4 ms·

Really an appalling point of view. There is absolutely nothing wrong with single family neighborhoods; in fact, they are greatly desirable to most.

s_Hogg 7y ago
How is the desirability of homes in single family neighbourhoods inconsistent with the fact that they tend towards creating haves and have-nots in the market for housing?
- kryogen1c 7y ago
  The definition of a market is haves and have-nots. Saying that building expensive things is segragation is thinly veiled strict socialism. What's the alternative, everyone is forced to live in the same housing? You can't force cheap apartments in nice neighborhoods, those neighborhoods will become not nice. Thats how rent control works
  - s_Hogg 7y ago
    I accept that, but policy seems to enforce single family home neighbourhoods in many places. This exacerbates the problem of haves and have-nots in the housing market. I'm not in the "ban SFH neighbourhoods" camp, but I think we shouldn't have as much of a problem with them becoming denser. Particularly not when the people already living there tend to have the chance to be well-compensated by selling to developers if they want. This doesn't mean developers should be allowed to let rip either - as one of the other posts says, increased density leads to increased demand for other infrastructure as well. Basically neither Manhattan nor Houston are really ideal states in my mind. There should be a way to live in the burbs if you want to do that, but I don't think public policy should be vigorously defending the people who do that regardless of obvious social and economic costs.
    - leetcrew 7y ago
      > Particularly not when the people already living there tend to have the chance to be well-compensated by selling to developers if they want. the developers have a significant amount of leverage in this situation. if they can build one large apartment building in a low-density sfh neighborhood, they can take a significant chunk of value off all the neighboring homes. if they can secure land to build several large buildings, they can seriously devalue these homes. when they start looking to buy property for the nth building, the homeowner isn't going to get anything close to the original value. as a society, we should never have allowed this situation to happen in the first place, but now that we have, it's not going to be easy to solve. until you get to pretty high percentiles of wealth, homes tend to be a large fraction of a family's net worth. to suddenly remove the zoning would be a pretty big hit for these people; a lot of them could get upside-down on their mortgages.
      - spoonie 7y ago
        I get that those opposed to density claim this is one of the reasons they oppose it, but is there any evidence of it? Usually an increase in density in an area will increase land values rather then depress them.
  - spoonie 7y ago
    I should be able to build whatever I want on my private property. Whether it’s a house or an apartment building.
    - caymanjim 7y ago
      Are you also going to build the infrastructure to support your apartment building in a neighborhood of single-family homes? Are you going widen the streets, create parking, improve sewer and water lines, add traffic lights, build larger parks, route mass transit, hire more school bus drivers, hire more police? Urban planning and zoning exist for a reason.
      - spoonie 7y ago
        Yes in Toronto these are called Development Charges and are charged to the buyer/builder proportional to what they are building.
    - pbourke 7y ago
      And I assume that you’d be fine with your neighbour doing the same, irrespective of the impact on the value and enjoyment of your property?
      - spoonie 7y ago
        If I'm happy to have gains when I do nothing but my neighbours improve their properties, then I’m also happy to risk losses when I do nothing but my neighbours make changes.
  - TulliusCicero 7y ago
    > The definition of a market is haves and have-nots. Sure, but we're talking about government force, not the market. It's one thing if the market creates SFH-only neighborhoods, but why should the government be enforcing that as law?
- PunksATawnyFill 7y ago
  They did not CREATE haves and have-nots. They are simply a marker of them. Instead of depriving everyone of houses, we should be addressing any injustices that prevent people from acquiring them.
zkms 7y ago
If they're indeed so greatly desirable then there wouldn't be this weird fixation with banning literally every other form of housing (something which has caused the homelessness crisis, as well as making rent pathologically high).
EliRivers 7y ago
There is absolutely nothing wrong with single family neighborhoods Do they not, by their very nature, enforce low-density housing? Is that not a bad thing to enforce in places with too few dwellings?
- TulliusCicero 7y ago
  It is, and I'm not sure why you got downvoted so heavily. More housing giving people more freedom to choose where to live is good. More housing helping make living more affordable is good. More housing making good jobs in economically booming areas more accessible is good. More housing density is indisputably better for the environment. There's many good reasons to be for more housing density, and many fewer good reasons to be against.
- PunksATawnyFill 7y ago
  No, it is not a bad thing. Nobody guaranteed you the right to live on top of someone else.
dougmwne 7y ago
Sure, nothing wrong at all except for: -sedentary car-dependent lifestyle -inefficent use of arable land -carbon intense lifestyle contributing to the collapse of ecosystems -materialistic lifestyle enforced -impossible to serve economically with public transit making car ownership mandatory -energy inefficient buildings -encourages racial and economic segregation -anti-social lifestyle decreases face to face contact and increases barrier to connect with others If I could vote to make these neighborhoods illegal, I would.
- phil21 7y ago
  > anti-social lifestyle decreases face to face contact and increases barrier to connect with others This cannot be overstated enough. My pet theory is that the suburbification of America led to our current division and political strife. You cannot expect great results when those with the most combined political power and wealth in the nation sequester themselves individually away from others and even each other. This ends up with anti-social people driving social policy for the nation. And it shows. The older I get, watching the first generation fully raised in "suburban culture" seems to be a lesson in watching the threads of a society break down in real time. It's amazing to me that within 2-3 generations we completely blew up the notion of extended families and close-knit community taking care of each other. That said... > If I could vote to make these neighborhoods illegal, I would. I'm not quite willing to go that far. I would simply make zoning them illegal. If an area is desirable enough to toss up a giant single family home next door to a few 3 flats - so be it. But I should be just as allowed to come buy that place, tear it down, and toss a small apartment building in it's place. Additionally I'd be in favor of laws that make it illegal (or exceedingly difficult) to require setbacks/minimum parking/etc. for most areas. Basically I'd like to see a legal framework that brings us back to "natural" incremental city development vs. this BS planned crap that never works. The only cities in the world people marvel at (at least in western societies) are those that predated zoning law. Choice and freedom are a beautiful thing. The problem now is there is little choice due to subsidy and zoning laws.
  - dougmwne 7y ago
    > I would simply make zoning them illegal. Sorry, yes that's exactly what I meant and we're in total agreement. There's no way I'd advocate tearing these neighborhoods down, only make it illegal to continue to protect their zoning, just like this new law in Oregon. I think that's a super solution, and I'd happily vote for it in my own state.
TulliusCicero 7y ago
There's nothing wrong with single family homes. There's a lot wrong with the government mandating them in a particular area, especially when that 'particular area' is actually 'most residential land'.
raldi 7y ago
In the same way as taking more than one's fair share of pie is desirable to most.
- TulliusCicero 7y ago
  Oh hey, a username I recognize from the SF subreddit. Hi!

