= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on Open thread, Jan. 25 - Jan. 31, 2016 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (169)
But similar profits are available at lower risk by developing at the edges of existing infrastructure. In particular, incremental development of this kind, along with some modest lobbying, will likely yield taxpayer funded infrastructure and services.
It seems like you can't do incremental development by building more real estage inside the cities because of the cities not wanting to give new building permits that might lower the value of existing real estage.
I think Seattle's South Lake Union development, kickstarted by Paul Allen and Jeff Bezos, is a counter example ...
http://crosscut.com/2015/05/why-everywhere-is-the-next-south-lake-union/
Perhaps gentrification is a more general counter example. But you're right, most developers opt for sprawl.
No, it's not in California. In California a city like Mountain View blocks a company like Google from building new infrastructure on it's edges.
In what sense? Gentrification simply means that rents go up in certain parts of the city. It doesn't have directly something to do with new investments.
Not at all. Gentrification is the replacement of a social class by a different social class. There are a LOT of consequences to that -- the character of the neighbourhood changes greatly.
In my experience gentrification is always associated with renovation and new business investment. The wikipedia article seems to confirm that this is not an uncommon experience.