10 ms·
The entire special report is well worth a read: https://www.economist.com/special-report/2020/01/16/housing-is-at-the-root-of-many-of-the-rich-worlds-problems h
by davidw 7y ago
The entire special report is well worth a read: https://www.economist.com/special-report/2020/01/16/housing-is-at-the-root-of-many-of-the-rich-worlds-problems https://www.economist.com/special-report/2020/01/16/housing-...
There's a lot of information, history and a broad perspective on how things work in various countries.
Housing politics is key to so many things:
* The economy - allowing people to live in productive places is a benefit to them, and all of us, because they put their talents to more productive use. California, where the housing crisis is worst, also has the highest poverty levels of the US when cost of living (which is mostly housing) is factored in.
* The environment - cities are more environmentally friendly than sprawling suburbs.
* Equality and "social justice": the history of how people of color have been frozen out of the housing 'ladder' in the US is not as well known as more blatant and vicious examples of racism, but it is a huge reason why certain disparities have persisted.
- tonyedgecombe 7y ago>The environment - cities are more environmentally friendly than sprawling suburbs. I'm not sure that is true, 50% of the world lives in cities but cities produce 70% of the worlds emissions.
- davidw 7y agoThere are a lot of articles talking about this. Here's one I grabbed: https://www.citylab.com/life/2012/04/why-bigger-cities-are-greener/863/ https://www.citylab.com/life/2012/04/why-bigger-cities-are-g... I think in the statistic you cite, 'city' includes both the urban part and the sprawling suburbs. You'd also want to compare apples to apples: someone living a very green life in a "western" city is still likely to live a more carbon-intensive life than someone doing subsistence farming.
- tonyedgecombe 7y agoI suspect it's more about wealth, people in cities earn and spend more. In general the more you spend the bigger your carbon footprint.
- xnrv 7y agoyeah, that might be true if we built cities where the only means of transportation was public transit. But I'm thinking of all those skyscrapers in SF, and how many folks make 1-2 hour commutes to work in them.
- davidw 7y agoIf there were more housing close to those skyscrapers; if it were legal to build it, those people would have shorter commutes - and occupy less land to boot. Instead, San Fran is one of the NIMBYest cities on the planet and so all those people are forced to come in from further afield.
- ip26 7y agoThe skyscrapers themselves are pretty eco-unfriendly as well, frequently built as essentially a giant greenhouse with heavy heating & cooling loads to maintain comfort.
- davidw 7y agoI suppose you might look at some technical discussions of whether you're better off with a larger area built up to 6-10 stories or something like that, than fewer, taller skyscrapers, but in general, that denser environment keeps cities from sprawling out, and is more friendly to people walking around. I prefer the more European style of 2-8 stories, like here: https://goo.gl/maps/poabxNny8r8Jq46v7 https://goo.gl/maps/poabxNny8r8Jq46v7 But I think the broader point stands.
- hadlock 7y agoMany european cities max out at 8 stories simply because they were built before the advent of elevators, or the design aesthetic started before the elevator and they're keeping new neighborhoods consistent. 4 floors is mildly inconvenient on foot but 8 floors is becoming a real chore for people over 40.
- 7y ago
- dmwallin 7y agoThere are significant demographic issues to account for, especially when looking at such high level statistics. Your breakdown also doesn't take into account the inverse land-use factor. High density in one location allows for lower density elsewhere, with additional environmental effects.
- asjw 7y agoI wonder where those people not living in the city go to work or at school... Oh, wait! Rome is a city with less than 4 million inhabitants, they become almost 6 millions during a normal workday.
- dcolkitt 7y agoThat mostly seems like an artifact that first world countries are much more urbanized than third world countries. Wealthy consumers generate much more carbon per capita in general. New York City may produce more emissions than Papau New Guinea. But I don't think moving people from Manhattan to Vermont would lower emissions. Just the opposite in fact.
- onlyrealcuzzo 7y agoA person's carbon footprint is directly related to their wealth/income. If 80% of wealth/income is in cities, this isn't surprising. Further, the definition of "city" can include a lot of sprawl in places like Houston, Phoenix, and even Beijing and Tokyo. Even further, can you cute your source? I'm skeptical of both numbers. And it would be very easy to cherry pick either side of these numbers. For example, a lot of concrete is pored in cities to build mid/high rises. Concrete produces a fuck-ton of carbon. Is this amortized over the expected lifespan of the building? Where is the carbon cost accounted for? A lot of the carbon is emitted in rural areas. But is it all just lumped into the city because that's where it's used? That seems unfair. A lot of rural wealth comes from natural resource extraction used to build and power cities... Most power plants and factories are outside of cities. Yes, they mostly power the city and produce goods for the city -- but their providing a lot of income/wealth to rural areas...
