5 ms·

I love living in a walkable city and a tiny-ass apartment (3 people, 75 square meters). When the neighborhood is attractive it becomes part of "your space". I

by rekado 5y ago

I love living in a walkable city and a tiny-ass apartment (3 people, 75 square meters). When the neighborhood is attractive it becomes part of "your space". I don't need my whole world to be within the confines of these walls.

JeremyNT 5y ago
This is a key, I think. If you live somewhere that has no common space and nowhere to walk (which is most of US housing) you "need" the larger space of your own because you have nothing of any value available to you (unless you are willing to get in a car and navigate the hellscape of suburban sprawl that isolates these types of housing developments from each other and from any amenities). It's a "tragedy of the commons" kind of scenario, since the more of this kind of living there is the worse the traffic gets and the more isolated everything gets from each other by stroads and walls of traffic. Despite the article's suggestion that there's money to be made here I am doubtful that developers are going to be taking the risk. They have a formula that works and they are glad to keep running it. I guess at some point commutes get so bad that something has to give somewhere, but if anything the "remote first" revolution seems to just encourage more sprawl, since you don't need to live near where you work.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  Removing the artificial restriction that you need to be close enough to the steel and concrete temple to go worship there 5 days a week means that people can now make more free choices about how to live. That will result in some people choosing higher density areas and some people choosing lower density areas, but it should improve freedom of choice significantly, which is great for people.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- yardie 5y ago
  > the "remote first" revolution seems to just encourage more sprawl, since you don't need to live near where you work. It might be my impression, but lots of traditional tech companies have offices out in the suburbs. Because land is cheaper there for a sprawling single-story office park. Remote work has done the opposite and allowed me to live in the city. And because I'm at a central site choosing where to commute I have more opportunities. Rather than living in one suburb and commuting to another suburb.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    It’s shifted to some degree but it’s only in the past decade, two at most, almost no tech companies were actually in cities and most offices are still in suburban office parks. So most tech workers aren’t walking or taking public transit to their jobs.
PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
and this is where things collide with capitalism. Once your neighborhood is a part of "your space", you're much more invested in that neighborhood and its future evolution. However, under the "rules" of a capitalist economy, in which the private ownership of real estate generally trumps most other concerns, you have very little ability to control the future of your neighborhood. If it starts changing in ways you don't like, it's not likely (though not impossible) that you can do anything about it. This is at least part of the motivation for people seeking out their own larger properties, not to mention buying land adjacent to them: it's not necessarily that they have any use for the acreage, they just want to be able to exert (more) control over what happens in the "space around them". Note: I'm not condoning that behavior in any way.
- beerandt 5y ago
  No- this is unintended consequences of anti-discrimination laws. Capitalism had contractual things like deed restrictions and binding neighborhood covenants to deal with this problem, which were all but eliminated in the name of integration. Of course we have trouble dictating the character of our neighborhoods- it was the express intent of those laws that we couldn't.

by rekado 5y ago

JeremyNT 5y ago

This is a key, I think. If you live somewhere that has no common space and nowhere to walk (which is most of US housing) you "need" the larger space of your own because you have nothing of any value available to you (unless you are willing to get in a car and navigate the hellscape of suburban sprawl that isolates these types of housing developments from each other and from any amenities). It's a "tragedy of the commons" kind of scenario, since the more of this kind of living there is the worse the traffic gets and the more isolated everything gets from each other by stroads and walls of traffic. Despite the article's suggestion that there's money to be made here I am doubtful that developers are going to be taking the risk. They have a formula that works and they are glad to keep running it. I guess at some point commutes get so bad that something has to give somewhere, but if anything the "remote first" revolution seems to just encourage more sprawl, since you don't need to live near where you work.

sokoloff 5y ago
Removing the artificial restriction that you need to be close enough to the steel and concrete temple to go worship there 5 days a week means that people can now make more free choices about how to live. That will result in some people choosing higher density areas and some people choosing lower density areas, but it should improve freedom of choice significantly, which is great for people.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
yardie 5y ago
> the "remote first" revolution seems to just encourage more sprawl, since you don't need to live near where you work. It might be my impression, but lots of traditional tech companies have offices out in the suburbs. Because land is cheaper there for a sprawling single-story office park. Remote work has done the opposite and allowed me to live in the city. And because I'm at a central site choosing where to commute I have more opportunities. Rather than living in one suburb and commuting to another suburb.
- ghaff 5y ago
  It’s shifted to some degree but it’s only in the past decade, two at most, almost no tech companies were actually in cities and most offices are still in suburban office parks. So most tech workers aren’t walking or taking public transit to their jobs.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

and this is where things collide with capitalism. Once your neighborhood is a part of "your space", you're much more invested in that neighborhood and its future evolution. However, under the "rules" of a capitalist economy, in which the private ownership of real estate generally trumps most other concerns, you have very little ability to control the future of your neighborhood. If it starts changing in ways you don't like, it's not likely (though not impossible) that you can do anything about it. This is at least part of the motivation for people seeking out their own larger properties, not to mention buying land adjacent to them: it's not necessarily that they have any use for the acreage, they just want to be able to exert (more) control over what happens in the "space around them". Note: I'm not condoning that behavior in any way.

beerandt 5y ago
No- this is unintended consequences of anti-discrimination laws. Capitalism had contractual things like deed restrictions and binding neighborhood covenants to deal with this problem, which were all but eliminated in the name of integration. Of course we have trouble dictating the character of our neighborhoods- it was the express intent of those laws that we couldn't.