There’s an existing thing that requires no innovation that makes suburbs much more liveable which is a horseshoe shaped development with the outer loop being park, the middle loop being residential multistory apartment buildings or condos, and the inner loop being commercial. Everyone’s residence building has park on one side and stores on the other.
This also elides several elephants in the room: nobody with power wants cheap housing because poor people create more externalities (crime, noise, destruction of commons, both at home and at the relevant school district). Discrimination along dimensions other than financial have become illegal, so all remaining optimization pressure gets stacked on it. Another is that density seems great to young people and suburbs seem really appealing to families who want more space.
Just want to first note that most of the proposed things require no innovation either.
Multistory buildings (also regulated away in most suburbs) adds ~25% to construction costs. Jane Jacobs also mentions parks being much better if they’re on the way to things, and the ratio of park even today doesn’t approach the scale portrayed. Also want to note that suburbs only exist in a few countries.
poor people create more externalities
Poor countries with cities still exist, and many seem to be getting along well enough (at least getting richer over time). If it’s not that I guess my intuition goes the other way. I imagine police stepping up militance to combat some of these things can work. If discrimination is legitimately a good solution to some urban issues, I’d at least be surprised, but it should still work with the other things here.
suburbs seem really appealing to families who want more space
The housing market should generally address this. There’s will certainly eventually be parts of the city topped out in density, but until then if space becomes valuable the market will eat that value by making more space. Families can always live in less dense (but still city-density) sections a little further out.
There’s an existing thing that requires no innovation that makes suburbs much more liveable which is a horseshoe shaped development with the outer loop being park, the middle loop being residential multistory apartment buildings or condos, and the inner loop being commercial. Everyone’s residence building has park on one side and stores on the other.
This also elides several elephants in the room: nobody with power wants cheap housing because poor people create more externalities (crime, noise, destruction of commons, both at home and at the relevant school district). Discrimination along dimensions other than financial have become illegal, so all remaining optimization pressure gets stacked on it. Another is that density seems great to young people and suburbs seem really appealing to families who want more space.
Just want to first note that most of the proposed things require no innovation either.
Multistory buildings (also regulated away in most suburbs) adds ~25% to construction costs. Jane Jacobs also mentions parks being much better if they’re on the way to things, and the ratio of park even today doesn’t approach the scale portrayed. Also want to note that suburbs only exist in a few countries.
Poor countries with cities still exist, and many seem to be getting along well enough (at least getting richer over time). If it’s not that I guess my intuition goes the other way. I imagine police stepping up militance to combat some of these things can work. If discrimination is legitimately a good solution to some urban issues, I’d at least be surprised, but it should still work with the other things here.
The housing market should generally address this. There’s will certainly eventually be parts of the city topped out in density, but until then if space becomes valuable the market will eat that value by making more space. Families can always live in less dense (but still city-density) sections a little further out.