3 ms·

I'm a little confused by the implications the article is making. Density in the outer suburbs is probably not a good idea, for all the reasons the article menti

I'm a little confused by the implications the article is making. Density in the outer suburbs is probably not a good idea, for all the reasons the article mentions, such as traffic. Then you have to factor in all the other things like electricity, water, sewage, garbage collection, police, firefighters, more public schooling, etc. I'm 100% all for more density, but just throwing up 8 story apartments in what were single-family lots all over the outer suburbs isn't really going to help anyone. There are all kinds of competing forces at play, but the one I think is the hardest to understand is quality of life. Everyone has an idea of what works for them and it's different for everyone. Some of us do want to live in the core of a city and be as close to the energy as possible. While some of us need to be in a quiet area far from it all. I don't want to shame people for wanting to live in a single-family home with room for a garden and toolshed. Those spaces should exist and be in reach for anyone who wants that lifestyle. Yet, I do think we need to rethink what is considered the "core" of a city and should expect and demand that those areas build up. That's when I start getting frustrated with cities on the peninsula. All of the downtowns from Burlingame to Cupertino have height limits of 2 stories. Are you kidding me? None of them have views, and all of them have Caltrain stops. So I don't think "liberal America" is necessarily wrong, and I'm not sure the article is convincing me of that.

esoterica 7y ago
> I'm 100% all for more density, but just throwing up 8 story apartments in what were single-family lots all over the outer suburbs isn't really going to help anyone. It'll help the people who no longer have to pay $5k/month in rent. > Then you have to factor in all the other things like electricity, water, sewage, garbage collection, police, firefighters, more public schooling, etc. Density makes all of these things cheaper. > Those spaces should exist and be in reach for anyone who wants that lifestyle. Low density living is environmentally unsustainable yet heavily subsidized by the government. People living in rural and exurban areas receive far more infrastructure spending per capita while paying the same taxes as the rest of us. If you want to destroy the earth just so you can have big yard then not only should the government not subsidize you, you should be paying extra to reflect the negative externalities caused by your carbon emissions.

esoterica 7y ago

> I'm 100% all for more density, but just throwing up 8 story apartments in what were single-family lots all over the outer suburbs isn't really going to help anyone. It'll help the people who no longer have to pay $5k/month in rent. > Then you have to factor in all the other things like electricity, water, sewage, garbage collection, police, firefighters, more public schooling, etc. Density makes all of these things cheaper. > Those spaces should exist and be in reach for anyone who wants that lifestyle. Low density living is environmentally unsustainable yet heavily subsidized by the government. People living in rural and exurban areas receive far more infrastructure spending per capita while paying the same taxes as the rest of us. If you want to destroy the earth just so you can have big yard then not only should the government not subsidize you, you should be paying extra to reflect the negative externalities caused by your carbon emissions.