> I'm no expert but think it just wasn't as formal as we current have it. But informally it still roughly matches how we currently do it (residential areas, commercial area, industrial areas, etc).

There's a huge difference between a "residential area" and an area where it's literally illegal to build anything except houses and parking lots. It's not a case of just formalising what already existed, when you make the bodegas and offices and light workshops illegal you turn it from a residential neighbourhood into a soulless dormitory.

> Are we out of land in the US? (I'm assuming you're in US). Why do you need that specific piece of land that the person you are displacing already owns? Job/commute, convenience, etc are unacceptable answers in my book. Employers can and should be dispersing, you're likely broadly employable and could find work elsewhere. They could put their office elsewhere. But you're choosing to live in an area that you can't afford to own (and they're choosing to office out of a location that their employees can't live in). Ignoring those or pushing them on the current land owners makes no sense.

(I'm actually not in the US, but HN being HN I pretty much have to comment from a US perspective).

Agglomeration has huge benefits, that's why we have towns and cities in the first place. The current landowners almost certainly moved to somewhere that was previously less dense and made it more dense by moving there, no doubt chainging the character of the place in the process, so I don't think it's fair for them to complain about the next generation doing the same thing.

And if I tried to start my own new city in the middle of nowhere the exact same thing would happen: the first group of people move in, the city (maybe more like a small town to start with) becomes a pleasant place to live with jobs available, more people want to move in, but now there's enough people living there to NIMBY-block any density increase. If we tried to set a schedule at the start where we'd gradually densify the zoning? San Francisco already has a law like that on the books, they just ignore it.

> Curious if you have any evidence that rents are not market driven?

Zoning is a huge market distortion. It's essentially illegal to build anything in SF (over half the homes in San Francisco would be illegal to build today), and don't get me started on artificially low property taxes. So the rents are "market driven" in the sense of supply/demand, but that supply is being artificially choked off.

> I happen to believe you are more in control of the entire situation than you care to admit but would rather stay put and blame the boomers or change the rules because you don't like the cards you were dealt.

I mean sure, I can choose to live somewhere worse and commute for longer or take a worse job, while the boomer lounges about on my tax dime. But the fundamental injustice is very real.

> The "shed no tears" thing goes both ways, but they did get there first and they do already own their house, so it's an uphill battle for you.

They've created a de facto rotten borough by pricing everyone else out. But when democracy stops working the issues don't go away, people just find more direct ways to express them.