3 ms·

>Who "wins" when we shift our building patterns towards Urbanism? Aside from everyone who gets to live there, of course. I feel like big political changes like

by _dain_ 5y ago

>Who "wins" when we shift our building patterns towards Urbanism? Aside from everyone who gets to live there, of course. I feel like big political changes like this don't happen unless someone who stands to gain is busy lobbying to make it happen. And I don't know what, if any, entity stands to gain a lot from building pedestrian-friendly, dense, beautiful cities. You may be interested in a policy the UK government is considering: https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Strong-Suburbs.pdf https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Strong-Subu... The idea is to let small groups of residents (a single street) vote to loosen planning restrictions in specific ways, allowing for incremental intensification of suburbs.

wilkommen 5y ago
From that proposal: "The housing crisis is often presented as a zero-sum conflict. More houses must be built to avoid rising homelessness, falling home ownership, and wider economic stagnation. But they can only be built by forcing them through against the will of local people, either by imposing high-rise on our historic centres, or by concreting over our countryside with more suburban housing estates. On this analysis, the interests of those who already own homes are fundamentally opposed to the interests of those who do not, and policy is simply a matter of choosing which interest group will triumph over the other. This analysis is profoundly mistaken. The appearance of opposed interests is the result of a defective system, which excludes existing communities from the benefits of development while imposing on them its adverse effects. If existing communities are allowed to control the form of development and to share in the benefits that it brings, they can become enthusiastic supporters." I like it. I do hope it is possible for communities to become enthusiastic supporters.
- wilkommen 5y ago
  The more I read of this proposal the more I like it. It feels realistic. I feel like it properly addresses the reasons people oppose development and offers a practical way out of the bind.
  - _dain_ 5y ago
    I know right? Reading it is like a pleasant balm. Sensible and humane, especially compared to a lot of the other stuff the UK government gets up to nowadays. I really hope it gets through Second Reading in 2022.

by _dain_ 5y ago

wilkommen 5y ago

From that proposal: "The housing crisis is often presented as a zero-sum conflict. More houses must be built to avoid rising homelessness, falling home ownership, and wider economic stagnation. But they can only be built by forcing them through against the will of local people, either by imposing high-rise on our historic centres, or by concreting over our countryside with more suburban housing estates. On this analysis, the interests of those who already own homes are fundamentally opposed to the interests of those who do not, and policy is simply a matter of choosing which interest group will triumph over the other. This analysis is profoundly mistaken. The appearance of opposed interests is the result of a defective system, which excludes existing communities from the benefits of development while imposing on them its adverse effects. If existing communities are allowed to control the form of development and to share in the benefits that it brings, they can become enthusiastic supporters." I like it. I do hope it is possible for communities to become enthusiastic supporters.

wilkommen 5y ago
The more I read of this proposal the more I like it. It feels realistic. I feel like it properly addresses the reasons people oppose development and offers a practical way out of the bind.
- _dain_ 5y ago
  I know right? Reading it is like a pleasant balm. Sensible and humane, especially compared to a lot of the other stuff the UK government gets up to nowadays. I really hope it gets through Second Reading in 2022.