Nobody is going to build a high-rise slum apartment in the suburbs. They'll only build high density if it makes economic sense, and since new construction is usually expensive, it tends to be up-market housing. There just isn't a lot of incentive for builders to build "affordable" housing, so if there is an expensive plot of land in high demand, they'll build some luxury condos instead. Now if government incentives are being provided, that fucks everything up of course.
Places in SF really need this kind of flexibility to remove zoning since the boomer NIMBYs are holding that whole area hostage.
Nobody is going to build a high-rise slum apartment in the suburbs. They'll only build high density if it makes economic sense, and since new construction is usually expensive, it tends to be up-market housing. There just isn't a lot of incentive for builders to build "affordable" housing, so if there is an expensive plot of land in high demand, they'll build some luxury condos instead. Now if government incentives are being provided, that fucks everything up of course.
Places in SF really need this kind of flexibility to remove zoning since the boomer NIMBYs are holding that whole area hostage.
That sounds almost like what Obama/Biden have been doing by removing zoning regulations and forcing low income housing into suburbs and rural areas. Absolute disaster of a plan when the government mandates it. Similar sort of thing could happen in NZ - someone owns a large patch in a nice neighborhood and bam - 100 people move into a single plot. Infrastructure (plumbing, electricity, roads) generally aren't built to handle a massive influx into a small area, which has a broader impact on changing zoning regulations like this. It is very costly to rapidly update those.