7 ms·

Over my dead body. Seriously, I lived in all kinds of apartments for 15 years and there will always be some kind of horrific nuissance no matter how hard everyo

Over my dead body. Seriously, I lived in all kinds of apartments for 15 years and there will always be some kind of horrific nuissance no matter how hard everyone tries to be respectful of each other. I'm all for increasing density, go ahead and build your buildings higher. But don't do it at the expense of people who are willing to pay high premiums to have a small piece of land to avoid the noise, smell, polution, and crowding of apartments.

cheschire 6y ago
Many folks felt the exact same about losing the Wild West to “civilization.” Doesn’t mean you or they were wrong, but you’re most likely going to be plowed over by the machines of progress.
- jansan 6y ago
  By progress you mean population growth?
kgermino 6y ago
Abolishing single family zoning won’t do anything to prevent you from buying a single family house. The vast, vast, majority of houses will still be detached single family. It’s just allowing the option to build an in-law unit and rent it out, or split the house into a duplex, or build a townhouse (houses with shared walls).
- analog31 6y ago
  It might just prevent you from living in it, for instance if it happens to be in between a discotheque and a pig farm. What makes me nervous would be not knowing if my long term investment in a living space could be erased by some arbitrary use of the neighboring land. And individual homeowners would have no power against corporate owners of the land.
  - greenonions 6y ago
    Why is the government obligated to protect your investment? They aren't obligated to keep stock prices high, or to protect the companies land nearby.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      > Why is the government obligated to protect your investment? They are not. But they want people to invest, and people will not invest if they have no ability to predict the future circumstances. That's why governments try to create long-term systems and aren't running on mood swings. Nobody will invest anywhere if all the parameters are up for redefinition every day. "Oh, you built your factory based on proximity to the high way and train line? Well guess what, those are lame, and we've decided to remove both because we want to be cool. We are not obligated to protect your investment."
      - greenonions 6y ago
        They will invest, they will just price in the risk. The same as any other asset. We don't discourage this behavior in other areas, so again, why do we protect house assets? This is especially striking with homelessness being such a massive issue. Why would we protect and inflate housing investments when so many are perishing on the street?
        analog31 6y ago
        Making private housing investment less stable won't make public housing more stable.
        greenonions 6y ago
        Public housing was not mentioned. Making private housing more elastic will certainly reduce the amount who do not have an option that they can afford and that is legal.
        luckylion 6y ago
- eplanit 6y ago
  Such "house as many as you can squeeze in" options will quickly turn neighborhoods into slums. The idea is planning for a certain density, and then not exceeding it. That way you can better plan for traffic, electricity and water usage, etc.
  - yohannparis 6y ago
    What a poor argument! HK, Singapore, NYC, Paris, and London are slums? The numbers of US tourist flocking them might say otherwise.
    - eplanit 6y ago
      They contain some of the worst ones, yes. What a weak counterargument you make!
      - yohannparis 6y ago
        So: containing slums == slums... The density of those city is not contained in those slums.
cultus 6y ago
So the government should manipulate the housing market to benefit a small class of people who can afford single family homes in a place, even if it is detrimental the to vast majority? If you want to live in a SFH, perhaps a dense urban core is not ideal for you.
pseudolus 6y ago
The article is calling for the abolition of single-family zoning, not the imposition of zoning laws that mandate the construction of multi-family dwellings. Essentially, the author is a property rights proponent - if you own the land you should be able to construct whatever premises pleases you on it.
- geebee 6y ago
  Should you be able to trade your right to construct whatever you want in exchange for a legally enforced expectation that your neighbors will be similarly restricted in what they can build? Plenty of people would like to voluntarily enter that arrangement. Same with short term rentals - many people would like to trade their right to run a hotel out of their residence in exchange for a legally enforced expectation that they won't end up living next to a hotel.
  - obblekk 6y ago
    Yes, but the law should enforce your agreement with your neighbors, not obligate you to form an agreement as it does today. I think the biggest issue in zoning is the lack of a path to unzone something. If I convince all my immediate neighbors to let me build up (perhaps by giving them some equity in the new building) I should be allowed by the law to build. Today, even if my whole block wants to build up, we cannot.
    - geebee 6y ago
