• cartmancarter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    So is the largest contributor to the problem just lack of land? Seems like most of the other problems from the article can be solved with money, but a lack of land makes it hard to build anything

    • jochem@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I once calculated that if we reduce the land use for livestock by 50% and then use 10% of the newly freed land to build housing (the other 40% can become nature), we can build a city something like 1.5x times the size of Amsterdam, the largest city in the Netherlands.

      It’s not a lack of land. It’s how the land is being used. Almost half is for livestock (or more accurate: to dump the shit of that livestock, as the majority of the animals is kept indoors).

      • cantstopthesignal@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Is the land the livestock are currently using capable of supporting dense housing and is it close to urban cores. Or would you just build sky scrapers in the middle of nowhere, because China tried that and it failed.

        • rbhfd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Anything in the Netherlands is close to an urban core.

          They also have centuries of experience on building on lands that shouldn’t be capable of supporting dense housing. Amsterdam used to be a literal swamp as well (I’m not making any statements on its current status).

          • rsn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Haha I like your disclaimer, as it was indeed very inviting to reply with a “still a swamp” :)

        • rbhfd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          The Netherlands exports an enormous amount of meat currently. It’s the largest exporter of meat of any EU country. They export 60% of the meat they produce. So yeah, they would be fine.

          The Netherlands is currently really suffering from nitrogen pollution, in a big part because of the meat industry. So it would also be a great improvement for the environment to reduce the meat production.

          Having such a big part of the European meat production localized in one of the most populated regions in the EU is just a recipe for disaster.

        • rsn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Less food”? What are you talking about? Most of the land used for livestock is for exported meat. Also, meat is an incredibly unsustainable source of food.

        • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Livestock are incredibly inefficient at producing food. If you use a small fraction of the land to grow crops there will be plenty to eat.

    • __lb__@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think the three biggest contributors are:

      • immigration
      • nitrogen crisis not allowing to have as many houses built as we need
      • seniors living at home longer instead of going to a nursing home
      • Ronno@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nope, our spoil isn’t dense enough for it. We cannot build higher then what you see in Rotterdam, because the building would just fall over

    • Rob@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      It doesn’t help, but there are a few factors that are more limiting right now. Labour shortage is one, as are nitrogen emissions. A lot of developers also find the current building costs too high.

      There are plenty of plots that can be built on, with all of the paperwork good to go.

    • sliels@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Nah, the big problem is that houses are too pricey for people to afford. The combination of a load of (international) students, the war in Ukraine, the last 13 years of government focusing on rich corporations made it so many young adults can not afford to buy or even rent their own place. If money was not an issue, I guarantee this would’ve not been as big a problem.

        • JohnEdwa@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Except low demand doesn’t usually make house prices go down either, it just means they won’t get sold or they only get bought by investors - that then also would rather keep them empty than to reduce the price and take a loss, as an empty 1 million house is still worth that 1 million on paper.

        • sliels@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I mean, over here in Europe there’s plenty of solutions used by countries (even NL itself) to keep prices for housing down. Things like subsidies, quota for cheap housing, rent allowance, etc. Fact is the last government didn’t give a shit about 50% of incomes, so they didn’t put more in place to encourage and enforce that.