3 ms·

> 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

> 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 4y 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.
- ericmay 4y ago
  Basically because you're not accounting for all of the costs (nor are they). Sure it may be the case that it's cheaper to build on an empty lot, but what is the cost of the forest that was cut down, or the farmland that was supplanted? Now instead of getting blueberries from within a 5-10 mile radius grown by a local farmer who has a job, those same blueberries have to be shipped in from Chile. You're also not accounting for the infrastructure costs. Here's a recent example [1]. The state of Missouri is allocating $2.8 billion to expand a highway. Why do they(we) need to expand a highway? Well, because people want to live in the suburbs and drive their cars everywhere so now we have to pay to do that. Obviously there is some utility to highways and cars for that matter, but we don't need as many highways or to spend as much trying to maintain or build them if we don't use them as much. They're also one of those projects that have a big number so useless bureaucrats really like them because it's easy to do and nobody complains about it too loudly even though there's almost certainly rampant fraud and corruption in every state department of cars or equivalent. What other costs are there? Well, pollution. That's an easy one. Energy - we have to go fight wars and stuff to secure oil and other energy supplies (whether it's our own or policing the world to ensure that container ships get from A -> B). It takes a lot of energy to move a 200lb human 3 miles down the road in a 3,000 lb SUV to get a loaf of bread or a couple of apples or whatever. What about health and wellbeing? Well, it's easy to hate people when you sit inside your house all day glued to Facebook and don't go anywhere. It makes people crazy. We're also fat. Like really, really fat. Is it our diet? Nah not really. Certainly that's a factor but otherwise relatively healthy people are overweight because they get little exercise compared to people in peer countries. Why don't they get exercise? Because they live in a house, drive a car everywhere, and get maybe 1,000 steps each day unless they dedicate time to working out. What about costs to your community? Well, it's hard for a small coffee shop or grocery store to compete with the likes of Starbucks or Giant Eagle. Why is that? Well how can they compete when Starbucks sets up a drive-through and can crank out 5 lattes/minute? They can't buy and build real estate. Entrepreneurship numbers go down too and all the money you spend on your car, tires, Starbucks, California grown tomatoes (nothing wrong with that besides negative externalities), and leave your local community and flow to where the companies producing these products are headquartered. So when we say "it's cheaper and easier to build in empty fields" you are certainly correct in the short term. But in the long term it makes us poor, costs us our natural beauty, and destroys our livelihoods. Now you might say, but hey I don't want to live in "some shoebox apartment and ride the bus everywhere" and I would say hell yea me either and thankfully that's not a choice we need to make. You can live in a normal SFH, or an apartment, or a duplex, or a townhome. You can have a garage, or park your car on the street. You don't have to ride the bus, but we can make the bus services work well so that you have options depending on what activities you are participating in. And we can do all of this by making changes to zoning and how we build. We can have our cake and eat it too. Instead, we choose not to because we're held captive by bureaucrats and vested interests that make a profit off of our fat assess, our water and soil, and are happy to be taking the welfare checks we depend on because the jobs moved away and nobody can start a business anymore because there's nowhere to start one. [1] https://news.stlpublicradio.org/government-politics-issues/2023-05-03/missouri-budget-agreement-includes-2-8-billion-to-expand-i-70-across-the-state https://news.stlpublicradio.org/government-politics-issues/2...

lotsoweiners 4y 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.

ericmay 4y ago
Basically because you're not accounting for all of the costs (nor are they). Sure it may be the case that it's cheaper to build on an empty lot, but what is the cost of the forest that was cut down, or the farmland that was supplanted? Now instead of getting blueberries from within a 5-10 mile radius grown by a local farmer who has a job, those same blueberries have to be shipped in from Chile. You're also not accounting for the infrastructure costs. Here's a recent example [1]. The state of Missouri is allocating $2.8 billion to expand a highway. Why do they(we) need to expand a highway? Well, because people want to live in the suburbs and drive their cars everywhere so now we have to pay to do that. Obviously there is some utility to highways and cars for that matter, but we don't need as many highways or to spend as much trying to maintain or build them if we don't use them as much. They're also one of those projects that have a big number so useless bureaucrats really like them because it's easy to do and nobody complains about it too loudly even though there's almost certainly rampant fraud and corruption in every state department of cars or equivalent. What other costs are there? Well, pollution. That's an easy one. Energy - we have to go fight wars and stuff to secure oil and other energy supplies (whether it's our own or policing the world to ensure that container ships get from A -> B). It takes a lot of energy to move a 200lb human 3 miles down the road in a 3,000 lb SUV to get a loaf of bread or a couple of apples or whatever. What about health and wellbeing? Well, it's easy to hate people when you sit inside your house all day glued to Facebook and don't go anywhere. It makes people crazy. We're also fat. Like really, really fat. Is it our diet? Nah not really. Certainly that's a factor but otherwise relatively healthy people are overweight because they get little exercise compared to people in peer countries. Why don't they get exercise? Because they live in a house, drive a car everywhere, and get maybe 1,000 steps each day unless they dedicate time to working out. What about costs to your community? Well, it's hard for a small coffee shop or grocery store to compete with the likes of Starbucks or Giant Eagle. Why is that? Well how can they compete when Starbucks sets up a drive-through and can crank out 5 lattes/minute? They can't buy and build real estate. Entrepreneurship numbers go down too and all the money you spend on your car, tires, Starbucks, California grown tomatoes (nothing wrong with that besides negative externalities), and leave your local community and flow to where the companies producing these products are headquartered. So when we say "it's cheaper and easier to build in empty fields" you are certainly correct in the short term. But in the long term it makes us poor, costs us our natural beauty, and destroys our livelihoods. Now you might say, but hey I don't want to live in "some shoebox apartment and ride the bus everywhere" and I would say hell yea me either and thankfully that's not a choice we need to make. You can live in a normal SFH, or an apartment, or a duplex, or a townhome. You can have a garage, or park your car on the street. You don't have to ride the bus, but we can make the bus services work well so that you have options depending on what activities you are participating in. And we can do all of this by making changes to zoning and how we build. We can have our cake and eat it too. Instead, we choose not to because we're held captive by bureaucrats and vested interests that make a profit off of our fat assess, our water and soil, and are happy to be taking the welfare checks we depend on because the jobs moved away and nobody can start a business anymore because there's nowhere to start one. [1] https://news.stlpublicradio.org/government-politics-issues/2023-05-03/missouri-budget-agreement-includes-2-8-billion-to-expand-i-70-across-the-state https://news.stlpublicradio.org/government-politics-issues/2...