8 ms·

isn't it a slippery slope though?? You have to just keep adding supply but unfortunately the amount of living space that can be built in an urban area is constr

isn't it a slippery slope though?? You have to just keep adding supply but unfortunately the amount of living space that can be built in an urban area is constrained at some point both vertically and horizontally. So if you add a ton of houses you have the same problem just many years later but now everyone is living in a massive overcrowded area. Adding supply seems to just be postponing the problem. The real solution imo is to spread out the jobs to other areas so that these major urban areas aren't the only places people have to move to find work. There's tons of gorgeous places between the coasts that wonderful to live but there's no jobs.

outime 3y ago
>The real solution imo is to spread out the jobs to other areas so that these major urban areas aren't the only places people have to move to find work. While that definitely works whenever doable, I'd say investing in much better infrastructure to reduce commuting time and complexity is the other big factor. Living far away from the workplace isn't a biggie if I can take for example a train and be there in a reasonable amount of time. For sure an expensive solution but a solution that will pay off nevertheless.
- nerdchum 3y ago
  Completely agree. But you still hit a limit at some point, even with commuter trains and mass transit. I mean does anyone want to take a train 2 hours both ways to get to work? We just need good jobs/offices available in other regions.
  - throwaway173738 3y ago
    We need all of the above. More density, replacing more roads with mass transit, good jobs outside coastal cities, and more ways to work from home. None of these things are mutually exclusive.
Kalium 3y ago
> Isn't it a slippery slope though?? You have to just keep adding supply but unfortunately the amount of living space that can be built in an urban area is constrained at some point both vertically and horizontally. You're absolutely right. There's definitely real limits, vertically and horizontally, to how much density is physically possible. As an upper limit, we have good historical examples density of around 1.2 million people per square kilometer being workable. I don't think any part of the US today comes close to that - what data I can find says that the most densely populated part of the US is at 66,000 people per square km. That's multiple orders of magnitude different. With that in mind, I think it's possible that we haven't yet hit any real physical or space-based limits in American cities. Only political ones.
- whitemary 3y ago
  That kind of density requires trains. However, thanks to the privatisation of every aspect of our society, we can't build trains anymore.
- bloak 3y ago
  Where did they have "1.2 million people per square kilometer"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world_cities_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world_cities_by_popula... only goes up to about 80 thousand ... and the city with the highest population density in that list is one I must admit I'd never heard of, so there's a pub trivia question, perhaps.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - dublinben 3y ago
    It's hardly a shining example of livability, but the former Kowloon Walled City purportedly had a population density of over 1.9 million/km2. [0] More realistically, we can see examples of nice residential neighborhoods in Washington DC ranging from 30,000-100,000+/km2. [1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City [1] https://ggwash.org/view/42469/what-do-80000-people-in-a-square-mile-look-like-depends-on-where-you-put-them https://ggwash.org/view/42469/what-do-80000-people-in-a-squa...
favflam 3y ago
Look at San Jose Diridon Station. Caltrain and links to Oakland and San Francisco go through it. It is in the middle of Silicon Valley and yet the station is empty during the day surrounded by parking lots. Let's fix the low hanging fruit.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  Is the low-hanging fruit the fact that Caltrain sucks?
  - onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
    No - the low hanging fruit is that ~40%+ of most American cities are dedicated to cars (parking & roads) and another ~20% to yards. When you consider that airports & parks & golf courses take up a considerable amount of space - you're down to <10% of the city (proper) dedicated to space people actually live in. And that's often times single story - with no vertical use whatsoever.
davidw 3y ago
> isn't it a slippery slope though?? You have to just keep adding supply but unfortunately the amount of living space that can be built in an urban area is constrained at some point both vertically and horizontally. That's not a slippery slope though, it's an eventual limit that you might hit some day. If adding housing now is a win, add the housing. It makes people better off today.
- aziaziazi 3y ago
  > the actual solution to the housing crisis « Actual solution » as in temporary - good enough for now, not as sustainable - can work and scale for tomorrow ? Houses needs lots of time, energy and material to be build. Let’s not « market » them as they were plastic bags.
