People hate to hear this but noone has a right to live somewhere indefinitely.
Logically, this doesn't even work. Lets say everyone in LA wants to live there with their children and their children's children and so on forever. Extrapolate this a few generations and eventually you will have a solid mass of humans 1000 ft tall. (This is a hyperbolic joke, you get the point)
Yeah I don’t see what’s wrong with your (in my mind) utopic vision. Everyone who wants to live in a mass of humanity 1000 ft tall should be able to afford to live in that mass, and we should be researching ways to make it more and more affordable.
The only way it doesn’t work is if the community makes it impossible for more new people to get in, or if there isn’t enough economic opportunity to support all the people living there. But people don’t generally want to move into communities where they can’t find work, and I see no good reason we should enforce minimum lot and zoning laws to prevent people from moving to where opportunity lives.
I do think they should get rid of prop 13, demolish all single family homes, and replace them with high-density buildings. What many people mean however, is that they want to continue to live there in the same single-family house forever. This is why prop 13 exists in the first place.
Ahhhh, brutalism . . . “The Soviets decided to pass: the plan was too extreme and destructive of existing institutions even for Stalin. Undeterred, Le Corbusier changed the word “Moscow” on the diagram to “Paris”, then presented it to the French government (who also passed). Some aspects of his design eventually ended up as Chandigarh, India.”
Or Paris, or Madrid, or much of the rest of Europe in which 3--5 storey townhouses are common. These might be single- or multip-occupant dwellings (e.g., a single family or household on multiple floors). Typically zoning is denser, though structures might be either attached or detached.
In either case, the land-usage intensity rises by multiple factors.
The option is not between 1-story quarter-acre development and a forest of Burj Khalifas. There is in fact considerable intermediate ground.
High density housing will not work in places with a high standard and quality of living. It will certainly erode individual rights, create environmental decline and infringe upon privacy.
In developed countries, high density housing will either make the city unbearably expensive(NYC) or bring down quality of life.(SF)
High density is a sign that resources are scarce but demand for them has increased. The sign of a well functioning and professional state is one that has a healthy middle class and enjoys low density sustainable standard of life.
Often the case for high density housing is married to sustainability goals. But sustainability goals exist in the first place because resources are scarce and it is becoming difficult to live in a sustainable manner.
The rational solution is to place a moratorium upon expansion of the city and the population. Only in Bizarro World would the logic of cramming more people even more densely in the name of sustainable design would make sense.
The true scarcity mentality is with governing bodies and elected officials who do not have the vision, integrity or collective access to more than one brain cell. They fail to create networked sustainable communities and manipulate their vote banks.
One might choose to be fair and honest to admit that calls for high density housing is often where successful immigrants congregate due to their employment. Often said immigrants are on work visas and often are not eligible to vote in local/national elections.
Is it a coincidence that elected officials impose high taxes only in certain cities/counties and extract every dollar they can squeeze from a work force who are cuffed to their visa sponsored high paying jobs? The golden goose is slaughtered and well done. Stick a fork in it and let the taxes drip.
There are no high density initiatives in Visalia, CA. Only in Bay Area. Because why build infrastructure and public transport when you can keep taxing those who can’t even vote in the first place. At least in CA, it’s win-win over and over.
Every city that has a highly paid immigrant work force is on the chopping block and will start passing high density housing initiatives. Success must be penalized..it seems. Affordable housing is subsidized housing. And who subsidizes it? The developers will tack that cost to the market value homes. Which would..surprise!..create more unaffordable cities. It’s a vicious cycle that should obvious to most who pay mortgages for all of their working lives.
Have you even been to Europe? There is a sweetspot between 500ft highrise and infinite swaths of SFH suburbia. That sweet spot is usualy also classified as "high density", and IMHO is better in every way.
Yes. And agree. Won’t translate in the USA. We are a big country and spend a ton on military spending. Our govt spending bill is huge. Our consumption is also highest amongst all other nations.
We don’t need high density. It’s funny. Hong Kong, Singapore, Mumbai, London maybe..but we have literally brainwashed ourselves into thinking we need to be high density and by creating unnecessary economic activity/jobs/dense zones, we have created an unsustainable situation.
Case in point: Growing 1/4 of America’s food and 80% of almonds in a desert during a drought and in a state with the highest cost of living? Daft! And for what? A fraction of our GDP. While investment in education and tech and automation would create prosperity all over the world and we could export what we do best. Tech.
