The answer is to reduce regulation.
The process of building new structures is filled with so much regulatory friction that it is impossible for the average person to even consider building their own home.
The process of building new structures is filled with so much regulatory friction that it is impossible for the average person to even consider building their own home.
Developers will always attempt to skimp on quality to save/make more money. Even people building their own home will sometimes try to avoid compliance. That's why the regulations are there.
Those are suitable for hot and cold supply.
Single-family zoning is another local government policy that is absolutely intended to constrain development, not improve safety.
I am in favor of finding ways to encourage more housing, but what you're calling for is essentially to invite favela housing in the developed world.
Also, the reason why Berlin hasn't had the same pressure is because it is one of the few cities in the developed world that has actually shrunk over a multi-decade period. It is very easy to limit population density when there is no pressure on housing. And, ofc, the historical division of the city meant that it had to develop more than one centre. These factors aside, afaik, the development of Berlin hasn't been exceptional...they built suburbs when there was pressure on housing in the early 20th century, built public transport, those suburbs eventually integrated into the city...very few cities have grown through greater intensity in the centre because cost is prohibitive, regardless of regulations.
Nothing to do with regulations, everything to do with historical circumstance (also, the guy you replying to is quite correct...if you actually look at housing regulations in the US, they have been a tool for racial/economic segregation...being real, that is why the limit on multi-family housing exists, the US has very low population density, saying they will become Delhi if they reduce regulations is hysterical).
Nobody is arguing that the entire US would become like Delhi, but can you seriously hold the opinion that housing deregulation would not result in mass production of low-quality housing near major population centers?
There are problems with extremes on both ends. For instance the NIMBY-driven housing policy in SF is not what is needed to create sustainable housing. But is a somewhat unique case, and it doesn't mean an extreme swing in the other direction towards deregulation would lead to a good outcome. Sensible housing regulation is undoubtedly a requirement for sustainable urbanization.
> it's not as if building regulations have been developed for fun, it's largely in response to safety issues and so on.
But they're not. As you (now) say, they're for reducing development. The original statement about safety was substantially incorrect.
Parking requirements are about local traffic management as well. Set backs are about ensuring natural light. Some local regulation is about NIMBYism or HOAism, that sort of thing is where reform might be better addressed.
Mandating these things is some of that "local regulation tied into NIMBYism" you mention.
That housing should also be up to a similar standard in terms of its externalities like pollution and energy efficiency etc.
We have regulations for air travel, for car emissions and efficiency, why should housing be any different?
We have regulations for car emissions, and that raises the price for cars, which means some people can't afford cars.
We have regulations for housing, and that raises the price for housing, which means some people can't afford housing.
How many people should not be able to afford housing? Is the number of people who currently can't afford housing too low, or too high? Should we increase regulations for housing, or decrease them? Are we making the right trade-offs?
And this is accomplished via building codes, which are rigorous and applied almost uniformly in the U.S.
> We invest (or should) a lot of our taxes into local amenities to ensure that housing is provided the best environment. Transport, schooling, roads, etc.
And this is the model that has made blue cities unaffordable for the poor. They're not environmentally friendly either, their schools are awful, amenities poor, and transportation lacking. It would be hard to find one single issue where there is even parity of centrally planned quality-of-life concerns in blue cities vs red cities.
The question is not "regulations" persay. There is no magical regulation slider bar that can be adjusted to optimal result. It's what those regulations seek to accomplish. In many U.S. urban metros, those regulations are targeted to what city policy thinks the owners should do with their property, and not what they want to do with it. It's not clear those regulations have had their intended effect.