This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The problem is an Anglosphere one, rather than an American one - in fact the problem is less bad in the non-California US than it is in the UK or Australia. Hong Kong is a housing disaster (despite not being short of land - most of the island is unbuilt and the New Territories are not exactly dense). New Zealand went full YIMBY in the last few years, but was even worse than the UK or Australia. Singapore is a special case because they have housing communism for citizens, but free market rents for resident foreigners are through the roof. Even Mumbai has NIMBY problems. OTOH, continental Europe is in a much better state (Paris and Barcelona are the only unaffordable cities), and Tokyo is the one megacity that has actually done what OP suspects is impossible and outbuilt demand.
I would actually love to know more about what happened in New Zealand. I don't know much about their system.
From what I understand about Australia, theirs is a Canadian problem, where high immigration forces the cities to be further aggressive in terms of housing.
I know of Hongkong's odd conundrum. Not sure why so much land goes unbuilt. I think something like 7% of HongKong's area is residential. That sounds like a NIMBY nightmare. Wonder if it caught the tail end of anglo influence with car centric zoning.
I haven't heard too much about this. The new development rate on Mumbai outskirts and the redevelopment rate within the city is incredibly high. There is a huge squatting & rent control / 100 yr lease problem. But, I haven't seen much NIMBYism. My entire family is still in Mumbai, and my entire neighborhood (in western suburbs) in undergoing redevelopment. Everyone has been eager for this, because it will replace our X-th floor K-bedroom apartment with a X+5th floor K+2 bedroom apartment, with rent for the displacement duration fully paid for.
Mumbai is building at an incredible rate. Parts of the city are perpetually dusty because of the sand being dumped anywhere and everywhere in the city for cement formation.
South Bombay is famously NIMBY, but they are snooty-assholes who are scared of the middle-class intruding on their upper-class oasis. Fuck em. There is NIMBYism around being permanently displaced by metro lines, but that is universal.
Are Paris suburbs also unaffordable ? I know that a lot of Parisians don't live in the city because the suburbs are dense, walkable and well connected to the city core by transit. Paris's regional rail is incredible.
Barcelona faces unimaginable pressures. Immense tourism pressure, probably the best city in the world to be a digital nomad in, incredible weather. Dense to the point of bursting. Architectural preservation is a completely fair reason for opposing new construction. If I had to name a perfect city, that would be it. It is kind of built to capacity. I don't blame them for being unable to accommodate more people. They have a hard problem on their hands. Maybe build a ghost city out of town with high speed rail connection to the city core ?
Hong Kong is a unique case.
Rather than owning the land, the land is leased from the government in 50-year increments. The only exception are old village rights that date back to the really, really early fishing village tier Hong Kong, which are worth millions now even if the land is undeveloped.
This is pretty much the primary source of funding the government gets. Every time a land, apartment, or house sale happens, the government gets a cut (this is referred to as "paying the land price") as they still own the land. There are also esoteric rules about how an apartment is taxed ("usable area").
The government is therefore incentivized to limit the amount of land that can be developed as housing to keep land prices high, even if it wasn't being used as a speculative asset by Mcdonalds, other corporations, and anyone in the mainland looking to liquidate yuan in favor of more secure financial holdings. They are also more interested in leasing to corporations or holdings with significant existing assets rather than individuals, as there is more collateral (this explains Hong Kong's endless malls).
There are significant benefits to this, like extremely low salary taxes and a government that experiences frequent windfalls distributed back to the populace in other ways, but on the whole most people under 30 have given up owning an apartment. It is possible, but you need to keep a highly paid (often highly stressful) job for 25+ years with no speed bumps, and significant money to pay up the first installment of the mortgage.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link