Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Dave Stuhlsatz's avatar

Good post, keep them coming. The "superstar city" should be relabeled "static city" per this analysis. What's frustrating is that there are plenty of residents and elected officials in places like Boston, L.A., etc... who are committed to the continuation of this static condition. I'm beginning to think it transcends conventional explanations for NIMBYism like racism and class consciousness. There seems to be an embedded, tribal attitude that can't cope with population growth and the architectural evolution that growth entails. I see this play out at the small town level in New England, where zoning restrictions get pushed to comical extremes--e.g. 10 acre lot sizes. Objections to development of any sort usually get framed as concern over families with school age children driving up property tax rates.

The entire state of Vermont exhibits this collective malaise and has effectively frozen its population at around 600,000 people. Curiously, house prices are considerably below the U.S. median, which can lead to the simple conclusion that it's just another example of rural decline. But when you start to probe the collective zeitgeist of the residents you find many examples of this obsession with preserving the static condition; large lot size minimums, scenic road designations, height limits, agricultural preservation, etc. No politician in the state would dare run on a growth platform.

Expand full comment
Benjamin Cole's avatar

Very convincing.

BTW, Canada has unaffordable housing now.

Australia, too.

Unless there is a national priority and commitment to housing production, but instead a commitment to boost population and cool wages through immigration, then.....

Expand full comment
7 more comments...

No posts