Urban sprawl is how much of the US provides new housing. And here's Conor Dougherty in the New York Times arguing that America needs more of it to fix its housing shortage:

Even if all the regulatory restraints were removed tomorrow, developers couldn’t find enough land to satisfy America’s housing needs inside established areas. Consequently, much of the nation’s housing growth has moved to states in the South and Southwest, where a surplus of open land and willingness to sprawl has turned the Sun Belt into a kind of national sponge that sops up housing demand from higher-cost cities. The largest metro areas there have about 20 percent of the nation’s population, but over the past five years they have built 42 percent of the nation’s new single-family homes, according to a recent report by Cullum Clark, an economist at the George W. Bush Institute, a research center in Dallas.

The obvious benefit is that the resulting housing tends to be cheap. The above article is filled with examples of people buying large homes for a few hundred thousand dollars in newly formed communities across Texas. And if you live in a high-cost city, the social algorithms have almost certainly found you at some point with a shockingly cheap house in one of these places. But, Dougherty also admits that sometimes this may be the only redeeming quality:

Escobar told me he moved to Princeton because he could find a big house there for less than $300,000, but now the city is home, and he didn’t like where it was headed. Over the next four years, he said, his goal is to redevelop the downtown, try to attract offices where locals can work and build out a park system that voters recently funded with a bond measure. “You ask anybody what they love about Princeton, and it’s simply just the affordability,” Escobar told me. “We need to be more than that.”

According to the article, this isn't necessarily a problem, because it's just how cities are built in this day and age. What you do is start with low-cost housing in fringe locations. You grow as quickly as possible until traffic becomes "godawful" and vital infrastructure can't keep up. Then you implement moratoriums on new housing, and start working on other uses like, you know, employment. Eventually, after all this chaos is complete, you end up with something that possibly resembles a real city.

This past Sunday, Paris voted in favor of greening and pedestrianizing an additional 500 streets in the capital (5-8 per neighborhood). This will add to the 300 or so streets that have already received this treatment since Mayor Hidalgo started her second term in 2020. And as a result of this expansion, it is estimated that about 10,000 on-street parking spaces will be removed, which represents about 10% of the city's total inventory.

Exciting. But who voted for this? Of the Parisians who voted, 66% voted in favor of the initiative. And it carried in 14 of 17 arrondissements (with the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th counted as one). But similar to prior referendums, voter turnout was extremely low: only 4.06% of eligible voters showed up (approximately 56,500 people). And this is after the voting age was lowered to 16 years old for the first time.

For context, when Paris voted on whether electric scooters should be banned, 7.46% of voters showed up. So while low, this situation is not entirely unique. Though it does, once again, raise the question of whether the outcome of this referendum truly reflects public opinion. My outsider view is that it probably does. Because I take the apathy to mean some level of support, or at the very least, an absence of strong aversion.

Think, for example, about who shows up at community meetings for new development projects. The vast majority of people in attendance have concerns they would like to air. It's very rare for someone to show up and say, "I didn't have much going on tonight so I decided to come by and see everyone. I have no real concerns. Project looks cool. Carry on as you were."

If you agree with this logic, well then it suggests that many/most Parisians do generally support more pedestrianized streets, even if it means the removal of parking. That's an accomplishment in my books.

Cover photo by

Urban sprawl is how much of the US provides new housing. And here's Conor Dougherty in the New York Times arguing that America needs more of it to fix its housing shortage:

Even if all the regulatory restraints were removed tomorrow, developers couldn’t find enough land to satisfy America’s housing needs inside established areas. Consequently, much of the nation’s housing growth has moved to states in the South and Southwest, where a surplus of open land and willingness to sprawl has turned the Sun Belt into a kind of national sponge that sops up housing demand from higher-cost cities. The largest metro areas there have about 20 percent of the nation’s population, but over the past five years they have built 42 percent of the nation’s new single-family homes, according to a recent report by Cullum Clark, an economist at the George W. Bush Institute, a research center in Dallas.

The obvious benefit is that the resulting housing tends to be cheap. The above article is filled with examples of people buying large homes for a few hundred thousand dollars in newly formed communities across Texas. And if you live in a high-cost city, the social algorithms have almost certainly found you at some point with a shockingly cheap house in one of these places. But, Dougherty also admits that sometimes this may be the only redeeming quality:

Escobar told me he moved to Princeton because he could find a big house there for less than $300,000, but now the city is home, and he didn’t like where it was headed. Over the next four years, he said, his goal is to redevelop the downtown, try to attract offices where locals can work and build out a park system that voters recently funded with a bond measure. “You ask anybody what they love about Princeton, and it’s simply just the affordability,” Escobar told me. “We need to be more than that.”

According to the article, this isn't necessarily a problem, because it's just how cities are built in this day and age. What you do is start with low-cost housing in fringe locations. You grow as quickly as possible until traffic becomes "godawful" and vital infrastructure can't keep up. Then you implement moratoriums on new housing, and start working on other uses like, you know, employment. Eventually, after all this chaos is complete, you end up with something that possibly resembles a real city.

This past Sunday, Paris voted in favor of greening and pedestrianizing an additional 500 streets in the capital (5-8 per neighborhood). This will add to the 300 or so streets that have already received this treatment since Mayor Hidalgo started her second term in 2020. And as a result of this expansion, it is estimated that about 10,000 on-street parking spaces will be removed, which represents about 10% of the city's total inventory.

Exciting. But who voted for this? Of the Parisians who voted, 66% voted in favor of the initiative. And it carried in 14 of 17 arrondissements (with the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th counted as one). But similar to prior referendums, voter turnout was extremely low: only 4.06% of eligible voters showed up (approximately 56,500 people). And this is after the voting age was lowered to 16 years old for the first time.

For context, when Paris voted on whether electric scooters should be banned, 7.46% of voters showed up. So while low, this situation is not entirely unique. Though it does, once again, raise the question of whether the outcome of this referendum truly reflects public opinion. My outsider view is that it probably does. Because I take the apathy to mean some level of support, or at the very least, an absence of strong aversion.

Think, for example, about who shows up at community meetings for new development projects. The vast majority of people in attendance have concerns they would like to air. It's very rare for someone to show up and say, "I didn't have much going on tonight so I decided to come by and see everyone. I have no real concerns. Project looks cool. Carry on as you were."

If you agree with this logic, well then it suggests that many/most Parisians do generally support more pedestrianized streets, even if it means the removal of parking. That's an accomplishment in my books.

Cover photo by