  - davidw 3y ago
    "In the long run, we're all dead" - Keynes. Denser housing tends to be more efficient in a lot of ways, so it's better if your concern is for the environment. People living in denser housing also tend to have an easier time of walking or biking to things, which is also better for the environment.
    - mancerayder 3y ago
      Or standing in a very crowded platform waiting for the subway, where subsequently you're standing with an armpit in your face and someone's backpack poking into your back. That happens because increasing housing density, as long as it takes to build, is rapid compared to increasing public transportation. Not everyone can bike or walk to work in big cities, especially when the subway commute is 45 minutes.
      - davidw 3y ago
        Not building transit is also a political choice that suffers from a lot of NIMBYism, just like housing: https://bettercities.substack.com/p/americas-infrastructure-costs-are https://bettercities.substack.com/p/americas-infrastructure-...
ericmay 3y ago
> So if you add a ton of houses you have the same problem just many years later but now everyone is living in a massive overcrowded area. Why would those areas be overcrowded instead of just appropriately dense? The suburbs, for example, are under crowded and that's a huge problem. > The real solution imo is to spread out the jobs to other areas so that these major urban areas aren't the only places people have to move to find work. I completely agree with the general theme here. I was hoping remote work would have a larger impact here than it has but alas major tech companies can't get away from a few select cities. But I would just say that in the spirit of spreading things out we should be mindful to not spread too much. Farmland should stay farmland, forests should stay forests or areas that were previously home to dwindling populations of humans should return to nature. Appropriate levels of urban density (walkable neighborhoods, you can keep your car and your SFH still) should be the goal because it solves a lot of problems. We already have a model for cities that has lasted for thousands of years. It works because it's based on human evolution. I have yet to see a model that deviates from this that is successful. > You have to just keep adding supply but unfortunately the amount of living space that can be built in an urban area is constrained at some point both vertically and horizontally. In cases like NYC/SFO I do think that's a problem. As you build more it actually has the unique phenomenon of becoming more expensive because you have to buy land, you have to build the building, and you have to attract tenants that can afford to pay for those things + your profit. And naturally you aren't going to lower rent on your existing places because that contradicts any reason to build new units. This isn't an absolute truth, but I think New York City proves the point. If you could just add supply to lower prices, New York would be much cheaper than, say, Columbus or Pittsburgh.
- lotsoweiners 3y ago
  > Why would those areas be overcrowded instead of just appropriately dense? The suburbs, for example, are under crowded and that's a huge problem. Why is that such a problem though. As suburbs become denser, exurbs form. There is always going to be a huge chunk of the population that don’t want density but also don’t want rural life and since there is demand, the market will create supply especially since it is usually cheaper and easier to build on empty fields than in a dense area.
TheCoelacanth 3y ago
You would run out of people who want to live there faster than you would run out of space. If the entire US lived at the population density of Manhattan, everyone would fit in 4500 sq miles, which is only seven times the size of Houston. Just let people build dense housing in the places where people want to live. There is no realistic possibility of running out of space.
- kgermino 3y ago
  And Manhattan is hardly maximum density. Home building there is as constrained by zoning as it is anywhere else
  - mancerayder 3y ago
    How come no one talks about infrastructure? Pre pandemic the subway lines like the 45 were at peak capacity.
    - MrMorden 3y ago
      So fix MTA. Their system expansion budget is currently $15B/year, so at the costs of a low-wage, low-regulation, totally ununionized country like (checks notes) Norway, they could be building 60 km of new lines per year.
      - mancerayder 3y ago
        Just like that we'll fix the MTA with the wave of a hand. The MTA that spent billions and a decade for a couple of stations. In a mono party City/State where unions are tied to the party machine. Good luck.
        TheCoelacanth 3y ago
        It's not like infrastructure is free outside of Manhattan. Federal, state and local spending in the US on roads adds up to around a quarter of a trillion dollars per year.
rcpt 3y ago
> spread out the jobs Agglomeration is important to our economy. Forcing people into Fordlandia does not work and trying to would destroy our ability to compete on the world stage.

