Opposition to High Density Development(journals.sagepub.com)
journals.sagepub.com
Opposition to High Density Development
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/10780874211065776?journalCode=uarb&
233 comments
> But this middle of the road, cake and eat it too, cities designed for cars, urban sprawl by ordinance just makes things suck for everyone involved, it's the worst of both worlds.
It probably seems nice to these people at first.
Their property values go up, undesirable (a.k.a. poor) neighbors get pushed away to the outskirts of town, gridlock traffic is kept at bay, the town maintains its low-rise charm (whatever that means), etc.
But longer term, it causes strange distortions. In San Francisco, the people working the customer services jobs are sometimes homeless because there is nowhere affordable within commuting distance. Artists and musicians just straight-up leave, causing the city to become a cultural wasteland. And in the past year or two we're finally starting to see talent flight due to the out-of-control rent spirals and the rise of remote work.
Nobody's really benefitting from this; it's just lousy regulatory capture by landowners that's begun to backfire on them. You can't encase a tree in a glass box and expect it to magically stop growing. Ultimately, you just have to let people build what they want on their land, or your city will not only stop growing, it will begin to wither.
It probably seems nice to these people at first.
Their property values go up, undesirable (a.k.a. poor) neighbors get pushed away to the outskirts of town, gridlock traffic is kept at bay, the town maintains its low-rise charm (whatever that means), etc.
But longer term, it causes strange distortions. In San Francisco, the people working the customer services jobs are sometimes homeless because there is nowhere affordable within commuting distance. Artists and musicians just straight-up leave, causing the city to become a cultural wasteland. And in the past year or two we're finally starting to see talent flight due to the out-of-control rent spirals and the rise of remote work.
Nobody's really benefitting from this; it's just lousy regulatory capture by landowners that's begun to backfire on them. You can't encase a tree in a glass box and expect it to magically stop growing. Ultimately, you just have to let people build what they want on their land, or your city will not only stop growing, it will begin to wither.
The negatives of these zoning laws are vastly worse than most people know.
US GDP would be 50% higher than it is now if we did not have exclusionary zoning laws. (https://www.theregreview.org/2018/06/14/somogyi-zoning-codes...)
If New York City and the San Francisco Bay Area alone removed their exclusionary and needlessly restrictive zoning laws, the average worker's income would rise by $9,000 per year.
US GDP would be 50% higher than it is now if we did not have exclusionary zoning laws. (https://www.theregreview.org/2018/06/14/somogyi-zoning-codes...)
If New York City and the San Francisco Bay Area alone removed their exclusionary and needlessly restrictive zoning laws, the average worker's income would rise by $9,000 per year.
> But being opposed to it generally, in a city no less, is a bit ridiculous
Here in NYC we call these folks 'Manhattanites against the Manhattanization of Manhattan'. Shockingly, quite a few of them exist.
Here in NYC we call these folks 'Manhattanites against the Manhattanization of Manhattan'. Shockingly, quite a few of them exist.
Walking my kid to his second favorite playground on the Upper East Side, there was a sign opposing the shadows from the Blood Center Tower (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/18/nyregion/new-york-blood-c...). Because why should Manhattan have a gasp 23 story building! It would ruin the character of this neighborhood in Manhattan to have a building that is 70 meters high!
What utter nonsense.
What utter nonsense.
Many people are forced out of rural areas due to the availability of work. I would prefer a rural area with some land, but it's difficult to find a good job in those areas.
> I would prefer a rural area with some land, but it's difficult to find a good job in those areas.
Ironically, that's because we restrict density in cities.
Suppose you have a city, San Francisco, ~17,000 people per square mile. About a quarter of what it is in Manhattan.
For the same number of people, if the density was higher, the city would cover less area. And then the number of miles away from the city center you would have to go before you were living with cows would go down.
Ironically, that's because we restrict density in cities.
Suppose you have a city, San Francisco, ~17,000 people per square mile. About a quarter of what it is in Manhattan.
For the same number of people, if the density was higher, the city would cover less area. And then the number of miles away from the city center you would have to go before you were living with cows would go down.
The bottleneck isn't exactly number of miles until you see cows, it's minutes driven.
That is, rural folks would be much happier if the city had more density and a great public transit system that integrates with cars. But just the density would make things worse.
That is, rural folks would be much happier if the city had more density and a great public transit system that integrates with cars. But just the density would make things worse.
The article in the post suggests otherwise. Right in the abstract it says that people prefer lower density. So if living in a rural area is now more attractive because it's a shorter distance, more people will choose to live there.
There are entire regions with small cities and towns where the commute is already reasonable, but the companies choose to bunch together in the biggest cities. Just look at Appalachia - plenty of small cities to choose from with vacant factories to be repurposed, vacant housing from population shrinkage, etc.
It all boils down to choices, and it's very difficult to influence those choices - where company locate, where people want to live, etc.
There are entire regions with small cities and towns where the commute is already reasonable, but the companies choose to bunch together in the biggest cities. Just look at Appalachia - plenty of small cities to choose from with vacant factories to be repurposed, vacant housing from population shrinkage, etc.
It all boils down to choices, and it's very difficult to influence those choices - where company locate, where people want to live, etc.
Those people voluntarily leave rural areas due to their personal preferences. They would rather have a good job in an area that can support them than live in a pleasant area with worse job prospects.
People are rarely interested in living in dense urban areas due to the density itself. They are usually far more interested in the consequences of the density and the opportunities enabled by it.
People are rarely interested in living in dense urban areas due to the density itself. They are usually far more interested in the consequences of the density and the opportunities enabled by it.
It depends on what you consider voluntary. If you can't get a job in your hometown, then it doesn't feel very voluntary when forced to move to support yourself (survive). Sure, it's a choice but there's pressure behind it.
If someone says give me your wallet or I'll stab you, that's still a choice. I wouldn't call it voluntary. It's a choice of survival.
If someone says give me your wallet or I'll stab you, that's still a choice. I wouldn't call it voluntary. It's a choice of survival.
I've responded about this already, but nobody is really forced to move to the city. They can get jobs, just not the job they want. You have to provide a service to your local economy, and in small towns, that means mending fences and cooking barbecue and working on cars. Thankfully the low density also means you can afford to pay your bills doing jobs like that.
Some people want to do something they consider more rewarding and meaningful, its like the age old trope of the small town girl moving to Los Angeles to be a movie star. They move to the city because it's a trade off, their priorities tell them that living in a more densely packed environment will make their life better.
But at the end of the day, it is always a choice.
Some people want to do something they consider more rewarding and meaningful, its like the age old trope of the small town girl moving to Los Angeles to be a movie star. They move to the city because it's a trade off, their priorities tell them that living in a more densely packed environment will make their life better.
But at the end of the day, it is always a choice.
> Thankfully the low density also means you can afford to pay your bills doing jobs like that.
Financial margins in rural areas have been decreasing over the last 100 years as corporations take over farms and people move to urban areas for more opportunities. There's not a lot of opportunity left in rural America.
Financial margins in rural areas have been decreasing over the last 100 years as corporations take over farms and people move to urban areas for more opportunities. There's not a lot of opportunity left in rural America.
Not a lot of opportunity for what?
Cities are economic machines. Everything is abstracted. There are overarching systems to everything. And it has to be that way, that's both the draw and the solution to the density.
Rural areas are entirely interpersonal relationships. People do business with one another. You have to do something within your local economy to get along.
So there's not a lot of opportunity to go work for the big chemical factory that used to support your entire company town. But there's plenty of opportunity to live a simple life, if that's what you want. The bug difference is that you have to do things for the people you directly interact with to get paid, it's much smaller scale. It's less about employment and more about interpersonal business.
Cities are economic machines. Everything is abstracted. There are overarching systems to everything. And it has to be that way, that's both the draw and the solution to the density.
Rural areas are entirely interpersonal relationships. People do business with one another. You have to do something within your local economy to get along.
So there's not a lot of opportunity to go work for the big chemical factory that used to support your entire company town. But there's plenty of opportunity to live a simple life, if that's what you want. The bug difference is that you have to do things for the people you directly interact with to get paid, it's much smaller scale. It's less about employment and more about interpersonal business.
Nobody is forced to do anything ever. Everything is a choice.
Exactly. People can even choose to die instead of doing something they don't want to do.
We aren't talking about dying here. This isn't analogous to being robbed at knife point. No need to be so dramatic.
We are talking about deciding to move somewhere with a higher quality of life. For some, that means better pay in an office and diverse food options a short drive/walk/subway ride away, in exchange for more rent and more people. For others, it means a better view of the night sky and less traffic and cheaper rent in exchange for lower paying work.
We are talking about deciding to move somewhere with a higher quality of life. For some, that means better pay in an office and diverse food options a short drive/walk/subway ride away, in exchange for more rent and more people. For others, it means a better view of the night sky and less traffic and cheaper rent in exchange for lower paying work.
"For some, that means "
Exaclty, it varies by person. For some, it is a matter of survival, and can be dramatic with consequences on par with being physically attacked.
Exaclty, it varies by person. For some, it is a matter of survival, and can be dramatic with consequences on par with being physically attacked.
But that's not the point you've been making, it's not what I've been arguing against. Your point has been "survival in rural areas is untenable and so people have to move to cities for better prospects, therefore moving to the city is not a choice." My point was always "people go where they need to go based on their needs and priorities and survival outside of cities is not any harder than inside them, therefore moving to them is a choice."
If anything, survival is easier outside of cities, because cost of living is cheaper and the minimum wage rate is the same.
Anyway, we started with you saying you want to move more rural but you can't. But is that true? Could you do it, if you were willing to work a different type of job?
If anything, survival is easier outside of cities, because cost of living is cheaper and the minimum wage rate is the same.
Anyway, we started with you saying you want to move more rural but you can't. But is that true? Could you do it, if you were willing to work a different type of job?
Nope
There is pressure behind every reason for every choice we make, and that's the entire point. We don't choose between urban and rural areas assuming that everything else is equal. We choose between fundamentally different lifestyles and opportunities, subject to constraints based on our wealth, connections, marketable skills, formal qualifications, and so on.
Besides, in a modern society, unemployment rarely causes people to starve/freeze to death. The choice between urban/rural living is about quality of life, not survival.
Besides, in a modern society, unemployment rarely causes people to starve/freeze to death. The choice between urban/rural living is about quality of life, not survival.
Those people get screwed the most by high rent and long commutes... that are the direct result of prohibiting dense housing.
[deleted]
How so?
My comment is that many people who prefer living in lower density areas are forced out due to lack of jobs in those areas.
My comment is that many people who prefer living in lower density areas are forced out due to lack of jobs in those areas.
If you had a smooth transition between high and low density, the total area covered by housing would be smaller. So oddly enough, even the lowest density housing would now be closer to jobs in the city. Furthermore, since public transport makes more sense for those in the 'middle'-density area, there would be less for those who choose to drive in from the low-density area.
https://missingmiddlehousing.com/
https://missingmiddlehousing.com/
Why don't we address the root cause - location and density of the jobs? No reason most of them have to be clustered together, or even in the same city as others.
Because people moving to a city from a rural area have been making a lower salary and are now facing the high costs of a city. An engineer with a signing bonus can make the transition smoothly, but the people forced out of rural areas often don't get them.
The corollary to high housing prices is that people sprawl outward for lower prices and end up with very long commutes. Around me, ~40% of SF renters are paying more than 30% of income on housing. I for get the portion of people super commuting (> 90 minutes each way) but the % grows when SF adds more offices.
So prohibitions on dense housing screw over people that want a rural life, but are forced to take jobs in a city. They'll have a harder time even saving up to go back.
The corollary to high housing prices is that people sprawl outward for lower prices and end up with very long commutes. Around me, ~40% of SF renters are paying more than 30% of income on housing. I for get the portion of people super commuting (> 90 minutes each way) but the % grows when SF adds more offices.
So prohibitions on dense housing screw over people that want a rural life, but are forced to take jobs in a city. They'll have a harder time even saving up to go back.
Ok, so you assumed they moved to a city.
"So prohibitions on dense housing screw over people that want a rural life, but are forced to take jobs in a city."
According to the article in this post, people prefer lower density housing. I don't see how adding more higher density housing will meaningfully change that. Because as you make the commutes shorter, etc you entice more people to move there.
"So prohibitions on dense housing screw over people that want a rural life, but are forced to take jobs in a city."
According to the article in this post, people prefer lower density housing. I don't see how adding more higher density housing will meaningfully change that. Because as you make the commutes shorter, etc you entice more people to move there.
People prefer housing they can’t afford. Allowing housing of different densities allows people to optimize their trade offs.
Cities do allow housing of different densities depending on location (zone). Why would mixed density make it any better, especially when the article/study already says people prefer low density housing?
Not really. In practice, there's a small area for apartment complexes and then a huge area for single family exclusive housing. In places without strict zoning, there's a whole spectrum of things https://missingmiddlehousing.com
The goal is that when prices go up, there should be a way for people to build more homes that have a reasonable commute.
The goal is that when prices go up, there should be a way for people to build more homes that have a reasonable commute.
That depends on which cities we're looking at. We also have to look at percentage and not just area. If we're packing people in 10:1, then the space can be 5-10% of the area and hold a large portion of population. This may be sufficient based on the desires of the people (back to the article).we
"The goal is that when prices go up, there should be a way for people to build more homes that have a reasonable commute."
If they can't, then that should encourage employers to look elsewhere and move.
"The goal is that when prices go up, there should be a way for people to build more homes that have a reasonable commute."
If they can't, then that should encourage employers to look elsewhere and move.
> If they can't, then that should encourage employers to look elsewhere and move.
It doesn't. That's why the most prosperous American cities have the longest commutes and least affordable housing.
If a metro area decided they don't want job growth and limited new office construction I'd be fine with that. But when a municipality allows new offices and prohibits new housing it hurts a lot of people.
It doesn't. That's why the most prosperous American cities have the longest commutes and least affordable housing.
If a metro area decided they don't want job growth and limited new office construction I'd be fine with that. But when a municipality allows new offices and prohibits new housing it hurts a lot of people.
Yet we are seeing some companies leave places like CA for TX. So it does happen.
I think you are the path to where I am. Which is society is pay an very steep price so that upper managers can live where they want and force everyone else to come to them.
I wouldn't call that being forced, I'd call that weighing your priorities and making a decision.
Where I live, you can pay your own rent alone working a full time minimum wage job. If you're turning that down, the trade off isn't worth it. You would rather live in a densely packed place if it enables you to do professional work not available to you otherwise.
It's always a trade off.
Where I live, you can pay your own rent alone working a full time minimum wage job. If you're turning that down, the trade off isn't worth it. You would rather live in a densely packed place if it enables you to do professional work not available to you otherwise.
