4 ms·

I personally prefer with more aggressive zoning laws that prohibits high population density residency. What I would prefer to see instead is to designate afford

I personally prefer with more aggressive zoning laws that prohibits high population density residency. What I would prefer to see instead is to designate affordable residential zones much more widely and implement very aggressive policy (which we do not have now unfortunately) to incentivize people to move into that new zones effectively (Of course, that's what public officials have been trying to do, but so far no one has achieved that to satisfactory standards). High population density city, I believe, actually exacerbates lots of problems that SF or NY cities currently have. I theorize that if you get rid of zoning and relax construction regulations, according to Pareto distribution, more people will flow into the highly desirable places easily and that will eventually lead to much higher housing prices and more problems that are associated with high density area. P.S: There is one case where Korean government relaxed zoning restrictions and construction regulations of Seoul to reduce the housing prices by providing more homes, but it failed as well (https://www.globalpropertyguide.com/asia/south-korea/price-history https://www.globalpropertyguide.com/asia/south-korea/price-h...). Moreover, now the city looks really really awful with all the high rise apartments (https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_business/1000795.html https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_business/1...)

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> aggressive policy (which we do not have now unfortunately) to incentivize people to move into that new zones effectively This is urban sprawl. It’s what we’ve been doing for decades. It’s a social, environmental and economic disaster. Low density works for the very rich (can put through the inefficiency) and destitute (who accept the lower standard of living). For the educated or middle income, who won’t accept a lower standard of living at higher cost, it’s a road to increased emissions, shorter lives and less choice on everything.
- ayakang31415 3y ago
  Yeah unfortunately everything we tried to achieve that failed AFAIK. But I honestly believe that zoning should be implemented accordingly.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > zoning should be implemented accordingly According to a principle that is fundamentally fucked? Lack of density causes that economic inefficiency, service dilution and environmental damage. There are cities that don’t have the problems America’s do, because they don’t implement these zoning policies. Which cause those problems. Why would you hold onto a broken concept? You don’t even have to be considerate: you can keep low density for yourself, causing prices around you to spike, while supporting liberalisation in cities, where economic activity happens.
    - ayakang31415 3y ago
      I don't believe it is either right or wrong to have zones. I believe there are both pros and cons of zoning to prevent high population density. From the first google search, I found the article about it (https://sustainablereview.com/high-population-density-pros-and-cons https://sustainablereview.com/high-population-density-pros-a...). You can also find dezoning of Seoul in South Korea (only example I am familiar with) and what damages it caused inadvertently (drastic population and housing prices increase in Seoul even with higher housing capacity provided by dezoning and allowing high rise apartments).
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > there are both pros and cons of zoning to prevent high population density You can’t have low population density everywhere, amidst population growth, without causing those problems. They’re inherent to supply and demand, logistics and transportation cost, and the geographic limits of civil services like police and fire. You can have low density for the rich (same services, higher cost) or destitute (same cost, fewer services). But not everyone. Being selfish is okay—you can move to a place with a shrinking population or somewhere low density with high costs or lower your standard of living voluntarily. But forcing that everywhere, while ignoring the destitution and destruction it necessarily causes, is morally wrong. (It’s also ineffective.) For what it’s worth, I moved from New York City to Jackson Hole. The latter is low density. But it’s expensive. And we have to subsidise housing for many people, paid for through property taxes, to keep even the small community sustainable and morally balanced. (Which makes it more expensive.) That means we need to accept that the cities should be unshackled, because our community couldn’t afford to sustain itself without the economic productivity of America’s urban cores.
astrange 3y ago
A funny thing about this is that despite being a popular American Dream-type desire it's literally communism, as in it's one of the points of the Communist Manifesto. > 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
fragmede 3y ago
> Moreover, now the city looks really really awful with all the high rise apartments Is that more or less ugly than having people living in tents and shitting onto streets?
- ayakang31415 3y ago
  oh way better. But I am not very confident that dezoning will get rid of homelessness.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> aggressive policy (which we do not have now unfortunately) to incentivize people to move into that new zones effectively This is urban sprawl. It’s what we’ve been doing for decades. It’s a social, environmental and economic disaster. Low density works for the very rich (can put through the inefficiency) and destitute (who accept the lower standard of living). For the educated or middle income, who won’t accept a lower standard of living at higher cost, it’s a road to increased emissions, shorter lives and less choice on everything.

ayakang31415 3y ago
Yeah unfortunately everything we tried to achieve that failed AFAIK. But I honestly believe that zoning should be implemented accordingly.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > zoning should be implemented accordingly According to a principle that is fundamentally fucked? Lack of density causes that economic inefficiency, service dilution and environmental damage. There are cities that don’t have the problems America’s do, because they don’t implement these zoning policies. Which cause those problems. Why would you hold onto a broken concept? You don’t even have to be considerate: you can keep low density for yourself, causing prices around you to spike, while supporting liberalisation in cities, where economic activity happens.
  - ayakang31415 3y ago
    I don't believe it is either right or wrong to have zones. I believe there are both pros and cons of zoning to prevent high population density. From the first google search, I found the article about it (https://sustainablereview.com/high-population-density-pros-and-cons https://sustainablereview.com/high-population-density-pros-a...). You can also find dezoning of Seoul in South Korea (only example I am familiar with) and what damages it caused inadvertently (drastic population and housing prices increase in Seoul even with higher housing capacity provided by dezoning and allowing high rise apartments).
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > there are both pros and cons of zoning to prevent high population density You can’t have low population density everywhere, amidst population growth, without causing those problems. They’re inherent to supply and demand, logistics and transportation cost, and the geographic limits of civil services like police and fire. You can have low density for the rich (same services, higher cost) or destitute (same cost, fewer services). But not everyone. Being selfish is okay—you can move to a place with a shrinking population or somewhere low density with high costs or lower your standard of living voluntarily. But forcing that everywhere, while ignoring the destitution and destruction it necessarily causes, is morally wrong. (It’s also ineffective.) For what it’s worth, I moved from New York City to Jackson Hole. The latter is low density. But it’s expensive. And we have to subsidise housing for many people, paid for through property taxes, to keep even the small community sustainable and morally balanced. (Which makes it more expensive.) That means we need to accept that the cities should be unshackled, because our community couldn’t afford to sustain itself without the economic productivity of America’s urban cores.

astrange 3y ago

A funny thing about this is that despite being a popular American Dream-type desire it's literally communism, as in it's one of the points of the Communist Manifesto. > 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

fragmede 3y ago

> Moreover, now the city looks really really awful with all the high rise apartments Is that more or less ugly than having people living in tents and shitting onto streets?

ayakang31415 3y ago
oh way better. But I am not very confident that dezoning will get rid of homelessness.