Density or Sprawl? How To Solve the Urban Housing Crisis

[@TV-xv1le]

What do we want? MORE HOUSING!! Where do we want it? NOT HERE!

[@Victor-my1hi]

Super Power The soultion is simple, larger roads, more houses, more suburbias, appartments are un-American, each with their own house and truck!

[@Victor-my1hi]

Bob Smith we could also jail more people so that more houses become available, and deport more people, why the f**k even build houses anymore

[@kevinodom2918]

@Bob Smith immigration is only one piece of the problem. rent controls & dumb ass govt policies are the others. Crazy but it turns out that when you tell the ones w the money who are willing to take the risk that after they get done working & investing all the $ they borrowed &/or saved up in a couple years that they just wasted their time & money it's crazy but they decide to build somewhere else where the local /state govt arent complete morons. Why in the hell would anyone build homes if they cant profit & its pretty simple, more people than houses = more expensive houses. Plenty of houses available & investors lower rents and prices to sell & fill them up. Govt knows this but when your voters are dumb asses & need to someone to blame it's always easy blaming the ones w more money.

[@johne7345]

Precisely, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with people wanting to protect our established residential neighborhoods from overcrowding and overdevelopment. With major shifts to online retail and telecommuting, there are plenty of underutilized shopping malls and sprawling business/commercial/industrial parks and car lots that can be redeveloped into affordable housing, without destroying our suburbs.

[@TV-xv1le]

@@johne7345 The problem is that the nimby population does not want building anywhere. Thats the point. Suburbs or not. I have watched them fight tooth and nail against building apartment buildings in areas that are not near their precious houses. On one hand we realized we have a housing crisis and on the other we make it impossible for builders to put up housing anywhere. Lots of eye opening videos you can go through of people trying to create more housing only to have to spend years trying to get it done if at all.

[@NYsalsa101]

A major issues with the sprawl approach that wasn't addressed by it's advocates in this video is increased commuting times, the need for the government to build additional infrastructure and also deforestation and destruction of the environment. Yes it is the cheapest way to build more housing but that is because much of the costs get externalized

[@Jamcad01]

The commute time argument is false. Lower density metro areas have shorter commute times than higher density ones. Not everyone works in the CBD.

[@urbanistgod]

Not with electric cars and work from home

[@Earth098]

Yes, and it costs millions to build and maintain those sprawling infrastructure

[@Earth098]

@@Jamcad01 But there aren't many job opportunities in the suburbs, right? So everyone would need to commute to the commercial areas. Also your commuting time argument only applicable for places with poor public transportation.

[@Jamcad01]

@@Earth098 This is false. Heaps of jobs in the suburbs now in many metro areas

[@PHRCpvh]

I'm a 25 year old, single, white-collar worker...and I tottaly prefer to live in a medium/high density mixed zoned neighborhood where I can walk and shop without the need to get a vehicle out of the garage. Maybe I'll live in a single-family home in the future when I have my own family, but until then, I like to be in the middle of a vibrant city.

[@greenmachine5600]

Same for me

[@paxundpeace9970]

This is the solution.

[@paxundpeace9970]

Check out City Beautiful or Not Just Bikes.

[@GhostOfAMachine]

I raise my family of 5 in a high density neighborhood, so do millions of others. It is a lot better for kids growing up

[@andrewcoffer]

I'd like to make an edit to single-family home: (single-family row home) you can still stay in the middle of the city and have a family. And to be totally honest cities need this to be stable.

[@suthinanahkist2521]

A mix of low, medium and high density housing is the solution. All tastes and budgets could then be accommodated easily. Not everyone wants to live in a high rise apartment. Similarly, not everyone is equipped to do the chores required to maintain a farm or other large piece of land. Also, there's people who prefer and can afford to live there communities with resort style amenities. And everything in between. Thus, no one-size-fits-all solution can possibly exist!

[@henrytep8884]

We need a 3d print machine for houses, Henry Ford style, you can choose your color, but it's going to be black

[@suthinanahkist2521]

@Bob Smith Overpopulated? There's enough land and resources to support several billion people in the USA. The real problem with mass immigration is an overburdened infrastructure and welfare system.

[@LucasFernandez-fk8se]

Suthin Anahkist Im surprised Houston has no zoning at all. It looks so neat and zoned. Must be the developers doing a good job then making it look like a well planned well zoned city instead

[@suthinanahkist2521]

@@LucasFernandez-fk8se Houston is really the only major city in the USA that doesn't have zoning.

[@dylanthornsberry8778]

@Bob Smith overpopulated? You would have a heart attack if you visited cities in Asia. LA looks like a rural town next to NYC. NYC looks like a rural town next to Shanghai

[@Johnny5477]

6:03 “We would just ruin the aesthetics...” My dude, how aesthetically pleasing is the homeless crisis? Things change and evolve, communities change and evolve, and it’s batshit crazy to place a particular aesthetic over the well-being and financial solvency of your constituents. Like, people are going there either way. And they call us conservatives.

[@LadyIarConnacht]

Yes, the pods will bring total health and well-being to the humans trapped in them. Why not just release us from the huge land taxes on every freaking rural piece of property in the state and people will go back to the land, grow tomatoes and be healthy?

[@Johnny5477]

Katherine Chapman Don’t see why this is a binary choice. If people want to live in an apartment downtown, make that good. If people want to live out in the desert or mountains or plains, let them. And truth be told, the people living in “pods” downtown might actually be healthier because they’re out walking more.

[@cjanon305]

Life without aesthetics is worthless

[@LucasFernandez-fk8se]

Bob Smith well to be fair yes and no. It is the housing prices which is why they are on the street but also the mental illness and drugs. Drugs cost a lot and so when you can either pay for pricey drugs or pricey rent then they pay for pricey drugs. In places like Detroit their are very few homeless people because a burnt down crack house may be as cheap as a dollar. This is very affordable even for a homeless person so less of a homeless crisis

[@bigdickmcgee3293]

because its California you can't say the quiet part out loud. housing can't be both affordable and a good investment. more housing=lower rent

[@ТомасАндерсон-в1е]

The less restrictions there are on construction, the cheaper housing will be. The rest is for the consumer to decide.

