site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   29421 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 31, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

12
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

they want to live in suburbs, New York City, and nothing in between

Or is it rather that outside of New York City, a handful of other small cities and college towns, nowhere else in America provides a relatively safe dense, walkable urban core? In the majority of medium to large sized cities in the United States you cannot even live this kind of life without significant compromises. There may be condo buildings downtown but they’re not located in dense, walkable neighborhoods, the young PMC residents therein just have to Uber everywhere.

I’ve often heard on Reddit and in real life how strange it is for foreigners to visit American urban cores (even comparatively dense downtowns - when compared to Midwestern sprawl - like San Francisco, Seattle, Philadelphia) and find so few people walking the streets. American cities outside NYC feel empty. Most major cities are even worse, downtown is a few skyscrapers and condo buildings and a sports arena, separated by huge parking lots. Crime rate aside (and that’s a big, big aside in many places), “walking around” say downtown St Louis is like walking around a larger suburban business park in Europe where everyone drives in.

It’s clear that Americans do want this kind of housing. The handful of ex-NYC neighborhoods that offer even the vaguest semblance of this kind of lifestyle are often extremely expensive. See Venice and Santa Monica in LA, Georgetown in Washington, D.C., Back Bay in Boston and so on.

The problem is that the only way this kind of thing emerges organically is because it was already there or because of the gentrification of dense urban neighborhoods that survived the 20th century (eg. what has happened in Brooklyn since the 1980s). You can’t build it because large downtown parcels of contiguous land rarely come up for sale and when they do developers would prefer to build a few big condo buildings, a large parking lot (often mandated by zoning laws) and stuff a small mall on the lower levels instead of creating more of a mid-rise community. And in many US cities where downtowns were hollowed out for parking lots and office buildings between 1950 and 1980, there just isn’t the residential capacity to make the network of small local businesses that bring that kind of community to life viable. So there’s a chicken-and-egg problem to it.

That said, there have been some attempts. Pre-pandemic downtown LA was undergoing pretty rapid densification to a more residential, walkable place, although it’s worse again now.

It’s clear that Americans do want this kind of housing. The handful of ex-NYC neighborhoods that offer even the vaguest semblance of this kind of lifestyle are often extremely expensive. See Venice and Santa Monica in LA, Georgetown in Washington, D.C., Back Bay in Boston and so on.

There are millions of dirt-cheap middle-density units in America that cost nearly nothing.

Half of Philadelphia is mid-rise. The majority of Cleveland proper is. Huge swathes of St. Louis, Baltimore, and Chicago are. In many of these places, you can buy a house for the price of a loaded pickup truck.

I love my suburban townhouse, but it's selling at a slight discount to similarly-sized houses with yards in the same development I live in. I'd rather walk two blocks along a walking trail to the nearest park than deal with maintaining a yard, but it seem the market has spoken and people want to live in Irvine.

People don't make their decisions based on the built environment though, they act based on their social environment. I'm moving from my nearly-perfect townhouse to a sprawling, Euclidean-zoned 80s suburb with a huge yard in a place with worse weather, and I'm happy about it. My in-laws live there, and kids should be near family.

I think that's why people complain about suburbs. Their family lives there, and they're trying to distance themselves from them.

Half of Philadelphia is mid-rise. The majority of Cleveland proper is. Huge swathes of St. Louis, Baltimore, and Chicago are. In many of these places, you can buy a house for the price of a loaded pickup truck.

Yeah, and the places where a house costs the same as a pickup truck are not, generally, the places where it’s safe to actually enjoy the amenities of living in a dense neighborhood, like being able to walk to and from dinner, to let the kids play outside and walk to their friends’ houses, to not worry about extreme risk of property theft. Kensington in Philly wouldn’t be undesirable if the police did what was necessary to make it safe, clean and amenable to middle class people. But unsafe cities aren’t an intractable problem or ‘inevitable’ as a result of housing type, the cleaning up of New York shows that it’s entirely and absolutely possible to reduce violent crime rates by 80%+ across the board and to bring law-abiding people back to the cities. You just have to get serious about it.

