Your experiences make sense with such an extreme difference in uses. That said, in another comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23723331#23724541 https

Your experiences make sense with such an extreme difference in uses. That said, in another comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23723331#23724541 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23723331#23724541), cesarb made this point well: > Abolishing single family zoning does not imply abolishing all zoning. One can concurrently believe that some zoning is reasonable (or at least that some zoning is much less likely to have unintended effects), and also that single-family is unnecessary. As an easy example, in most jurisdictions single-family excludes duplexes and triplexes. Those don't have any of the problems you described. SFH zoning is unique because it's so prescriptive about the allowed uses, it covers a huge percentage of residential land (https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/amid-seattles-rapid-growth-most-new-housing-restricted-to-a-few-areas/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/amid-seatt...), and it has a 75 year head start (current zoning is not what anyone would create anew today). High impact and little room to adapt to the actual market. (Parking is its own challenge: https://www.vox.com/2014/6/27/5849280/why-free-parking-is-bad-for-everyone https://www.vox.com/2014/6/27/5849280/why-free-parking-is-ba.... The root cause is that it's dramatically underpriced, so people have started to treat an extreme subsidy like a right.)