3 ms·

Neither extreme is viable. OOH, interest groups exist and restrictive zoning can cause illogical cityscapes with way too little housing. OOH, no planning, no z

Neither extreme is viable. OOH, interest groups exist and restrictive zoning can cause illogical cityscapes with way too little housing. OOH, no planning, no zoning and laissez faire dynamics don't really get you to a logical metropolis either. Both tend to fail at density. High density cities need as much investment in difficult infrastructure as they do in real estate. A lot of successful examples in the world at large are pretty highly planned. I'd also note that most are guided to some extent by national-level agendas. A purely local agenda isn't generally going to select fast change. All sorts of vested interest to the contrary. Property scarcity, but also other things. More people usually want their towns to stay the same. IMO, there really is no way around the need for competent, well intentioned decision making... on average. There's also now way around a need for intention. What's the actual goal for Berkeley? Where do they want to be in 30 years.

ars 6y ago
And what if your goal is low density? Your post assume the density is a positive goal. I disagree, I think it's a miserable way to live. Let people live how they want, and keep voting very local. Each city can have different density levels and housing styles. You want density? Move somewhere dense, and vote that way, I have no issue with it. I'll move to low density areas and vote that way, and I expect you not to have an issue with that either.
- endisneigh 6y ago
  I disagree - if you want low density and the area is popular you should have to pay for the privilege. People can live however they want in this world, just not for free.
  - frongpik 6y ago
    The US in general is a low density country and is a popular destination. Does it mean it should pay to whoever expressed the desire to immigrate to the US?
- dalbasal 6y ago
  If your goals are different, you have different options. I don't think totally planned or totally laissez faire are optimal for most settings, but if there's plenty of land and the goal is suburbanized clusters then you'll probably lean more laissez faire. If the goal is to keep things as they are, you have lots of options... most western cities are good at this. This conversation (I'm contending) is context dependent. I think the/a current issue and the topic of this article (besides Berkely) is extremely high demand cities and their problems growing. It's a similar set of issues in Munich, London, NY, SF, etc. Housing availability is terrible. There are overcrowding & transport related problems. Looking at them, it seems like they're mice grown to elephant sized. The body plan doesn't suite the scale. It gets philosophical, and you can definitely lean too far into creative destruction as well... I tend to favour evolution. Things will change. They need to. Besides that, I think there is plenty of choice. Especially in the US, different locals are different. If you can and want to move, choice exists. I don't think that's the friction. The friction is from people who stay put and aren't comfortable with change. Those two things also go together. We all have a more conservative disposition about the things we've known the longest.
- imtringued 6y ago
  You can suffer from your misery. It's your choice. Homeless problems are your choice. Drug problems are your choice. High housing costs are your choice. Don't pretend you didn't want this.

ars 6y ago

And what if your goal is low density? Your post assume the density is a positive goal. I disagree, I think it's a miserable way to live. Let people live how they want, and keep voting very local. Each city can have different density levels and housing styles. You want density? Move somewhere dense, and vote that way, I have no issue with it. I'll move to low density areas and vote that way, and I expect you not to have an issue with that either.

endisneigh 6y ago
I disagree - if you want low density and the area is popular you should have to pay for the privilege. People can live however they want in this world, just not for free.
- frongpik 6y ago
  The US in general is a low density country and is a popular destination. Does it mean it should pay to whoever expressed the desire to immigrate to the US?
dalbasal 6y ago
If your goals are different, you have different options. I don't think totally planned or totally laissez faire are optimal for most settings, but if there's plenty of land and the goal is suburbanized clusters then you'll probably lean more laissez faire. If the goal is to keep things as they are, you have lots of options... most western cities are good at this. This conversation (I'm contending) is context dependent. I think the/a current issue and the topic of this article (besides Berkely) is extremely high demand cities and their problems growing. It's a similar set of issues in Munich, London, NY, SF, etc. Housing availability is terrible. There are overcrowding & transport related problems. Looking at them, it seems like they're mice grown to elephant sized. The body plan doesn't suite the scale. It gets philosophical, and you can definitely lean too far into creative destruction as well... I tend to favour evolution. Things will change. They need to. Besides that, I think there is plenty of choice. Especially in the US, different locals are different. If you can and want to move, choice exists. I don't think that's the friction. The friction is from people who stay put and aren't comfortable with change. Those two things also go together. We all have a more conservative disposition about the things we've known the longest.
imtringued 6y ago
You can suffer from your misery. It's your choice. Homeless problems are your choice. Drug problems are your choice. High housing costs are your choice. Don't pretend you didn't want this.