Upvoted for highlighting this vision, but I think much more attention should be given to differentiating when restrictions on supply aren’t necessary and when they are.
For example, restrictions on destroying natural areas for housing may be very important to keep, both inside cities and outside them.
Another example is that building densely may cause problems if not accompanied by planning of the whole region.
I agree on the natural areas point; I would hope that we can increase density without decreasing the density of parks and playgrounds (though I would definitely be okay with decreasing the size of big ones that don’t serve that many people)
I am wary of arguments that we need to do other difficult to do things like improving transit before we can build housing because the practical result is that nothing is going to be done at all, which is worse than if we build more housing and then people had to campaign or lobby to get the transit fixed to accommodate.
I am wary of arguments that we need to do other difficult to do things like improving transit before we can build housing...
I’m not exactly sure if that’s what I mean or not. What I mean is that if you build housing with no infrastructure (like kindergartens or clinics or schools etc), maybe people won’t actually come to live there. You have to some way make sure to offer actually valuable essential goods and not bad ones.
Upvoted for highlighting this vision, but I think much more attention should be given to differentiating when restrictions on supply aren’t necessary and when they are.
For example, restrictions on destroying natural areas for housing may be very important to keep, both inside cities and outside them.
Another example is that building densely may cause problems if not accompanied by planning of the whole region.
appreciate your comment! Thanks for posting
I agree on the natural areas point; I would hope that we can increase density without decreasing the density of parks and playgrounds (though I would definitely be okay with decreasing the size of big ones that don’t serve that many people)
I am wary of arguments that we need to do other difficult to do things like improving transit before we can build housing because the practical result is that nothing is going to be done at all, which is worse than if we build more housing and then people had to campaign or lobby to get the transit fixed to accommodate.
I’m not exactly sure if that’s what I mean or not. What I mean is that if you build housing with no infrastructure (like kindergartens or clinics or schools etc), maybe people won’t actually come to live there. You have to some way make sure to offer actually valuable essential goods and not bad ones.
Yes, this is an interesting problem with new smart/planned cities! Probably not a problem with New York, San Francisco, and San Jose though