logoalt Hacker News

CalRobert • today at 9:09 AM • 1 reply • view on HN

I get that if building homes somehow created more people. What we have now is people living in cars, people and their kids living in 1 room apartments, etc. and we're telling them "it is better for you to live in horrible conditions than it is for us to build new homes because we won't have all the amenities (half the time this is just code for 'parking') built by the developer"

So a child living in the middle of nowhere gets to never see their parent because that parent spend 4 hours a day commuting, because building flats in the city isn't allowed. Where is that kid going to daycare now?


Replies

vintermann • today at 9:49 AM

Huh? I don't get what this has to do with what I wrote. That sounds like it is about residential zoning requirements. You can build flats here, and especially you can section your old buildings into umpteen tiny apartments. You can't tear down the architecture that makes this town a tourist destination, but that's about it.

(Actually you can do that to, if you just buy it up and let it fall into disrepair, argue it has no value now and tear down everything but the facades. That's how we got the aforementioned mall)