4 ms·

Absolutely. The Singapore HDB model is a great example to follow. [1] Almost 80% of Singaporeans live in HDB flats. But the reason the government won't build i

Absolutely. The Singapore HDB model is a great example to follow. [1] Almost 80% of Singaporeans live in HDB flats. But the reason the government won't build is the same reason they don't let individuals build. They are beholden to the voting land-owning class who doesn't want to see the value of their properties go down by adding new supply. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_and_Development_Board https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_and_Development_Board

metapsj 4y ago
The Limits of the Singapore Housing Model https://marketurbanism.com/2020/08/05/the-limits-of-the-singapore-housing-model/ https://marketurbanism.com/2020/08/05/the-limits-of-the-sing...
- arcticbull 4y ago
  It's an interesting article but their conclusion appears to be: > Haila argues that “Singapore has solved the housing problem” but this certainly isn’t true for those shut out from the HDB system. So it works for the people included, and not for the people excluded. Which is another way of saying it works?
  - lazyasciiart 4y ago
    No. The US housing system works for the people included, which is the existing homeowners. Plenty of housing systems work like that.
    - arcticbull 4y ago
      Here the people excluded are non-residents and non-citizens. So the system works for all residents and citizens, to whom the government is beholden. It could just as easily be extended to include foreign workers, and they've been moving in that direction already. This is an explicit decision not an implicit one. It's not that the system wouldn't be able to support them due to some fundamental or intrinsic issue, it's a choice. That isn't true of the US model.
im3w1l 4y ago
To me it sounds like failure actually. Kind of like soup kitchens, it's great that they exist, but I wouldn't cheer if 80% of people used their services. Free markets are better providing variety and choice, while governments are better at providing consistency and a minimum floor on quality. A successful government intervention would look to me like ~0% homelessness but >90% living in privately produced housing.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  Who cares if it's privately produced or not? The other 20% of the land is a free market free for all. You can always go there if you prefer.

metapsj 4y ago

The Limits of the Singapore Housing Model https://marketurbanism.com/2020/08/05/the-limits-of-the-singapore-housing-model/ https://marketurbanism.com/2020/08/05/the-limits-of-the-sing...

arcticbull 4y ago
It's an interesting article but their conclusion appears to be: > Haila argues that “Singapore has solved the housing problem” but this certainly isn’t true for those shut out from the HDB system. So it works for the people included, and not for the people excluded. Which is another way of saying it works?
- lazyasciiart 4y ago
  No. The US housing system works for the people included, which is the existing homeowners. Plenty of housing systems work like that.
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    Here the people excluded are non-residents and non-citizens. So the system works for all residents and citizens, to whom the government is beholden. It could just as easily be extended to include foreign workers, and they've been moving in that direction already. This is an explicit decision not an implicit one. It's not that the system wouldn't be able to support them due to some fundamental or intrinsic issue, it's a choice. That isn't true of the US model.

im3w1l 4y ago

To me it sounds like failure actually. Kind of like soup kitchens, it's great that they exist, but I wouldn't cheer if 80% of people used their services. Free markets are better providing variety and choice, while governments are better at providing consistency and a minimum floor on quality. A successful government intervention would look to me like ~0% homelessness but >90% living in privately produced housing.

arcticbull 4y ago
Who cares if it's privately produced or not? The other 20% of the land is a free market free for all. You can always go there if you prefer.