3 ms·
Nothing I'm saying is actually scientifically controversial. I'm literally citing facts from urbanist textbooks. It's just that the way I'm telling them is unse
by cyberax 10mo ago
Nothing I'm saying is actually scientifically controversial. I'm literally citing facts from urbanist textbooks. It's just that the way I'm telling them is unsettling for the people who have never questioned the social-engineered "consensus".
E.g. density doesn't decrease housing prices: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/4/26/upzoning-might-not-lower-housing-costs-do-it-anyway https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/4/26/upzoning-might...
The CO2 footprint question is a tricky one. The vehicle _itself_ is not the main source of pollution. Even if you compare the vehicles, the answer is not straightforward: https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint The main source of pollution for transit are _drivers_. E.g. each bus needs around 3 drivers to function, resulting in driver-to-passenger ratio of just around 1:7.
So when computing true CO2 footprint, you need to look at a counter-factual scenario where bus drivers are doing something else. But this becomes extremely tricky extremely fast, as you can move into fantasyland where bus drivers are building CO2 scrubbers instead of driving CO2-emitting vehicles. Or where drivers are working on chopping forests for agricultural lands, resulting in huge CO2 increases.
The next best option is to look at different regions and compare them. E.g. Houston, TX with EVs would have smaller CO2 emissions than the current NYC, with climate corrections.
- jakelazaroff 10mo ago> E.g. density doesn't decrease housing prices: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/4/26/upzoning-might-not-lower-housing-costs-do-it-anyway https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/4/26/upzoning-might... The article you cited doesn't support that assertion. Its thesis is that upzoning alone — i.e. relaxing regulations such that it is legal to build higher-density housing, without further interventions — may not be sufficient to create enough vacancies to lower rents.
- cyberax 10mo agoIt says exactly what I'm saying. Density increases do NOT result in lower housing prices. And you need a state-driven corrupt system of subsidies for socialized housing to make it "affordable". For the right kinds of people.
- jakelazaroff 10mo agoDid you mistakenly link the wrong article? This one definitely does not say that. Could you quote a passage that supports your interpretation?
- cyberax 10mo agoYou are right, that particular article alone doesn't spell it out completely. But other articles from this author do: https://archive.strongtowns.org/journal/2022/6/15/a-parallel-option-social-housing-part-3 https://archive.strongtowns.org/journal/2022/6/15/a-parallel... The cited article alone simply admits that upzoning won't result in cheaper housing. Because the market is broken (and only socialized housing can fix it), but we must do upzoning anyway.
- jakelazaroff 10mo agoThat article also doesn't support your assertion. For example, they specifically call out parking minimums and minimum lot sizes (both density-lowering regulations) as major drivers of high housing costs.