Density and outfill should go together to solve housing crisis, say innovative planners

San Jose’s urban growth boundary has gone unchanged since the 1970s, effectively giving the city only one choice to increase housing: go up. It’s a costly, unsustainable model, as there's no way to build affordable housing on expensive land without absurd subsidies. There’s lots of cheaper land to the south in Coyote. Valley. But strangely, SJ treats the Urban Growth Boundary as some holy line in the weeds. Gubernatorial candidate Michael Shellenberg shows how to build out while conserving the environment in The Spectator.

In exchange for more apartments downtown, Californians could agree to more suburbs on former farmlands. YIMBYs sometimes misdescribe how cities add housing. Cities around the world, from Tokyo to Atlanta, become more dense as they grow outward. Some pro density advocates point to Tokyo as a city that grew its population without taking up more land. But Tokyo’s area increased 54% from 1990 to 2010. Its rate of expansion doubled during this time and it became less dense overall. Housing in suburbs is far cheaper to build than in the  cities, which is how Tokyo and Atlanta have been able to keep overall housing prices comparatively low.

Those who moved the Bay Area and pay dearly to remain, do so in part to enjoy California’s spectacular natural environments. These public areas should remain off limits to any kind of development. But allowing for suburbanization of California’s ranches and farmlands would still allow for strong protections of California’s scenic natural areas like Yosemite, the redwoods, and the oak woodlands and green spaces near cities.

Read the whole thing here:

Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity