4 ms·

Because these restrictions are a net-negative on the entire economy of the United States. If no metro areas blocked housing between 1964 and 2009, GDP would be

Because these restrictions are a net-negative on the entire economy of the United States. If no metro areas blocked housing between 1964 and 2009, GDP would be 50% higher than it is today. (https://www.nber.org/papers/w21154?utm_campaign=ntw&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ntw https://www.nber.org/papers/w21154?utm_campaign=ntw&utm_medi...) "The authors estimate that if New York, San Francisco, and San Jose had housing regulations—rules about where you can build, how tall you can build, how much parking you need, and so on—that didn’t protect cute houses and instead were equivalent to the median US city in the period between 1964 and 2009, the US economy would be 9.5% bigger right now, or grow 0.21% more annually. That’s would be a big deal for wages, for the public debt, and for prosperity in general." (https://qz.com/402763/new-york-and-san-fransiscos-insane-housing-prices-are-dragging-down-us-growth/ https://qz.com/402763/new-york-and-san-fransiscos-insane-hou...) The average worker's income would increase by $9,000 per year if the Bay Area and New York City relaxed their zoning laws. (https://www.theregreview.org/2018/06/14/somogyi-zoning-codes-gdp/ https://www.theregreview.org/2018/06/14/somogyi-zoning-codes...)

makomk 5y ago
The problem with this is that no matter how much you tell people that they need to live in tiny concrete boxes and like it because it'll make more money for Bezos and co, they're not going to like it, which is why attempts to push it anyway have to be so anti-democratic. Sure, people are all for economic growth if it improves their actual quality of life, but a huge part of that is actually having a decent home and the anti-NIMBY campaigns involve abandoning trying to give that to people in favour of "the economy" and more money for housing developers.
- kelnos 5y ago
  That's a false dichotomy. The solution to "housing crisis in low/medium-density area" need not be "dystopian nightmare".
- adrianN 5y ago
  Rent prices in cities where building small apartments is legal indicate that a large number of people want to live in small apartments if it is in a desirable location. For example I share 55m^2 with my wife and we like it. Commutes are short, super markets, cinemas, etc are close by. We don't have a car.
  - clairity 5y ago
    that's actually not small (~600 ft²), being plenty for 2 people (having done this myself), and even a third if they were a child. without even going tiny home crazy, for a single person in an urban neighborhood, a well-optimized 250 ft² (~23m²) apartment is plenty (i've done this too). if stores are plentiful and close, you don't need much storage, which is how all the excess square footage is eaten up in most homes.
    - adrianN 5y ago
      It is small for people buying 200m^2 plus a yard and a garage in suburbia. While I was single I lived on 25m^2 too. I once spent half a year in Tokyo on 5m^2. That was fine too.
- luckydata 5y ago
  That is a stupid (as in based on lack of information and wrong assumptions) take. You can have denser, more vertical housing that is pleasant to live in and very beautiful. Think Paris, or any large Italian city. We have multi story tall buildings with commercial space at the street level, the buildings are usually very nice to look at (better than any single family home I've owned or seen in the Bay Area) and are more conducive to meeting your neighbors and generating a lively community. They are also better for the environment as they are more energy efficient, produce neighborhood that don't require cars for every errand and reduce the need for expanding the city footprint which lead to public transport being more effective.
- Eric_WVGG 5y ago
  Oh cool. Go tell everyone in NYC with a chic loft that they don’t like their homes so it’ll free up some for me and everyone I know.

makomk 5y ago

The problem with this is that no matter how much you tell people that they need to live in tiny concrete boxes and like it because it'll make more money for Bezos and co, they're not going to like it, which is why attempts to push it anyway have to be so anti-democratic. Sure, people are all for economic growth if it improves their actual quality of life, but a huge part of that is actually having a decent home and the anti-NIMBY campaigns involve abandoning trying to give that to people in favour of "the economy" and more money for housing developers.

kelnos 5y ago
That's a false dichotomy. The solution to "housing crisis in low/medium-density area" need not be "dystopian nightmare".
adrianN 5y ago
Rent prices in cities where building small apartments is legal indicate that a large number of people want to live in small apartments if it is in a desirable location. For example I share 55m^2 with my wife and we like it. Commutes are short, super markets, cinemas, etc are close by. We don't have a car.
- clairity 5y ago
  that's actually not small (~600 ft²), being plenty for 2 people (having done this myself), and even a third if they were a child. without even going tiny home crazy, for a single person in an urban neighborhood, a well-optimized 250 ft² (~23m²) apartment is plenty (i've done this too). if stores are plentiful and close, you don't need much storage, which is how all the excess square footage is eaten up in most homes.
  - adrianN 5y ago
    It is small for people buying 200m^2 plus a yard and a garage in suburbia. While I was single I lived on 25m^2 too. I once spent half a year in Tokyo on 5m^2. That was fine too.
luckydata 5y ago
That is a stupid (as in based on lack of information and wrong assumptions) take. You can have denser, more vertical housing that is pleasant to live in and very beautiful. Think Paris, or any large Italian city. We have multi story tall buildings with commercial space at the street level, the buildings are usually very nice to look at (better than any single family home I've owned or seen in the Bay Area) and are more conducive to meeting your neighbors and generating a lively community. They are also better for the environment as they are more energy efficient, produce neighborhood that don't require cars for every errand and reduce the need for expanding the city footprint which lead to public transport being more effective.
Eric_WVGG 5y ago
Oh cool. Go tell everyone in NYC with a chic loft that they don’t like their homes so it’ll free up some for me and everyone I know.