Re:In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build
by llamataboot on Saturday April 16, 2016 @12:19PM
(#11511127)
Arguably though, people are implicitly willing to pay quite the premium for racial and class segregation. Why would a purely 'free market' approach (hard when there are so many externalities involved) work better than an inclusionary zoning approach? (rather than the exclusionary zoning regimes of, for example, most suburbs in he US) - Encourage/demand high-density infill mixed-income housing.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build
by varelse on Saturday April 16, 2016 @12:30PM
(#11511174)
One problem is that one need not be particularly racist for segregation to occur spontaneously:
http://nifty.stanford.edu/2014/mccown-schelling-model-segreg...
Re:In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build
by llamataboot on Saturday April 16, 2016 @01:42PM
(#11511498)
Just because something could exist, doesn't mean it is what is happening though. I think all complex systems modeling has things to teach us, and I've looked a lot at Schelling and other agent-based models, but arguably they don't hold up to empirical evidence. http://www.nyudri.org/research-index/2009/empirics
Re:In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build
by stcredzero on Saturday April 16, 2016 @12:25PM
(#11511145)
People can pay for class segregation. I suspect if we let them, it would become separated from race segregation over time.
Re:In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build
by llamataboot on Saturday April 16, 2016 @12:30PM
(#11511171)
Depends on your time scale I guess. Arguably class and racial segregation are highly linked in the US and is the primary way that racial disparities continue to be reproduced so persistently. See, for example, http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674018211