4 ms·

I feel like most of these problems can be solved by increasing density and having fast transportation links. We are better off having Chinese ghost cities than

I feel like most of these problems can be solved by increasing density and having fast transportation links. We are better off having Chinese ghost cities than low density superstar cities where the average worker has to commute hours thanks to a woke left fear of “gentrification”. Build, baby build.

raunak 5y ago
Does a country really benefit from a majority of its people living in hyperdense incredibly urbanized cities, stacked on top of another in 200 sq. ft apartments? Gotta be a better solution - I of course don’t know what it is, but just my 2¢
- rejectedandsad 5y ago
  You’re free to not live in cities. But even suburbs don’t build like they did in the 70s.
- ChrisLTD 5y ago
  Can we compromise at 750 square feet?
majormajor 5y ago
If we thought it was worth forcing people to move the problem could be solved without creating a bunch of new ghost cities, there's already a LOT of undesirable cheap places. But forced relocation is not something you're gonna get many people on board with.
- majormajor 5y ago
  Here's an example: https://www.newyorker.com/news/us-journal/can-infrastructure-spending-save-ogdensburg-new-york https://www.newyorker.com/news/us-journal/can-infrastructure... "The housing stock is old, and much of it is dilapidated. (You can buy a single-family home for less than fifty thousand dollars.)" Force some highly paid remote workers to move there and get some more money circulating somewhere that needs it instead of these trendy places. Sure, you gotta trample all over what highly-paid people want, but no big deal, right? It's for the greater good? Not really any different from trampling over what poorer people currently living somewhere low-density want, if you drop a bunch of high-density development on them, right?
MisterBastahrd 5y ago
Not if you want to actually have a life and not be confined to a series of small boxes.
- closeparen 5y ago
  The main effect of NIMBY and low density development policy is to confine most Americans to the small boxes known as cars. I want to have a life where I can walk places.
  - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
    Most people want a life where they don't spend most of their waking hours in small boxes called apartments, where they actually raise their children and eat and sleep in. They even want a place called "outside" where they can let their kids play on surfaces that are green and not abrasive to the touch and on their own.
    - Twixes 5y ago
      Most of European cities are people living in flats and these are known for pretty good quality of life. Shops, cafes, schools, all nearby this way. I don't quite get the American urge to own houses even in the most populous places
maxsilver 5y ago
The problem is that American housing prices have very little to do with actual supply and demand, but are valued almost-exclusively by their proximity to density. (i.e, "location"). The density is the solution to the physics problem, but that same density is simultaneously the root cause of the cost problem. Americans can't just build empty cities and have people move into them, until America stops financially punishing people for moving into those buildings. It's not a "woke fear" of gentrification. It's simple fact-of-life stuff. Most Americans are either poor, or are one-or-two minor mistakes away from becoming poor (the so-called 'middle class'). Regardless of whether they own or rent, they all rightfully fear the explosion in cost of living, and are doing anything they can to get the gross financialization of living away from their own lives. And, as most policy exists in the US today, if you increase density anywhere in the US, all housing nearby instantly becomes more expensive (regardless of whether wages are rising or falling, regardless of whether the population is growing or shrinking, regardless of any actual human behaviour elsewhere). People, rightfully, are scared shitless this will happen to them. And they can't directly fight it, because it's literally federal policy -- comparables are how all mortgages are underwritten, and comparables don't care who actually did what, and are trivial to game. Oh, this building has rents that are completely unsustainable for the local population? Who cares, they're on the market, so they're part of the "market rate" now. Oh, some rich guy got mad that Americans got a trivial amount of emergency cash during the pandemic, and is now ranting about "Fiat Currencies" and "Hyper-inflation", so decided to convert his spare cash into property to sit on it? Guess Mom and Pop now have to compete against him when home shopping, that's "just the way things are". Oh, this building got purchased at 3x what it's actually worth, because an investment firm panicked over getting caught shorting GameStop stock earlier this year and has nowhere better to park it's spare cash with zero risk? Comparables don't give a shit, every real human has higher rents and higher housing prices, just to make those specific people happy. In a neoliberal Econ-101-only world view, all that mess "counts as demand" and must be "serviced by supply", just as if they were all real people needing a real place to live. So, someone who has only taken Econ 101, thinks the fix is always as simple as "build baby build, it's just supply and demand, duh". They usually get their way (in every place that's not SF/BayArea), and then they wonder incredulously why all the real people left and no one can afford to live there anymore. "I don't understand why people making $36k/yr won't pay $2k/month for our studio micro-apartments. I guess we just didn't gentrify enough. We'll just keep ramping up the gentrification, because that's what Econ 101 theory says to do. ".
tashoecraft 5y ago
We have the largest generation hitting retirement age who want to keep their largest source of value at peak levels. They're also the most active voters who can contribute the highest level to campaigns.
0xbadcafebee 5y ago
I'm not sure the "average worker" you're talking about is actually the average. And "woke left fear" is more like "economic certainty". I mean, did you read the article? If the workers can't afford to live there, there's no workers. Gentrification leads to failure unless you just happen to have a pocket of your city dedicated to housing all the poor people you need to run your 50 Starbucks. Fast transportation links are definitely useful. For example, in many densely populated cities, there are large, incredibly poor, crime-ridden neighborhoods on the outskirts of those cities, as that's where are the poor people were pushed by gentrification, redlining, etc. Even if there were jobs for them within a reasonable distance, public transportation would take them 3+ hours to get there, and not run late/early enough for many jobs. Faster and more transport links could help raise up huge swaths of oppressed people - though it has to be paired with increased access to education, food, small business loans, job programs, affordable childcare and healthcare, community outreach, etc. Increasing density would only exacerbate the problems of poor communities if it doesn't come with solutions to all those other problems I mention. Unless your intention is to create favelas.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  > it has to be paired with increased access to education Maybe some sort of skills training cooperative? You teach me and I teach you?

