Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I don't see where I say anything about those, you might be assuming things here. The whole point is to maintain many of those houses affordability and current residents. If done right, property taxes should not increase significantly, and the local government has the levers to ensure that if they make it a priority.

> Those luxury buildings are going exclusively into poor neighborhoods because they have the cheapest land and least restrictions.

That sounds like what the cities should precisely fix. Use zoning and legislation to herd these buildings into more desirable places. Real estate will still come and build. Many cities have done this before, this is very much possible.

If not private, then we get back to the idea of public housing being built. This is much more of a political longshot, but I think it would actually be quite interesting to see public housing at the top of the market. "Affordable housing" approaches are a bandaid on the issue. By the city building the luxury buildings themselves, they can select the exact places they want them instead of just generally herding.




Cities generally want poor neigbourhoods to get developed and upgraded; if a poor neighbourhood becomes a rich neighbourhood, that's a win for the city, no matter if it's populated by the same or different inhabitants. Cities can focus and redirect development in various ways, but they are explicitly redirecting that development to the poor neighbourhoods because they don't want these neighbourhoods to stay poor.


For many in SF, they should imagine a Fillmore district with ~3000 more Victorians. Because that's what got bulldozed by enlightenment.

https://hoodline.com/2016/01/how-urban-renewal-destroyed-the...


This is a really good point. Urban redevelopment can go awry and lead to reduced density if not planned well.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: