> But in the 1970s, city planners and neighbors aggressively sought to restrict overall housing growth...
We pass by this point rather quickly, but this is like the most interesting part of the story to me which is WHY all this stuff changed in the 1970s. I see increasingly this is just sort of hand waved in passing as if "and then nimbys appeared in the 1970s.." but of course the human desires that drive nimbyism always existed, so it's more a question of why in the 1970s this manifested in a way such that housing was now more remarkably halted as a result.
A possible answer is that in the past growth continued because nimbyism pushed it to the suburb margins, or rammed development into marginalized neighbourhoods that couldn't protest, but these things changed as endless sprawl became less possible and marginalized groups had found their voice.
It's also worth noting that the 1970s was a time of economic upheaval when governments started backing away and started on the path to cuts and austerity.
As the 1970s get further and further away, it seems like more of this is becoming myth and legend and the concrete details and the situation on the ground is becoming lost.
My guess it would be around the time the first boomers are getting out into markets, and their parents are settling into their forever home - never selling until death or forced retirement home.
Tie that with what people of that generation would consider a tolerable commute and the cultural idyllic home size/lot size. I think you start to form the basis of the answer, and like all answers it is simple in it's complexity
Also not one to nod along with Tucker Carlson but he hit a really prescient note in that speech ~,”how can we expect young people to be invested in the country if they have no stake in it?”
Which just totally strikes a chord with me as someone from the post 1995 cohort, we are super jaded, nihilistic, and ruthlessly “unpatriotic”.
Honestly this is one of the points I make regarding community. Why should I invest in my local community, gardening/etc. when my landlord is the one who benefits from my labor and monetary investment into said community... Which they could negate at their whim - stripping me of said community forcing me to start all over.
Could litreally be resolved by deregulation... but in california, there's rules on everything for how many outlets must be on the counter to mandatory electirc car hookups in the garage, and people wonder why it's so expensive to build.
> there's rules on everything for how many outlets must be on the counter
This is the case for every authority having jurisdiction that has adopted the National Electrical Code, and for good reason.
A lack of outlets in a kitchen combined with countertop appliances that heat up things like coffee makers, rice cookers, hot plates, or crock pots can easily harm.
Building and fire safety code books are written in blood, as they say.
That being said, California has a lot of stupid regulations, like mandatory environmental studies and things of that nature. Great for environmental engineers/consultants and existing real estate owners but it’s bad for everyone else.
Also Prop 13, that’s a real bad deal for anyone that isn’t going to inherit a grandfathered house with ridiculously low property taxes.
China has 3 apartments per each citizen and 50 million homeless. Abundance doesn't solve anything if you don't solve competition form investors seeking vessels for their money.
> But in the 1970s, city planners and neighbors aggressively sought to restrict overall housing growth...
We pass by this point rather quickly, but this is like the most interesting part of the story to me which is WHY all this stuff changed in the 1970s. I see increasingly this is just sort of hand waved in passing as if "and then nimbys appeared in the 1970s.." but of course the human desires that drive nimbyism always existed, so it's more a question of why in the 1970s this manifested in a way such that housing was now more remarkably halted as a result.
A possible answer is that in the past growth continued because nimbyism pushed it to the suburb margins, or rammed development into marginalized neighbourhoods that couldn't protest, but these things changed as endless sprawl became less possible and marginalized groups had found their voice.
It's also worth noting that the 1970s was a time of economic upheaval when governments started backing away and started on the path to cuts and austerity.
As the 1970s get further and further away, it seems like more of this is becoming myth and legend and the concrete details and the situation on the ground is becoming lost.
I'd read a whole book on this topic.
My guess it would be around the time the first boomers are getting out into markets, and their parents are settling into their forever home - never selling until death or forced retirement home.
Tie that with what people of that generation would consider a tolerable commute and the cultural idyllic home size/lot size. I think you start to form the basis of the answer, and like all answers it is simple in it's complexity
Also not one to nod along with Tucker Carlson but he hit a really prescient note in that speech ~,”how can we expect young people to be invested in the country if they have no stake in it?”
Which just totally strikes a chord with me as someone from the post 1995 cohort, we are super jaded, nihilistic, and ruthlessly “unpatriotic”.
Honestly this is one of the points I make regarding community. Why should I invest in my local community, gardening/etc. when my landlord is the one who benefits from my labor and monetary investment into said community... Which they could negate at their whim - stripping me of said community forcing me to start all over.
Could litreally be resolved by deregulation... but in california, there's rules on everything for how many outlets must be on the counter to mandatory electirc car hookups in the garage, and people wonder why it's so expensive to build.
> there's rules on everything for how many outlets must be on the counter
This is the case for every authority having jurisdiction that has adopted the National Electrical Code, and for good reason.
A lack of outlets in a kitchen combined with countertop appliances that heat up things like coffee makers, rice cookers, hot plates, or crock pots can easily harm.
Building and fire safety code books are written in blood, as they say.
That being said, California has a lot of stupid regulations, like mandatory environmental studies and things of that nature. Great for environmental engineers/consultants and existing real estate owners but it’s bad for everyone else.
Also Prop 13, that’s a real bad deal for anyone that isn’t going to inherit a grandfathered house with ridiculously low property taxes.
How many outlets has everything to do with elitistism, not safety, lets not conflate the two.
Later post, related discussion:
The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44750416
China has 3 apartments per each citizen and 50 million homeless. Abundance doesn't solve anything if you don't solve competition form investors seeking vessels for their money.
Tax the land and let developers build duplexes and quads if they want. And build up for God's sake