It's always a trade off.
That seems to imply there are enough jobs in the area for the population. That might be true today, but in the prior decade it can be tough to find a minimum wage job with benefits.
> with benefits
Again, a trade off. Why are benefits sacrosanct when we talk about this? Why is anything?
If a rural town doesn't have enough business to go around to support it's population, it shrinks. It becomes more rural. People make trade offs. Cities get denser. When it has enough business to support a larger population, it grows. When a city becomes unable to support it's population, it decays. People move away. There's an ebb and flow. But it is important to understand that nobody is being forced to do anything here, they're moving where their priorities are, no place is perfect, it's all about what you're willing to live with to get the benefits of where you live.
Again, a trade off. Why are benefits sacrosanct when we talk about this? Why is anything?
If a rural town doesn't have enough business to go around to support it's population, it shrinks. It becomes more rural. People make trade offs. Cities get denser. When it has enough business to support a larger population, it grows. When a city becomes unable to support it's population, it decays. People move away. There's an ebb and flow. But it is important to understand that nobody is being forced to do anything here, they're moving where their priorities are, no place is perfect, it's all about what you're willing to live with to get the benefits of where you live.
"Again, a trade off. Why are benefits sacrosanct when we talk about this?"
Because we're talking about supporting oneself. You can't support yourself with a minimum wage job and paying healthcare out of pocket.
Because we're talking about supporting oneself. You can't support yourself with a minimum wage job and paying healthcare out of pocket.
Yes you can. I literally live in a small community of people who mostly work minimum wage service jobs and support themselves just fine, have disposable income even.
That's my whole point. If you live in an urban environment it is hard to see how someone could do it, I understand, but you need to understand just how much cheaper it is to live in a place where you're not competing with 100 people for a place to live. When your rent is 350 bucks a month you can 100% support yourself on 1000 bucks a month, paying for insurance out of pocket.
That's my whole point. If you live in an urban environment it is hard to see how someone could do it, I understand, but you need to understand just how much cheaper it is to live in a place where you're not competing with 100 people for a place to live. When your rent is 350 bucks a month you can 100% support yourself on 1000 bucks a month, paying for insurance out of pocket.
Not in my state. You can find rent at $350/month depending on the area and stuff. It's at least $450/month for health insurance, and that's with a $5k deductible, so you need a substantial savings. That leaves $200 per month for food, car (because it's rural), utilities, etc. Unlikely.
Do your options to live end at your state borders?
"Not in my city" is the same thing on a smaller scale. We could take it to an absurd conclusion and say "let's just move to the jungle in the amazon and live for free, there's no traffic there either!" but that's not the point I'm making.
Health insurance is a big sticking point, I'm not trying to downplay the overinflated cost at all, even where I live it's still a huge burden and consideration. Too many people do without it, but that's anywhere you go, city or rural town. I don't believe this is a distinction of living inside or outside of a city, if anything, working class people in cities are more likely to do without because of inflated housing cost, and there's more working class people in cities than outside of them.
It's not easy living anywhere. But what negatives are you willing to live with for what positives?
"Not in my city" is the same thing on a smaller scale. We could take it to an absurd conclusion and say "let's just move to the jungle in the amazon and live for free, there's no traffic there either!" but that's not the point I'm making.
Health insurance is a big sticking point, I'm not trying to downplay the overinflated cost at all, even where I live it's still a huge burden and consideration. Too many people do without it, but that's anywhere you go, city or rural town. I don't believe this is a distinction of living inside or outside of a city, if anything, working class people in cities are more likely to do without because of inflated housing cost, and there's more working class people in cities than outside of them.
It's not easy living anywhere. But what negatives are you willing to live with for what positives?
Hasn't one of the big lessons of COVID been that anyone can work from anywhere that there's a decent internet connection?
Maybe as a Dev or similar, but that's not true for all industries. Even as a dev, there are many companies that don't allow fully remote, like mine.
> Hasn't one of the big lessons of COVID been that anyone can work from anywhere that there's a decent internet connection?
No, one of the biggest lessons of COVID is that lots of people can't, and being in a field where you can can be a massive advantage in certain circumstances, which accelerates inequality when those manifest because it correlates strongly (though not perfectly) with higher income work.
No, one of the biggest lessons of COVID is that lots of people can't, and being in a field where you can can be a massive advantage in certain circumstances, which accelerates inequality when those manifest because it correlates strongly (though not perfectly) with higher income work.
In other words, "not in my backyard". But other people's backyard is fine!
The important part here is that the OP moved their backyard in order to avoid high density next to it.
Commendable, I'd say.
Commendable, I'd say.
So continuing that, let's say OP moved to a small rural town. 10 years later, the media proclaims the town for best schools, living, etc. and a lot of folks want to move there and want to build up in OP's backyard.
What's OP's course of action now? To move again?
I'm not excusing the effects of NIMBYism, but it's natural phenomena for many people and often not about raising property values, but resistance to change--especially as folks age and become less willing to adapt or move elsewhere.
What's OP's course of action now? To move again?
I'm not excusing the effects of NIMBYism, but it's natural phenomena for many people and often not about raising property values, but resistance to change--especially as folks age and become less willing to adapt or move elsewhere.
> What's OP's course of action now? To move again?
Yes, if that's what I want. It's not really my backyard. it's proverbial, but we can't make the mistake of taking it literally. it's someone else's front yard. I have no say in it.
So I have a choice, move somewhere more rural, or enjoy the financial benefit of being an early resident of a growing community. But the onus is always on me, I cannot externalize my preferences onto others unwillingly. There are always decisions to be made, there is always a trade off. You're right about resistance to change.
Personally if where I live began to urbanize, I'd leave.
Yes, if that's what I want. It's not really my backyard. it's proverbial, but we can't make the mistake of taking it literally. it's someone else's front yard. I have no say in it.
So I have a choice, move somewhere more rural, or enjoy the financial benefit of being an early resident of a growing community. But the onus is always on me, I cannot externalize my preferences onto others unwillingly. There are always decisions to be made, there is always a trade off. You're right about resistance to change.
Personally if where I live began to urbanize, I'd leave.
I cannot externalize my preferences onto others unwillingly
Isn't that exactly what those arguing for higher densities are doing?
Isn't that exactly what those arguing for higher densities are doing?
No? Telling someone else they can't build an apartment building because they live next to you and you like zoning is externalizing on others unwillingly, telling people they have to commute hours in traffic because you like to see the smoggy sunset from your backyard is externalizing. Letting people build more dense housing in a densely populated area to profit and simultaneously reduce the cost on their own property is not externalizing anything, unless you consider your view of the sky to be your property and you somehow having a say in your neighbor building on his property as he sees fit.
Just flip the coin.
telling people they:
- have to live next to a skyrise is externalizing.
- have to use public transit is externalizing.
- can't let their kids get a good education is externalizing.
- can't let their kids play safely without adult supervision is externalizing.
I'll freely admit zoning laws kind of suck in some instances, but you are going to be hard pressed to find a place that does not have them. In fact, the more dense the housing, the more rigorous the zone laws are likely to be. The reality almost everywhere is that one simply cannot do whatever one pleases with their property including keeping it from the government.
So, yes my proverbial view of your smog may well be legally protected and that might suck, but you and I are both also protected from a neighbor converting their property into a toxic waste dump.
telling people they:
- have to live next to a skyrise is externalizing.
- have to use public transit is externalizing.
- can't let their kids get a good education is externalizing.
- can't let their kids play safely without adult supervision is externalizing.
I'll freely admit zoning laws kind of suck in some instances, but you are going to be hard pressed to find a place that does not have them. In fact, the more dense the housing, the more rigorous the zone laws are likely to be. The reality almost everywhere is that one simply cannot do whatever one pleases with their property including keeping it from the government.
So, yes my proverbial view of your smog may well be legally protected and that might suck, but you and I are both also protected from a neighbor converting their property into a toxic waste dump.
> Yes, if that's what I want. It's not really my backyard. it's proverbial, but we can't make the mistake of taking it literally. it's someone else's front yard. I have no say in it.
A century of established case law say otherwise. If a private landowner wants to change the zoning on a parcel of land near established residences and the residences can show decrease in property values as a result of rezoning the courts have consistently awarded financial damages to the owners of the residences from the city that decides to change the zoning.
A century of established case law say otherwise. If a private landowner wants to change the zoning on a parcel of land near established residences and the residences can show decrease in property values as a result of rezoning the courts have consistently awarded financial damages to the owners of the residences from the city that decides to change the zoning.
Generally it's the suburbs immediately outside a prosperous city that start to urbanize. Genuinely rural areas in America often have the opposite problem - they shrink.
That's exactly what the people opposing zoning changes did too. They move somewhere to avoid high density. Then demand follows them. The entire discussion right now is about increasing density where it is currently low, not about static high or low density.
The people opposing zoning changes did not do that. They moved to a suburb right next to a city so they can commute in. Getting outraged that the city grows is ridiculous.
It's even more ridiculous when you realize they were a part of it's growth. Like they only wanted it to grow up until the point they moved in.
What about those of us who grew up where we live?
The whole conversation around displacement is people being pushed away from where they grew up.
It’s just not reasonable to say, “the houses I saw growing up cannot change”
It’s just not reasonable to say, “the houses I saw growing up cannot change”
For those who want it, let them have it - all of it. Not the halfway version we have now.
Doing so, generally, will make things worse for someone like GP, because when they do go into the city, it will be less car-friendly.
So I think your reply is somewhat less than charitable.
Doing so, generally, will make things worse for someone like GP, because when they do go into the city, it will be less car-friendly.
So I think your reply is somewhat less than charitable.
That's basically the point of democracy and local levels of government - sufficient support at the local level means they make a change that fits the desires of the constituents. Different areas have different desires, and thus different laws.
Why should I care if there's high density housing in cities if I don't live there? Let those people decide what they want for that area.
Why should I care if there's high density housing in cities if I don't live there? Let those people decide what they want for that area.
> Different areas have different desires, and thus different laws.
The problem in this case is that it's not different desires. The existing landowners in every area have the same incentive -- to increase artificial scarcity so that the land they already own increases in value.
The people this comes at the expense of are the future residents of that area, who for that very reason don't have a vote there. If you live in town A and get a job in town B, you might like for town A to have restrictive zoning (where you're selling your old house) and town B to have relaxed zoning (where you're buying a new one), but you only get a vote in town A, until you've actually moved to town B at which point your incentives invert. So if zoning is local, every place structurally has unduly restrictive zoning.
This is one of the few places where local control doesn't work, specifically because the interests of current residents and future residents are in conflict.
The problem in this case is that it's not different desires. The existing landowners in every area have the same incentive -- to increase artificial scarcity so that the land they already own increases in value.
The people this comes at the expense of are the future residents of that area, who for that very reason don't have a vote there. If you live in town A and get a job in town B, you might like for town A to have restrictive zoning (where you're selling your old house) and town B to have relaxed zoning (where you're buying a new one), but you only get a vote in town A, until you've actually moved to town B at which point your incentives invert. So if zoning is local, every place structurally has unduly restrictive zoning.
This is one of the few places where local control doesn't work, specifically because the interests of current residents and future residents are in conflict.
I think you're misreading the incentives of homeowners; in general, they want to maintain or improve their quality of life, property values are a secondary concern (this idea that everyone would be happy with a shitty neighborhood and a giant bank account is absurd.) The big problem with increasing the density of a previously low-density area is that it adds load to the public services which make the quality of life high, without the commensurate increase in property tax per resident. And future residents generally choose places to live based on quality of life and afforability; so a place which has lots of great public services due to historically high property tax collection, where new high-density housing is built, is very attractive, for a while, because you get the best of both worlds, until the public services eventually decline to the level commensurate with the average property tax receipt per resident.
> The big problem with increasing the density of a previously low-density area is that it adds load to the public services which make the quality of life high, without the commensurate increase in property tax per resident.
If you need a given amount of tax revenue per person, set the tax rate so that you get that amount of tax revenue per person. This might be a different rate based on a different housing market. So what?
If you need a given amount of tax revenue per person, set the tax rate so that you get that amount of tax revenue per person. This might be a different rate based on a different housing market. So what?
the problem is thought that people don't pay local school and property tax based on individuals. They pay based on per $k of property value.
To be blunt, a high density housing project going into a low density community is literally leaching off the existing tax basis. Exacerbating this is the fact that developers often know how to game local tax laws further reducing their tax burdens and thus shouldering it on others.
To be blunt, a high density housing project going into a low density community is literally leaching off the existing tax basis. Exacerbating this is the fact that developers often know how to game local tax laws further reducing their tax burdens and thus shouldering it on others.
Oversubscribed public services AND tax increases? Can’t imagine why anyone is against this.
"So every place structurally has unduly restrictive zoning."
Only above a certain population number. Many smaller cities and towns don't have this issue.
"at which point your incentives invert."
Only if you own land. And only if your ideals support it. With a sufficient renting population there can be change.
"The existing landowners in every area have the same incentive -- to increase artificial scarcity so that the land they already own increases in value."
If this is true, then why even have a discussion? I mean, it's settled then - this is a democracy and the voting base will not support changes. Otherwise, there are multiple incentives and desires, so your statement would be an over simplification.
Then we are also ignoring effects of housing crunches. In theory, jobs people are moving to should have leadership that realizes the issue and moves to alleviate it (and have competitive cost advantages), or doesn't move there in the first place. Same for people, if it doesn't make financial sense to move somewhere, then they will select other options. We are already seeing some of these affects in movement from places like CA to TX.
Only above a certain population number. Many smaller cities and towns don't have this issue.
"at which point your incentives invert."
Only if you own land. And only if your ideals support it. With a sufficient renting population there can be change.
"The existing landowners in every area have the same incentive -- to increase artificial scarcity so that the land they already own increases in value."
If this is true, then why even have a discussion? I mean, it's settled then - this is a democracy and the voting base will not support changes. Otherwise, there are multiple incentives and desires, so your statement would be an over simplification.
Then we are also ignoring effects of housing crunches. In theory, jobs people are moving to should have leadership that realizes the issue and moves to alleviate it (and have competitive cost advantages), or doesn't move there in the first place. Same for people, if it doesn't make financial sense to move somewhere, then they will select other options. We are already seeing some of these affects in movement from places like CA to TX.
> Only above a certain population number. Many smaller cities and towns don't have this issue.
So only every place where it matters then.
Not having restrictions on 20 story buildings in farm country where nobody has any incentive to build 20 story buildings is irrelevant.
> Only if you own land. And only if your ideals support it. With a sufficient renting population there can be change.
This is another instance of "only where it matters" -- you have an area zoned exclusively for single family homes and nobody is renting because nobody who has to rent can afford to live there.