[@schumanhuman]

China famously used more concrete in 3 year (2011- 13) than the US did in the whole of the 20thC, yet it hasn't made their housing cheaper. They have a huge credit bubble, credit invariably manifests in land speculation regardless of zoning. Upzoning and building is only part of the solution, the externalities must be captured via a land value tax.

[@ТомасАндерсон-в1е]

@@schumanhuman the reasons behind China's housing situation are complex and multifaceted, but suffice it to say that China has moved more people out of poverty and into cities since Deng Xiaoping's reforms than the US had population in the entire 20th century. They would have insane housing shortages no matter what they did.

[@schumanhuman]

@@ТомасАндерсон-в1е Yes China have achieved a lot, but they have failed to curb malinvestments. Ghost cities are no figment of the imagination. Xi himself recently said that housing should be for living in not for speculation, they have tacitly acknowledged that the land bubble is at a peak and are now trying to socialise the company and bank failures away to create a 'soft landing'. China has no property tax at all, that allowed speculation to run riot. When property prices fall locals begin to riot so the state intervenes by banning sales below a certain price. And this is not peculiar to China or EM's, my home city London according to the ONS data now has more housing units per family than it did 15 years ago, yet prices are higher. Land prices are intimately linked to aggregate bank credit, affordable housing will never result from the simplistic supply demand arguments of market urbanists.

[@shanewillbur1325]

@@schumanhuman meanwhile: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aJTNgZqEd7OYgrc

[@alanhoff89]

@@schumanhuman yeah bc China used housing for inflating their GDP.. Much different from the demand and supply of a free market.

[@watchdealer11]

I have lived in Houston for the past 15 years. You can buy a mansion for the same price you'd pay for a matchbox in NYC.

[@Dufffaaa93]

Yes, because the mansion is in a bumfuck nowhere.

[@chucksolutions4579]

Dufffaaa93 Stay where you are, enjoy your "lifestyle." We will just keep living. I personally live in a small apartment San Diego bc I am in the military, but I dream of returning to farm. And if you think Houston is "nowhere" what would you think of my ideal place to live, coastal Alaska with no roads in or out (i have lived there and loved it, I've lived in Hong Kong, New York, Charleston, and a few small towns, give me LAND!)

[@benjaminkesler5245]

@@Dufffaaa93 Houston has 2.3 million residents and is the 4th largest city in the US. I'm not sure can call that 'bumfuck nowhere'

[@Alejandr01836]

Only downside is the affordable suburbs require a hefty commute into town so there are increased transportation costs to consider. And the "nice" neighborhoods I side 610 are pricier. My commute to the medical center from Cypress was like 35 minutes in and nearly am hour out. -_- That's just big city life though I guess.

[@SepticFuddy]

@@benjaminkesler5245 He's a typical case of the clueless New Yorker. They think they are cultured and educated when in reality they are nearly entirely ignorant of the world outside their mega-metropolitan bubble. They think Long Island is "the countryside"

[@sholinwright6621]

Sen holly Mitchell: “who will be my new neighbor “, a statement the KKK would be comfortable with.

[@notyourtypicalfarah7194]

@dskmb3 Source?

[@craner325]

Yes Sen Mitchell,,, please answer your own question here,,,, Hmm,, interesting,,, diversity is this great thing that everybody preaches until you ,,, well,,, actually have to be diverse

[@erikkovacs3097]

I would LOVE to read her mind at that meeting. Chinese? Mexican? White millenials with man buns?

[@notyourtypicalfarah7194]

@dskmb3 thanks

[@kevinodom2918]

Yeah really. Who the hell wouldn't want a lot of people coming in and completely changing your culture & way of life & if you dont like it you're called an evil racist. Worked out well for the native Americans

[@Irongambit89z]

If you just reduce the regulations and let people decide where they want to live it will sort itself out. this is the perfect example of when you need to let market sort itself out and stop trying to social engineer society.

[@jackmcslay]

@@Rich-jk8ev Reduce immigration -> lower supply of labor -> higher cost of labour -> higher housing prices Low-skilled immigrants are not going to be out buying 6-figure homes when they are likely to have to hop from city to city to find jobs where they'll look for something they can rent with roommates

[@jackspaeth7144]

@noah rogers youre a crazy person

[@jackspaeth7144]

I don't think everyone just gets to "decide" where they live. This comment section is just full of people ignorant of just how complicated this problem is. I'm not saying I have the answers, but supply and demand and simply "letting the market sort itself out" is not the solution. Mixed income neighborhoods seem like a good place to start (which certainly would not happen in letting the market sort itself out).

[@BleachRush]

that would work if everyone starting on the same level on a new land. not a well established one. This suggestion will benefit big cooperate and Real estate giants to builds complexes over complexes and you'll be in a giant cube of a city. That's not housing, that's bee's kingdom.

[@parisgansmuelly1052]

@@jackmcslay The immigrants are high-skilled, jejune moron. Also, at least you admit you want to lower American wages.

[@리주민]

Japan keeps housing prices down by a myriad of policies, including mixed zoning (height-based zones rather than residential, commerical, etc) and urban exclusive zones. Great mostly private railways and bus lines.

[@trent6319]

Does Japan have private railroads or just privete trains & services? The US has privitley owned railroads and I think these monoplies are part of the reason our rails are so terrible. Ik Europe has alot of publicly owned lines with private trains.

[@리주민]

@@trent6319 They own both the rails and the trains.

[@ianhomerpura8937]

Here is a video about Japanese zoning regulations. kzbin.info/www/bejne/rZfQY6t5gLR2hM0 And yes @trent Japan has private rail companies. Lots of them.

