Anti YIMBYs long argued that broad upzoning would concentrate development in low-income areas with cheap land. Two years into the effective abolition of zoning in many cities, this has not happened. Instead, developers are doing projects in the wealthiest, most-expensive areas.
We're now two years into Builders Remedy realm in California and every BR application is in high-resource suburb or urban neighborhood. And yet we still have people claiming that development capital prefers to build in low-resource neighborhoods rather than high-resource ones.

Mar 23, 2024 · 4:32 PM UTC

Replying to @maxdubler
What’s the reason that developers are passing on construction in places with cheap land? Isn’t it still profitable even if not the most desirable location?
Not as profitable as building in places with very high rents.
Makes sense. The difference in the rents you can collect easily outweighs the difference in land cost. Land is a small percentage of the total project cost for most development.
That’s just what the real estate finance people WANT you to think. Critical geographers wisely reject Spreadsheet Thought for the immortal science of rent gap theory.
Replying to @maxdubler
On the other side, these wealthy areas are probably where housing was battled and backlogged the most making them the areas most likely to use builders remedy.
Replying to @maxdubler
Makes total sense - why wouldn’t you build units where the average value is higher? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Replying to @maxdubler
Provide a product to people who can afford to pay you.
Replying to @maxdubler
Bay area should absolutely encourage density in commercial areas in transit rich outlying lower income cities. Promises lower costs to buyers.
Replying to @maxdubler
Which is obvious if you think about it, development targets the biggest delta between desire to live somewhere and the long repressed ability to live there.
Replying to @maxdubler
Higher prices indicate greater demand.