Also, this is "solved" by the scam of rent control. You bring just enough of the existing renters into the "screw the new guys" fold to prevent changes adverse to landlords.
> If this is true, then why even have a discussion? I mean, it's settled then - this is a democracy and the voting base will not support changes.
The question is at which level of government it should be decided. You do it at the state level instead of the town level and now there are a lot of people willing to remove zoning restrictions in the places they want to move to.
So only every place where it matters then.
Not having restrictions on 20 story buildings in farm country where nobody has any incentive to build 20 story buildings is irrelevant.
> Only if you own land. And only if your ideals support it. With a sufficient renting population there can be change.
This is another instance of "only where it matters" -- you have an area zoned exclusively for single family homes and nobody is renting because nobody who has to rent can afford to live there.
Also, this is "solved" by the scam of rent control. You bring just enough of the existing renters into the "screw the new guys" fold to prevent changes adverse to landlords.
> If this is true, then why even have a discussion? I mean, it's settled then - this is a democracy and the voting base will not support changes.
The question is at which level of government it should be decided. You do it at the state level instead of the town level and now there are a lot of people willing to remove zoning restrictions in the places they want to move to.
"So only every place where it matters then.
Not having restrictions on 20 story buildings in farm country where nobody has any incentive to build 20 story buildings is irrelevant."
This brings us to the root of the issue - job location and density. There's no reason companies can't move to existing small cities or towns. They don't have to cluster together in places like SF. It's tough to influence those choices, just like the preference of people to want low density housing. Some of it occurs naturally, at least for the worst offenders, like CA to TX in recent years.
"You do it at the state level instead of the town level and now there are a lot of people willing to remove zoning restrictions in the places they want to move to."
Are there though? I haven't really seen this. It also ignore local concerns. Maybe in low density places they don't care about higher density housing going in because the setbacks are naturally large. This changes if you go to a medium density area.
Not having restrictions on 20 story buildings in farm country where nobody has any incentive to build 20 story buildings is irrelevant."
This brings us to the root of the issue - job location and density. There's no reason companies can't move to existing small cities or towns. They don't have to cluster together in places like SF. It's tough to influence those choices, just like the preference of people to want low density housing. Some of it occurs naturally, at least for the worst offenders, like CA to TX in recent years.
"You do it at the state level instead of the town level and now there are a lot of people willing to remove zoning restrictions in the places they want to move to."
Are there though? I haven't really seen this. It also ignore local concerns. Maybe in low density places they don't care about higher density housing going in because the setbacks are naturally large. This changes if you go to a medium density area.
> There's no reason companies can't move to existing small cities or towns.
There is. They put their offices where they can find workers. You can staff a Google office from the people who already live in San Francisco, not from the people who already live in Tuscon.
And people don't want to live in a company town. If you live in a major city which has offices for every major company in your industry, you can buy a house there and not worry about what happens if you switch jobs. Are you going to want to buy a house some place you'd have to sell it if you ever wanted to work for a different company?
> Some of it occurs naturally, at least for the worst offenders, like CA to TX in recent years.
That only happens when the offenders are extraordinarily egregious. And even then, they're not moving from San Francisco to a thousand separate little towns. They're pretty much all going to Austin -- which has a higher population than San Francisco.
> Are there though? I haven't really seen this.
Have they actually moved zoning control to the state level anywhere? There are proposals to do it in California but I'm not sure that any of them have been implemented.
There is. They put their offices where they can find workers. You can staff a Google office from the people who already live in San Francisco, not from the people who already live in Tuscon.
And people don't want to live in a company town. If you live in a major city which has offices for every major company in your industry, you can buy a house there and not worry about what happens if you switch jobs. Are you going to want to buy a house some place you'd have to sell it if you ever wanted to work for a different company?
> Some of it occurs naturally, at least for the worst offenders, like CA to TX in recent years.
That only happens when the offenders are extraordinarily egregious. And even then, they're not moving from San Francisco to a thousand separate little towns. They're pretty much all going to Austin -- which has a higher population than San Francisco.
> Are there though? I haven't really seen this.
Have they actually moved zoning control to the state level anywhere? There are proposals to do it in California but I'm not sure that any of them have been implemented.
"Have they actually moved zoning control to the state level anywhere? There are proposals to do it in California but I'm not sure that any of them have been implemented."
Not just implemented, but even studied/surveyed.
Not just implemented, but even studied/surveyed.
> That's why I don't live in a city.
“city” encompasses suburbs/exurbs as well as urban cores
“city” encompasses suburbs/exurbs as well as urban cores
Sure, and those suburbs are for people that want the benefits of the city and are willing to pay a premium for less of the downsides, and also create more traffic for themselves to sit in. They've made a trade off as well, they live a little more densely packed than I do, but a little less than true urban dwellers, and their commute is longer, property maintenance is higher, living cost is usually a little more, they rely on a car. Personally not worth it to me, so I don't choose to live there either.
A city only "encompasses" suburbs because suburbanites drive to the city to work.
Functionally I'd say that the urban space ends where mass transit ends.
Functionally I'd say that the urban space ends where mass transit ends.
> A city only "encompasses" suburbs because suburbanites drive to the city to work.
I didn’t say that a city encompasses (it's associated) suburbs, I said that the term “city” encompasses, within its meaning, suburbs, to the extent that these are often literally their own cities. The term does not only refer to metropolitan cores. When the source article refers to “virtually every city in the USA bans single family homes...”, you have to understand that virtually every city in the USA is not a metropolitan core city. The vast majority of cities in the USA are suburbs or isolated small cities in rural areas that are exurbs of or even not associated tightly with a metropolitan core.
Weighted by population things are different, but that's not what is referenced.
I didn’t say that a city encompasses (it's associated) suburbs, I said that the term “city” encompasses, within its meaning, suburbs, to the extent that these are often literally their own cities. The term does not only refer to metropolitan cores. When the source article refers to “virtually every city in the USA bans single family homes...”, you have to understand that virtually every city in the USA is not a metropolitan core city. The vast majority of cities in the USA are suburbs or isolated small cities in rural areas that are exurbs of or even not associated tightly with a metropolitan core.
Weighted by population things are different, but that's not what is referenced.
I agree; this is why I have hard time calling many agglomerations cities proper. They are like parts of Silicon Valley, just giant interconnected suburban tissue with some spots of urban space.
Naturally, people living in suburbia mostly do so willingly, and resist attempts to erect cities on the middle of that tissue. If they wanted to live in a city, they'd move to one!
Naturally, people living in suburbia mostly do so willingly, and resist attempts to erect cities on the middle of that tissue. If they wanted to live in a city, they'd move to one!
[deleted]
I think that depends. You could be talking about the actually city (like jurisdiction and laws within the city limits) or you could be talking about the Greater [city] Area/Metro Area. Or even something else.
[deleted]
> I'm opposed to high density housing as well, for myself, personally. That's why I don't live in a city.
Sometimes the city comes to you. That's what's happening all over, where people are in suburbs outside the city, but the city grows and suddenly they learn that where they live isn't considered the outskirts anymore, and everyone's pissed that they oppose high density housing.
Sometimes the city comes to you. That's what's happening all over, where people are in suburbs outside the city, but the city grows and suddenly they learn that where they live isn't considered the outskirts anymore, and everyone's pissed that they oppose high density housing.
The city didn't come to them. They chose to live in close proximity to enjoy it's benefits thinking they could avoid the trade off entirely, forever.
They even considered this a benefit when they decided that as the population rose their property value would go up. They considered the state of affairs they're complaining about to be a good investment decision.
The suburbs are never truly outside the city, this is an illusion, and everyone knows it, and they knew it going in, they're just pretending they're getting the short end of the stick here.
They even considered this a benefit when they decided that as the population rose their property value would go up. They considered the state of affairs they're complaining about to be a good investment decision.
The suburbs are never truly outside the city, this is an illusion, and everyone knows it, and they knew it going in, they're just pretending they're getting the short end of the stick here.
> The city didn't come to them. They chose to live in close proximity to enjoy it's benefits thinking they could avoid the trade off entirely, forever.
In every place except for a handful of cities on the West Coast this is still true.
If I had moved to San Francisco or San Jose in 1980 to live in a nice single-family neighborhood setting, there is no way that anyone could have predicted just how many people would have moved to Silicon Valley in the next 40 years. If I had moved to Minneapolis, or Kansas City, or Austin, TX in 1980, I would still (most likely) be in that single-family neighborhood and not having to worry about developers wanting to put up a boatload of high-rises around me.
In every place except for a handful of cities on the West Coast this is still true.
If I had moved to San Francisco or San Jose in 1980 to live in a nice single-family neighborhood setting, there is no way that anyone could have predicted just how many people would have moved to Silicon Valley in the next 40 years. If I had moved to Minneapolis, or Kansas City, or Austin, TX in 1980, I would still (most likely) be in that single-family neighborhood and not having to worry about developers wanting to put up a boatload of high-rises around me.
> If I had moved to San Francisco or San Jose in 1980 to live in a nice single-family neighborhood setting, there is no way that anyone could have predicted just how many people would have moved to Silicon Valley in the next 40 years.
Well, thanks to restrictive zoning, they probably could have, in net if not in gross; there's a reason that while lots of money has moved into Silicon Valley, it (San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties combined) have seen less growth since 1980 than the East Bay, absolutely and relatively.
Well, thanks to restrictive zoning, they probably could have, in net if not in gross; there's a reason that while lots of money has moved into Silicon Valley, it (San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties combined) have seen less growth since 1980 than the East Bay, absolutely and relatively.
> The city didn't come to them. They chose to live in close proximity to enjoy it's benefits thinking they could avoid the trade off entirely, forever.
That's not always true either. I moved as far away from the city as I could, while still remaining close to my job, friends, and family. I chose my particular, because they already had zoning laws against high-density housing on the books. One of those was, no buildings over 6 stories. Now all of a sudden, they're allowing buildings up to 36 stories, and I get to have one overlooking my back yard. This isn't what I signed up for.
That's not always true either. I moved as far away from the city as I could, while still remaining close to my job, friends, and family. I chose my particular, because they already had zoning laws against high-density housing on the books. One of those was, no buildings over 6 stories. Now all of a sudden, they're allowing buildings up to 36 stories, and I get to have one overlooking my back yard. This isn't what I signed up for.
> while still remaining close to my job, friends, and family.
So you stayed in proximity to enjoy the benefits?
I'm not downplaying it BTW, I've been in that situation before. It's a little different when you're from a city, and it's more than just exotic food at midnight. I'm from a city too, that's where my life was, that's where my family is. I have experienced first hand my little suburb becoming an urban-clinging-onto-suburban-delusion hellscape.
Still though, we stayed in proximity and expected the world to stagnate for us. I realized that's not going to happen and I left. The city will grow, and like it or not you never left it, you just avoided the trade off for a while.
So you stayed in proximity to enjoy the benefits?
I'm not downplaying it BTW, I've been in that situation before. It's a little different when you're from a city, and it's more than just exotic food at midnight. I'm from a city too, that's where my life was, that's where my family is. I have experienced first hand my little suburb becoming an urban-clinging-onto-suburban-delusion hellscape.
Still though, we stayed in proximity and expected the world to stagnate for us. I realized that's not going to happen and I left. The city will grow, and like it or not you never left it, you just avoided the trade off for a while.
I don't think either side of the argument is necessarily wrong. Both high and low density housing bring different pros and cons as well as different elements that the residents of either one may not appreciate of the other.
The question of whether one form of housing development is better than the other is a red herring.
What we must ask is why we've organized cities the way we have, whether we can change how they are organized, and if we even should. That's because, let's face it, there's a form of NIMBY for both. Create more high density housing and the people with McMansions complain. Build some McMansions and the high density people cry "gentrification!" None of these people are going away, and neither one necessarily needs to lose their way of life.
The way I see it, there's too much a dichotomy between the city-life and the suburban or rural life. We might find ways to for them to better work together
For instance, although high density housing can be a good thing for many, from a structural standpoint they mostly make sense in dense urban cities and the outskirts of said cities. But why have dense urban cities in the 2020's? Why can't suburbs actually live up to the urb part?
Maybe we can actually use a lot of the vacant land we still have in America to create systems of small cities that can satisfy the needs of the many as well as the few? I don't think that there would be as much an opposition to high density development if it could be planned in such a way not to step on the toes of those who don't want to be around high density housing while still having a place for it. It would be better for policing and a sense of community.
Better yet, create networks of paths for bikes and tiny vehicles between said small cities. I mean actual bike paths, not the fake ones we paint on existing roads designed for cars. Economic opportunities could be created along those paths and make it simpler for towns to have their own cultures yet be involved with each other and easy to travel between without the hell of vehicle traffic.
I guess my thought is rather vague, but I still feel that we always end up asking the wrong questions.
The question of whether one form of housing development is better than the other is a red herring.
What we must ask is why we've organized cities the way we have, whether we can change how they are organized, and if we even should. That's because, let's face it, there's a form of NIMBY for both. Create more high density housing and the people with McMansions complain. Build some McMansions and the high density people cry "gentrification!" None of these people are going away, and neither one necessarily needs to lose their way of life.
The way I see it, there's too much a dichotomy between the city-life and the suburban or rural life. We might find ways to for them to better work together
For instance, although high density housing can be a good thing for many, from a structural standpoint they mostly make sense in dense urban cities and the outskirts of said cities. But why have dense urban cities in the 2020's? Why can't suburbs actually live up to the urb part?
Maybe we can actually use a lot of the vacant land we still have in America to create systems of small cities that can satisfy the needs of the many as well as the few? I don't think that there would be as much an opposition to high density development if it could be planned in such a way not to step on the toes of those who don't want to be around high density housing while still having a place for it. It would be better for policing and a sense of community.
Better yet, create networks of paths for bikes and tiny vehicles between said small cities. I mean actual bike paths, not the fake ones we paint on existing roads designed for cars. Economic opportunities could be created along those paths and make it simpler for towns to have their own cultures yet be involved with each other and easy to travel between without the hell of vehicle traffic.
I guess my thought is rather vague, but I still feel that we always end up asking the wrong questions.
If you don't think they are wrong in how they feel, I hope you can be convinced that one side is more morally wrong than the other. You should unpack what you meant you say 'high density people cry "gentrification!"'. The people in the McMansions are complaining that their "housing value" goes down. The high density people are complaining that they are being priced out of a place to live.
If I had to choose between protecting "housing value" and having people be homeless (or rather, the working class spending 60-70% of their income on housing), I'd side with the high density people.
More specifically,
>For instance, although high density housing can be a good thing for many, from a structural standpoint they mostly make sense in dense urban cities and the outskirts of said cities. But why have dense urban cities in the 2020's? Why can't suburbs actually live up to the urb part?