[@wade1391]

@@trent6319 most public transport in the u.s. is government owned. if anyone is the monopoly, it is the government.

[@trent6319]

@@wade1391 yes the vast majority of local public transport in the US owns its own track but Amtrak mostly doesn't they pay freight companies that own the track to use it. These freight companies owning the only railroad in a region have an effect monopoly.

[@ingislakur]

living closest to work is the way to go. it saves 1-2 hours per day. Let that sink in!

[@halasimov1362]

ZeroZ But growing food on your own property saves a ton of resources.

[@millerrepin4452]

@@halasimov1362 assuming the person has time/energy/motivation to grow their own food

[@matthewbiehl3412]

@@halasimov1362 Lmao who the hell is growing their own food in the suburbs? Sustenance farming sucks and is inefficient, hence why every country that materially develops ditches agrarian economies.

[@ToddKeck98]

​@@halasimov1362 You can do that in an apartment. It's not the 1930s anymore.

[@TheSpecialJ11]

@@matthewbiehl3412 It's often illegal to grow your own food in the suburbs anyway. At least in your front yard, where if your house faces south, that's where your food would grow.

[@anastasiab9506]

How about both density AND sprawl? My friend for example LOVES to live in the middle of NYC, while i prefer to live in a suburb. it should be a CHOICE.

[@jcgw2]

just let people build. developers will build what people want to buy. let the free market decide

[@victormn47]

@@jcgw2 However, people should pay for the cost of the services they receive (which are more expensive to provide in single family neighborhoods) and cars should be taxed for their externalities. Before this is done, you can't trust the free market to create the optimal outcome.

[@dudeman4184]

but your way of living shouldn't be subsidized by the city.

[@musqul8566]

@@dudeman4184 the city shouldn't tax me then

[@iononionunion8682]

You know what I always say when it comes to when it comes to urban planning, Amsterdam is one of the best cities to live in, Paris is the densest city in Europe yet you never hear any problems with trafic or it being too dense. We have amazing examples of massive cities preforming way way better than US/Canadian cities yet we seem to be unable to look outside of our own country. What a shame.

[@dylanhoward7668]

Amsterdam and Paris are both extremelly unnafordable city, and Paris traffic is horrendous. Not good examples at all.

[@harmonicarchipelgo9351]

Have you actually been to Paris? The traffic is *intense*.

[@DRL1320]

Just returned from ten days in central Paris, with half a dozen journeys by car, bus and commuter rail to suburban areas. It is a model of intense density plus relative mobility: only auto access points to its periphery road was as crowded as nearly any in-town freeway in LA or Nashville. It is an excellent model for how we can accommodate many, many more people per square mile in a mixed-use environment that people clamor to be a part of. The single family cul de sacs? We shall always have them among us. But they should not be required by law where there’s a demand for mixed-use medium density.

[@ianhomerpura8937]

@@harmonicarchipelgo9351 compared to LA? It isn't

[@brownerjerry174]

Paris is a bad example. I like amsterdam but are Americans ready to ditch the car for a bicycle? The advantages are obvious like living in the smack dab middle of the city will still be a pretty chill and calm vibe with very less noise.

[@coletrain5667]

I'd like to see a more in depth video done on Houston and their covenants.

[@coletrain5667]

@noah rogers I just don't trust the idea that these covenants represent a real free market, and the government isn't involved somehow and creating problems.

[@TheSpecialJ11]

@@coletrain5667 They absolutely don't represent a free market and are a terrible example. Cities before 1920 represent a free market.

[@Aeyekay0]

It’s true that Houston doesn’t have “zoning” but Houston does indeed have ordinances that you would find in most city zoning regulations. So it’s really dishonest and lazy to point to Houston as the future of urban planning.

[@hashiramasenju6058]

@@Aeyekay0 They do have restrictions (like parking requirements, minimum lot size, etc) but the restrictions become more and more relaxed every year and sometimes they even offer exemptions to these restrictions. Three story townhomes are popping up very quickly here in Houston and many other cities would not allow that at all.

[@Wesrl]

“Who will be my neighbor” someone who can afford your neighbors house because it cost to much for them

[@jp1135]

It is literally illegal for a real estate agent to answer that question

[@anastasiab9506]

actually not always. Sometimes your neighbor will be an illegal or a weed smoking non-working leech "asylee" who got in on a quota for low income housing.

[@JamesThomas-pj2lx]

@@anastasiab9506 .... Mary Jane got nothing to do with it, leave her out of it!

[@chopinbloc]

Easy answer: the market. Stop trying to "solve" problems and let people do as they please. But sprawl tends not to breed as much poverty and crime as density does.

[@SofaSpy]

Actually statistically speaking density and sprawl both have the same crime rate and poverty. You shouldn't look at the overall stats but stats per capital. A city with 1 million people and 100 murders is safer than a town with 900 people and 1 murder. Also most crime stats only track populations of 100k plus which falsely makes smaller towns and cities look safer

[@RenzoIsHereYT]

The Chopping Block don’t allow the free market to create cities... we won’t get Paris, Vienna, bath, or Venice with the free market... we will get Dubai...

[@burgerman101]

@@SofaSpy Look up the Kowloon Walled City.

[@SofaSpy]

@@burgerman101 what do a slum have to do with what we are talking about? Have you driving in rural west virginia and rural parts of Tennessee. Or rural/ suburban parts of North Dakota, those the only slums you will find in America. There are rural slums, suburbs also, urban slums. Slums have nothing to do with this topic.

[@bruhbutwhytho]

Look at Boston, NYC or even Chicago and compare that to Memphis, st.lous and Detroit.

[@mattbalfe2983]

In a true free market suburbs don't exist because property taxes don't fully pay for needed services like city water, sewer, and roads. So you need debt financing to subsidize infrastructure for car centric sprawl.

