> Government construction of lots of housing was tried in the 60s and late 50s, with numerous public housing projects. It's generally considered a failure, because once the units were constructed the government had little incentive to maintain them. It was also a key pillar in enforcing de facto racial/class segregation.
Sure, but evidence of incompetently developed infrastructure doesn't mean it's impossible to develop infrastructure competently (although we americans do tend to assume our government will build infrastructure with maximal incompetence, and our government in turn often does). Anyways, it is an option even if it's not the best one.
> Removing barriers to subdivision and construction can work though. That's the approach that Houston takes, and it succeeds at keeping home prices low, even if you do get occasional negative consequences like homes built inside a flood reservoir.
yep. I don't like the car-centric development style that Houston is built as, but you can't argue with results (meaning, affordability).
Sure, but evidence of incompetently developed infrastructure doesn't mean it's impossible to develop infrastructure competently (although we americans do tend to assume our government will build infrastructure with maximal incompetence, and our government in turn often does). Anyways, it is an option even if it's not the best one.
> Removing barriers to subdivision and construction can work though. That's the approach that Houston takes, and it succeeds at keeping home prices low, even if you do get occasional negative consequences like homes built inside a flood reservoir.
yep. I don't like the car-centric development style that Houston is built as, but you can't argue with results (meaning, affordability).