There is a huge difference between Manhattan and Amsterdam, and Amsterdam's multifamily housing is what alot of YIMBYs argue we should have; however alot of Amsterdam's housing is completely banned in the US.
If I had to choose between protecting "housing value" and having people be homeless (or rather, the working class spending 60-70% of their income on housing), I'd side with the high density people.
More specifically,
>For instance, although high density housing can be a good thing for many, from a structural standpoint they mostly make sense in dense urban cities and the outskirts of said cities. But why have dense urban cities in the 2020's? Why can't suburbs actually live up to the urb part?
There is a huge difference between Manhattan and Amsterdam, and Amsterdam's multifamily housing is what alot of YIMBYs argue we should have; however alot of Amsterdam's housing is completely banned in the US.
No, I don't have to "unpack" anything. I'm not the one making a value judgment within that framework. You seem to think I am making a judgment, which I assume you think is a negative one given your choice of words, because I said "gentrification". People who say their neighborhood is being gentrified may be justified or they may be not. It's really not relevant given how I already framed my argument starting from the first sentence.
It's possible that one side is more morally wrong than the other, and it's at least inherently true. In fact I would bet we'd agree on which is the most morally wrong. That doesn't really matter because both sides have valid positions.
It's possible that one side is more morally wrong than the other, and it's at least inherently true. In fact I would bet we'd agree on which is the most morally wrong. That doesn't really matter because both sides have valid positions.
I'm not sure your argument works here. When people complain about gentrification, they don't mean (as far as I can tell) tearing down high-rise apartments to build a McMansion. They mean first-ring suburban homes being driven up in price. So it seems to me that densification is the cure for the complaint about gentrification. Create enough higher-density housing to overcome the price increase of the gentrification.[1][2]
[1] This presumes that the gentrification complaint is a good faith one. Instead, it could amount to "I want my neighborhood to be remain one of small, single-family homes, but I don't want it to rise in price." I guess it's fine to want it, but I'm not sure that it's a problem that policy should solve.
[2] Increasing density in this way may also hinder gentrification. People who are causing gentrification by buying up homes in such neighborhoods are looking for that style of neighborhood. If some of the houses get replaced by high-rise apartments, well, do the gentrifiers really want to live in that neighborhood?
[1] This presumes that the gentrification complaint is a good faith one. Instead, it could amount to "I want my neighborhood to be remain one of small, single-family homes, but I don't want it to rise in price." I guess it's fine to want it, but I'm not sure that it's a problem that policy should solve.
[2] Increasing density in this way may also hinder gentrification. People who are causing gentrification by buying up homes in such neighborhoods are looking for that style of neighborhood. If some of the houses get replaced by high-rise apartments, well, do the gentrifiers really want to live in that neighborhood?
I took the gentrification complaint at face value as I understood the point he was trying to make. As I understand it, gentrification isn't a "high density" argument, it's a NIMBY one (much like "environmental concerns" and "shadows"). While I believe that increased housing could ease gentrification, I personally believe that (1) gentrification is not a problem worth addressing and (2) it's most often used a tool to prevent the addition of new housing which worsens the symptoms of gentrification.
Suburbs can't live up to the urb part because they are car-centric. What makes high density worth it I the ability to walk down a street and reach many points of interest, like a grocery or a gym or even a school. And not just one but a choice of them.
For said high density to be able to operate, people should widely use mass transit, because streets cannot and should not have room to let everybody drive a car.
This is why suburbia with single-family houses and driving everywhere, and a dense city with high-rises and subway are like oil and water, they can't mix freely.
For said high density to be able to operate, people should widely use mass transit, because streets cannot and should not have room to let everybody drive a car.
This is why suburbia with single-family houses and driving everywhere, and a dense city with high-rises and subway are like oil and water, they can't mix freely.
Not Just Bikes has a recent video[0] talking about the lack of middle ground for suburbs in North America.
I think a big problem is that laws as they are prevent variety. Either everything must be single family homes with huge setbacks and wide roads, or it is doomed to be bought up by large apartment developers. Is it a threat to your ability to have a yard and two car garage if the house next door is a duplex and the end of the block has a corner store with a couple apartments above it? No, but the laws make it so that only your yard and two car garage can exist in your neighborhood regardless.
[0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0
I think a big problem is that laws as they are prevent variety. Either everything must be single family homes with huge setbacks and wide roads, or it is doomed to be bought up by large apartment developers. Is it a threat to your ability to have a yard and two car garage if the house next door is a duplex and the end of the block has a corner store with a couple apartments above it? No, but the laws make it so that only your yard and two car garage can exist in your neighborhood regardless.
[0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0
Nobody I know of is proposing only high-density housing. The issue, especially in places like the Bay area is that density should have been going up closer in, instead of paving over the garlic fields in Gilroy. It is much less costly to make subway stations bigger and add cars to trains than it is to extend rail farther out.
There are existing solutions that would "create systems of small cities that can satisfy the needs of the many as well as the few." If US trains did not suck, Lawrence, Worcester, Springfield and more would see an economic boom and take pressure off the Boston housing market. I can fly into Schiphol overnight and take a train to Hilversum in the morning more easily and vastly more reliably than I can take the MBTA to Amtrak to New York.
There are existing solutions that would "create systems of small cities that can satisfy the needs of the many as well as the few." If US trains did not suck, Lawrence, Worcester, Springfield and more would see an economic boom and take pressure off the Boston housing market. I can fly into Schiphol overnight and take a train to Hilversum in the morning more easily and vastly more reliably than I can take the MBTA to Amtrak to New York.
That style of layout is called 'urban village' and it hasn't worked in the long run because economic incentives will favor infill development that is closer to economic centers. This isn't to say that they can't work but there are many examples of failed urban villages that eventually turn into sprawling regions.
> Create more high density housing and the people with McMansions complain. Build some McMansions and the high density people cry "gentrification!"
I don't know if it is just where I live (Seattle) or if it is common in other big cities trying to densify as well, but the "gentrification!" chant seems to be prevalent across both sides, not just the McMansion side.
Here we get "gentrification!" yells even when high-density residential buildings are constructed. In fact, we have NIMBYs fighting against increasing density behind their chant of "gentrification!" and "we have to preserve the character of this neighborhood!" at the same time.
I don't know if it is just where I live (Seattle) or if it is common in other big cities trying to densify as well, but the "gentrification!" chant seems to be prevalent across both sides, not just the McMansion side.
Here we get "gentrification!" yells even when high-density residential buildings are constructed. In fact, we have NIMBYs fighting against increasing density behind their chant of "gentrification!" and "we have to preserve the character of this neighborhood!" at the same time.
> But why have dense urban cities in the 2020's? Why can't suburbs actually live up to the urb part?
A suburb living up to the urb part is really just a town or a small city. As for why you have suburbs, I think the primary reasons are economic, though there are social (and in some places racial) reasons as well. As it currently stands, ignoring the problem of atmospheric carbonization and climate change, it's cheaper to centralize industry. This issue is quite poignant in the tech industry, where things are extremely centralized, and where many people flock to the handful of cities that have the biggest tech companies.
A suburb living up to the urb part is really just a town or a small city. As for why you have suburbs, I think the primary reasons are economic, though there are social (and in some places racial) reasons as well. As it currently stands, ignoring the problem of atmospheric carbonization and climate change, it's cheaper to centralize industry. This issue is quite poignant in the tech industry, where things are extremely centralized, and where many people flock to the handful of cities that have the biggest tech companies.
Such is the beauty of America, if you don't like a place, you can go somewhere else with relative ease. People like dense urban places, they like suburban cul-de-sac, they also like quiet country living.
I personally really like a hub and spoke styled system for cities and towns, we have a little of that here in my neck of the woods (south-east Michigan). I can choose to live in a fast(ish) growing city or it's burbs, the small cozy town 15 minutes north of the city, or 20 minutes west in the rural country. To your point about biking trails, I'm in total favor of these types of developments and have been absolutely elated about the growth of it in my region.
[0] This is a recent map of the built and in-progress routes, it uses Ann Arbor, a small city with ~120k pop, as the hub, and connects it's to its various sister cities. It's got a long way to go, but having ridden some of these stretches, it's been an awesome experience to say the least. Part of this has been that, yes, it connects up small towns such as Chelsea, Dexter, and Ypsilanti, but it also connects up with various parks and recreation areas.
I've been planning a move from the city into the country, and these paths are part of the reason why. It doesn't really allow me to bike in on the daily, but it does make it a LOT more reasonable to spend an afternoon biking into the city, grabbing coffee, hitting the theater, grabbing dinner, and then grabbing groceries before heading back. Pair this with a remote job, and I don't think I would actually end up using my car very often, this is a huge win in my opinion.
[0] https://www.washtenaw.org/DocumentCenter/View/1258/B2B-Overv...
I personally really like a hub and spoke styled system for cities and towns, we have a little of that here in my neck of the woods (south-east Michigan). I can choose to live in a fast(ish) growing city or it's burbs, the small cozy town 15 minutes north of the city, or 20 minutes west in the rural country. To your point about biking trails, I'm in total favor of these types of developments and have been absolutely elated about the growth of it in my region.
[0] This is a recent map of the built and in-progress routes, it uses Ann Arbor, a small city with ~120k pop, as the hub, and connects it's to its various sister cities. It's got a long way to go, but having ridden some of these stretches, it's been an awesome experience to say the least. Part of this has been that, yes, it connects up small towns such as Chelsea, Dexter, and Ypsilanti, but it also connects up with various parks and recreation areas.
I've been planning a move from the city into the country, and these paths are part of the reason why. It doesn't really allow me to bike in on the daily, but it does make it a LOT more reasonable to spend an afternoon biking into the city, grabbing coffee, hitting the theater, grabbing dinner, and then grabbing groceries before heading back. Pair this with a remote job, and I don't think I would actually end up using my car very often, this is a huge win in my opinion.
[0] https://www.washtenaw.org/DocumentCenter/View/1258/B2B-Overv...
For those of us not affiliated with a University, is there a way to read the article without paying $37.50?
Anecdotally, there's a lot of mythology in America about the supremacy of single family exclusive neighborhoods that's contradicted by actual numbers (mentioned in the abstract). There's also people's preference for the thing they know and at this point we have two generations that have grown up in single family exclusive neighborhoods.
It's really difficult to soften this kind of opposition.
Anecdotally, there's a lot of mythology in America about the supremacy of single family exclusive neighborhoods that's contradicted by actual numbers (mentioned in the abstract). There's also people's preference for the thing they know and at this point we have two generations that have grown up in single family exclusive neighborhoods.
It's really difficult to soften this kind of opposition.
Such loaded language! "mythology in America", "people's preference for the thing they know", "really difficult to soften this kind of opposition"
Can you accept that your preferences are not shared by large numbers of people? And that they have free will and know what they want?
Can you accept that your preferences are not shared by large numbers of people? And that they have free will and know what they want?
Yes, I can.
However I am not convinced that is what has happened in the US and Canada's suburban development with regards to the overwhelming adoption of single family homes.
Charles Marohn, a former city planner and engineer, has written about this "the free market has spoken" position as his own previous position on this topic which he no longer holds:
> At this point in my life, I was a self-described free-market Republican with an outspoken passion for markets and my chosen profession of civil engineering, which to me was a technical way to say “city building.” If I had been pushed to reconcile my rejection of congestion pricing with my support for the free market, I would have had no problem. I would have said something like:
> > Markets are about the expression of personal preference. It was clear that, since most people drove automobiles, auto-based infrastructure was the clear market preference. Since most people lived in single-family homes, they were also the clear market preference. Given those clear and obvious preferences—combined with the fact that people paid taxes and expected the government to respond to their desires—charging people more for something they already paid for was a ploy to benefit the rich. Instead of congestion pricing, the state should have been building more capacity.
The ubiquity of a given mode of something, in this case single family homes in US and Canadian suburbs, is not necessarily evidence that people overwhelming want or support those modes. Especially if there is rarely, if ever, a true alternative available to actually choose instead.
Further, even if we assume that the free market _did_ actually freely choose this mode that it should stand unquestioned in perpetuity. Needs and desires change as people and the world change together.
0: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/10/25/my-journey-fr...
However I am not convinced that is what has happened in the US and Canada's suburban development with regards to the overwhelming adoption of single family homes.
Charles Marohn, a former city planner and engineer, has written about this "the free market has spoken" position as his own previous position on this topic which he no longer holds:
> At this point in my life, I was a self-described free-market Republican with an outspoken passion for markets and my chosen profession of civil engineering, which to me was a technical way to say “city building.” If I had been pushed to reconcile my rejection of congestion pricing with my support for the free market, I would have had no problem. I would have said something like:
> > Markets are about the expression of personal preference. It was clear that, since most people drove automobiles, auto-based infrastructure was the clear market preference. Since most people lived in single-family homes, they were also the clear market preference. Given those clear and obvious preferences—combined with the fact that people paid taxes and expected the government to respond to their desires—charging people more for something they already paid for was a ploy to benefit the rich. Instead of congestion pricing, the state should have been building more capacity.
The ubiquity of a given mode of something, in this case single family homes in US and Canadian suburbs, is not necessarily evidence that people overwhelming want or support those modes. Especially if there is rarely, if ever, a true alternative available to actually choose instead.
Further, even if we assume that the free market _did_ actually freely choose this mode that it should stand unquestioned in perpetuity. Needs and desires change as people and the world change together.
0: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/10/25/my-journey-fr...
I don't find anything about houses in the first one. Can you share where the critical data is, so I don't have to read all seven?
Anyone in the suburbs can move to the city if they want to, and the ubiquity of expensive downtown condo projects for empty-nesters demonstrates that a fair number do. So your citing of a lack of alternatives is pretty unconvincing. You're left with forcing people to do what they choose not to.
Anyone in the suburbs can move to the city if they want to, and the ubiquity of expensive downtown condo projects for empty-nesters demonstrates that a fair number do. So your citing of a lack of alternatives is pretty unconvincing. You're left with forcing people to do what they choose not to.
> Anyone in the suburbs can move to the city if they want to
In the most prosperous cities there's an entire conversation around displacement because costs are too high for people to live where they group up. So no, not everyone can.
> you citing of a lack of alternatives is pretty unconvincing.
There's a government commission deciding how much of each type of housing can exist. What alternative do people have other than living in what has been allowed? We can look at price to reveal preferences and the price per interior square foot is highest close to jobs. That's a far stronger signal than a survey that doesn't even ask people to imagine the tradeoffs.
In the most prosperous cities there's an entire conversation around displacement because costs are too high for people to live where they group up. So no, not everyone can.