Are almonds a basic human right? I don’t think so. Water is…and Californians have to sacrifice water during a drought so the world can have its almonds and alfafa for their non native dairy cows. So we will soon be 10 billion. And we came from 3.5 million in 1975. When will this euphoria over expansion and ‘growth’ stop? It’s a fool’s dream and a dangerous one.
The Dutch solved this. They are a tiny country growing a lot of hydroponic food for Europe. Now they mostly sell tech and know how to grow hydroponic tomatoes. They don’t actually grow hydroponic tomatoes for the whole of the word. Optimization of resources and proper asset management. The asset here isn’t the water and wind and hydroponic tomatoes in Netherlands. It’s their tech and know how.
America doesn’t operate with an understanding of scale, economies of scale and diminishing returns. We could be better and shine better. But the elephant thinks it’s a pussy cat and ends up trampling everyone around it during playtime. A tragedy all around.
Westerners totally fail to appreciae,that once you replace all houses with, say, 6 story apartment of equivalent internal area, you gain so much space outdoors.
The single story suburbia looks claustraphobic - instead you have soace for parks, public squares, and services and facilities. There can be large distances between apartment blocks, and can be very green
We don’t have to be high density in America. We can have our natural spaces and well planned green cities.
America is a nation of immigrants. They didn’t leave their home countries and sacrifice so much for a better future to go back into high density apartments and sprint to the park for fresh air.
I know elderly Asian neighbors who hyperventilate at city hall meetings when they hear their adopted country going the way of the homes they fled. And my heart goes out to them. My friends who came here from communist regimes prefer to live in middle America that used to be immune to the coastal political restlessness.
The way a govt can control a citizen’s life is through housing, taxes and trade it for quality of life. It’s borderline blackmail. Current trends and progressive/liberal/greenwashing fads invalidates entire lives and makes a mockery of immigrants’ journeys made towards a prosperous abundant life that is free from govt constraints.
People hate to hear this but noone has a right to live somewhere indefinitely
I am sure you feel it made sense when you wrote it, or the example explained it in any way. I absolutely failed to understand the common knowledge aspect about people's limits to their ownership rights or even understand the sequence of events or mathematical explanation of the example.
Over time, the number of people that can lay claim to their right to live in LA forever will/could grow exponentially. The space is limited. Particularly so when you have prop 13. These two facts are incompatible. What you will get in reality is an ever-ballooning housing price, pushing everyone else out and single-family home owners locking in their "right" to the space through market-distorting laws like prop 13.
I ask you this, why do the people living in LA have more of a right to be there than the native Indians that were there 500 years ago?
How is the potential problem of housing future people an argument for a policy that allows kicking out existing owners?
They don't seem to me related. This is about the rights of ownership.
The problems you mention stem from various "kick out" policies that are essentially forced assets transfer and artificial scarcity policies to inflate prices (difficulty for new housing, one family houses, height of buildings, devaluation of residential areas by bad policing etc)
Housing prices are results of specific policies, and people's ownership rights are protected in western societies.
A variant on the concept is that taxes accrue whilst the present (residential) owner holds the property, but come due on sale or transfer, inclusive of inheritance.
Same would not hold for commercial or nonresidential property ownership. Presumably not by trust (e.g., shielded / non-person) ownership.
If their family lives nearby, they probably own homes and can all sell and move together, move in with each other, move to an area not far away that's substantially cheaper, use your huge winning to build an ADU in your dear family member's backyard and be even closer together, etc...
It's all relative. If everyone else moving in can spend a mill plus, you're priced out. If you and your neighbors happen to be the only ones improving things, and the mil plus group comes in and stagnates/displaces you through gentrificative forces, requiring you to to start from scratch elsewhere.
Lets say you live long enough for the cycle to repeat multiple times. I assume proponents would say, "well, hooray, everyone but you is way better off, I guess it sucks that you weren't better at managing money", when all anyone ever wanted to do was live together and be left alone.
> all anyone ever wanted to do was live together and be left alone
It's a great ideal, but the problem is that land is a finite resource, so eventually you'll run out of space that is necessary for the next group of people who want to live together and be left alone to actually do so. At which point, you either have a stark divide between those who got in their claim and those who don't, or you come up with some redistributive system that gives newcomers a chance.
Logically, this doesn't even work. Lets say everyone in LA wants to live there with their children and their children's children and so on forever. Extrapolate this a few generations and eventually you will have a solid mass of humans 1000 ft tall. (This is a hyperbolic joke, you get the point)