outime 3y ago

>The real solution imo is to spread out the jobs to other areas so that these major urban areas aren't the only places people have to move to find work. While that definitely works whenever doable, I'd say investing in much better infrastructure to reduce commuting time and complexity is the other big factor. Living far away from the workplace isn't a biggie if I can take for example a train and be there in a reasonable amount of time. For sure an expensive solution but a solution that will pay off nevertheless.

nerdchum 3y ago
Completely agree. But you still hit a limit at some point, even with commuter trains and mass transit. I mean does anyone want to take a train 2 hours both ways to get to work? We just need good jobs/offices available in other regions.
- throwaway173738 3y ago
  We need all of the above. More density, replacing more roads with mass transit, good jobs outside coastal cities, and more ways to work from home. None of these things are mutually exclusive.

Kalium 3y ago

> Isn't it a slippery slope though?? You have to just keep adding supply but unfortunately the amount of living space that can be built in an urban area is constrained at some point both vertically and horizontally. You're absolutely right. There's definitely real limits, vertically and horizontally, to how much density is physically possible. As an upper limit, we have good historical examples density of around 1.2 million people per square kilometer being workable. I don't think any part of the US today comes close to that - what data I can find says that the most densely populated part of the US is at 66,000 people per square km. That's multiple orders of magnitude different. With that in mind, I think it's possible that we haven't yet hit any real physical or space-based limits in American cities. Only political ones.

whitemary 3y ago
That kind of density requires trains. However, thanks to the privatisation of every aspect of our society, we can't build trains anymore.
bloak 3y ago
Where did they have "1.2 million people per square kilometer"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world_cities_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world_cities_by_popula... only goes up to about 80 thousand ... and the city with the highest population density in that list is one I must admit I'd never heard of, so there's a pub trivia question, perhaps.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dublinben 3y ago
  It's hardly a shining example of livability, but the former Kowloon Walled City purportedly had a population density of over 1.9 million/km2. [0] More realistically, we can see examples of nice residential neighborhoods in Washington DC ranging from 30,000-100,000+/km2. [1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City [1] https://ggwash.org/view/42469/what-do-80000-people-in-a-square-mile-look-like-depends-on-where-you-put-them https://ggwash.org/view/42469/what-do-80000-people-in-a-squa...

favflam 3y ago

Look at San Jose Diridon Station. Caltrain and links to Oakland and San Francisco go through it. It is in the middle of Silicon Valley and yet the station is empty during the day surrounded by parking lots. Let's fix the low hanging fruit.

ethanbond 3y ago
Is the low-hanging fruit the fact that Caltrain sucks?
- onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
  No - the low hanging fruit is that ~40%+ of most American cities are dedicated to cars (parking & roads) and another ~20% to yards. When you consider that airports & parks & golf courses take up a considerable amount of space - you're down to <10% of the city (proper) dedicated to space people actually live in. And that's often times single story - with no vertical use whatsoever.

davidw 3y ago

> isn't it a slippery slope though?? You have to just keep adding supply but unfortunately the amount of living space that can be built in an urban area is constrained at some point both vertically and horizontally. That's not a slippery slope though, it's an eventual limit that you might hit some day. If adding housing now is a win, add the housing. It makes people better off today.

