I think "segregation" should be "zoning" throughout most of the article?
I get that he's trying to draw a parallel to the historical practice of separating public facilities by race, but the connection is tenuous. One is de jure separation by ancestry for public, tax-funded, government facilities. The other is de facto separation by finances for private property (enabled by legal architectural requirements).
In any case, following this logic implies overturning most zoning restrictions and HOAs. (I myself am currently uncertain on my opinion on this.)
His point is precisely that segregation laws and zoning laws do the same thing, so he's trying to use language that makes that obvious. It's not a leap really, right? To "segregate" things is almost synonymous with putting things into their proper "zones" isn't it?
segregate, zone, partition, divide, separate, categorize have similar English definitions.
This is just my impression, but "We must repeal our zoning laws" would have been an easier thesis to follow then "We must repeal our segregation laws", particularly since they work differently.
I don't think housing density is THE controlling factor in housing affordability. I would think location swamps density as an affordability input. And I think that home ownership as a means to social inclusion is an interesting idea, but to assert that reducing property size will lower prices and encourage whites to accept blacks into their communities seems fairly unproven territory. Prior to regular successful integration trials somewhere I think to take the connection as a forgone, its gone on long enough, conclusion is premature. The article did little to bolster the argument for either. I live near Chicago and to think if people in an expensive suburb like Hinsdale, (tear down only places on tiny lots can run 750k or more) would subdivide their property so that lower/middle income people could build and move in and presumably socially integrate seems problematic and not just from race. The difficulty of the city in serving the increased population and construction would likely dramatically effect affordability, quality of life and would likely be an urban planning disaster. The author is basically asking rich people to voluntarily reduce their quality of life so that lower income people can presumably get the halo effect of living amongst them. Two words spring to mind, white flight.
I wonder what would happen if the state bought some of these tear down lots in hinsdale and put up a high rise low income apartments they're instead similar to requiring low income housing in apartments and busing kids to different schools for integration. In principle they could require low income housing in rich neighborhoods by same logic. Maybe they tried and failed already...
Edit: I guess you could also require some $30 / night rooms in 5-star hotels. And require some $30 seats in 1st class in airplanes. I will show myself out now...
I agree with you. Location trumps density in most places. However if the surveillance state can remove petty and violent crime from the equation, we may get a revitalization of lower cost neighborhoods. Not that i want the surveillance state, but may as well look for the silver lining.
Not mentioned in the article is the related problem that low-density drive-everywhere segregated suburbia has a massive infrastructure cash-flow problem. There is just too much roadway, water pipes, sewer pipes, and other utility infrastructure to be maintained by the tax base. See e.g. http://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/.
I think this is an interesting topic that hasn't been talked about enough yet.
I wonder a little about inter-generational conflict. It seems to me like older people (who may already own homes) and younger people (who often do not) often have opposing interests when it comes to housing policy: homeowners want the political system to prop up the value of their current homes while non-homeowners want less expensive homes to come on the market.
Then there's also the huge public debt that's left to the younger generation to pay...
> In his work on proxemics, Hall separated his theory into two overarching categories: personal space and territory. Personal space describes the immediate space surrounding a person, while territory refers to the area which a person may "lay claim to" and defend against others.
I think "segregation" should be "zoning" throughout most of the article?
I get that he's trying to draw a parallel to the historical practice of separating public facilities by race, but the connection is tenuous. One is de jure separation by ancestry for public, tax-funded, government facilities. The other is de facto separation by finances for private property (enabled by legal architectural requirements).
In any case, following this logic implies overturning most zoning restrictions and HOAs. (I myself am currently uncertain on my opinion on this.)