I pick on regulation because it's the most universal example, but the fundamental problem is overconstraint. When a system gets too complex, you can't change a

I pick on regulation because it's the most universal example, but the fundamental problem is overconstraint. When a system gets too complex, you can't change any of it without giving up other desirable properties, even if the new properties you're trying to attain are more important than the properties you give up. In terms of how we build our cities, for example, many of them are designed for a set number of people and then try to optimize quality of life for all those people. You can perhaps accommodate a 10% increase in citizens by building in marginal areas, upzoning parts, crowding, etc. But accommodating a 2x+ increase requires a radical revision of fundamental infrastructure. Your sewer system needs to be dug up and replaced with larger pipes. Your transit system needs to move from single-lane roads to either boulevards or mass public transit. Your educational system needs new schools, which generate new drop-offs, which further increases the strain on the transit system. Some people's property needs to be eminent domained. Some people's views will be blocked. Certainly the character of the city is going to change. All of this generates political opposition, so it definitely is a political issue in addition to an economic one. Democratic (in the political-system sense, not the political-party sense) voters pass regulations so that it doesn't happen, looking out for their own interests. But the consequence of those regulations is that growth, renewal, and innovation becomes impossible. The system is overconstrained, and cannot adapt to either large growth in population or large environmental changes. Any attempt to re-adapt it to the new realities of the world require that you throw away large portions, because all of the systems are interconnected and tightly optimized.