3 ms·

The desire to keep a city looking the same as it was decades ago does seem to be a powerful motivator for a lot of anti-housing people. It's always seemed a li

by skewart 10y ago

The desire to keep a city looking the same as it was decades ago does seem to be a powerful motivator for a lot of anti-housing people. It's always seemed a little perverse to me. Cities are dynamic, constantly changing organisms. Trying to keep a city from changing over decades is like forcing a 9-year-old kid to wear diapers and sleep in a crib because you liked the way it was as a baby and you never want it to change.

pjlegato 10y ago
Most people simply don't like change. Some changes can't be avoided, such as a kid growing up. Other changes can be avoided, such as by passing zoning laws that make it illegal to substantially change the physical appearance of the town you live in. When it's possible, people seek that out.
TulliusCicero 10y ago
It's also hypocritical: for the city to have reached the state which they originally bought into, it had to have changed. If SV was still zoned exclusively for farms or something, then the neighborhood they like so much wouldn't have existed in the first place.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Cities are dynamic, constantly changing organisms. Try to keep a city from changing over decades is like forcing a 9-year-old kid to wear diapers and sleep in a crib because you liked the way it was as a baby and you never want it to change. Well, except that cities, even if viewed as "organisms", aren't people, they serve people, and its quite natural for people to want them kept in the state that they feel best serves their interests.
- Vraxx 10y ago
  I think this metaphor might actually be able to be stretched a little more. Even as an organism purposed only to serve us, the fact that us humans change means that we're likely to be better served by something that can change with us. Just because you liked it as a baby and think it is best able to suit your needs as it was, doesn't mean that it won't be better suited to serve your needs as a functional adult. I think people are afraid of change, not because they know it is not in their best interest, but mostly because they aren't sure, so the status quo seems to be the safer option. It's why humans are averse to change in a lot of scenarios, we sometimes have a little bit of trouble with the long term perspectives.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > the fact that us humans change means that we're likely to be better served by something that can change with us. Sure, and even people that oppose change on one axis (like density) often support other changes in their city. People, of course, disagree on what changes are desired and which are disliked, but that's the nature of subjective preferences.
- TulliusCicero 10y ago
  > its quite natural for people to want them kept in the state that they feel best serves their interests. Eh, it's possible to take this kind of self-interest too far. Like by the same token, you could say, "well, it's only natural for non-poor people to shoot down programs that will help the poor, because it's not in their interest". Like, expecting people to give up a little for the benefit of wider society is not unreasonable. We're not talking about forcibly seizing people's homes here, just about allowing their neighbors to sell to developers who will build more housing. That's not exactly a huge sacrifice.

by skewart 10y ago

pjlegato 10y ago

Most people simply don't like change. Some changes can't be avoided, such as a kid growing up. Other changes can be avoided, such as by passing zoning laws that make it illegal to substantially change the physical appearance of the town you live in. When it's possible, people seek that out.

TulliusCicero 10y ago

It's also hypocritical: for the city to have reached the state which they originally bought into, it had to have changed. If SV was still zoned exclusively for farms or something, then the neighborhood they like so much wouldn't have existed in the first place.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> Cities are dynamic, constantly changing organisms. Try to keep a city from changing over decades is like forcing a 9-year-old kid to wear diapers and sleep in a crib because you liked the way it was as a baby and you never want it to change. Well, except that cities, even if viewed as "organisms", aren't people, they serve people, and its quite natural for people to want them kept in the state that they feel best serves their interests.

Vraxx 10y ago
I think this metaphor might actually be able to be stretched a little more. Even as an organism purposed only to serve us, the fact that us humans change means that we're likely to be better served by something that can change with us. Just because you liked it as a baby and think it is best able to suit your needs as it was, doesn't mean that it won't be better suited to serve your needs as a functional adult. I think people are afraid of change, not because they know it is not in their best interest, but mostly because they aren't sure, so the status quo seems to be the safer option. It's why humans are averse to change in a lot of scenarios, we sometimes have a little bit of trouble with the long term perspectives.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > the fact that us humans change means that we're likely to be better served by something that can change with us. Sure, and even people that oppose change on one axis (like density) often support other changes in their city. People, of course, disagree on what changes are desired and which are disliked, but that's the nature of subjective preferences.
TulliusCicero 10y ago
> its quite natural for people to want them kept in the state that they feel best serves their interests. Eh, it's possible to take this kind of self-interest too far. Like by the same token, you could say, "well, it's only natural for non-poor people to shoot down programs that will help the poor, because it's not in their interest". Like, expecting people to give up a little for the benefit of wider society is not unreasonable. We're not talking about forcibly seizing people's homes here, just about allowing their neighbors to sell to developers who will build more housing. That's not exactly a huge sacrifice.