4 ms·

Well obviously they're still "allowed" to do whatever they want - (usually) no one's forcing you to sell the quaint victorian and move into the new Gulag of an

Well obviously they're still "allowed" to do whatever they want - (usually) no one's forcing you to sell the quaint victorian and move into the new Gulag of an Apartment complex. Everyone essentially agrees with you. The problem is that when ONE of these people wants to build the next Trump Tower on top of grandma's old cottage, the "live and let live" ethos goes out the window - everyone's at city council decrying mixed zoning or whatever else they think is "ruining" their neighborhood! There's a reason the term NIMBY exists, there's a reason we don't like living next to Sriracha factories or concert venues and don't just let people turn their houses into one of them at will. We live in a society and the law is a reflection of it, especially in cities where a lot of people with different needs and desires have to get along. If you want to literally do whatever you want on your property, there's lots of places (in Alaska) that you can do that. Hell, I actually agree with you, and that's why I'm eventually going to move somewhere where I don't get woke up by traffic every morning, where I don't get stuck in traffic, where I can play music as loud as I want, and celebrate Pagan holidays with massive bonfires until 7am. But until then, I won't live under any illusion of living in a libertarian paradise, because it's just not a viable outcome for city dwellers.

galdosdi 10y ago
Assuming the noise or smell was somehow contained, what's wrong with living next to a concert venue or sriracha factory? I should merely have a right to my property being as smell, noise, and shadow free as it was when I bought it. I should /not/ have a right to anything more than that. Enshrining a right to only live next to other residences is how we end up in this problem of boring neighborhoods that require lots of travel just to get to where you want to go. In old large eastern US cities and in towns of any size in other countries I've been in (Mexico, Japan) there is MUCH more mixed use. You might see a motorcycle repair shop in between a couple of regular single family homes. Nobody seems to mind. I don't get why we're special and weird like this. Most of lower Manhattan, which is so valued now, could not be built legally today. It was built before zoning codes. I'm not against mild zoning codes that merely slow down rather than block change. For example, rather than a named maximum height, say that no building can be built more than twice the average building height in the area within a certain radius. Or, the percentage of nonresidential uses within an area cannot increase by more than 2% per year, or something. This way in the short term, a neighborhood cannot be transformed overnight. But, it can be transformed slowly over decades towards what the market will bear, ie what people actually want and are willing to pay for. This isn't a libertarian fantasy, it's just how towns used to work in the US before zoning and how they work in many other less backwards parts of the world...
- a_t48 10y ago
  > Assuming the noise or smell was somehow contained, what's wrong with living next to a concert venue The massive amounts of traffic (foot\car) these things can generate, depending on the city and size of the venue. The noise from that many people on the street is not containable. The same with a new 1000 unit apartment complex going up next to you - it's going to have a massive impact on local services around you, depending on what was there already. Your idea about disallowing large changes isn't horrible.
  - wcunning 10y ago
    This especially important because you can't expect the city to have to suddenly significantly enlarge the roads or improve the traffic control measures (lights, signs, etc.) overnight. If it grows up slowly, organically, then the regular rebuilding of infrastructure will naturally accommodate the building up of the area.
- edgarvaldes 10y ago
  Personal anecdota: My parents' house shared the block with a carpentry shop (now bankrupt) and a Christian church (which later moved to another site). The sound of the carpentry shop was a thousand times more tolerable (although it was daily) than the sporadic religious celebrations with its drums and electric guitars.
- hasbroslasher 10y ago
