It's funny how New York City can nearly always be used as a unifying--or dividing--narrative device for so many cultural and economic issues. Your post happens to use it correctly, but so much of the emotionally charged rhetoric in this country magnifies its importance beyond the scope of reality. For many people it is the Center of the Universe when it comes to art, business, power, and politics. For many on the right it is the ultimate symbol of corruption and liberalism run amok. For the New Urbanist Jane Jacobites it is the Holy Grail of density and walkable perfection, and the rest of the country is a car-ridden hellscape.
Yeah. It is weird how often people will openly say that, basically, there are 3 or 4 places in the US that anyone would want to live, and people just live everywhere else because it's cheaper.
I suppose, in addition to being hubris of people that do happen to live in those places, it is also projection from the millions of displaced former residents who really do personally feel that way, for their own tastes.
But, it oddly takes a position that starts with a strong personal recognition of the supply problem and frequently twists it into a worldview that is ineducable on certain aspects of the problem and ends up leading to unhelpful conclusions. For instance, it can lead to a fatalism about affordability - that building homes might allow people to move to where they want to live, but the expensive places will still be expensive. That's both wrong and unhelpful.
It's funny how New York City can nearly always be used as a unifying--or dividing--narrative device for so many cultural and economic issues. Your post happens to use it correctly, but so much of the emotionally charged rhetoric in this country magnifies its importance beyond the scope of reality. For many people it is the Center of the Universe when it comes to art, business, power, and politics. For many on the right it is the ultimate symbol of corruption and liberalism run amok. For the New Urbanist Jane Jacobites it is the Holy Grail of density and walkable perfection, and the rest of the country is a car-ridden hellscape.
Yeah. It is weird how often people will openly say that, basically, there are 3 or 4 places in the US that anyone would want to live, and people just live everywhere else because it's cheaper.
I suppose, in addition to being hubris of people that do happen to live in those places, it is also projection from the millions of displaced former residents who really do personally feel that way, for their own tastes.
But, it oddly takes a position that starts with a strong personal recognition of the supply problem and frequently twists it into a worldview that is ineducable on certain aspects of the problem and ends up leading to unhelpful conclusions. For instance, it can lead to a fatalism about affordability - that building homes might allow people to move to where they want to live, but the expensive places will still be expensive. That's both wrong and unhelpful.
Good post.
"When they used to permit enough homes, it didn’t cause the rest of the country to depopulate."
That was in a time with a much higher total population growth rate, no?
That's my only gripe. Good post on something I think about fairly often!