This does not follow. Regulating what types of building can be built does not inherently limit the total volume of buildings that can be built. Barcelona and Paris are mostly under ten stories and house a very large population with considerable efficiency. Currently most buildings in San Francisco are one or two stories tall. The real problem with regulations is much more difficult to characterize. How much money and expertise does it take to negotiate building regulations? How much time does it take or might it take? The article calls out limits to how much residential or office space can be built over a specified time as particularly damaging. Many developers highlight the ability for NIMBYs to draw out environmental hearings until projects get stressed and fail.
Towers might be helpful in some cases, but are absolutely not needed. Indeed, research into the Bay Area suggests that the entire area functions as a unit. Because of the distribution of the population this means that the long hindered expansion of suburban downtowns is more relevant and critical to regional housing demand than what is going on in urban cores. Suburban cores do not need big towers, just the usual expansion. Large developments brought about by economic forces tend to be boxy and incrementally larger than existing buildings. Tall towers get built to house egos, not families or business operations.
I don't disagree with you that tall towers aren't the only way, but the overall point is the same: density must increase. There's very a fixed amount of land, and a growing population so homes / sqmi must increase to meet demand.
Paris had hundreds of years of wanting high density because it pre-dates the age of cars. America (and Canada) were built assuming everyone would drive everywhere, low-density. If you say "Well, we'll slowly allow slightly taller buildings", you won't solve the problem quickly enough- that will take decades.
Someone needs to have the willpower to tell the NIMBY's "sorry, yes in your back yard" and designate some area of town that is allowed to grow. Make a 5-10 year plan to add 50,000-100,000 residents to a 10x10 block area. Plan it to be a nice area you'd want to live in- the lower 2-3 floors of all buildings must be commercial. The owners who live there now will suddenly find they have good offers from developers who want to buy their homes and tear them down.
And then repeat process until housing prices reflect sanity.
Towers might be helpful in some cases, but are absolutely not needed. Indeed, research into the Bay Area suggests that the entire area functions as a unit. Because of the distribution of the population this means that the long hindered expansion of suburban downtowns is more relevant and critical to regional housing demand than what is going on in urban cores. Suburban cores do not need big towers, just the usual expansion. Large developments brought about by economic forces tend to be boxy and incrementally larger than existing buildings. Tall towers get built to house egos, not families or business operations.
reply