[maeln]

> The solution is pretty simple: build and unreasonable amount of housing. And entirely new cities.

So it is not simple. "Just build more" always comes up in those discussions, and while it does help (and has been proven to help), it is not the definite answer for the housing issues.

Build a new city from the ground up with a bunch of cheap modern housing, walkable and all modern goodies and ... nobody will move. People don't move just because housing is cheap. Actually many people are willing to spend a significant amount of their income to live in specific places. We move to have a job, to build a career, to be close to friends and family, to have better access to entertainment and activities, ...

This is why most developed country experience rural flight. The housing crisis is (mostly) a big city problem. You can usually find extremely cheap housing if you go deep in the countryside. And building is also cheaper (the price of the land is less, there is less permits issues, etc).

And for big cities, "build more" is way more challenging. Ground space is limited, so one solution is to build more vertical, but it is costly and has its own limitation. Spreading may cause issue with water management and require big investment in a public transport infrastructure if you don't want to have a nightmare traffic. Pollution can be a very big issue, etc. And that's for all the non-political issues. The political side of things can get very messy, very quickly.

If there was a simple solution, every big city in the world would have done it by now.

[999900000999]

Actually we already had a solution to this, normalized remote work.

If I can work remote for Citadel from a 6 bedroom house in North Dakota it’s a choice to rent a studio apartment in Manhattan.

Not to mention the massive environmental benefits of taking cars off the streets. If you have mobility issues, working remote is a game changer. For those who need to use wheelchairs it’s miles easier to work from home. The nightmare of public transportation while in a wheelchair isn’t something I’d wish on anyone

[TheOtherHobbes]

Instead of just building houses I'd consider building social networks - of the physical kind - which have shops, entertainment, and co-working spaces within walking distance.

Not everyone loves the isolation of WFH, so you could replace "jobs" in the old factory sense, now long gone, with co-working spaces which include a social element but are basically still remote work.

The big issue with the US housing market isn't the distribution of housing, it's the distribution of work and support infra of all kinds, including social support.

Because Systems Thinking isn't much of a thing in the US you get these partial solutions when what's needed are integrated solutions that consider all of the moving parts and try to fit them together in a workable way.

The US is very good at extracting and concentrating wealth, but not so good at systems-first distributed investment.

[999900000999]

Some people prefer to build those networks online. For one of my developer groups we have members that are a few states away and can only come in once a year.

Given a more worker friendly legal system I’d argue forcing anyone who can’t easily travel due to a disability, to work in person for a remote possible job is an undue burden.

I could never ever ever imagine that working currently however.

I don’t need work to make friends. I’d rather be freer to speak my mind when I do socialize.

I had a higher paying full remote job last year. No one there knows what my personal beliefs are, or what music I like. If it wasn’t for the profile picture they wouldn’t even know my appearance.

As it should be. I hate LinkedIn photos since it opens the flood gates to all sorts of discrimination.

[digitaltrees]

The US used to be really good at this. Look at the city grid system that built new York or savanah Georgia or st Louis. Those land grant cities created blocks that were essentially self contained neighborhoods with local businesses, parks, schools, government services and housing.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Build a new city from the ground up with a bunch of cheap modern housing, walkable and all modern goodies and ... nobody will move.

If you build a city full of empty buildings in a place with minimal existing population like the Alaskan wilderness then obviously. But what if you double the housing stock in all the existing cities where people want to live?

> Ground space is limited, so one solution is to build more vertical, but it is costly and has its own limitation.

Extremely tall buildings can get pretty expensive, but moderate height buildings (e.g. five stories) have similar per-unit construction costs to single family homes. Meanwhile now count the number of places you can draw a 100 mile radius where the median height of the existing buildings is even that tall. It might literally be nowhere in the US.

Notice also the extent to which density can thwart the scarcity of land. You put a five story building with four units per story on a plot of land instead of a single family home and the contribution per unit of the cost of land has gone down by 95%.

[saalweachter]

> Meanwhile now count the number of places you can draw a 100 mile radius where the median height of the existing buildings is even that tall.

100 miles? My dude, that is a circle from Poughkeepsie to the tip of Long Island. Forget one-story single-family housing, there is farmland in that circle. There are hundreds of square miles of state parks in that circle.

If people were willing and able to commute that distance you could easily quintuple the housing stock in that area building nothing but one story SFH.

Manhattan itself has a median height of 4-5 stories; the outer boroughs bring that down to 2-3, because commuting from Far Rockaway to midtown is already a schlep.

[AnthonyMouse]

> My dude, that is a circle from Poughkeepsie to the tip of Long Island. Forget one-story single-family housing, there is farmland in that circle.

That's kind of the point. Notice that housing demand is recursive.

The area you're talking about is NYC metro. If you draw a 100 mile radius around Manhattan then Poughkeepsie is inside it. Is someone going to live in Poughkeepsie and commute to Manhattan? Probably not. Is someone going to live in Poughkeepsie and commute in the direction of Manhattan? Absolutely. Which in turn recursively alleviates housing pressure in that direction. More housing in Poughkeepsie frees up existing housing in Peekskill, more availability in Peekskill frees up existing housing in Yonkers, lots of people are willing to commute from Yonkers to Manhattan.

And both "100 miles" and the NYC metro area (the highest population density metro area in the US) are far extremes. The point is that even that would improve affordability if it was the only option. Meanwhile in reality there are single family homes that could be 5 story buildings in Yonkers, if it wasn't prohibited by zoning.

> If people were willing and able to commute that distance you could easily quintuple the housing stock in that area building nothing but one story SFH.

If you actually did that, would housing affordability improve? Yes it would. It's in fact what's slowly happening on its own when the better alternatives are banned; it's why housing in Manhattan isn't twice what it is now. But that's sprawl. Sprawl sucks. People pay less for housing but have 60 minute commutes. Why do that by adding far away single family homes instead of adding medium-height buildings closer to where people work?

[saalweachter]

Is your suggestion "we should do the status quo, except the bridge and tunnel commuters should be confined to tiny high-rise enclaves clustered around train stations strung out over a hundred miles"?

[AnthonyMouse]

My suggestion is that we should get rid of zoning density restrictions and allow the market to respond to high housing costs in a sensible way instead of the nonsensible way it's being forced to right now.

It's the people who like density restrictions who keep trying to force people to build high rises next to train stations. But that's the thing that doesn't work, because high rises cost significantly more per unit to build and if you constrain where things can be built like that then the cost of land in the few areas that allow multi-unit housing gets out of control because of the legislated scarcity.

[saalweachter]

If NYC lifts all its density restrictions, why do you need people commuting inward over a hundred mile radius?

[vel0city]

Expecting 31,416 square miles of area with a median height of 5 stories would be wild. That's most of the entire Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale MSA (~37,000sqmi).

[digitaltrees]

But yet people think the heart of Paris, Rome or even Hong Kong are wonderful. Build the neighborhoods correctly and beautifully and the city can continue indefinitely

[vel0city]

The Paris metro area (Aire d'attraction des villes) is only ~7,300 square miles, with the city proper only being 41 square miles. They're talking 31,400 square miles of essentially Paris proper.

So imagine the city of Paris, but stretched about 766x. If you want to include the whole metro area, then ~4.3x

Hong Kong is ~431 square miles. So about 73 Hong Kongs. But not really, because only ~25% of that area is actually urban. So more like 291x the urban area of HK.

[digitaltrees]

Just because the scale doesn’t exist today doesn’t mean it can’t exist or wouldn’t be desired if built.

500 years ago people would have thought any of the cities described were impossible.

[digitaltrees]

But if you design the city correctly around self contained neighborhoods that are no more than a 15 minute walk no one has to commute that far.

