3 ms·

> This entirely misses the point. The point isn't that every SFH-only neighborhood is affluent or even middle-class, it's that having all these SFH-only neighbo

> This entirely misses the point. The point isn't that every SFH-only neighborhood is affluent or even middle-class, it's that having all these SFH-only neighborhoods supports stratification. Is that the point? Is stratification what we are trying to prevent by removing single family home regulations? I don't think it will work.

TulliusCicero 7y ago
Prevent? No. Alleviate? Yes. You can't just say "I don't think it will work" without saying why. Allowing for smaller home forms would mean affordable options in desirable neighborhoods. Do you have a reason to believe poorer families would still universally avoid those options?
- Misdicorl 7y ago
  It seems to me that stratification of neighborhoods is extreme whether single family housing regulations are in place or not. These types of regulations probably do make it more extreme. But I also question the base motive. Is de-stratisfying neighborhoods actually a worthwhile goal? I can certainly see some benefit- its nice to live in a diverse neighborhood. I wonder if that might happen anyways if we address the underlying issues instead- violence, schools, access to public works, probably others- rather than just throwing up our hands and giving up on these underserviced 'bad' neighborhoods.
  - TulliusCicero 7y ago
    Come to Munich. I find it very difficult to tell how rich most neighborhoods are here, whether city or suburb, whereas in the US I usually noticed easily without even thinking. > Is de-stratisfying neighborhoods actually a worthwhile goal? Well, that depends on how you feel about social mobility and segregation, I suppose. If you support the rich and poor being kept separate from each other, if you want to keep social mobility low, then sure it makes sense to support these regulations. > rather than just throwing up our hands and giving up on these underserviced 'bad' neighborhoods. Giving up? In practice, the result is evening out of neighborhood quality and desirability, not some neighborhoods just being randomly abandoned.
    - Misdicorl 7y ago
      > Come to Munich. I find it very difficult to tell how rich most neighborhoods are here, whether city or suburb That sounds really pleasant. I'd love to have that where I live. > Well, that depends on how you feel about social mobility and segregation, I suppose. If you support the rich and poor being kept separate from each other, if you want to keep social mobility low I think you're painting me into a corner here that doesn't need to exist. First, I don't see why social/economic mobility should be predicated on the non-existence of stratified neighborhoods. I think non-stratified neighborhoods are an excellent result of those things. Second, trying to manufacture non-stratification by telling communities what type of housing they must allow feels a little hamfisted- and also a bit off target. I'd rather have government assistance housing that fits the neighborhood than a fucky landlord building shitty tenements.
      - TulliusCicero 7y ago
        Stratified neighborhoods means stratified schools, means stratified networks of connections, which means less social mobility. > Second, trying to manufacture non-stratification by telling communities what type of housing they must allow feels a little hamfisted I'm sorry, but this is COMICALLY absurd at this point. Here we have communities that have used a relatively recent invention, zoning regulation, to force a historically unprecedented urban pattern of building onto the vast majority of residential land in the US, with the express intent of keeping out undesirables. As the libertarians like to put it, at the point of a gun. And you're saying the ones who want to loosen regulations, to return to more environmentally friendly, historically common urban building patterns, patterns that would not shut out the poor, are the ones "hamfistedly manufacturing" something? I'm sorry, I'm having trouble believing that you're not being deliberately disingenuous at this point. It's like calling the removal of Jim Crow laws "hamfisted, manufactured non-segregation".

TulliusCicero 7y ago

Prevent? No. Alleviate? Yes. You can't just say "I don't think it will work" without saying why. Allowing for smaller home forms would mean affordable options in desirable neighborhoods. Do you have a reason to believe poorer families would still universally avoid those options?

Misdicorl 7y ago
It seems to me that stratification of neighborhoods is extreme whether single family housing regulations are in place or not. These types of regulations probably do make it more extreme. But I also question the base motive. Is de-stratisfying neighborhoods actually a worthwhile goal? I can certainly see some benefit- its nice to live in a diverse neighborhood. I wonder if that might happen anyways if we address the underlying issues instead- violence, schools, access to public works, probably others- rather than just throwing up our hands and giving up on these underserviced 'bad' neighborhoods.
- TulliusCicero 7y ago
  Come to Munich. I find it very difficult to tell how rich most neighborhoods are here, whether city or suburb, whereas in the US I usually noticed easily without even thinking. > Is de-stratisfying neighborhoods actually a worthwhile goal? Well, that depends on how you feel about social mobility and segregation, I suppose. If you support the rich and poor being kept separate from each other, if you want to keep social mobility low, then sure it makes sense to support these regulations. > rather than just throwing up our hands and giving up on these underserviced 'bad' neighborhoods. Giving up? In practice, the result is evening out of neighborhood quality and desirability, not some neighborhoods just being randomly abandoned.
  - Misdicorl 7y ago
    > Come to Munich. I find it very difficult to tell how rich most neighborhoods are here, whether city or suburb That sounds really pleasant. I'd love to have that where I live. > Well, that depends on how you feel about social mobility and segregation, I suppose. If you support the rich and poor being kept separate from each other, if you want to keep social mobility low I think you're painting me into a corner here that doesn't need to exist. First, I don't see why social/economic mobility should be predicated on the non-existence of stratified neighborhoods. I think non-stratified neighborhoods are an excellent result of those things. Second, trying to manufacture non-stratification by telling communities what type of housing they must allow feels a little hamfisted- and also a bit off target. I'd rather have government assistance housing that fits the neighborhood than a fucky landlord building shitty tenements.
    - TulliusCicero 7y ago
      Stratified neighborhoods means stratified schools, means stratified networks of connections, which means less social mobility. > Second, trying to manufacture non-stratification by telling communities what type of housing they must allow feels a little hamfisted I'm sorry, but this is COMICALLY absurd at this point. Here we have communities that have used a relatively recent invention, zoning regulation, to force a historically unprecedented urban pattern of building onto the vast majority of residential land in the US, with the express intent of keeping out undesirables. As the libertarians like to put it, at the point of a gun. And you're saying the ones who want to loosen regulations, to return to more environmentally friendly, historically common urban building patterns, patterns that would not shut out the poor, are the ones "hamfistedly manufacturing" something? I'm sorry, I'm having trouble believing that you're not being deliberately disingenuous at this point. It's like calling the removal of Jim Crow laws "hamfisted, manufactured non-segregation".