I mean, I think we could probably conclude it's a mix of both. But one way to nearly know for sure would be to observe the turnover of housing supply in that area.
Like you look at what percentage of homes go up for sale in specific neighborhoods. If it's like 20% a year that would be pretty high. If it's 2-3% a year, that's a very stable neighborhood and would imply that folks are hunkering down for the long term there.
That’s not too telling. Introducing skyscrapers would mean units would be priced far less than single family homes are - which would enable large portions of people to enter the market who are locked out right now.
But building skyscrapers would mean more units could be sold, thereby greatly increasing the value of land - as long as demand is there in the lower price ranges.
I'm not sure what this has to do with turnover in specific neighborhoods for determining if folks are voting out expansion "to keep their neighborhoods the same" or "for profit expansion".
> But one way to nearly know for sure would be to observe the turnover of housing supply in that area.
Could you describe what you mean? What direction of effect would you expect?