3 ms·

When the answer is "just go live somewhere else" that's not really an answer. I've thought a lot about this topic (in the sense of creating car-free cities in

by scoofy 3y ago

When the answer is "just go live somewhere else" that's not really an answer. I've thought a lot about this topic (in the sense of creating car-free cities in america), and it is technically feasible, but only if some benevolent billionaire were basically able to find some viable place, and build an entire city in place, and then create a deal with major employers to move their offices there, somehow fund the relocation of people who have already built a life for themselves elsewhere, and are already high up in these companies with homes and counter-incentives from moving elsewhere, and then somehow getting other people without any economic incentive to also move there. At the end of the day it's a pie-in-the-sky fantasy. Unless you're trying to court people who already have too much money to worry about housing prices (think Celebration, FL), then there is far, far too much cost and risk involved to do it. There is also a graveyard of failed attempts (see: California City, CA). The reason why this crisis happened is exactly that we have stopped allowing organic city growth from happening. Fixed-zoning is the problem, and does not allow for incremental growth. That the crisis didn't happen in the 60's is only because the proliferation of the automobile allowed cities to expand outward, but that outward expansion has a limit (when highway capacity is breached in such a way where commuting from exurban distances is completely unfeasible), and we hit that limit around the late 90's, when we saw the first housing crisis.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago
Why isn’t “go live somewhere else” a part of the answer though? We can’t all live in one or even the few most popular cities. That’s obviously not going to work, so some mechanism is needed to regulate who lives where, in the USA that mechanism is mostly market based. Even in Tokyo, a city mostly touted as one with minimal zoning, housing is still pricey (by Japanese standards) with standards at the low end many Americans wouldn’t accept (although I think we need more low end housing like this in the USA). And most of Japan’s young people want to live in Tokyo, it’s obvious not all of those who want to live there can.
- scoofy 3y ago
  Because "go live somewhere else" is unsustainable in the long run. You have to remember that the time-scale of this crisis is literally just one parent-to-child generation. All of these zoning laws were passed when the boomers were in their prime home-buying age range ('60s-'70s), and the crisis is occurring now simply because their children have effectively nowhere to live. It's only politically feasible when the folks you're telling to live somewhere else are a political minority, and, to be honest, until the last few years, that's been the the only response. Now that millennials are becoming the dominant political force, it's just not going to fly. In cities in California they are literally creating company town-style housing for educators and other jobs that cities cannot afford to compensate with enough money to afford housing. Anyone who isn't directly benefiting from the system can trivially understand how inefficient and absurd it is, but the fact is that people who are benefiting from the system are wildly over-represented in terms of active voters. That's obviously changing.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    But those cities with housing problems aren’t having those problems due to natural population growth, the cities are definitely growing via from outside immigration (whether in country or not). Their children have nowhere to live because a bunch of richer outsiders outbid them for housing. You don’t here about a housing crisis in Californian cities like Bakersfield or Chico, because their is no demand for people to move to those places. The worst thing a city can do for housing affordability is simply having a bunch of high paying jobs that attract people to move in. In that case, it doesn’t matter if you build like crazy as in Beijing or Shanghai, or if you have minimal zoning like Tokyo or Houston, housing costs are going to soar because people will want to move there, and you won’t be able to satisfy demand without raising prices.
    - scoofy 3y ago
      You speculate a lot in this post, but have zero citations to back it up. I'm explaining the basics of what we should expect to cause a nation wide housing crisis. Unsurprisingly, the housing crisis is nation wide. >In that case, it doesn’t matter if you build like crazy as in Beijing or Shanghai, or if you have minimal zoning like Tokyo or Houston, housing costs are going to soar because people will want to move there, and you won’t be able to satisfy demand without raising prices. This is objectively false.

by scoofy 3y ago

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

Why isn’t “go live somewhere else” a part of the answer though? We can’t all live in one or even the few most popular cities. That’s obviously not going to work, so some mechanism is needed to regulate who lives where, in the USA that mechanism is mostly market based. Even in Tokyo, a city mostly touted as one with minimal zoning, housing is still pricey (by Japanese standards) with standards at the low end many Americans wouldn’t accept (although I think we need more low end housing like this in the USA). And most of Japan’s young people want to live in Tokyo, it’s obvious not all of those who want to live there can.

scoofy 3y ago
Because "go live somewhere else" is unsustainable in the long run. You have to remember that the time-scale of this crisis is literally just one parent-to-child generation. All of these zoning laws were passed when the boomers were in their prime home-buying age range ('60s-'70s), and the crisis is occurring now simply because their children have effectively nowhere to live. It's only politically feasible when the folks you're telling to live somewhere else are a political minority, and, to be honest, until the last few years, that's been the the only response. Now that millennials are becoming the dominant political force, it's just not going to fly. In cities in California they are literally creating company town-style housing for educators and other jobs that cities cannot afford to compensate with enough money to afford housing. Anyone who isn't directly benefiting from the system can trivially understand how inefficient and absurd it is, but the fact is that people who are benefiting from the system are wildly over-represented in terms of active voters. That's obviously changing.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  But those cities with housing problems aren’t having those problems due to natural population growth, the cities are definitely growing via from outside immigration (whether in country or not). Their children have nowhere to live because a bunch of richer outsiders outbid them for housing. You don’t here about a housing crisis in Californian cities like Bakersfield or Chico, because their is no demand for people to move to those places. The worst thing a city can do for housing affordability is simply having a bunch of high paying jobs that attract people to move in. In that case, it doesn’t matter if you build like crazy as in Beijing or Shanghai, or if you have minimal zoning like Tokyo or Houston, housing costs are going to soar because people will want to move there, and you won’t be able to satisfy demand without raising prices.
  - scoofy 3y ago
    You speculate a lot in this post, but have zero citations to back it up. I'm explaining the basics of what we should expect to cause a nation wide housing crisis. Unsurprisingly, the housing crisis is nation wide. >In that case, it doesn’t matter if you build like crazy as in Beijing or Shanghai, or if you have minimal zoning like Tokyo or Houston, housing costs are going to soar because people will want to move there, and you won’t be able to satisfy demand without raising prices. This is objectively false.