4 ms·

I'm extremely sympathetic to this view. Habitat destruction is the #1 or #2 way we're screwing over the planet. However, this looks like an area where environm

by AlanSE 5y ago

I'm extremely sympathetic to this view. Habitat destruction is the #1 or #2 way we're screwing over the planet. However, this looks like an area where environmentalists risk getting themselves into trouble. Global warming is a defined and solvable task, but the messaging keeps changing to something more like an open-ended commitment. That has huge risks for the public to tune it out, and perhaps further procrastinate on the carbon emissions problem. Average people do not have the emotional energy for a perpetual guilt machine. > We must increase the density of our cities. I kind of don't feel like we can afford to. The housing price increases since 2020 have an atrocious human cost. These rising costs of living are not sustainable. There are some good (tech) jobs that compensate sufficiently for this type of development to work... but no where near enough. On a macroeconomics sense, I'm inclined to think it just doesn't work at all. I'm also skeptical that the arguments apply to THIS migration. People are not moving into the rain forest, and the American mountain west, in particular, is fairly arid. The wildlife density of some places is orders of magnitude greater than other places. Preservation is a battle that you never win, you just delay. If we can't have our big houses, wide lawns, and transportation work with some ecosystems, maybe it's all doomed either way.

ajmurmann 5y ago
> I kind of don't feel like we can afford to. The housing price increases since 2020 have an atrocious human cost. These rising costs of living are not sustainable. There are some good (tech) jobs that compensate sufficiently for this type of development to work... but no where near enough. On a macroeconomics sense, I'm inclined to think it just doesn't work at all. The costs are rising because there is demand to move to cities, but we aren't increasing density. In most cities zoning and arduous permit processes are making building downright impossible. The lack of real density is driving the cost problem
- AlanSE 5y ago
  Ah yes, the old single family housing issue. I painfully remember a moment from the 2020 election cycle where CPAC or something had someone, amid much other nonsense, framed Democratic opposition to single-family zoning as ruining our way of life. This is, of course, while 90% of zoning is single-family. It's not just urban areas that need (at minimum) some zoning diversity. I don't know what the most cost effective density for construction is, but I know that in the US laws have prevented the market from realizing that optimum. Maybe 6 floor buildings provide the most floor space for the construction cost. Maybe it's 4. With the cost of housing being what it is, I feel like we can't afford to build at density either lower or higher than the optimum.. at least for the median economic persona.
  - rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago
    I mean, we don't need to figure out the right height of buildings or the right way to zone specific areas, we just need to remove restrictions and let the market figure it out. Just let people build stuff on the land they own, and the out-of-control rent spirals will eventually stop when there's enough housing.
ecshafer 5y ago
Housing prices are almost purely supply and demand. Cities like New York City have 90% of their existing housing stock ( the cheapest and densest buildings) labelled as illegal under their current zoning laws.Los Angeles have extremely restrictive laws that make only the most luxurious high end towers being financially viable, and most of the city zoned for only suburban sprawl. San Francisco is largely illegal to build anything at all there. Cities everywhere have zoning that requires deep pockets (and bribes to city officials) to get anything built and can still be stuck in random lawsuits for decades. We need to build our cities like we did pre-wwII. We need cities like look like Tokyo, Vienna, Paris, Manhattan, etc. We need cities that are dense and walke-able. Whether that is through removing zoning and height limits and putting parking maximums, or through government building public housing. Something needs to be done, it is a threat to our existence. We need to densify cities and towns, and replace highways full of SUVs with train lines. We need to replace coal and natural gas burning with solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  Trying to force density on people will fail because people don't like being told what to do and the government is terrible at telling people what to do. Just let people build whatever, wherever (hazardous commercial activity notwithstanding) and the suitable density for the area will develop naturally... like it did pre-ww2
  - milkytron 5y ago
    Density won't develop at it's natural pace if we continue with policies that inhibit density, and fund projects that discourage it.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      Hence the "just let people do whatever" part of my comment.

by AlanSE 5y ago

ajmurmann 5y ago

> I kind of don't feel like we can afford to. The housing price increases since 2020 have an atrocious human cost. These rising costs of living are not sustainable. There are some good (tech) jobs that compensate sufficiently for this type of development to work... but no where near enough. On a macroeconomics sense, I'm inclined to think it just doesn't work at all. The costs are rising because there is demand to move to cities, but we aren't increasing density. In most cities zoning and arduous permit processes are making building downright impossible. The lack of real density is driving the cost problem

AlanSE 5y ago
Ah yes, the old single family housing issue. I painfully remember a moment from the 2020 election cycle where CPAC or something had someone, amid much other nonsense, framed Democratic opposition to single-family zoning as ruining our way of life. This is, of course, while 90% of zoning is single-family. It's not just urban areas that need (at minimum) some zoning diversity. I don't know what the most cost effective density for construction is, but I know that in the US laws have prevented the market from realizing that optimum. Maybe 6 floor buildings provide the most floor space for the construction cost. Maybe it's 4. With the cost of housing being what it is, I feel like we can't afford to build at density either lower or higher than the optimum.. at least for the median economic persona.
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago
  I mean, we don't need to figure out the right height of buildings or the right way to zone specific areas, we just need to remove restrictions and let the market figure it out. Just let people build stuff on the land they own, and the out-of-control rent spirals will eventually stop when there's enough housing.

ecshafer 5y ago

Housing prices are almost purely supply and demand. Cities like New York City have 90% of their existing housing stock ( the cheapest and densest buildings) labelled as illegal under their current zoning laws.Los Angeles have extremely restrictive laws that make only the most luxurious high end towers being financially viable, and most of the city zoned for only suburban sprawl. San Francisco is largely illegal to build anything at all there. Cities everywhere have zoning that requires deep pockets (and bribes to city officials) to get anything built and can still be stuck in random lawsuits for decades. We need to build our cities like we did pre-wwII. We need cities like look like Tokyo, Vienna, Paris, Manhattan, etc. We need cities that are dense and walke-able. Whether that is through removing zoning and height limits and putting parking maximums, or through government building public housing. Something needs to be done, it is a threat to our existence. We need to densify cities and towns, and replace highways full of SUVs with train lines. We need to replace coal and natural gas burning with solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
Trying to force density on people will fail because people don't like being told what to do and the government is terrible at telling people what to do. Just let people build whatever, wherever (hazardous commercial activity notwithstanding) and the suitable density for the area will develop naturally... like it did pre-ww2
- milkytron 5y ago
  Density won't develop at it's natural pace if we continue with policies that inhibit density, and fund projects that discourage it.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    Hence the "just let people do whatever" part of my comment.