  > Assuming the noise or smell was somehow contained, what's wrong with living next to a concert venue or Sriracha factory Pretty big assumption, my friend. Generally they're not, or they're not contained well enough, or people are just old and grouchy so they go form homeowners associations and ban Sriracha factories. That said, I do agree with your overall outlook here, I'm just afraid that a lot of (particularly older, more traditional people) don't, so it's unrealistic to expect change. People don't like change, and they sure as hell don't like changing the way things change.
- II2II 10y ago
  > I'm not against mild zoning codes that merely slow down rather than block change. I was thinking along similar lines, yet I suspect that this won't happen for various reasons even if NIMBYism is discounted. The layout of many suburban communities is less than ideal for commercial development, even something as innocent as a convenience store, since they are low density and unwalkable for community members while the roads are ill suited for traffic from outside of the community. Talking about gradually increasing height or unit restrictions sounds nice, yet I suspect that land and construction costs have been driven so high by existing zoning regulations that developers find smaller projects uneconomical.
wozniacki 10y ago
We live in a society and the law is a reflection of it, especially in cities where a lot of people with different needs and desires have to get along. If you want to literally do whatever you want on your property, there's lots of places (in Alaska) that you can do that. Firstly let me say that I agree with the latter part of your reply that less-dense places are ideal for the libertarian minded. I'm fully onboard that school of thought. The problem emerges here: cities are increasingly becoming centers of cultural clout, if not political or economic clout. If you don't have some kind of foothold there or some grasp of the proceedings there -- and no matter what your cultural leanings are & whether you lean left of center or right of it -- the change will drift to your shores, no matter how remotely you live or work. Every aspect of every issue that has been covered in this thread is somehow going to affect how you live, work & socialize, in the near future. Compartmentalizing yourself -- and I'm not saying you're implying that -- from this debate with the hopes of one day moving to the far reaches of the continental expanse, is definitely not the answer. With increasing urbanization of the world, this applies to you, even if you plan to move to a sparsely populated patch in another continent. [1] Most people don't think through this enough. I wish I could overstate this. Cultural clout shapes large portions of your life. And cities are increasingly holding larger and larger chunks of that clout, even if they always have. Every law stipulating the amount of bio-degradable plastic in the cutlery at your run of the mill chain restaurant to the maximum wattage legally allowed to power your domestic vacuum cleaner [2] is somehow fashioned in the cities or influenced by people who've lived with city folk their entire lives. This is why cities matter. And with that, how cities are fashioned with the input & desires of a small coterie of like-minded micro-apartment-dwelling, parklet-embracing & density-demanding people, can one day have far-flung consequences on a geographically & culturally removed set of people who've never ever bought a two way ticket at a metro train station kiosk or had to share traffic with a paratransit bus [3], on their countryside roadways. I'm not even mentioning the political pressure large companies with thousands of employees have been able to brought to bear on entire states, let alone cities, to mold & influence laws.[4] This is why we all have to partake in this, whether we could be bothered to do so or not. Because one day we will. [1] http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/world-urbanization-prospects-2014.html http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/world-... [2] http://www.sbs.com.au/news/thefeed/article/2016/06/23/wackiest-eu-laws-and-myths-and-truth-behind-them http://www.sbs.com.au/news/thefeed/article/2016/06/23/wackie... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paratransit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paratransit [4] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/salesforce-ceo-marc-benioff-north-carolina-bathroom-law-artificial-intelligence-future-of-tech/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/salesforce-ceo-marc-benioff-nort... edit: errors & added a footnote

