the planning trap: when more means less
Using the psychological science of smart regulation to fix our broken housing systems
subtraction as a solution: a smarter path for ireland’s housing crisis
Going slightly more parochial this time, but with universal lessons. I'm focusing on a complex system which has evolved over many, many decades, which works badly and inefficiently, does not do what it is supposed to do, and which successive governments tinker with, adding extra regulations and cute little fixes, hoping they will somehow fix the problem, and the system will then do what it is supposed to do. I am talking about Ireland’s housing crisis: a problem of housing supply and a crisis of cognitive overload. Our planning system is tangled in procedural layers, regulatory overreach, and endless opportunities for objections and appeals by people who oppose development (NIMBYs, or ‘not in my backyard’, and their complements, BANANAs, or ‘build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone’: of dealing with these, more below).
Our problems are not primarily caused by malice or incompetence, but by psychological tendencies: our cognitive bias to solve problems by adding complexity to them.
See this for a succinct example of the mess:
It's not a uniquely Irish problem. The UK, many US states, and lots of other places have housing markets that make no sense, bedevilled by a lack of housing, not enough building, stupid planning regulations, and much more besides. Some places do get it right, but you are not starting from where they are, even if you like their outcomes. You have to start from where you are. Otherwise you’re succumbing to magical thinking.
the cognitive bias: adding instead of subtracting
Look at these two remote controls for the very same LG Smart TV.
They work the same piece of tech: a Smart TV 📺 🙄. These are from an Airbnb: they've been used lots, by lots of different people, from lots of different places. The smaller one has been used to the point where the labels have been worn off. The larger one has hardly been used at all. The larger one is horrible to use: too many buttons, a complex set of colour codes and more. It doesn't feel right in your hand; you have to study it to figure out how it works, so no one uses it. This is a great example of how ‘less is more’: taking away complexity from the zapper increases the ease of use of the TV dramatically.
Some of the best innovations come from subtraction: the Strider balance bike (no pedals), minimalist digital tools (see photo above), or traffic designs removing signals and improving safety. All deliberate acts of ‘subtractive design’, not simply deregulation.
This is a key lesson: sometimes you improve things by subtracting from them, not adding to them. This is a key cognitive blindspot, because we usually do the opposite: add complexity, instead of subtracting it.
Improving very complex systems—policy, product, city—requires deep mental effort, and we have a peculiar default when solving complex problems. We add to the problem space, rather than subtracting from the problem space: people default to adding rather than subtracting when solving complex problems. In a 2021 study, Gabrielle S. Adams and colleagues found that unless explicitly prompted, participants rarely proposed subtractive solutions. Many overlooked better outcomes simply because subtraction didn’t occur to them. Participants would fix an unstable lego bridge by adding extra pieces, rather than removing pieces, for example.
People cope with complex rule overload by narrowing to a few promising ideas, often accepting the first “good enough” additive fix. This creates a sense of ‘false sufficiency’: we look for what to add, and fail to ask what could be removed. And, under pressure, the additive default strengthens.
We assume more detail and control will yield better outcomes: in practice, this overwhelms decision-making systems: institutions (human, cognitive, communities) degrade when complexity exceeds available attention, bandwidth, and responsibility.
Ireland’s housing system, burdened by additive policies, illustrates this vividly. The fixes over the years have introduced:
More reviews: Multi-step reviews create delay and duplication.
More layers of approval: Fragmented across councils, regional and national authorities, each layer introducing complex cognitive handoffs.
More stakeholder vetoes: Organised groups can obstruct projects without offering alternatives.
More design restrictions: Arbitrary standards lead to fatigue, confusion, and litigation risk.
These components may seem rational individually, but together, create a pathological feedback loop—one subject to even more constraint, and a failure to deliver more housing.
Conflicting rules become ‘noise generators’: producing unpredictable outcomes, confusing applicants, and creating legal risks, but not delivering more housing.
Subtraction requires intention and permission. Adams and her colleagues suggest three practical cognitive aids:
Prompts: ask - what is unnecessary? Can steps be combined? What happens if we subtract?
Mental clarity: Subtraction is harder under cognitive load.
Celebrating simplicity: Honour subtraction as creative achievement—less friction, less confusion, less waste.
