Here’s what you’ll learn when you read this story:
- By studying population trends and forecasting models, researchers have come to believe that nearly 15,000 U.S. cities will face noticeable depopulation by 2100.
- Populated areas of the cities in question could experience a decline of up to 44 percent.
- Projections call for the biggest drops in city populations to occur in the Northeast and Midwest.
If they do the density right, then rents should come down not go up. More places built to live and have shops means (assuming there is demand fill them, which there certainly seems to be) we should have cheaper rents for each space AND more total revenue for all the landlords AND more variety in nearby shops for all the people living there.
The problem in Seattle is exactly that they are fucking NOT increasing the density of housing and especially of street-level commercial, not nearly fast enough to keep up with all the people moving there.
Lots of talk, more action needed.
eh, the price curve looks a bit more U-shaped. it goes down first as you go from 1 to 3 stories (because less area usage) but then it can go up again (higher construction cost per floor because higher material strains). i’m not entirely sure where the optimum is.
also btw this was not your question but just to add … i think that it’s important to reserve enough space to streets. not to build lanes, but to build cafes and seating banks and trees there. it’s a typical problem of cities that they figure out that there’s not enough space to build trees, bike lanes, etc. after the houses are built. better reserve space first.
“If thing is done right, everything works fine!”
The problem is, no one can agree what “right” is, so it never works.
If you do less dense “right” it should work, too.
There’s certainly wrong ways to do anything, but I don’t think there’s a right way to make “less dense” handle “more people want to live here.” Those are just opposites.
Wouldn’t more population within walking distance cause business rents to go up because of the promise of more business? That seems to be what’s happening, and I can’t see how it could be changed by “doing it right” unless they imposed rent controls. Talking about West Seattle in particular, more apartments have been built in the last 10 years than since I moved here 38 years ago.
I would expect more nearby residents makes the business rents go up, (more demand) and more nearby commercial space makes the business rents go down, (more supply) so ideally there would be some kind of reasonable balance between these things.
What we’re actually seeing is skyrocketing demand and skyrocketing rents for just every kind of real estate so clearly this is not happening.
Please don’t mistake me for somebody with deep knowledge of the subject; I’m just a loudmouth on the internet.
What I’m arguing against is the idea that densification makes business unaffordable and we’d all have more interesting restaurants nearby if we just made everyone keep buying their own single family home with a yard. Even I can tell that that’s an asinine position.
Well, whatever happened to make business rents skyrocket here, it happened at exactly the same time as the big density push. Could have been some other factor since this apparently defies the physics of density, but it happened.
People move to Seattle -> rents go up -> density push to fit all these people