> you citing of a lack of alternatives is pretty unconvincing.
There's a government commission deciding how much of each type of housing can exist. What alternative do people have other than living in what has been allowed? We can look at price to reveal preferences and the price per interior square foot is highest close to jobs. That's a far stronger signal than a survey that doesn't even ask people to imagine the tradeoffs.
Free will is part of the equation, but when good mid-density housing has been illegal in North America since WWII is it really a question of free will?
OK, let's ignore North America for a second [1] [2] and look at the whole world. I only find one country under 50% (barely!) and that's Hong Kong. I've been there; it's pretty crowded.
Given that much or even most high-density housing in big cities is rental and not condo or other ownership, it does seem like most people worldwide prefer to own. I don't have the data on single-family vs. multi-unit.
Canada and the US are nowhere near the top of the list.
[1] https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/home-ownership-rat...
[2] https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-with-the-highe...
Given that much or even most high-density housing in big cities is rental and not condo or other ownership, it does seem like most people worldwide prefer to own. I don't have the data on single-family vs. multi-unit.
Canada and the US are nowhere near the top of the list.
[1] https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/home-ownership-rat...
[2] https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-with-the-highe...
I'm not sure why type of ownership pertains here? I would say that in North America, single-family zoning has become the dominant form because it's been the cheapest to build. It should not be the cheapest to build. We haven't been accounting for the externalities of increased land-use and transportation costs, but municipalities will increasingly bear that burden and taxpayers in denser areas will continue to subsidize the suburban lifestyle.
> I'm not sure why type of ownership pertains here?
I demonstrated the home ownership is well over 50% worldwide. I conceded that that might well be more condos / flats / coops in other countries, but I don't have that data.
As for single-family being the cheapest to build: that is quite likely true worldwide outside of urban cores. If you think it's not, it's on you to prove it. If it IS true, then it's obviously not a US political problem.
I demonstrated the home ownership is well over 50% worldwide. I conceded that that might well be more condos / flats / coops in other countries, but I don't have that data.
As for single-family being the cheapest to build: that is quite likely true worldwide outside of urban cores. If you think it's not, it's on you to prove it. If it IS true, then it's obviously not a US political problem.
Ah okay, I see. I was using NA as my example because it's what I know the most about, and I think it has the most obvious suburban form. There are other countries around the world that exhibit similar patterns.
My point about single-family being cheapest to build is indeed a US political problem, because through law/taxation we have incentivized it to be. By cheapest to build, I mean including municipal development charges and the land cost. The external costs of these developments (increased carbon emissions, less efficient land use) are not being paid for by the developer, so taxpayers/local governments are not being forced to pay for that burden.
My point about single-family being cheapest to build is indeed a US political problem, because through law/taxation we have incentivized it to be. By cheapest to build, I mean including municipal development charges and the land cost. The external costs of these developments (increased carbon emissions, less efficient land use) are not being paid for by the developer, so taxpayers/local governments are not being forced to pay for that burden.
I doubt seriously that you've done any research on the cost of building housing in other countries: what the builder has to pay the municipality, what the homeowner has to pay in local taxes (over & above the income tax and VAT). Have you?
Are you equating home ownership with single family neighborhoods? That's... wildly inaccurate.
apparently you haven't been reading the other threads about that.
A preference uninformed by alternative ways of living.
Having lived in suburbs, exurbs, dense and extremely dense cities, I find most people have no idea of the benefits and disadvantages of each place.
My impression is that the vast majority of suburbanites live in thoroughly suboptimal conditions and that their health and social lives would be massively better served by living in more dense and walkable areas.
Having lived in suburbs, exurbs, dense and extremely dense cities, I find most people have no idea of the benefits and disadvantages of each place.
My impression is that the vast majority of suburbanites live in thoroughly suboptimal conditions and that their health and social lives would be massively better served by living in more dense and walkable areas.
Try sending your children to the public schools in any dense city in America. You will then have a better understanding of the other perspective which I happen to currently view as "thoroughly suboptimal". For reference, I have lived in both SF and NYC.
> the vast majority of suburbanites live in thoroughly suboptimal conditions and that their health and social lives would be massively better served by living in more dense and walkable areas.
And yet, they don't believe that. What are you going to do, force them?
And yet, they don't believe that. What are you going to do, force them?
It's a very hard pill to swallow when those preferences are built on flawed data, and those preferences lead to choices that massively increase housing prices, exacerbate homelessness, destroy local businesses and indirectly contributes to climate change through increased vehicle usage
You look only at the problem from your perspective. There are other perspectives as well.
I'm not going to sugar coat it, public schooling is terrible in most dense large cities in America. Raising a kid in general is terrible in large cities. Without these perspectives it is bogus to claim "flawed data".
Solve schooling and create safe places for children to grow and play without the need to constant adult supervision before condemning suburbia.
I'm not saying that density is without merits but it is certainly not without flaws.
BTW, I would love to know more about why you feel suburbia destroys local businesses and how it exacerbate homelessness, unless your argument is that higher density is more houses and thus fewer homeless. If you do believe this, you need to do some more research on the causes of chronic homelessness.
I'm not going to sugar coat it, public schooling is terrible in most dense large cities in America. Raising a kid in general is terrible in large cities. Without these perspectives it is bogus to claim "flawed data".
Solve schooling and create safe places for children to grow and play without the need to constant adult supervision before condemning suburbia.
I'm not saying that density is without merits but it is certainly not without flaws.
BTW, I would love to know more about why you feel suburbia destroys local businesses and how it exacerbate homelessness, unless your argument is that higher density is more houses and thus fewer homeless. If you do believe this, you need to do some more research on the causes of chronic homelessness.
>I'm not going to sugar coat it, public schooling is terrible in most dense large cities in America.
I don't see how this is relevant to housing, unless you also believe public schooling worldwide is terrible in most dense cities. It's a uniquely American problem that public schooling is terrible in all but the most elite of zip codes. Rural schools suffer the same problem too, and it has little to do with housing (except for, surprisingly, Texas, which allocates funding for schools at the state level). In short, in the US, school quality is not a function of density; it's a function of funding; and in the US school funding is primarily allocated from property taxes.
>BTW, I would love to know more about why you feel suburbia destroys local businesses and how it exacerbate homelessness,
Suburban zoning (as designed in America) lead to strip malls and big box dependence. When every store is 10 miles from each other, you end up in a situation where Walmart becomes the only game in town. Secondly, the parking requirements also increase the fixed costs for any business; which limits the type of businesses you can open. You can see this effect in a the types of businesses and restaurants you have in San Jose vs San Francisco. San Jose is a larger city than SF but is far more hostile to local businesses.
To be clear, I'm not advocating that every city should be Manhattan. The missing middle housing (https://missingmiddlehousing.com/) has been posted a number of times, and Not Just Bikes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0) goes into it as well. There's a middle ground that is better than American designed suburbs that aren't as suffocating as Manhattan.
I don't see how this is relevant to housing, unless you also believe public schooling worldwide is terrible in most dense cities. It's a uniquely American problem that public schooling is terrible in all but the most elite of zip codes. Rural schools suffer the same problem too, and it has little to do with housing (except for, surprisingly, Texas, which allocates funding for schools at the state level). In short, in the US, school quality is not a function of density; it's a function of funding; and in the US school funding is primarily allocated from property taxes.
>BTW, I would love to know more about why you feel suburbia destroys local businesses and how it exacerbate homelessness,
Suburban zoning (as designed in America) lead to strip malls and big box dependence. When every store is 10 miles from each other, you end up in a situation where Walmart becomes the only game in town. Secondly, the parking requirements also increase the fixed costs for any business; which limits the type of businesses you can open. You can see this effect in a the types of businesses and restaurants you have in San Jose vs San Francisco. San Jose is a larger city than SF but is far more hostile to local businesses.
To be clear, I'm not advocating that every city should be Manhattan. The missing middle housing (https://missingmiddlehousing.com/) has been posted a number of times, and Not Just Bikes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0) goes into it as well. There's a middle ground that is better than American designed suburbs that aren't as suffocating as Manhattan.
You are stating an opinion ("it's [school quality] a function of funding") which is a highly questionable statement as a fact.
A simple plot of funding per student vs test scores would lay that to rest. Some of the worst school systems in the country spend the most per student. If we went to worldwide data, I don't think we would find that Singapore and Finland spend more than the US on schools, but their schools are vastly superior. (A real comparison would involve some serious economic analysis; maybe someone's done that?)
> "San Jose is a larger city than SF but is far more hostile to local businesses"
Since I live in San Jose, I'd like to see what support you have for this statement. Taxes, regulations, crime, wages...?
A simple plot of funding per student vs test scores would lay that to rest. Some of the worst school systems in the country spend the most per student. If we went to worldwide data, I don't think we would find that Singapore and Finland spend more than the US on schools, but their schools are vastly superior. (A real comparison would involve some serious economic analysis; maybe someone's done that?)
> "San Jose is a larger city than SF but is far more hostile to local businesses"
Since I live in San Jose, I'd like to see what support you have for this statement. Taxes, regulations, crime, wages...?
Fine, I don't care about defending that point right now, as the main assertion I'm trying to dispel is that somehow schools are unilaterally worse in high density cities. By your own admission, Singapore has vastly superior schools despite having the largest population density in the world. Population density doesn't have an effect on school quality.
>Since I live in San Jose, I'd like to see what support you have for this statement. Taxes, regulations, crime, wages...?
Regulations. To be specific I'm talking about how housing density affects local businesses and minimum parking requirements for businesses is one of those regulations.
>Since I live in San Jose, I'd like to see what support you have for this statement. Taxes, regulations, crime, wages...?
Regulations. To be specific I'm talking about how housing density affects local businesses and minimum parking requirements for businesses is one of those regulations.
Parking: such nonsense. You're reduced to quoting some self-interested tweeter?
Let me tell you how small businesses (like sandwich shops or nail salons or tutoring academies) work in San Jose:
You find an empty storefront in a strip mall on some street corner. You don't put it in the middle of a busy street like this San Francisco place. If you do, it's probably set back a little from the street with parking in front of it.
The strip mall has a large shared parking lot for all the stores, and as long as your shop doesn't have extremely high customer counts, you're good to go. If you're a marijuana dispensary or something high traffic, you may have a problem.
Would you like some pictures of little sandwich shops around here?
Let me tell you how small businesses (like sandwich shops or nail salons or tutoring academies) work in San Jose:
You find an empty storefront in a strip mall on some street corner. You don't put it in the middle of a busy street like this San Francisco place. If you do, it's probably set back a little from the street with parking in front of it.
The strip mall has a large shared parking lot for all the stores, and as long as your shop doesn't have extremely high customer counts, you're good to go. If you're a marijuana dispensary or something high traffic, you may have a problem.
Would you like some pictures of little sandwich shops around here?
> I'm talking about how housing density affects local businesses and minimum parking requirements for businesses
Seriously? You're seriously asserting that small businesses would rather be in SF than in SJ, because of minimum parking?
We can do some research on that. I don't think it's going to come out the way you like, though. The research would have to do with cost-of-doing-business, profitability, etc. etc.
As for schools & population density: I think you're shifting the goal posts after the game's turned against you. First it was :
> In short, in the US, school quality is not a function of density; it's a function of funding.
So, just so we're clear: you're giving up on that one?
Seriously? You're seriously asserting that small businesses would rather be in SF than in SJ, because of minimum parking?
We can do some research on that. I don't think it's going to come out the way you like, though. The research would have to do with cost-of-doing-business, profitability, etc. etc.
As for schools & population density: I think you're shifting the goal posts after the game's turned against you. First it was :
> In short, in the US, school quality is not a function of density; it's a function of funding.
So, just so we're clear: you're giving up on that one?
>Seriously? You're seriously asserting that small businesses would rather be in SF than in SJ, because of minimum parking?
I'm asserting that some types of businesses cannot exist due to the low density requirements due to parking requirements + lack of traffic. Whether any arbitrary local business can exist in SJ and be more profitable is obviously something an individual business owner as to weigh.
For example, here is one effect I was talking about how parking regulations affect the types of restaurants you can open: https://twitter.com/BayBetter/status/1306681675301048320
When you look at restaurants in San Jose vs San Francisco I don't think you can argue that density didn't play a factor.
>So, just so we're clear: you're giving up on that one?
No it's not; I see now you aren't the same poster as GP; the assertion was schools in high density neighborhoods are poor. My response is that there are other, more pertinent factors at play, like funding, that affect school quality and that simply upzoning will not destroy schools. Discussing the minutiae of the return of funding on school performance isn't relevant the topic of high density development.
I'm asserting that some types of businesses cannot exist due to the low density requirements due to parking requirements + lack of traffic. Whether any arbitrary local business can exist in SJ and be more profitable is obviously something an individual business owner as to weigh.
For example, here is one effect I was talking about how parking regulations affect the types of restaurants you can open: https://twitter.com/BayBetter/status/1306681675301048320
When you look at restaurants in San Jose vs San Francisco I don't think you can argue that density didn't play a factor.
>So, just so we're clear: you're giving up on that one?
No it's not; I see now you aren't the same poster as GP; the assertion was schools in high density neighborhoods are poor. My response is that there are other, more pertinent factors at play, like funding, that affect school quality and that simply upzoning will not destroy schools. Discussing the minutiae of the return of funding on school performance isn't relevant the topic of high density development.
So it becomes "minutiae" when the facts don't support your argument.
I showed in another post how "parking requirements" are a bogus issue, in reality. I can walk (and do so every day with the dog) to a corner mall with two Chinese restaurants, Japanese restaurant, water store, sandwich shop, nail salon, barber shop, florist, watch repair business, dental office, tea business, pizza place, health food store, bike shop, post office, Safeway, IHOP, and Chase bank branch. Plus a very large Chinese restaurant going up where the Rite Aid used to be.
All sharing the same parking lot.
Is it paradise? No, but some people prefer it to urban squalor.
I showed in another post how "parking requirements" are a bogus issue, in reality. I can walk (and do so every day with the dog) to a corner mall with two Chinese restaurants, Japanese restaurant, water store, sandwich shop, nail salon, barber shop, florist, watch repair business, dental office, tea business, pizza place, health food store, bike shop, post office, Safeway, IHOP, and Chase bank branch. Plus a very large Chinese restaurant going up where the Rite Aid used to be.
All sharing the same parking lot.
Is it paradise? No, but some people prefer it to urban squalor.
>So it becomes "minutiae" when the facts don't support your argument.
You've honed into one small aspect of my argument and ignored your own counter argument that you've made. I don't understand what point you are trying to prove. It's minutiae because, as you've already shown, Singapore has amazing schools while having incredibly high population density. The link between school budgets and performance is not completely divorced as it has been shown within America there is a correlation. However those arguments, and the research behind them are simply not relevant to the current discussion. The claim was schools in dense neighborhoods are worse. I claimed that funding was a far more important factor. You've shown that Singapore has exceptional schools in the densest urban capital.
