Auckland and São Paulo both upzoned in 2016, and by similar amounts: 31% and 35% increase in density. But Auckland increased the housing stock by 8% over seven years, while for São Paulo we predict only a 2% increase over ten years. What's going on? 1/

Pop quiz: does the original Jevons paradox imply that improved efficiency increased the price of coal?

Michael Wiebe@michaelwiebe.bsky.social · last wk.

Supply and demand explainer of Jevons' paradox: Left (AI services): improved algorithms shifts supply, which reduces the price of AI and increases quantity. Right (GPUs): when demand for AI is elastic, the demand curve for GPUs shifts right, increasing GPU usage. Paradox! 1/

A common idea is that a land value tax will increase housing supply. But when zoning is a constraint, LVT has no effect on the housing market. (Though it does act as value capture on scarcity rents in land.) blog.michaelwiebe.com/p/a-model-of...

Supply and demand explainer of Jevons' paradox: Left (AI services): improved algorithms shifts supply, which reduces the price of AI and increases quantity. Right (GPUs): when demand for AI is elastic, the demand curve for GPUs shifts right, increasing GPU usage. Paradox! 1/

When does upzoning create land value uplift? Auckland: broad + valuable rights = ⬆️ land values. Vancouver laneway: broad + limited rights = no land uplift. Vancouver Cambie corridor: narrow + valuable rights + assembly premium = ⬆️ land values. 1/

"Growth pays for growth" means defecting on the urban social contract, where each generation pays to maintain infrastructure capacity for the next generation. Higher property values are caused by growth, so they should be captured to pay for growth.

A common argument is that rising land values are a cause of higher housing prices. This is true for some contexts, but false in others. Let me explain. 1/

Vancouver's proposed Villages plan does value capture through a 3% IZ requirement on 4-storey condos. But the plan is facing widespread opposition. Shouldn't we spend that money on paying off local residents, to give them a reason to support it? Eg. a lottery with $10k prizes for locals.

A common argument is that rising land values are a cause of higher housing prices. This is true for some contexts, but false in others. Let me explain. 1/

Feasible zoned capacity: tear down a bungalow to build a 5-storey apartment building. Infeasible zoned capacity: tear down four 4-storey buildings to rebuild at 5-storeys. Both add four floors of allowed housing, but only one will actually get built.

When does upzoning create land value uplift? Auckland: broad + valuable rights = ⬆️ land values. Vancouver laneway: broad + limited rights = no land uplift. Vancouver Cambie corridor: narrow + valuable rights + assembly premium = ⬆️ land values. 1/

I'm being told this is "urban planning".

Why did Vancouver's 2009 laneway upzoning not lead to any land value uplift? Because the policy was designed to *not* create valuable development rights. Laneways/ADUs were small and rental-only. Hence, it wasn't worth paying a premium. 1/

Michael Wiebe@michaelwiebe.bsky.social · last mo.

A common idea is that narrow spot upzoning leads to land value uplift, while broad upzoning does not. What explains this? Why doesn't broad upzoning lead to increased land values?

Auckland's 2016 upzoning gives us a real-world example of a clean causal effect. First, building permits increased dramatically in upzoned areas. 1/

The benefits of new housing far outweigh the costs.

A city is voting on allowing a new grocery store. But only existing store owners get to vote, and shoppers don't get a voice. Owners don't want competition, so they block the new store. This is how housing works. Existing homeowners get a vote, future residents don't.

If Manhattan replaced its apartment buildings with detached houses, while keeping office buildings the same, then land values would fall a lot, while housing prices would be much higher. When driven by zoning changes, higher land values are correlated with lower housing prices.

If Auckland, NZ, were a U.S. city, it'd be our fifth-largest. Its story is remarkable. One in five homes in Auckland has been built since 2017, and prices are down 20% from their pandemic peak. In today's third episode of YIMBY Country, two experts share the numbers of a wildly successful reform.

Michael Andersen@andersem.bsky.social · 2mo ago

Hey, during my sabbatical I made a podcast! It’s a one-shot miniseries about what happened after the world’s most ambitious upzoning campaign won. Here’s the trailer; episodes coming weekly all through June & July. You can subscribe on Apple/Spotify/etc. rss.com/podcasts/yim...

A common NIMBY trope is that zoning is not constraining housing supply, therefore we don't need to upzone. Here's how to actually measure zoning constraints: - do developers build more after upzoning? - is apartment-zoned land more valuable than house-zoned land? 1/

>upzoning is more likely to result in gentrification without displacement in comparison to not upzoning lewis.ucla.edu/2026/06/10/1...

Episode 117: Road Scholars on Density, Displacement, and Driving with Dan Chatman

Does building housing near rail stations reduce driving, even if it prices out lower-income residents? Dan Chatman's research suggests the answer hinges not on who lives there, but on how much housing...

lewis.ucla.edu

Very nice summary from @michaelwiebe.bsky.social of the evidence about how broad upzoning works in practice (rather than a few parcels here, a few there — the typical rezoning) www.buildingabundance.ca/p/upzoning

Upzoning

When zoning constrains housing supply, upzoning leads to more homes

buildingabundance.ca

A common idea is that narrow spot upzoning leads to land value uplift, while broad upzoning does not. What explains this? Why doesn't broad upzoning lead to increased land values?

Nice to see this published.

🚨New literature review post: upzoning🚨 A deep dive into how zoning affects land prices, when zoning is a constraint on housing supply, whether zoned capacity makes sense, and a close look at Auckland's 2016 upzoning. 1/

🚨New literature review post: upzoning🚨 A deep dive into how zoning affects land prices, when zoning is a constraint on housing supply, whether zoned capacity makes sense, and a close look at Auckland's 2016 upzoning. 1/

Something is wrong with impact fees.

Discuss.

Land is a fixed factor; it is priced as a residual: housing price minus construction costs. So when upzoning increases land prices, because developers pay more for valuable development rights, this is *not* the same as an increase in input costs, eg steel or labor. 1/

New post: I walk through a supply and demand model of land and housing, and show how upzoning works, why development charges can reduce housing supply and why land value tax doesn't, and why rising land prices are explained by housing demand.

NIMBYs claim to care about displacement of renters when it's a new apartment building being proposed, but have nothing to say when displacement is caused by new detached houses.