The U.S. Needs More Housing Than Almost Anyone Can Imagine
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
The 300Bi build back better plan focused on electric cars instead. There won't be another chance in the next 10-15 years sadly. I think electric car infra also has its place but solving housing issues and environmental issues at the same time would have been better I think.
The existing automakers can swap a few parts bins and still continue to operate. The real-estate industrial complex can continue to carve off suburbs to the horizon.
I feel like we could do better if we had a more top-down planned economy; we could build new city sectors around an economic engine, and ensure that housing and transit dovetail with it, rather than hoping the market haphazardly allocates stuff right.
Too down planning failed a lot in the past but then again they didn't have high speed internet wich solves the communication+agility issues at the core of the failure. Not gonna happen in the US though.
Brooklyn and Queens have huge neighborhoods full of brownstones within minutes of subway stops. Even Manhattan too, in certain neighborhoods like the West Village and Soho.
You have to own the lots
You have to get permits and go through a lot of reviews by the city and possibly the state (if it's condos)
You'll still be faced with aging infrastructure. The subway is 2/3 capacity at most and still there are delays and crowded train cars.
I'm not questioning the wisdom of higher density, I'm questioning the feasibility of it. How many years and how much did it cost to make a few blocks of 2nd avenue subway?London and Paris appear to be doing a better job at expanding the city outward, adding infrastructure as they go.
There is something deeply, fundamentally wrong with modern urban growth in the U.S., and I suspect it has to do with the decentralized nature of the political system. How many layers of approvals do you need here and how much coordination do you need with how many agencies across how many levels of government from local to Federal.