3 ms·

Great article but I didn’t like the whole libertarian take at the end that we are worse off because we don’t follow whatever is optimal is some theoretical free

Great article but I didn’t like the whole libertarian take at the end that we are worse off because we don’t follow whatever is optimal is some theoretical free market model. The real world is generally not well captured in unrestrained markets. You got externalities and tragedy of the commons not taken into account. If people always bought what benefitted them and society then nobody would be a heroin junkie, an alcoholic or obese. I don’t think high rise cities are really a path to better societies. I loved high rise building when I was younger but today I must say that most of the cities I enjoy most are not cities with tall buildings. Not everything of value can easily be captured in a market based system. They tend to only capture what can easily be measured. However the things which can easily be measured are often the least important things in life.

pydry 5y ago
If we didnt suffer from such a dire shortage of housing I would appreciate your point more. But we do. I have a feeling if expensive city center land became a tax liability (as it should be) rather than a gold-like asset to be jealously hoarded we wouldnt see the NIMBYism that led to this tangled web of regulations.
quicklime 5y ago
I’m very much not a libertarian, but I do wish that cities wouldn’t take such an absolute anti high rise stance. Every high rise city has low rise neighbourhoods, but low rise cities don’t have high rise neighbourhoods. So it’s a choice between a mix, or pure low rise, and I really dislike when the low rise people choose to force their taste onto others.
zozbot234 5y ago
> I don’t think high rise cities are really a path to better societies. I loved high rise building when I was younger but today I must say that most of the cities I enjoy most are not cities with tall buildings. High rise buildings are quite simply a path to better land use in the most valuable and most productive urban centers - think Manhattan. They will always be rare elsewhere, precisely because they do come with drawbacks that make them uneconomical otherwise.
- sroussey 5y ago
  I like the idea of having a single high rise surrounded by park rather than a bunch of apartment buildings in the same space.
  - closeparen 5y ago
    You and Le Corbusier. It turns out not to work very well, because the way a building interacts with its street-level neighbors is very important, and voids make bad neighbors. Death and Life of Great American Cities addresses this, I believe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Towers_in_the_park https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Towers_in_the_park
    - sroussey 5y ago
      My thoughts are probably even worse, as I often think about this when close to the ocean and I imagine each tower on its own island. Might be good for a retirement tower… safety moat and all.
CryptoPunk 5y ago
>>The real world is generally not well captured in unrestrained markets. You got externalities and tragedy of the commons not taken into account. What negative externalities does densification impose? He provides evidence that the laws limiting building height increase housing costs and reduce economic opportunity. Providing market freedom, where such freedom would provide a clear social and economic benefit, in the absence of evidence it produces negative externalities, is economically sound, and the anti-libertarian insistence that it's not is what is the actual ideologically-motivated position. >>today I must say that most of the cities I enjoy most are not cities with tall buildings. So move to a smaller town, or the suburbs, where land expense doesn't drive densification? Why oppose what people prefer, and artificially limit the density of the economic cores of large metropolises? These economic cores are a very limited set of geographically restricted zones that are hugely in demand places, for people all over the world to live, hire and work, and generate positive externalities for the entire world, to the extent that they can - through rising density and better transportation networks - build on their agglomeration effects that raise the per capita productivity and innovativeness of their residents. There are a great many alternatives to these regions if what one prefers low-density living. It's not reasonable to deny the development path that is clearly the aggregate preference of society at large just to maintain low density in these select locales.
closeparen 5y ago
I had the opportunity to travel all over this country last year, and I have to say, the only places that don't fill me with deep disgust and existential dread are a) the national parks, and b) the cities with plenty of very tall skyscrapers. The vast in-between of freeway interchanges, cookie-cutter subdivisions, strip malls, and big box stores, where the tallest thing around is the McDonalds or ExxonMobil sign, is an abomination. I will fill up at those gas stations and eat at those McDonalds on the way between places worth being, but whoo boy, if I had to live in a place like that I'd vote for demagogues too. I'm not a principled libertarian. Ideally, the law would stipulate that people who build to your preferences are hanged for war crimes. However, I suggest that we implement a free(r) market so that we can both live in the kinds of places we want, instead of one excluding the other.
ajmurmann 5y ago
"I loved high rise building when I was younger but today I must say that most of the cities I enjoy most are not cities with tall buildings." That's cool. So you can move to a place that's mostly low-or mid-rise buildings and can allow others to move to a place that has skyscrapers. Lucky for you almost every city has very few skyscrapers.

