Urban renewal left the U.S. too scared to build
Urban renewal and freeway construction in mid‑20th‑century America are blamed here for both destroying minority neighborhoods and triggering a political and legal backlash that now makes it extremely hard to build anything, from housing to transit. Commenters argue over whether highways were deliberately routed through poor and non‑white areas or simply followed cheaper land, but broadly agree that today’s dense web of regulations, lawsuits, and local veto points slows projects, entrenches homeowner and landlord interests, and worsens housing shortages. Several contrast the U.S. with countries that build rail and other infrastructure quickly, debating whether the tradeoff is less respect for individual rights or simply better planning and land‑use policy.
Scope of the Problem: Why the U.S. “Can’t Build”
- Many argue the U.S. has swung from overly aggressive top‑down building to a system with so many veto points that even modest projects stall for years.
- Permitting, environmental review, lawsuits, and overlapping jurisdictions increase time and cost, often without clearly improving outcomes.
- Others say this is a tradeoff for strong individual rights and local control; the issue is overcorrection and poor design of protections, not protections per se.
Urban Renewal, Highways, and Displacement
- Several comments highlight highways and “renewal” projects that destroyed minority and low‑income neighborhoods (e.g., Cross‑Bronx, Seattle Chinatown, SF Western Addition, Baltimore’s “Highway to Nowhere,” St. Paul’s Rondo).
- Counter‑argument: routes often followed existing major roads, cheap land, and areas where buyouts cost less; minorities were there because of prior segregation and urban decline.
- Disagreement over whether this is active “targeting” or structural economics with racist effects either way.
Cars vs. Rail and Urban Form
- Many argue highways physically split cities, entrenched car dependence, and privileged those who can afford cars.
- Strong pro‑rail camp: rail needs less space, has much higher capacity, and could have replaced many urban highways if the U.S. had invested similarly.
- Skeptics cite U.S. size, lower average density, and cultural preference for single‑family homes and cars; others counter that relevant density is in metro corridors, where rail would work well.
Housing Politics, NIMBY, and Landlords/Homeowners
- Homeowners and landlords are frequently criticized as rent‑seekers: blocking new housing, manipulating zoning, benefiting from restricted supply and property‑tax regimes (e.g., Prop 13).
- Some say that’s a small subset of owners; core driver is demand far exceeding legal supply in high‑growth metros.
- Processes meant to protect vulnerable communities are described as routinely hijacked by affluent NIMBYs to stop infill and multifamily housing.
- Low‑income housing is seen as both necessary and often poorly implemented, with “missing middle” options (small homes, townhouses, modest apartments) underbuilt.
Institutions, Capital, and Culture
- 2008 crash is cited as making builders and lenders cautious; capital and skilled labor never fully rebounded before COVID, then hit high rates.
- Others stress that in truly liberalized local markets (some Texas cities, Minneapolis, Raleigh) supply has responded to demand.
- Some frame U.S. stagnation as cultural: complacency, fragmented politics, and car‑centric ideology; others see it as an inevitable byproduct of democracy and property rights compared to more authoritarian models (e.g., China).