raunak 5y ago

Does a country really benefit from a majority of its people living in hyperdense incredibly urbanized cities, stacked on top of another in 200 sq. ft apartments? Gotta be a better solution - I of course don’t know what it is, but just my 2¢

rejectedandsad 5y ago
You’re free to not live in cities. But even suburbs don’t build like they did in the 70s.
ChrisLTD 5y ago
Can we compromise at 750 square feet?

majormajor 5y ago

If we thought it was worth forcing people to move the problem could be solved without creating a bunch of new ghost cities, there's already a LOT of undesirable cheap places. But forced relocation is not something you're gonna get many people on board with.

majormajor 5y ago
Here's an example: https://www.newyorker.com/news/us-journal/can-infrastructure-spending-save-ogdensburg-new-york https://www.newyorker.com/news/us-journal/can-infrastructure... "The housing stock is old, and much of it is dilapidated. (You can buy a single-family home for less than fifty thousand dollars.)" Force some highly paid remote workers to move there and get some more money circulating somewhere that needs it instead of these trendy places. Sure, you gotta trample all over what highly-paid people want, but no big deal, right? It's for the greater good? Not really any different from trampling over what poorer people currently living somewhere low-density want, if you drop a bunch of high-density development on them, right?

MisterBastahrd 5y ago

Not if you want to actually have a life and not be confined to a series of small boxes.

closeparen 5y ago
The main effect of NIMBY and low density development policy is to confine most Americans to the small boxes known as cars. I want to have a life where I can walk places.
- MisterBastahrd 5y ago
  Most people want a life where they don't spend most of their waking hours in small boxes called apartments, where they actually raise their children and eat and sleep in. They even want a place called "outside" where they can let their kids play on surfaces that are green and not abrasive to the touch and on their own.
  - Twixes 5y ago
    Most of European cities are people living in flats and these are known for pretty good quality of life. Shops, cafes, schools, all nearby this way. I don't quite get the American urge to own houses even in the most populous places

maxsilver 5y ago

The problem is that American housing prices have very little to do with actual supply and demand, but are valued almost-exclusively by their proximity to density. (i.e, "location"). The density is the solution to the physics problem, but that same density is simultaneously the root cause of the cost problem. Americans can't just build empty cities and have people move into them, until America stops financially punishing people for moving into those buildings. It's not a "woke fear" of gentrification. It's simple fact-of-life stuff. Most Americans are either poor, or are one-or-two minor mistakes away from becoming poor (the so-called 'middle class'). Regardless of whether they own or rent, they all rightfully fear the explosion in cost of living, and are doing anything they can to get the gross financialization of living away from their own lives. And, as most policy exists in the US today, if you increase density anywhere in the US, all housing nearby instantly becomes more expensive (regardless of whether wages are rising or falling, regardless of whether the population is growing or shrinking, regardless of any actual human behaviour elsewhere). People, rightfully, are scared shitless this will happen to them. And they can't directly fight it, because it's literally federal policy -- comparables are how all mortgages are underwritten, and comparables don't care who actually did what, and are trivial to game. Oh, this building has rents that are completely unsustainable for the local population? Who cares, they're on the market, so they're part of the "market rate" now. Oh, some rich guy got mad that Americans got a trivial amount of emergency cash during the pandemic, and is now ranting about "Fiat Currencies" and "Hyper-inflation", so decided to convert his spare cash into property to sit on it? Guess Mom and Pop now have to compete against him when home shopping, that's "just the way things are". Oh, this building got purchased at 3x what it's actually worth, because an investment firm panicked over getting caught shorting GameStop stock earlier this year and has nowhere better to park it's spare cash with zero risk? Comparables don't give a shit, every real human has higher rents and higher housing prices, just to make those specific people happy. In a neoliberal Econ-101-only world view, all that mess "counts as demand" and must be "serviced by supply", just as if they were all real people needing a real place to live. So, someone who has only taken Econ 101, thinks the fix is always as simple as "build baby build, it's just supply and demand, duh". They usually get their way (in every place that's not SF/BayArea), and then they wonder incredulously why all the real people left and no one can afford to live there anymore. "I don't understand why people making $36k/yr won't pay $2k/month for our studio micro-apartments. I guess we just didn't gentrify enough. We'll just keep ramping up the gentrification, because that's what Econ 101 theory says to do. ".

tashoecraft 5y ago

We have the largest generation hitting retirement age who want to keep their largest source of value at peak levels. They're also the most active voters who can contribute the highest level to campaigns.

0xbadcafebee 5y ago

I'm not sure the "average worker" you're talking about is actually the average. And "woke left fear" is more like "economic certainty". I mean, did you read the article? If the workers can't afford to live there, there's no workers. Gentrification leads to failure unless you just happen to have a pocket of your city dedicated to housing all the poor people you need to run your 50 Starbucks. Fast transportation links are definitely useful. For example, in many densely populated cities, there are large, incredibly poor, crime-ridden neighborhoods on the outskirts of those cities, as that's where are the poor people were pushed by gentrification, redlining, etc. Even if there were jobs for them within a reasonable distance, public transportation would take them 3+ hours to get there, and not run late/early enough for many jobs. Faster and more transport links could help raise up huge swaths of oppressed people - though it has to be paired with increased access to education, food, small business loans, job programs, affordable childcare and healthcare, community outreach, etc. Increasing density would only exacerbate the problems of poor communities if it doesn't come with solutions to all those other problems I mention. Unless your intention is to create favelas.

dane-pgp 5y ago
> it has to be paired with increased access to education Maybe some sort of skills training cooperative? You teach me and I teach you?