4 ms·

People will do anything other than the solution - remove zoning entirely. Build. The end. Developers will not spend money building things that will not be succ

People will do anything other than the solution - remove zoning entirely. Build. The end. Developers will not spend money building things that will not be successfully rented out, interests on this issue are already aligned. People whining about hypothetical ugly buildings or improper structures ignore reality in the USA. The handwringing on affordable housing, short term rentals are just silly distractions. More and more I’m reminded of “The Good Place”, where the main character goes to the (actual) Good Place and turns out no one goes there due to endless bickering…

llamaimperative 2y ago
We could also mass-produce beautiful buildings. The Brooklyn Heights brownstones, quintessential beautiful urbanism, were mass-produced for cheap. Euclidean zoning is an unmitigated disaster. Pushing for developers to build enjoyable environments for humans is not.
- amazingamazing 2y ago
  Beautiful buildings…? Enjoy your fantasies while little gets done in the real world, then. Endless committee meetings blocking viable developments while people bicker that proposals are not beautiful enough. Sigh. The attitude here around conditional housing is exactly why we’re in this predicament. Luckily for myself and others on here we already own housing, but if you don’t and agree with the parent you’re shooting yourself in the foot.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Absolute goofball stuff buddy. You, “realist”: the solution to people successfully blocking development is to convince them buildings cannot and should not be beautiful Me, in fantasy land: Here’s a specific example of a cost-effective, mass-produced neighborhood that is considered one of the most beautiful in the entire country, we should do more of that. The more you perpetuate the myth that cost-effective building needs to be ugly, the more resistance you’re going to produce… obviously. An imperative to build beautiful doesn’t actually necessitate committee after committee. Stop propagating myths that are destructive to your own priorities, lol.
    - amazingamazing 2y ago
      Perhaps you should read - I didn’t say buildings should not be beautiful, nor that they would be ugly.
      - llamaimperative 2y ago
        How is one to interpret the sentence (which was the entirety of your original comment): “Beautiful buildings…? Enjoy your fantasies while little gets done in the real world, then.“ Please answer specifically what you meant by this statement.
        amazingamazing 2y ago
        The inherent subjectivity of beauty in a building will needlessly delay a project as it is evaluated and contested - should be clear with “little gets done in the real world…” as well as the rest of the post…
        llamaimperative 2y ago
        Nope. Beauty (especially in architecture) is not nearly as subjective as pedants want to make it out to be. The overwhelming majority of Americans who have any interest in city life find Brooklyn Heights, Prospect Heights, Carroll Gardens, Beacon Hill (Boston) and Rittenhouse Square (Philadelphia) to be beautiful. What actually needs to happen is a cultural revamp of our architecture schools which have perpetuated this “subjective beauty” myth and turned architecture into an academic pissing contest instead of a system to build for human beings. It is your specific viewpoint that perpetuates hideous building. It has infected every major architecture school in the nation except Notre Dame. Go ahead and find me ONE person who prefers the beauty of a strip mall suburb to Brooklyn Heights. If it’s so subjective that oughta be easy!
        amazingamazing 2y ago
        > Nope. Beauty (especially in architecture) is not nearly as subjective as pedants want to make it out to be. The overwhelming majority of Americans who have any interest in city life find Brooklyn Heights, Prospect Heights, Carroll Gardens, Beacon Hill (Boston) and Rittenhouse Square (Philadelphia) to be beautiful. What actually needs to happen is a cultural revamp of our architecture schools which have perpetuated this “subjective beauty” myth and turned architecture into an academic pissing contest instead of a system to build for human beings. It is your specific viewpoint that perpetuates hideous building. It has infected every major architecture school in the nation except Notre Dame. Go ahead and find me ONE person who prefers the beauty of a strip mall suburb to Brooklyn Heights. If it’s so subjective that oughta be easy! This entire comment epitomizes my original point. Thanks for the laugh.
alephnerd 2y ago
While I agree with Zoning being an issue in large cities, the zoning argument doesn't make sense in a city like Flagstaff or St George (which is what the book is about). These are smallish towns with a largely transient population of tourists. Housing is viewed as an investment in these communities, and most natives will simply never be able to afford purchasing even with expanded zoning because a SWE or Accountsnt working in San Francisco or Phoenix looking for a side hustle will always outcompete a local working in the service industry who's earning $14-20 an hour. The zoning argument makes sense in a city with a large long term population - which is not the type of city Flagstaff, St George, Sedona, or Ojai are. Already if you go to Flagstaff you'll see plenty of massive housing complexes being built, but they are priced at $400-600k and targeted at out-of-state investors (eg. Techies in the Bay Area looking for a side hustle, a holiday home for the winter, etc). At the end of the day, most people on HN are part of the problem, as salaries in tech (even with layoffs and outsourcing) remain miles ahead of other white collar roles, let alone the blue collar or service jobs most Americans ACTUALLY work.
- raducu 2y ago
  > will always outcompete a local working in the service industry I think non-resident owners should pay something like 10X the taxes a resident owner pays. This whole housing as an "investment" thing is destroying society
  - jeffbee 2y ago
    In some countries with less of a housing crisis than ours, it's the opposite. If you buy a house to occupy, you pay a large VAT. If you buy a house to let, you don't. Fetishizing owner-occupancy is the root cause of the American housing crisis. We need to get over the weird belief that something about living in a house you own is morally superior.
    - raducu 2y ago
      I'm not talking (just) about the USA. In my buble people often hoard properties to let but many just hoard them because they can and taxes are (too) low. Someone has an advantage in income, access to financing, reaches a threshold and 10 years later they flip 10 houses, all payed by not so fortunate tenants, and the owner thinks he's some kind of rightous capitalist. The whole rent-seeking behavior is a scourge on society.

