Thread starts here:

story by @crosscut misses a few key points.https://t.co/3aPXPmdheI

1. vienna subsidizes social housing. it doesn't tax new housing (IZ)

— mike eliason (@bruteforceblog) June 29, 2017

of course ...

And not to be forgotten are - strong renter culture and social safety net. Part of the whole picture. (Along with transit, etc of course).

— Fernando Medrano 🙈 (@wisemonkeysblog) June 29, 2017

As a friend reminded me last weekend, everything is impossible until it isn't.

also check this, maybe better Vienna summary

Well, maybe not cracks but at least evidence of limitations. Lisa Schweitzer

I am not suggesting that zoning is not a binding constraint in some locations. But there are parts of that map where there are big deficits in affordable units in locales where land is basically free. Zoning cannot be a constraint in those locales.

And ...

I’m not convinced by that all the arguments that came my way last night via Twitter that zoning is hamstringing the productivity in urban areas so that people in the countryside are suffering. Cities may boost national productivity numbers, but that is a function of aggregation, not necessarily of strong economic spillovers. It might be that lack of growth in cities ultimately dampens demand for whatever Iowa supplies to cities, but the regional distribution of economic growth over the past four decades suggests that whatever economic spillovers there might be are weak.

But then the Iowans could move to the city if the housing were not so expensive. And that’s true….and yet they have had fewer constraints on migration than people internationally have, and yet there they are, still in Iowa, while I have crazy people telling me we need a wall (even though we already got one) because California and New York are too full of immigrants. People should be able to move to where the jobs are, sure, but I also think David Imbroscio has a point: people should be able to stay home and live a decent life, too.

Although aggregation might be a big deal if you think return on investment in some industries is nonlinear. Say, winner-take-all industries like tech.

The thing about San Francisco is that while greenfields have been exhausted in the city, the San Francisco Bay Area is largely undeveloped. We are always arguing over San Francisco, or Palo Alto (ick). Outside of the 47 square miles of San Francisco proper are almost 3200 square miles in San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, and Contra Costa counties.

There's No Substitute For A Substitute

Interesting argument for Singapore-style dense, livable greenfield development. Probably another good idea that will be strangled in its crib by California's tax structure.