4 ms·
> A great example of this is "single family home neighborhoods" in urban areas. They have no societal benefit, they are essentially subsidized land use patterns
by astrea 6y ago
> A great example of this is "single family home neighborhoods" in urban areas. They have no societal benefit, they are essentially subsidized land use patterns for the well off, and it makes it harder for less well of folks to move to areas where they can get a better job/improve their lot in life and grow the economy.
I've seen this talking point twice now this week. What's the alternative? We all live in crowded multi-family buildings? We all live in squalor for the sake of a few saved acres in a country with vast amounts of land?
- Jtsummers 6y agoMulti-family buildings != squalor It sounds like you've never been in an apartment building. Some are crappy, sure, but plenty are pretty nice or at least decent (the building, the apartments will be what the residents make of them).
- astrea 6y agoI have lived in many apartment buildings; mostly why I hold this opinion. If my only aspiration for a future home for my family and myself is one where I have to deal with upstairs neighbors stopping and nextdoor neighbors with no respect for quiet hours, I would have very little to look forward to.
- Jtsummers 6y agoI have as well, and that's why I have my opinion that they aren't squalor, at least not guaranteed. I lived in one crappy apartment when I was in college because it was dirt cheap. After I got a job, I spent maybe 20-40% more on apartments up to my last one (which cost a lot more, but was in a great location for me, walking distance to my MMA gym and all my hangout spots). None of them were crappy, I rarely heard my neighbors. And the only truly obnoxious neighbors were evicted after the police were called for a combination of noise and indecent exposure (their guests went skinny dipping in the apartment pool). I live in the suburbs now, and with regard to noise it's no better than the apartments except my first crappy apartment, and the brief time next to the obnoxious neighbors. My next door neighbors on one side are great, on the other side they're dicks and fight constantly and loudly. Across the street are two houses one with a muscle car and the other some kind of loud motorcycle, both are project vehicles. So I get to hear them revving their engines in the evening (too early to warrant filing a complaint, but still very obnoxious). There's nothing magical about apartments that make them bad, or houses that make them good. The best you could hope for with regard to general quality of life (particularly noise and pests caused by poor hygiene from your neighbors) is to live in the country hundreds of feet (at least) from neighbors with trees in between. But then you forfeit access to everything else since nothing is close without having to drive.
- stjohnswarts 6y agoYeah it was never about squalor for me, but unless you are in a million dollar condo with top notch sound proofing in every wall you will hear your neighbors at all hours and everything they do. Some people may love this, but I hate it. How do I know? I lived it the first 30 years of my life until I bought a house in the burbs. My quality of life is so much better now. No I didn't buy a McMansion. I have lived in bigger apartments, however I have space and nice solid walls between myself and neighbors and it's a huge % increase in quality of life not to hear other people's sex, family quarrels, or bad taco bell incidents at all hours.
- 0xB31B1B 6y agoI do not care if you choose to live in a single family home or a unit in a multi family building. The issue that we have is that "single family zoning" where the maximum density allowed on a plot of land is a single house is a land use pattern that it is a government restriction that subsidizes homes for the well off at the expense of everyone else. In a world in which central city land that is currently zoned SFHs is rezoned for multi family dwellings, the price of SFHs would rise to meet the true demand, while the price of a "living unit" in the area would fall due to the land required per dwelling unit decreasing.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoIt's not about taking single family homes away from people who really want one, but fighting the perception that it's the default. People in most countries (even most rich countries) live happily in multi-family buildings with much less space than the average American home. Most of those who believe their family needs 2000 square feet to be comfortable are simply mistaken - and we could build much higher-quality neighborhoods without the degree of suburban sprawl that mistake causes.
- HarryHirsch 6y agoCenter City Philly is squalor now? I'll take that over a SFH in Conshohocken with > 45 mins commute on the Schuylkill Expressway each way any day of the week! It's frightening that many people cannot imagine proper city planning when other countries (the Netherlands come to mind) demonstrate that it can be done and improves quality of life immensely.
- Lammy 6y agoIf the wealthy want to live in a big detached house that's cool, but those types of lots/structures shouldn't be in dense space-limited urban areas. They want to have both the big house and the proximity to urban centers.
- colinmhayes 6y agoThe alternative is upzoning and land value tax which encourages density.
- aggronn 6y agoAlternative is to not subsidize inefficient suburban land use. That doesn't mean everyone lives in apartment buildings. It doesn't mean "ban the suburbs". It just means, if you want to live in a subdivision, you'll have to pay your share of the cost to maintain it (which is more than what you're paying now).
- conanbatt 6y agoLetting people decide where and how to live without deciding for them through tax structuring
- sershe 6y agoThe alternative is that we remove most zoning and let the free market decide. We can even allow covenant-based zoning, but if your neighbors don't want to join and sell to a developer, tough luck.