Quote:
Originally Posted by DizzyEdge
No, I thought it was unreasonable to preserve the low density because "rich people should be exempt from the redevelopment pressures of the surrounding hoods" which seemed to be sort of the theme being talked about. I fully agree that the reason it HAS been preserved is due to the political weight the resident's wealth has.
|
You are missing my point entirely. It is not the "political weight" that wealth allegedly gets, it is the pure economics of land value to the residents who live there.
I will try to use another analogy to make my point again. Assuming Bill Gates lives on a large estate property for this one. If I went to him and offered him $10 million for it, so I could turn it into a high density urban village, he would tell me to get off his property before he unleashed the hounds. It is not worth it to him to sell his land for that much money. Any more than $10 million, and my development wouldn't make a profit, so I can't offer him more. If I were to offer him $10 billion, we might be talking. But the only way I could do that would be if the land value (read, market value, read enough people would want to live in that location) would justify my spending $10 billion on land acquisition, then project development, then sales, to still make a reasonable profit.
Abosuletely nothing to do with politics. Pure market forces. Until the land becomes valuable enough that the current owners find it worth upzoning, it won't happen.