It should be more concerning that the most photographed street in America is illegal to build. It should keep politicians up at night. We should all walk around with a little bit of embarrassment until it is solved.
People in politics speak of "tourism" and increasing it but they do not seem to understand what the words they are saying actually mean.
They don't seem to understand what speaks to people's hearts, what people consider romance, etc. It's all profoundly odd to watch.
I actually think its the opposite. If people built beautiful housing there would be a thousand times fewer NIMBYs.
For some reason the YIMBY people cannot accept that so many people are against new development because new development is deeply ugly.
You actually only need one ground floor accessible unit to be ADA compliant. Even any mixed use building that wants to be ADA can provide at least one apartment on the first floor in addition to the upper floors. This removes the elevator requirement. Ex:
Obviously you gotta take big concessions on design, including apartment size, lest sprinkler systems and elevators and corridors come to wreck your budget. But that's not why they're illegal, just why no one will build the things in between. Which means less housing for everyone.
I don't think that's true. Any community that successfully builds a new neighborhood as beautiful and cherished as beacon hill will make plenty of money. Not many people are trying. Some are! They are mostly village sized and not in cities, because zoning
The simple examples I always give: In 2017/2018 people believed Square was a payment processing company. But I believed that it was a services company, and people would eventually come around to this view + price it that way. (pic: my work at the time)
Amazon in 2010 or 2011: The 10-K showed something really funny, the "Other" revenue line was their fastest growing segment. It was because of AWS, which was just starting to dawn on the world. Everyone then thought of Amazon as an e-retail company. Now they know differently.
If one of the absolute core functions of school is literacy itself and "19 percent of high school grads are functionally illiterate," there needs to be some actual reckoning of current results before stuff is merely added, but it seems no one wants to.
When people talk about policy like "we need free college for everyone" or "we need to add X to high school" it's like watching a hurricane approaching while your neighbor tells you, shouting over the 90mph winds, that you should really repaint your house soon.
There's a lack of object permanence about things like this which is maybe excusable among uninterested parties but often it seems that politicians and journalists are the 19%.
The need for systems to function at scale seems to eventually blind people to (often better) solutions that cannot scale.
The simplest example may be: dietary intervention will fix a huge range of health problems, but the solution that scales is drugs, often just palliative ones
In searching for scale, something is lost. Maybe doctors forget to ask people what their diet is, wait a month, have them check back in, etc. But the fault isn't only the doctor, its the patient too.
There is a saying in online programming help: "What have you tried?"
It can sound harsh, but it must come first.
Something about solutions at scale cause people individually to experiment with their own solutions less. To try less in general. I mention diet/drugs as an obvious example, but there must be many, many less obvious ones.