no matter the style of governance or how markets deal with housing, it seems like people converge on the same poor urban planning
Actually, the USA is known for its soviet style command and control urban planning. China is known for direct state control as well. In either country you can expect to be told what you can build, how big it can be, setbacks, parking, street access, and lot sizes. USA cities are laid out with some of the worst urban planning practices in the world and markets have nothing to do with the rules and regulations imposed.
So recent bad Chinese practice and the USA are two examples of the same model. Neither is liberalized.
Does the liberalization of housing law lead to sprawl?
Actually, market oriented building doesn't lead to much sprawl anywhere. Sprawl must be imposed by law or central direction of development or it isn't economically viable.
Nobody has figured out modern living in an efficient way, I think.
Of the world's eight big (10MM+) first world cities, half of them are famous for housing and transportation that is affordable to the middle class. And each of them has found its own way to achieve that happy situation, so there are a lot of models for efficient modern living, even under the stress of a large population. All of them have medium density (150/hectare or 40k/mi^2), more than SF but less than Brooklyn, big subway systems, high rates of home ownership and low rates of personal car driving, but the differences are substantial.
Seoul has lots of apartments and high rises mixed into its tightly packed single family homes with a variety of street widths. Tokyo has very narrow streets and small blocks with mostly new single family homes on small lots. Mexico City is more European with low rise flats and apartments and mews townhouses mixed with small lot single family tiny homes in the suburbs that are expanded with new floors and extensions on the lot as the family grows. Osaka has a mix of those.
Each of those cities is nice and and reasonably low stress place to buy a home and get around the city.
The other four large first world cities are driving out their middle class. London and New York are famously unaffordable, possibly with prices driven by sprawl and water or a greenbelt. Los Angeles is choked with sprawl and traffic. I don't know what's going on in Paris but I hear it's expensive.
So some places have figured it out. And some haven't.
The US has zero central control development. It's all local which creates huge issues.
It ends up with the worst parts of state control and capitalism by being rather corrupt at the local level. It subsidizes new development and creates barriers to redevelopment. Rent control, NIMBY, etc etc it's a mess.
Actually, the USA is known for its soviet style command and control urban planning. China is known for direct state control as well. In either country you can expect to be told what you can build, how big it can be, setbacks, parking, street access, and lot sizes. USA cities are laid out with some of the worst urban planning practices in the world and markets have nothing to do with the rules and regulations imposed.
So recent bad Chinese practice and the USA are two examples of the same model. Neither is liberalized.
Does the liberalization of housing law lead to sprawl?
Actually, market oriented building doesn't lead to much sprawl anywhere. Sprawl must be imposed by law or central direction of development or it isn't economically viable.
Nobody has figured out modern living in an efficient way, I think.
Of the world's eight big (10MM+) first world cities, half of them are famous for housing and transportation that is affordable to the middle class. And each of them has found its own way to achieve that happy situation, so there are a lot of models for efficient modern living, even under the stress of a large population. All of them have medium density (150/hectare or 40k/mi^2), more than SF but less than Brooklyn, big subway systems, high rates of home ownership and low rates of personal car driving, but the differences are substantial.
Seoul has lots of apartments and high rises mixed into its tightly packed single family homes with a variety of street widths. Tokyo has very narrow streets and small blocks with mostly new single family homes on small lots. Mexico City is more European with low rise flats and apartments and mews townhouses mixed with small lot single family tiny homes in the suburbs that are expanded with new floors and extensions on the lot as the family grows. Osaka has a mix of those.
Each of those cities is nice and and reasonably low stress place to buy a home and get around the city.
The other four large first world cities are driving out their middle class. London and New York are famously unaffordable, possibly with prices driven by sprawl and water or a greenbelt. Los Angeles is choked with sprawl and traffic. I don't know what's going on in Paris but I hear it's expensive.
So some places have figured it out. And some haven't.