Well as someone who lives in a fairly regulated housing market (Berlin) I'm happy about all the regulations you've mentioned as they prevent negative externalities which would benefit real-estate developers at the cost of everyone else. Imo targeting a specific population density is within the mandate of local government, as too-high density causes all sorts of issues from traffic to health and everything in between. If you want to unchain developers on density, I invite you to take a 10km drive in Delhi or Bangkok and tell me if the cost generated on a daily basis in terms of time and stress is worth it.

I am in favor of finding ways to encourage more housing, but what you're calling for is essentially to invite favela housing in the developed world.

Seriously? Berlin's tower blocks are the favelas of the developed world.

Also, the reason why Berlin hasn't had the same pressure is because it is one of the few cities in the developed world that has actually shrunk over a multi-decade period. It is very easy to limit population density when there is no pressure on housing. And, ofc, the historical division of the city meant that it had to develop more than one centre. These factors aside, afaik, the development of Berlin hasn't been exceptional...they built suburbs when there was pressure on housing in the early 20th century, built public transport, those suburbs eventually integrated into the city...very few cities have grown through greater intensity in the centre because cost is prohibitive, regardless of regulations.

Nothing to do with regulations, everything to do with historical circumstance (also, the guy you replying to is quite correct...if you actually look at housing regulations in the US, they have been a tool for racial/economic segregation...being real, that is why the limit on multi-family housing exists, the US has very low population density, saying they will become Delhi if they reduce regulations is hysterical).

You've proven my point exactly. Many of the the Plattenbauten (GDR-era block housing) could not be built in Berlin today because of current regulations. Berlin is targeting a moderate population density with mixed-use neighbourhood, which is the recommendation of subject-matter experts and makes it in general a very nice place to live. There's a huge desire by developers to increase density within Berlin and I have no doubt it would increase massively if there was no check against this.

Nobody is arguing that the entire US would become like Delhi, but can you seriously hold the opinion that housing deregulation would not result in mass production of low-quality housing near major population centers?

There are problems with extremes on both ends. For instance the NIMBY-driven housing policy in SF is not what is needed to create sustainable housing. But is a somewhat unique case, and it doesn't mean an extreme swing in the other direction towards deregulation would lead to a good outcome. Sensible housing regulation is undoubtedly a requirement for sustainable urbanization.

You originally claimed that these regulations were for safety:

> it's not as if building regulations have been developed for fun, it's largely in response to safety issues and so on.

But they're not. As you (now) say, they're for reducing development. The original statement about safety was substantially incorrect.

Surely you can grasp that "and so on" implies other reasons than the one explicitly stated. Negative externalities are another example of a valid target of regulation.

It's not about safety, it's also about amenity and suitability and sustainability. In some areas, density is important given the population, in others its not.

Parking requirements are about local traffic management as well. Set backs are about ensuring natural light. Some local regulation is about NIMBYism or HOAism, that sort of thing is where reform might be better addressed.

Lack of set-back rules do not prevent building houses with set-back. Lack of parking law does not prevent building parking. Developers will not build density if it isn't a profitable use of the land -- i.e., important given the population. Rezoning to permit density does not immediately replace all existing structures.

Mandating these things is some of that "local regulation tied into NIMBYism" you mention.

Profitability isn't the only important metric here. It might be profitable for developers to increase density well beyond the point where it causes measurable negative externalities towards everyone occupying an over-crowded place.