> Why is "build more in one place" a more natural answer than "let tech companies geographically diversify themselves in response to pricing pressure"? Because

> Why is "build more in one place" a more natural answer than "let tech companies geographically diversify themselves in response to pricing pressure"? Because USian land use laws / zoning laws (that enshrine single-family houses while prohibiting/obstructing the construction of most everything else) aren't good at all, and there's no good reason to preserve them as they are, nor any reason to think that they're optimal for anything; except for increasing the value of single-family homes by rigorously prohibiting the construction of alternatives. Even "tradition" doesn't apply here, since the changes that prohibit high-rise/high-density/SROish housing are quite recent compared to the history of US cities. It's really not about "tech companies", it's more about the fact that US jurisdictions have systematically eliminated and prohibited entire categories of housing. > you don't want to change the character of the place for a short-term problem I do want to change the character of the place, and I think that objections (aesthetic or otherwise) to any kind of new structurally-sound housing are bunk and should not be entertained or given any sort of authority. Once you have people literally living and shitting in the street, I sorta feel that these NIMBYs should altogether lose the authority to obstruct/delay the construction of new housing.