3 ms·

It's always important to consider the dark side. We didn't do much of that when we built car culture in the first place, so let's do it now. So try: "Let's bu

• sitkack 15y ago
  Remove land ownership as a form of investment? U own it and live in it or u don't.
  • _delirium 15y ago
    Denmark partly did that by setting up most apartment buildings as resident-owned cooperatives with restrictions on subletting (though that form of housing isn't quite as dominant as it used to be, and the restrictions are looser than they used to be). Upside is that real estate in Copenhagen is quite affordable for purchase; downside is that the rental market is underserved. Some of the motivation is more like the reason some American suburbs ban rental, more than price control, though: a desire to have long-term residents with a stake in the building as your neighbors (what George W. Bush called the "ownership society").
• oconnore 15y ago
  Livable, walkable, affordable cities are dense. That is the primary factor in whether or not you can afford to live within walking/biking/subway distance. The rich people that want to live close to work are going to get first dibs on usable housing, and unless you build more than that, middle class residents don't stand a chance. So much of that "hyper inflated city real estate" is not especially dense. So you get lots of rich people living in 4-6 floor, beautiful, historic buildings near the center of the city. That type of housing does not lead to livable, walkable cities. If you want real estate prices to drop, and you want cities to be livable, you have to build an excess of dense housing. Right now it is near impossible to increase population density in the city, due to zoning restrictions, existing tenants, etc. I don't know a solution to that, but I think it's the root of the problem.
  • enobrev 15y ago
    This is exactly why I call downtown (in New York and Chicago, at least) a suburb. I grew up in the city (Chicago and Brooklyn). The local city folk do NOT live in the city center. It's mostly tourists and people from the suburbs or out of state - all of whom pay more to enjoy proximity to the city center without having to deal with the diversity of living in a city.
  • justincormack 15y ago
    Zoning regulations that mix living and work? Like much of Europe. The emphasis on commuting to a work district is a lot of the problem. If workplaces were evenly distributed you could walk to a nearby one. Or telecommuting of course.
  • rayiner 15y ago
    Zoning is a huge problem in New York. Manhattan is completely ridiculous with how many 4-6 floor "historic" buildings there are wasting some of the most expensive real estate on earth. Chicago, in comparison, has a high-rise culture in its city center that makes for a lot more available housing stock and keeps prices down.
  • bunderbunder 15y ago
    In the vast majority of Chicago, buildings are generally no more than 4 stories tall. Usually just 2 or 3. And yet when I lived there, I found it to be infinitely livable and walkable. The trick is strong community areas. Chicago reached its current level of density 100 years ago, when walking was a common mode of transportation. So the city naturally organized such that every neighborhood has its own "downtown" area, and every residence is within walking distance of such an area. The primary function of the bus and trains system is to move people among these community areas. For example, I worked downtown in the Loop, so I took the train. But grocery shopping, going to the library, post office, hardware store, etc. were all easily done on foot. All this in an area where everyone lived in beautiful, historic 2-3 floor buildings. And no, we weren't rich. It was largely a blue collar immigrant neighborhood.
• rayiner 15y ago
  The cost of real estate is a problem in certain walkable cities (New York, San Francisco) but not so much in others (Chicago, Portland, etc). The other issue is that a lot of the price advantage of living outside the city is fictional, being the result of government policy. If government wasn't out there building highways to these suburban outreaches, subsidizing home ownership, preferentially funding suburban schools, keeping car use artificially cheap by allowing externalization of the costs of fossil fuels, the cost-benefit balance would look quite different than it does now.
• Derbasti 15y ago
  If you don't fill up dozens of football fields worth of city space with parking lots but instead build buildings, cities tend to get a lot more manageable without a car. Case in point: Just about all of Europe.