4 ms·

There is a third option in which we have market rate prices and don't dramatically restrict the ability to add new housing. And I don't believe that is impossi

There is a third option in which we have market rate prices and don't dramatically restrict the ability to add new housing. And I don't believe that is impossible to build more housing in Stockholm. It has a population density of 400 people/km^2. To put that in perspective, Chicago (in the US) has a population density of 4000 people/km^2. And Chicago (outside of a central business district which is very dense) is not some dystopian megalopolis. It is mostly neighborhoods of single-family homes and small apartment buildings. Seoul, SK has a population density four times higher than that at ~16000 people/km^2. Paris is even denser at 20000 people/km^2.

alkonaut 5y ago
The 400 figure (or even 350) is for the “metro area”, but while metro might sound like city, it’s not. That’s a huge area with large swaths of rural land. There are large municipalities with under 30ppl/sq km which lie inside the metro area. This scenery is pretty typical: (try to streetview-walk to city hall…) https://www.google.com/maps/@59.8794892,18.8876507,3a,75y/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s1-_Y1zqfRXOfx3XIzsa_Rw!2e0 https://www.google.com/maps/@59.8794892,18.8876507,3a,75y/da... The confusion is probably because the “greater Stockholm” and “Stockholm metro area” were defined to be synonymous. So greater stockholm isn’t even a city + suburbia, it’s downright rural for the most part (which is of course evident by the 400 number). Next to me is a 20sq km national park forest, for example. The density in Stockholm city proper is 4-5000 per square km which is pretty typical. It’s simply surrounded by a massive area of very low density which is still called the metro area. Also what areas are included in such density measures? Buildable land or also including e.g. water? if you consider the amount of area consisting of water in central Stockholm, the density per land square km must be quite high if it’s the overall density that is 4-5000/sq.km Dramatically increasing the density in the city itself would require building tall buildings in what is currently (most likely) green space in the city. That’s not possible for the foreseeable future. There are a few highrises popping up on former industrial land in central locations, but it’s not going to make a big difference. There is no problem building housing in the largely rural Stockholm metro area, but far from the city there isn’t much demand either. I’m not saying there isn’t a lack of construction - but the areas where there is both demand and space aren’t as large as one might think just because the density overall is low.
- thinkharderdev 5y ago
  My mistake, the 400 number is not correct as you point out. Still, even at 5km per km^2 it is one quarter the density of Seoul and one fifth the density of Paris. I've never personally been to Seoul but Paris still seems to have plenty of green spaces. I don't doubt for a second that building a lot more housing is not possible for the foreseeable future but like in most places that is a political problem and not some fundamental constraint. And rent controls don't "solve" the basic imbalance between people wanting to live in a place and there not being enough housing for all of them in any meaningful sense. You are still rationing one way or another. When there are fixed supply constraints then maybe that is a more just way to do it, but when the supply constraints are artificial then it just entrenches a bad equilibrium.

alkonaut 5y ago

The 400 figure (or even 350) is for the “metro area”, but while metro might sound like city, it’s not. That’s a huge area with large swaths of rural land. There are large municipalities with under 30ppl/sq km which lie inside the metro area. This scenery is pretty typical: (try to streetview-walk to city hall…) https://www.google.com/maps/@59.8794892,18.8876507,3a,75y/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s1-_Y1zqfRXOfx3XIzsa_Rw!2e0 https://www.google.com/maps/@59.8794892,18.8876507,3a,75y/da... The confusion is probably because the “greater Stockholm” and “Stockholm metro area” were defined to be synonymous. So greater stockholm isn’t even a city + suburbia, it’s downright rural for the most part (which is of course evident by the 400 number). Next to me is a 20sq km national park forest, for example. The density in Stockholm city proper is 4-5000 per square km which is pretty typical. It’s simply surrounded by a massive area of very low density which is still called the metro area. Also what areas are included in such density measures? Buildable land or also including e.g. water? if you consider the amount of area consisting of water in central Stockholm, the density per land square km must be quite high if it’s the overall density that is 4-5000/sq.km Dramatically increasing the density in the city itself would require building tall buildings in what is currently (most likely) green space in the city. That’s not possible for the foreseeable future. There are a few highrises popping up on former industrial land in central locations, but it’s not going to make a big difference. There is no problem building housing in the largely rural Stockholm metro area, but far from the city there isn’t much demand either. I’m not saying there isn’t a lack of construction - but the areas where there is both demand and space aren’t as large as one might think just because the density overall is low.

thinkharderdev 5y ago
My mistake, the 400 number is not correct as you point out. Still, even at 5km per km^2 it is one quarter the density of Seoul and one fifth the density of Paris. I've never personally been to Seoul but Paris still seems to have plenty of green spaces. I don't doubt for a second that building a lot more housing is not possible for the foreseeable future but like in most places that is a political problem and not some fundamental constraint. And rent controls don't "solve" the basic imbalance between people wanting to live in a place and there not being enough housing for all of them in any meaningful sense. You are still rationing one way or another. When there are fixed supply constraints then maybe that is a more just way to do it, but when the supply constraints are artificial then it just entrenches a bad equilibrium.