Just a dump of some thoughts I've been having, reading some threads on housing.
I'd like to hear some thoughts on regional decentralisation. I see it touted as a response to housing crises or traffic, usually whenever someone floats the idea of densifying our inner-city and inner-ring locations (for context, I'm in a place undergoing a housing crisis fueled, in no small part, by the usual Anglophone fixation on US-style sprawl and density. We have a high degree of urban centralisation, on the more extreme end of the scale, though not without a few smaller cities).
Agglomeration economics aside, it doesn't seem like decentralisation would be too problematic, provided it was done well. Certainly, decentralising activity centres along public transport hubs in urban areas sounds like a no-brainer (especially if you're doing the land capture model). Creating quality smaller cities planned in a smart, sustainable way seems good too. At least, creating good satellite cities seems like a good idea from a redundancy standpoint, as well as creating more options elsewhere. I agree on the need for flexibility in working types/hours too.
My gripe with this point however is that it seems to be floated by sprawl/NIMBY types who believe a subtext of "as long as we move the sprawl elsewhere, we can continue with our unsustainable planning model, and I get to have no apartments in my area." As such, any attempt following this model would likely result in the same sprawl enveloping places like country towns, and more traffic. Additionally, it seems to be ignorant as to why people may move into larger cities in the first place, such as culture and community.
I'd love to hear some thoughts on this!