[@curtisthompson1783]

Randal O'Toole's opinion is worth less than a grain of salt considering he works for the Cato Institute which is heavily funded by the oil & gas industry.

[@Lucasjamespetersen]

Yeah that guy is so pumped full of oil money. Fuck him

[@Cyrus992]

Best comment. Great to see more and more see his true colors

[@abarbar06]

He's a tool

[@MonteroOnBoxing]

Senator Mitchell: “who will be my new neighbors?“

[@tiedanhuo9731]

Michael Montero or racist

[@ToddKeck98]

"Diversity for thee, but not for me [in this context people like Senator Mitchell]." -Carson, Watson, probably some other conservatives as well as a small handful of centrists

[@justcrypto618]

@@ToddKeck98 and like that BLM founder who bought 4 homes in neighborhoods which were 90% white

[@scorpio252000]

Even though Houston doesn't have Zoning laws, there are a plethora of regulations and when combined, works just like zoning.

[@JETZcorp]

The narrator sounds like a kid mediating an argument between divorced parents. "Mommy says that suburbs are socialist because of freeways." "Well you tell 'mommy' that city centers are socialist because of growth boundaries and transit boondoggles!" Beyer. O'Toole. Get a room. And by room I mean Soho Forum Debate.

[@Victor-my1hi]

JETZcorp US needs more highways and more sprawl. Milenials, get a f**king truck! and move to the suburbs

[@Loathomar]

The old guy is confusing the fact that high density house cost is high in areas with extremely high house cost with the idea that high density house has an underlying higher cost. If the land value is zero, home value because very low. We can see this with mobile home prices, $50K for 1,000 square feet, but you want to put that mobile home in the down town area of a city, the land will cost $500K or more, so the total cost is $550K. And what is this BS about building homes where land is cheap? If you work in downtown LA and want to have a house where land is cheap, you will be ~50 mile or more away have have 3 hours of driving or more, per day to get to work. Also, if you have two people driving 50 mile each way to work, that will cost you $2,000 per month in auto costs.

[@AllenGraetz]

95% of jobs in LA are not downtown.

[@Jamcad01]

The point is, it's cheaper to build bigger homes on the outer fringe than in the middle of an already developed area. Preventing outer fringe development means there's less affordable places for people to live in, and it also further increases the cost of land in the dense area as it becomes the only option

[@WeAreHere-42]

'Mo centralization, 'mo problems

[@giovanninopanderino5235]

We Are Here a little known secret among Urban Planners ... they’re clueless.

[@FamousByFriday]

I’m 42 married w kids in the suburbs. I’d love to live in a walkable community with bicycle lanes and public transportation. This video is so high level it barely touches on anything. The video never discussed why people really move to the suburbs. (Crime? Schools? Cost? Corruption? …). It just seems to assume it’s because we love mowing the grass once a week. I also think it may be misleading to say that Houston doesn’t have any city planning, but I’m not the person to ask about that so l’ll let you research yourself. Also the video never discusses economic implications of constant sprawl nor does it discuss the ecological implications. There are other reasons to do things beyond preference.

[@Zones33]

In my eyes, Tokyo is a city to aspire to. Bombed to hell in WW2, they built and modernized afterwards the same time we started building suburbia

[@urbanistgod]

Tokyo is way too dense. Perfection is great American suburbs.

[@ricker024]

It's simple run a freaking city budget! If utility and infrastructure costs can't be compensated by current tax revenue increase the tax revenue per acre by building up more medium or high density to get more efficiency out of your utilities per acre!!! City Budgeting 101! Keep your management costs under control! Otherwise limit city utilities and infrastructure for lower densities!

[@benhouse5515]

Why not both?

[@ZemikianUchiha]

Houstonian here, love the cost of living.

[@Jamcad01]

From someone who lives in Melbourne Australia, I'm insanely jealous. Even with my chronic health condition, the universal health care here does not come close to making up the difference, especially with the higher taxes and petrol costs

[@mayamaeru]

japan allows any type of building anywhere too. much more affordable there. even in tokyo

[@kronk358]

Tokyo has entire apartments the size of aa small living room.

[@Nuvendil]

@@kronk358 it also has town homes, single family homes, larger apartments, condos, courtyard apartments. Basically every kind of housing you can name in a variety of sizes and price points. Which is a good thing, it allows all kinds of people to access the goods, services, and opportunities found in their most vibrant cities.

[@danielbrockerttravel]

In Singapore 80% of people live in public housing. It's not just for the poor. It's also for the middle class. Housing is dense and transit oriented.

[@bhalps]

lol, Singapore is a micro country island.

[@shrikedecil]

1) Demand buildings inside cities house as many people as work there. 2) There is no need for a 2. Yes, I recognize the corporate skyscrapers will make the absolute smallest box they can get away with. *But that's both better than tents, and something singles will voluntarily do for a few years* But the mere *presence* of the minimum will allow "single family homes" to drop in price. Added shocker: Would "solve" global warming too without forcing people in 100 different ways.

[@kronk358]

People that live in tents dont work in the city. They dont work at all.

[@BmoreIrish]

The problem with thinking Houston is the free market is the infrastructure is enormously subsidized. Especially since it’s transportation is almost entirely automobile (the most expensive form of transit.) Sprawl isn’t affordable without huge subsidies.

[@aaronanglea]

No one owns property. Stop paying property tax and watch how fast "your" property is taken from you

[@abarbar06]

Land value tax should be the only tax

[@Br3ttM]

Suburban yards just seem like a waste of space to me, especially front yards, which are mostly just a place to display some grass. People need to think more about convenience and enjoyment, rather than something to show off, and it seems like younger generations are shifting that way. Using the same space as a couple blocks of suburbs you could build an apartment and a nice park. With the amount of time people are spending indoors anyway, having so much grass just for yourself seems like a waste. And when people are outside, how much of that time is walking/jogging/biking? A park is better for that than a sidewalk or street. An apartment can have some individual reserved plots of land, too, if you want to have your own stuff set up, and give people plots in a garden, if they want to grow veggies.

