4 ms·

> The real solution to a housing problem is to incentivize and facilitate the building of more housing. This argument comes up here in Australia with regards t

by foobar1962 7y ago

> The real solution to a housing problem is to incentivize and facilitate the building of more housing. This argument comes up here in Australia with regards to Sydney and Melbourne in particular -- the two largest cities. Building more houses only makes more sprawl. Increasing density causes problems for current residents and puts enormous strain on existing infrastructure[1]. The only real solution is to get people to live in other places that have more and cheaper housing. [1] Not just utility infrastructure like water, sewer, power, gas, (roads, sanitation, what the Romans did for us etc) but natural environment and leisure like sport and recreation areas, parks and bush land, and (particularly in Sydney) beaches. It's really hard making new beaches for the increased population.

cycrutchfield 7y ago
That’s not a real solution, that’s just wishing the problem would go away on its own. What you are advocating for here is that prices should be more expensive due to limited supply, so that people are forced away due to inability to afford living there.
- foobar1962 7y ago
  It's not wishing anything. People ARE ALREADY struggling to afford rent in Sydney and other large cities. They have been getting bigger and bigger in the past decade yet the problem only gets worse (like building highways to solve traffic congestion). The solution is to make other places attractive for living and have hood opportunities for employment. Look at it this way: your house or apartment or whatever can probably fit double the people in it. They might be on the floor or on the sofa or whatever, we can double the density. The quality of life will be decreased for everybody. At what point do we say "It's full, go somewhere else."
  - cycrutchfield 7y ago
    In a country with freedom of movement? Never. Your wishful thinking won’t change that. But by all means go ahead advocating to build housing where nobody wants to live, and continue your NIMBY policies to price people out of desirable locations.
    - foobar1962 7y ago
      I hear what you're saying, but can do without the NIMBY rhetoric. The discussion about "build more houses to reduce housing cost" is exactly the same as "build more highways to reduce traffic congestion" in that it doesn't work for long. What needs to happen is effort put in to make other cities and towns attractive. This could mean encouraging commerce and industry to re-locate or set up new factories or offices. It certainly means ensuring city-level standards of health care and education, something that is a good thing to do anyway Lastly there needs to be a campaign to encourage people to move to these places. Australia already has migration programs that require people to live anywhere other than the main capital cities. Australia has a scarcity of fresh water, and low rainfall. Our inland rivers are dying because water is diverted to irrigation for farming; Sydney's water supply is pretty stretched and the option to build more dams is neither environmentally desirable nor possible, because all the rivers have already been dammed, and most are less than full due to low rainfall. So without resorting to calling NIMBY, at what point can we say "we cannot support any more people"?
      - thisisnotatest 7y ago
        There are key differences between building more highways and building more dense housing. I suspect induced demand is more of an effect with highways than housing. People can change their driving habits from day to day more easily than they can change their living habits. Expand a highway, and more people in the area start taking more car trips on it. Add housing, and more people don't instantly come into existence to occupy it. (Maybe, over a few years, people stop cramming themselves into crowded roommate arrangements as much, and over decades they have more kids.) But if I granted that induced demand applied to both... Driving is a means to an end. People stuck in traffic are suffering. Having a home is an end in itself. People need shelter, and living near your community/job/family is a huge quality of life improvement. Plus, when you expand a highway, strictly more mileage is created. It's not like the additional car trips in this city are taking the place of car trips in another state. It's a net loss for society and the environment. Whereas, when you add housing, even if it induces more people to move into that city, they're moving out of some other city, easing the demand in the housing market there.

cycrutchfield 7y ago

That’s not a real solution, that’s just wishing the problem would go away on its own. What you are advocating for here is that prices should be more expensive due to limited supply, so that people are forced away due to inability to afford living there.

foobar1962 7y ago
It's not wishing anything. People ARE ALREADY struggling to afford rent in Sydney and other large cities. They have been getting bigger and bigger in the past decade yet the problem only gets worse (like building highways to solve traffic congestion). The solution is to make other places attractive for living and have hood opportunities for employment. Look at it this way: your house or apartment or whatever can probably fit double the people in it. They might be on the floor or on the sofa or whatever, we can double the density. The quality of life will be decreased for everybody. At what point do we say "It's full, go somewhere else."
- cycrutchfield 7y ago
  In a country with freedom of movement? Never. Your wishful thinking won’t change that. But by all means go ahead advocating to build housing where nobody wants to live, and continue your NIMBY policies to price people out of desirable locations.
  - foobar1962 7y ago
    I hear what you're saying, but can do without the NIMBY rhetoric. The discussion about "build more houses to reduce housing cost" is exactly the same as "build more highways to reduce traffic congestion" in that it doesn't work for long. What needs to happen is effort put in to make other cities and towns attractive. This could mean encouraging commerce and industry to re-locate or set up new factories or offices. It certainly means ensuring city-level standards of health care and education, something that is a good thing to do anyway Lastly there needs to be a campaign to encourage people to move to these places. Australia already has migration programs that require people to live anywhere other than the main capital cities. Australia has a scarcity of fresh water, and low rainfall. Our inland rivers are dying because water is diverted to irrigation for farming; Sydney's water supply is pretty stretched and the option to build more dams is neither environmentally desirable nor possible, because all the rivers have already been dammed, and most are less than full due to low rainfall. So without resorting to calling NIMBY, at what point can we say "we cannot support any more people"?
    - thisisnotatest 7y ago
      There are key differences between building more highways and building more dense housing. I suspect induced demand is more of an effect with highways than housing. People can change their driving habits from day to day more easily than they can change their living habits. Expand a highway, and more people in the area start taking more car trips on it. Add housing, and more people don't instantly come into existence to occupy it. (Maybe, over a few years, people stop cramming themselves into crowded roommate arrangements as much, and over decades they have more kids.) But if I granted that induced demand applied to both... Driving is a means to an end. People stuck in traffic are suffering. Having a home is an end in itself. People need shelter, and living near your community/job/family is a huge quality of life improvement. Plus, when you expand a highway, strictly more mileage is created. It's not like the additional car trips in this city are taking the place of car trips in another state. It's a net loss for society and the environment. Whereas, when you add housing, even if it induces more people to move into that city, they're moving out of some other city, easing the demand in the housing market there.