>I can walk (and do so every day with the dog) to a corner mall with two Chinese restaurants, Japanese restaurant, water store, sandwich shop, nail salon, barber shop, florist, watch repair business, dental office, tea business, pizza place, health food store, bike shop, post office, Safeway, IHOP, and Chase bank branch. Plus a very large Chinese restaurant going up where the Rite Aid used to be.
It's also snowing in Denver so global warming must not exist. Like seriously, what are you trying to argue here and what does it have to do with high density development?
>No, but some people prefer it to urban squalor.
Again, there is a mountain of options between San Jose and Manhattan and these cities have existed in Europe for longer than America has been around. To consider a city like Amsterdamn "urban squalor" because they have mutli-family zoning is just ignorant. Children can walk to school in the "urban squalor" of Amsterdam (which is almost 3x as dense as San Jose). San Jose still struggles with having sidewalks in many areas.
You've honed into one small aspect of my argument and ignored your own counter argument that you've made. I don't understand what point you are trying to prove. It's minutiae because, as you've already shown, Singapore has amazing schools while having incredibly high population density. The link between school budgets and performance is not completely divorced as it has been shown within America there is a correlation. However those arguments, and the research behind them are simply not relevant to the current discussion. The claim was schools in dense neighborhoods are worse. I claimed that funding was a far more important factor. You've shown that Singapore has exceptional schools in the densest urban capital.
>I can walk (and do so every day with the dog) to a corner mall with two Chinese restaurants, Japanese restaurant, water store, sandwich shop, nail salon, barber shop, florist, watch repair business, dental office, tea business, pizza place, health food store, bike shop, post office, Safeway, IHOP, and Chase bank branch. Plus a very large Chinese restaurant going up where the Rite Aid used to be.
It's also snowing in Denver so global warming must not exist. Like seriously, what are you trying to argue here and what does it have to do with high density development?
>No, but some people prefer it to urban squalor.
Again, there is a mountain of options between San Jose and Manhattan and these cities have existed in Europe for longer than America has been around. To consider a city like Amsterdamn "urban squalor" because they have mutli-family zoning is just ignorant. Children can walk to school in the "urban squalor" of Amsterdam (which is almost 3x as dense as San Jose). San Jose still struggles with having sidewalks in many areas.
OK, I think we're done here. You've lost every point you brought up, and thus you have to keep changing the definition of what's being argued about. There's no point in continuing.
I feel rather confident that public schools in high density America are universally expensive, dilapidated, and crappy. Though to be fair, I only have first hand knowledge of SF, NYC, and Philly.
I also have first had experiences with several small town schools in America and while I agree it is a mixed bag, what I can say is that community expectations make or break the school.
I have lived in areas where the community had no expectation that their kids attend college and to no surprise, the quality of the school was crap. I currently live in a community that expects all children to go to college and thus the quality of the system is great.
I also have first had experiences with several small town schools in America and while I agree it is a mixed bag, what I can say is that community expectations make or break the school.
I have lived in areas where the community had no expectation that their kids attend college and to no surprise, the quality of the school was crap. I currently live in a community that expects all children to go to college and thus the quality of the system is great.
It's loaded for a reason: people are using the law to force their preference on others and ruining lives. There will always be single family detached housing, but making them the only legal thing drives up prices and commute times to insane levels.
"ruining lives" -- LOL. Why not just say it's "actual violence"?
The author's webpage lists the article:
https://faculty.ucmerced.edu/jtrounstine/Skittles_UAR_ALL.pd...
https://faculty.ucmerced.edu/jtrounstine/Skittles_UAR_ALL.pd...
Thanks!
[deleted]
Use Sci Hub.
Unfortunately Sci-Hub is not able to index all articles. See: http://sci-hub.se/10.1177/10780874211065776.
Telling people that they are wrong to want a single family home is a statement with a short memory, when just a few short months ago the reasons for having private space for every occupant, some outside space, and separation from other families seemed very, very, very clear.
Who is telling you your preference is wrong? The problem is when people use the law to force their own preference on others. In residential zoning, that takes the form of forcing people into single family homes that would prefer walkable urban areas.
>The problem is when people use the law to force their own preference on others
So we're in agreement, then? zoning should stay the way it is now?
So we're in agreement, then? zoning should stay the way it is now?
No, zoning laws are forcing your preferences on other people. They need to be significantly relaxed if not removed entirely.
How about everyone can build the type of house they want on their own land.
How about everyone can build the type of house they want on their own land.
If you want to build your own green-field utopia, go right ahead and make whatever zoning laws you like. But insisting that ESTABLISHED low-density areas must CHANGE become more dense, and then justify it with "but YOU are forcing YOUR ideals on ME" is absurd and either naive or disingenuous.
Those municipalities chose to change when they zone for and permit more offices. The need for more housing is the other shoe dropping.
Can I put a toxic waste dump on my property next to yours then? How about an incinerator, or an open pit mine? I mean if zoning laws should be removed and I can do whatever I want with my property?
That's the argument people fall back on to defend zoning: we have to separate industrial use from where people live!
It does not follow that we need to regulate the number of kitchens and locations of doors in a house. Because kitchens and doors are often the only difference between a oneplex, duplex, triplex, and fourplex.
It does not follow that we need to regulate the number of kitchens and locations of doors in a house. Because kitchens and doors are often the only difference between a oneplex, duplex, triplex, and fourplex.
You literally just said zoning laws should be removed entirely in your prior post.
It's a conversation about residential zones.
The point of zoning should be to channel market demand not suppress it, but the current state of America makes me question if that's possible. Perhaps a system where price per square foot going over a threshold triggers an automatic upzoning. There's a whole spectrum of housing for America to rediscover: https://missingmiddlehousing.com/
The point of zoning should be to channel market demand not suppress it, but the current state of America makes me question if that's possible. Perhaps a system where price per square foot going over a threshold triggers an automatic upzoning. There's a whole spectrum of housing for America to rediscover: https://missingmiddlehousing.com/
Morally, I'm very pro-high density housing. Just like I'm pro-public transit. But in reality, my expressed preference is a single-family house with a yard and the convenience a car brings. I'm not sure how to square these things.
Cars are only convenient when there's infrastructure everywhere for cars, including parking spots.
It's also the case that adding infrastructure for cars makes everything else (walking, forms of public transit other than bus) less convenient, by taking up space and making everything far apart.
That's fine if it you prefer it. The question is whether you can use the force of law to prevent other people from realizing their preference on their own property.
But the answer is obvious: if the force of law can be applied over home design preferences, there is no longer such a thing as private property.Yes, there is a clear need for building regulations related to safety, but that’s an entirely different argument.
There has never been freedom to build whatever you want on your own land.
Private property doesn't mean "mine and mine alone"; it means you get to use it in a way accordingly granted by the state's monopoly of force.
Private property doesn't mean "mine and mine alone"; it means you get to use it in a way accordingly granted by the state's monopoly of force.
The problem is that some of people's preferences include externalities. I prefer that my neighbor upstream not dam or pollute the creek that runs to my yard. I prefer that my neighbor behind me not put up a 100 foot concrete wall that blocks my view of nature. But it's their property, as you say. So people band together and decide that they want to live in a community that abides by certain rules and pass zoning laws, getting us where we are today. Externalities are a thing, and surely at least some zoning makes sense.
Density is great if you can't afford a big house + a car.
Back in my younger days I had a 600$ apartment in LA right next to the train. Moderately safe area, and I didn't need a car. 10$ an hour was livable. Hell it was downright nice. 3$ bottles of Soju and 4$ Tortas. LA used to be a great place.
Now that same apartment is 1300$. In most of LA, really America, you need a car. With a car you're out like 500 to 800$ a month on the low end.
Before you know it even making good money your very very poor. If I get fired I don't need to keep making my car payment, having a car loan puts you in a bad spot.
Back in my younger days I had a 600$ apartment in LA right next to the train. Moderately safe area, and I didn't need a car. 10$ an hour was livable. Hell it was downright nice. 3$ bottles of Soju and 4$ Tortas. LA used to be a great place.
Now that same apartment is 1300$. In most of LA, really America, you need a car. With a car you're out like 500 to 800$ a month on the low end.
Before you know it even making good money your very very poor. If I get fired I don't need to keep making my car payment, having a car loan puts you in a bad spot.
Because I know half the people won't read it if it takes the extra click, here's the abstract:
> Virtually every city in the United States bans multifamily homes in at least some neighborhoods, and in many cities most residential land is restricted to single family homes. This is the case even though many metropolitan areas are facing skyrocketing housing costs and increased environmental degradation that could be alleviated by denser housing supply. Some scholars have argued that an unrepresentative set of vocal development opponents are the culprits behind this collective action failure. Yet, recent work suggests that opposition to density may be widespread. In this research note, I use a conjoint survey experiment to provide evidence that preferences for single-family development are ubiquitous. Across every demographic subgroup analyzed, respondents preferred single-family home developments by a wide margin. Relative to single family homes, apartments are viewed as decreasing property values, increasing crime rates, lowering school quality, increasing traffic, and decreasing desirability.
My personal values make "decreasing desirability" is the biggest factor, but I can't read the article to see if I'm representative.
> Virtually every city in the United States bans multifamily homes in at least some neighborhoods, and in many cities most residential land is restricted to single family homes. This is the case even though many metropolitan areas are facing skyrocketing housing costs and increased environmental degradation that could be alleviated by denser housing supply. Some scholars have argued that an unrepresentative set of vocal development opponents are the culprits behind this collective action failure. Yet, recent work suggests that opposition to density may be widespread. In this research note, I use a conjoint survey experiment to provide evidence that preferences for single-family development are ubiquitous. Across every demographic subgroup analyzed, respondents preferred single-family home developments by a wide margin. Relative to single family homes, apartments are viewed as decreasing property values, increasing crime rates, lowering school quality, increasing traffic, and decreasing desirability.
My personal values make "decreasing desirability" is the biggest factor, but I can't read the article to see if I'm representative.
Generally the presence of other people devalues places. You want just enough of the right number of people and that’s it.
Thought experiment.
What is worth more?
The average house in the country with a couple of acres of land or a 700square foot condo in Manhattan.
Generally the presence of other people tend to push up property values as it brings in a lot more amenities.
What is worth more?
The average house in the country with a couple of acres of land or a 700square foot condo in Manhattan.
Generally the presence of other people tend to push up property values as it brings in a lot more amenities.
Economic value and desirability are related but different concepts, though. You'd have to pay me big bucks for me to even consider living in that 700 square foot condo. Just because other people are also willing to make a similar compromise (driving up the price) doesn't mean any of us necessarily prefer that condo over other forms of living.
I find this kind of reasoning bizzare.
Yes, the economic value and desirability are exactly the same. You just seem to discount the location of the condo as not being part of the value the condo is providing. But it is in fact the most important part of the value.
Yes, the economic value and desirability are exactly the same. You just seem to discount the location of the condo as not being part of the value the condo is providing. But it is in fact the most important part of the value.
I and many others would take the house with the land, unless I'm being forced to live in the city for work. When remote work became a necessity, we saw tons of people (and speculative investors) buying up housing in cheaper states.
The real trouble with doing that, for families, is that rural & small-town schools are almost all bad, compared with suburban schools. Makes it an unrealistic (or, at least, pretty undesirable) option unless you're homeschooling, so rich you can afford boarding school (unlikely any decent private schools will be in commuting range), or simply don't have and don't plan to have kids.
I'm not saying it's a majority, but I think a lot of suburb-dwellers would rather live in one or either of the country or the city, but are stuck in the 'burbs for the public schools.
I'm not saying it's a majority, but I think a lot of suburb-dwellers would rather live in one or either of the country or the city, but are stuck in the 'burbs for the public schools.
Well depends on the person. to me personally I would pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a couple acres of land in the country side, and would pay exactly $0 for any property in Manhattan
> Generally the presence of other people devalues places.
That's not it.
If you have a hundred acres of land and a hundred families and you require every house to be built on an acre of land, housing will be pretty expensive, because even the poor will have to pay the price for a full acre, when you might otherwise have mix of half acre lots, two acre lots, etc.
If you have a hundred acres of land and two hundred families and you require every house to be built on an acre of land, housing will be really expensive, because building enough for everyone is prohibited by law. And relaxing the zoning to allow higher density will lower housing prices because the supply of housing increases.
That's not because people don't want to live there anymore, it's just because you don't have to outbid your neighbors in a fight over the artificially scarce housing anymore because if you get more people you can build more housing.
And there's nothing about allowing higher densities that prohibits you from paying for the lower density housing -- it just doesn't prohibit someone else from doing otherwise. Which actually makes lower density housing more affordable, because you can buy it without having to outbid people who would choose higher density housing given the option.
That's not it.
If you have a hundred acres of land and a hundred families and you require every house to be built on an acre of land, housing will be pretty expensive, because even the poor will have to pay the price for a full acre, when you might otherwise have mix of half acre lots, two acre lots, etc.
If you have a hundred acres of land and two hundred families and you require every house to be built on an acre of land, housing will be really expensive, because building enough for everyone is prohibited by law. And relaxing the zoning to allow higher density will lower housing prices because the supply of housing increases.
That's not because people don't want to live there anymore, it's just because you don't have to outbid your neighbors in a fight over the artificially scarce housing anymore because if you get more people you can build more housing.
And there's nothing about allowing higher densities that prohibits you from paying for the lower density housing -- it just doesn't prohibit someone else from doing otherwise. Which actually makes lower density housing more affordable, because you can buy it without having to outbid people who would choose higher density housing given the option.
> Generally the presence of other people devalues places
this is why rent is so cheap in manhattan, san fransisco, london, etc
this is why rent is so cheap in manhattan, san fransisco, london, etc
The most valuable residential land in the world is in the most densely populated places.
What is value? You can't really use dollar price as a measure of value unless everyone were given equal buying power, every house and apartment was listed on the market at the same time, and every job could be performed from any location.
Are you proposing an alternative measure? The market price is what affects people's budgets so that's the one I use.
[deleted]
Here we have the eternal struggle between people who know what they do and do not want, and other people who want to know better for the first group.
People who want to live in a single-family residence, they hate the noise from inconsiderate neighbors, and weird smells (cooking or otherwise). They hate fighting for parking. Technically, it is possible to construct multi-family buildings with good noise insulation and decent venting. In reality, people who have had a lot of miserable experiences in apartment buildings and dorms know that this will emphatically not happen. It could! It really could! But it won't.
