[HereBePandas]

What kinds of specific policies do you have in mind?

Seems like the reason people in the US don't build houses in the empty patches in the US is because the economics of agglomeration mean much greater efficiency/economic growth when you build them in existing large cities. How do you fight this without making the country much less economically dynamic?

[cyberax]

> What kinds of specific policies do you have in mind?

Limit the amount of office space density (cap&trade style, or with a direct tax). Promote decentralization via tax credits, etc.

These are all old ideas, but these days they can be turbo-charged by promoting WFH.

> Seems like the reason people in the US don't build houses in the empty patches in the US is because the economics of agglomeration mean much greater efficiency/economic growth when you build them in existing large cities.

Yes. It's more efficient to open an office in a large city, where you have access to a larger talent pool. And in turn, it's more advantageous to live near a dense city core, as it provides you with more options for employment.

This leads to a never-ending densification and price growth spiral. Manhattan is a good example of the end-game of this kind of death spiral.

And these are exactly the same kinds of market forces that forced companies to dump toxic waste into rivers. After all, if you take care to clean up your toxic waste, then your products will be more expensive and less competitive.

[fzeroracer]

You're looking at a side effect, deeming it the problem and trying to solve that problem rather than solving the actual issue at hand.

For example let's look at Japan. Japan does not have what you dubbed a densification and price growth spiral despite having cities far more dense than any city in the US. This should tell you that your initial problem is the wrong problem.

The answer is that they develop high-speed transportation to and from dense cores in addition to smaller sparser towns. This means property value is far lower because distance doesn't matter and in fact housing value inverts where it purely depreciates.

If we did what you propose, you would see what's happening to cities like Austin. Where offices are built in a purely sprawling fashion, highly dense traffic and shifting property value to areas along traffic corridors.

[cyberax]

> You're looking at a side effect, deeming it the problem and trying to solve that problem rather than solving the actual issue at hand.

Nope. I'm looking at the root cause here.

> For example let's look at Japan. Japan does not have what you dubbed a densification and price growth spiral

Fucking what?!? Tokyo is the example of shitty densificaiton.

Young people in Japan are forced to live in tiny apartments where you can literally sit on a toilet while cooking food: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/03/business/tiny-apartments-...

All while at the same time having millions of beautiful empty houses readily available: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/17/realestate/japan-empty-ho...

And they managed to screw themselves up while having a _declining_ population.

> If we did what you propose, you would see what's happening to cities like Austin. Where offices are built in a purely sprawling fashion, highly dense traffic and shifting property value to areas along traffic corridors.

And this is great! Houston is giant, but it's extremely efficient because it doesn't have The Downtown where you _have_ to be. As a result, industry and offices tend to be interspersed with residential areas. So the average commute stays short.

[fzeroracer]

> Young people in Japan are forced to live in tiny apartments where you can literally sit on a toilet while cooking food: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/03/business/tiny-apartments-...

This isn't the gotcha you think it is. It's an entirely separate cultural issue. If you had read the article in question you posted, it mentions the fact that there are multiple cheaper apartments nearby that aren't as trendy due to age. And that these microapartments are explicitly chosen for the sake of living near ultra-trendy areas, though it's not necessary due to the convenience and wide reaching networks of transportation.

> All while at the same time having millions of beautiful empty houses readily available: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/17/realestate/japan-empty-ho...

Again, read the articles you post. These sit empty due to cultural issues. This is because houses depreciate in value and buying older homes is not viewed as a good thing.

"Houses in Japan typically decrease in value over time until they are worthless — the cultural legacy of post-World War II construction and shifting building codes — with only the land retaining value. Owners feel little incentive to maintain an aging house, and buyers often seek to demolish them and start fresh. But that can be expensive."

> And this is great! Houston is giant, but it's extremely efficient because it doesn't have The Downtown where you _have_ to be. As a result, industry and offices tend to be interspersed with residential areas. So the average commute stays short.

Efficient? Have you lived in Houston or Austin? Because I did. For 5 years. It was a nightmare getting to anywhere because it's a sea of paved-over bullshit with zero avenues to get anywhere outside of using a car. And if you do use a car, you have to wade through awful traffic and a city that isn't design to accommodate people. Houston literally ranks among the worst cities for traffic. Calling Houston efficient is so downright divorced from reality that I would have to question if you've looked at any cities outside of the US. Let alone lived in the cities you extol the virtues of.

[cyberax]

> This isn't the gotcha you think it is. It's an entirely separate cultural issue.

Well, yeah. It's called: shitty densification.

> If you had read the article in question you posted, it mentions the fact that there are multiple cheaper apartments nearby that aren't as trendy due to age.

In other words: they are even shittier.

> "Houses in Japan typically decrease in value over time until they are worthless — the cultural legacy of post-World War II construction and shifting building codes — with only the land retaining value. Owners feel little incentive to maintain an aging house, and buyers often seek to demolish them and start fresh. But that can be expensive."

Again, you're looking at symptoms. Tokyo is basically being rebuilt all the time, mostly as a result of corrupt wheeling-and-dealing by real estate developers. But the countryside and smaller cities stay empty and decaying.

> Efficient? Have you lived in Houston or Austin?

Yes, I have. I hated the climate and the (lack of) nature around it, but loved the city.

And yes, Houston is much more efficient than a similarly sized NYC in pretty much all categories: commute time, cost of housing, income inequality (0.48 GINI index vs 0.56 for NYC), infrastructure spending per capita, number of municipal employees per capita, etc.

> Because I did. For 5 years. It was a nightmare getting to anywhere because it's a sea of paved-over bullshit with zero avenues to get anywhere outside of using a car.

And why is that bad? Cars enable more efficient cities. They are objectively far superior to transit for several fundamental reasons.

[fzeroracer]

> And why is that bad? Cars enable more efficient cities. They are objectively far superior to transit for several fundamental reasons.

Then we're done here I guess. You live in an entirely different reality that just isn't true. There's no point to continuing this argument.