8 ms·

>We must prioritize development in the kinds of neighborhoods that permanently reduce total driving and consume less energy. Such human-centered neighborhoods h

by fouc 5y ago

>We must prioritize development in the kinds of neighborhoods that permanently reduce total driving and consume less energy. Such human-centered neighborhoods have the added benefit of helping us adapt to climate impacts, improve public health, and promote access to activities. Encouraging their development should be a central part of any national climate resilience strategy. I wonder if a moratorium could be issued to freeze all land zoning changes beyond the border of all cities, stop cities from growing outwards. This would force growth to turn inwards, and improve neighborhood density.

Aerroon 5y ago
I'm sure everyone that owns property would be thrilled about this. Send property prices soaring even more, which means even higher rents! Much of what the article seems to suggest are things that would increase property prices.
- iso1631 5y ago
  > Send property prices soaring even more, which means even higher rents! Not neccersarilly. There's a cap on rent, that being what people are willing and able to pay.
  - Aerroon 5y ago
    Yeah, but since you need to live somewhere people would probably be willing to drop all kinds of other things first.
    - iso1631 5y ago
      They already do. Price is set to a level of what people are able to pay, to a point where enough people are priced out that they can't live where they want because they can't afford it. Until supply massively increases, price does not reduce. Artificial changes like government subsidised rent schemes allow distribution of housing on non-financial means. This allows wages for people like teachers, shop clerks, security guards etc to stay low, and that's not good. Building outward does not increase supply in the city centre, increasing density does. Nothing encourages increasing density like charging. Imagine a $300/year/square foot charge. Not many people would be buying a low density 1000 square-foot house with $450k/year tax, instead there would be a massive demand to build 150 apartments on that lot instead, which would cost $2k a year each. There are currently plenty of places to live cheaply. There are not plenty of places to live where people want to live (central cities), so prices are higher there. The only solution to that is to increase availability where people want to live.
dkdbejwi383 5y ago
We basically have this in the UK with green belts, it just means that prices go up within the belt, and anywhere commutable outside swiftly rises too.
- iso1631 5y ago
  Land price increases. The problem is that land isn't taxed, and property is. A one family building taking 100 square metres costs £3k a year in council tax. A 50 flat block on the same space costs £100k a year.
echelon 5y ago
Nobody would ever vote for that. You can't tell people to get a vaccination, so you're definitely not going to tell them how they can use their land at scale. Land owners have more money to fight being told what to do, too. A nontrivial percentage of the population hates urban living and density. And over half the population wouldn't even agree with the thesis of this piece. So no, nobody is burning political capital on this.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  > Nobody would ever vote for that. Nor should they to be honest. This would help property owners massively, because their capital in holdings would skyrocket. The largest cities on the planet have severe ecological problems. It is just not a good idea, but people will tell you that this is the way of science to combat climate change.
  - echelon 5y ago
    Humans regurgitate their preferences, find and cite evidence that reenforces their world view. We're still animals. The smart ones use this to influence the rest.
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
      I am just surprised people actually swallow it that willingly and are delighted that the market is played against them.
nine_k 5y ago
That might limit the needed expansion if city bounds within reach of public transportation, etc. Instead, a further-away neighborhood would have to grow more dense, with longer-distance traffic between the two only increasing. Instead one might mandate density: minimum 4 stories, maximum so-and-so land for parking, maximum half a mile from a public transportation stop, etc.
- fouc 5y ago
  > minimum 4 stories, maximum so-and-so land for parking, maximum half a mile from a public transportation stop, etc. That would be interesting as well!
  - AstralStorm 5y ago
    Impossible to keep the 4 story requirement and walking distance to good public transportation in many bigger cities.
    - nine_k 5y ago
      No less than 4. Build 20 if it works for you!
bumbada 5y ago
This already is done in lots of places of Europe and Asia and have pernicious consequences. It means that old people bought a house working 10 years with just one person working and now both couples working can not afford to buy(or rent) a house working for 30 years because the land use is regulated. It will probably end in a violent revolution.
Arnt 5y ago
I've lived in a city that imposed a hard border in 1934 and has kept it since then. It left enough space to grow outwards for decades, but not any more, and it does concentrate growth inwards quite strongly now. I think the most important aspect here is that this is a well-known city and the policy is uncontroversial to the point of being unknown. People who live there take it for granted, people who don't haven't heard of it. The city is in the rich world, close to a million people live there if you include the suburbs, it's had this policy for almost ninety years, you (the reader) consider yourself knowledgeable about the world, and you don't know which city it is unless I tell you (rot13: Bfyb). That's how uncontroversial such a rule is, once it's in place.