It would be great if we were angels, but we are not. The people who construct apartment buildings cut so many corners, and we have ongoing evidence of issues with maintaining those buildings, which sometimes do things like collapse. Some people are not a lot of fun to live near, and people who recognize this want to put them at arm's length.
People who want to live in a single-family residence, they hate the noise from inconsiderate neighbors, and weird smells (cooking or otherwise). They hate fighting for parking. Technically, it is possible to construct multi-family buildings with good noise insulation and decent venting. In reality, people who have had a lot of miserable experiences in apartment buildings and dorms know that this will emphatically not happen. It could! It really could! But it won't.
It would be great if we were angels, but we are not. The people who construct apartment buildings cut so many corners, and we have ongoing evidence of issues with maintaining those buildings, which sometimes do things like collapse. Some people are not a lot of fun to live near, and people who recognize this want to put them at arm's length.
This would be great if it weren't for the fact that suburbanites that want to avoid all these problems were paying for the externalities of their massive road usage, massive land usage, and a host of other issues.
Suburban life is far, far more expensive for it to be sustainable than it is currently priced in most American suburbs. This issue cannot be overlooked.
Suburban life is far, far more expensive for it to be sustainable than it is currently priced in most American suburbs. This issue cannot be overlooked.
I pay taxes on my car and gas and licensing as well as tolls. If you believe I don't pay enough by all means propose how I should pay more in a way that both the affluent and less fortunate would support. I will be happy to entertain how I might "pay for the roads I use".
In a similar light, I pay property taxes on the land I ranch. I'm a software developer but I raise beef cattle and horses. Please let me know how you propose I pay for my massive land use outside of the taxes I already pay. Just keep in mind, that it would probably be best if other small business owners also agreed with your tax proposals.
In a similar light, I pay property taxes on the land I ranch. I'm a software developer but I raise beef cattle and horses. Please let me know how you propose I pay for my massive land use outside of the taxes I already pay. Just keep in mind, that it would probably be best if other small business owners also agreed with your tax proposals.
That's not really what we are discussing here. What we are talking about are preferences, and people "talking over" those preferences, for the "good" of the other party.
We can have a conversation about the costs, but we should really focus on the conversation on hand -- people have real preferences.
We can have a conversation about the costs, but we should really focus on the conversation on hand -- people have real preferences.
> Relative to single family homes, apartments are viewed as decreasing property values, increasing crime rates, lowering school quality, increasing traffic, and decreasing desirability.
The problem is most cities only allow two kinds of development: Low density or high density. We're missing the middle!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_middle_housing
I've really enjoyed these two YouTube channels on the subject.
"Oh the Urbanity" has a great video on Montreal's "missing middle" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYCAVmKzX10
And "Not Just Bikes" discusses a "missing middle" neighborhood in Toronto: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0
The problem is most cities only allow two kinds of development: Low density or high density. We're missing the middle!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_middle_housing
I've really enjoyed these two YouTube channels on the subject.
"Oh the Urbanity" has a great video on Montreal's "missing middle" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYCAVmKzX10
And "Not Just Bikes" discusses a "missing middle" neighborhood in Toronto: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0
Here's the free version of the article from the author's webpage - (hopefully the same as sagepub)
https://faculty.ucmerced.edu/jtrounstine/Skittles_UAR_ALL.pd...
https://faculty.ucmerced.edu/jtrounstine/Skittles_UAR_ALL.pd...
It's a shame that the question was about what effect density will have on different factors, rather than about what factors people care about. I'd rather know if people oppose density because it affects desirability than know if people just think density will make their place less desirable.
Since only the abstract is available to the general public, I can only speculate on what the article actually says.
That said, I've long thought that the opposition to high density development is partly driven by the complete asynchrony between private development and public infrastructure. I live in a rural area adjacent to a medium-size metropolitan area (pop ~400K). With alarming frequency, private entities put up high-rise residential structures; but beyond cursory project review and maybe an access lane or two our municipal governments do nothing with foresight. There is no consideration given to the system-wide impact of these dense developments.
That said, I've long thought that the opposition to high density development is partly driven by the complete asynchrony between private development and public infrastructure. I live in a rural area adjacent to a medium-size metropolitan area (pop ~400K). With alarming frequency, private entities put up high-rise residential structures; but beyond cursory project review and maybe an access lane or two our municipal governments do nothing with foresight. There is no consideration given to the system-wide impact of these dense developments.
Opposition to high density development is because everyone likes space. But everyone cannot afford for everyone else to have space.
The sweet spot is when you have space, and others do not have space.
As for infrastructure, I am convinced there is no in between possibility. Either you optimize for dense living, or non dense living. There is no world where we can have our cake and eat it too.
The sweet spot is when you have space, and others do not have space.
As for infrastructure, I am convinced there is no in between possibility. Either you optimize for dense living, or non dense living. There is no world where we can have our cake and eat it too.
I live in a similar setting and this has been my experience as well. New HD housing is approved, the developer pays the impact fees, but the city doesn't build the improvements for years and years.
"I can spend the money on what I want today and let the next guy who holds office deal with the problem"
> I use a conjoint survey experiment to provide evidence that preferences for single-family development are ubiquitous. Across every demographic subgroup analyzed, respondents preferred single-family home developments by a wide margin.
One thing is verbal preference in questionnaire, a different thing is revealed preference in the market, where realistic economic constraints are applied (equi-affordable high density apartments would be in much more desirable locations than single-family homes, in the same location high-density apartments would be much cheaper).
One thing is verbal preference in questionnaire, a different thing is revealed preference in the market, where realistic economic constraints are applied (equi-affordable high density apartments would be in much more desirable locations than single-family homes, in the same location high-density apartments would be much cheaper).
revealed preference in the market
Revealed preference is just a polite way of describing either exploiting vice or taking advantage of someone in a weaker economic position. Works well enough for your average A/B test on a small website, but we can and should be more aspirational when dealing with housing, community, and society.
Revealed preference is just a polite way of describing either exploiting vice or taking advantage of someone in a weaker economic position. Works well enough for your average A/B test on a small website, but we can and should be more aspirational when dealing with housing, community, and society.
Why wouldn't you oppose density? The issue is a prisoner's dilemma. Only a top-down heavy handed resolution can actually, well, resolve this problem.
More housing should certainly be built, but the YIMBY crowd ignores the inherent dis-incentives that one has towards more housing near them. People bring in the morality of more/cheap housing, which is fair enough, but isn't sufficient to get people to change their behavior.
More housing should certainly be built, but the YIMBY crowd ignores the inherent dis-incentives that one has towards more housing near them. People bring in the morality of more/cheap housing, which is fair enough, but isn't sufficient to get people to change their behavior.
> Why wouldn't you oppose density?
Not everyone dislikes density and not everyone is motivated by rising housing prices. People are different. It's why I find it so silly that US zoning has created a lifestyle monoculture through most of the US.
Not everyone dislikes density and not everyone is motivated by rising housing prices. People are different. It's why I find it so silly that US zoning has created a lifestyle monoculture through most of the US.
I don't know about that. More housing means more shops and restaurants within walking distance; it means it's more likely that bike lanes are created, and so on. If I want that kind of thing, then more housing helps me get it.
> ... but isn't sufficient to get people to change their behavior.
That may still be true, despite what I say here.
> ... but isn't sufficient to get people to change their behavior.
That may still be true, despite what I say here.
I prefer density because of the things density brings with it. Things like bars, restaurants, public transit, shopping, sports etc.
I don't want to drive to those things. I want to live among them.
I don't want to drive to those things. I want to live among them.
Makes sense when you are young for sure. Especially young and single and looking for a partner. That sort of stuff loses its tends to lose its luster when you are 40 married and have kids.
Yes, it the only fair way is to allow density everywhere. If it is spread out, it becomes much less.
That doesn’t even make sense…density is allowed in a lot of rural places, there just isn’t demand for more. People that live in high density areas, want to live there because it’s a city. They aren’t going to want to put up with both living in a high density building and rural area because that’s the worst possible combination. But people put up with living in a high density area because of the benefits of a city and people put up with the inconvenience of rural area because of the space. They are kind of mutually exclusive ideas.
My point is not about rural vs urban. Most of American lives in urban areas (4/5). My point is that it is illegal in most of the populated places in America to increase density at all. The end result is getting high rises in central places in major urban areas but no change at all anywhere else. If you could have all towns slowly grow up rather than jumping straight to high rises then density is a lot less scary.
Yea i've never quite understood this housing issue but i've always been confused why everyone wants to live so densely.
I feel like as a country we should be spreading out, not huddling. But i also dislike living in cities, so maybe that's just me.
I feel like as a country we should be spreading out, not huddling. But i also dislike living in cities, so maybe that's just me.
Conservative political interests went nuts this elections season breathlessly exclaiming that we need to keep "Keep Mukilteo a Small Town!" as if it wasn't already next door to the Boeing Factory Buildings, and a Naval Complex that usually has a Nimitz-class carrier docked.
I can't access the article.
There is a lot of opposition to high density that is racist and selfish. However, in my experience, a lot of people who are not ignorant or racist are opposed to high density housing because it is built in places that lack infrastructure to support high density housing. I think there would be a lot less opposition if cities were more proactive in improving infrastructure (more parks, mass transit, wider roads, etc.) before high density housing was developed.
There is a lot of opposition to high density that is racist and selfish. However, in my experience, a lot of people who are not ignorant or racist are opposed to high density housing because it is built in places that lack infrastructure to support high density housing. I think there would be a lot less opposition if cities were more proactive in improving infrastructure (more parks, mass transit, wider roads, etc.) before high density housing was developed.
> are opposed to high density housing because it is built in places that lack infrastructure to support high density housing.
I've seen this objection a few times now but never actually seen it sourced. Do you have a source?
I feel like there's some kind of conflict between that being true and the fact that suburbs can't afford to maintain the infrastructure that they _do_ have.
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/4/8/weve-built-citi...
I've seen this objection a few times now but never actually seen it sourced. Do you have a source?
I feel like there's some kind of conflict between that being true and the fact that suburbs can't afford to maintain the infrastructure that they _do_ have.
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/4/8/weve-built-citi...
I am active in my community and I engage with NIMBY groups to try and better understand their motivation. The top reasons they give are more traffic, less parking, more noise, less park and trail space.
To add, my experience is limited to living on the edge of a mid sized city that is currently seeing lots of growth in sections that were rural (think 2 lane roads and wide open meadows and creeks). I have no idea why people oppose HD housing in big cities or rural areas.
To add, my experience is limited to living on the edge of a mid sized city that is currently seeing lots of growth in sections that were rural (think 2 lane roads and wide open meadows and creeks). I have no idea why people oppose HD housing in big cities or rural areas.
In my experience, the same people who oppose new housing due to the lack of infrastructure often also oppose building that infrastructure. They don't really oppose the housing itself but changes in their neighborhood.
That's an impossible conundrum. Who's going to pay for increased mass transit if there's nobody to ride it? Who's going to pay for more parks if there aren't enough people to use them? (Wider roads are counter-intuitive: dense development needs fewer, narrower roads, not wider).
One thing or the other has to happen, and there is demand for more development now. Let the development happen and the demand for infrastructure will follow.
One thing or the other has to happen, and there is demand for more development now. Let the development happen and the demand for infrastructure will follow.
The infrastructure is not the problem. Cities can build this easily with increased tax base. Most roads are way overbuilt anyways.
In these discussions, people always seem to keep the discussion limited to lifestyle preferences. I prefer to live in a suburb, so we should keep this suburb encased in amber! I prefer to live in an urban area, and obviously it's better to decrease rents and per-capita tax burden by increasing density and the supply of housing.
There are many enormous negative externalities associated with suburban development: that this kind of forced restrictive zoning is responsible for GDP being _50% lower_ than it otherwise would be (https://www.theregreview.org/2018/06/14/somogyi-zoning-codes...), that it vastly increases carbon emissions by necessitating that everyone drive everywhere for every trip, and that it is responsible for the vast majority of the housing affordability and homelessness crisis.
The laws of supply and demand are simple, yet people seem to think it can't apply to housing.
"South Korea says it will boost available housing nationwide with a positive supply “shock” as President Moon Jae-in struggles to tame soaring home prices that are weighing on his approval ratings." (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-04/south-kor...)
In Tokyo, a huge megacity with a population of 37 million people, apartment rents can be incredibly cheap (https://twitter.com/IDoTheThinking/status/139141180481584743...), $400/month in an area only a 20 minute train ride from the center of town. There is not one city in the United States where this is true, because every city makes affordable housing illegal to placate rich NIMBYs.
Suburban NIMBY aesthetic and lifestyle preferences that are forced on everyone are causing middle-income and lower-income people to cut back on food, transportation, healthcare, and retirement savings. (https://twitter.com/aaronAcarr/status/1460393017639153673)
If it is wrong to force someone who prefers a suburban area to live in a dense urban area, is it not also wrong to force people who prefer cheaper rents, walkability, and the amenities of urban life to pay 3-6x as much to live in a desolate, anti-social, car-centric suburb?
There are many enormous negative externalities associated with suburban development: that this kind of forced restrictive zoning is responsible for GDP being _50% lower_ than it otherwise would be (https://www.theregreview.org/2018/06/14/somogyi-zoning-codes...), that it vastly increases carbon emissions by necessitating that everyone drive everywhere for every trip, and that it is responsible for the vast majority of the housing affordability and homelessness crisis.
The laws of supply and demand are simple, yet people seem to think it can't apply to housing.
"South Korea says it will boost available housing nationwide with a positive supply “shock” as President Moon Jae-in struggles to tame soaring home prices that are weighing on his approval ratings." (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-04/south-kor...)
In Tokyo, a huge megacity with a population of 37 million people, apartment rents can be incredibly cheap (https://twitter.com/IDoTheThinking/status/139141180481584743...), $400/month in an area only a 20 minute train ride from the center of town. There is not one city in the United States where this is true, because every city makes affordable housing illegal to placate rich NIMBYs.
Suburban NIMBY aesthetic and lifestyle preferences that are forced on everyone are causing middle-income and lower-income people to cut back on food, transportation, healthcare, and retirement savings. (https://twitter.com/aaronAcarr/status/1460393017639153673)
If it is wrong to force someone who prefers a suburban area to live in a dense urban area, is it not also wrong to force people who prefer cheaper rents, walkability, and the amenities of urban life to pay 3-6x as much to live in a desolate, anti-social, car-centric suburb?
Sometimes people just want a medium density city.
I like my medium density neighbourhood and I like being in a city that has them.
If I wanted to live in a tower block I'd move more centrally or to another city.
I also don't think that people who don't live somewhere, or are temporarily staying somewhere, should have a say in this over established families.
