> Zoning for singe-family residences is so bizarrely 1950's
I find that a ridiculous statement when dealing with a country with one of the lowest population densities in the developed world.
Perhaps it's not the best solution for the Bay Area, or perhaps it is (changing it would surely drastically change the character of the area), but that's a far cry from denouncing the very concept.
Country-wide population density is a shit metric for what we are talking about. If the US annexed Antarctica tomorrow population density would plummet but it would be almost entirely meaningless in the foreseeable future in the context of a discussion on zoning laws.
The point is that this turns into a discussion of zoning laws because of an obsession of increasing density in hotspots, despite the fact that you have vast areas of viable land that is cheap, with few zoning restrictions, and far more viable to built extensive infrastructure to/from/in.
High property prices is not all that much of a problem unless your goal is the highest population density possible, or for you personally if you're dead set on living there. Rather, it is a market mechanism that if left to work will push the population further out, and benefit people in a much larger region that way.
Zoning is a problem mostly seen from the outside: Of people not living there who don't like that the locals believe the character of their neighbourhoods is more important than opening up for higher population density.
As much as I can sympathize with the desire to live somewhere that is "taken" at a price suitable to you, that's never something you will be able to do without some restriction or other. And the reality is that for a lot of people, those places would be ruined forever if there was nothing holding back rampant development.
The population density is so low because the country is so damned big. China's pop density is 24th in the world. The US has a greater density than Sweeden.
> The population density is so low because the country is so damned big
Eh. Yes. That's the point. There's plenty of space. Somehow places with vastly higher population densities still manage just fine.
The problem is not lack of space, nor that zoning regulations prevents you from putting up highrises in someones backyard in Menlo Park, but the focus on concentrating more and more people in tiny little parts of it.
The more ridiculous part of it is that a lot of the reason why those specific locations are attractive to a lot of people is exactly the character that would be irreversibly altered if you were to massively increase the density.
> "The more ridiculous part of it is that a lot of the reason why those specific locations are attractive to a lot of people is exactly the character that would be irreversibly altered if you were to massively increase the density."
Ah yes, as evidence by the endless subdivisions with idyllic countryside names: "Brookfield Estates", "Pinstream Brook", "Riverside Meadows" and the such. I don't see any brooks, meadows, fields, or pines. I just see row after row of cookie-cutter houses connected by meandering asphalt.
The modern suburb has never made much sense to me. You've taken out all the benefits of urban life, and the benefits of the rural lifestyle and what remains is the worst of both worlds.
Note that I'm not some hyper-urbanist who wishes everyone would just live in towering steel contraptions. There is plenty of room for redefining suburbs into something that actually makes sense and is substantially less awful than the subdivisions we have now.
I find that a ridiculous statement when dealing with a country with one of the lowest population densities in the developed world.
Perhaps it's not the best solution for the Bay Area, or perhaps it is (changing it would surely drastically change the character of the area), but that's a far cry from denouncing the very concept.