[ryanschaefer]

There is an interesting assumption here that is sadly codified into law. I.e that individuals' who desire the characteristics you describe are willing to pay more than the "true" value of the land if it were not protected by zoning.

We might never know what case is true because both scenarios can't exist at once. I think the closest we can get would actually be Brookline, MA in the same vein as your example of Lexington. There are dense clusters in the area as well as single family homes. One could potentially look at any plots converted from single family homes to apartments/condos to determine each individual's willingness to be located in that relatively sparse city.

[threemux]

This is an interesting way to frame something I've seen stated as "if you don't own the land you don't get to decide what to do with it". I can't say for certain if people would be willing to pay above "market" for more space in all areas, but I think they would in some.

Your comment is not part of this and is thoughtful, but it does touch on the anti-democratic streak present in the YIMBY/urbanist community. At its worst, this attitude is essentially "I know better what is good for this area than the people that live there" which has had disastrous consequences historically

[ryanschaefer]

I really appreciate this perspective. It’s important for people to live where they agree to common principles. In the end that’s why you choose to live where you live.

In some sense it cuts both ways. I’m more of the opinion that these areas are allowed to exist to the extent that the market allows them to exist. It’s obviously not desirable to have your neighbor sell of their house to someone who builds a 20 story apartment or something like that. But, if both you, your neighbor, and society as a whole can financially benefit from this fact, why prevent it from happening in a legal sense. Zoning only masks the true value of an area.

It’s strange, however, because I recognize the history of razing historic areas in the hopes of progress (see Paris’ Île de la Cité) and how invasive it is to have your home change because of one person selling out. I love old buildings and often marvel at how quaint and peaceful these areas can be. I don’t want them to be lost and I want future generations to experience the same emotions I feel when looking at these areas.

Ultimately, I think it would be beneficial just to have an idea of how land could be used for purposes other than what it is currently zoned for. Obfuscation of the price of a piece of land due to zoning is, in my opinion, more detrimental than helpful.

[lotsofpulp]

> This is an interesting way to frame something I've seen stated as "if you don't own the land you don't get to decide what to do with it".

How about “if you cannot afford to defend the land, you do not get to decide what to do with it”?

Who is paying for all the police/military/courts/legal system keeping that highly desirable land secure from “outsiders”?

Land owners in the US have an enormous subsidy from non land owners simply by being able to secure their asset without commensurate payment for security, and doubly so in California with their prop 13 property tax increase cap.

[TheCoelacanth]

Calling letting people use their own property as they choose "anti-democratic" is a bizarre argument.

Individual rights are one of the traditional pillars of democracy.

[throwaway22032]

It's not really possible to determine this because it's a prisoner's dilemma of sorts.

If I have 50 neighbours with no zoning rules, 49 of them stay put, but one sells up to a developer, the 49 who chose not to sell now have to live with the additional density, while the one family that sold up "wins" and moves elsewhere with their stacks of cash.

Without zoning, or planning permission, or _some_ way of the locals preventing land use changes in this way, you eventually end up surrounded by tower blocks.