aziaziazi 3y ago
> the actual solution to the housing crisis « Actual solution » as in temporary - good enough for now, not as sustainable - can work and scale for tomorrow ? Houses needs lots of time, energy and material to be build. Let’s not « market » them as they were plastic bags.
- davidw 3y ago
  "In the long run, we're all dead" - Keynes. Denser housing tends to be more efficient in a lot of ways, so it's better if your concern is for the environment. People living in denser housing also tend to have an easier time of walking or biking to things, which is also better for the environment.
  - mancerayder 3y ago
    Or standing in a very crowded platform waiting for the subway, where subsequently you're standing with an armpit in your face and someone's backpack poking into your back. That happens because increasing housing density, as long as it takes to build, is rapid compared to increasing public transportation. Not everyone can bike or walk to work in big cities, especially when the subway commute is 45 minutes.
    - davidw 3y ago
      Not building transit is also a political choice that suffers from a lot of NIMBYism, just like housing: https://bettercities.substack.com/p/americas-infrastructure-costs-are https://bettercities.substack.com/p/americas-infrastructure-...

ericmay 3y ago

> So if you add a ton of houses you have the same problem just many years later but now everyone is living in a massive overcrowded area. Why would those areas be overcrowded instead of just appropriately dense? The suburbs, for example, are under crowded and that's a huge problem. > The real solution imo is to spread out the jobs to other areas so that these major urban areas aren't the only places people have to move to find work. I completely agree with the general theme here. I was hoping remote work would have a larger impact here than it has but alas major tech companies can't get away from a few select cities. But I would just say that in the spirit of spreading things out we should be mindful to not spread too much. Farmland should stay farmland, forests should stay forests or areas that were previously home to dwindling populations of humans should return to nature. Appropriate levels of urban density (walkable neighborhoods, you can keep your car and your SFH still) should be the goal because it solves a lot of problems. We already have a model for cities that has lasted for thousands of years. It works because it's based on human evolution. I have yet to see a model that deviates from this that is successful. > You have to just keep adding supply but unfortunately the amount of living space that can be built in an urban area is constrained at some point both vertically and horizontally. In cases like NYC/SFO I do think that's a problem. As you build more it actually has the unique phenomenon of becoming more expensive because you have to buy land, you have to build the building, and you have to attract tenants that can afford to pay for those things + your profit. And naturally you aren't going to lower rent on your existing places because that contradicts any reason to build new units. This isn't an absolute truth, but I think New York City proves the point. If you could just add supply to lower prices, New York would be much cheaper than, say, Columbus or Pittsburgh.

lotsoweiners 3y ago
> Why would those areas be overcrowded instead of just appropriately dense? The suburbs, for example, are under crowded and that's a huge problem. Why is that such a problem though. As suburbs become denser, exurbs form. There is always going to be a huge chunk of the population that don’t want density but also don’t want rural life and since there is demand, the market will create supply especially since it is usually cheaper and easier to build on empty fields than in a dense area.

TheCoelacanth 3y ago

You would run out of people who want to live there faster than you would run out of space. If the entire US lived at the population density of Manhattan, everyone would fit in 4500 sq miles, which is only seven times the size of Houston. Just let people build dense housing in the places where people want to live. There is no realistic possibility of running out of space.

kgermino 3y ago
And Manhattan is hardly maximum density. Home building there is as constrained by zoning as it is anywhere else
- mancerayder 3y ago
  How come no one talks about infrastructure? Pre pandemic the subway lines like the 45 were at peak capacity.
  - MrMorden 3y ago
    So fix MTA. Their system expansion budget is currently $15B/year, so at the costs of a low-wage, low-regulation, totally ununionized country like (checks notes) Norway, they could be building 60 km of new lines per year.
    - mancerayder 3y ago
      Just like that we'll fix the MTA with the wave of a hand. The MTA that spent billions and a decade for a couple of stations. In a mono party City/State where unions are tied to the party machine. Good luck.
      - TheCoelacanth 3y ago
        It's not like infrastructure is free outside of Manhattan. Federal, state and local spending in the US on roads adds up to around a quarter of a trillion dollars per year.

rcpt 3y ago

> spread out the jobs Agglomeration is important to our economy. Forcing people into Fordlandia does not work and trying to would destroy our ability to compete on the world stage.