7 ms·

I don't have any economic theories to offer. All I know is I love my house, with all of its land, trees, and nice quality living. I will protect this thing to

I don't have any economic theories to offer. All I know is I love my house, with all of its land, trees, and nice quality living. I will protect this thing to my death, because it is so much better than living in an apartment. I don't care if it costs me $4,000 a month.

bumby 5y ago
How do you define “protecting” that thing? If it involves, for example, lobbying against high-density housing, that might be part of the problem.
- syshum 5y ago
  " land, trees, and nice quality living." are mutually exclusive, High-Density housing is terrible and I NEVER want to live in a highly dense urban settings. My home in the suburbs with 1/2 acre lots is FAR FAR FAR too dense for me... I want less density than that, but newer subdivisions are dropping to 1/4 or 1/5 acre lots, it is terrible
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    And this is why I do not think carbon emissions will or climate change will ever be curtailed barring the discovery of a new emission-less, highly efficient energy source. The effects of anyone who does individually sacrifice will be offset by the plenty who will opt for 1/2 acre or even 1/4 lots and the energy consumption that must follow.
    - hallway_monitor 5y ago
      We can build houses much more efficiently. Build the majority of the house underground and heating and cooling become much less of an issue. We can conserve energy without living in a termite colony.
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        Energy usage scales with mass and distance. To reduce the energy used, you have to do one or more of the following: develop new technology to require less energy (or more efficiently harness energy without the side effects), reduce the amount of mass being moved (fewer humans and less consumption per human), and the distance the mass is moved (denser living).
    - tengbretson 5y ago
      Would your mind be changed if I told you that home solar panels, batteries and electric cars are becoming more available, affordable and efficient? Or are dense sardine-can apartments a forgone conclusion in search of their next argument that justifies them?
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        I have not been convinced that any of that makes a sufficient impact relative to the continued need to transport water, sewage, humans, waste, and natural gas that much further. The relationships are more than linear too because once individual vehicles are in the mix, the distances the masses above can travel can easily multiply. On top of all that, the less efficient and higher emission energy sources will still be cheaper around the world, and there are plenty of billion people willing to up their consumption.
    - DannyBee 5y ago
      Why is the right answer to increase the population to unsustainable levels, try to make it up with increased density, and then blame the people who want something different? You do realize that densifying will not in fact, fix the problem either, it only buys you some time, at the cost of different resources.
      - bumby 5y ago
        I don’t disagree with your premise but don’t know if it leads to a pragmatic answer outside of population regulation. If we can’t convince people to reduce energy usage I don’t think there’s any legitimate chance of convincing them from making humans from scratch
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        >Why is the right answer to increase the population to unsustainable levels, try to make it up with increased density, and then blame the people who want something different? I did not mean to imply that population can be allowed to grow uncontrollably and still be able to accomplish curtailing climate change. Both densifying and population control and specifically reducing consumption per person, which is part of densifying) are necessary.
      - TulliusCicero 5y ago
        Densifying actually helps quite a bit. Not sure why you're suggesting otherwise. Sure, you need to fix other things too, it's not a panacea, but what is?
  - bumby 5y ago
    Thanks for clarifying. I assume your wording means those three are mutually exclusive with high density housing and not from each other. This isn’t a knock on you personally so please don’t interpret it as one. But I find a lot of people are in favor of the idea of affordable housing in areas that also have, say, gainful employment but are not in favor of the policies that would actually produce that. And so we get the equivalent of walled-off communities combined with empty words that just feeds ones identity/ego. At some point people need to live the values they espouse.