s_Hogg 7y ago

How is the desirability of homes in single family neighbourhoods inconsistent with the fact that they tend towards creating haves and have-nots in the market for housing?

kryogen1c 7y ago
The definition of a market is haves and have-nots. Saying that building expensive things is segragation is thinly veiled strict socialism. What's the alternative, everyone is forced to live in the same housing? You can't force cheap apartments in nice neighborhoods, those neighborhoods will become not nice. Thats how rent control works
- s_Hogg 7y ago
  I accept that, but policy seems to enforce single family home neighbourhoods in many places. This exacerbates the problem of haves and have-nots in the housing market. I'm not in the "ban SFH neighbourhoods" camp, but I think we shouldn't have as much of a problem with them becoming denser. Particularly not when the people already living there tend to have the chance to be well-compensated by selling to developers if they want. This doesn't mean developers should be allowed to let rip either - as one of the other posts says, increased density leads to increased demand for other infrastructure as well. Basically neither Manhattan nor Houston are really ideal states in my mind. There should be a way to live in the burbs if you want to do that, but I don't think public policy should be vigorously defending the people who do that regardless of obvious social and economic costs.
  - leetcrew 7y ago
    > Particularly not when the people already living there tend to have the chance to be well-compensated by selling to developers if they want. the developers have a significant amount of leverage in this situation. if they can build one large apartment building in a low-density sfh neighborhood, they can take a significant chunk of value off all the neighboring homes. if they can secure land to build several large buildings, they can seriously devalue these homes. when they start looking to buy property for the nth building, the homeowner isn't going to get anything close to the original value. as a society, we should never have allowed this situation to happen in the first place, but now that we have, it's not going to be easy to solve. until you get to pretty high percentiles of wealth, homes tend to be a large fraction of a family's net worth. to suddenly remove the zoning would be a pretty big hit for these people; a lot of them could get upside-down on their mortgages.
    - spoonie 7y ago
      I get that those opposed to density claim this is one of the reasons they oppose it, but is there any evidence of it? Usually an increase in density in an area will increase land values rather then depress them.
- spoonie 7y ago
  I should be able to build whatever I want on my private property. Whether it’s a house or an apartment building.
  - caymanjim 7y ago
    Are you also going to build the infrastructure to support your apartment building in a neighborhood of single-family homes? Are you going widen the streets, create parking, improve sewer and water lines, add traffic lights, build larger parks, route mass transit, hire more school bus drivers, hire more police? Urban planning and zoning exist for a reason.
    - spoonie 7y ago
      Yes in Toronto these are called Development Charges and are charged to the buyer/builder proportional to what they are building.
  - pbourke 7y ago
    And I assume that you’d be fine with your neighbour doing the same, irrespective of the impact on the value and enjoyment of your property?
    - spoonie 7y ago
      If I'm happy to have gains when I do nothing but my neighbours improve their properties, then I’m also happy to risk losses when I do nothing but my neighbours make changes.
- TulliusCicero 7y ago
  > The definition of a market is haves and have-nots. Sure, but we're talking about government force, not the market. It's one thing if the market creates SFH-only neighborhoods, but why should the government be enforcing that as law?
PunksATawnyFill 7y ago
They did not CREATE haves and have-nots. They are simply a marker of them. Instead of depriving everyone of houses, we should be addressing any injustices that prevent people from acquiring them.