But unsafe cities aren’t an intractable problem or ‘inevitable’ as a result of housing type, the cleaning up of New York shows that it’s entirely and absolutely possible to reduce violent crime rates by 80%+ across the board and to bring law-abiding people back to the cities.

The temporary cleaning up of New York shows it's impossible. It's a cycle.

Dangerous cities drive out PMC whites Normies/immigrants vote for safe cities Safe cities bring in PMC whites PMC whites vote for depolicing and crime Dangerous cities drive out PMC whites

But unsafe cities aren’t an intractable problem or ‘inevitable’ as a result of housing type, the cleaning up of New York shows that it’s entirely and absolutely possible to reduce violent crime rates by 80%+ across the board and to bring law-abiding people back to the cities.

The temporary cleaning up of New York shows it's impossible. It's a cycle.

Dangerous cities drive out PMC whites Normies/immigrants vote for safe cities Safe cities bring in PMC whites PMC whites vote for depolicing and crime Dangerous cities drive out PMC whites

Reminds me of the hard times meme.

Also, use two spaces for line breaks, two returns to turn each line into a paragraph, or turn your comment into an unnumbered list.

This isn't true either. I look at an inner-ring suburb of Pittsburgh like Dormont. It's about as walkable as one can reasonably expect. It has 2 nice main drags with lots of amenities, and it's affordable; less than a decade ago you could get a 3 bedroom house for under 100k. There was a time when people called it "Dirtmont" because it was kind of dumpy and working-class, but it was never dangerous, and no one would ever look down on anyone who lived there the way they'd even look down on someone living in a similarly white working-class area like Carrick. But now, people seem to like it. But not enough that people are banging down the doors to get in. There are a ton of areas like that around Pittsburgh, a lot of them in the city proper, but only trendy areas like Lawrenceville seem to be getting unaffordable (at least by Pittsburgh standards). I can't speak to other cities, but I doubt this is a unique situation.

the same as a pickup truck are not, generally, the places where it’s safe to actually enjoy the amenities of living in a dense neighborhood

This does not stop people from living in non-walkable housing in similarly terrible neighborhoods.

deleted

It’s clear that Americans do want this kind of housing. The handful of ex-NYC neighborhoods that offer even the vaguest semblance of this kind of lifestyle are often extremely expensive. See Venice and Santa Monica in LA, Georgetown in Washington, D.C., Back Bay in Boston and so on.

The problem is that the only way this kind of thing emerges organically is because it was already there or because of the gentrification of dense urban neighborhoods that survived the 20th century (eg. what has happened in Brooklyn since the 1980s). You can’t build it because large downtown parcels of contiguous land rarely come up for sale and when they do developers would prefer to build a few big condo buildings, a large parking lot (often mandated by zoning laws) and stuff a small mall on the lower levels instead of creating more of a mid-rise community. And in many US cities where downtowns were hollowed out for parking lots and office buildings between 1950 and 1980, there just isn’t the residential capacity to make the network of small local businesses that bring that kind of community to life viable. So there’s a chicken-and-egg problem to it.

Amen, thank you for beating this drum with me. The market has shown that people will pay a ton for this kind of housing, and any sort of mixed-use residential/commercial developments that do get built are typically very high-class and quite desirable. Prices reflect that reality.

The true cause of these issues, specifically the large parcels of land being sat on, goes down to how we value/price land in the US. Land values at local assessors' offices are literally calculated by taking an arbitrary % of the total value, and saying "That's the land value!". You will see values of improvements (buildings) jump up 20-30% in one year, and assessors just shrug their shoulders and say 'that's how our system calculated it.' It is utterly absurd.

What's worse is that many large department stores, like Walmart etc, who buy these massive parcels of land often have specific tax cuts for them that they carve out with local government. On top of that, the plattage effect means that land value does not rise linearly with square footage, it drops off as you get an increasingly large parcel. There are good reasons for that, but it turns into a situation where large retail stores can acquire massive amounts of land for cheap, and they do.

This isn't even getting into land speculators who sit on vacant land for years as an investment, because they know it's one of the safest investments out there. After the massive housing price raise during Covid we're seeing far more activity in the land speculation space as well. For some reason we've decided to tax buildings, the things that actually generate economic activity and benefit, far more than land. This is ridiculous because useful land parcels in desirable locations are scarce and if you let people sit on them, you miss out on a ton of opportunity to beautify a space, create new businesses, or just leave the land to nature.

