2 ms·
Nah. NIMBY keeps cities livable, we need more of it. And it works. A great example from Europe: Copenhagen. It's the world's best city in several rankings. Ho
by cyberax 2y ago
Nah. NIMBY keeps cities livable, we need more of it.
And it works. A great example from Europe: Copenhagen. It's the world's best city in several rankings.
How did it get there? By using every inch to build "affordable housing"?
Nope. It got there through ruthless population control measures, that actually _reduced_ the Copenhagen population: https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/cities/20894/copenhagen/population https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/cities/20894/cope...
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> the world's best city in several rankings …by the Danish tourism board? > through ruthless population control measures The best city people choose not to live or have kids in. Got it.
- cyberax 2y ago> …by the Danish tourism board? Nope. E.g.: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/28/10-most-livable-cities-in-the-world-vienna-copenhagen-top-list-eiu.html https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/28/10-most-livable-cities-in-th... > The best city people choose not to live or have kids in. Got it. Pretty much. The only way a dense city can work is by limiting its growth. The denser the city, the smaller the birth rate (in the developed world). The best place for kids as evidenced by the birth rate? Suburbs.
- loeg 2y ago"Affordable housing" (sub-market rate lotteries subsidized by increasing the cost of market rate housing) is IMO more of a NIMBY policy than a YIMBY one. The net effect is market rate housing gets more expensive, which hurts everyone except the lucky lottery winners.
- Aloisius 2y agoThis. Demanding new developments all be affordable housing is a strategy NIMBYs use to prevent new construction, since most builders will just go elsewhere. If a builder does try to comply with the demand, they come up with other reasons to block construction (doesn't match neighborhood's character, not enough parking, demand yet another environmental review, etc.)
- cyberax 2y agoHere's the thing, cities do not get cheaper when density increases. The reasons are complicated, but the end result is that not a single large city in Europe, US, or Japan decreased the housing costs by "just building more". If you want to decrease costs, you have exactly two options: 1. Decrease the city population. 2. Build _more_ cities, or new suburbs.
- loeg 2y ago> the end result is that not a single large city in Europe, US, or Japan decreased the housing costs by "just building more". This is just factually inaccurate? I don't think we can meaningfully discuss anything if you're going to lie about major claims like this.