser housing can take many forms, including apartment buildings, duplexes, row houses, etc. Yes, land is expensive, due to scarcity, and whatever houses the most people per square foot is best. Unless people like the author want to assign a maximum population for Seattle — cap it at 500,000, say — and let the bidding commence for the 85 square miles of land therein.
In the last 10 years, much of commercial Seattle has been bulldozed and redeveloped, and/or allowed to lapse into disrepair, chaos and crime.
Oh, good, more oooga booga nonsense. He claims to know a lot of about Seattle but is he aware that a 1.3 acre parcel of land sits idle downtown, right across from City Hall, and that land has been a hole in the ground since 2005? There are many under-used or disused parcels around Seattle but to have the old SPD HQ building demo’d in 2005 and still sitting idle should be an embarrassment to everyone who works in City Hall from the mayor to the city council. Not that Mayor Teargas was capable of embarrassment and the council seem little better.
Only Seattle’s traditional single-family neighborhoods have remained healthy and maintained their unique character. Polls show that most people prefer to live in single-family homes, so if these neighborhoods disappear it seems likely that people will start moving to the suburbs as they did in the 1960s.
Scary nonsense like this, with vague threats about neighborhood character (people who don’t look like me and won’t cut their grass like I want it cut), is just part of the plan to keep Seattle a collection of car-dependent suburbs rather than a city with all kinds of serendipitous connections and experiences. Every week I see lists of “10 things to do in Seattle this weekend” and I wonder “why just 10?” and at the same time I wonder why I have to plan? Why can’t I just go out and find things that are happening? One reason is I live in a car-dependent suburb out in D5. I can get to other places by bus/rail but mostly downtown…not across down. Seattle has not yet recreated the Interurban railway and streetcar lines it was bequeathed and decided to destroy in favor of cars.
If you do not support a radical, ill-conceived, statewide rezoning which will have unpredictable effects on the character of your neighborhood and the value of your home, please ask your state lawmakers to vote against House Bill 1782 and Senate Bill 5670, and follow up with your city council.
But on the other hand, if you want to tell aging cretins like the author that they are past their sell-by date, ask your state lawmakers to make Seattle and Washington for everyone.
The lease runs for 80 years and URW has agreed to pay city hall €2m a year for its duration.
That’s €160,000,000 over the course of the lease: running a FV calculation on that means that even a 1% annual bump would boost that to €243,343,043.44…about 50% over the term. Does anyone think that Paris will decline in value over the next 80 years? A lot of money to leave on the table…
This piece explores two ideas…that density will allow people to stay in their neighborhoods, if not their homes, but will upset the neighborhood character and that density will destroy neighborhoods, as single family assetshomes are replaced by multifamily developments…that are meant to be contradictory. From both viewpoints, people are being priced out, whether due to an inability to remake their home to accommodate new needs or as rising land values turn homes into teardown.
“If you can’t allow incremental change in neighborhoods, they’re going to be torn down and be completely rebuilt over time, as homeowners need to seek other solutions that work for their families.”
I guess it depends on what you think makes neighborhood character…the buildings or the neighbors themselves. Looks a lot to me like the buildings matter more than the people, just as cars are more important than anyone who needs to get around. It’s propertarianism, all the way down.
It’s not “warehouse space” so much as land. The scarcity has always been there: now would be a good time for cities to take advantage of it…
Logistics firms are taking several steps to deal with the scarcity of storage space, like signing deals for new space long before ground is broken and expanding searches for sites farther from coastal ports, to such areas as Knoxville, Tenn.; the Lehigh Valley in Pennsylvania; and Reno, Nev.
They are also reimagining the commercial warehouse space they already occupy. And in densely populated areas where land is scarce and zoning restrictive, they are vying to build taller warehouses or spread their goods to smaller spaces such as vacant storefronts that were shuttered during the pandemic.
And this should not be possible: ground rents/land value taxes would prevent stockpiling or hoarding undeveloped or unused land.
Adding to the space crunch, companies aren’t just amassing goods for future sales, they are also stockpiling warehouse space when they can, even if they aren’t yet able to fill it, said Greg Sanguinetti, president of Pro Group Logistics in Sparks, Nev.