IMO dense cities should have practically 0 vacant lots sitting there, ever. Land needs to be taxed far higher than it is currently.

the plattage effect means that land value does not rise linearly with square footage, it drops off as you get an increasingly large parcel. There are good reasons for that

How does that work? It seems to be a well-studied effect, yet I would naively assume that an owner of a large parcel in such a market would always choose to subdivide that parcel, thereby making more money, up until the point where the thereby increased supply of small parcels and reduced supply of large ones eliminated the effect. I could imagine constant-cost overheads (if you need the same number of real estate + escrow + whatever agents whether you're selling a fifth of an acre or 50 acres, the 1/5-acre option has 25x as much transaction cost per square foot) ... but economists seem to be modeling the plattage effect as logarithmic, and I don't see how that would happen at all.

I would naively assume that an owner of a large parcel in such a market would always choose to subdivide that parcel,

Many big businesses like Walmart, Target etc require large parcels all in one segment to operate by law. Also, I forgot to mention they get massive subsidies on their parking lots as well since parking lots are often not taxed like normal parcels or have specific adjustments/write-ins from the city.

Those are great demand-side reasons for Walmart to bid up the price of large parcels ... but apparently they didn't, so what's the supply-side reason why someone would want to sell them a parcel anyway? If I can make $M by selling N acres to Walmart but I can make 2($M/2+$P) by instead selling N/2 acres each to a restaurant and a gym, why would I ever do the former if the premium $P for the latter is positive?

Subdivision is not always trivial. I would not say that the there is only a single fixed cost, there are also variable costs associated with land surveys, environmental surveys, administration, utilities, etc.

Then there are selection effects. Areas with large blocks of land are usually more rural which have lower land prices.

I have a feeling that the complete picture here has to do with the marginal utility of developed vs undeveloped land, economies of scale, and maybe commercial vs residential markets.

It seems intuitive to me that the utility value of developed land does not scale linearly with size, unless you're a farmer or something.

If I'm a large developer that can afford to buy a large parcel, subdivide, AND develop those parcels, I will likely (up to a point) get a better ROI from a larger number of smaller plots. In SFH residential markets this happens often because there is a consumer desire to "own" their plot. In commercial markets, this demand matters less, so the ROI maximizing strategy is to buy a large plot, build X storefronts, and rent to tenants. The size and distribution of those storefronts should reflect the market for commercial renters, and I think that is what you do see (a decent mix of large home-depot style tenants and smaller independent businesses).

Yet on the other hand, selling a small plot of undeveloped land is challenging since you need to develop it, and you will almost always be outcompeted by large developers who can afford to buy the larger plot in one go.

So you have a market dynamic where both things are true: the utility (and marginal market) value of the developed land is proportionally greater for small plots (or small storefronts), yet it is not always useful to simply buy a large plot, subdivide, and resell.

All this is to say, holders of large plots of undeveloped land are usually incentivized to sell in one go. Whereas developers are incentivised to buy large plots and then extract maximum utility via subdivision or multiple storefronts, which is what I think we do see in practice.

That all makes sense; thank you!

any sort of mixed-use residential/commercial developments that do get built are typically very high-class and quite desirable.

Where permitting and regulatory regimes are complex, slow, restrictive, and carry significant ongoing costs (i.e. mandatory set-asides for "affordable" units) for those few projects that do get approved, developers are highly incentivized to make all new construction as high-class and high-cost as possible in order to maximize return per unit; they can set their own price because pent-up demand is so high, and face little competition from other new builds to drive down cost.

That's the reason mixed-use projects in major cities are so "high class and desirable" - not any inherent property of the type of units being built.

This.

Also, there is always incentive to market your product, regardless of it's actual place in the market, as "luxury" or "premium". Nobody sells "cheap cars for poor people", but they will market "affordable, reliable vehicles".

The fact that as you say “pent-up demand is so high” is exactly the point that he’s making, though.

