
America’s Cities Are Running Out of Room - jseliger
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-22/america-s-cities-are-running-out-of-room
======
Overtonwindow
I think it ebs and flows. When my parents were my age, it was the biggish
cities, and then you had these bustling towns. Then as intown went bad with
crime, etc. everyone moved out and created a new "rich" area. Now the rich
area is moving back downtown. In decades to come, when the rich own all there
is of the town, then people will keep pushing further and further out, until
they create new big cities.

tl;dr: There's a lot of land out there and living cycles will repeat.

~~~
kilroy123
I actually worry a lot about self-driving cars. I think they'll lead to more
urban sprawl. Since it won't be a big deal to live out far away. Commuting
will be much faster on a freeway filled with autonomous cars moving quickly,
and you able to just sit back and enjoy the ride.

I think this will ultimately lead to the US becoming far more conservative.
Large cities are traditionally much more liberal areas.

~~~
kcorbitt
If I were investing in property today, I'd be buying waterfront property a
45-60 minute drive away from a vibrant coastal city. I agree with you that
self-driving cars will increase sprawl -- people will feel less of a need to
_live_ in the city center if they can still get there with little expense or
fuss. Having views of the water, on the other hand, will be just as attractive
as ever, and may replace living downtown as a symbol of wealth.

~~~
ghaff
By and large those locations are already pretty expensive. Marin County and
Half Moon Bay in California are no bargains. Even further out, nor is Santa
Cruz. The North and South Shores of Massachusetts are pretty expensive as
well.

~~~
kcorbitt
There are still relative bargains to be found in the Bay Area matching my
criteria. My rent went _up_ when I moved recently from Pacifica to San Bruno,
despite the fact that San Bruno is a suburban wasteland with nothing to
recommend it beyond proximity to freeways.

That said, I wouldn't recommend buying property anywhere in the Bay Area at
current valuations. The specific coastal city I had in mind when formulating
my above strategy was actually Barcelona.

------
ThrustVectoring
The fundamental issue with zoning is that control is too local. Building in an
area fundamentally helps those who want to move in at the expense of those who
already live there and enjoy the higher home prices and wages that the
restriction on building provides. The increased asset prices for landowners in
the Bay Area far from makes up for the extra commuting costs imposed and
marginal businesses priced out of the area - but landowners can vote on zoning
laws here, and the commuters and those priced out can't.

~~~
blazespin
No, the Bay Area can not handle more density until the 101 and commuting is
fixed.

The real problem though is urbanization. People just want to live in cities as
opportunities in rural areas dry up.

Honestly, I don't think there is any solution in a free society. The simple
fact is in the future status, real status not just gold necklaces and fast
cars, will be about where you live.

Taking zoning rights away from local voters is a pretty awful idea. We can't
be all about freedom and privacy and give up local control.

~~~
closeparen
People who live in skyscrapers a few blocks from their offices don't need 101.

~~~
blazespin
it's not that simple. People change jobs.

~~~
ThrustVectoring
Whereupon they can move if traffic is bad. Well, they could if there wasn't
rampant rent control.

------
stevecalifornia
An idea: Do like some place in Europe did, property tax based on building
footprint-- not in useable sq ft. This encourages growth upwards.

~~~
hypersoar
A lot of people in cities are trying to _fight_ growth upwards. They are not
for want of ways to encourage it.

------
jshaqaw
Can't speak to the Bay Area but in NYC we have hit the physical limits of
population until there is a serious investment in infrastructure. The subways
are bursting at the seams. In Manhattan we are running out of sunlight. These
article always bug me a little as we already live in the densest spot in the
US and get lectured why we need to crowd in more.

~~~
ChrisLTD
Agreed on the subway and a lot of Manhattan, but Brooklyn is far less dense
and filled with 2 and 3 story buildings that could easily be 5 and 6 stories
without shrouding Brooklyn in shadows.

~~~
jshaqaw
Yeah decent point.

------
scld
I've mostly been a free market advocate for housing, alongside sensible zoning
that keeps, say, chemical plants away from schools. However, I was recently
convinced of one aspect of town infrastructure that really requires thoughtful
management of population: The sewer system.

My town has historically had bad flooding during heavy storms which has been
made worse in the past decade due to a relative population boom. I'm sure this
is vast room for improvement in speeding up additional capacity construction,
but to me it's the major issue keeping housing from being truly set free.

------
ProfessorLayton
We are most certainly not running out of space in the Bay Area. There are tons
of undeveloped lots scattered throughout, and prosperous areas that have no
business being limited 2-3 stories.

Of course we all know that this is due to local zoning laws. However, there
are many layers that compound this issue, such as infrastructure.

Local districts collect the tax revenue that comes with a large employment
base, but then make it another city's/county's problem when it comes to
infrastructure costs associated with more housing.

This in turn leads to a vicious cycle of higher housing costs in areas with
more jobs/good schools/good public transportation > Leads to even more NIMBY
laws designed to protect that investment > Higher housing costs.

Perhaps we need to rethink how we collect and distribute local taxes?

------
malandrew
Even if they aren't building affordable housing, the luxury apartments relieve
demand pressure on existing housing stock. How is it that almost everyone who
writes on this topic omits this fact.

Luxury units may not be as good as apartments at different price points but
it's strictly better than not building any housing at all.

------
mjevans
I'm actually quite sick of lots not being built to their potential and a chain
of management firms selling properties to each other in schemes to foist the
maintenance costs on to someone else.

I think it would be in the public's interest to step in and provide baseline
competition for the market. Not just at the bottom but at every layer of the
stack. A series of non-profit entities should be made to keep competition even
with each other, profits should be both limited and surpluses split between
'rainy day' investment funds, expanding the non-profit owned properties, and
proper maintenance. Anything leftover should go towards reducing property
taxes for everyone in the area.

Anyone renting from such an entity should also be a "shareholder" in it, just
like with credit unions.

~~~
jopsen
See:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_cooperative](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_cooperative)

There are pros and cons. Sometimes buying in is really expensive, sometimes
you can't sell your share, sometimes it losses value. Sometimes the share is
really cheap it's equivalent to rent apartment.

My student housing in Denmark was like this. Buy-in was 10$ or so, and you
could never sell. But you get to vote on things like, representatives, higher
rent, maintenance, etc :)

If I had to rent long-term I would definitely prefer that.