I like my medium density neighbourhood and I like being in a city that has them.
If I wanted to live in a tower block I'd move more centrally or to another city.
I also don't think that people who don't live somewhere, or are temporarily staying somewhere, should have a say in this over established families.
Automobiles are the main factor. Cars made it possible for single family home culture -> cities were designed around cars -> now this culture is the ideal as it is what cities are explicitly designed for.
Self driving will be an interesting addition to the mix. We will probably come up with new cultures around that technology.
Self driving will be an interesting addition to the mix. We will probably come up with new cultures around that technology.
“Across every demographic subgroup analyzed, respondents preferred single-family home developments by a wide margin.”
According to the article, this is a common desire.
I have not studied the issue. Are there examples of where switching from low density to high density worked out well?
According to the article, this is a common desire.
I have not studied the issue. Are there examples of where switching from low density to high density worked out well?
Even if that is the desire, it should not be mandated by law. Also, the framing of 'low' vs 'high' density is bad way to frame the issue. For most places where this is an issue the question is 'medium' density or 'more medium' density. Half of Seattle is zoned single family detached. Seattle is not low density.
> I have not studied the issue. Are there examples of where switching from low density to high density worked out well?
That's the default for most cities around the around besides American cities where low density suburbs eventually start building 4/5 story buildings and then taller ones.
That's the default for most cities around the around besides American cities where low density suburbs eventually start building 4/5 story buildings and then taller ones.
Is this some new phenomenon? The abstract doesn't really provide any shocking or new info. I don't see any relation to tech either.
Honestly:
- I don't want to share my street with anyone, let alone a wall.
- I don't want increased traffic.
- Increased population density also tends to increase crime.
- Increased population density has economic benefits that tend to go to companies and developers, not me.
- It's too hard to get infrastructure built. Roads will never be enough and we'll never have good public transit.
- Culture is too antagonistic. Public shared spaces with no charge or admission control always get overtaken by inconsiderate, loud people. The less of them, the better.
- I don't want to share my street with anyone, let alone a wall.
- I don't want increased traffic.
- Increased population density also tends to increase crime.
- Increased population density has economic benefits that tend to go to companies and developers, not me.
- It's too hard to get infrastructure built. Roads will never be enough and we'll never have good public transit.
- Culture is too antagonistic. Public shared spaces with no charge or admission control always get overtaken by inconsiderate, loud people. The less of them, the better.
It's fine to prefer rural areas, but the problem is using the law to force suburbs on people that would be happier in urban areas.
"Increased population density also tends to increase crime."
This is a myth. Murder rates by county https://i.redd.it/xl23t365qub41.png
"Increased population density has economic benefits that tend to go to companies and developers, not me."
This is a self fulfilling prophecy. The thing killing budgets of the middle and working class in cities is the cost of housing. The cost of housing is so high because we prohibit building more of it!
"It's too hard to get infrastructure built. Roads will never be enough and we'll never have good public transit."
We use to be good at this. America had great transit before WW2. Other rich countries are still good at building it. We should not accept the status quo here.
"Culture is too antagonistic. Public shared spaces with no charge or admission control always get overtaken by inconsiderate, loud people. The less of them, the better."
American's go on vacation and come back raving about the parks and plazas of Europe so there's plenty of American's that would enjoy the things we outlaw.
"Increased population density also tends to increase crime."
This is a myth. Murder rates by county https://i.redd.it/xl23t365qub41.png
"Increased population density has economic benefits that tend to go to companies and developers, not me."
This is a self fulfilling prophecy. The thing killing budgets of the middle and working class in cities is the cost of housing. The cost of housing is so high because we prohibit building more of it!
"It's too hard to get infrastructure built. Roads will never be enough and we'll never have good public transit."
We use to be good at this. America had great transit before WW2. Other rich countries are still good at building it. We should not accept the status quo here.
"Culture is too antagonistic. Public shared spaces with no charge or admission control always get overtaken by inconsiderate, loud people. The less of them, the better."
American's go on vacation and come back raving about the parks and plazas of Europe so there's plenty of American's that would enjoy the things we outlaw.
The cost of housing is so high because we prohibit building more of it!
I helped a friend run for city council years ago at a time when almost everyone else on the council and the mayor were connected to the property or construction industries. They wanted more development because they got paid -- the cost of housing is high, so let's build more so we can make more money. This is what people who currently live in smaller suburbs or rural areas see as driving the push for more housing -- more greed from their corrupt city council.
I helped a friend run for city council years ago at a time when almost everyone else on the council and the mayor were connected to the property or construction industries. They wanted more development because they got paid -- the cost of housing is high, so let's build more so we can make more money. This is what people who currently live in smaller suburbs or rural areas see as driving the push for more housing -- more greed from their corrupt city council.
In areas where supply is restricted by law, monoplex equity gains are 10-50x greater than developer profits. If you're attacking someone because of greed, the lion's share of the blame belongs with land speculators extracting ever-increasing unearned rents.
You're mad because a business is making money? Developers increase the supply of housing. It's a net good that housing supply increases rather than stagnates.
You're mad because a business is making money? Developers increase the supply of housing. It's a net good that housing supply increases rather than stagnates.
> the cost of housing is high, so let's build more so we can make more money
That's how markets are suppose to work. Make money by making something people want to buy.
It shouldn't require a corrupt city council to have enough housing for everyone that works in an area. If you want to stop growth then prohibit office construction.
That's how markets are suppose to work. Make money by making something people want to buy.
It shouldn't require a corrupt city council to have enough housing for everyone that works in an area. If you want to stop growth then prohibit office construction.
The ones who would enjoy it (and who go to Europe to find it) aren't the ones making public spaces inhospitable in the US.
Do the people you're complaining about not exist in other countries? Who are you referring to?
You're getting at the core issue with this discussion: cities are by their very nature high density living situations.
It's no coincidence that congested cities are looking for ways to build higher density housing. There are just too many people to manage the logistics of a city that is built horizontally rather than vertically.
What it really comes down to is, do you want to live in a city or not? Cities are going to be densely packed. I personally do not want to live in shared housing and ride a train or bus, sit in traffic and hang out in free public spaces and the like either, so I don't live in a city. But people that choose to live in them really ought not complain about the facts of life of living in a city, specifically, that people are packed together like sardines.
It's no coincidence that congested cities are looking for ways to build higher density housing. There are just too many people to manage the logistics of a city that is built horizontally rather than vertically.
What it really comes down to is, do you want to live in a city or not? Cities are going to be densely packed. I personally do not want to live in shared housing and ride a train or bus, sit in traffic and hang out in free public spaces and the like either, so I don't live in a city. But people that choose to live in them really ought not complain about the facts of life of living in a city, specifically, that people are packed together like sardines.
But people that choose to live in them really ought not complain about the facts of life of living in a city, specifically, that people are packed together like sardines.
What happens in most of these HN threads is that people who live in cities start telling people who don't want to live in cities that they have no choice in the matter, and that they're coming to destroy their town next.
What happens in most of these HN threads is that people who live in cities start telling people who don't want to live in cities that they have no choice in the matter, and that they're coming to destroy their town next.
Yeah I see some of that. People that live in cities tend to think the whole world is like that, people that live in rural areas tend to do the same, hence city people tend to think the world is a Malthusian disaster and rural people don't believe in climate change, as examples. It's a cultural divide because people are largely the product of their environments.
Not all your points are supported by data. Urban land and housing is the most valuable. Urban areas produce the most wealth.
Some of your points are self-fulfilling: Commuting from suburbs necessitates more expensive infrastructure, for example.
American urban problems mostly have solutions that are exemplified in other parts of the world: Social housing from Austria; highly trained armed response police separate from "everyday" police in several countries.
Letting go of American exceptionalism is in most cases a good thing.
Some of your points are self-fulfilling: Commuting from suburbs necessitates more expensive infrastructure, for example.
American urban problems mostly have solutions that are exemplified in other parts of the world: Social housing from Austria; highly trained armed response police separate from "everyday" police in several countries.
Letting go of American exceptionalism is in most cases a good thing.
Infrastructure is so hard to build because of NIMBYs, and you've indicated you're one of them. Also, it's much more costly to build infrastructure for low-density development, so you're complaining about a problem which your advocacy directly causes. Oh, and lack of public transportation directly increases traffic
I am, and that's the thing - if it's my property, and I go to the council meetings and what not, then you're kinda stuck.
> Also, it's much more costly to build infrastructure for low-density development, so you're complaining about a problem which your advocacy directly causes
My real complaint here is this--and I'll use a recent event as an example. In a town (not city) I used to live in, adjacent to a major city, somehow some developer got approval to build these really narrow row-home style town houses - 3 deep from the street and about 20 units wide. About 12 of these things. About a year has passed and this housing is up and ready for service. The additional roads that support that population increase will probably take at least 5 times as long. Until infrastructure improvement is strictly tied to additional housing supply and one doesn't move without the other, it doesn't benefit me to have more people in a place I live clogging up the roads.
> Oh, and lack of public transportation directly increases traffic
Goes back into antagonistic culture. How can we keep public transportation safe and without criminal elements? We need to really solve a bunch of problems first - some of which are economic (homelessness), and some of which are culture (people using these facilities for drugs and as bathrooms, etc.) before it's something I really want.
> Also, it's much more costly to build infrastructure for low-density development, so you're complaining about a problem which your advocacy directly causes
My real complaint here is this--and I'll use a recent event as an example. In a town (not city) I used to live in, adjacent to a major city, somehow some developer got approval to build these really narrow row-home style town houses - 3 deep from the street and about 20 units wide. About 12 of these things. About a year has passed and this housing is up and ready for service. The additional roads that support that population increase will probably take at least 5 times as long. Until infrastructure improvement is strictly tied to additional housing supply and one doesn't move without the other, it doesn't benefit me to have more people in a place I live clogging up the roads.
> Oh, and lack of public transportation directly increases traffic
Goes back into antagonistic culture. How can we keep public transportation safe and without criminal elements? We need to really solve a bunch of problems first - some of which are economic (homelessness), and some of which are culture (people using these facilities for drugs and as bathrooms, etc.) before it's something I really want.
Roads and cars are just terrible from a capacity, noise, and air pollution perspective.
in the past, local voices did not have power to organize or constrict local development. its a form of social technology that has enabled this around the world over the past 80 years.
when people look at urban sprawl they see the culprit as cars, which is maybe true, but the real cause is democracy.
when people look at urban sprawl they see the culprit as cars, which is maybe true, but the real cause is democracy.
Society didn't used to be rich enough to afford to waste resources entertaining arbitrary meddling into what people did on their private property. If you didn't like that the carriage shop next door made hammering noises all day tough luck, society was not going to impede that business owner's ability to feed his family for no reason other than the abutters' luxury.
The problem is wealth. We've solved our other problems so now we have nothing better to do than complain about what nearby landowners do on their own damn private property.
The problem is wealth. We've solved our other problems so now we have nothing better to do than complain about what nearby landowners do on their own damn private property.
I dont think the concern for what our neighbors are doing has gone up so much as our ability to make noise about it. Dealing with conflicts between neighbors is ancient.
>Dealing with conflicts between neighbors is ancient.
But society previously couldn't afford to indulge in wasting resources (either directly on process or implicitly by preventing people from doing what's economically optimal) mediating these disputes to the same extent they do now. That's why I think it's a wealth thing.
But society previously couldn't afford to indulge in wasting resources (either directly on process or implicitly by preventing people from doing what's economically optimal) mediating these disputes to the same extent they do now. That's why I think it's a wealth thing.
I wonder what opposition there will be to the new laws in California allowing duplexes everywhere?
There are signature gatherers out for a ballot proposition to make local land use laws override state law. The main supporters are small, rich municipalities.
Pretty much everyone in a duplex would rather live in single-family.
Pretty much everyone who has lived next to a duplex would rather live next to single-family. (I'm not saying that every instance of living next to single-family goes well.)
Yes, duplexes are less expensive than single-family, so they're the best that some people can do, but that's no reason to make them the only option.
Pretty much everyone who has lived next to a duplex would rather live next to single-family. (I'm not saying that every instance of living next to single-family goes well.)
Yes, duplexes are less expensive than single-family, so they're the best that some people can do, but that's no reason to make them the only option.
Why would you say people prefer this?
Oh goody, you want to argue that other people want the wrong things because their preferences conflict with a mechanism that you want to use for your social goals.
There are costs and benefits to every kind of living arrangement.
Most people who have actual experience with duplexes think that they are a bad compromise between single-family and apartments.
I was going to write that duplexes combine the worst aspects of single-family and apartments until I remembered that they also have some unique problems.
There are rich people who live in single-family. There are rich people who live in apartment-like housing.
No one who can afford better lives in a duplex. (I live in a duplex...)
There are costs and benefits to every kind of living arrangement.
Most people who have actual experience with duplexes think that they are a bad compromise between single-family and apartments.
I was going to write that duplexes combine the worst aspects of single-family and apartments until I remembered that they also have some unique problems.
There are rich people who live in single-family. There are rich people who live in apartment-like housing.
No one who can afford better lives in a duplex. (I live in a duplex...)
I was just asking. If you don't want to talk about what the problems are, you don't have to.
The problems are that duplex/triplex/quadplex are all compromises. They don't have any of the strengths of either apartments or single-family. At the same time, they have all the weaknesses of both.
The result is that they're the right choice for no one.
The result is that they're the right choice for no one.
I neglected to mention that duplexes don't have the mechanisms associated with single-family or apartments for dealing with the problems that they share with both.
I also should not have said that they're never the right choice. Some times the best choice available isn't that good, and isn't what you'd do if things were a bit different.
That's how people end up in duplexes. It isn't what they want, but it is the best that they can do at that moment in time.
I also should not have said that they're never the right choice. Some times the best choice available isn't that good, and isn't what you'd do if things were a bit different.
That's how people end up in duplexes. It isn't what they want, but it is the best that they can do at that moment in time.
some people like housing on land, other people like housing that is attached to busy public spaces.
both options have their tradeoffs and what makes sense is both individual and subjective.
both options have their tradeoffs and what makes sense is both individual and subjective.
[deleted]
I have a feeling that if we spread the theory into small and midsize towns that the urban density laws were a conspiracy by the urban elite to keep cities rich and relevant we'd see them get repealed.
But being opposed to it generally, in a city no less, is a bit ridiculous. Either you want/need to live in a place with a ton of people or you don't. If you don't like traffic and neighbors upstairs don't live in a city. If you don't like long drives to the grocery store and needing to rely on a car to get around and on interpersonal business instead of professional employment, live in a city. But this middle of the road, cake and eat it too, cities designed for cars, urban sprawl by ordinance just makes things suck for everyone involved, it's the worst of both worlds.