4 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 cons
by davidw 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y agoOr 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 4y agoNot 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-...