Hacker News Reader

Comment by kory | Hacker News Reader

It seems to me that there's a common theme among urbanist folks. That is, if people don't like the urbanist vision, they should be forced to change their habits via government policy, even if they don't like those changes.

Why is that? Hasn't the opposite (suburbia and car dependency) been forced upon you by government policy for the last 70 years? Yet, there's a substantial population that wants to completely destroy the suburban way of life via taxing it to death. Governments never intended to destroy city living. At least, not purposefully (perhaps via disinvestment).

You'd think you'd want the government to just create conditions for cheap energy since that's objectively good for everyone, and let people live how they want. If people choose suburbia, great. If they choose cities, great too. If the online movement is representative of a larger group, there are a lot off people who will still choose cities!

View on HN

I'd be fine with this if most folks saying it actually were being genuine.

What I've found when I head down this path with folks on a deeper level they actually don't want everyone to own their life choices. They actually want the status quo of being the most subsidized political cohort the US has.

Suburban living in most areas I've stayed clearly should be far more expensive. The fact my parents live 50 feet off a paved 60mph road 60 miles away from the nearest large city is utterly absurd. That road might see two dozen cars a day. There is no way the tax base can support such a thing.

I think in our lifetimes we'll see prices start to escalate rapidly due to the fundamentals baked in.

However I have very little hope this turns into anything but more subsidy for that cohort, since they are the ones who show up to vote. Anyone not offering to prop up the suburban property bubble will not have a chance in office.

> I think we'll see in our lifetimes see prices start to escalate rapidly due to the fundamentals baked in.

I agree. One of the big risks to future political stability and, honestly, avoiding violent conflict is that these price increases won't just be rapid but immediate. People could adjust if the price of gas went up $1/gallon every year for ten years. If the government keeps the price artificially low all that time and is then forced to raise it $10 all at once, that would be very difficult.

This is why I'm not an urbanist even though I support in theory a lot of urbanist policies.

The motte: "There is great demand for dense, walkable, affordable, towns/cities/neighborhoods in the US, and not enough supply to satisfy this demand. A big reason why there is a supply shortage, aside from the relative inelasticity of housing in general, is government restrictions on building/zoning these sorts of developments. There are many coordination failures in attempts to create these sorts of neighborhoods which could be rectified through government action."

The bailey: "Suburbs are a failure of city planning. Car ownership/usage is a net negative on society and should be disincentivized. Government policy should work to eliminate suburbs, replacing them with dense development. Most of those who live in suburbs would surely choose and be happier living in denser developments."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com