3 ms·

I don't know that it's an "epidemic", but houses are certainly getting bigger in the US[1]. I can see why a block filled with yards/gardens and small buildings

I don't know that it's an "epidemic", but houses are certainly getting bigger in the US[1]. I can see why a block filled with yards/gardens and small buildings is preferable to a block filled with large buildings and not much else. This just seems like a newsletter for people who care about things like that enough to participate in their local government. I doubt I'd personally agree with many of their stances, but I really can't see how it's "legitimately disgusting". [1]: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-06-02/business/chi-average-home-size-sets-new-record-20140603_1_home-size-home-builders-new-record http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-06-02/business/chi-a...

resu_nimda 10y ago
This just seems like a newsletter for people who care about things like that enough to participate in their local government. For other cities/locales you may be right, but in SF, it just seems offensive. We all know what the consensus epidemic is in the Bay Area, and attempting to use that word to imply that these poor landowners are being encroached upon is something I find reprehensible. Their "epidemic" is a trifling concern compared to what some are going through. I can see why a block filled with yards/gardens and small buildings is preferable to a block filled with large buildings and not much else. There are plenty of places in the country where you can find that. When very wealthy people stubbornly want to hold onto that in the middle of one of the most dense metro areas in the country, while people are being pushed out of their homes and homeless fill the streets, yeah I find it disgusting for them to talk about preserving their "much-needed psychological comfort zone." They can move out to the country if they really want all that stuff, they can afford it, not everyone can.
- wavefunction 10y ago
  Just what laid-back rural areas need, some urban control freaks with more money than common decency and a superiority complex towards their new "home."
- chii 10y ago
  > while people are being pushed out of their homes and homeless fill the streets i find it hard to believe that the homeless problem is due to the soaring house prices in SF.
int_19h 10y ago
>> I can see why a block filled with yards/gardens and small buildings is preferable to a block filled with large buildings and not much else. Preferable to whom, though? Look at it from the perspective of one of those people who are renting in SF, and can barely afford that rent given your paycheck (or cannot afford it, actually, if you had to pay market value). I bet they would prefer a residence they can afford to the one they cannot. So long as freedom of movement and freedom to buy and sell property are in place, it's either-or - either a given block will be affordable, or it will have yards/gardens and small buildings. The latter carries an implied statement that people below a certain income level simply shouldn't be there. I think it's clear why some would find it "legitimately disgusting".

resu_nimda 10y ago

This just seems like a newsletter for people who care about things like that enough to participate in their local government. For other cities/locales you may be right, but in SF, it just seems offensive. We all know what the consensus epidemic is in the Bay Area, and attempting to use that word to imply that these poor landowners are being encroached upon is something I find reprehensible. Their "epidemic" is a trifling concern compared to what some are going through. I can see why a block filled with yards/gardens and small buildings is preferable to a block filled with large buildings and not much else. There are plenty of places in the country where you can find that. When very wealthy people stubbornly want to hold onto that in the middle of one of the most dense metro areas in the country, while people are being pushed out of their homes and homeless fill the streets, yeah I find it disgusting for them to talk about preserving their "much-needed psychological comfort zone." They can move out to the country if they really want all that stuff, they can afford it, not everyone can.

wavefunction 10y ago
Just what laid-back rural areas need, some urban control freaks with more money than common decency and a superiority complex towards their new "home."
chii 10y ago
> while people are being pushed out of their homes and homeless fill the streets i find it hard to believe that the homeless problem is due to the soaring house prices in SF.

int_19h 10y ago

>> I can see why a block filled with yards/gardens and small buildings is preferable to a block filled with large buildings and not much else. Preferable to whom, though? Look at it from the perspective of one of those people who are renting in SF, and can barely afford that rent given your paycheck (or cannot afford it, actually, if you had to pay market value). I bet they would prefer a residence they can afford to the one they cannot. So long as freedom of movement and freedom to buy and sell property are in place, it's either-or - either a given block will be affordable, or it will have yards/gardens and small buildings. The latter carries an implied statement that people below a certain income level simply shouldn't be there. I think it's clear why some would find it "legitimately disgusting".