It doesn’t seem to me that MoreBirths proved causality between density and fertility. Fertility has been declining for decades everywhere - and the bar seems high to push for inefficient and expensive land use on the premise that might raise birth rates. It could for example be because three-bedroom apartments, both in Macau and the U.S., are weirdly expensive (the example countries). At least in the U.S. they’re particularly rare and expensive because of zoning regulations that heavily discourage the option.
I know people who want to have kids but don’t want to move to the suburbs because the car dependency is awful, but multiple bedrooms in the city are expensive. This seems like a pretty common factor that would even potentially be resolved by MORE density ie loosening minimum bedroom sizes, etc.
There are a lot of cities with cheaper housing and they also have low fertility. I think there is something to the claim that density as density lowers fertility, though this may not justify trying to outlaw density.
There really isn’t any regulation preventing three bedroom apartments. People just don’t want them enough in the cities that nobody builds them.
Most people move to the suburbs because of schools and safety (also nature and pollution). Needing to own a car is a barrier to entry for the riff raff.
That’s your biggest problem. Every city I know, even places like NY, has cheap housing in it. The problem is the Neighboors. People want to segregate based on class and family composition and price is how we do that.
Interesting book, I hope to check it out. The effects of zoning run broad and deep, I so agree with you here.
Generally, density is destiny. The more people a city has, the more outputs (GDP, patents, ideas…etc) it produces relative to the total inputs (roads, pipes, gas stations..etc). Zoning laws needlessly prevent these positive effects.
We would probably be better served striking a balance, using an “inclusive” zoning model as opposed to an “exclusive” one.
Having conversations with my wife who started following politics only after Trump became prominent in 2015, it’s been very hard to explain that there are deregulatory policies that will benefit us all, but YIMBY vs NIMBY has been my gateway drug into making her understand that there could occasionally be benefits to letting the markets do it’s thing. So I’ll probably buy this just as an exercise in political persuasion.
It doesn’t seem to me that MoreBirths proved causality between density and fertility. Fertility has been declining for decades everywhere - and the bar seems high to push for inefficient and expensive land use on the premise that might raise birth rates. It could for example be because three-bedroom apartments, both in Macau and the U.S., are weirdly expensive (the example countries). At least in the U.S. they’re particularly rare and expensive because of zoning regulations that heavily discourage the option.
I know people who want to have kids but don’t want to move to the suburbs because the car dependency is awful, but multiple bedrooms in the city are expensive. This seems like a pretty common factor that would even potentially be resolved by MORE density ie loosening minimum bedroom sizes, etc.
Definitely agree that the correlations MoreBirths posted do not prove causality either. It's a complicated open question!
Really great article by the way!! I’m really glad you wrote this.
This is actually more a building code problem than a land use problem.
There are a lot of cities with cheaper housing and they also have low fertility. I think there is something to the claim that density as density lowers fertility, though this may not justify trying to outlaw density.
There really isn’t any regulation preventing three bedroom apartments. People just don’t want them enough in the cities that nobody builds them.
Most people move to the suburbs because of schools and safety (also nature and pollution). Needing to own a car is a barrier to entry for the riff raff.
That’s your biggest problem. Every city I know, even places like NY, has cheap housing in it. The problem is the Neighboors. People want to segregate based on class and family composition and price is how we do that.
I agree that cities with cheaper housing have lower fertility. Though there are regulations preventing three bedroom apartments specifically. The staircase and egress requirements of many high rises in the EU make three bedrooms pretty much not possible. The US imposes these stringent regulations on much shorter buildings, effectively outlawing three bedroom apartments in most jurisidictions. Article that goes into it here: https://www.centerforbuilding.org/blog/we-we-cant-build-family-sized-apartments-in-north-america#:~:text=North%20American%20codes%20(mostly,units%20on%20either%20side.
Interesting book, I hope to check it out. The effects of zoning run broad and deep, I so agree with you here.
Generally, density is destiny. The more people a city has, the more outputs (GDP, patents, ideas…etc) it produces relative to the total inputs (roads, pipes, gas stations..etc). Zoning laws needlessly prevent these positive effects.
We would probably be better served striking a balance, using an “inclusive” zoning model as opposed to an “exclusive” one.
And three bedrooms are expensive and rare not because of demand but because of zoning, at least in the case of the U.S. https://www.centerforbuilding.org/blog/we-we-cant-build-family-sized-apartments-in-north-america
Having conversations with my wife who started following politics only after Trump became prominent in 2015, it’s been very hard to explain that there are deregulatory policies that will benefit us all, but YIMBY vs NIMBY has been my gateway drug into making her understand that there could occasionally be benefits to letting the markets do it’s thing. So I’ll probably buy this just as an exercise in political persuasion.
Explicit redistribution of the proceeds of Pigou taxation are a better response than assuming that it is more redistributive than the status quo.