[rayiner]

This makes no sense. People want to commute to the best job they can get, not the one that happens to be in their neighborhood. And people aren't going to move neighborhoods when they move jobs, especially with spouses and kids who have jobs and schools in the existing place.

[digitaltrees]

Id argue you are just taking the status quo as inevitable when it is really just a result of policy choices and not how human society has ever been structured before

Madrid is doing this. Savanah Georgia did this. Manhattan did this. You could also reverse the consolidation of everything. Instead of CVS owning every pharmacy, incentives to prompt the pharmacy being owned by the pharmacist. Or a local butcher. And most jobs that require commutes don't require it now, and if cities were built with the appropriate mix of housing all incomes could live in a section of down further cutting down on commutes.

[mentalgear]

It would of course be a functioning state's responsibility to plan urban/city development and economic incentives to move there. Regarding the ownership vs renter housing debate: I think Singapore may be an excellent example of a state doing it's duty: affordable state-owned housing and people are distributed per housing per the national demographics so you also build social coherence vs ghetto-fication.

[BerislavLopac]

Singapore is a special case, since it doesn't really have any rural areas.

[digitaltrees]

The housing doesn't need to be state owned to get the same effect though. A functional government can create the system

[vel0city]

> nobody will move. People don't move just because housing is cheap.

Judging by what I see happening in Texas where the mentality definitely is build, build, build...people definitely do choose to live in the way flung out there suburbs and actively look to move there. Just around DFW places like Prosper, Forney, Weatherford, Burelson, and far more continue to attract tons of people wanting to buy a house even if its way flung out there. People drive from as far out as Kyle and Serenada and consider themselves part of Austin. Houston is about done with its third highway loop, TX SH 99. Tons of people don't blink an eye about having an hour long commute it seems.

I'd argue this isn't a great way to build our cities without also laying the groundwork for decent transit but you can't say people aren't choosing it. I kind of like the multi-polar MSA setup in some ways that we have here in DFW, although it could be a lot better. If you're wanting a more urban lifestyle, you don't have to be directly in Dallas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_State_Highway_99

> Ground space is limited

For a lot of the US this just isn't true. It is true for several notable big cities in the US though, I will agree. Can't really add more land to San Francisco or Manhattan cheaply.

[digitaltrees]

I don’t agree. Orlando was nothing. Raleigh research triangle park was nothing. Silicon Valley was nothing until they were. Each of them were built from a single seed project: Disney, State grant of free land and two roads being built, NASA facility respectively.

We could also recognize that at certain levels of development single family residences are no longer viable. The government should use eminent domain to take entire blocks back for redevelopment vertically. They should be required to give the home owners triple the value of The property they are taking in the form of replacement square footage or a property in the new development and one or more properties elsewhere. Imagine ing each nimby stood to have a windfall in the form of multiple properties they could rent or sell in exchange for giving up their property. There would be a lot less resistance. Not no resistance but a lot less.

Build the infrastructure, plan the city grid like we used to, incentivize employers to move headquarters there, build new factories, create special economic zones. There are tons of options.

We could increase supply and demand by having a “grow to 1 billion Americans” project. We would create a path to citizenship for people with a requirement that they help build and/or finance the build of homes store fronts etc. create a targeted immigration plan so the new metro is comprised of a broad range of culture, ages, income levels and skills so cultural mixing occurs and assimilation into the shared American experience is facilitated. Make the new metros operate on lower minimum wage, grant 5 year tax abatement for individuals, give the land away for free. Then once the city is established in 20 years do the same thing.

[postflopclarity]

> it is not the definite answer for the housing issues.

it kind of is.

[carlosjobim]

Rural real estate prices just keep going up while the population goes down. You'd expect the opposite, but it's not happening. As long as everything except real estate is cheap and pensions are high, old people will never sell. They consider themselves to be saintly generous to leave real estate to their (then also elderly) children when they die.

Free land for internal colonisation was a successful policy that almost every country in the recent past has employed. Even small countries.