4 ms·

On one hand, it's kind of the point of rent control/stabilization that it's supposed to protect residents (particularly ones that aren't rich) from the risks of

On one hand, it's kind of the point of rent control/stabilization that it's supposed to protect residents (particularly ones that aren't rich) from the risks of major changes in the overall market (like rent increases far outpacing inflation / wages). Cities exist to serve their citizens, after all, and citizens at risk of being displaced are part of this population. When you see people paying a third the market rate on rent, that's the system working as intended by any measure. On the other hand, there are obvious inefficiencies in the system (like empty nesters holding onto units larger than what they need because they can't afford to lose them). Regardless of issues with New York's rent controlled housing, there's a wider national issue that there's an undeniable trend towards migration to a few top "innovation hubs", and these hubs are all simultaneously failing to urbanize as needed to satisfy the demand. What this country needs are federal subsidies and incentives to encourage/assist top hubs in developing good urbanism (which notably supports lower income people as well as just the wealthy). What is good urbanism you ask? 1. Density to support affordable commercial activity in or near hubs of existing commercial activity (ie, building skyscrapers downtown, most cities have this one down) 2. Expansion of transit that goes to said commercial hubs, particularly any transit that does not compete in traffic with private motor vehicles (subways, light rail, BRT, commuter trains, etc). The goal is to maximize the amount of land that can viably and reliably commute to the commercial hub within 1 hour without use of a private motor vehicle. 3. Densification of all land that can viably commute to the commercial hub within 1 hour. In particular, any neighborhood covered by the transit mentioned in (2) should (by some mechanism) be allowed to increase in density naturally in accordance to supply and demand (You can't let existing homeowners veto that new apartment building just because it's ugly). These three rules were pretty much common sense prior to the spread of the private motor vehicle, but with cars we kind of just decided you can commute from anywhere now so it's a free for all. Hence the dispersal in our housing patterns this past half a century. Problem is, the free market has shown that top 21st century companies have no interest in placing well-paying jobs dispersed throughout many cities and many suburbs, but rather concentrated in a small number of innovation hubs, so we need to adapt our housing patterns accordingly.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> These three rules were pretty much common sense prior to the spread of the private motor vehicle And late 19th and early 20th century urban utopias were the result? There are certainly problems with car culture (especially environmental impacts), but the idea that pre-car common patterns of urbanization were “good urbanism” is something which needs some support.
- helen___keller 8y ago
  I'm not suggesting the pre-war world was perfect. Cities had tons of problems, some that wouldn't apply today and some that would. What I am suggesting is, for all their faults, urban design reflected the fact that people could not commute to work by car, because they did not own cars. It was categorically impossible that a cities poor workers could be pushed 50 miles out to some cheap exurb. And it turns out, the politically connected elite still needed cheap workers, and so urban design reflected the need for cheap housing. No, cities weren't perfect. I'm not advocating a return to tenements, and I doubt anyone else is. But car dependence isn't just environmentally damaging, it is fundamentally unable to scale to the demands of modern innovation hubs. Cars are well-suited to the dispersed living patterns of the late 20th century, but as I already mentioned the dispersed living patterns of the late 20th century do not match the centralized work patterns of innovation hubs today.
hnaccy 8y ago
These "innovation hubs" are already capturing large slice of economic growth and talent, why should the federal government subsidize them? If they're failing to urbanize it's due to their own myopic local politics.
- helen___keller 8y ago
  There are multiple answers, the simplest one is that the federal government has an interest in economic growth, and the more our innovation hubs strain under unaffordable housing the more it will impact american economic growth. > their own myopic local politics Well yes, but when every locality simultaneously experiences the same issues with local politics it hints to a systemic issue. The federal government can help overcome systemic issues by lining up incentives for local communities to act in a way that's beneficial to the economy, rather than beneficial to their home prices.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> These three rules were pretty much common sense prior to the spread of the private motor vehicle And late 19th and early 20th century urban utopias were the result? There are certainly problems with car culture (especially environmental impacts), but the idea that pre-car common patterns of urbanization were “good urbanism” is something which needs some support.

helen___keller 8y ago
I'm not suggesting the pre-war world was perfect. Cities had tons of problems, some that wouldn't apply today and some that would. What I am suggesting is, for all their faults, urban design reflected the fact that people could not commute to work by car, because they did not own cars. It was categorically impossible that a cities poor workers could be pushed 50 miles out to some cheap exurb. And it turns out, the politically connected elite still needed cheap workers, and so urban design reflected the need for cheap housing. No, cities weren't perfect. I'm not advocating a return to tenements, and I doubt anyone else is. But car dependence isn't just environmentally damaging, it is fundamentally unable to scale to the demands of modern innovation hubs. Cars are well-suited to the dispersed living patterns of the late 20th century, but as I already mentioned the dispersed living patterns of the late 20th century do not match the centralized work patterns of innovation hubs today.

hnaccy 8y ago

These "innovation hubs" are already capturing large slice of economic growth and talent, why should the federal government subsidize them? If they're failing to urbanize it's due to their own myopic local politics.

helen___keller 8y ago
There are multiple answers, the simplest one is that the federal government has an interest in economic growth, and the more our innovation hubs strain under unaffordable housing the more it will impact american economic growth. > their own myopic local politics Well yes, but when every locality simultaneously experiences the same issues with local politics it hints to a systemic issue. The federal government can help overcome systemic issues by lining up incentives for local communities to act in a way that's beneficial to the economy, rather than beneficial to their home prices.