4. more housing development means a larger tax base and better funded public services! Not quite as relevant to NYC but I think very compelling to lots of smaller cities with shrinking tax revenues
This reminded me of something I often find lacking in urbanist content. It seems to me American (Non-New York-based) Urbanists and Yimbys idolize Europe and Montreal, drone on and on about our lack of walkable cities, and never look to New York as an example for dense American urbanity. Do you think because this is because of what you describe in this piece? They think New York is perpetually too expensive to be replicable?
In my view, it's the rest of America which is too expensive to replicate going forward. We simply subsidize their car-centric lifestyles. Our high cost of housing is indicative of the fact you can make density massively, perhaps (as you suggest hypothetically) infinitely desirable.
4. more housing development means a larger tax base and better funded public services! Not quite as relevant to NYC but I think very compelling to lots of smaller cities with shrinking tax revenues
I might add another section for "economic growth and being richer" headlined with this.
Hello Maximum,
This reminded me of something I often find lacking in urbanist content. It seems to me American (Non-New York-based) Urbanists and Yimbys idolize Europe and Montreal, drone on and on about our lack of walkable cities, and never look to New York as an example for dense American urbanity. Do you think because this is because of what you describe in this piece? They think New York is perpetually too expensive to be replicable?
In my view, it's the rest of America which is too expensive to replicate going forward. We simply subsidize their car-centric lifestyles. Our high cost of housing is indicative of the fact you can make density massively, perhaps (as you suggest hypothetically) infinitely desirable.
Great piece, thanks.