4 ms·

I mean, what's wrong with SOME cities being giant skyscraper filled grids? Personally I would love to live in that kind of city. And apparently this is also tr

by stale2002 8y ago

I mean, what's wrong with SOME cities being giant skyscraper filled grids? Personally I would love to live in that kind of city. And apparently this is also true for a lot of other people. The low density people have 99% of the world to live in. Why can't us high density people get the 1% that WE want? Let's just let everyone live how they want. There is more than space for both skyscrapers and suburbs.

indemnity 8y ago
Do you have kids yet? I lived in such cities from when I left home at 17 until 36, but the arrival of kids... well, I want them to have a yard to play in, in a chilled neighbourhood, close to the beach and hikes, etc. As well as more room so they can all have their own bedroom, we can have a family area, etc. When they leave the house, I’d probably move back to the city to an apartment. In essence, I’m agreeing with you but I think it also depends which life stage you are in as to what you prefer.
- ebikelaw 8y ago
  If you took half a dozen normal-sized detached American houses and their yards, put all the houses right next to each other and all the land in a contiguous polygon, you'd have a way better place for all the children to play, just as much interior space, and a dramatically better place to be. Detached single-family homes fragment the open space and alienate people, which are not good things for growing children.
munificent 8y ago
> I mean, what's wrong with SOME cities being giant skyscraper filled grids? Nothing at all, and I get that some people dig that. > Why can't us high density people get the 1% that WE want? You can. What I disagree with is the moralizing tone that people take when others don't want their existing city turned into that. > There is more than space for both skyscrapers and suburbs. I agree, but this discussion usually takes place when people argue that the existing single-family homes should be torn down and replaced with greater density. I'm probably overly sensitive because I live in Seattle in a single-family home. But it gets really tiring always being made to feel like a bad person for liking the way I currently live.
- ebikelaw 8y ago
  > people argue that the existing single-family homes should be torn down and replaced with greater density. Literally nobody argues this. Pure strawman. What people argue is that property owners should be _permitted_ to build _slightly_ larger buildings on _their_ property. The law today for most land in most American cities says that property owners are forbidden from building anything but detached single-family dwellings. To remove this prohibition and to allow property owners to develop their own land, if they want that, is not the same as bulldozing the existing neighborhood.
- stale2002 8y ago
  You can keep your single family home. What I want is for every major city to have a singular 1 square mile area, with zero building height limits, so that people who want to build tall building on their own property, are allowed to do so. There is more than enough room in Seattle that is already allocated to single family homes. Now let's pick an area, and get rid of all zoning limits in that singular area.

indemnity 8y ago

Do you have kids yet? I lived in such cities from when I left home at 17 until 36, but the arrival of kids... well, I want them to have a yard to play in, in a chilled neighbourhood, close to the beach and hikes, etc. As well as more room so they can all have their own bedroom, we can have a family area, etc. When they leave the house, I’d probably move back to the city to an apartment. In essence, I’m agreeing with you but I think it also depends which life stage you are in as to what you prefer.

ebikelaw 8y ago
If you took half a dozen normal-sized detached American houses and their yards, put all the houses right next to each other and all the land in a contiguous polygon, you'd have a way better place for all the children to play, just as much interior space, and a dramatically better place to be. Detached single-family homes fragment the open space and alienate people, which are not good things for growing children.

munificent 8y ago

> I mean, what's wrong with SOME cities being giant skyscraper filled grids? Nothing at all, and I get that some people dig that. > Why can't us high density people get the 1% that WE want? You can. What I disagree with is the moralizing tone that people take when others don't want their existing city turned into that. > There is more than space for both skyscrapers and suburbs. I agree, but this discussion usually takes place when people argue that the existing single-family homes should be torn down and replaced with greater density. I'm probably overly sensitive because I live in Seattle in a single-family home. But it gets really tiring always being made to feel like a bad person for liking the way I currently live.

ebikelaw 8y ago
> people argue that the existing single-family homes should be torn down and replaced with greater density. Literally nobody argues this. Pure strawman. What people argue is that property owners should be _permitted_ to build _slightly_ larger buildings on _their_ property. The law today for most land in most American cities says that property owners are forbidden from building anything but detached single-family dwellings. To remove this prohibition and to allow property owners to develop their own land, if they want that, is not the same as bulldozing the existing neighborhood.
stale2002 8y ago
You can keep your single family home. What I want is for every major city to have a singular 1 square mile area, with zero building height limits, so that people who want to build tall building on their own property, are allowed to do so. There is more than enough room in Seattle that is already allocated to single family homes. Now let's pick an area, and get rid of all zoning limits in that singular area.