5 ms·

I had these same concerns, so I bought a SFH. Going from always having rented, I wanted to try out full ownership. I'm happy with it, but I've realized that al

by notJim 6y ago

I had these same concerns, so I bought a SFH. Going from always having rented, I wanted to try out full ownership. I'm happy with it, but I've realized that all of those things come with downsides as well. Maintaining a yard is rewarding (assuming you like caring for plants and stuff), but also a hassle and a fair amount of work. Similar with all the other items. Of course you can pay people to do more of it, but it's not like that has zero cost, either. As far as the workshop, I have a friend who does a ton of woodworking out of the garage of his townhouse. It does feel a little bit like luck of the draw with HOA, though. Generally, I think we talk a lot about the benefits of SFH, but not enough about their downsides, or about the upsides of shared housing. When I lived in an apartment before, tons of things were taken care of for me that I now have to worry about. For now, that is a burden I am interested in taking on, but I think as a society we should stop acting like that should be the default, and all other options are inferior compromises.

jeffbee 6y ago
We're not talking about defaults. We're talking about laws that prohibit people from choosing to live in a duplex. There are vanishingly few places in the USA where the law forbids you from building a detached single-family home if that's your preference.
- notJim 6y ago
  Are we allowed to talk about both? The idea that SFH is the preferred default is one of the drivers of those laws. It is part of the ideology of SFH, and deconstructing it will help deconstruct the implementation of that ideology in things like laws.
  - jeffbee 6y ago
    The idea that people prefer detached SFHs is just a talking point used to obscure an agenda. The current agenda is that incumbent landowners profit from scarcity. The old agenda is that SFH zoning excluded minorities. Either one isn't great. There is no evidence of a revealed or stated preference for SFHs among American homebuyers when presented with multiple choices. If people really preferred detached SFHs this strongly, we wouldn't need to enshrine the preference in the law. The comment elsewhere in this discussion by "enragedcacti" is spot-on: if the law requires everyone to eat black beans, it will seem like everyone strongly prefers black beans.
    - nullc 6y ago
      > There is no evidence of a revealed or stated preference for SFHs among American homebuyers Are you really arguing that if you asked people many wouldn't state that they would prefer to live in a detached home?
      - jeffbee 6y ago
        Many would, but not the 99.5% that our current zoning laws suggest.
        lokar 6y ago
        The issue is not what people prefer to live in. The issue is what owners of SFHs prefer to have next to them.
        nullc 6y ago
        That's fair. I was just thrown by the comment suggesting that people didn't actually want them!
      - pchristensen 6y ago
        The question isn't "Would people prefer to live in an SFH?", but "Would people prefer to live in an SFH if it were legal to build other housing types, changing the respective cost?" I would obviously prefer to live in a waterfront mansion within walking distance of urban amenities, but that would cost 20-50x what my house cost. Some people would like the option to save money and buy less housing in an area - see micro apartments. Some people would be willing to spend as much as they can to live in a desirable area, but cannot afford a SFH there so they buy a SFH in a different area. Both of those options are limited by the near omnipresent restrictions on housing types outside of central cities.
    - notJim 6y ago
      > There is no evidence of a revealed or stated preference for SFHs among American homebuyers when presented with multiple choices In fact, there is strong evidence that at least 2 people in the US prefer SFH when presented with multiple choices: myself, and the person I was replying to. I suspect we are not alone, which you acknowledge elsewhere. If you want to shift society away from SFH, it might be helpful to engage with some of the reasons people prefer them, and reasons they are wrong. From what I've seen, part of what keeps exclusionary zoning laws in place is that some people think living in multi-family dwellings is inferior to living in SFH[1], and in my comment I was trying to point out the incorrectness of that thinking. I'm confused why you think I shouldn't do so, since it supports your cause. This is just an internet forum where people are talking, so it's not like that precludes other discussion. By the way, I already upvoted the bean comment, it's a great comment. I think it's okay to talk both about laws and preferences, and their intersection. [1]: People have made this argument in this very thread, in fact.
  - pwinnski 6y ago
    If people prefer them, they will continue to be built even after laws requiring them to be built, or forbidding anything else to be built, are changed. I think you might be surprised.
    - notJim 6y ago
      You seem to think I am in favor of those laws. I'd encourage you to re-read my comments, where I am arguing the opposite.
asdff 6y ago
What do you think happens in an apartment? Your rent pays for a gardener, maintenance, and repairs. You still bear all the costs of ownership as a renter. Maintaining your own yard is a small price to pay for having autonomy. My lease says it's $300 out of the security deposit if I merely paint the walls.

