That's what I was thinking of. If you turn off all regulation you'll end with 20 story apartment buildings with zero parking space, zero greenery and accessible only by a tiny narrow road that's always clogged.

Why do you think people will build houses with no street space? Anyways it’s not like street space will suddenly be turned over from the govt to private builders, but even if it was private land why wouldn’t they build land with enough space in it?

Zero parking space would be a good thing because it would indicate public transport is good enough that people don’t need their own private cars for most trips. But in practice if that’s not the case a builder is gonna be unable to sell an apartment without parking space, so they aren’t gonna build apartments like those.

And what’s wrong with 20 storey apartment buildings? And why does that preclude greenery?

Everything you mentioned cuts into their profit so it's not worth doing without any regulations.

Why would a private developer's decision not to include parking, be interpreted as some kind of metric for the sufficiency of public transport in the area?

If a builder chose not to install locks on the doors of a new apartment complex, would that be "a good thing because it would indicate public safety is good enough that people don't need their own private locks for most areas?"

There is no incentive for them to consider these externalities at all. There is, however, an incentive to use that same space for something they can profit from - namely, additional apartments.

TBH, a few of those with transit would be completely fine for housing affordability if centrally located.

Zero parking is good. A tiny narrow road is good. And greenery while nice isn't important.

Some shade when it's 35-40 C outside doesn't help at all indeed...

You know what also creates shade. Let me give you a hint. It starts with "b" and ends with "uilding". Think about it.

I live in an apartment building. It creates shade only on the side opposite to where the sun is.

On one side there's a small park with trees that has shade all day. On the other side there are no trees so it's only shaded late afternoon.

I’m currently vacationing in super hot Tokyo, and yes, those buildings do create shade when packed around narrow roads. I get that in the USA where buildings are spaced so far apart from each other that this wouldn’t be very effective.

You know what stays hot even after sunset, potentially for the whole night? Starts with b and ends with “uilding”

Concrete buildings you mean, and even then, new ones are insulated well enough to not trap heat like pavement does (otherwise they couldn’t be cooled on the inside very effectively).

Except that building is probably made out of concrete, or other heat island-creating materials.

If your society is to incompetent to do what people 2000 years ago were totally capable of doing then that's your own problem.

at least people would get to live close to where they need to and not commute for hours a day and they might actually be able to afford to live in places. Fundamentally this always seemed like a problem where some people pretty much park their head in the sand and go "well i don't care about others, as long as my space is protected".

If everyone lived in 20 story apartment buildings there's be massive amounts of space no longer used for low density housing that could be freed up for parks etc.

My road alone takes up around 40,000m^2 to house and transport about the same as housed in 2,2000m^2 near the local train station.

To late to edit now, but in case it was unclear that "2,2000m^2" was meant to be "2,000m^2"

That's São Paulo for you (Brazil biggest city). An ocean of concrete towers, and severe endemic violence, flooding and congestion.

Every NIMBY thinks they have just the right amount of "sensible" regulation.

"But what about schools?" Enrollment is declining precipitously.

"But what about traffic?" Okay, we're improving bike lanes, and putting accessible retail on the ground floor of housing for walkability. "No, not like that."

On and on.

My experience is different. Local people care about things like schools and traffic in a way that those outside the immediate area don’t. A local example: the state of NJ built a small bridge over a creek a few year back that now allows drivers going through the Holland Tunnel into NYC to use Jersey City as a shortcut when traffic on the highway is bad. Now you basically can’t go outside during rush hour. It’s terrible. Does anyone from the state care? No. Why would they?

A representative democracy is a foundation of our society. That means you get a say in decisions that affect you. If you take hyper-local decisions and remove all local agency, then that is effectively removing representation.

My experience is also different. When owning a home is wildly out of reach for the incomes of 95% of people in the area, and they complain about it, they still also complain every time new housing goes up that would lower costs. They say they hate traffic but then complain about bike lanes that would encourage less traffic. They say the primary education is full, when 2/5 schools are closing and enrollment is declining into an upside down pyramid because people can't afford enough housing to feel comfortable raising kids.

It sounds like we’re experiencing the same things then. The only difference is that I accept the choices of others, even if I disagree with them, whereas you believe you know better and would like to force your beliefs on others.

If 95% of people really cannot afford a home yet vote to restrict new housing starts, then maybe they prefer less housing for whatever reason. That’s not a reason to force housing upon them.

Yes, this is the standard NIMBY first argument that of course leads to the prisoners' dilemma due to uncoordinated policy. Every locale wants less housing near them, so they go upscale and put the housing "somewhere else." But because everyone does that, everyone is worse off than coordinating, because you left it to each locale independently. (and the NIMBY argument is of course, state level bad, county level bad, city level good, land holder bad...) These people are forcing not-housing on my plot of land. That sure seems to be "force your beliefs on others."

Then there's how the whole thing is decided by a city level election with like 30% turnouts, most of whom vote purely by uneducated simple creeds like "greedy developers", "more traffic", "protect home values."

Isn’t Europe notorious for it’s regulatory bureaucracy?

There's a lot more of it, and it's a big burden on small businesses, but it lacks the flamboyant craziness of the worst excesses of US regulation.

Also the EU does not regulate urban planning at all, that's all local.

The EU however has protected areas like all the "Natura 2000" areas and these, probably, aren't going away anytime soon:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9seau_Natura_2000

These are huge: 30 000 sites and 18% of the surface of the EU.

If you don't want a high-rise to appear in your view, your best bet is to rent/buy right next to a Natura 2000 (both land and sea) wildlife protected land.

I'm typing this right now from France, rural area, with a Natura 2000 area right in front of me (I'm one of the last houses before the area starts).

And for my place in Luxembourg it's exactly the same: I picked a spot with another Natura 2000 protected area (land only) walking distance from my apartment.

I understand many want a world made of concrete only so that we can pack hundreds of billions of humans on earth... But I find the current trajectory miserable and I pick nature any day over concrete.

Wife and I decided to have one kid, we did our part to save mother earth.

And, no, you're not building a high-rise in my Natura 2000 wildlife protected area.

The problem with regulation is the process as it is extremely drawn out, and creates dozens of opportunities for anyone, even someone with zero standing, to sue and stop it.

One of the most interesting things to happen to regulation is when the former administration required the removal of two regulations for every one that the government wished to enact. It was near paralysis.