      Yes, good point. I would support a more local regulation on much of this (same for Airbnb, I see no reason why people in the sunset should determine whether people in bernal can short term rent their properties). Personally, I don't think you should have to get universal agreement either. Maybe a simple majority? Life does chance, cities grow to new borders, single family zoning that made sense a generation ago can be absurd later. As for zoning vs private contract... well, for historical reasons, that's just how it works in older urban neighborhoods. That's the mechanism by which these property rights are decided. It's not ideal. But at my core, I do think the right to live in areas with certain building restrictions is a kind of personal property right just as real as the right to build whatever you want.
ohples 6y ago
I'm willing to make the concession that any urban area with > 100,000 should probably not have single family zoning. Build your McMansion out int the boonies, just don't expect me to subsidize it with my tax dollars
- seattle_spring 6y ago
  Seems like quite the strawman. A 1200 sq ft, or even 2000 sq ft home is not even close to a "McMansion", and a few miles from the urban core is not "the boonies."
  - omosubi 6y ago
    Not op but I'm still in favor of getting rid of subsidies for suburbs - they distort the market to benefit mostly wealthy homeowners to begin with.
- DudeInBasement 6y ago
  This guy has no idea how much those McMansions pay in taxes. "Don't expect me to subsidize..." - said the Tax Cow
leetcrew 6y ago
I'm sorry you've had such a bad experience with apartments. I find that if you pay extra for a new building in a neighborhood with a higher median age, there's really not much nuisance. I live in a small studio and I never hear or smell my neighbors. I don't think anyone is talking about banning detached SFHs here; they merely want to remove the ban on building literally anything else. SFHs are quite popular, and whatever happens, I'm sure there will still be a market for them.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
troydavis 6y ago
> But don't do it at the expense of people who are willing to pay high premiums to have a small piece of land to avoid the noise, smell, polution, and crowding of apartments. I think you may misunderstand what zoning does. Ending single family zoning doesn’t end single family houses, it just allows other housing types to be built as well. Many or most housing units would still be single family houses, with or without zoning. This would remove the incentive to over-supply, not the incentive to supply.
yellowapple 6y ago
I think the title's a bit more provocative than the point I took from the article: that right now the premiums for that "small piece of land" ain't quite high enough due to that being specifically subsidized, and that we should remove restrictions preventing the construction of multi-family homes or residential/commercial hybrid properties. My problem with apartments is that they ain't "mine". Not once has an apartment in which I lived allowed its tenants (myself included) to even paint the walls, let alone hang pictures with nails (gotta use those adhesive strips that absolutely suck) or mount a TV to the wall. And no way in hell would they allow me to do crazier things like putting Ethernet jacks and speaker hookups in the walls or replacing the light switches/fixtures (hell, most get uppity even if I change a burnt-out bulb) or putting in those fancy outlets with the built-in USB ports¹. Even if I were to "own" my apartment (i.e. as a condo) there's no way in hell they'd be okay with me swapping out the windows, or putting in better insulation, or installing a solar power system (and they'd probably still object to me ripping apart the walls to put in those Ethernet jacks / speaker hookups). And then on top of all that, there are countless other things I can't do by nature of not "owning" the outdoor space, either. Shed? Nope. Barbecue? Usually not. Workshop? Not unless I'm lucky enough to have an attached garage². That DIY smelter I wanna build³? Hell fuckin' nope. I feel like a happy medium (for me at least) between "stuck in an apartment" and "suburbia" would be townhomes or something similar: still "detached", but thinner and much closer together, with an emphasis on building vertical. Could even be on the same square footage of land, just thin and long instead of fat and square. More critically, though, I strongly believe the distinction between "residential" and "commercial" zoning should be significantly blurred. Both in the sense of mixed-use buildings⁴ and in the sense of small business owners living where they work / working where they live (e.g. shop or restaurant on the first floor, and the owner lives on the second floor, as was once traditional). ---- ¹: Though my previous apartment in Daly City did come with USB outlets, which was a pleasant surprise ²: Currently I am not so lucky, though the garage does have an outlet so as long as I don't draw too much down I might be able to get away with it ³: https://www.instructables.com/id/How-To-Make-The-Mini-Metal-Foundry/ https://www.instructables.com/id/How-To-Make-The-Mini-Metal-... ⁴: I'm a strong advocate for underground parking + ground floor(s) for shops/restaurants + additional floors for apartments/condos or offices; even if apartments/condos ain't my cup of tea, I'd rather live in that sort of place than a building that's just apartments

cheschire 6y ago

Many folks felt the exact same about losing the Wild West to “civilization.” Doesn’t mean you or they were wrong, but you’re most likely going to be plowed over by the machines of progress.

