3 ms·

why should there be a building height limit? if there is demand, the market with sane regulation(protection from foreign government interference and hostile man

why should there be a building height limit? if there is demand, the market with sane regulation(protection from foreign government interference and hostile manipulation) will provide as much housing as needed with as low prices as possible, driven by investors maximizing their profits from land investments possible solutions for the inaccessible housing issue: - make it so the people profit from housing prices rising -> minimize building and housing regulation, forbid foreign ownership of the land(like at least 50% should be owned by a local) and by taxes and loans make it more likely that a lot of people will own some land then small percentage of the people own a lot of land, specify that all those rules are going to apply for 20 years(number of years calculated to the point when the land of the nation is owned by the nation and more or less even), and it will be a completely free market afterwards(so investors are not afraid to invest) — in a society with high income inequality will require either high taxes for landowners and/or long time to achive high level of land ownership - government built, controlled and owned housing for the people(like singopore), — has a high potential for corruption, any country with weak institutions has a huge risk to end up without housing and with high corruption, income inequality etc

yardstick 5y ago
Agree govt controlled and owned housing is not a good idea in general, private home ownership is the way to go. Exceptions are people on benefits. > and by taxes and loans make it more likely that a lot of people will own some land then small percentage of the people own a lot of land This is what my original comment is all about. Except no 20yr limit, any investor who is banking on capital gains from house price increases will have no problem waiting 20 years to sell. Edit: re height limits, they are important to preserve views and ambience of the local area (London has some rules for instance where St Paul’s cathedral must be visible from certain other major landmarks), avoid too dense housing if it will cause undue issues with infrastructure (insufficient sewage capacity in the area for example), transport on an already congested road etc, and preserve the general vibe of the area (to a degree, people accept gradual change a lot better than a Big Bang approach), also sunlight issues for neighbouring properties. Building a 30 story apartment block in a suburb of 2-3 story houses is just out of place. Building slightly up to 6 stories is not so bad.

yardstick 5y ago

Agree govt controlled and owned housing is not a good idea in general, private home ownership is the way to go. Exceptions are people on benefits. > and by taxes and loans make it more likely that a lot of people will own some land then small percentage of the people own a lot of land This is what my original comment is all about. Except no 20yr limit, any investor who is banking on capital gains from house price increases will have no problem waiting 20 years to sell. Edit: re height limits, they are important to preserve views and ambience of the local area (London has some rules for instance where St Paul’s cathedral must be visible from certain other major landmarks), avoid too dense housing if it will cause undue issues with infrastructure (insufficient sewage capacity in the area for example), transport on an already congested road etc, and preserve the general vibe of the area (to a degree, people accept gradual change a lot better than a Big Bang approach), also sunlight issues for neighbouring properties. Building a 30 story apartment block in a suburb of 2-3 story houses is just out of place. Building slightly up to 6 stories is not so bad.