by notJim 6y ago

jeffbee 6y ago

We're not talking about defaults. We're talking about laws that prohibit people from choosing to live in a duplex. There are vanishingly few places in the USA where the law forbids you from building a detached single-family home if that's your preference.

notJim 6y ago
Are we allowed to talk about both? The idea that SFH is the preferred default is one of the drivers of those laws. It is part of the ideology of SFH, and deconstructing it will help deconstruct the implementation of that ideology in things like laws.
- jeffbee 6y ago
  The idea that people prefer detached SFHs is just a talking point used to obscure an agenda. The current agenda is that incumbent landowners profit from scarcity. The old agenda is that SFH zoning excluded minorities. Either one isn't great. There is no evidence of a revealed or stated preference for SFHs among American homebuyers when presented with multiple choices. If people really preferred detached SFHs this strongly, we wouldn't need to enshrine the preference in the law. The comment elsewhere in this discussion by "enragedcacti" is spot-on: if the law requires everyone to eat black beans, it will seem like everyone strongly prefers black beans.
  - nullc 6y ago
    > There is no evidence of a revealed or stated preference for SFHs among American homebuyers Are you really arguing that if you asked people many wouldn't state that they would prefer to live in a detached home?
    - jeffbee 6y ago
      Many would, but not the 99.5% that our current zoning laws suggest.
      - lokar 6y ago
        The issue is not what people prefer to live in. The issue is what owners of SFHs prefer to have next to them.
      - nullc 6y ago
        That's fair. I was just thrown by the comment suggesting that people didn't actually want them!
    - pchristensen 6y ago
      The question isn't "Would people prefer to live in an SFH?", but "Would people prefer to live in an SFH if it were legal to build other housing types, changing the respective cost?" I would obviously prefer to live in a waterfront mansion within walking distance of urban amenities, but that would cost 20-50x what my house cost. Some people would like the option to save money and buy less housing in an area - see micro apartments. Some people would be willing to spend as much as they can to live in a desirable area, but cannot afford a SFH there so they buy a SFH in a different area. Both of those options are limited by the near omnipresent restrictions on housing types outside of central cities.
  - notJim 6y ago
    > There is no evidence of a revealed or stated preference for SFHs among American homebuyers when presented with multiple choices In fact, there is strong evidence that at least 2 people in the US prefer SFH when presented with multiple choices: myself, and the person I was replying to. I suspect we are not alone, which you acknowledge elsewhere. If you want to shift society away from SFH, it might be helpful to engage with some of the reasons people prefer them, and reasons they are wrong. From what I've seen, part of what keeps exclusionary zoning laws in place is that some people think living in multi-family dwellings is inferior to living in SFH[1], and in my comment I was trying to point out the incorrectness of that thinking. I'm confused why you think I shouldn't do so, since it supports your cause. This is just an internet forum where people are talking, so it's not like that precludes other discussion. By the way, I already upvoted the bean comment, it's a great comment. I think it's okay to talk both about laws and preferences, and their intersection. [1]: People have made this argument in this very thread, in fact.
- pwinnski 6y ago
  If people prefer them, they will continue to be built even after laws requiring them to be built, or forbidding anything else to be built, are changed. I think you might be surprised.
  - notJim 6y ago
    You seem to think I am in favor of those laws. I'd encourage you to re-read my comments, where I am arguing the opposite.

asdff 6y ago

What do you think happens in an apartment? Your rent pays for a gardener, maintenance, and repairs. You still bear all the costs of ownership as a renter. Maintaining your own yard is a small price to pay for having autonomy. My lease says it's $300 out of the security deposit if I merely paint the walls.