3 ms·

It'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 peopl

It'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 ago
This 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 ago
  The 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 ago
    If 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 ago
      Your 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.
      - candiodari 3y ago
        Yeah, sorry, but this argument totally stops making sense when you consider: 1) safety: obviously people would not be safe in capsule hotels. This cannot be changed, and would fundamentally alter society if it became popular 2) It applies to other forms of safety. Collapse safety? Why? It's cheaper without (and the state will have to pay most damages anyway). Medical safety (e.g. anti-mold regulation)? Why? Such a policy will not drop prices, except the sticker price and will cause untold misery in society. We can discuss individual measures, perhaps, but not that a lot of these price increasing really contribute to society.
        hackerlight 3y ago
        I was talking purely about the economics, challenging the idea that rent would remain unchanged, and so everyone would want to downgrade to a capsule dwelling. This is not true. Rents will go down, and a lot of people that can't currently afford a 1 bedroom unit will now be able to afford one. As a matter of policy, I am in favor of safety regulations. If that makes capsule dwellings illegal then so be it. We can solve the housing crisis without resorting to capsule dwellings.
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.

candiodari 3y ago

This 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 ago
The 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 ago
  If 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 ago
    Your 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.
    - candiodari 3y ago
      Yeah, sorry, but this argument totally stops making sense when you consider: 1) safety: obviously people would not be safe in capsule hotels. This cannot be changed, and would fundamentally alter society if it became popular 2) It applies to other forms of safety. Collapse safety? Why? It's cheaper without (and the state will have to pay most damages anyway). Medical safety (e.g. anti-mold regulation)? Why? Such a policy will not drop prices, except the sticker price and will cause untold misery in society. We can discuss individual measures, perhaps, but not that a lot of these price increasing really contribute to society.
      - hackerlight 3y ago
        I was talking purely about the economics, challenging the idea that rent would remain unchanged, and so everyone would want to downgrade to a capsule dwelling. This is not true. Rents will go down, and a lot of people that can't currently afford a 1 bedroom unit will now be able to afford one. As a matter of policy, I am in favor of safety regulations. If that makes capsule dwellings illegal then so be it. We can solve the housing crisis without resorting to capsule dwellings.

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.