Resurrecting one of Scott's Rejected Theories
"Ben Bag Bag said: Turn it over, and [again] turn it over, for all is therein." - Rav Shlomo ben Yitzchak (me) says: he was referring to the blog posts of Scott Alexander.
A while back Scott Alexander had a post arguing that since real estate in dense cities like Manhattan is more expensive per square foot then in sparse cities like Anchorage, that cities can increase the value of their own real estate by building more:
Most of the comments disagree with Scott for all sorts of reasons. But one of the main ones was that the benefits of density don't come so easily.
Sure, people want to live where there are jobs, culture, infrastructure, commerce and friends.
But it takes time for some of that stuff to develop. Also unless you actually provide a reason for people to move to your city in the first place, you don't have density, but rather "empty houses" and empty houses lead to none of that stuff.
Also, to the extent that "lots of houses" lead to "density" it does this by "lowering costs" which goes against the whole "raising property values" goal.
But I had a thought:
What if there were a specific class of people who benefit more from "density itself" and not just the second order effects of density like jobs, culture, infrastructure and commerce.
What if this class of people had specific financial difficulties which are expected to expire within a few years so that you could get them to move to your neighborhood now with cheap rent, but then once they all become richer together, your neighborhood naturally will become a high class, wealthier neighborhood.
What if this class of people also had a similar set of needs in terms of what kinds of infrastructure they would want which would make building a neighborhood for them easier?
What if this class of people also happens to be a group who, for whatever reason, many governments seem to want to reward. Some even giving cash incentives to people who join this group?
I am talking, of course, of parents of small children.
Let's go through the list above and see why they qualify:
Density Itself
Parents of small children benefit from living around other people. Specifically other people who are also parents of small children.
Taking kids to the park is more fun for the kids when there are other kids around.
Kids need friends their own age.
But unlike adults, who need friends who share each other's interests, social class and life experience, little kids are a bit more interchangeable. Ages 0 to 5 - they all can play with bubbles, chalk, toy trucks etc.
Making play dates is much easier when your neighbors in the same building have kids your age.
And not only are they fun for kids, they leave parents with more free time since an entertained kid doesn't need their moms and dads to play with them.
And overall the culture of being in a kid-friendly neighborhood is just good for parents.
Will people in grocery stores give you a bad look when your kids are throwing a tantrum?
If you work in the city and your kid is sick, will your boss be mad that you need to stay home or does he have his own little kid and will therefore be understanding?
When you need a babysitter will your neighbors be able to give recommendations?
There are just so many ways in which I think, where living around other families of young children is great for parents of such children so that density-of-that-class of people will be desirable even if there are less other second order effects of density such as good jobs.
Little kids don't have jobs. And it's very very rare that people will move far away to be close to a good day-care or kindergarten. Yet parents of kids are more likely to be willing to live further from their job if it means a better community for their families than single people are.
Finance
Once kids are older they can go to public school and you don't have to pay for daycare. Also parents of young children tend to be younger than parents of older children so they will be less advanced in their careers. Their relative "poverty" is not a function of social class but to specific life situation. By giving them rent discounts when they need it you are gaining for yourself a community of people who will now have built a community and a life around these neighborhoods. And once they start earning more you benefit from owning the land.
Needs
Parents of small children need parks, day cares and side walks wide enough for strollers. Their apartments need garbage shoots so dirty diapers can be disposed of quickly without going down to the trash bins. Most of these stuff are easy to build into the neighborhood if you know you need to.
Government Incentives
Many governments want to increase fertility
See for instance:
Making a neighborhood for kids seems like a great way to do that.
See for instance this:
https://paa2010.populationassociation.org/abstracts/101920
While Mormons have more fertility than non Mormons, did you know that non-Mormons who live near mormons have higher fertility than other non-mormons who don't?
Israel, has a sizable religious high fertility population, and secular Israelis also have high fertility. The best way to get people to have kids is to put them in a place where other people have lots of kids too.
CONCLUSION
How would this all work?
The idea is this: Either an investor buys up some land or a city government does this project themselves.
The project involves building some housing units, perhaps 25,000 units in Oakland?
These are built and designed in consultation with parents of young children or with experts on young children.
You offer 10 year leases on the units (this locks people in and incentives them to invest in the community).
For each additional child you have under 5, you have a bigger discount on the lease.
Also if you have skills like working in early childhood education you also get a discount. You market the neighborhood to people with small kids
The next year, you change 3 things:
For new leases starting in the second year, the discounts are for kids ages 0 to 6.
The discounts are smaller (so the rent is higher)
The leases are for 9 years instead of 10.
Each year the neighborhood gets more established, justifying higher rent. The age of the kids also gets older.
(If you have extra investor money or spots filling up too quickly you can start a new adjacent neighborhood for 0 to 5 with 10 year leases)
At the end of 10 years you are left with a vibrant community of richer people who all want to keep living where they are and will be willing to pay you more for either higher leases or by selling the units.
Funding can come from investors, from the city itself who will see their property tax increase and home values rise from being in proximity. Or from the government that wants to increase fertility.
Incidentally a more recent Scott post: also is about "community creation".
It's true that many people want communities. Maybe "having kids" is enough of a "rallying flag" to create them.