I guess the surprise comes from the fact that there's a lot of supply as well.

It's the idea of both at once that's implausible. Making it more walkable would gentrify it and raise rents? Sure, I can see that. But the idea that this would also somehow increase crime? Pedestrians are much more able to see or intervene in a crime than drivers are.

I wonder if using tools like https://communitycrimemap.com would help with city design. Just off the glances I've made: Most crimes happen in easily accessible areas with clear getaway routes, almost no crimes happen at the center cul de sac of a neighbourhood.

Sounds like an explanation there - pedestrians see and are involved with more crime, reported crime rates go up?

Crime does tend to increase with population density.

Muggers and burglars travel to gentrified neighborhoods to work, because it's a completely rational thing to do.

> Pedestrians are much more able to see or intervene in a crime than drivers are.

Pedestrians are easier to watch and carefully evaluate, also, and will not always be around; you can follow a target and wait until they are safe to rob. People in cars are a mystery, and near active streets a constant one.

Given the state of rent prices globally in western countries I really have to question if the increases you're seeing are attributed to 'superblocks' or just general inflation. If the rent is increasing due to 'superblocks' it's going to be because people prefer living within them rather than traditional blocks, hence they can command more rent, not because there is suddenly spare change that was once spent on a car.

Also I don't think pollution is specific to this type of construction. Any type of full scale construction in urban environments causes terrible pollution and pest issues for the adjacent blocks.

I never said anything about current rents, just that superblocks and general walkability are in extremely high demand, so rents will reflect that.

Why can't it be both? By moving there, you're effectively signaling you don't have a car. Those without cars (all else being equal, not sure why it wouldn't be) will have extra money. If the place is desirable, what is to stop those with that new "extra money" from using that to outbid those with less money?

I don't at all doubt its also inflation at play. It seems perfectly reasonable tho that a place that generally has car-less renters would have higher prices as those without cars could afford that added price. To an extent of course.

So the problem is really that regulations have constrained the supply of housing to the point that rents are set as high as people can afford, rather than at the price of replacement.

Rents in places where demand exceeds supply are like that (and probably always will be).

Well, how much more could realistically be built? I agree, not a fan of housing supply being kept artificially low... but as they say "someone has to have the beach houses."

If there's only 100 units in a car-less block and 500 ppl that want them, what could be done if you've reached the limit of what can be built?

I guess you could go up, making sky scrapers... but now I have to admit I'm out of my element. Not sure if that's viable.

re rent increase - I wonder if the future is becoming a giant hyper-efficient machine meant to extract maximum value from "consumers"? basically efficient rent-seeking in the literal sense

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

I wonder what can be the counter to this?

Zoning fixes and dense, walkable city planning is the solution. It's just that there would need to be some law from the top level of government, eg. on a national or state level, to force cities have a certain minimum amount of high-density development every year. Because, right now, these cities adhere to their constituents who all would prefer if the supply remained stagnant so that their property values can continue to increase well past whatever they're paying for their monthly mortgage payment.

I’m staunchly opposed to a national or state government forcing a certain type of development onto cities.

Forcing the approval of some type of permits and permitting high density development in some amount/type of area is much more reasonable and executable. (If a city were falling short of the originally proposed mandated housing, what entity would have to make up the shortfall and how would you force them to build a development they’re not asking to build?)

One of the zoning fixes along the lines judge2020 mentioned is to remove the parking minimum requirements, which already forces a certain type of development onto cities.

Another is to remove zoning laws preventing secondary suites / in-law apartments / granny flats / etc. These also force a certain type of development onto cities.

Another fix - not so much zoning though - is to move to 10' lanes instead of 12'. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-10-06/why-12-fo... , which again forces a certain type of development onto cities.

After decades of existing forced development, it too easily becomes the baseline of what is "normal."

I think that all of those examples are AHJs imposing restrictions on themselves, rather than someone else imposing restrictions on them from outside/containment.

I have no problem with cities imposing restrictions on cities, as that is amenable to democratic review by the voters in that city. Having a national imposition on a city would be objectionable to me on principle (and in the US, would very likely violate the 10th Amendment).

AHJ - authorities having jurisdiction, basically "whoever sets and enforces the codes"

My point is that nothing will ever change if this governing structure continues. By law, cities only protect their constituents, so any high-density development is going to encounter insane barriers since the increased competition within the area would drop values of nearby single-family homes, and cities will be made aware of this by the NIMBYs that show up at city hall meetings to push back against the development.

I don't have a serious objection nor see a constitutional challenge to having a state impose restrictions upon itself or its cities. (The same thing done federally is the problem.)

That still leaves the problem in your original proposal of "how exactly do you plan to enforce the required level of high-density development if no one is asking to do it?"

I regard your objection as naive.

The National 55 MPH speed limit shows the federal government, through the power of the purse, can have a strong influence on state traffic laws.

The history of zoning shows how the State Standard Zoning Enabling Act - a federal work - can influence the states to change.

There appear to be easy ways to tweak judge2020's proposal to make it better reflect demand, but I don't care to argue that issue.

> AHJs imposing restrictions on themselves

judge2020's point is that zoning laws support current residents, not future residents, so AHJs have a systemic bias against making these changes.

judge2020's proposal is to look towards the democratically elected bodies which have a wider scope.

As a concrete example, California recently made it easier to build mother-in-law units (ADUs in CA terms), by reducing the requirements cities and counties can enforce. See https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesfinancecouncil/2020/03/12... . This law is why I mentioned mother-in-law units as an example.

That change in California law has no constitutional issues like what you are opposed to.

I agree (and said) that a state law has no such US Constitutional concern.

If CA voters can’t manage to do this for CA, it doesn’t seem like it’s going to be any easier to get it to pass federally.

I pointed to an example of a "this" they did.

Just because it isn't easy doesn't mean judge2020 isn't right.

You said you staunchly oppose a state government forcing a certain type of development onto cities, without explaining why you oppose it, nor stating if you support the current forced state of development.

I don’t object to a state government setting restrictions on their cities’ zoning rules.

I do oppose states “[forcing] cities [to] have a certain minimum amount of high-density development every year” because it’s not at all obvious how to implement forcing development that is not supported or requested by developers.

I have no significant objections to the current level of state restrictions in my state of MA, in which no developers are forced to develop property against their wishes.

The problem is that democracy doesn't seem to be working well on that level and is negatively impacting people outside that narrow scope as well.

If you poll people if we should build more in their city, you get a majority in favor. Then you get community meetings in which a vocal minority that can actually afford (typically better off and older) to go to community meetings and create pressure shoot down projects or cripples them.

On a larger scope you have folks who are denied economic opportunity due to housing policy that gets set by people who are already in, but kick away the ladder for everyone else. As a concrete example, I know lots of people who'd love to live (again) in SF in part due to the job market, but cannot or it would be super hard for them.

Another one that's obvious to me: Removing unit-size minimums. In places like SF people are defacto already hacking around the minimum by having room mates. If nobody wants small units, the market will not provide them.

Buy your own home. Refuse subscription plans. Refuse X-as-a-service offerings. Don't buy products that you're not allowed to resell (digital games, software, etc).

Most of the 20th century has been a series of attempts to answer this question. We'll have another wave of attempts of a different sort over the coming decades.