by fouc 5y ago

Aerroon 5y ago

I'm sure everyone that owns property would be thrilled about this. Send property prices soaring even more, which means even higher rents! Much of what the article seems to suggest are things that would increase property prices.

iso1631 5y ago
> Send property prices soaring even more, which means even higher rents! Not neccersarilly. There's a cap on rent, that being what people are willing and able to pay.
- Aerroon 5y ago
  Yeah, but since you need to live somewhere people would probably be willing to drop all kinds of other things first.
  - iso1631 5y ago
    They already do. Price is set to a level of what people are able to pay, to a point where enough people are priced out that they can't live where they want because they can't afford it. Until supply massively increases, price does not reduce. Artificial changes like government subsidised rent schemes allow distribution of housing on non-financial means. This allows wages for people like teachers, shop clerks, security guards etc to stay low, and that's not good. Building outward does not increase supply in the city centre, increasing density does. Nothing encourages increasing density like charging. Imagine a $300/year/square foot charge. Not many people would be buying a low density 1000 square-foot house with $450k/year tax, instead there would be a massive demand to build 150 apartments on that lot instead, which would cost $2k a year each. There are currently plenty of places to live cheaply. There are not plenty of places to live where people want to live (central cities), so prices are higher there. The only solution to that is to increase availability where people want to live.

dkdbejwi383 5y ago

We basically have this in the UK with green belts, it just means that prices go up within the belt, and anywhere commutable outside swiftly rises too.

iso1631 5y ago
Land price increases. The problem is that land isn't taxed, and property is. A one family building taking 100 square metres costs £3k a year in council tax. A 50 flat block on the same space costs £100k a year.

echelon 5y ago

Nobody would ever vote for that. You can't tell people to get a vaccination, so you're definitely not going to tell them how they can use their land at scale. Land owners have more money to fight being told what to do, too. A nontrivial percentage of the population hates urban living and density. And over half the population wouldn't even agree with the thesis of this piece. So no, nobody is burning political capital on this.

raxxorrax 5y ago
> Nobody would ever vote for that. Nor should they to be honest. This would help property owners massively, because their capital in holdings would skyrocket. The largest cities on the planet have severe ecological problems. It is just not a good idea, but people will tell you that this is the way of science to combat climate change.
- echelon 5y ago
  Humans regurgitate their preferences, find and cite evidence that reenforces their world view. We're still animals. The smart ones use this to influence the rest.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    I am just surprised people actually swallow it that willingly and are delighted that the market is played against them.

nine_k 5y ago

That might limit the needed expansion if city bounds within reach of public transportation, etc. Instead, a further-away neighborhood would have to grow more dense, with longer-distance traffic between the two only increasing. Instead one might mandate density: minimum 4 stories, maximum so-and-so land for parking, maximum half a mile from a public transportation stop, etc.

fouc 5y ago
> minimum 4 stories, maximum so-and-so land for parking, maximum half a mile from a public transportation stop, etc. That would be interesting as well!
- AstralStorm 5y ago
  Impossible to keep the 4 story requirement and walking distance to good public transportation in many bigger cities.
  - nine_k 5y ago
    No less than 4. Build 20 if it works for you!

bumbada 5y ago

This already is done in lots of places of Europe and Asia and have pernicious consequences. It means that old people bought a house working 10 years with just one person working and now both couples working can not afford to buy(or rent) a house working for 30 years because the land use is regulated. It will probably end in a violent revolution.

Arnt 5y ago

I've lived in a city that imposed a hard border in 1934 and has kept it since then. It left enough space to grow outwards for decades, but not any more, and it does concentrate growth inwards quite strongly now. I think the most important aspect here is that this is a well-known city and the policy is uncontroversial to the point of being unknown. People who live there take it for granted, people who don't haven't heard of it. The city is in the rich world, close to a million people live there if you include the suburbs, it's had this policy for almost ninety years, you (the reader) consider yourself knowledgeable about the world, and you don't know which city it is unless I tell you (rot13: Bfyb). That's how uncontroversial such a rule is, once it's in place.