3 ms·

The author of the article is also author of https://www.amazon.com/Triumph-City-Greatest-Invention-Healthier/dp/0143120549 https://www.amazon.com/Triumph-City-G

The author of the article is also author of https://www.amazon.com/Triumph-City-Greatest-Invention-Healthier/dp/0143120549 https://www.amazon.com/Triumph-City-Greatest-Invention-Healt... He is an expert on cities. I live in NYC and much of Manhattan is low density (4 story brownstones). It may not be building 100,000 apts. per year, but it would be far, far greater number than what is being built today.

kafkaesq 10y ago
So are you suggesting we rip out (all but the upper-crust of) the brownstones, and put in glass boxes as high as we can build them? And that even if we did -- that there would realistically be any way to ensure that even a significant portion of these would be affordable -- without a good heaping dose of, you know, coercion (courtesy of your pals on the left)? I'm not sure what you're advocating, actually.
- davidf18 10y ago
  > "I'm not sure what you're advocating, actually." If you read the Edward Glaeser article, that's what I'm advocating. Briefly, by simply eliminating the rent-seeking laws of zoning density restrictions and also eliminating overuse of historic landmark status, market forces will take care of the rest. Removing the market inefficiencies will ensure that market forces turn unproductive land or low productivity land into more productive land in terms of housing. Edward Glaeser: Build Big Bill http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/build-big-bill-article-1.1913739 http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/build-big-bill-article-1....
  - kafkaesq 10y ago
    Briefly, by simply eliminating the rent-seeking laws of zoning density restrictions and also eliminating overuse of historic landmark status, market forces will take care of the rest. Unfortunately he doesn't make a coherent argument that will actually happen (other than, more or less: "Just close your eyes and pretend it's 1920 again. Or OK, if that doesn't work, pretend that Manhattan is just like Atlanta or Houston.") Completely ignoring the fact that a whole host of fundamental factors have completely changed in the intervening time; and the rather obvious negative side effects of some of the measure he proposes, as well (like "drastically raising building limits" and its actual effect on median rents in surrounding neighborhoods, for example). I mean, sure he's a respected academic, and all. But he's just not making a coherent argument.

kafkaesq 10y ago

So are you suggesting we rip out (all but the upper-crust of) the brownstones, and put in glass boxes as high as we can build them? And that even if we did -- that there would realistically be any way to ensure that even a significant portion of these would be affordable -- without a good heaping dose of, you know, coercion (courtesy of your pals on the left)? I'm not sure what you're advocating, actually.

davidf18 10y ago
> "I'm not sure what you're advocating, actually." If you read the Edward Glaeser article, that's what I'm advocating. Briefly, by simply eliminating the rent-seeking laws of zoning density restrictions and also eliminating overuse of historic landmark status, market forces will take care of the rest. Removing the market inefficiencies will ensure that market forces turn unproductive land or low productivity land into more productive land in terms of housing. Edward Glaeser: Build Big Bill http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/build-big-bill-article-1.1913739 http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/build-big-bill-article-1....
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  Briefly, by simply eliminating the rent-seeking laws of zoning density restrictions and also eliminating overuse of historic landmark status, market forces will take care of the rest. Unfortunately he doesn't make a coherent argument that will actually happen (other than, more or less: "Just close your eyes and pretend it's 1920 again. Or OK, if that doesn't work, pretend that Manhattan is just like Atlanta or Houston.") Completely ignoring the fact that a whole host of fundamental factors have completely changed in the intervening time; and the rather obvious negative side effects of some of the measure he proposes, as well (like "drastically raising building limits" and its actual effect on median rents in surrounding neighborhoods, for example). I mean, sure he's a respected academic, and all. But he's just not making a coherent argument.