“But if it costs too much, people won’t build there…” Of course, they won’t, if it costs too much: the problem we have here is that it costs too little and speculators are taking the profits. Either the location is worth building on or not.
But city officials and the budget/finance people who advise them see land values as some kind of natural force, like weather, to be endured and dressed for, rather than managed. Similar to traffic. On the one hand, you might feel like a city has arrived when it has a traffic reporter but on the other, you have someone whose job it is to monitor the daily waste of people’s time and the resulting environmental damage from a man-made problem, entirely preventable.
Because a 1/10th acre parcel is only worth $14.4 million because of its location, not from anything located on it.
The lot where a McDonald’s long operated at a gateway to Amazon.com Inc.’s high-rise campus in downtown Seattle sold on Friday for $14.4 million — over three times more than what it did in 2016, months after Amazon opened the first tower.
Due to the site’s tiny size (less than a
hundredthtenth of an acre) its quirky, triangular shape, and prominent location where Sixth and Westlake avenues cross Virginia Street, the property is a bit of [a] landmark.
It tripled in value since 2016 and for the same reason it commanded that price…location, proximity, nothing else.
Using the Mercer Metric, that land could be paying 1/10 of a million dollars in rent over 99 years…that would come out to $42,102,307.71 over that term with the same 2.5% annual increase. Annualized — dividing that by the 99 years to get a revenue number we can borrow against — it comes out to $425,275.84. Right now, it pays about $60,000 a year.
UPDATE: I let the reporter know about his 10-fold error on the size of the parcel but he reiterated that the value of the land is driven by the presence of a bank. As he writes:
The recent history of the property reflects what has occurred all around it since Amazon opened its first downtown tower in late 2015.
The next summer a local investor group, including Meriwether Advisors brokers Doug Barrett and David Rothrock, and Newmark broker Paul Sleeth, paid $4 million for the property when property values started to rise along with rents.
[…]
It would be tougher to make a big rent payment selling burgers and fries to passersby than it likely is for the largest bank by asset size in the U.S. catering to the financial services needs of the thousands of high-salaried Amazon workers across the street.The two-story, 8,100-square-foot branch is the largest the bank has built in Washington in more than four decades, according to Chase. Last summer, it had eight full-time employees.
The new owner is a limited liability company affiliated with Boston-based Fidelity Investments.
No one pays $14 million for a parcel that small just to house a retail bank branch that employs 8 people. Does anyone really think the folks at Amazon do a lot of face to face banking? The land is an investment, owned by investors, not the bank itself. The scarcity of land in a dynamic economy is what drives these prices, not the work being done on that land. “When property values started to rise along with rents” would be more correctly stated as “when speculators raised rents to capture the value of scarcity.” This isn’t like the tides or phases of the moon. This is the landlord’s game.
All the investors need is enough to cover the property taxes…that’s about $5k/month for that location, albeit, a small portion of that location. A ground rent might pay as much as seven times the current property taxes. A swap for some other land, a plan to assemble a larger parcel, some way to block another investor from assembling one…who knows? What we do know is that putting a bank on it has bupkis to do with the value. The value is in the land.
Too much to excerpt but the author hits all the key points…that rents rise with wages and landlords take the spoils, that the cost to build has not risen nearly as fast as the cost of the building site, that density drives innovation and wealth creation/opportunity, that reducing travel/commuting distance will reduce carbon emissions and slow climate change.
The question I have to ask after reading such a well-formed argument is, who doesn’t want all of that? Who doesn’t want an end to inequality and pollution and intergenerational unfairness? Ask yourself who didn’t want democracy or the emancipation of slaves and why? Who opposes trade unions or minimum wage laws and why? The potential gains are clear yet people will still hold onto their status, their power. The same people who rail against homeless encampments or panhandlers at traffic lights will vote against housing density or anything that affects “neighborhood character.”
Why do the super-rich treat affordable housing in the Bronx as a lucrative asset class?
Because there is no such thing as affordable housing without affordable land and the Bronx is not where I would look for it…
Recapture the value of the land through a ground rent or land value tax and you break the cycle of gentrification and people made homeless through unaffordable housing. Or just continue to allow the few to exploit the needs of the many — to have a safe place to live — and wonder why nothing changes.