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
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).
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.
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).
Not sure if there isnt any, but I know most of it is soft. It is the reason why Amsterdam and Rotterdam cannot have a skyline like New York, which has unique properties that allows the Americans to build that high
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.