3 ms·

Take Banff for instance: it’s in a national park and is legally restricted from growing much more. You could approve more building, but then more people would m

Take Banff for instance: it’s in a national park and is legally restricted from growing much more. You could approve more building, but then more people would move in until prices were high again. The area is so appealing that no matter how much housing there was, people would flood in until it became saturated again. Unless you ruined it, bulldozed the forests for 100km in every direction, covered the area in housing—that would do the trick. But who wants that? In a couple of cases, building more housing isn’t the ideal solution

belligeront 3y ago
>bulldozed the forests for 100km in every direction, covered the area in housing Luckily we invented the elevator so we don't have to bulldoze forests to build more housing if we don't need to
- tivert 3y ago
  > Luckily we invented the elevator so we don't have to bulldoze forests to build more housing if we don't need to And then it becomes a massive ugly splinter of 20-story residential towers despoiling the middle of a national park. ...and still expensive.
  - gentleman11 3y ago
    And would killer a lot of birds too; in a national park no less
    - BobaFloutist 3y ago
      I'm pretty sure bird-safe windows are a solved technology at this point.
  - orwin 3y ago
    Limit it to 3 stories, at most 1/3 or 1/4. You can build really good looking midrises that integrate pretty well with the environment (and you do not need elevator for 3 to 4 stories midrises, it keeps the cost low. Also maybe the US should chill out on the staircase requirement too). One parking spot for every apartment max too, to keep the footprint light. I think my residence has one spot per two apartment and it seems enough, its never full, but here people bike more than they drive, so that helps.
maximilianroos 3y ago
> You could approve more building, but then more people would move in until prices were high again. The area is so appealing that no matter how much housing there was, people would flood in until it became saturated again. If supply has no effect on price, then banning AirBnBs won't reduce prices either
- gentleman11 3y ago
  Good point

belligeront 3y ago

>bulldozed the forests for 100km in every direction, covered the area in housing Luckily we invented the elevator so we don't have to bulldoze forests to build more housing if we don't need to

tivert 3y ago
> Luckily we invented the elevator so we don't have to bulldoze forests to build more housing if we don't need to And then it becomes a massive ugly splinter of 20-story residential towers despoiling the middle of a national park. ...and still expensive.
- gentleman11 3y ago
  And would killer a lot of birds too; in a national park no less
  - BobaFloutist 3y ago
    I'm pretty sure bird-safe windows are a solved technology at this point.
- orwin 3y ago
  Limit it to 3 stories, at most 1/3 or 1/4. You can build really good looking midrises that integrate pretty well with the environment (and you do not need elevator for 3 to 4 stories midrises, it keeps the cost low. Also maybe the US should chill out on the staircase requirement too). One parking spot for every apartment max too, to keep the footprint light. I think my residence has one spot per two apartment and it seems enough, its never full, but here people bike more than they drive, so that helps.

maximilianroos 3y ago

> You could approve more building, but then more people would move in until prices were high again. The area is so appealing that no matter how much housing there was, people would flood in until it became saturated again. If supply has no effect on price, then banning AirBnBs won't reduce prices either

gentleman11 3y ago
Good point