3 ms·

We are so far off from saturating the peak density in American cities that its not even worth worrying about. Ground space is somewhat scarce, but we could eas

We are so far off from saturating the peak density in American cities that its not even worth worrying about. Ground space is somewhat scarce, but we could easily bulldoze Sunset District and replace it with 40 story high rise apartment buildings.

sudosysgen 6y ago
First of all, that is impossible. Our infrastructure is not able to fulfill the needs of a city with such density. You would need massive investment on infrastructure, that would be incredibly costly and would take decades, possibly more given the history of public city infrastructure in the United States. It would also require re-organization of many industries to adapt with much lower car usage. In any case, it would not be enough. See, for example, Hong Kong. Despite incredibly high density, rent still ended up stabilizing at 35-55% of income.
- epistasis 6y ago
  And yet somehow, the current infrastructure was built and financed. Why can't more infrastructure be built in cities, and how could it possibly not be financially viable? Building housing doesn't mean people are born to fill the new housing. Everybody has to live somewhere! So the choice is to build out in sprawl, on green/brown fields. We did that. It turns out that suburbs are economically unsustainable because they require too much infrastructure per capita. Each person requires more roads, more pipes, more sewage lines... whereas cities are economically sustainable, because the per-person infrastructure costs are much lower, because the same pipe is far more efficient, and there's far less roads needed per person when they aren't sprawled out and people are able to walk to their destinations. We are so far from becoming HK that it's not really a relevant comparison. We force additional housing costs where we don't need to by artificially restricting supply. If we continue to do that, the housing price imbalance will get even further out of whack. The only people who lose under these conditions of housing austerity are those with less wealth, as it always is with austerity policies. Those who are striving to improve their situation won't get a chance to move to an area of higher economic opportunity because when prices are high, nobody can even make it in to the city. This has an enormous opportunity cost both for the individuals who can't live in the city of their choice, and for society that excludes that social interaction and economic activity. It has tremendous effects of increasing wealth inequality too.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    I'm not saying that it's impossible to finance it, just that it will take decades, over which the price of rent will still stabilize to stay more or less the same as a share of income.

sudosysgen 6y ago

First of all, that is impossible. Our infrastructure is not able to fulfill the needs of a city with such density. You would need massive investment on infrastructure, that would be incredibly costly and would take decades, possibly more given the history of public city infrastructure in the United States. It would also require re-organization of many industries to adapt with much lower car usage. In any case, it would not be enough. See, for example, Hong Kong. Despite incredibly high density, rent still ended up stabilizing at 35-55% of income.

epistasis 6y ago
And yet somehow, the current infrastructure was built and financed. Why can't more infrastructure be built in cities, and how could it possibly not be financially viable? Building housing doesn't mean people are born to fill the new housing. Everybody has to live somewhere! So the choice is to build out in sprawl, on green/brown fields. We did that. It turns out that suburbs are economically unsustainable because they require too much infrastructure per capita. Each person requires more roads, more pipes, more sewage lines... whereas cities are economically sustainable, because the per-person infrastructure costs are much lower, because the same pipe is far more efficient, and there's far less roads needed per person when they aren't sprawled out and people are able to walk to their destinations. We are so far from becoming HK that it's not really a relevant comparison. We force additional housing costs where we don't need to by artificially restricting supply. If we continue to do that, the housing price imbalance will get even further out of whack. The only people who lose under these conditions of housing austerity are those with less wealth, as it always is with austerity policies. Those who are striving to improve their situation won't get a chance to move to an area of higher economic opportunity because when prices are high, nobody can even make it in to the city. This has an enormous opportunity cost both for the individuals who can't live in the city of their choice, and for society that excludes that social interaction and economic activity. It has tremendous effects of increasing wealth inequality too.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  I'm not saying that it's impossible to finance it, just that it will take decades, over which the price of rent will still stabilize to stay more or less the same as a share of income.