[tidbits]

Except regulations are what got us here in the first place? At least in the US, zoning is a recent invention with racial motivations. Cities want to be dense because that is the cheapest way to build. That is why basically every city older than a 100 years old that hasn't been wrecked by zoning is dense. Suburbs are an unnatural product of abundant land in the US, the invention of automobiles, and zoning.

[cucumber3732842]

It's environmental as much as it is zoning that drives the development you see.

You literally can't build the kind of "concrete jungle" that you used to be able to because of environmental.

Like a store with a few parking spaces up front, the building and an alley around the back to one parking space (for the staff) and the dumpster is literally illegal without a multimillion dollar stormwater treatment system or a bunch of extra land (i.e. suburban sprawl).

This is also why you only ever see <low number> family houses on 1/16th to 1/8 acre (depending on the sqft of the house + parking) and the it jumps right to N-over-Y megacorp apartment blocks (maybe with retail on the bottom).

[cyberax]

Zoning is about 100 years old, and it's not the reason Manhattan doesn't have enough groceries. And ultimately, market forces almost always win over regulations.

Reformulate the question: why do people tolerate living in dense tiny apartments, without easy access to necessities like childcare and grocery stores?

[snake42]

Manhattan doesn't have enough groceries? Do you have a source for that? Everywhere in the city I go has plenty of grocery stores.

[chongli]

You don't need tiny apartments to have density. You can do it with smaller single-family houses on smaller lots, narrow one-way streets, and alleyways for parking instead of driveways and garages. This is how the pre-war streetcar suburb of Riverdale, Toronto is designed [1] and it has much higher density than the rest of the city.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0

[cyberax]

> You don't need tiny apartments to have density.

Sure, it starts with "just do row houses" and "missing middle" and in two generations it becomes "we should allow SROs".

> [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0

That's a propaganda channel that "conveniently" ignores everything against their narrative.

These kinds of density still require cars. Unless you want to have a stay-at-home spouse who can do full-time housekeeper duty (like in that Toronto neighborhood).

[Legend2440]

...that's a pretty disingenuous take on zoning, which has many other motives beyond racism.

For example zoning keeps industry away from residential, preventing disasters like the West Texas Fertilizer explosion.

[larsiusprime]

It's funny that people always bring this up, but I don't see what centrally planned mandatory setbacks, height limits, and parking mandates have to do with preventing industrial accidents.

[actionfromafar]

Must we have extremes? I could live near ”no explosives” zoning, while still allowing at lot more than is typical today.

[cucumber3732842]

The state claims jurisdiction on pretty much all the "seriously heavy" industry people like to trot out as though it would be in your back yard if not for zoning. The local towns don't get much of a say and even when they do the projects are high dollar enough that if the town won't grant it then they'll win on appeal and it'll be no big deal.

Aaaand, the real kicker is that the towns typically can't fight too hard because a lot of zoning provisions they'd use are not up to the legal standard it takes to do battle with a megacorp and they'd rather keep them on the books as they are than have the megacorp's lawyers pick them apart.

So you can still have Chernoybl in your back yard with zoning.