3 ms·
Single-family housing seems perfectly reasonable in non-competitive, rural environments. No need force multi-family housing in those areas.
by JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
Single-family housing seems perfectly reasonable in non-competitive, rural environments. No need force multi-family housing in those areas.
- davidw 7y agoSure, but let the market figure it out rather than mandate it?
- vonmoltke 7y agoThe post being replied to calls for mandating it the other way: > Force cities to build duplexes/triplexes/four-plexes everywhere.
- davidw 7y agoYeah I would disagree with that. We should remove as many barriers to that kind of housing as possible, but no one knows the 'correct' mix of housing options in any given city.
- klipt 7y agoWe could have zoning that allows for either and let the market decide. I'm sure no developer will build a giant condo tower in the middle of rural nowhere.
- JMTQp8lwXL 7y agoMulti-family housing "in the middle of nowhere" could look appetizing for reducing municipal costs. You need a lot more roads, power/water lines, in single residence communities than in urban areas. Declining tax bases in rural areas will be death by a thousand cuts. It takes serious cash for a municipality to "keep the lights on". This may sound slightly contrary to my prior opinion, but there ought be a middle ground between the free choice of wanting a SFH, but also having some level of community planning that ensures the community remains viable.
- crooked-v 7y agoA common pattern for that kind of thing is small condo buildings with 4 to 6 units, run as co-ops by the unit owners (no HOA or management company). It's a simple way to get some economy of scale benefits in general maintenance and public utilities, and to have a few neighbors to deter crime that might otherwise target isolated homes.