[@azhrayharris8]

I get where you're coming from, but I disagree. There is no way I would ever buy a home with little or no yard and only a plot in a communal garden. I, and many others, want space for my children and pets to be able to run around and play. I don't want to be restricted to just one garden box. And I want to have my friends and family over on a warm summer evening. A yard is about more than just esthetics, it's about the kind of life one leads. Besides, a major reason why we have front lawns is because houses must be a certain distance from the road to allow for sidewalks, power lines, etc..

[@AsiaMinor12]

@@azhrayharris8 no offense but kids rarely go out to play anymore. They aren't gonna go outside and throw a stick for 3 hours straight like if this was the 1950s. They are either going to go to the park where there are more kids playing, or they are gonna stay inside all day and play video games.

[@behindyou666]

@@azhrayharris8 At least design your suburbs better. You come there for community right? Then allow for buildings that do exactly that. A community is more than some random houses packed in an area. At least allow for schools and grocery shops in close proximity, in addition to small kiosks, then the most important places to go to will be aviable without having to drive every day. You want healthy kids right? Then have your area designed for them to walk, walking is really healthy for them. Allow for important cultural buildings, like cinemas, theatres, book clubs, libraries, etc. In addition to local barbers, pharmacies, suuply shops. I get it if you fear that this will allow for high rises, if you vote for height and size restrictions it will prevent it (Which I doubt will be hard when looking at the sheer amount of zoning that prefers single-family zoning). In addition to parks and recreational areas, which I guess you already have in your suburbs? This will all allow for a suburb with a even better community feeling as you socialize more in your local area, less car traffick (safer for your kids), more areas for you kids to hang around in, generally a more practical life (less time used on driving), better air pollution (less traffick), more local job opportunities healthier kids, etc.

[@dudeman4184]

@@azhrayharris8 you can use a park for that lol.

[@l0ndon429]

A five story building next to a 2 story suburban home. That's literally super reasonable lol.

[@cameronjournal]

My parent's neighborhood has apartment buildings along the edges of the suburbs. So when you drive into their part of town, there are apartments and then it turns into single-family houses. There's open space separating them. This is the best solution for the suburbs.

[@l0ndon429]

@@cameronjournal On the contrary I think all apartment buildings should be as close to transit/shops as possible at the centre of town.

[@trent6319]

When my small town built a couple 4-5 story apartment buildings near our downtown it brought back our down town by having enough people in walkable distance and there so pleasant looking and offer ground level businesses. I have freinds who love living in them and I love having them as neighbors.

[@GabiN64]

So these politicians prefer to have homeless crisis to protect the aesthetic of single family home neighborhoods? They need to: 1. Build more medium and high density housing 2. Improve mass transit options to provide alternative to driving on roads.

[@robw1945]

The thing is if people grow out instead of up it doesn't increase the tax base of the city, or in some cases even the county. Cities don't want that. They want the money.

[@blackmage567]

To add something on the "demand" side. Im from buenos aires, and 3M people live here, but around 8M come here to work everyday. Everyday there is less need to show up to the office if you can work from home. Also doing a lot of things that in the past you would do on person, that you can now do online (shopping, banks, etc). Its evident the demand will also fall back in a few years, when people start to prefer paying less for their house even though they could afford one in the city.

[@MoonLiteNite]

@9:19 that one car and then van just screwed up traffic for the rest of the day. Good job guys!

[@beasaroze5596]

I DON'T want to live close together. I just want to be closer to employment so that all my time and money isn't consumed by commuting. It would be great to walk to work and keep money in my pocket.

[@ketherga]

Something that isn't immediately obvious is that these sorts of Zoning laws that spread people out more are also part of America's defense strategy. Having a lower population density makes us less vulnerable to nuclear attack. All infrastructure is defense infrastructure, and cities are infrastructure. Further, with the impending explosion of decentralization of commerce that will be brought on by widespread adoption of the internet, I question whether there's a real need for these large, densely packed cities in our future.

[@kokofan50]

Urban sprawl has been part the US long before nuclear weapons were even dreamed of.

[@ketherga]

@@kokofan50 Not really, the zoning regulations talked about in this video were implemented in the sixties as part of the great society initiative. Which has caused many problems, but the policy that probably has the most justification behind it and has created the least issues is probably zoning regulation. Because again, there are legitimate strategic reasons for wanting lower population density.

[@kokofan50]

@@ketherga even before the zoning laws, US cities were very spread out. They just got more so after the rise of the car dominated suburbs.

[@rchrdsn]

all the few people that live in an apartment that i asked where they'd prefer to live in brazil if safety was not a concern said a house. even a guy who is quite rich and live in a great apartment in a great place said that. my guess is that if i asked thousands of people most of them would say a house. so all this concrete jungle that you see, for example, in são paulo, is not what people would like to have as housing. it's "just" that our economical, political, and psychological misery have been driving us into that miserable style of living. it makes sense for a young person who's still in college and/or just recently got employed but makes little money to want to or not mind living in an apartment, but it's a life phase.

[@geode9512]

walkable european neighborhoods with public transport, storefronts, and parks combine comfort, community, and density.

[@AsiaMinor12]

That's never going to happen here in the Unites States.

[@jameslongstaff2762]

"Houston has no zoning laws" Nope. Not true. Sure they don't call the laws that restrict zoning regulations as "zoning laws", but those laws still exist on their books.

[@chubbyninja842]

At the start of the video, I was thinking, "Just look at Houston. They're one of the largest cities in the country, highly industrialized with a major port, and they're still one of the most affordable cities in the country. As usual, the free market IS the answer! Just let people do what they want to do and the best ideas, the most efficient ideas, the most affordable ideas will win out in the market! Then at the end of the market, BOOM! They started talking about Houston. So ... yeah.

