I love your ideas and your grasp of policy. But what is the pathway to implement these ideas? How do you defeat the elderly NIMBYs who have already captured the regulatory apparatus?
In Singapore, housing is largely state-built and sold, per my understanding. In China, private urban housing has only existed since ~1998 and land is leased on ~70-year leases, not owned. I am not sure we can draw and conclusions or comparisons with Singapore or China vs much of the world.
Generally good observations, and l think your general observations about the future are good. But this one I think misses one key issue. Housing, like nearly everything else, responds to the laws of supply and demand. LIMITS TO GROWTH and the coming climate catastrophe demand that populations will shrink. So will the demand for housing, and prices will drop farther from the center faster than near the center. Yes, central density will increase, but the cost skyscrapers will not make them competitive with greater availability of close-in lower-density housing. The tenements of Rome were about six stories, about all that people climbing stairs are willing to accept. Dense European cities are likely a better model than skyscrapers. In the future, I'm guessing average commuting distance will be determined by electric bike range, not gas car-commute range.
The world is so disparate that it's hard to generalize, China already has a fertility rate around 1. Africa's is too high, but dropping because kids, once an economic assets to families, are now economic liabilities--it costs too much to educate them in an information-based society. The US fertility rate is already less than replacement; only migration is growing the population. Stopping it has been, and will be, an unsolvable problem.
This is the future: Capitalism as we know it is toast, because it assumes perpetual growth. There are limits to growth, and we have already passed them. One driver of those limits is accumulating pollution. We've been fairly successful at taming visible pollution, like in rivers, but haven't recognized the invisible pollution, like GHGs, that are changing the climate. The MOMENTUM of a fossil-powered economy is so great we can't expect quick transition to a solar-powered one in time. The basic conclusion: basing future predictions on past trends leads to one of the warnings carved on the walls of the Greek Temple of Apollo (~500 BC): "Certainty Brings Ruin." --John Weigant, 85-year-old Futurist
A great article. I really enjoyed reading it, especially the first part about the scaling laws. That's something new that I have learned.
It also has good suggestions for policies. What specifically we should do to stimulate more optimal and innovative growth.
Scaling laws for cities are new to me as well. Actually, its the sole reason I wrote this one :)
I love your ideas and your grasp of policy. But what is the pathway to implement these ideas? How do you defeat the elderly NIMBYs who have already captured the regulatory apparatus?
The pendulum will swing back, it has to.
How do Singapore and China’s respective city zoning and development compare to US and Japan?
In Singapore, housing is largely state-built and sold, per my understanding. In China, private urban housing has only existed since ~1998 and land is leased on ~70-year leases, not owned. I am not sure we can draw and conclusions or comparisons with Singapore or China vs much of the world.
Generally good observations, and l think your general observations about the future are good. But this one I think misses one key issue. Housing, like nearly everything else, responds to the laws of supply and demand. LIMITS TO GROWTH and the coming climate catastrophe demand that populations will shrink. So will the demand for housing, and prices will drop farther from the center faster than near the center. Yes, central density will increase, but the cost skyscrapers will not make them competitive with greater availability of close-in lower-density housing. The tenements of Rome were about six stories, about all that people climbing stairs are willing to accept. Dense European cities are likely a better model than skyscrapers. In the future, I'm guessing average commuting distance will be determined by electric bike range, not gas car-commute range.
The world is so disparate that it's hard to generalize, China already has a fertility rate around 1. Africa's is too high, but dropping because kids, once an economic assets to families, are now economic liabilities--it costs too much to educate them in an information-based society. The US fertility rate is already less than replacement; only migration is growing the population. Stopping it has been, and will be, an unsolvable problem.
This is the future: Capitalism as we know it is toast, because it assumes perpetual growth. There are limits to growth, and we have already passed them. One driver of those limits is accumulating pollution. We've been fairly successful at taming visible pollution, like in rivers, but haven't recognized the invisible pollution, like GHGs, that are changing the climate. The MOMENTUM of a fossil-powered economy is so great we can't expect quick transition to a solar-powered one in time. The basic conclusion: basing future predictions on past trends leads to one of the warnings carved on the walls of the Greek Temple of Apollo (~500 BC): "Certainty Brings Ruin." --John Weigant, 85-year-old Futurist
And does animal life and nature not matter at all?
It does! That is why advocate for dense human cities. Leaves a lot more room for nature....