We cannot fix overload by adding more cognitive load. We must clear space to focus on what matters—and discard what does not.
a subtractive approach to housing reform
Ireland needs a subtractive mindset—removing needless complexity, eliminating redundant constraints, and designing for cognitive clarity. Rules should match human cognitive capacity. A planning system everyone understands is one that can be monitored, trusted, and improved.
But subtraction feels risky. Cutting steps brings visible responsibility; adding them dilutes blame. That’s why complexity often wins politically: even if it loses, operationally.
simplified planning approvals
Automatic permitting zones: pre-approve developments meeting defined criteria—reducing discretion, bias, and delay.
Unified digital portal: A single online interface can reduce fragmentation and improve transparency.
Eliminate redundant reviews and duplicative processes.
simplified zoning and development plans
Consolidate planning documents: unified building regs improve comprehension and consistency.
Zone for flexibility and mixed development (like Japan): allow “missing middle” housing by default.
Remove obsolete planning zones: zoning places for separate living, shopping, businesses, and manufacturing inevitably causes commuting. Mixed development reduces this.
reduced design regulation
Flexible standards: Focus on outcomes (e.g. more housing delivered), not rigid prescriptions.
Limit aesthetic controls: Unless safety is at stake, allow architectural variation. What we think is beautiful depends on time and place. I give you London's ugliest building:
I’m sure when this was designed and built there were those who thought it was just lovely.
Support modular housing: Standardised components simplify planning and improve delivery speed.
smarter community consultation
Advisory input, not vetoes: Communities should contribute—not block—when criteria are met.
Fixed consultation windows: Bounded periods improve engagement quality and timeliness.
Public education: Communicate housing’s wider benefits—resilience, talent attraction, community health.
faster appeals and judicial reviews
Limit appeal grounds: Narrow challenges to clear breaches (e.g. environmental harm).
Set time limits: Resolve appeals within defined timeframes.
Introduce full economic cost objection fees to discourage frivolous or purely obstructionist appeals.
three practical steps to get building fast
Ireland’s planning system needs not just reform but experimentation. Donald T. Campbell’s “experimenting society” model is a useful guide: treat policies as testable hypotheses, and design reforms to be monitored, adapted, and reversed if necessary.
Fast-track and experimental zones: Create areas with pre-approved designs and relaxed rules. Establish “planning labs” testing subtractive reforms—removing layers, reviews, or design codes—and tie them to measurable feedback on speed, quality, and affordability. Maybe even build a new town or ten at transport hubs. Remove parking requirements within a twelve minute walk of rail stations.
Modular construction incentives: Encourage developers using prefabricated methods. These approaches are ideal for experimental monitoring due to their standardisation and predictable timelines.
State-led housing companies as learning engines: Empower public developers to build directly and trial new models—from procurement to community engagement. Use these as institutional labs that integrate learning into successive design and build rounds. Seize all derelict properties, and place their value in escrow for ten years. In the meantime, develop them.
why subtraction is smart, not simplistic
This is not deregulation—it is intelligent simplification: as Einstein supposedly said:-“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”
Smart subtraction asks: What truly matters? What no longer works? How can we avoid the trap where procedure is more important than purpose?
reframing the narrative: housing as community resilience
Subtraction reshapes narratives, shifting the focus from fear (overcrowding, change)—to shared future-making. Housing becomes not a threat but a foundation for the future.
New homes are more than buildings. They anchor schools, businesses, and civic life. In cognitive terms, they expand a society’s imagined future.
To build more, we must first think less—less defensively, less procedurally. We must design our cognitive communities (institutions) to support how real people think, learn, and adapt.
Finally, what to do about NIMBYs and BANANAs?
Simple. They need to be shamed as obstructionist, socially and economically devisive, regressives who want us to live in the past and prevent a flourishing future for the coming generations. Shame is a very powerful social regulator, and our elites need to call it out as it is. I take some degree of schadenfreude in seeing NIMBYs complain about some proposed development near them, and then very slowly connecting the dots when they realise their adult kids either can’t buy a house close to them or end up living miles away.
Everything is connected.
G.S. Adams et al. People systematically overlook subtractive changes. Nature. Published online April 7, 2021. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03380-y.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/psychology-numbers-people-add-default-subtract-better
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_middle_housing
consider buying my two most recent books:
Talking Heads: The New Science of How Conversation Shapes Our Worlds
In Praise of Walking: The new science of how we walk and why it’s good for us
And, as they so often say, please like, subscribe, share, leave a comment below.