[lasean]

I'm not sure existing cities can evolve themselves to fully solve these problems.

There are Americans that want affordable housing in densely populated areas that are also car centric. Hard to get all of three of those requirements. There are other Americans who already have a home in their ideal neighborhood and don't want change. The two groups are just incongruent.

Affordable housing is possible, but it requires a number of drivers:

1) Don't make policies that disincentivize developers. 2) Don't turn homes into financial assets. 3) Don't build the city around cars. 4) Don't romanticize the single family residence (SFR) home.

This might require brand new cities to be built — where these promises can be set from the get go.

[lozenge]

That depends on how much power you give the locals. Sometimes the state level has power to disempower the local NIMBYs. Like with SB-9. https://www.fullstackeconomics.com/p/how-california-plans-to...

[lasean]

Good point.

[whimsicalism]

Speaking of incongruent ideas, I think your #1 and #2 are contradictory.

Financialization is an important part of getting markets to meet demand. If you can’t “speculate” on future demand, then developers will not be able to build houses in anticipation of future residents.

[lasean]

The government can both subsidize development with low construction loan rates and disincentivize owners from flipping homes for quick profits. There are places where capital gains rates on home sales are onerous if sold before ten years. Both can be true at the same time. The likely oversupply of homes in this scenario is what most people would reject.