Hacker News Reader

Comment by sampo | Hacker News Reader

> the city has historically been very conservative about building new houses to match population growth.

This is the main problem. Solution is simple: Allow more new construction, lots of it.

Local people have voted against their own long term interests, if they have voted for politicians who have opposed new construction.

It is easy to succumb to short term selfishness: "I already have a home, so I don't want any new construction near me. I oppose building new homes." But in time, every one of us will need to move to a new home. Then you will start to wish that if you had supported building new homes, it would be easier for you, too, to find a new home.

View on HN

> Allow more new construction, lots of it

Specifically in Edinburgh, the problem is the city is a World Heritage Site. https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/728/

It's an inherent problem in tourism: tourists want an "unspoiled" view, which means not building infrastructure for tourists or locals.

Building definitely is happening. See the Plan: https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/file/25264/edinburgh-... - but of course you can't build just houses, you have to build roads and schools and waste disposal and public transport to go with them. The city has struggled with its tram project and the railways are at capacity.

When the younger generation takes over, I predict a massive wave of construction globally. Most millennials have had it up to here both with high rent and the anti-development I've-already-got-my-own-house crowd that caused it.

And I'll be the old guy yelling about it in the street. I've lived in the same town for most of my life, so I've seen it metastasize across the countryside, gobbling up farmland, wildlife habitat and open spaces, replacing them with McMansions, apartment buildings and Costcos, just to make room for more ... frikken ... people. It's like watching your best high school friend turn into a junkie whore before your eyes.

I don't know what the answer is, but there is something to be said for retaining some beauty at the expense of fewer people, and maybe rethinking the idea that growth is necessary to success, 'cause we're running out of room and that definition can't last forever.

Long term we’ll have falling population, but right now the people looking for a place to live already exist. Not sure what you expect them to do.

Yeah like I said, I don't know what the answer is. I just know what's getting destroyed.

Drama much? People need somewhere to live! Where?

Change is inherent in a situation where you have however many billion people we have now. We are a dynamic system, and a huge one.

Literally the old guy yelling in the street, so yeah, drama much and much drama.

What you say is true, and also isn't anything new to the discussion. Change is awesome, and isn't even the point. It's more about the unsustainable quest for growth that is the foundation of our economy.

> there is something to be said for retaining some beauty at the expense of fewer people

I'll let you argue with the "why aren't people having children any more?" people.

This issue has been solved very well in other countries with medium and high-density construction. Many US communities feel overcrowded because they are low-density.

Yeah I think you're right there, at least to a degree. So many American towns have really crappy zoning laws that limit the amount of high density construction, even though it's awesome for a tax base (especially if you allow for mixed use areas (which has the double benefit of helping mitigate food deserts)).

That's a complete narcissistic take. Other people are crowding your view? Would it be possible for you to understand that you take up as much space as any other person? That you are crowding their view? "At the expense of fewer people" - do you want to start killing your fellow man?

I don't know why you're getting downvoted, maybe the "narcissistic" part. Nah man I don't know what the answer is, only that I see the destruction happening. There has to be a more sustainable way to manage growth.

You need laws to prevent speculators/investors from buying up all the newly built housing.

Vancouver built lots of new housing but it was mostly snapped up by investors.

That Norwegian ski town got it right.

No you don’t. Investors and speculators want to rent it out, giving young people without credit scores and saved-up capital housing options.

Even speculators who buy and hold empty houses aren’t a problem. No investor is satisfied with no returns (ie, no sale and no rent) indefinitely. Speculators that are dumb enough to be happy with zero returns ought to be, and always are, separated from their capital.

Within a short time the market will balance out between the builders, the buy-to-let landlords, the single-family owners, and the flippers and speculators… assuming you don’t have some crazy regulations putting a thumb on the single-family owner end of the scale by blocking construction.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com