zkms 7y ago

If they're indeed so greatly desirable then there wouldn't be this weird fixation with banning literally every other form of housing (something which has caused the homelessness crisis, as well as making rent pathologically high).

EliRivers 7y ago

There is absolutely nothing wrong with single family neighborhoods Do they not, by their very nature, enforce low-density housing? Is that not a bad thing to enforce in places with too few dwellings?

TulliusCicero 7y ago
It is, and I'm not sure why you got downvoted so heavily. More housing giving people more freedom to choose where to live is good. More housing helping make living more affordable is good. More housing making good jobs in economically booming areas more accessible is good. More housing density is indisputably better for the environment. There's many good reasons to be for more housing density, and many fewer good reasons to be against.
PunksATawnyFill 7y ago
No, it is not a bad thing. Nobody guaranteed you the right to live on top of someone else.

dougmwne 7y ago

Sure, nothing wrong at all except for: -sedentary car-dependent lifestyle -inefficent use of arable land -carbon intense lifestyle contributing to the collapse of ecosystems -materialistic lifestyle enforced -impossible to serve economically with public transit making car ownership mandatory -energy inefficient buildings -encourages racial and economic segregation -anti-social lifestyle decreases face to face contact and increases barrier to connect with others If I could vote to make these neighborhoods illegal, I would.

phil21 7y ago
> anti-social lifestyle decreases face to face contact and increases barrier to connect with others This cannot be overstated enough. My pet theory is that the suburbification of America led to our current division and political strife. You cannot expect great results when those with the most combined political power and wealth in the nation sequester themselves individually away from others and even each other. This ends up with anti-social people driving social policy for the nation. And it shows. The older I get, watching the first generation fully raised in "suburban culture" seems to be a lesson in watching the threads of a society break down in real time. It's amazing to me that within 2-3 generations we completely blew up the notion of extended families and close-knit community taking care of each other. That said... > If I could vote to make these neighborhoods illegal, I would. I'm not quite willing to go that far. I would simply make zoning them illegal. If an area is desirable enough to toss up a giant single family home next door to a few 3 flats - so be it. But I should be just as allowed to come buy that place, tear it down, and toss a small apartment building in it's place. Additionally I'd be in favor of laws that make it illegal (or exceedingly difficult) to require setbacks/minimum parking/etc. for most areas. Basically I'd like to see a legal framework that brings us back to "natural" incremental city development vs. this BS planned crap that never works. The only cities in the world people marvel at (at least in western societies) are those that predated zoning law. Choice and freedom are a beautiful thing. The problem now is there is little choice due to subsidy and zoning laws.
- dougmwne 7y ago
  > I would simply make zoning them illegal. Sorry, yes that's exactly what I meant and we're in total agreement. There's no way I'd advocate tearing these neighborhoods down, only make it illegal to continue to protect their zoning, just like this new law in Oregon. I think that's a super solution, and I'd happily vote for it in my own state.

TulliusCicero 7y ago

There's nothing wrong with single family homes. There's a lot wrong with the government mandating them in a particular area, especially when that 'particular area' is actually 'most residential land'.

raldi 7y ago

In the same way as taking more than one's fair share of pie is desirable to most.

TulliusCicero 7y ago
Oh hey, a username I recognize from the SF subreddit. Hi!