3 ms·

There's nothing to dispute here–the are obviously factors other than costs that make (some) people prefer to stay put: local family, friends, or even plain old

There's nothing to dispute here–the are obviously factors other than costs that make (some) people prefer to stay put: local family, friends, or even plain old laziness. That doesn't exclude the cost scenario outline further up, and the relative strength of these effects vary from person to person. And no argument will "win" such debates for either side. These are complex issues, and even if everyone can agree on the mechanisms at work, you'll get widely different results based on differing importance for the conflicting goals you're trying to optimise for. Rent control, as shown above, might legitimately add to traffic. But it's also cruel to force elderly people to leave their remaining friends, and their familiar neighbourhood, just because they can no longer afford rent. Anyone claiming "it's so easy: just..." is invariably wrong. California's legislators aren't stupid. The main contributor to housing problems happens to be the unparalleled economic success of the state, plus a few geographic quirks. Simplifying to the tired old "free market" vs "regulation" debate is only exchanging one set of problems for another. The US happens to have other locales that dabbled in an ideology-driven "free market" approach. The result are the suburban hell-holes that are Atlanta, or parts of Houston: Low-density clone cities totally reliant on cars, with much longer commutes and huge environmental footprints, almost devoid of street life. What's usually needed is neither more nor less regulation, but smarter: encourage high-density mixed zoning, create public transport that can compete with cars, encourage companies to adopt telecommuting, flexible hours, distributed workplaces instead of central campus etc...

refurb 9y ago
that dabbled in an ideology-driven "free market" approach. The result are the suburban hell-holes that are Atlanta, or parts of Houston: Low-density clone cities totally reliant on cars, with much longer commutes and huge environmental footprints, almost devoid of street life. I assume because that's what people want? HNers seem to think a downtown core existence is the best and apparently aren't aware there is a big group of people who don't want that.
- Decade 9y ago
  If that’s what people want, then why do we need laws to ban the alternatives almost everywhere? https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2013/1/14/its-so-much-more-than-density.html https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2013/1/14/its-so-much-mo...
- matt4077 9y ago
  > I assume because that's what people want? Yes and no: Given the choice, people will prefer a single-family home with a large garden, to the same home without a garden, or a smaller apartment. But rephrase it and the answer changes: People prefer to life in (nice) apartments if others do so as well, and the resulting increase in density cuts a 60min car commute into 15min on a bike, or even 30 in public transportation. In any case, I would consider mixed zoning more important than density. It's not just metropolitan city centres that provide higher quality of life than the suburbs. Another winning model is that of the classic "Small Town USA". It's perfectly possible to have suburban-style homes with gardens clustered around a city centre providing everything you need in a typical week, plus schools/medical care/sports/you kids' friends all within a radius of about 3 miles, making it easily accessible by bike, and even on foot.
briandear 9y ago
> suburban hell-holes that are Atlanta, or parts of Houston And yet in those places there are no housing shortages and normal people can actually buy a house without waiting for the equity fairy.

refurb 9y ago

that dabbled in an ideology-driven "free market" approach. The result are the suburban hell-holes that are Atlanta, or parts of Houston: Low-density clone cities totally reliant on cars, with much longer commutes and huge environmental footprints, almost devoid of street life. I assume because that's what people want? HNers seem to think a downtown core existence is the best and apparently aren't aware there is a big group of people who don't want that.

Decade 9y ago
If that’s what people want, then why do we need laws to ban the alternatives almost everywhere? https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2013/1/14/its-so-much-more-than-density.html https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2013/1/14/its-so-much-mo...
matt4077 9y ago
> I assume because that's what people want? Yes and no: Given the choice, people will prefer a single-family home with a large garden, to the same home without a garden, or a smaller apartment. But rephrase it and the answer changes: People prefer to life in (nice) apartments if others do so as well, and the resulting increase in density cuts a 60min car commute into 15min on a bike, or even 30 in public transportation. In any case, I would consider mixed zoning more important than density. It's not just metropolitan city centres that provide higher quality of life than the suburbs. Another winning model is that of the classic "Small Town USA". It's perfectly possible to have suburban-style homes with gardens clustered around a city centre providing everything you need in a typical week, plus schools/medical care/sports/you kids' friends all within a radius of about 3 miles, making it easily accessible by bike, and even on foot.

briandear 9y ago

> suburban hell-holes that are Atlanta, or parts of Houston And yet in those places there are no housing shortages and normal people can actually buy a house without waiting for the equity fairy.