- transect 7y ago> Further, the definition of "city" can include a lot of sprawl in places like Houston, Phoenix, and even Beijing and Tokyo. Is it the case that you get to cherry pick which urban center is a real city based on how green it is?
- onlyrealcuzzo 7y agoThe point is, there's likely a certain density at which it gets progressively more green to live in. If you're treating all cities equally, there's hardly a point in distinguishing between cities and small towns. There's not much of a difference between Omaha, Nebraska and Podunk, Kentucky. There's a gigantic difference between Manhattan and Yonkers. I wouldn't be surprised if Dallas is "less green" than small towns in Italy, even adjusting for income/wealth. I would be surprised if the same is true when you compare to inner Tokyo (Shibuya). One thing that would be interesting to know -- high rises can use a ton of energy to heat & cool. And the taller they get, a significant portion of the building is just stairs and elevators. I wouldn't be surprised if density gets "less green" at a certain maximum. Manhattan & Shibuya could very well be past that point.
- BurningFrog 7y agoThink of it this way: The smaller area humans occupy, the more can be untouched wilderness.
- megablast 7y agoDirectly touching sure, but what about indirectly touching. If those city dwellers are all using more carbon and creating more pollution, then they may touch more wilderness. Of course, they do not, but still....
- BurningFrog 7y agoPeople in cities have much shorter and less car driven commutes than in suburbs or rural. Everything is near and there is public transport. So how they would use more carbon is very hard to see.
- mergoc 7y agoThis is also a factor or density right? There are more people leaving per square meter in a city than there are in rural areas.
- ndarwincorn 7y agoCarbon emissions aren't the only impact humans have on the environment. As one other commenter pointed out, the further humans sprawl the more we encroach on wildlife habitat. This trope of environment === greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is dangerous.
- megablast 7y agoWow, what a way to play with statistics.
- sjg007 7y ago>California, where the housing crisis is worst, also has the highest poverty levels of the US when cost of living (which is mostly housing) is factored in. The housing crisis is relative. It's a crisis when your relative moves in.. All joking aside, _every_ major metro has an affordable housing crisis.
- thorwasdfasdf 7y agoThat's a funny joke but the housing crisis in CA is no laughing matter. many have lost family and friends who have had to leave the state. millenials have stopped having children. and the few who can buy are taking on insance mortgages to pay off million dollar homes which are supposed to cost 250K. Imagine global warming burning down every last house in your city 2-3 times and now you've got the approximate financial damage caused by the housing crisis in CA
- sjg007 7y agoHey I mean I had to leave CA because of it.. I know how crazy it is.
- amiga_500 7y agoIt's a land value crisis. That's why the same size house costs more in a city. Society creates land value. Tax land, not labour.
- tehsauce 7y agoWouldn't this discourage activities like farming, while helping technology giants get ahead?
- Thorentis 7y agoI think informing tax law with zoning would be useful here. Rural: tax labor. Residential: tax land. Commercial: tax land + building. And then if you're really feeling like reform: Tax assets instead of income for individuals, and tax both for corporations. Only tax income for small businesses.
- jelliclesfarm 7y agoInteresting. After some thought, I’d summarize that all taxes on income and assets..including property.. are inappropriate. We should have a flat consumption tax for all. And a single one time child tax. It is in effect a double tax, but still will be lower impact than the cacophony of various taxes we have now...it can be used to fund education. Currently funded by property taxes. a single flat consumption tax will stabilize economy. I suspect that it would also curtail consumption and carbon foot print. A tiered consumption tax might be punitive but not a terrible idea even though it ought to be a back up or a emergency measure during crisis situations. Food, shelter, medical and educational expenses should be taxed after a minimal deduction.
- amiga_500 7y ago> After some thought, Try a lot of thought. Like Henry George. Ricardo. Einstein. Friedman. And then reconsider.
- 7y ago
- soylentcola 7y ago> Equality and "social justice": the history of how people of color have been frozen out of the housing 'ladder' in the US is not as well known as more blatant and vicious examples of racism, but it is a huge reason why certain disparities have persisted. In my city (and several others) you can overlay a current map of "above/below poverty line" on top of a 1930's map rating neighborhoods by "risk". Those rated low quality/high risk due to "threat of infiltration of foreign-born, negro, or lower grade population" in the 1930s line right up with the largest swaths of below-poverty-line neighborhoods today. https://www.citylab.com/equity/2015/04/after-nearly-a-century-redlining-still-divides-baltimore/391982/ https://www.citylab.com/equity/2015/04/after-nearly-a-centur...