3 ms·

These are not hard things to understand or solve, it's just that the majority of people don't want to understand them or face reality and the politicians will a

These are not hard things to understand or solve, it's just that the majority of people don't want to understand them or face reality and the politicians will always serve up these kinds of con artist lies to placate people. You cannot add ~60 million foreign national people to the US population in the last 25 years without severely impacting the housing situation when the USA has only built 1.1 million housing units on average over that period; most of those being locked into high prices due to the massive inflation over that time. What makes it even worse is this obsession with both concentrating populations and jobs in urban centers, while at the same time being concerned with climate change and environmental protection. They are mutually exclusive things. This is an iron triangle issue, you can only have two of three things: affordable housing, immigration, climate/environment protection.

outside2344 1y ago
I don't understand why this is a iron triangle situation. Higher density housing -- and a lot of it -- solves for all three, right? If not, why not?
- xmprt 1y ago
  It's because the triangle is missing the secret forth vertex: single family housing with a big private backyard and a lawn in the suburbs that's only accessible by car.
gfehhffvvv 1y ago
I don’t understand, why is urban concentration anathema to environmental protection? It seems instead to be in service of it?
pixl97 1y ago
> They are mutually exclusive things. Source: You made it up. Being closer to where the things are so you can walk significantly drops the amount of fuel needed for transportation and opens up public transportation as a workable option. > USA has only built 1.1 million housing units on average over that period; That's a government issue, not a practical one. How many housing units did China build in that same amount of time?
- hopelite 1y ago
  Please go back to reddit with your nonsense
cd4plus 1y ago
What an incredibly weird take. Higher density cities are better in virtually any environmental metric per capita. This is widely supported
- mothballed 1y ago
  Even as measured by pollutants per breath inhaled?
  - epistasis 1y ago
    That would be a health metric, not an environmental one. While brake dust is a major contributor to this, a suburb next to a freeway is going to be pretty damn bad too.
    - mothballed 1y ago
      It's ultimately a measure of the concentrations of pollutants in the air, which I would classify as an environmental measurement although perhaps a health one too.
    - Supermancho 1y ago
      > While brake dust is a major contributor to this, a suburb next to a freeway is going to be pretty damn bad too. Relative to the rest of the area, for that specific pollutant, yes. Relative to a city dwelling of the same distance, no. Volume (ie Traffic) matters when comparing health impacts.
      - epistasis 1y ago
        Freeway traffic next to suburbs is really the major driver here, with high speeds and tire microplastics (the biggest source of microplastics in the SF Bay Area is tires). A suburbanite driving on their river of pollution for 50 miles every day is a much bigger impact than somebody taking the bus and train in the city. And even city streets do not see the level of pollution caused by freeways that snake through suburbs throughout the Bay Area and LA. But honestly the gas stoves in most California kitchens are the true killer, yet nobody seems to even bother talking about that. In any case: environmental metrics I had always thought about things that impact the environment: reduction of ecosystem, death of a particular types of animals (especially the ones we like), unhealthy water ways, etc. On all these, suburban life is absolutely horrific, urban and very rural life is pretty good. If you can drive to the Costco, you are probably living in the least environmentally friendly way possible. As far as health metrics, whether from environmental effects or crime or the actual real killers: obesity, smoking, blood pressure, and heat disease, cities do better than rural areas: https://schaeffer.usc.edu/research/rural-americans-dont-live-as-long-as-those-in-cities/ https://schaeffer.usc.edu/research/rural-americans-dont-live... Our cars are killing us in every way yet we refuse to acknowledge the massive health effects.

outside2344 1y ago

I don't understand why this is a iron triangle situation. Higher density housing -- and a lot of it -- solves for all three, right? If not, why not?

xmprt 1y ago
It's because the triangle is missing the secret forth vertex: single family housing with a big private backyard and a lawn in the suburbs that's only accessible by car.

gfehhffvvv 1y ago

I don’t understand, why is urban concentration anathema to environmental protection? It seems instead to be in service of it?

pixl97 1y ago

> They are mutually exclusive things. Source: You made it up. Being closer to where the things are so you can walk significantly drops the amount of fuel needed for transportation and opens up public transportation as a workable option. > USA has only built 1.1 million housing units on average over that period; That's a government issue, not a practical one. How many housing units did China build in that same amount of time?

hopelite 1y ago
Please go back to reddit with your nonsense

cd4plus 1y ago

What an incredibly weird take. Higher density cities are better in virtually any environmental metric per capita. This is widely supported

mothballed 1y ago
Even as measured by pollutants per breath inhaled?
- epistasis 1y ago
  That would be a health metric, not an environmental one. While brake dust is a major contributor to this, a suburb next to a freeway is going to be pretty damn bad too.
  - mothballed 1y ago
    It's ultimately a measure of the concentrations of pollutants in the air, which I would classify as an environmental measurement although perhaps a health one too.
  - Supermancho 1y ago
    > While brake dust is a major contributor to this, a suburb next to a freeway is going to be pretty damn bad too. Relative to the rest of the area, for that specific pollutant, yes. Relative to a city dwelling of the same distance, no. Volume (ie Traffic) matters when comparing health impacts.
    - epistasis 1y ago
      Freeway traffic next to suburbs is really the major driver here, with high speeds and tire microplastics (the biggest source of microplastics in the SF Bay Area is tires). A suburbanite driving on their river of pollution for 50 miles every day is a much bigger impact than somebody taking the bus and train in the city. And even city streets do not see the level of pollution caused by freeways that snake through suburbs throughout the Bay Area and LA. But honestly the gas stoves in most California kitchens are the true killer, yet nobody seems to even bother talking about that. In any case: environmental metrics I had always thought about things that impact the environment: reduction of ecosystem, death of a particular types of animals (especially the ones we like), unhealthy water ways, etc. On all these, suburban life is absolutely horrific, urban and very rural life is pretty good. If you can drive to the Costco, you are probably living in the least environmentally friendly way possible. As far as health metrics, whether from environmental effects or crime or the actual real killers: obesity, smoking, blood pressure, and heat disease, cities do better than rural areas: https://schaeffer.usc.edu/research/rural-americans-dont-live-as-long-as-those-in-cities/ https://schaeffer.usc.edu/research/rural-americans-dont-live... Our cars are killing us in every way yet we refuse to acknowledge the massive health effects.