To be fair though, websites don't affect each other while structures typically affect their neighbors (views, noise, etc).
For the parts of the internet where users can affect each other, like the networking layer, RF protocols like LTE/bluetooth/wifi, there do tend to be heavy rules (RFCs) and sometimes regulation (FCC).
As far as I'm aware, there is no FCC regulation on non-RF networking. You are allowed to peer with whomever will accept you and if you send them garbage data, they'll just stop peering with you and block access to the internet. Criminal behavior conducted via internet is of course regulated by normal criminal law.
As a resident of Ann Arbor, MI, I am an opponent of all the high-rise developments. I've seen general prices rise, I've seen traffic start jamming, and I've seen days with much lower air quality.
I prefer to see cities managed like an interconnected ecosystem rather than a simply supply/demand chart for housing.
Are you sure that the causation arrow runs: high rise construction —> traffic + price increases? It seems like less of a case of “if you build it, they will come” and moreso “they are coming, so we’d better build”.
The problems came after the first stages of development, but I'm open to being convinced.
Is there a single example of urbanization resulting in lower prices, lower costs-of-living, lower rates of homelessness, less economic inequality, less traffic, etc?
Or is there an economist that can rationalize how the correlation between urbanization and urban problems can be positive while the causation is negative?
>Or is there an economist that can rationalize how the correlation between urbanization and urban problems can be positive while the causation is negative?
Sure, almost any if them can. It's called spurious correlation.
So if 100 people want to buy homes in the area and there are 100 homes available for sale, you think that building 100 more homes will actually increase the average home price?
More homes always means downward pricing pressure. That may not overcome upward pricing pressure due to other factors. But you can be pretty sure that housing in your area would be even more expensive were it not for the additional housing inventory.
The reason you have never seen cheaper housing due to new developments is because you usually see new housing built as a response to increasing demand and prices.
Spurious correlations generally don't go in the opposite directions of the direction of causality.
If you travel around the world in a snapshot in time, you find that there's a positive correlation between density and rent prices. If you stay in one location over decades, you would still see a positive correlation between density and rent prices.
I have never heard of an increase in development bringing downward pressure on rent prices.
Edit: that doesn't even bring into focus the effects on traffic, on costs-of-living outside of housing, on infrastructure, etc. From what I've seen in Ann Arbor, overdevelopment almost breaks the competent functioning of the city government.
>I have never heard of an increase in development bringing downward pressure on rent prices.
Can you offer up a plausible theory as to how more housing could possibly create upward pricing pressure on rent prices?
It's simple supply and demand. You can't "see" downward pricing pressure if the price of housing is still climbing nonetheless due to demand still growing faster than supply.
What do you think would happen if the number of available housing units in the bay area doubled over night? You think everyone would be able to keep raising the rent and keep their units rented at the same prices? Of course not, the empty units are going to cut prices to attract buyers/renters.
For the parts of the internet where users can affect each other, like the networking layer, RF protocols like LTE/bluetooth/wifi, there do tend to be heavy rules (RFCs) and sometimes regulation (FCC).