4 ms·

Infrastructure gets more expensive as density lowers. Most of the US (and France, for example) built after the 1960s decided to build stupid detached single fam

Infrastructure gets more expensive as density lowers. Most of the US (and France, for example) built after the 1960s decided to build stupid detached single family houses. There is no incentive to upzone there given that homeowners who bought for cheap want their property values to go up, with no downsides for them (thanks prop 13)

mc32 6y ago
Developers didn't build stupid detached homes because no one would want them, they built them because that's what most people prefer. People don't prefer dealing with noisy neighbors, etc. Almost anywhere where there is land available and it's affordable you'll have a large group of people who prefer single family homes --even favelas have single family homes. As societies become more affluent they want more independence --and your own house is part of that.
- lordCarbonFiber 6y ago
  Citation desperately needed. Having grown up in the suburbs and participated in the exodus along with everyone I knew that could, detached housing is an isolating personal hell (and a pain to clean and maintain on top of it). Places where single family homes exist rarely even have the option for high density housing and, in the US at least, never have the public infrastructure to support it. It's a learned excess not a requirement.
  - zepto 6y ago
    How is a detached house an ‘isolating hell’? I have lived in apartments and single family homes about 50/50 both as a kid, and as an adult, and I’d say bigger places have had an edge in terms of socializing just because it’s more comfortable to host people - but not by much.
    - mc32 6y ago
      BBQs are a great getting together activity summers (good weather). Many apartment buildings don’t have balconies or communal space fir BBQs... detached houses (or ‘plexes) make that activity easier.
- davidgay 6y ago
  Replying to parent as the child is too deep(?): > Places where single family homes exist rarely even have the option for high density housing and, in the US at least, never have the public infrastructure to support it. Berkeley is on the list of US highest density cities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...) and has a lot of single-family homes (definitely most by area by a large margin, and there are no high-rises in Berkeley...). The lots are small of course . And it has, for the US, reasonable public transportation.
  - mc32 6y ago
    SF is dense but it also never the less has neighborhoods with single family detached homes too (glen park, cole valley and others built around approx time). of course it's mainly multi-family low-rise mid-rise buildings.
- NumberWangMan 6y ago
  I think the root problem with single family homes is not their existence, but several factors: 1) They are implicitly subsidised by cities in the form of having way more infrastructure and public services dedicated to them, per-capita, than denser forms of development. Even though taxes in suburbs may be expensive, the massive amount of infrastructure it takes to support thousands of single-family homes, most with at least two drivers, means that suburb dwellers are not paying their fair share of taxes. It's like someone at a restaurant ordering a $200 bottle of wine for themselves and only being asked to pay $50 more when it comes time to split the check. In fact, in many places, single family suburbs are actually a net loss for the city, depending on the tax rates and how sparse they are. That's also not to mention things like carbon emissions not being properly priced into the cost of gasoline. It would be much less attractive, relatively, to live far away from employment if this were fixed. 2) In many places, zoning makes it illegal to build anything BUT single-family homes. If we could eliminate these two issues -- have people living in suburbs pay the true cost, and make it legal to build pretty anything else, then I think most people wouldn't have a problem with suburbs. But then, I also suspect that suburbs would be much, much less attractive if that were the case.
Retric 6y ago
It’s U shaped. NYC could build a new highway by knocking down skyscrapers or building massive tunnels like the big dig etc. At the other end, a new highway in Iowa needs to be extremely long to connect to anything useful. The sweet spot depends on a host of factors and the Bay Area ticks off several of them by having the ocean, bay, and parks, forcing a long narrow strip of development. Add in earthquakes and it’s really a terrible location for building infrastructure even ignoring NIMBY issues.

mc32 6y ago

Developers didn't build stupid detached homes because no one would want them, they built them because that's what most people prefer. People don't prefer dealing with noisy neighbors, etc. Almost anywhere where there is land available and it's affordable you'll have a large group of people who prefer single family homes --even favelas have single family homes. As societies become more affluent they want more independence --and your own house is part of that.

lordCarbonFiber 6y ago
Citation desperately needed. Having grown up in the suburbs and participated in the exodus along with everyone I knew that could, detached housing is an isolating personal hell (and a pain to clean and maintain on top of it). Places where single family homes exist rarely even have the option for high density housing and, in the US at least, never have the public infrastructure to support it. It's a learned excess not a requirement.
- zepto 6y ago
  How is a detached house an ‘isolating hell’? I have lived in apartments and single family homes about 50/50 both as a kid, and as an adult, and I’d say bigger places have had an edge in terms of socializing just because it’s more comfortable to host people - but not by much.
  - mc32 6y ago
    BBQs are a great getting together activity summers (good weather). Many apartment buildings don’t have balconies or communal space fir BBQs... detached houses (or ‘plexes) make that activity easier.
davidgay 6y ago
Replying to parent as the child is too deep(?): > Places where single family homes exist rarely even have the option for high density housing and, in the US at least, never have the public infrastructure to support it. Berkeley is on the list of US highest density cities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...) and has a lot of single-family homes (definitely most by area by a large margin, and there are no high-rises in Berkeley...). The lots are small of course . And it has, for the US, reasonable public transportation.
- mc32 6y ago
  SF is dense but it also never the less has neighborhoods with single family detached homes too (glen park, cole valley and others built around approx time). of course it's mainly multi-family low-rise mid-rise buildings.
NumberWangMan 6y ago
I think the root problem with single family homes is not their existence, but several factors: 1) They are implicitly subsidised by cities in the form of having way more infrastructure and public services dedicated to them, per-capita, than denser forms of development. Even though taxes in suburbs may be expensive, the massive amount of infrastructure it takes to support thousands of single-family homes, most with at least two drivers, means that suburb dwellers are not paying their fair share of taxes. It's like someone at a restaurant ordering a $200 bottle of wine for themselves and only being asked to pay $50 more when it comes time to split the check. In fact, in many places, single family suburbs are actually a net loss for the city, depending on the tax rates and how sparse they are. That's also not to mention things like carbon emissions not being properly priced into the cost of gasoline. It would be much less attractive, relatively, to live far away from employment if this were fixed. 2) In many places, zoning makes it illegal to build anything BUT single-family homes. If we could eliminate these two issues -- have people living in suburbs pay the true cost, and make it legal to build pretty anything else, then I think most people wouldn't have a problem with suburbs. But then, I also suspect that suburbs would be much, much less attractive if that were the case.

Retric 6y ago

It’s U shaped. NYC could build a new highway by knocking down skyscrapers or building massive tunnels like the big dig etc. At the other end, a new highway in Iowa needs to be extremely long to connect to anything useful. The sweet spot depends on a host of factors and the Bay Area ticks off several of them by having the ocean, bay, and parks, forcing a long narrow strip of development. Add in earthquakes and it’s really a terrible location for building infrastructure even ignoring NIMBY issues.