Manhattan is arguably America's most iconic city, and more arguably, its only 'real' city.
But its own laws have made the buildings that make it so iconic illegal to build more ofđź§µ
Many of the existing buildings in Manhattan that you couldn't make today are too tall by current standards.
Many of the existing buildings in Manhattan that you couldn't make today have too many apartments by current standards.
Many of the existing buildings in Manhattan that you couldn't make today have too much space dedicated to business by current standards.
Many of the existing buildings in Manhattan that you couldn't make today have building footprints that are too tall by current standards.
But the buildings that make New York tall, dense, and filled with architectural juxtaposition also made New York so iconic, they made it more livable than it would've been otherwise, and they made it great.
The new laws simply don't respect the old vision for New York.
This problem isn't unique to New York either.
In tons of American cities, existing builds are illegal by new standards that are generally not justified by any sort of safety or quality concerns, but which instead are driven by local interest groups and dumb policymakers.
For example, in San Francisco, 54% of all homes that exist there are illegal to build today!
Amy Wax got in trouble for remarking that she'd not seen a Black student in the top quarter of a Penn Law class.
Thanks to hacked Columbia data, we can see that she was...
Probably right!
In the decade before her statement, there were just two top-25% Black students.
It is *totally* plausible that she never met these students. And it's also plausible that she rarely saw Black students in the top *half*, because each year, the number of them was just 1-4.
But, despite being 8% of the class, they were ~40% of the bottom 10%-ranked students:
Note: Penn is on-par/slightly less elite than Columbia, so it's likely that the Black students there were somewhat *worse*, as the article notes, making her claims more likely.
This all comes from @zagrebbi's latest article. It's well worth a read!
Big day if you think Roe v. Wade was correctly decided.
My favorite part (note that I've only read 150 pages so far) was Thomas explaining that, no, the Founding g Fathers did not adopt the English feudal system.
This fact was clearly lost on the other side.
The Court's reliance on a random remark from a case that ultimately didn't even produce lasting changes raises the question of whether that sort of thing even matters.
Why shouldn't I cite the Dred Scott case as the law of the land?