  - noahtallen 5y ago
    One comment on this is that less dense areas make it very hard to build infrastructure. For example, if there are 10 families living on a mile stretch of road, think of how much it costs to build a mile of road, along with (possibly) water and sewer there. And then the annual maintenance cost. And then the other road networks require to connect that one road, etc. Those 10 families don’t pay nearly enough in taxes to cover the cost of infrastructure maintenance. It relies on grants from state and federal governments, paid for by taxes in dense cities, to cover the expense. My point: sparse is not objectively better. I think the quality of life we have come to expect in suburbs and rural areas is not possible without the taxes gained from also having dense places. More info, and a very interesting video series here: https://youtu.be/7IsMeKl-Sv0 https://youtu.be/7IsMeKl-Sv0
    - syshum 5y ago
      >>Those 10 families don’t pay nearly enough in taxes to cover the cost of infrastructure maintenance. I dont think you can objectively say that is true given that road maintenance is one of the least costly things a government does, and the less densely p;populated the less maintenance is done to that road sometimes none at all That further assumes that the road in those areas is maintained by the government this is also not universally true, there are plenty of housing additions that have HOA's where the HOA is responsible for the road maintenance Also in almost 100% of cases the developer creating the subdivision is responsible for the infrastructure costs to build said subdivision and also often has to pay to improve infrastructure leading into the new subdivision
goodpoint 5y ago
It's well established that low density housing is completely unsustainable.
- marktangotango 5y ago
  I'm curious what this statement is based upon, does anyone have specific references?
  - neilparikh 5y ago
    In financial terms: - https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/8/4/the-question-every-city-should-be-asking https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/8/4/the-question-ev... - https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/11/11/poor-neighborhoods-make-the-best-investments-md2020 https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/11/11/poor-neighbor... This series goes into more detail about the unsustainable aspect specifically: https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme
  - goodpoint 5y ago
    It's widely understood that urban sprawl has the highest environmental impact in addition to the highest traffic death risk and many other social problems. https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/the-characteristics-causes-and-consequences-of-sprawling-103014747/ https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/the-charac... https://www.oecd.org/env/rethinking-urban-sprawl-9789264189881-en.htm https://www.oecd.org/env/rethinking-urban-sprawl-97892641898... https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/11/4445/pdf https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/11/4445/pdf
- danlugo92 5y ago
  Let's make it sustainaible instead of giving up.
TulliusCicero 5y ago
Jesus Christ, for the last time, upzoning isn't about taking away anyone's home away from them. It's about allowing homes that are currently illegal, not forcing anything. Some people want what you want, others are fine with less space if it means less money. Upzoning means they get to choose what to do with what property they own.
- Izkata 5y ago
  Note the > > land, trees, and nice quality living. I have the feeling they're talking about land in their area that they don't own, that for whatever reason is prevented from being used for new homes, and their worry is that zoning changes allowing it would ruin the quality of life there by removing the greenery and open spaces.
  - sushsjsuauahab 5y ago
    This is the only comment I've responded to in my thread. I live in the woods in a rainy location. Everyone has 0.5 acres and lots of trees. The grocery store is 10 mins away and we only have one major road in and out. For those who want to live a different style of life, please go live it. But for us who are living here, it seems to me we want to preserve our way of life so that we don't have to deal with the pollution, noise, and safety issues that some larger cities are having trouble with.