galdosdi 10y ago

Assuming the noise or smell was somehow contained, what's wrong with living next to a concert venue or sriracha factory? I should merely have a right to my property being as smell, noise, and shadow free as it was when I bought it. I should /not/ have a right to anything more than that. Enshrining a right to only live next to other residences is how we end up in this problem of boring neighborhoods that require lots of travel just to get to where you want to go. In old large eastern US cities and in towns of any size in other countries I've been in (Mexico, Japan) there is MUCH more mixed use. You might see a motorcycle repair shop in between a couple of regular single family homes. Nobody seems to mind. I don't get why we're special and weird like this. Most of lower Manhattan, which is so valued now, could not be built legally today. It was built before zoning codes. I'm not against mild zoning codes that merely slow down rather than block change. For example, rather than a named maximum height, say that no building can be built more than twice the average building height in the area within a certain radius. Or, the percentage of nonresidential uses within an area cannot increase by more than 2% per year, or something. This way in the short term, a neighborhood cannot be transformed overnight. But, it can be transformed slowly over decades towards what the market will bear, ie what people actually want and are willing to pay for. This isn't a libertarian fantasy, it's just how towns used to work in the US before zoning and how they work in many other less backwards parts of the world...

a_t48 10y ago
> Assuming the noise or smell was somehow contained, what's wrong with living next to a concert venue The massive amounts of traffic (foot\car) these things can generate, depending on the city and size of the venue. The noise from that many people on the street is not containable. The same with a new 1000 unit apartment complex going up next to you - it's going to have a massive impact on local services around you, depending on what was there already. Your idea about disallowing large changes isn't horrible.
- wcunning 10y ago
  This especially important because you can't expect the city to have to suddenly significantly enlarge the roads or improve the traffic control measures (lights, signs, etc.) overnight. If it grows up slowly, organically, then the regular rebuilding of infrastructure will naturally accommodate the building up of the area.
edgarvaldes 10y ago
Personal anecdota: My parents' house shared the block with a carpentry shop (now bankrupt) and a Christian church (which later moved to another site). The sound of the carpentry shop was a thousand times more tolerable (although it was daily) than the sporadic religious celebrations with its drums and electric guitars.
hasbroslasher 10y ago
> Assuming the noise or smell was somehow contained, what's wrong with living next to a concert venue or Sriracha factory Pretty big assumption, my friend. Generally they're not, or they're not contained well enough, or people are just old and grouchy so they go form homeowners associations and ban Sriracha factories. That said, I do agree with your overall outlook here, I'm just afraid that a lot of (particularly older, more traditional people) don't, so it's unrealistic to expect change. People don't like change, and they sure as hell don't like changing the way things change.
II2II 10y ago
> I'm not against mild zoning codes that merely slow down rather than block change. I was thinking along similar lines, yet I suspect that this won't happen for various reasons even if NIMBYism is discounted. The layout of many suburban communities is less than ideal for commercial development, even something as innocent as a convenience store, since they are low density and unwalkable for community members while the roads are ill suited for traffic from outside of the community. Talking about gradually increasing height or unit restrictions sounds nice, yet I suspect that land and construction costs have been driven so high by existing zoning regulations that developers find smaller projects uneconomical.

wozniacki 10y ago

We live in a society and the law is a reflection of it, especially in cities where a lot of people with different needs and desires have to get along. If you want to literally do whatever you want on your property, there's lots of places (in Alaska) that you can do that. Firstly let me say that I agree with the latter part of your reply that less-dense places are ideal for the libertarian minded. I'm fully onboard that school of thought. The problem emerges here: cities are increasingly becoming centers of cultural clout, if not political or economic clout. If you don't have some kind of foothold there or some grasp of the proceedings there -- and no matter what your cultural leanings are & whether you lean left of center or right of it -- the change will drift to your shores, no matter how remotely you live or work. Every aspect of every issue that has been covered in this thread is somehow going to affect how you live, work & socialize, in the near future. Compartmentalizing yourself -- and I'm not saying you're implying that -- from this debate with the hopes of one day moving to the far reaches of the continental expanse, is definitely not the answer. With increasing urbanization of the world, this applies to you, even if you plan to move to a sparsely populated patch in another continent. [1] Most people don't think through this enough. I wish I could overstate this. Cultural clout shapes large portions of your life. And cities are increasingly holding larger and larger chunks of that clout, even if they always have. Every law stipulating the amount of bio-degradable plastic in the cutlery at your run of the mill chain restaurant to the maximum wattage legally allowed to power your domestic vacuum cleaner [2] is somehow fashioned in the cities or influenced by people who've lived with city folk their entire lives. This is why cities matter. And with that, how cities are fashioned with the input & desires of a small coterie of like-minded micro-apartment-dwelling, parklet-embracing & density-demanding people, can one day have far-flung consequences on a geographically & culturally removed set of people who've never ever bought a two way ticket at a metro train station kiosk or had to share traffic with a paratransit bus [3], on their countryside roadways. I'm not even mentioning the political pressure large companies with thousands of employees have been able to brought to bear on entire states, let alone cities, to mold & influence laws.[4] This is why we all have to partake in this, whether we could be bothered to do so or not. Because one day we will. [1] http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/world-urbanization-prospects-2014.html http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/world-... [2] http://www.sbs.com.au/news/thefeed/article/2016/06/23/wackiest-eu-laws-and-myths-and-truth-behind-them http://www.sbs.com.au/news/thefeed/article/2016/06/23/wackie... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paratransit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paratransit [4] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/salesforce-ceo-marc-benioff-north-carolina-bathroom-law-artificial-intelligence-future-of-tech/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/salesforce-ceo-marc-benioff-nort... edit: errors & added a footnote