jansan 6y ago
By progress you mean population growth?

kgermino 6y ago

Abolishing single family zoning won’t do anything to prevent you from buying a single family house. The vast, vast, majority of houses will still be detached single family. It’s just allowing the option to build an in-law unit and rent it out, or split the house into a duplex, or build a townhouse (houses with shared walls).

analog31 6y ago
It might just prevent you from living in it, for instance if it happens to be in between a discotheque and a pig farm. What makes me nervous would be not knowing if my long term investment in a living space could be erased by some arbitrary use of the neighboring land. And individual homeowners would have no power against corporate owners of the land.
- greenonions 6y ago
  Why is the government obligated to protect your investment? They aren't obligated to keep stock prices high, or to protect the companies land nearby.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > Why is the government obligated to protect your investment? They are not. But they want people to invest, and people will not invest if they have no ability to predict the future circumstances. That's why governments try to create long-term systems and aren't running on mood swings. Nobody will invest anywhere if all the parameters are up for redefinition every day. "Oh, you built your factory based on proximity to the high way and train line? Well guess what, those are lame, and we've decided to remove both because we want to be cool. We are not obligated to protect your investment."
    - greenonions 6y ago
      They will invest, they will just price in the risk. The same as any other asset. We don't discourage this behavior in other areas, so again, why do we protect house assets? This is especially striking with homelessness being such a massive issue. Why would we protect and inflate housing investments when so many are perishing on the street?
      - analog31 6y ago
        Making private housing investment less stable won't make public housing more stable.
        greenonions 6y ago
        Public housing was not mentioned. Making private housing more elastic will certainly reduce the amount who do not have an option that they can afford and that is legal.
      - luckylion 6y ago
eplanit 6y ago
Such "house as many as you can squeeze in" options will quickly turn neighborhoods into slums. The idea is planning for a certain density, and then not exceeding it. That way you can better plan for traffic, electricity and water usage, etc.
- yohannparis 6y ago
  What a poor argument! HK, Singapore, NYC, Paris, and London are slums? The numbers of US tourist flocking them might say otherwise.
  - eplanit 6y ago
    They contain some of the worst ones, yes. What a weak counterargument you make!
    - yohannparis 6y ago
      So: containing slums == slums... The density of those city is not contained in those slums.

cultus 6y ago

So the government should manipulate the housing market to benefit a small class of people who can afford single family homes in a place, even if it is detrimental the to vast majority? If you want to live in a SFH, perhaps a dense urban core is not ideal for you.

pseudolus 6y ago

The article is calling for the abolition of single-family zoning, not the imposition of zoning laws that mandate the construction of multi-family dwellings. Essentially, the author is a property rights proponent - if you own the land you should be able to construct whatever premises pleases you on it.

geebee 6y ago
Should you be able to trade your right to construct whatever you want in exchange for a legally enforced expectation that your neighbors will be similarly restricted in what they can build? Plenty of people would like to voluntarily enter that arrangement. Same with short term rentals - many people would like to trade their right to run a hotel out of their residence in exchange for a legally enforced expectation that they won't end up living next to a hotel.
- obblekk 6y ago
  Yes, but the law should enforce your agreement with your neighbors, not obligate you to form an agreement as it does today. I think the biggest issue in zoning is the lack of a path to unzone something. If I convince all my immediate neighbors to let me build up (perhaps by giving them some equity in the new building) I should be allowed by the law to build. Today, even if my whole block wants to build up, we cannot.
  - geebee 6y ago
    Yes, good point. I would support a more local regulation on much of this (same for Airbnb, I see no reason why people in the sunset should determine whether people in bernal can short term rent their properties). Personally, I don't think you should have to get universal agreement either. Maybe a simple majority? Life does chance, cities grow to new borders, single family zoning that made sense a generation ago can be absurd later. As for zoning vs private contract... well, for historical reasons, that's just how it works in older urban neighborhoods. That's the mechanism by which these property rights are decided. It's not ideal. But at my core, I do think the right to live in areas with certain building restrictions is a kind of personal property right just as real as the right to build whatever you want.