bumby 5y ago

How do you define “protecting” that thing? If it involves, for example, lobbying against high-density housing, that might be part of the problem.

syshum 5y ago
" land, trees, and nice quality living." are mutually exclusive, High-Density housing is terrible and I NEVER want to live in a highly dense urban settings. My home in the suburbs with 1/2 acre lots is FAR FAR FAR too dense for me... I want less density than that, but newer subdivisions are dropping to 1/4 or 1/5 acre lots, it is terrible
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  And this is why I do not think carbon emissions will or climate change will ever be curtailed barring the discovery of a new emission-less, highly efficient energy source. The effects of anyone who does individually sacrifice will be offset by the plenty who will opt for 1/2 acre or even 1/4 lots and the energy consumption that must follow.
  - hallway_monitor 5y ago
    We can build houses much more efficiently. Build the majority of the house underground and heating and cooling become much less of an issue. We can conserve energy without living in a termite colony.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      Energy usage scales with mass and distance. To reduce the energy used, you have to do one or more of the following: develop new technology to require less energy (or more efficiently harness energy without the side effects), reduce the amount of mass being moved (fewer humans and less consumption per human), and the distance the mass is moved (denser living).
  - tengbretson 5y ago
    Would your mind be changed if I told you that home solar panels, batteries and electric cars are becoming more available, affordable and efficient? Or are dense sardine-can apartments a forgone conclusion in search of their next argument that justifies them?
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      I have not been convinced that any of that makes a sufficient impact relative to the continued need to transport water, sewage, humans, waste, and natural gas that much further. The relationships are more than linear too because once individual vehicles are in the mix, the distances the masses above can travel can easily multiply. On top of all that, the less efficient and higher emission energy sources will still be cheaper around the world, and there are plenty of billion people willing to up their consumption.
  - DannyBee 5y ago
    Why is the right answer to increase the population to unsustainable levels, try to make it up with increased density, and then blame the people who want something different? You do realize that densifying will not in fact, fix the problem either, it only buys you some time, at the cost of different resources.
    - bumby 5y ago
      I don’t disagree with your premise but don’t know if it leads to a pragmatic answer outside of population regulation. If we can’t convince people to reduce energy usage I don’t think there’s any legitimate chance of convincing them from making humans from scratch
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      >Why is the right answer to increase the population to unsustainable levels, try to make it up with increased density, and then blame the people who want something different? I did not mean to imply that population can be allowed to grow uncontrollably and still be able to accomplish curtailing climate change. Both densifying and population control and specifically reducing consumption per person, which is part of densifying) are necessary.
    - TulliusCicero 5y ago
      Densifying actually helps quite a bit. Not sure why you're suggesting otherwise. Sure, you need to fix other things too, it's not a panacea, but what is?
- bumby 5y ago
  Thanks for clarifying. I assume your wording means those three are mutually exclusive with high density housing and not from each other. This isn’t a knock on you personally so please don’t interpret it as one. But I find a lot of people are in favor of the idea of affordable housing in areas that also have, say, gainful employment but are not in favor of the policies that would actually produce that. And so we get the equivalent of walled-off communities combined with empty words that just feeds ones identity/ego. At some point people need to live the values they espouse.
- noahtallen 5y ago
  One comment on this is that less dense areas make it very hard to build infrastructure. For example, if there are 10 families living on a mile stretch of road, think of how much it costs to build a mile of road, along with (possibly) water and sewer there. And then the annual maintenance cost. And then the other road networks require to connect that one road, etc. Those 10 families don’t pay nearly enough in taxes to cover the cost of infrastructure maintenance. It relies on grants from state and federal governments, paid for by taxes in dense cities, to cover the expense. My point: sparse is not objectively better. I think the quality of life we have come to expect in suburbs and rural areas is not possible without the taxes gained from also having dense places. More info, and a very interesting video series here: https://youtu.be/7IsMeKl-Sv0 https://youtu.be/7IsMeKl-Sv0
  - syshum 5y ago
    >>Those 10 families don’t pay nearly enough in taxes to cover the cost of infrastructure maintenance. I dont think you can objectively say that is true given that road maintenance is one of the least costly things a government does, and the less densely p;populated the less maintenance is done to that road sometimes none at all That further assumes that the road in those areas is maintained by the government this is also not universally true, there are plenty of housing additions that have HOA's where the HOA is responsible for the road maintenance Also in almost 100% of cases the developer creating the subdivision is responsible for the infrastructure costs to build said subdivision and also often has to pay to improve infrastructure leading into the new subdivision

goodpoint 5y ago

It's well established that low density housing is completely unsustainable.

marktangotango 5y ago
I'm curious what this statement is based upon, does anyone have specific references?
- neilparikh 5y ago
  In financial terms: - https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/8/4/the-question-every-city-should-be-asking https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/8/4/the-question-ev... - https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/11/11/poor-neighborhoods-make-the-best-investments-md2020 https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/11/11/poor-neighbor... This series goes into more detail about the unsustainable aspect specifically: https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme
- goodpoint 5y ago
  It's widely understood that urban sprawl has the highest environmental impact in addition to the highest traffic death risk and many other social problems. https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/the-characteristics-causes-and-consequences-of-sprawling-103014747/ https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/the-charac... https://www.oecd.org/env/rethinking-urban-sprawl-9789264189881-en.htm https://www.oecd.org/env/rethinking-urban-sprawl-97892641898... https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/11/4445/pdf https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/11/4445/pdf
danlugo92 5y ago
Let's make it sustainaible instead of giving up.

TulliusCicero 5y ago

Jesus Christ, for the last time, upzoning isn't about taking away anyone's home away from them. It's about allowing homes that are currently illegal, not forcing anything. Some people want what you want, others are fine with less space if it means less money. Upzoning means they get to choose what to do with what property they own.

Izkata 5y ago
Note the > > land, trees, and nice quality living. I have the feeling they're talking about land in their area that they don't own, that for whatever reason is prevented from being used for new homes, and their worry is that zoning changes allowing it would ruin the quality of life there by removing the greenery and open spaces.
- sushsjsuauahab 5y ago
  This is the only comment I've responded to in my thread. I live in the woods in a rainy location. Everyone has 0.5 acres and lots of trees. The grocery store is 10 mins away and we only have one major road in and out. For those who want to live a different style of life, please go live it. But for us who are living here, it seems to me we want to preserve our way of life so that we don't have to deal with the pollution, noise, and safety issues that some larger cities are having trouble with.