4 ms·

Is this really the future you want to live in? I would like there to be a sane tradeoff between density and proximity to the city center. I stayed in an Airbnb

Is this really the future you want to live in? I would like there to be a sane tradeoff between density and proximity to the city center. I stayed in an Airbnb in a central neighborhood in Barcelona (l'Eixample IIRC) and I found it to be pretty cramped quarters. I'm not sure how much difference there is between one apartment building and the next, but I have more space living in San Francisco right now and I still would like to have more. I personally would not like to live in SF if I had to live in housing that small. I want a garage, I want another room in my apartment, and I want a driveway where I can wash my car. I also want to live in a thriving city with lots of interesting people to meet and things to do. I recognize that these are contradictory desires. I think the latter desire is more healthy for society, but I think there is definitely a reason I feel the former desire. It's because that's how I grew up. I think that Americans, culturally, value space more than perhaps some other cultures do. I think that trying to fight against that is a losing fight. You will not get any policy passed if you lead with "banning single unit detached homes". That is far and away the most popular housing option in the United States and absolutely what the average American thinks of when they think about "buying" (vs renting). I walk by people living in their modern, rectangular condos big glass windows that let me see everything in their house at once and I cringe - who on earth wants to live in tiny terrarium that costs $4000 a month? Like it or not, most people feel this way about condos. Also like it or not, a lot of people basically think that these are the only two options, because that's all that they've seen. I think we need to just allow the missing middle. There are people who like high-rise condos, and there are people who like single family homes, and there are probably a lot more people who, when presented with the financial advantages of the middle options, would choose something in between.

pharmakom 5y ago
What you want is fundamentally incompatible with city living. The best way to scale up the kind of housing you describe is in the suburbs with high speed rail links to the city center.
- _vertigo 5y ago
  Not really. I live in a relatively spacious duplex that shares a terrace in with another house that has a garage facing the street. I live a 20 minute bike ride from downtown. How can it be fundamentally incompatible if the house I share the terrace with pretty much ticks all of my boxes? Hell, where I live does too for the most part. I don’t want to live in the suburbs. I also don’t want to live in a high rise. I think there is a case for something in between.
raldi 5y ago
I think your desired living situation should be allowed, but it shouldn't be subsidized by prohibiting more urban ones. There would still be houses with garages and driveways for carwashing in San Francisco, but there would also be car-free four-story, four-unit apartment buildings in every neighborhood.
- _vertigo 5y ago
  Well, yeah. That’s kind of what I mean. There are many kinds of housing options besides single-family home that meet my criteria. My point is that we shouldn’t just ban the single-family home, and arguing that we should seriously jeopardizes the cause of increasing density because it’s a really unpopular proposal.
epistasis 5y ago
I don't get it, so you think I don't want to live in a place like Barcelona? Seriously? Of course I do!! I can understand people having different preferences. What I can not understand is refusing to believe that people don't love living in a place like Barcelona. > who on earth wants to live in tiny terrarium that costs $4000 a month Why not ask the people that live there rather than pretending they don't exist or that their desires don't deserve to be allowed? Seriously, this is a strange way to think of other humans, seeing that they are right in front of you but trying desperately to pretend that they are fundamentally fooled, or nonexistent, or don't deserve to exist, or something. People pay waaaaay more than $4000/month for a detached home, and far less than that, but only they exist as people with valid desires, somehow? I don't think it's clear at all that Americans "culturally value" space more. We have done lots of top-down planning to prevent density, disallowing it in nearly all places. But it's hugely in demand, and far more people want it than we allow to live in it. This despite nearly a century of media, law, and political movements on both the left and right vilifying cities as places of disease, crime, and inherent poverty. If people didn't want to live in these types of places, why is it necessary to ban them? We should definitely legalize missing middle, but also legalize far more dense walkable urban areas, at least enough of them so that they are cheap to live in rather than the most expensive form of housing.

pharmakom 5y ago

What you want is fundamentally incompatible with city living. The best way to scale up the kind of housing you describe is in the suburbs with high speed rail links to the city center.

_vertigo 5y ago
Not really. I live in a relatively spacious duplex that shares a terrace in with another house that has a garage facing the street. I live a 20 minute bike ride from downtown. How can it be fundamentally incompatible if the house I share the terrace with pretty much ticks all of my boxes? Hell, where I live does too for the most part. I don’t want to live in the suburbs. I also don’t want to live in a high rise. I think there is a case for something in between.

raldi 5y ago

I think your desired living situation should be allowed, but it shouldn't be subsidized by prohibiting more urban ones. There would still be houses with garages and driveways for carwashing in San Francisco, but there would also be car-free four-story, four-unit apartment buildings in every neighborhood.

_vertigo 5y ago
Well, yeah. That’s kind of what I mean. There are many kinds of housing options besides single-family home that meet my criteria. My point is that we shouldn’t just ban the single-family home, and arguing that we should seriously jeopardizes the cause of increasing density because it’s a really unpopular proposal.

epistasis 5y ago

I don't get it, so you think I don't want to live in a place like Barcelona? Seriously? Of course I do!! I can understand people having different preferences. What I can not understand is refusing to believe that people don't love living in a place like Barcelona. > who on earth wants to live in tiny terrarium that costs $4000 a month Why not ask the people that live there rather than pretending they don't exist or that their desires don't deserve to be allowed? Seriously, this is a strange way to think of other humans, seeing that they are right in front of you but trying desperately to pretend that they are fundamentally fooled, or nonexistent, or don't deserve to exist, or something. People pay waaaaay more than $4000/month for a detached home, and far less than that, but only they exist as people with valid desires, somehow? I don't think it's clear at all that Americans "culturally value" space more. We have done lots of top-down planning to prevent density, disallowing it in nearly all places. But it's hugely in demand, and far more people want it than we allow to live in it. This despite nearly a century of media, law, and political movements on both the left and right vilifying cities as places of disease, crime, and inherent poverty. If people didn't want to live in these types of places, why is it necessary to ban them? We should definitely legalize missing middle, but also legalize far more dense walkable urban areas, at least enough of them so that they are cheap to live in rather than the most expensive form of housing.