I've been fortunate to grow up in a place that has never had ANY restrictions on building. Maybe there are some legal directives, it's just that up until now, there has been 0 enforcement, which essentially allowed land owners / constructors to do their thing.
Despite (because of?) this, new buildings (mostly homes, some industrial), are crazier, uglier, of bad quality materials, which essentially decreased any sense of harmony, not to mention beauty and sustainability.
It's also mind-boggling that during communist times (also effectively no building restrictions), new buildings were better by any standard. Now, during capitalism (or some perverted form of it), it got worse.
For me, as a free market urbanism promoter, I think it's important to understand exactly why all of this happened like this.
I have a theory (hint:1971), but I'm still figuring things out.
There's a lot to unpack here. First, I think authoritarian regimes are often capable of building physical structures and doing it well.
Some of this is because of the inherent difference between *complicated* vs *complex* engineering. A complicated system can be understood and decomposed into constituent parts. These parts can be spread out across brains (engineering teams) and built. This is why the Soviet Union could still have a robust space program and build some durable buildings.
But complex systems are another animal. They tend to demand freedom and the ability to adapt. This is why the Soviet Union could not "engineer" an economy.
In general, older buildings tend to be over-engineered because we didn't have the ability to model failure states and so, to trust the building, we overbuilt it. The "floating steel" structures of today require modern tools like computer simulations.
Also, authoritarian regimes don't tend to care about opportunity cost. They can overbuild things and achieve a "high standard" because they run the show. I'm reminded of Ceausescu's Palace, where the regime ravaged other areas of the city and starved industry to get resources to build the administrative monstrosity. Was this a triumph of authoritarian building? Well -- only if you ignore everything that Romania *didn't* get so that C. could reach his fever dream.
Under freer conditions, we see the full range of people's opportunity costs. For example, is a person who buys a used $10,000 Mobile Home (trailer) guilty of bad taste and choosing bad materials? I doubt it. They're purchasing the housing that's appropriate *given the constraints and opportunity costs* that they face. This is also how we should understand the "hideous" organic slum urbanism of many developing environments.
Finally, the "free market urbanism makes ugly environments" is only true if you assume that there is no residual claimant on the entire neighborhood/city itself. Imagine an apartment complex or shopping mall at a larger scale. In this model, a firm/entrepreneur is interested in maintaining an aesthetic because it maximizes the value of the land.
So much of the so-called disorder that we see is a result of *subdivision* -- fragmented property ownership -- where externalities are not adequately captured or managed by a firm.
This is great. Love what you're doing here Zach.
Thanks, Luke! Look forward to reading more of your work!
Excellent article, congratulations!
Let me play the devil's advocate now.
I've been fortunate to grow up in a place that has never had ANY restrictions on building. Maybe there are some legal directives, it's just that up until now, there has been 0 enforcement, which essentially allowed land owners / constructors to do their thing.
Despite (because of?) this, new buildings (mostly homes, some industrial), are crazier, uglier, of bad quality materials, which essentially decreased any sense of harmony, not to mention beauty and sustainability.
It's also mind-boggling that during communist times (also effectively no building restrictions), new buildings were better by any standard. Now, during capitalism (or some perverted form of it), it got worse.
For me, as a free market urbanism promoter, I think it's important to understand exactly why all of this happened like this.
I have a theory (hint:1971), but I'm still figuring things out.
Very interesting comment. Do you mean Romania?
There's a lot to unpack here. First, I think authoritarian regimes are often capable of building physical structures and doing it well.
Some of this is because of the inherent difference between *complicated* vs *complex* engineering. A complicated system can be understood and decomposed into constituent parts. These parts can be spread out across brains (engineering teams) and built. This is why the Soviet Union could still have a robust space program and build some durable buildings.
But complex systems are another animal. They tend to demand freedom and the ability to adapt. This is why the Soviet Union could not "engineer" an economy.
In general, older buildings tend to be over-engineered because we didn't have the ability to model failure states and so, to trust the building, we overbuilt it. The "floating steel" structures of today require modern tools like computer simulations.
Also, authoritarian regimes don't tend to care about opportunity cost. They can overbuild things and achieve a "high standard" because they run the show. I'm reminded of Ceausescu's Palace, where the regime ravaged other areas of the city and starved industry to get resources to build the administrative monstrosity. Was this a triumph of authoritarian building? Well -- only if you ignore everything that Romania *didn't* get so that C. could reach his fever dream.
Under freer conditions, we see the full range of people's opportunity costs. For example, is a person who buys a used $10,000 Mobile Home (trailer) guilty of bad taste and choosing bad materials? I doubt it. They're purchasing the housing that's appropriate *given the constraints and opportunity costs* that they face. This is also how we should understand the "hideous" organic slum urbanism of many developing environments.
Finally, the "free market urbanism makes ugly environments" is only true if you assume that there is no residual claimant on the entire neighborhood/city itself. Imagine an apartment complex or shopping mall at a larger scale. In this model, a firm/entrepreneur is interested in maintaining an aesthetic because it maximizes the value of the land.
So much of the so-called disorder that we see is a result of *subdivision* -- fragmented property ownership -- where externalities are not adequately captured or managed by a firm.