[@brookeking8559]

ZombieTex, a study done in about 1982 about how much zoning adds to housing costs compared Houston with Dallas. Controlling for everything researcher Bernard H. Siegan could, I think he found zoning alone increased costs 16%. An interesting and unexpected finding: With zoning he estimated Houston would occupy about twice as much land area. That would mean diminished farms, forests, and wetlands as well as more pollution, more wasted commuter time, higher infrastructure costs, and a bigger heat island. He and his colleagues published a book, Land Use Without Zoning.

[@henrytep8884]

How's Austin doing in prices?

[@MrMarinus18]

You shouldn't overstate that Houston doesn't have zoning though. Zoning is only a part of the list of building restrictions and regulations.

[@nosouponhead]

The Invisible Hand IS the only way to properly allocate resources and set prices.

[@shanewillbur1325]

I used to think that way, until I looked into Singapore handled this. kzbin.info/www/bejne/aJTNgZqEd7OYgrc

[@henrytep8884]

The invisible hand is dead, ask renaissance technology how it's done

[@GarthGoldberg]

These problems have been around for forty years. The problem in the Bay Area is that the market has reached an affordability limit.

[@JoSeF...]

Does it help when Los Angeles is a sanctuary City? I don't think so.

[@lseger62]

How come the over arching reason they want less sprawl is the "climate change" argument wasn't mentioned? Can't have darn polluting cars, which means we get less liberty and economic freedom (higher housing in/near urban areas).

[@Jamcad01]

It's a stupid argument though because they're trying to ban gasoline cars anyway

[@robe_p3857]

Need LVT.

[@Dan16673]

Nah. Highly un profitable

[@cyrusol]

So much misinformation. People who misunderstand that housing would just be about housing... when it's about walkability, trust, parks, traffic, public transit, affordability, sustainability, amenities... Low density is absolute trash. Only serves the car manufacturing and fossil fuel industries. Not the people.

[@banditonehundred]

So the libertarian is okay for groups to restrict construction on their own land

[@idocohen853]

The main problem of sprawling is that people get a hard time driving to work because of traffic. Transit can then only work as an alternatieve in dense areas (includinf if they became densier after it's built). Smaller cities in free market conditions would probably sprawl, until they get bigger and people pay more for apartments close to train stations and the city centers. In any case, it's not for the centrall planners or the meighboors to prevent either of those, and those are the conditions for flexible supply of cheap housing where people prefare to live (and if they don't like their neighborhood changing, move further from the city and wait more in traffic).

[@brewergamer]

Unfortunately I live in California and everytime a business or housing development wants to come to our city they face fierce opposition from both the city council and old retired people.. The old retired people have been screaming down the possibility of a Costco being built a little bit outside town because they "don't want shoppers near our neighborhood", Costco offers good paying jobs and great prices for consumers.. It's their land they should be able to build whatever they want on it. The city council frequently denies permits to build any sort of housing, and constantly talks about how "housing isn't affordable" and "we need more affordable housing" but the affordable housing they did build requires that you make less than 12000 a year, that's right.. less than 12,000 dollars a year to qualify. Nobody working full time would ever qualify for it. The zoning here has gotten totally out of control and they wonder why it's so expensive here.

[@anewagora]

What has land use regulation done for my area in Minneapolis/St. Paul? Created an explosion of high-rise, ugly luxury apartments that sit empty for years, some more than a decade. 1. Regulations lead developers to determine the only economically sustainable option is to build a luxury complex, in hopes the higher rent prices will be matched by the extra amenities offered. 2. The supply of these buildings far outpaces the demand, consumes neighborhoods, while the variety of housing across the economic spectrum remains stagnant, not meeting demand. 3. The government determines the property value of a neighborhood is HIGHER once a luxury building is introduced, so raises the taxes for that entire area. 4. The luxury buildings might sit empty but the developers don't close them down, make a deal or go out of business. They let the buildings sit empty for years as an investment they plan to UPSELL later. Why can they even do this? Because the govt decided the buildings increase neighborhood value. This is a fucking PONZI SCHEME created by the govt. The vast majority of people here despise these buildings. It's also festering class/culture tension and politicization. Antifa-Black Bloc and Marxist-influenced social justice are extremely popular and dominating here. We have groups of squatters acting as political revolutionaries that take over or attempt to take over these empty buildings. In conclusion, land use regulation has done NOTHING to prevent the issues they claim, in fact is a CAUSE of dysfunctional housing developments, and the govt property valuation has been so damaging it's created a fucking ponzi scheme. Housing bubble 2.0

[@toniderdon]

6:17 oh my god this guy is really lucky that stupidity doesn't hurt

[@victormn47]

Let the free market decide. However, people should pay for the cost of the services they receive (which are more expensive to provide in single family neighborhoods) and cars should be taxed for their externalities. Before this is done, you can't trust the free market to create the optimal outcome.

[@rogueraven1333]

Open the market up and let people buy a home wherever they want

[@kronk358]

People CAN buy a house wherever they want. But a company cant put a steel mill 2 lots away from your moms 2 bedroom ranch.

[@marksmith8079]

Buy house in the suburbs with little infrastructure- it ages to get anyway. There is nothing else - that sound so attractive.

[@NatasjavanDijknah]

Demographic changes, were more ppl from outside / other countries coming in creates this problem. Close the borders could help.

[@shanewillbur1325]

Or..... kzbin.info/www/bejne/aJTNgZqEd7OYgrc

[@SupaREX684]

Nowhere in the city of LA should be single family zoning. If you want a house, look at the 60 miles of sprawl into the desert and down the coastline ( LA - San Bernardino & LA - San Clemente

[@harmonicarchipelgo9351]

I was predicting the Houston set up from the beginning. Getting rid of zoning will increase both density and sprawl. That is the good part, it means way more housing. Single family housing will dominate the suburbs and tiny apartments for single people will dominate the city center. The market will, surprise surprise, supply the wants of all the people since different people have different priorities in housing.

[@SmartrMelons]

In Oregon, we have Urban Growth Boundaries. Mainly in Portland/Multnomah Co.. They're stuffing people into our largest cities, while at the same time, they're closing and narrowing roads.. for bike safety. Haven't widened any streets/highways for decades. Very expensive to live here, and very inconvenient.

[@kariminalo979]

It's inconvenient due to rent, get rid of income tax, sales tax and other VAT's and enforce LVT's and tolls and you'll see a drastic improvement when it comes to affordability and city life. Also road widening is completely garbage and wasteful as it drains money and does nothing to solve the congestion problem that's costing billions of dollars annually.

[@SmartrMelons]

@@kariminalo979 Bringing up rent, income tax, sales tax (we have no sales tax in Oregon) is off topic. This is about urban sprawl. "Also road widening is completely garbage.." Opinion. "..and wasteful as it drains money.." All government expenditures 'drains money'. "..and does nothing to solve the congestion problem that's costing billions of dollars annually." Citation needed on the 'does nothing to solve..' point. And no transportation issues will be solved by anything. It's an evolving situation. What would 'solve' look like? The only solution I can think of for congestion is teleportation. Make it happen.

[@Maxime_K-G]

People who call themselves "progressives" are the least progressive when it comes to housing. Meanwhile "conservatives" are conservative in the sense that they want to keep the same rules that worked in the past. It's kinda confusing to be honest.

[@savemarinwood6678]

How do you think the demand for high density housing is going to hold after COVID19? Young singles like to be in the center of things. Families prefer security and privacy of single family homes.

[@repoilify]

Omg this guy needs to go. "The astetics of single family homes". The only two options are NOT single family homes and 10 story apartment complexes.

[@mmtransport]

Yep! Townhouses are a thing

[@wednesdayschild3627]

High rises are actually too expensive to maintain. A traditional neighborhood with mixed housing is good. Stop moving so much and make traditional towns adjust work to make that fit. Bring manufacturing back. Work toward medium size towns.

[@RextheRebel]

This is the answer.

[@GarthGoldberg]

O’Toole in his last comments has it exactly right. The current government “solutions” are only making the problem worse.

[@scorpio252000]

Urban sprawl would just create more inefficiencies/ higher pollution and expensive infrastructure that cannot make enough tax dollars to maintain it in 20 years. In reality, as tested time and time again around the world, denser mid income level housing will drive down living cost and also create higher tax incentives in the long run. Sprawls are cheap to build but insanely expensive to maintain.

[@DakkogiRauru23]

More density everywhere

[@johne7345]

A large percentage of the population, arguably a plurality, wants access to the economic benefits of a dense city for work, but does not want to live there. This is precisely why we have suburbs in the first place -- they represent the sweet spot between urban overcrowding and rural isolation. The solution is to recognize that a denser urban core surrounded by livable suburbs works well only up to a certain size. Beyond that, the growth needs to be funneled into smaller cities with ample room to grow.

[@MrMarinus18]

Nobody is actually arguing against that. The question more so is if the current level of density of most suburbs is sustainable and almost every researches says 'no'. Suburbs in Europe are usually around 3 times as densely populated but they aren't cities by any means nor suffer from any kind of overcrowding. For one denser suburbs often have more local amenities and public transport which removes cars from the road and cars take up over 6 times as much space as cyclists and over 12 times as much space as pedestrians. Not only that but cities usually have businesses there so their crowded nature is often very misleading. When you see a city being crowded it's very often that about half of the people crowding it don't live in the city. They just come to work or shop or have fun or for some other reason. Cities have amenities way larger than needed for the local population because they are not meant to serve just the local population. Suburb amenities don't have to be much larger than the local needs require.

[@tylerdurden3347]

*ARCOLOGIES!* Build high density buildings that have shopping "malls" on the first several floors, followed by commercial real estate where small businesses with space for 50-100 employees can get very reasonable rents, then the upper floors with the good views can be a hotel or residential. Place four of these 40-80 story towers next to each other and you'd have an amazingly walkable urban core that verily screams to be a destination location for people who want to "Live where the action is." They would be the center of a vibrant downtown city core where people can get things done without having to drive to 4 or 5 different locations. Time for urban planners to get into the 21st century and leave the zoning restrictions from the 1940's behind in the past where they belong. SPRAWL HAS FAILED... Time to move on into the future of city planning!

[@carawadley317]

@Vikram Ogale [Student] Why? Seems like in theory it could be one whole "city, in the middle of a cornfield! More or less fully sustaining itself!

[@urbanistgod]

No. Single family homes and low density= perfection

[@Tracks777]

nice video

[@johnjohnson3390]

Ruin the anesthetics? Thats subjective

[@albowrx]

Yeah, screw the city. I'm trying to move into more rural area with some breathing room. This is Agenda 2030 in progress.

[@stevecooper7883]

Indeed. The real issue isnt zoning, its immigration

[@RextheRebel]

Missing middle is desperately needed. Duplexes, fourplexes, row houses, courtyard apartments, bungalow courts and pocket communities are the answer to this problem. High rises and condos are not the solution.

[@0fficerIan]

What's the obsession with keeping single family home neighborhoods exclusively single family? The most beautiful, liveable, and desirable neighborhoods are all mixed zoning.

[@urbanistgod]

That’s your opinion. I disagree. Single family homes represent perfection and housing at a human scale aesthetically.

