The problem is, I've been hearing about these problems since I lived there in 1995.

1995 would have given an intelligent species enough time to build a money-losing, poor-people housing skyscraper or two. Yes building vertically in crowded places is a challenge and expensive but those are just excuses.

Since 1995 they could have figured out a way to get the job done, so now we have to examine what the problems are.

Isn't that what the "towers in a park" style of public housing from the 60s and 70s are? From that we've found that it isn't a good solution, eg Cabrini–Green Homes or Robert Taylor Homes

I think people have been looking into these issues for far longer than 1995.

Speaking as someone who works in this field theres a lot weve learned about towers. Suffice to say dont build them in the middle of nowhere, for the poorest in society only, and with acres of non-defensible space in front.

The best planning in cities today is building transit oriented development at a scale to match your city's housing need. Do it in the right places with a reasonable design and it works great

I don't think the issues that emerged at Cabrini Green and Robert Taylor Homes can be blamed primarily on their design. I suspect the systemic lack of maintenance and overall poor management were far more significant factors. There are thousands of safe, clean, and healthy "towers in the park" public housing projects around the world - from Singapore to Spain. And there are plenty of low-rise and townhome public housing projects in the US that suffer from health and safety problems.

I am all for vertical build but this idea is scary. The standards for maintaining tall buildings are especially high. There is a high chance this ends up being Kowloon city or going down in flames like Grenfell Tower.

Let alone the political optics of putting a lot of poor people into a very limited space.

> 1995 would have given an intelligent species enough time to build a money-losing, poor-people housing skyscraper or two.

Welcome to planet Earth. We humans are intelligent as individuals, but not as a species. At species level, we're just gradient descenders with delusions of grandeur.

"No true intelligent species" is a new one. A little misanthropic for me, but whatev.

Since 1995 they could have figured out a way to get the job done

If only someone tried. I mean, for how long have people agreed on what "the job" is? Too long, if at all?

But again, you're starting at the point of assuming failure, when in fact these cities are the most dense. Feel free to examine but the core assumption that this is obviously the wrong way to do it is baseless.

There’s no denying that building is a hell of a lot easier in a place like Houston without zoning than anywhere else though.

Grew up in Houston and now live in Austin and your statement is 100% accurate. Housing in Houston means you can get an 1800 ft house for 90k 15 miles from downtown. In Northwest Austin, let’s say 20 miles from the city center, such a house would cost 300k plus.

I've never lived in either place. How is the transit there? In SF and Los Angeles, 20 mile could mean an hour commute. We do bump up against natural obstacles but it could certainly be better.

Your assuming the government made the city desirable. An argument can be made that geography made the city desirable and government made it less.