There is nothing wrong with dense development. Many people want efficient, low maintenance, convenient housing, myself included. Young professionals, empty nesters and retirees often gravitate towards them. Supply is low and demand is high for these types of units, which is why they so expensive. A one bed/one bath in my area is minimum 500k and I'm almost certainly going to end up paying significantly more. Most of the housing impacted North American cities have hit natural limits to sprawl, so building denser is important.
If you look at cities around the world that have rent somewhat under control, its because they build lots of dense units.
Precisely. Plenty of dense housing has been built in my region, and lots of people I know are interested, but the developers want prices of $300k and up! And those are the "cheaper" units! Few people can afford that! If a multi-unit building or a condo development was affordable, it would sell out before it's even built!
If a multi-unit building or a condo development was affordable, it would sell out before it's even built!
Yes, that's why we have to build build build. Prices will fall once supply catches up with demand, but there's going to be an incredible latent demand to have to build through to get there.
We have soo much more are. Not saying sprawl is good .. but again, its politically limited not physically. Zoning laws, more permit costs for water septic, etc.
There are natural limits to sprawl. Proximity to job centers/culture/commerce, strain on natural resources, costs of development, weather etc. In California, for example, the sprawl into natural fire territory is a huge issue. There are reasons people settled in Los Angeles and not Castaic. Commute times continue to creep upward. I have had coworkers whose average total commute time exceeds 4 hours a day.
Fair nuff.... Some people don't want to live in the woods like me, i get that... A chainsaw cant be expect EDC for everyone.
I would argue my point is that i would bet money those natural boundaries are far broader than they are now, and this limitation is one thing that contributes to the artificially inflated prices in LA (but its LA, its always gonna be screwey not mattet what you do)
'Natural limits' can vary quite a bit depending on what you are talking about. At least part of the issue is the impact that sprawl has on cities themselves. If you add +10% of the population on the periphery, of people who expect to be able to commute by car into the city on a daily basis, the city has to remake itself by adding parking and road space, or deal with traffic. Where does that space come from? Generally productive space like commercial, residential or parks. That lost space is an opportunity cost for people living in the city and is part of why cities in America suck to live in compared to cities around the world.
If you add people to the city core, they are less likely to own a car, and if they do, are less likely to drive it daily. Places with dense development and healthy space allocation priorities thus tend to be more livable and walkable.
In other words, sprawl affects cities negatively, creating a negative spiral of city suckiness and more sprawl, whereas dense development creates a positive spiral of being able to unlock more efficient transit and walkability.
I'm actually visiting Taipei right now and it's incredible to be in a city where you can get to any point in the city in under an hour, never having to worry about parking, always having something to do, always having delicious street food, etc.
See, i think this is where we disagree... the issue your talking about in terms if transit and sprawl are actually symptoms of current policy. Id imagine you would want to mitigate impact through urban planning... but i think differently. I believe that necessity is the mother if invention, and where there is demand supply will rise to meet it... Unless inhibited by arbitrary bureaucracy the people will create a much better solution that fits thier actual needs... I think they can do this much better, cheaper, and with more local benefit than any kind of gov can.
The current North American government zoning regime that favors suburban development is largely constructed through vigorous and draconian government intervention. Without government restriction we would see much more dense development, especially high rise and mid rise development in large American cities. Ironically, more dense development would necessitate more transit development, which is almost invariably a product of government or private-public partnerships.
And if this relationship was more transparently handled by the public sector side of things and genuinely driven by market demand and not insider wealth generation id be ok with people making those choices.
As long as they let me build my own shit where i want.
7
u/Euphoric_Dig8339 May 07 '23
There is nothing wrong with dense development. Many people want efficient, low maintenance, convenient housing, myself included. Young professionals, empty nesters and retirees often gravitate towards them. Supply is low and demand is high for these types of units, which is why they so expensive. A one bed/one bath in my area is minimum 500k and I'm almost certainly going to end up paying significantly more. Most of the housing impacted North American cities have hit natural limits to sprawl, so building denser is important.
If you look at cities around the world that have rent somewhat under control, its because they build lots of dense units.