>we need to fundamentally allow landowners to build as much housing on that land as any given land owner wishes to build Strong Towns has a great line of reaso

>we need to fundamentally allow landowners to build as much housing on that land as any given land owner wishes to build Strong Towns has a great line of reasoning against this. If you are in a place that has been severely suppressing supply, letting all the barriers down (officially) will result in towers next to SFH (because most people owning the inflated houses will know to still fight like hell, new laws be damned), which will reinforce development as a bad thing. Alternative recommendation: some appropriate increment of intensification allowed by right (always allowed to double number of units on a lot, increase number of stories by greater of 50% or two stories, or whatever could sound reasonable in your locale.) Developments meeting the threshold should get approval on a rapid basis. If you 'let' people build whatever, wherever, the political whiplash will shut it down before anything positive can result.