Ireland is similar, though notably better or worse on various specifics. Unsurprising to most, probably. I feel it's important to recall that these are not new tendencies. Both countries (and many of our neighbors) have a history of being suck at this particular general thing.
Housing prices is, perhaps, a separate question. I think we could probably do infrastructure really well and still have increasing house prices. The way to test that theory is to do infrastructure well, so I suppose my point is moot. Availability in either case, is undeniably bottlenecked by infrastructure.
The question why our authorities aren't better at building runways, train lines or hospitals. Nominal costs, as well as execution times and other overt signs point to serious underperformance. I think that one of the big problems is that any answer to this question is inevitably high politics. Any big success case represents a loss to a relevant political side, a major political interest or whatever. Emergencies tend to give one interest dominion, while also limiting options due to time constraints. That is a recipe for getting things done. It is an excellent lesson in true feasibility. Emergency isn't a solution though.
While a lot of the focus tends to be on corruption, bad faith, and such... I think much of the reasons discussed in "Sucking at Infrastructure: Visionary subtitle about societal stuff" should be focused on innocent enough reasons. For example, I think environmental interest interest groups, parties & institutions are essential. Without this lobby, the environment gets systematically short sticked to devastating cumulative effect. Infrastructure is also a vital interest. So is housing. Monetary stability, economic prosperity etc. These are at tension with each other. Tension is inevitable. How tension is routed isn't. I think that as these tensions mature, pathways stiffen. New pathways become impossible to pave.
Housing prices is, perhaps, a separate question. I think we could probably do infrastructure really well and still have increasing house prices. The way to test that theory is to do infrastructure well, so I suppose my point is moot. Availability in either case, is undeniably bottlenecked by infrastructure.
The question why our authorities aren't better at building runways, train lines or hospitals. Nominal costs, as well as execution times and other overt signs point to serious underperformance. I think that one of the big problems is that any answer to this question is inevitably high politics. Any big success case represents a loss to a relevant political side, a major political interest or whatever. Emergencies tend to give one interest dominion, while also limiting options due to time constraints. That is a recipe for getting things done. It is an excellent lesson in true feasibility. Emergency isn't a solution though.
While a lot of the focus tends to be on corruption, bad faith, and such... I think much of the reasons discussed in "Sucking at Infrastructure: Visionary subtitle about societal stuff" should be focused on innocent enough reasons. For example, I think environmental interest interest groups, parties & institutions are essential. Without this lobby, the environment gets systematically short sticked to devastating cumulative effect. Infrastructure is also a vital interest. So is housing. Monetary stability, economic prosperity etc. These are at tension with each other. Tension is inevitable. How tension is routed isn't. I think that as these tensions mature, pathways stiffen. New pathways become impossible to pave.