6 ms·

No, and they typically aren't allowed by modern zoning restrictions. I'm in a house from the mid-1910s and my lot is a third of what is required for new constru

No, and they typically aren't allowed by modern zoning restrictions. I'm in a house from the mid-1910s and my lot is a third of what is required for new construction in other parts of the city.

maxxxxx 8y ago
That's just nuts. We should go for more density, not less.
- jimmaswell 8y ago
  Would you enjoy picking somewhere nice to live, then it becomes crowded with a bunch of denser living structures, with all the extra noise, congestion, crime (simply by virtue of more people being present), etc. completely changing the character of the location?
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    I prefer that over endless sprawl. From a practical point of view it would also allow more people to own a house.
    - jimmaswell 8y ago
      We can't just turn every single locality into a Manhattan. Nice areas with sparse, bigger houses should be able to elect to stay that way. The "sprawl" everyone complains about in SF is (from the last article I saw) a bunch of super tiny square houses with tiny lawns packed into a giant grid. Honestly seems like an alright compromise to me between huge apartment buildings and big lawns for a city-like area, compromised too far in the direction of density even. I honestly don't see the big deal about some areas like SF being able to exist where you can live in a city and actually have a nice-ish single family house in commute distance of your city-job, even if it prices some people out. It's one city in a country of 300 million.
      - rayiner 8y ago
        > We can't just turn every single locality into a Manhattan. Nice areas with sparse, bigger houses should be able to elect to stay that way. Only if property owners want that. If a property owner wants to built a 4-story condo on their property, they should be allowed to do so. If their neighbors want the property to remain a single family home, they should buy out the property owner.
        true_religion 8y ago
        I mean if you try to build a condo on single family house zone, you will generate too much waste, and water usage for the land if it is not connected to city water and sewage. You simply wouldnt have enough land to naturally draw water from a well, or put sewage water back into the ground. And if it is, the infrastructre may still not be developed for allowing 10x the number of people as live in a typical family house.
rayiner 8y ago
I’m in an area zoned in the 1930s, and my lot is 1/5 the minimum required for this zoning elsewhere in the county. It’s fantastic.

No, and they typically aren't allowed by modern zoning restrictions. I'm in a house from the mid-1910s and my lot is a third of what is required for new construction in other parts of the city.

maxxxxx 8y ago

That's just nuts. We should go for more density, not less.

jimmaswell 8y ago
Would you enjoy picking somewhere nice to live, then it becomes crowded with a bunch of denser living structures, with all the extra noise, congestion, crime (simply by virtue of more people being present), etc. completely changing the character of the location?
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  I prefer that over endless sprawl. From a practical point of view it would also allow more people to own a house.
  - jimmaswell 8y ago
    We can't just turn every single locality into a Manhattan. Nice areas with sparse, bigger houses should be able to elect to stay that way. The "sprawl" everyone complains about in SF is (from the last article I saw) a bunch of super tiny square houses with tiny lawns packed into a giant grid. Honestly seems like an alright compromise to me between huge apartment buildings and big lawns for a city-like area, compromised too far in the direction of density even. I honestly don't see the big deal about some areas like SF being able to exist where you can live in a city and actually have a nice-ish single family house in commute distance of your city-job, even if it prices some people out. It's one city in a country of 300 million.
    - rayiner 8y ago
      > We can't just turn every single locality into a Manhattan. Nice areas with sparse, bigger houses should be able to elect to stay that way. Only if property owners want that. If a property owner wants to built a 4-story condo on their property, they should be allowed to do so. If their neighbors want the property to remain a single family home, they should buy out the property owner.
      - true_religion 8y ago
        I mean if you try to build a condo on single family house zone, you will generate too much waste, and water usage for the land if it is not connected to city water and sewage. You simply wouldnt have enough land to naturally draw water from a well, or put sewage water back into the ground. And if it is, the infrastructre may still not be developed for allowing 10x the number of people as live in a typical family house.

rayiner 8y ago

I’m in an area zoned in the 1930s, and my lot is 1/5 the minimum required for this zoning elsewhere in the county. It’s fantastic.