Good cities can't exist without public order
Note: I apologize for slightly sparse posting this week — I sliced my thumb very badly the other day while opening a box, and it has been difficult to type. Regular posting will now resume.
Anyone who reads this blog knows that I’m a huge fan of dense, walkable cities. Much of my enthusiasm comes from living in Japan for several years, and I’ve written a bunch of posts about why Japanese cities are so especially great. Here was the most relevant one for today’s post:
Back home in America, I’ve called for a bunch of changes to make our cities better places to live. Most importantly, we need more housing density and better transit. These are the two main goals of the YIMBY movement. I also want more commercial density — lots of shops in walkable downtown areas — which is something YIMBYs should focus on more than they do. I don’t think American cities are going to become like Tokyo — or Paris, or Singapore, etc. — anytime soon. But I think places like San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, Houston, Miami, and Philadelphia can move enough in that direction to make a big difference in America’s quality of life, and probably in our economic productivity as well.
But we’ll need to change a lot about our society in order to get there. Usually, when I talk about urbanism, I talk about land use deregulation, increased transit funding, and transit cost reduction, so that we can build dense housing and transit cheaply and abundantly. And I think those policies are incredibly important. But when I suggest these policies to conservatives, or even just to politically neutral NIMBY types, the response I always get is that Japan and Europe can have nice cities because they have public order. They point out the vast disparities in violent crime between America and the rich nations of Eurasia:
