5 ms·
Modern urban planners oppose most of the dystopian development seen in the US. What you see here is the stakeholders getting what they want. (Which might not be
by screye 3y ago
Modern urban planners oppose most of the dystopian development seen in the US. What you see here is the stakeholders getting what they want. (Which might not be what they need)
Only in this case, the stakeholders are other residents in the neighborhood...not prospective buyers.
- CamperBob2 3y agoNo, modern urban planners basically want us all (except for them, of course) living in a modern Kowloon.
- epistasis 3y agoI actually want to live in a modern Kowloon, but the planners will not allow that, whatever their wishes, because they are the prison guards to a prison system. They must enforce what they are told, and at the same time wish to not take responsibility for their actions.
- adrianN 3y agoNo they don't.
- hackerlight 3y agoIt's the opposite. Urban planners have a vested interest in zoning because their career relies on it. Also, the existence of Kowloon is a good thing. The people who live there would have worse lives if Kowloon was never allowed to build like that. They would be forced to live further away from their work, subjecting them to an hour a day on a cramped train, for example. The wrong question: "Is X bad?". The right question: "Is X worse than the alternative if X wasn't allowed?".
- candiodari 3y agoThis can result in a race to the bottom, is the argument against it. If we allowed people to live in "capsule hotels" for example.
- thereisnospork 3y agoThe problem with the argument is that capsule apartments aren't the bottom - living on the street is. So as a society we've skipped right past bad to horrid while clapping ourselves on the back as if we're doing the 'undesirables' a favor. Abhorrent.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ryandrake 3y agoIf capsule housing or cramped tenements were allowed, economics would push already-housed people down into them, rather than raise unhoused people up into them. Everything is a race to the bottom. For example, let’s say the worst homes in your area legally allowed to be occupied are currently renting for $500/mo. Now capsule housing suddenly becomes legal. They’re not going to magically cost less. Landlords already know the poorest people will at least pay $500/mo, so the capsules will cost that, and the previous worst housing would rise to $750/mo or something.
- hackerlight 3y agoYour conclusion rests on a likely false assumption that things remain expensive in a world where more housing isn't illegal. If capsule (and indeed, all) housing is no longer illegal, the price of everything falls. Regular one-bedroom unit rental will become affordable for the majority of people, so there will be no desire to downgrade to a capsule home. This is not Hong Kong where land is so scarce that even building vertically is insufficient to keep rents low. A small number of people who have the lowest incomes will probably downgrade to capsule homes, instead of the status quo of living far away from their work. So they'll make a conscious decision to trade-off living space for a shorter commute, and who are you to tell them that's not in their best interest? Forced hour-long commutes is bad for people's wellbeing, which is what's happening in the status quo. This discussion is a bit of a tangent because most housing proponents don't care if capsule homes are illegal. All they want is for normal units to not be illegal. That will get you 95% of the way there, capsule homes is nothing more than a theoretical curiosity outside of extremely dense countries like HK.
- danaris 3y ago> The wrong question: "Is X bad?". The right question: "Is X worse than the alternative if X wasn't allowed?". While you're not wrong in many cases, you do have to be careful with making this sort of rubric your universal rule. It can trap you in a local maximum that is vastly inferior to what things could be if you acknowledged that and were willing and able to accept the temporary reduction in quality to move to what is, objectively a better situation.
- tmnvix 3y agoAt least in the US I assumed the opposite. Enormous setbacks, parking minimums to meet the busiest day of the year, extra wide lanes with no dangerous things like tree trunks alongside, etc. It all looks like some cheap developer got away with something when in fact they know that old-style main streets are highly desirable and would build like that if the regulations allowed.
- epistasis 3y agoDespite what they might oppose, as part of their profession they must uphold the determinations of the stakeholders. The purpose of a system is what it does. The supposed opposition of planners, a completely ineffectual and meaningless opposition that has zero effect on any policy outcome, does not change the fact that planning as a profession ends up being this means to an end.
- chongli 3y agoUrban planners are people, not systems. Firefighters oppose fires and try to put them out, yet fires still happen. Would you say that the purpose of firefighting is to burn down houses?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- epistasis 3y agoThe proper analogy here would be that the firefighters, despite personally opposing more fires, go out and set houses on fire because their profession requires them to do so. The entire system is set up to produce worse outcomes, and the planners are the ones constructing and enabling the system.
- chongli 3y agoplanners are the ones constructing and enabling the system No, they aren't. The worst outcomes would happen regardless of whether or not planners were involved. The ones to blame are the vested stakeholders (homeowners and developers), not the planners working for the city trying to fix things. You can see the whole thing play out (comedically) on the show Parks and Rec. Real life is just a drier, more cynical version of that story.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]