4 ms·

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.
    - ayakang31415 3y ago
      I don't disagree with your points when it comes to housing quality in terms of the price. I am simply concerned about the effectiveness of housing price reduction by de-zoning and loosening regulation. There seems to be no data point that indicates that removing residential zone restrictions will lower the housing prices.

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.
  - ayakang31415 3y ago
    I don't disagree with your points when it comes to housing quality in terms of the price. I am simply concerned about the effectiveness of housing price reduction by de-zoning and loosening regulation. There seems to be no data point that indicates that removing residential zone restrictions will lower the housing prices.