I mean pent-up demand for any new housing in an economically-productive area; I postulate the fact that they're housing units on the market in west-side LA (in the case of his Venice example) is much more important for driving demand than their character as "missing middle" or whether or not neighborhoods are walkable, serviced by transit, or otherwise Urbanist-ideology-approved. People happily pay out the nose for studios or "shared living" dorm spaces with no transit, a mile walk to the nearest grocery, and no dedicated parking, just because it's a place to live.

Years ago there was a Silicon Valley rental ad that was for an unusually wide gap between walls with a foam mat laid onto the unfinished floor to sleep on. Like how a rodent might live. But you gotta live somewhere and they keep importing more people and they don't build comparably more housing, so live like a rat I guess.

Property taxes on real estate are rather weird in general: structures in many jurisdictions are valued well above the replacement cost, which as far as I can tell reflects artificial scarcity from permitting and zoning restrictions. The value of "a roof to live under in [jurisdiction]" far exceeds the cost of the roof itself and the land to put it on! And that doesn't include manufacturing businesses having to play games with inventory to limit property taxes on that.

All this has made me think that the Georgists aren't wrong and that we should consider taxing property near-exclusively based on the land itself to incentivise more efficient utilization.

structures in many jurisdictions are valued well above the replacement cost

Actually a lot of this is due to the fact that quality of construction and depreciation are rather arbitrary place to place, and appraiser to appraiser. So especially in the big counties you can literally have two assessors that would look at the same building, one mark it grade A and another mark it grade C. It's rather wild.

But most of it is the fact that the land/improvement splits are garbage based on nothing.

When it comes to calculating value, quality of construction is usually one of the top factors in driving value as well. At least for residential parcels.

There's a reason that safe and dense housing only exists in expensive areas: it has to be expensive to keep the undesirables out.

Which ones? San Francisco is 40% white, 35% Asian, 5% black (a much lower proportion in the latter case than Paris, London and many other major European cities). It has extremely high median income. The reason it is a shithole has nothing to do with demographics, and everything to do with policy (regarding the homeless, mostly).

Enforce the law, and it’s entirely possible to have affordable, safe and dense housing. Inner cities (provided they’re safe, amenable and walkable) will always be expensive, but dense inner suburbs like in most Euro cities and NYC are totally feasible.

Which ones? San Francisco is 40% white, 35% Asian, 5% black (a much lower proportion in the latter case than Paris, London and many other major European cities). It has extremely high median income. The reason it is a shithole has nothing to do with demographics, and everything to do with policy (regarding the homeless, mostly).

It's a shithole precisely because of demographics.

Childless PMC whites in San Francisco, Seattle, and Portland vote for shithole policies because they're the shithole demographic. Once you get out to Bay Area suburbs that are full of Indians and Chinese, the shithole factor declines to nearly nothing.

Quite a few of the most zealous supervisors and school board members in SF have been Asian, iirc.

Back in the 1950s-80s 5-10% was often the tipping point for safety.

There are plenty of areas in NYC that are dense* and safe middle class neighborhoods. Jackson Heights, Forest Hills, etc.

*Relative to most of the rest of the US.

According to this, "Median household income in 2021 was $69,880[.]" The 2021 median income for the US as a whole was $70,784.

Per www.streeteasy.com there are currently 48 2-bed+ apts for sale in Jackson Heights. Fifteen are listed at under $400K. There are only two for more than $800K,

I suggest you look at Streeteasy, which is the go-to site for NY real estate. I see a 1050 sq ft unit for 425K, five separate 1000 sq ft units in the $340 range; several others with no sq ft listed but with floor plans.

still seems insane for what you get,

Well, we all know that NYC apts tend to be small. But that is the nature of the city. There are plenty of much more expensive places in more upscale areas that are no larger. It really says nothing about whether a particular area is middle class. As i noted, the median household income there is right at the US median.

also has an $850 per month HOA fee.

Remember, most of the places you see are coops, and that means that the HOA fee includes property tax, insurance and, usually, heat and water. In some places it includes the electric bill, but I think that is rare. Plus, the HOA fee covers garbage and other standard city services fees.

I honestly don't understand how a household making 70k a year can afford a 340k apartment.

More comments

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats