More interesting in the article is the view in American day to day corruption. Developers that "just use" builder's remedy legal provisions end up nowhere fast (and so whatever they end up building will just be even more expensive and delayed.) While other developers use builder's remedy as a threat or leverage to twist a city's arm into accepting smaller projects which would otherwise be delayed indefinitely. You need guts and years of runway to be an apartment developer in this area!
Most people don’t want to live in Manhattan or similarly dense settings. I’m not sure why the state or voters felt it would be okay to take away local choice or why they thought it would be easy.
Rather than trying to force density on existing cities where residents value their current neighborhood character and quality of life, it would be better to bring economic opportunity to cities left behind that are smaller and have more space. It doesn’t make sense to crowd into a few coastal cities.
> I’m not sure why the state or voters felt it would be okay to take away local choice or why they thought it would be easy.
Because often said local choices have outsized non-local effects. And because, ideally, the state has an interest in improving the entirety of the state, not just your little area. So when the decisions your town makes degrades things in many surrounding communities, the state has an interest in preventing that.
Take something like the BART metro -- there was an opportunity when it was first being built to be a complete ring around the bay, but due to some local choices, many other communities in the south bay area were denied a metro system. And now, to actually complete that system it is much lengthier and expensive to do so.
> Rather than trying to force density on existing cities where residents value their current neighborhood character and quality of life, it would be better to bring economic opportunity to cities left behind that are smaller and have more space. It doesn’t make sense to crowd into a few coastal cities.
The density is a function of the economic productivity though, as most people seek out better opportunities. How do you actually create said opportunities where there are currently few? And importantly, how do you do it without creating the same exact problem that you're trying to solve, just in a different place?
Notable also that a few places have chosen to evolve. Redwood City in particular has allowed the transformation of it's downtown. From "old and rundown" to much higher density with work and living density that actually feed an entertainment ecosystem around their transit station. Sunnyvale also.
Arguably they started a little late (in jeopardy from everyone switching to internet entertainment and shopping) but it's there. In both cases, that has not turned these places into hellholes. On the contrary, it made the single family homes around the centers even more desirable.
That's a great observation. As you said, both started a little late, but at least they're doing it. Compare to nearby Cupertino which _still_ can't get anything built on a giant property right next to their 'downtown'.
> The density is a function of the economic productivity
Density WAS a function of economic productivity before remote work was proven to work at a large scale. Now a lot of production ranging from software to even manufacturing can be done remotely. (manufacturing was already doing that to a visible extent before tech jumped on it after covid)
That's a somewhat narrow definition of economic productivity. You need to be including things from retail to infrastructure maintenance to entertainment venues in that definition. There are still plenty of things that require physical proximity.
Density is very much still a function of economic productivity.
"It's so crowded, nobody wants to live there!" Not to mention "so expensive, nobody wants to live there".
But also, the headline is just slightly exaggerated. There is a lot of work possible between a sea of (very expensive and mostly in poor condition) single family homes - including right next to public transit corridors - and towers everywhere.
> "Most people don’t want to live in Manhattan or similarly dense settings. I’m not sure why the state or voters felt it would be okay to take away local choice or why they thought it would be easy."
If that were true, apartment prices in Manhattan and similarly dense places would be a lot cheaper. The fact that people are willing to pay a premium to live somewhere is a direct expression of the fact that they prefer to live there.
The main reason local jurisdictions resist construction is because landowners (not to be confused with developers) benefit from doing so. The artificial shortage of housing drives up the price of their property.