llamaimperative 2y ago

We could also mass-produce beautiful buildings. The Brooklyn Heights brownstones, quintessential beautiful urbanism, were mass-produced for cheap. Euclidean zoning is an unmitigated disaster. Pushing for developers to build enjoyable environments for humans is not.

amazingamazing 2y ago
Beautiful buildings…? Enjoy your fantasies while little gets done in the real world, then. Endless committee meetings blocking viable developments while people bicker that proposals are not beautiful enough. Sigh. The attitude here around conditional housing is exactly why we’re in this predicament. Luckily for myself and others on here we already own housing, but if you don’t and agree with the parent you’re shooting yourself in the foot.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Absolute goofball stuff buddy. You, “realist”: the solution to people successfully blocking development is to convince them buildings cannot and should not be beautiful Me, in fantasy land: Here’s a specific example of a cost-effective, mass-produced neighborhood that is considered one of the most beautiful in the entire country, we should do more of that. The more you perpetuate the myth that cost-effective building needs to be ugly, the more resistance you’re going to produce… obviously. An imperative to build beautiful doesn’t actually necessitate committee after committee. Stop propagating myths that are destructive to your own priorities, lol.
  - amazingamazing 2y ago
    Perhaps you should read - I didn’t say buildings should not be beautiful, nor that they would be ugly.
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      How is one to interpret the sentence (which was the entirety of your original comment): “Beautiful buildings…? Enjoy your fantasies while little gets done in the real world, then.“ Please answer specifically what you meant by this statement.
      - amazingamazing 2y ago
        The inherent subjectivity of beauty in a building will needlessly delay a project as it is evaluated and contested - should be clear with “little gets done in the real world…” as well as the rest of the post…
        llamaimperative 2y ago
        Nope. Beauty (especially in architecture) is not nearly as subjective as pedants want to make it out to be. The overwhelming majority of Americans who have any interest in city life find Brooklyn Heights, Prospect Heights, Carroll Gardens, Beacon Hill (Boston) and Rittenhouse Square (Philadelphia) to be beautiful. What actually needs to happen is a cultural revamp of our architecture schools which have perpetuated this “subjective beauty” myth and turned architecture into an academic pissing contest instead of a system to build for human beings. It is your specific viewpoint that perpetuates hideous building. It has infected every major architecture school in the nation except Notre Dame. Go ahead and find me ONE person who prefers the beauty of a strip mall suburb to Brooklyn Heights. If it’s so subjective that oughta be easy!
        amazingamazing 2y ago
        > Nope. Beauty (especially in architecture) is not nearly as subjective as pedants want to make it out to be. The overwhelming majority of Americans who have any interest in city life find Brooklyn Heights, Prospect Heights, Carroll Gardens, Beacon Hill (Boston) and Rittenhouse Square (Philadelphia) to be beautiful. What actually needs to happen is a cultural revamp of our architecture schools which have perpetuated this “subjective beauty” myth and turned architecture into an academic pissing contest instead of a system to build for human beings. It is your specific viewpoint that perpetuates hideous building. It has infected every major architecture school in the nation except Notre Dame. Go ahead and find me ONE person who prefers the beauty of a strip mall suburb to Brooklyn Heights. If it’s so subjective that oughta be easy! This entire comment epitomizes my original point. Thanks for the laugh.

alephnerd 2y ago

While I agree with Zoning being an issue in large cities, the zoning argument doesn't make sense in a city like Flagstaff or St George (which is what the book is about). These are smallish towns with a largely transient population of tourists. Housing is viewed as an investment in these communities, and most natives will simply never be able to afford purchasing even with expanded zoning because a SWE or Accountsnt working in San Francisco or Phoenix looking for a side hustle will always outcompete a local working in the service industry who's earning $14-20 an hour. The zoning argument makes sense in a city with a large long term population - which is not the type of city Flagstaff, St George, Sedona, or Ojai are. Already if you go to Flagstaff you'll see plenty of massive housing complexes being built, but they are priced at $400-600k and targeted at out-of-state investors (eg. Techies in the Bay Area looking for a side hustle, a holiday home for the winter, etc). At the end of the day, most people on HN are part of the problem, as salaries in tech (even with layoffs and outsourcing) remain miles ahead of other white collar roles, let alone the blue collar or service jobs most Americans ACTUALLY work.

raducu 2y ago
> will always outcompete a local working in the service industry I think non-resident owners should pay something like 10X the taxes a resident owner pays. This whole housing as an "investment" thing is destroying society
- jeffbee 2y ago
  In some countries with less of a housing crisis than ours, it's the opposite. If you buy a house to occupy, you pay a large VAT. If you buy a house to let, you don't. Fetishizing owner-occupancy is the root cause of the American housing crisis. We need to get over the weird belief that something about living in a house you own is morally superior.
  - raducu 2y ago
    I'm not talking (just) about the USA. In my buble people often hoard properties to let but many just hoard them because they can and taxes are (too) low. Someone has an advantage in income, access to financing, reaches a threshold and 10 years later they flip 10 houses, all payed by not so fortunate tenants, and the owner thinks he's some kind of rightous capitalist. The whole rent-seeking behavior is a scourge on society.