Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by HWR_14 1881 days ago
If you think that the buildings are ugly and damage the city, you'd be opposed to them. You like them so are not.

As for "people should be free to build things", we decided over 100 years ago that wasn't the case. Not unrestrained by zoning laws and concern for the community.
1 comments
dionidium 1881 days ago
> we decided over 100 years ago that wasn't the case.

That was an enormous mistake. It's the source of our housing shortage in high-demand areas and it's probably costing us literally trillions of dollars. [0]

> If you think that the buildings are ugly and damage the city, you'd be opposed to them. You like them so are not.

This is what you believe, not what I believe. In fact, I think people should be free to build buildings I think are ugly.

[0] https://ggwash.org/view/42946/zoning-the-hidden-trillion-dol...

link
HWR_14 1881 days ago
Interesting take, considering the article we are talking about discusses how billionaires are hiding assets overseas (well, from overseas relative to us) in our housing. Don't you think that's driving up pricing.

Anyway, I disagree with your article's point of view. I don't think letting more people live in San Jose or NYC would unlock huge 10% improvements to GDP, and, even if it were, there's a value to being able to live in single family homes. If WFH is here to stay, then my suspicion is that NYC is going to continue suffering from its 2020 housing glut.

link
dionidium 1881 days ago
> there's a value to being able to live in single family homes

Of course that's true. Again, my view is that people should be free to build whatever they want. Single-family zoning makes the alternatives illegal, not the other way around! Proponents of single-family zoning get a lot of mileage out of the implication that urbanists want to impose their way of living on everybody else, but the opposite is quite plainly the case. Only one side in this debate wants to encode their preferences in law.

link