Wrong choices are still wrong. I'd like to move into a house with my wife, but at this rate we'll be saving for a decade to get there. With climate change we have no idea how the real estate market will be at 1.5 degrees warming.
But the flip side of that coin is local authorities that have zoning laws that allow the big and powerful builders to build pretty much whatever they want, wherever they want. Which always turns out to be high-rise condos for multi-millionaires and billionaires, most of whom have them as investment properties and don't actually live there.
You see that here in Austin, all along the river, especially downtown.
I wish we had some NIMBYism that we could actually aim at those plans for high-rise condos.
Don't worry, you see the same thing in ultra liberal areas as well. All the plans for "improvement" turn into gentrification that pushes out the current residents, with a tiny allotment of subsidized units that current residents don't qualify for either.
Not doing the development doesn't prevent the gentrification, though. It's not like desirable places to live suddenly become not-desirable because there's not enough housing to go around. The rich people just outcompete the current residents for the existing housing stock. Unless housing supply actually keeps up with demand, someone's going to get squeezed out, and it'll almost invariably be whoever has the least money.
If they were buying single family detached homes, at least those wouldn't block the views, ruin the skyline, and wipe out the natural areas near the river.
Huh, I think the condos downtown "wipe out" a lot less of the river (they're not even that close to the river, there's a whole hike and bike trail between them and the river...?) than all of the single family detached homes right up against the river that go on for mile after mile upstream (literally for cities-worth of land!).
And without downtown, I don't know what your view or skyline would be of, other than an empty blue sky, of which 99.99% of Texas offers you that, if you want it.
Oh well, like you said, NIMBYism is certainly a thing.
There were plenty of older buildings in downtown Austin that were not right up on the riverbanks, before the flood of the multi-million dollar condo hi-rises. They would be the skyline that I would want to maintain.
The expensive single-family homes further up the river may take up a lot of horizontal space, but they don't ruin the skyline and since you have to dig down about as far as the building will be tall, they don't cause such massive damage to the natural surroundings.
Moreover, most of them are occupied. Most of the hi-rise condos are not occupied. They are pure empty investment properties from people who have more money than they know what to do with. If those condos came with a local residence requirement, then I'd feel a lot better about them being there.
