“Just build” only helps the developers who get to build and thus profit more. They’ll just build luxury condos and “investment properties” since that’s the most profitable.
There’s more expensive housing units sitting empty than there are unhoused people. The problem isn’t a lack of housing, it’s a lack of AFFORDABLE housing. That and it’s WAY too easy for landlords to evict people.
Yep, but still need new protections such as rent control and better enforcement of the ones currently in place.
“Just build public housing” is better than “just build housing”, but stil woefully inadequate to tackle a problem much more complex and insidious than simple supply and demand.
I think a lot of cities with truly good public transit developed as walking cities. The population was first, and the transit came after. Not always true - look at Barcelona - but my city (Melbourne Australia) is pretty cleanly defined into the part that developed before everyone had a car (radiating train lines serviced by trams), and areas that came after (radiating train lines serviced by buses, or not serviced at all).
How about we just build apartments?
“Just build” only helps the developers who get to build and thus profit more. They’ll just build luxury condos and “investment properties” since that’s the most profitable.
There’s more expensive housing units sitting empty than there are unhoused people. The problem isn’t a lack of housing, it’s a lack of AFFORDABLE housing. That and it’s WAY too easy for landlords to evict people.
Right, let’s build … public housing!
Yep, but still need new protections such as rent control and better enforcement of the ones currently in place.
“Just build public housing” is better than “just build housing”, but stil woefully inadequate to tackle a problem much more complex and insidious than simple supply and demand.
Would really like more rail. It’s the only reason I’m a bit nimby about apartments, too many cars on the road.
Is there not a strong correlation between apartments and rail? I.e. China, Spain, Korea?
Good point, but is it chicken or egg?
I think a lot of cities with truly good public transit developed as walking cities. The population was first, and the transit came after. Not always true - look at Barcelona - but my city (Melbourne Australia) is pretty cleanly defined into the part that developed before everyone had a car (radiating train lines serviced by trams), and areas that came after (radiating train lines serviced by buses, or not serviced at all).
There’s already enough living space. No need for more infrastructure.
Including in the places people want to live in?
Depends where. Not generally true.