4 ms·

Sure, nothing wrong at all except for: -sedentary car-dependent lifestyle -inefficent use of arable land -carbon intense lifestyle contributing to the collap

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.
  - souprock 7y ago
    It somewhat works in Japan because you can't register a car without having a dedicated parking space. In the US, an apartment complex in an ordinary suburban neighborhood would swipe all the on-street parking and probably people's lawns as well. Those home owners expect nearly exclusive use of the street parking for their guests.
- hellisothers 7y ago
  I found the opposite to be true, we lived in the South Bay in denser townhomes and everyone was very anti-social. Now that we’ve moved to the east bay to a SFH area the neighbors are more invested in the neighborhood and we have far more social interactions. We’re also a 10 minute walk to great shops/bars/doughnuts. The options aren’t burbs or dense urban housing, you can have SFH in an urban area.
- PunksATawnyFill 7y ago
  Translation: You’re a developer shill.
galangalalgol 7y ago
if you allow retail mixed with single family you get people walking to corner markets for groceries and to the pub. water restrictions that prevent wasteful lawns, eliminate HOA rules that require them materialism is good right? self driving EV, also bus stops used to serve suburbia well if the cost of driving was higher it would again. you got me on the thermal inefficiency surface area to volume trumps any R factor. how? sit on your front porch, have block parties. works in many single family neighborhoods. culture not zoning you can vote for that but I don't think you will be joined by many
rgppq112 7y ago
Luckily, my vote for single family houses will cancel out your vote. A single family house in a good and expensive neighborhood is something many people want to get and when people want to get something, they put effort into that and drive the economy up. I'm one of those people and I'm putting a lot of effort to get such a house, paying high taxes on my way there. People who vote for dense multi family housing have probably never lived there. But I did, I came from a ghetto and don't want to go back. Those dense apartment complexes don't solve any of the problems you've listed, but rather introduce new, such as drunk addicts wandering around your complex when you're returning from work. Apartment complexes don't make anyone's lifestyle any less sedentary and any less car dependent, because you still need a car in such a huge country. The US has plenty (too much) land: that's obvious to anyone who's bothered to go on a road trip. Most of that land just sits around unused. The carbon intense lifestyle is caused by the disposable junk products that are intentionally made flawed so we'd have to keep buying new. There is nothing "carbon intense" in putting together a bunch of trees and calling that a house. The cause of materialistic lifestyle is caused by greed: a fundamental flaw in our mentality that humanity will take tens of thousands years to overcome. Petty housing laws aren't going to change that, just like laws aren't going to make a teen grow faster. Economic "segregation" is a good thing as it gives people a choice where to live. Anti-social lifestyle? ROFL. Like I've said, I lived in a ghetto good 20 years. That kind of lifestyle can't be any more anti social. Some people have that detached from reality idea that if we make all sorts of people live together in packed apartment complexes, the "pro-social lifestyle" would flourish, we'd get nice parks with crowds of happy people and kids running around. None of that would happen. What would happen is a bunch of depressing big apartment buildings with all sorts of sketchy folks wandering around your neighborhood, looking for something to keep themselves busy. And that something is rarely a talk about arts. In such neighborhoods you'd want a car even more, but now for safety reasons and you wouldn't dare to leave your kids alone in such places. "Increases barrier to connect with others" - gosh, I can't stop laughing. The kind of people you would have easier, with no barriers, communication are not MIT professors and you would want a car with tinted windows just to have that barrier to connect with others. The single family house neighborhoods with HOAs, tiered by social status, is the right way to go as it gives everyone a choice where to live. If you want to build a bunch of tall apartment complexes next to the city center, so you could walk to work, fine, do it, vote for it, but please, keep your hands away from single family houses and HOAs.
PunksATawnyFill 7y ago
What a crock of shit. Sedentary? So you think you’re going to legislate exercise? Let me tell you what’s sedentary: helpless urban dweebs ordering dinner from Postmates, who’ve never mown a lawn or used a table saw or planted a garden. Pasty-handed yuppies who call for help at the slightest adversity instead of learning to fix things themselves. Racial and economic segregation? HOW? By not reducing EVERYONE to a cow parking herself in a pathetic stall every night, chewing on the processed feed from the overpriced corner specialty food store? Anti-social? I know more about the suburban neighbors I grew up with than I do about people in my urban apartment building. Don’t project your antisocial behavior on everyone else. Materialistic lifestyle? Fuck you. I want to grow vegetables and fix my own car. Too bad if you’re threatened by that, urban dandy.