[@0fficerIan]

@@urbanistgod I'm not talking about lining every street with skyscraping apartments. I'm talking about mixed use areas. A few single family homes here, a quiet Cafe in between under a canopy of trees with an apartment on the second floor there, and streets designed for bikes and foot traffic instead of streets designed for cars. That aesthetic you're talking about is better achieved by mixed zoning than suburban single use zoning. Watch some videos from the channel "Not Just bikes" and tell me if you change your mind. Specifically his zoning and stroads videos.

[@urbanistgod]

@@0fficerIan Funny cuz a lot of times when I discuss this subject on KZbin people recommend me watching this channel. This guy is basically sharing his opinions, his personal preferences, doing cherry picking, only talking about the disadvantages of suburbs. He never talks about the disadvantages of high urban density. You guys are really brainwashed by this channel.

[@0fficerIan]

@@urbanistgod Why do you assume the only two options are suburbs or high density? I live in a rural American town. My neighborhood has a fantastic little grocery story and restaurant in between houses. I can also walk a short distance for anything else. Mixed use is always better than strictly suburbs. Why would you want it to be practically impossible to get anywhere without a car? It's not like giant ugly streets are adding to the beauty either.

[@urbanistgod]

@@0fficerIan We need walkable low density neighborhoods made of single family homes like Ville Mont-Royal in Canada (Mout-Royal city in English). High density is literally imperfection in terms of urbanism. People need space.

[@unclestinky6388]

The one politician said that the character of LA would change because of the other politician's vision. No it wouldn't, the character would change if people want it to change. The other politician's vision would not force any type of change, instead his vision would allow it to happen if it is what people want.

[@1978Prime]

Some who are pro sprawl and anti density don't take the long term into account, You cant forever sprawl out and get away with it because land is not an endless recourse. You and up destroying too much fertile farmland and bushland. Sprawl also affects the character of a city when it becomes and endless seas of houses with no access to nature and becomes difficult to commute around.

[@bthemedia]

@8:15 Exactly the problem with “affordable housing” - the high density answer is 1 bd / studio units with < 650sf of space, no parking and rents of $1500-2000+ per month with “income restrictions” that only allow individuals to live there so that the rent is 35-50%+ of their income! How are they ever to save to buy a home!?! 🏡 they cannot!

[@TheSpecialJ11]

The problem here is because demand far exceeds supply those units are so expensive. To truly make affordable housing, you have to build a lot of it, and the value of the building has to be much higher than the value of the land its on. It's kind of like urban highways, where adding more lanes just causes more traffic because demand exceeds supply. Unlike urban highways, you can eventually get supply and demand to meet at a happy equilibrium if you build through that initial trap.

[@djsiii4737]

We could actually have our cake and eat it too. Any urban area could sprawl in regards to roads, infrastructure, etc., but landowners can have the right to build whatever they want; singles, 4-plexes, mixed use. Creating democratized road networks like Barcelona allows that free market use of land. Whether its govt or neighbourhood groups, if you let them get too much control or influence it will ruin the intent and sway the pendulum away from the free market permissions.

[@justsamoo3480]

The one who argues against density just outright ignores renters. As more and more people rent as a resoult of high prices and personal preferences, they fundamentally prefer denser, more lively neighbourghoods. Also commutes... People in LA commute 2+ hours one way, because of urban sprawl.

[@Jamcad01]

People commute that long in LA because the road infrastructure hasn't keep up with its high density. LA is one the most dense metro areas in the country. Also density causes a fall in home ownership

[@paxundpeace9970]

Those acres are really prone to wildfires. Just as an reminder.

[@DoctorQuackenbush]

Central planning has such a wonderful track record. Sign me up! /sarc

[@shanewillbur1325]

I used to think that way...until I looked at Singapore.kzbin.info/www/bejne/aJTNgZqEd7OYgrc

[@PLATOLOSOPHY]

Houstonian here, can confirm.

[@vit8250]

Most people I know prefer to live in a single family home with a backyard. Nobody I know actually wants to live in a condo as their forever home. They buy a condo thinking they will rent it out after they get married and buy a single family home. I don’t think the American dream as changed at all. Obviously the cost of the dream will go up as the population increases. But that is life....

[@halasimov1362]

Small Homesteads and grow food instead of grass! Self sufficient, renewable, and healthy for human spirit

[@UnwisePoppy]

It’s not California’s responsibility to house all the United States, just half of Mexico

[@lucky-mud]

This reminds me of the SAT practice tests :(

[@qasimchaudhry3521]

It's on the 14th 😢

[@Hands2HealNow]

Denial of authoritarians being self serving is everywhere including in the voice of the so called expert talking here.

[@darthhodges]

Remember, every government decision maker has a high enough salary to be not just a rich person, but often in the top 5%. Of course they are self serving.

[@Asdf-wf6en]

one really big problem with building high in California is the earthquakes.

[@DHEspana]

Density is the answer, not sprawl. The suburbs is where quality of life decreases.

[@raaaaaaaaaam496]

Incredibly balanced video

[@username65585]

Sprawl certainly increases the risk of fire damage which is something that California doesn't need.

[@danieldaniels7571]

I was waiting for the Houston angle. The only truly free city for property owners.

[@arpoky]

The best way to make housing more affordable is to build more of it. Increase the supply.

[@-whackd]

People are going to live 1.5 hours away from a city at 150mph when self driving cars come. So, people will commute 150 miles to work if they can sleep during it.

[@ianhomerpura8937]

Abolish R1 single family zoning. Allow for "missing middle" housing.

[@urbanistgod]

No

[@ianhomerpura8937]

@@urbanistgod I thought you guys want deregulation and less power to the govt? Then let the free market decide.

[@Staremperor]

When the guy talks about terrible idea of mix of single family homes and midrises (he said five-story building) should see European cities. WE LIVE THIS "TERRIBLE" IDEA without issues. I'll quote Richard Dawkins here: "It works, bitches"

[@dylanthornsberry8778]

It's actually possible to have bigger apartments as a city grows. Tokyo built so much housing the average apartment size per person increased. Building up works.