ohples 6y ago

I'm willing to make the concession that any urban area with > 100,000 should probably not have single family zoning. Build your McMansion out int the boonies, just don't expect me to subsidize it with my tax dollars

seattle_spring 6y ago
Seems like quite the strawman. A 1200 sq ft, or even 2000 sq ft home is not even close to a "McMansion", and a few miles from the urban core is not "the boonies."
- omosubi 6y ago
  Not op but I'm still in favor of getting rid of subsidies for suburbs - they distort the market to benefit mostly wealthy homeowners to begin with.
DudeInBasement 6y ago
This guy has no idea how much those McMansions pay in taxes. "Don't expect me to subsidize..." - said the Tax Cow

leetcrew 6y ago

I'm sorry you've had such a bad experience with apartments. I find that if you pay extra for a new building in a neighborhood with a higher median age, there's really not much nuisance. I live in a small studio and I never hear or smell my neighbors. I don't think anyone is talking about banning detached SFHs here; they merely want to remove the ban on building literally anything else. SFHs are quite popular, and whatever happens, I'm sure there will still be a market for them.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

troydavis 6y ago

> But don't do it at the expense of people who are willing to pay high premiums to have a small piece of land to avoid the noise, smell, polution, and crowding of apartments. I think you may misunderstand what zoning does. Ending single family zoning doesn’t end single family houses, it just allows other housing types to be built as well. Many or most housing units would still be single family houses, with or without zoning. This would remove the incentive to over-supply, not the incentive to supply.

yellowapple 6y ago

I think the title's a bit more provocative than the point I took from the article: that right now the premiums for that "small piece of land" ain't quite high enough due to that being specifically subsidized, and that we should remove restrictions preventing the construction of multi-family homes or residential/commercial hybrid properties. My problem with apartments is that they ain't "mine". Not once has an apartment in which I lived allowed its tenants (myself included) to even paint the walls, let alone hang pictures with nails (gotta use those adhesive strips that absolutely suck) or mount a TV to the wall. And no way in hell would they allow me to do crazier things like putting Ethernet jacks and speaker hookups in the walls or replacing the light switches/fixtures (hell, most get uppity even if I change a burnt-out bulb) or putting in those fancy outlets with the built-in USB ports¹. Even if I were to "own" my apartment (i.e. as a condo) there's no way in hell they'd be okay with me swapping out the windows, or putting in better insulation, or installing a solar power system (and they'd probably still object to me ripping apart the walls to put in those Ethernet jacks / speaker hookups). And then on top of all that, there are countless other things I can't do by nature of not "owning" the outdoor space, either. Shed? Nope. Barbecue? Usually not. Workshop? Not unless I'm lucky enough to have an attached garage². That DIY smelter I wanna build³? Hell fuckin' nope. I feel like a happy medium (for me at least) between "stuck in an apartment" and "suburbia" would be townhomes or something similar: still "detached", but thinner and much closer together, with an emphasis on building vertical. Could even be on the same square footage of land, just thin and long instead of fat and square. More critically, though, I strongly believe the distinction between "residential" and "commercial" zoning should be significantly blurred. Both in the sense of mixed-use buildings⁴ and in the sense of small business owners living where they work / working where they live (e.g. shop or restaurant on the first floor, and the owner lives on the second floor, as was once traditional). ---- ¹: Though my previous apartment in Daly City did come with USB outlets, which was a pleasant surprise ²: Currently I am not so lucky, though the garage does have an outlet so as long as I don't draw too much down I might be able to get away with it ³: https://www.instructables.com/id/How-To-Make-The-Mini-Metal-Foundry/ https://www.instructables.com/id/How-To-Make-The-Mini-Metal-... ⁴: I'm a strong advocate for underground parking + ground floor(s) for shops/restaurants + additional floors for apartments/condos or offices; even if apartments/condos ain't my cup of tea, I'd rather live in that sort of place than a building that's just apartments