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.
- souprock 7y ago
  It somewhat works in Japan because you can't register a car without having a dedicated parking space. In the US, an apartment complex in an ordinary suburban neighborhood would swipe all the on-street parking and probably people's lawns as well. Those home owners expect nearly exclusive use of the street parking for their guests.
hellisothers 7y ago
I found the opposite to be true, we lived in the South Bay in denser townhomes and everyone was very anti-social. Now that we’ve moved to the east bay to a SFH area the neighbors are more invested in the neighborhood and we have far more social interactions. We’re also a 10 minute walk to great shops/bars/doughnuts. The options aren’t burbs or dense urban housing, you can have SFH in an urban area.
PunksATawnyFill 7y ago
Translation: You’re a developer shill.

galangalalgol 7y ago

if you allow retail mixed with single family you get people walking to corner markets for groceries and to the pub. water restrictions that prevent wasteful lawns, eliminate HOA rules that require them materialism is good right? self driving EV, also bus stops used to serve suburbia well if the cost of driving was higher it would again. you got me on the thermal inefficiency surface area to volume trumps any R factor. how? sit on your front porch, have block parties. works in many single family neighborhoods. culture not zoning you can vote for that but I don't think you will be joined by many

rgppq112 7y ago

Luckily, my vote for single family houses will cancel out your vote. A single family house in a good and expensive neighborhood is something many people want to get and when people want to get something, they put effort into that and drive the economy up. I'm one of those people and I'm putting a lot of effort to get such a house, paying high taxes on my way there. People who vote for dense multi family housing have probably never lived there. But I did, I came from a ghetto and don't want to go back. Those dense apartment complexes don't solve any of the problems you've listed, but rather introduce new, such as drunk addicts wandering around your complex when you're returning from work. Apartment complexes don't make anyone's lifestyle any less sedentary and any less car dependent, because you still need a car in such a huge country. The US has plenty (too much) land: that's obvious to anyone who's bothered to go on a road trip. Most of that land just sits around unused. The carbon intense lifestyle is caused by the disposable junk products that are intentionally made flawed so we'd have to keep buying new. There is nothing "carbon intense" in putting together a bunch of trees and calling that a house. The cause of materialistic lifestyle is caused by greed: a fundamental flaw in our mentality that humanity will take tens of thousands years to overcome. Petty housing laws aren't going to change that, just like laws aren't going to make a teen grow faster. Economic "segregation" is a good thing as it gives people a choice where to live. Anti-social lifestyle? ROFL. Like I've said, I lived in a ghetto good 20 years. That kind of lifestyle can't be any more anti social. Some people have that detached from reality idea that if we make all sorts of people live together in packed apartment complexes, the "pro-social lifestyle" would flourish, we'd get nice parks with crowds of happy people and kids running around. None of that would happen. What would happen is a bunch of depressing big apartment buildings with all sorts of sketchy folks wandering around your neighborhood, looking for something to keep themselves busy. And that something is rarely a talk about arts. In such neighborhoods you'd want a car even more, but now for safety reasons and you wouldn't dare to leave your kids alone in such places. "Increases barrier to connect with others" - gosh, I can't stop laughing. The kind of people you would have easier, with no barriers, communication are not MIT professors and you would want a car with tinted windows just to have that barrier to connect with others. The single family house neighborhoods with HOAs, tiered by social status, is the right way to go as it gives everyone a choice where to live. If you want to build a bunch of tall apartment complexes next to the city center, so you could walk to work, fine, do it, vote for it, but please, keep your hands away from single family houses and HOAs.

PunksATawnyFill 7y ago

What a crock of shit. Sedentary? So you think you’re going to legislate exercise? Let me tell you what’s sedentary: helpless urban dweebs ordering dinner from Postmates, who’ve never mown a lawn or used a table saw or planted a garden. Pasty-handed yuppies who call for help at the slightest adversity instead of learning to fix things themselves. Racial and economic segregation? HOW? By not reducing EVERYONE to a cow parking herself in a pathetic stall every night, chewing on the processed feed from the overpriced corner specialty food store? Anti-social? I know more about the suburban neighbors I grew up with than I do about people in my urban apartment building. Don’t project your antisocial behavior on everyone else. Materialistic lifestyle? Fuck you. I want to grow vegetables and fix my own car. Too bad if you’re threatened by that, urban dandy.