you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Building a new city would be a way around NIMBYism but I'd make one big one, probably next to kings-tulare station on CA HSR instead of 58 small ones. You'd have to bootstrap a local economy and make sire the starter urban planning puts it on a fundamentally diffrent track than other California cities

Of course, you could also just take away local control of zoning from cities, make it a state level responcibility by state constutional amendment, and directly force existing cities to densify

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    Zoning isn't the main factor preventing dense cities, the fact the cities don't invest in what it takes to build the infrastructure, which is largely because taxes are too low.

    Also letting the market build whatever is lowest risk is the main factor behind SFHs not zoning.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    Dude, it's literally illegal to build apartments on most urban land

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    States, including California have gotten rid of single family zoning and passed huge zoning reform bills and the outcome has generally been a minimal increase in what gets built.

    Yes zoning reform is good, but it isn't going to create dense cities, dense cities require government spending & active planning, especially when a lack of regulations make It easy (and low risk) to simply sprawl. In the absence of green belt style regulation that forces European cities to densify, US only has dense cities where they were built before cars or where geography prevents sprawl, simply allowing developers to choose if they sprawl (low risk) or not isn't enough.

  • source
  • parent