3 ms·

China's alternative approach is hukou, which is in practice the only way US superstar cities could get what they want, to be both quaint and affordable: just ba

China's alternative approach is hukou, which is in practice the only way US superstar cities could get what they want, to be both quaint and affordable: just ban people from moving there. China is allowing the countryside to urbanize but they are doing it at their own pace; it's not a free for all where every bright kid from every backwards place is simultaneously bidding up the price of housing in Beijing. In the US these kinds of internal migration controls violate the Equal Protection clause, so they are mostly a pipe dream. Like anywhere, the US has a lot of places not worth living in, but the people from those places are all able to compete for spots in the cities, so those spots will necessarily be competitive.

chii 5y ago
So if that's the case, won't investing gov't funds into those uncompetitive places (e.g., by moving gov't agencies there, moving some industries that could move there etc) even out the level of competition? Rather than spending money subsidizing the poor in these competitive places, it's better and cheaper imho, to add/create a good place to be in a currently bad place.
- closeparen 5y ago
  There might really be the magic window, where a place is big enough for real opportunities and amenities but small enough for cheap large-lot housing, high-mileage low-traffic commutes, and ample free parking. But if it exists, it's very narrow. We have no track record of getting population centers into that window or holding them there. Most population centers, whether driven by government spending or not, either undershoot or overshoot it in the end. We have thousands upon thousands of towns sustained by the local military installation, prison, defense plant, research lab, state university, etc. Even some mid-sized metro areas where the economy is mostly Medicare. Usually it is more of a life support thing. They're too small to be desirable. On those occasions when they do take off and become desirable (defense spending made Silicon Valley!) they quickly become competitive. Rather than trying to manufacture and maintain dozens of places on this knife's edge Goldilocks window for postwar sprawl (that may or may not exist), we could instead choose a building and transportation architecture that provides a high quality of life at reasonable cost over a wider range of population levels.

chii 5y ago

So if that's the case, won't investing gov't funds into those uncompetitive places (e.g., by moving gov't agencies there, moving some industries that could move there etc) even out the level of competition? Rather than spending money subsidizing the poor in these competitive places, it's better and cheaper imho, to add/create a good place to be in a currently bad place.

closeparen 5y ago
There might really be the magic window, where a place is big enough for real opportunities and amenities but small enough for cheap large-lot housing, high-mileage low-traffic commutes, and ample free parking. But if it exists, it's very narrow. We have no track record of getting population centers into that window or holding them there. Most population centers, whether driven by government spending or not, either undershoot or overshoot it in the end. We have thousands upon thousands of towns sustained by the local military installation, prison, defense plant, research lab, state university, etc. Even some mid-sized metro areas where the economy is mostly Medicare. Usually it is more of a life support thing. They're too small to be desirable. On those occasions when they do take off and become desirable (defense spending made Silicon Valley!) they quickly become competitive. Rather than trying to manufacture and maintain dozens of places on this knife's edge Goldilocks window for postwar sprawl (that may or may not exist), we could instead choose a building and transportation architecture that provides a high quality of life at reasonable cost over a wider range of population levels.