pydry 5y ago

If we didnt suffer from such a dire shortage of housing I would appreciate your point more. But we do. I have a feeling if expensive city center land became a tax liability (as it should be) rather than a gold-like asset to be jealously hoarded we wouldnt see the NIMBYism that led to this tangled web of regulations.

quicklime 5y ago

I’m very much not a libertarian, but I do wish that cities wouldn’t take such an absolute anti high rise stance. Every high rise city has low rise neighbourhoods, but low rise cities don’t have high rise neighbourhoods. So it’s a choice between a mix, or pure low rise, and I really dislike when the low rise people choose to force their taste onto others.

zozbot234 5y ago

> I don’t think high rise cities are really a path to better societies. I loved high rise building when I was younger but today I must say that most of the cities I enjoy most are not cities with tall buildings. High rise buildings are quite simply a path to better land use in the most valuable and most productive urban centers - think Manhattan. They will always be rare elsewhere, precisely because they do come with drawbacks that make them uneconomical otherwise.

sroussey 5y ago
I like the idea of having a single high rise surrounded by park rather than a bunch of apartment buildings in the same space.
- closeparen 5y ago
  You and Le Corbusier. It turns out not to work very well, because the way a building interacts with its street-level neighbors is very important, and voids make bad neighbors. Death and Life of Great American Cities addresses this, I believe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Towers_in_the_park https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Towers_in_the_park
  - sroussey 5y ago
    My thoughts are probably even worse, as I often think about this when close to the ocean and I imagine each tower on its own island. Might be good for a retirement tower… safety moat and all.

CryptoPunk 5y ago

>>The real world is generally not well captured in unrestrained markets. You got externalities and tragedy of the commons not taken into account. What negative externalities does densification impose? He provides evidence that the laws limiting building height increase housing costs and reduce economic opportunity. Providing market freedom, where such freedom would provide a clear social and economic benefit, in the absence of evidence it produces negative externalities, is economically sound, and the anti-libertarian insistence that it's not is what is the actual ideologically-motivated position. >>today I must say that most of the cities I enjoy most are not cities with tall buildings. So move to a smaller town, or the suburbs, where land expense doesn't drive densification? Why oppose what people prefer, and artificially limit the density of the economic cores of large metropolises? These economic cores are a very limited set of geographically restricted zones that are hugely in demand places, for people all over the world to live, hire and work, and generate positive externalities for the entire world, to the extent that they can - through rising density and better transportation networks - build on their agglomeration effects that raise the per capita productivity and innovativeness of their residents. There are a great many alternatives to these regions if what one prefers low-density living. It's not reasonable to deny the development path that is clearly the aggregate preference of society at large just to maintain low density in these select locales.

closeparen 5y ago

I had the opportunity to travel all over this country last year, and I have to say, the only places that don't fill me with deep disgust and existential dread are a) the national parks, and b) the cities with plenty of very tall skyscrapers. The vast in-between of freeway interchanges, cookie-cutter subdivisions, strip malls, and big box stores, where the tallest thing around is the McDonalds or ExxonMobil sign, is an abomination. I will fill up at those gas stations and eat at those McDonalds on the way between places worth being, but whoo boy, if I had to live in a place like that I'd vote for demagogues too. I'm not a principled libertarian. Ideally, the law would stipulate that people who build to your preferences are hanged for war crimes. However, I suggest that we implement a free(r) market so that we can both live in the kinds of places we want, instead of one excluding the other.

ajmurmann 5y ago

"I loved high rise building when I was younger but today I must say that most of the cities I enjoy most are not cities with tall buildings." That's cool. So you can move to a place that's mostly low-or mid-rise buildings and can allow others to move to a place that has skyscrapers. Lucky for you almost every city has very few skyscrapers.